blog.Tribulationperiod.com

There will be a remnant in a remnant in the Negev!

Very Appropriate time to focus on the Negev Wilderness,

I suspect this preparation is being put in Jewish hearts by God,

Because it is quite likely Israel will be driven into it by their Enemies,

At some point in time between 2010 and 2015 to remain some 1260 Days!

144,000 Jews of the Seed Christ in midst of 2 Million Jews who they tell of Christ!

May 20, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Revelation 12:5,6,14,17 – And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

[6] And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. [14] And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into

the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

North American Jews focus on Negev

May. 19, 2009

mel bezalel , THE JERUSALEM POST

Attracting and retaining young people in the Negev was the focus of the two-day United Jewish Communities conference in Miami that concluded on Monday.

The UJC, which represents 157 Jewish Federations and 400 independent communities across North America, joined with several Israeli political figures, such as Yeroham Mayor Amram Mitzna; Ramat Hanegev Regional Council Mayor Shmulik Riffman, who is also chairman of the Negev Development Authority; and Ofakim Mayor Zvika Greengold, to debate the future of the region.

“Young adults in Israel are looking for flags to follow, and when I say flags, I mean ideology, conceptions, values and Zionism,” Mitzna told The Jerusalem Post on Monday. “We have to attract young couples and individuals to build their homes in the Negev, so the most important and simple goal we share in this conference is to increase the number of Israelis living in the Negev.”

Mitzna’s keynote speech on Sunday highlighted the need to develop the quality of life

in the region, specifically in terms of education and the environment. “The most important thing is to show the other citizens in Israel that once you go to the periphery, meaning the Negev, you don’t have to give up quality,” he said.

Riffman addressed the conference on another key issue linked to attracting young residents, the economic and social impact of IDF bases moving to the Negev. He took a positive attitude toward the potential of

the military community in the region. The challenge was to encourage the military to make their homes in the region, he said.

“It’s quite an elite group of people who are going to require schools for their kids and good education,” explained Marilyn Blumer, chairwoman of the conference and of the UJC Negev Work Group. “This is a challenge for the people in the Negev to be able to provide this quality of life and make it attractive for people to move there permanently.”

Although no government representative attended the conference, the minister for regional development and the development of the Negev, Silvan Shalom, sent the group a note of greeting and support.

Richard Bernstein, vice president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation and a member of the Jewish Agency Board of Governors, emphasized that although the government was not represented at the meeting, the direction of the conference was consistent with the goals and ideals of the government.

“Although,” Bernstein added, “whether it’s consistent with their actions, I can’t say.”

Also discussed at the conference was education challenges for the region, economic development and Beduin’s quality of life.
The group heard about Negev Work Group project ideas that are to be piloted imminently.

A program that is to be adopted by the UJC-coordinated Otzma volunteer program, and MASA, a government and Jewish Agency program for 18-30 year olds, for example, will see 50 North American college graduates teaching English in Arad, Yeroham and Dimona in September.

Despite the harsh economic climate, Blumer said she was pleased with the conference turnout, with 60 people attending, instead of the projected 25. She also underlined that the conference went “beyond the dollars,”

“It would be wonderful if there were more dollars, but I think it’s a question of working together… Most of our Federations involved in partnerships have invested dollars over the years and this has been continuing. Whether there will be more on the table, who can tell now. Certainly, we all have our commitments there and I think we honor them very seriously.”
Although no specific outcomes had been outlined due to each Federation operating independently, according to Blumer, the idea of partnership ran deep throughout the event, and the UJC hopes to build on it.

“Three years ago the communities were directly engaged with municipalities in Israel, but [now], we’re thinking about the regional level,” said Bernstein. “We need to look at these issues, not with individual municipalities singularly, but over a regional perspective, and that’s what’s taking root – a coalition of federations that are thinking about the entire region.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the

copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

FINAL CALL Soon To Armageddon To Kill All The Jews,

UNNATURAL DEMONIC HATRED of GOD’S Chosen People,

Is On the Rise Across the Surface of the Earth He Created,

Particularly in the OLD WORLD when Revelation was Penned,

So it will be very easy for the three demonic Armageddon Frogs,

To influence all the Old World Nations to come down and

kill Jews!

According to Scripture Israel is about to experience a Last Holocaust!

It’s an Islamic Jihad Holocaust Claiming Some FOUR Million Jewish Lives!

In my OPINION an INITIAL attack Will Occur at a Point Twixt 2010 & 2015!

May 20, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Europe, Eurasia, Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, will all be overjoyed to come and slaughter all Jews. After all, it will be in their national interest to do so! Hatred of the Jews is demonically inspired by the trinity of Satan himself in the person of the dragon, the antichrist, and the false prophet.

Satan’s kingdom is in the heart of the Middle East along the length of the great Euphrates River. At Armageddon it will be his kingdom and his army that is destroyed, and the Kingdom of Christ which will be established.

Daniel 2:44 – And in the days of these kings (10 toes) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Revelation 16:10-19 – And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, [11] And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores,

and repented not of their deeds. [12] And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. [13] And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and

out of the mouth of the false prophet. [14] For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. [15] Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. [16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. [17] And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. [18] And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. [19] And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

Revelation 19:19 to 20:3 – And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. [20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and

them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. [21] And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. [1] And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. [2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, [3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

Column One: The Europe of our dreams

May. 14, 2009

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israelis are wild about Europe. A poll carried out by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation last month showed that a whopping 69 percent of Israelis, and 76% of Israeli Jews, would like for Israel to join the European Union. Sixty percent of Israelis have a favorable view of the EU.

This poll’s most obvious message is that as far

as Europe is concerned, Israelis suffer from unrequited love. A 2003 Pew survey of 15 EU countries showed that 59% of Europeans consider Israel the greatest threat to world peace. A poll taken in Germany the following year showed that 68% of Germans believe that Israel is pursuing a war of extermination against the Palestinians and 51% said that there is no difference in principle between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and German treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.

And it isn’t simply Israel that they hate. They don’t like Jews very much either. In an empirical study published in 2006, Professors Edward Kaplan and Charles Small of Yale University demonstrated a direct link between hatred for Jews and extreme anti-Israel positions. A recent poll bears out the fact that levels of hostility toward Israel rise with levels of anti-Semitism.

According to a 2008 Pew survey, anti-Semitic feelings in five EU countries – Spain, Britain, France, Germany and Poland – rose nearly 50% between 2005 and 2008. Whereas in 2005, some 21% of people polled acknowledged they harbor negative feelings toward Jews, by last year the proportion of self-proclaimed anti-Semites in these countries had risen to 30%. In Spain levels of anti-Semitism more than doubled, from 21% in 2005 to 46% in 2008.

Not surprisingly, increased hatred of Jews has been accompanied by increased violence against Jews. Just last week, for instance, three men assaulted Israel’s ambassador in Spain Rafi Shotz as he and his wife walked home from a soccer game. They followed after him and called out, “dirty Jew,” “Jew bastard,” and “Jew murderer.” A crowd witnessed the assault, but no one rose to their defense.

Shotz was lucky. As Israel’s ambassador he had two policemen escorting him and so he was not physically threatened. The same was not the fate of Holocaust survivors who assembled at Mauthausen death camp in Austria last week to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the camp’s liberation by American forces.

As Jewish survivors of the camp where 340,000 people were murdered mourned the dead, a gang of Austrian teenagers wearing masks taunted them, screaming “Heil Hitler,” and “This way for the gas!” They opened fire with plastic rifles at French Jewish survivors, wounding one in the head and another in the neck.

And Austria is not alone. From Germany to France, Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and beyond, Jewish kindergartens and day schools, restaurants and groceries have been firebombed and vandalized. The desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues has become an almost routine occurrence. Jewish leaders from Norway to Germany to Britain to France have warned community members not to wear kippot or Stars of David in public.

Rabbis have been beaten all over the continent.

There is no state sanction for anti-Jewish violence in Europe. But in many places it is either brushed off as insignificant, or justified as a natural byproduct of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. In at least one case, the official downplaying of the significance of anti-Jewish sentiments and violence has had murderous consequences.

In January 2006 Ilan Halimi, a French Jew, was kidnapped by a gang of Muslim sadists.

For an entire week, the police ignored the anti-Semitic nature of the attack – and hence the imminent danger to Halimi’s life – in spite of the fact that his kidnappers made threatening phone calls to Halimi’s parents where they recited verses from the Koran while Ilan was heard screaming in pain from his torture in the background.

In the end, Halimi was tortured continuously for 20 days before he was dumped at a railhead naked, with burns and cuts over 80% of his battered body and died of his wounds shortly after he was found.

SOME HAVE attributed the rise in European anti-Semitism to the rapid growth of Muslim minorities throughout the continent. This explanation has much to recommend it. Levels of anti-Semitism among most Muslim minority populations in Europe are exceedingly high. According to Kaplan and Small’s study, European Muslims are eight times more likely than non-Muslims to be openly anti-Semitic. And Franco Frattini, the EU official responsible for combating anti-Semitism, told The Jerusalem Post last year that some 50% of anti-Jewish attacks in Europe are conducted by Muslims.

But while European Muslims are a major factor in the rise of anti-Jewish violence, they are a bit player when it comes to the overall prevalence

of anti-Jewish attitudes. For example, with 46% of Spaniards negatively disposed toward Jews, and with Muslims making up only 3-5% of Spaniards, we learn that nearly half of Christian Spaniards are anti-Semitic. And as the 2008 Pew survey shows, European hatred of Jews is growing at a fast clip. Indeed, it is growing two and a half times faster than European hatred of Muslims.

In all likelihood, these negative trends for Jews are only going to escalate in the coming years. Politicians interested in being elected have already begun exploiting the rise in anti-Jewish sentiments to increase their electoral prospects. In the 2005 British elections, for instance, the Labor Party under Tony Blair depicted then Conservative Party leader Michael Howard as the hateful anti-Semitic icon Fagin from Oliver Twist in a campaign poster. Another Labor poster portrayed Howard and fellow politician Oliver Letwin as flying pigs.

This state of affairs bodes ill for Israel’s future relations with Europe. In most cases, European politicians pander to the growing constituency of anti-Semites by adopting hostile policies toward Israel. These policies then serve to further justify anti-Semitic attitudes, and so the number of European anti-Semites continues to grow, and in turn, European hostility to Israel increases.

No doubt recognizing the political advantage to be garnered by attacking Israel, last year Spanish investigative magistrate Judge Fernando Andreu Merellesis decided to use a specious complaint submitted by the discredited Palestinian Center for Human Rights to launch a war crimes investigation against Israel’s top political and military leaders. Against the stated will of Spain’s state prosecution, Merellesis announced last week that he is proceeding with his investigation into claims that a dozen senior Israeli leaders committed a war crime when they approved the 2002 decision to target Hamas terror master Salah Shehadeh.

ALL OF this brings us back to Europhilic Israel. Due to the fact that the majority of Israelis have yet to get their way, and Israel continues not to be a member in the EU, EU courts lack the power to enforce their rulings against Israelis.

Today the only thing Israelis need to worry about is that we will be arrested if we visit Europe. This is inconvenient, but not impossible to live with.

Were Israel to join the EU, however, EU laws would supersede Israeli laws. European courts could compel Israeli courts to enforce their rulings. Israel, in short, would find itself subsumed in a hostile political entity that could simply adjudicate and legislate it out of existence.

So what explains Israel’s unrequited love affair with Europe?

There is no all-encompassing explanation for the EU’s popularity in Israel. It is a function of a number of complementary causes. The most important among them is the abject failure of the Israeli media to examine European anti-Semitism and its implications for European policy toward Israel in any coherent fashion.

Rather than recognize that European anti-Semitism and its concomitant hostility toward Israel is the consequence of internal European dynamics, the Israeli media tend to cast both as a function of Israel’s actions. Doing so certainly makes for neat, easily digestible news stories, but it also trivializes the situation. Moreover, by acting as though Israel’s actual behavior is at all relevant to European treatment of Jews and the Jewish state, the local media effectively buy into cynical European moves to belittle the significance of anti-Jewish violence. They give credence to false European claims that the firebombing of synagogues is simply the regrettable consequence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Then there is the issue of Israel’s constant quest to end its international isolation. For many Israelis, it is tantalizing to think that we can end our international isolation by joining the EU.

The EU is seen as a club of rich and cultured countries with which Israel would benefit from merging. This view again is nurtured by the media, which have failed to report on the failure of the European welfare state model.

In light of the media’s refusal to tell the story of Europe’s hostility toward Jews and the Jewish state, or the story of the EU’s severe economic problems, it is not surprising that precious few Israeli politicians have a clear understanding of Europe. Successive foreign ministers – from Shimon Peres to Silvan Shalom to Tzipi Livni to Avigdor Lieberman – have all voiced varying degrees of support for Israeli membership in the EU. Their statements have never been challenged in debate.

Finally, there is the nostalgia that many Israelis feel toward the old pre-war Europe from their grandparents’ stories. That long gone Europe, where young women and men would walk along the promenades in Berlin, Paris, Antwerp and Prague holding hands and eating ice cream, breathing in the air of Heinrich Heine and Franz Kafka, has been kept alive in the imaginations of generations of Israelis. Many of them work today as leading journalists, movie directors and actors. For many Israelis, then, the myth of Europe is more familiar than the real Europe.

Looking to a future of an increasingly Jew-hating Europe it is clear that Israel and Israelis must quickly divest ourselves of our delusions about Europe. For Israel to competently contend with Europe in the coming years, it will be essential that both our political leaders and society as a whole gain a firm grasp of where Europe stands in relation to both the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

With a burgeoning and deeply anti-Semitic Muslim minority, and with a Christian majority increasingly comfortable with flaunting traditional anti-Semitic attitudes, dispensing with anti-Jewish myths ranks low on the priority list for most European leaders. In contrast, for Israel, gazing at this unfolding European state of affairs, it is clear that abandoning our adoration for a mythological Europe is one of the most urgent items on our national agenda.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

A 2-State Peace Plan Based on 2 Lunatic Assumptions:

(1) Palestinians Can establish centralized, viable State,

(2) Arabs can abandon their dreams to Eliminate Israel,

2 impossibilities Between Ishmael & Jacob Descendants!

Lion’s Den: Obama AND Netanyahu Meet – Wh

at’s Next?

Is Question Raised by Daniel Pipes in the Jerusalem Post!

ITS Lunatic Madness To Think Islam Lunar god CAN DO (1)

AND (2) – World Had Better Get Set For False Peace & War

For War Is Likely To Begin At A Point In Time 2010 TO 2015!

May 19, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Excerpt from Israel News Net

Only 1 in 3 Israelis thinks Obama is pro-Israel

Israel News.Net

Monday 18th May, 2009 (ANI)

Jerusalem, May 18 : Only 31 percent of Israelis consider US President Barack Obama’s approach pro-Israel, a survey conducted ahead of the meeting between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu revealed.

According to a Smith Research poll, 31 percent Israelis labeled Obama pro-Israel, while 14 percent said he was pro-Palestinian and 40 percent felt he was neutral.

The remaining 15 percent didn’t have any views on the issue.

The poll, conducted on 500 Israelis last week, has an error margin of 4.5 percent, The Jerusalem post reports.

Obama’s numbers contrast sharply with those of his predecessor, George W.

Bush, whose administration was considered pro-Israel by 88 percent of the respondents.

Obama’s ratings may have gone down after condemnations of Israeli policies by US Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and others.

Obama is expected to unveil his policies on the Arab-Israeli conflict in Cairo on June 4.

Currently, he is in a “policy review period” that he will conclude only after Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak visit the US by the end of the month.

Israelis, according to the poll, view governments of o

ther European countries even less favourable than the US.

Among those nations, only the government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel was seen as being more pro-Israel (37 percent) than pro-Palestinian (21 percent).

The pro-Palestinian tilt was even more pronounced for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government (a 14 percentage point spread).

I certainly agree with the three paragraph quote from the JP Excerpt which follows:

BEGIN QUOTE

“[By now, the political parties diverge greatly; polls find Republican support for Israel exceeds Democratic support by an average margin of 26 percentage points.

Likewise, Republicans endorse the United States helping Israel attack Iran far more than Democrats. With Democrats now dominating Washington, this disparity implies a cooling from the George W.

Bush years.

Gary Ackerman (Democrat of New York), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee, exemplifies this change.

Known in years past to stand up for Israel, he now accuses it of perpetuating “settler pogroms” and thus taking part in a “destructive dynamic.” Question: Will the Democrats’ critical views translate into a policy shift at the forthcoming summit meeting

?

(3) Obama himself comes out of the Democratic party¹s intensely anti-Zionist left wing.

Just a few years back, he associated with voluble Israel-haters like Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, and Jeremiah Wright, not to speak of Saddam Hussein lackeys, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Nation of Islam. As Obama rose in national politics, he distanced himself from this crew. On winning the presidency, he appointed mostly mainstream Democrats to deal with the Middle East.

One can only speculate whether his change was tactical, designed to deny the Republicans a campaign issue, or strategic, representing a genuinely new approach.]”

END QUOTE

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

Lion’s Den: Obama and Netanyahu Meet – What’s Next?

May. 17, 2009

Daniel Pipes , THE JERUSALEM POST

The meeting on May 18 of two newly elected leaders, Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, raise a basic question about US-Israel relations: Will this long-standing alliance survive its 62nd year?

Here are three reasons to expect a break from business-as-usual:

(1) Many areas of difference exist ¬ the Iranian nuclear build-up, relations with Syria, Israeli adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Jews living on the West Bank ¬ but the “two-state solution” will likely set the meetings’ tone, mood, and outcome. The two-state idea aims to end the Arab-Israeli conflict by establishing a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. The plan rests on two assumptions: (a) that the Palestinians can construct a centralized, viable state and (b) that attaining this state means the abandonment of their dreams to eliminate Israel.

The two-state model found acceptance among the Israeli public between the Oslo accords of 1993 and the new round of Palestinian violence in 2000. On the surface, to be sure, “two state” seems yet strong among Israelis: Ehud Olmert enthused over the Annapolis round, Avigdor Lieberman accepts the ³Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution,² and a recent Tel Aviv University poll finds ³two states² still remains popular.

But many Israelis, including Netanyahu, disbelieve that Palestinians will either construct a state or abandon irredentism. Netanyahu prefers to shelve ³two states² and focus instead on institution-building, economic development, and quality-of-life improvements for Palestinians. To this, the Arab states, Palestinians, European governments, and the Obama administration near-unanimously respond with vociferous hostility.

Question: Will differences over the two-state solution prompt a crisis in US-Israel relations?

(2) Larger strategic concerns consistently drive US attitudes to Israel: Republicans kept their distance when they perceived Israel as a liability in confronting the Soviet Union (1948-70) and only warmed to it when Israel proved its strategic utility (after 1970); Democrats cooled in the post-Cold War period (after 1991), when many came to see it as an “apartheid” state that destabilizes the Middle East and impedes US policies there.

By now, the political parties diverge greatly; polls find Republican support for Israel exceeds Democratic support by an average margin of 26 percentage points. Likewise, Republicans endorse the United States helping Israel attack Iran far more than Democrats. With Democrats now dominating Washington, this disparity implies a cooling from the George W. Bush years.

Gary Ackerman (Democrat of New York), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee, exemplifies this change.

Known in years past to stand up for Israel, he now accuses it of perpetuating “settler pogroms” and thus taking part in a “destructive dynamic.” Question: Will the Democrats’ critical views translate into a policy shift at the forthcoming summit meeting?

(3) Obama himself comes out of the Democratic party¹s intensely anti-Zionist left wing. Just a few years back, he associated with voluble Israel-haters like Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, and Jeremiah Wright, not to speak of Saddam Hussein lackeys, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Nation of Islam. As Obama rose in national politics, he distanced himself from this crew. On winning the presidency, he appointed mostly mainstream Democrats to deal with the Middle East. One can only speculate whether his change was tactical, designed to deny the Republicans a campaign issue, or strategic, representing a genuinely new approach.

QUESTION: HOW DEEP runs Obama’s antipathy toward the Jewish state

? Some predictions: (1) Iran being Netanyahu’s top priority, he will avoid a crisis by mouthing the words “two-state solution” and agreeing to diplomacy with the Palestinian Authority.

(2) Democrats too will be on their best behavior, checking their alienation through Netanyahu¹s visit, momentarily averting a meltdown. (3) Obama, who has plenty of problems on his hands, does not need a fight with Israel and its supporters.

His move to the center, however tactical, will last through the Netanyahu visit.

Short term prospects, then, hold out more continuity than change in US-Israel relations. Those concerned with Israel’s security will prematurely breathe a sigh of relief -¬ premature because the status quo is fragile and US relations with Israel could rapidly unravel.

Even a lack of progress toward a Palestinian state can prompt a crisis, while an Israeli strike against Iran¹s nuclear infrastructure contrary to Obama¹s wishes might cause him to terminate the bond begun by Harry Truman, enhanced by John Kennedy, and solidified by Bill Clinton.

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END!

2010 to 2015 great attack Time,

Obama Says “No Iranian Deadline,”

Netanyahu Says “No 2 State Solution,”

Netanyahu Says “Establish Iran Deadline,”

BUT Barack Obama Says “No Iran Deadline,”

And the countdown to Middle East war Begins,

As Israel is

sold down the river without a Paddle,

As world stands on the bank as Israel floats Alone,

In the Rapids of a Raging Islam River of Many Millions,

But a remnant of Israel survives the Islamic Jihad Flood,

Because God will being a third of Israel through the Perils,

When swallowing the great flood of mankind at Armageddon,

By the greatest geological upheaval since God created Mankind,

Described after Arutz Sheva, Haaretz and Jerusalem Post Excerpts!

May 19, 2009

BEGIN EXCERPT FROM ARUTZ SHEVA

MK Eldad: U.S. Selling Us Down the River

Iyar 24, 5769, 18 May 08 10:05

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union party) said following the meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that Israel has true cause for concern, because the U.S. is shaking off its historic commitment to vouch for Israel’s security.

“Defining a deadline-free negotiating process vis-à-vis Iran means, in practice, that the U.S. is willing to accept a nuclear Iran and that Israel remains alone facing Iran,” Eldad said.

“Israel will have no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with all the means at its disposal, be the price what it may be,” Eldad concluded. [——]

BEGIN EXCERPT FROM JERUSALEM POST

Obama insists Palestinians must have state, rejects Iran deadline

May. 18, 2009

Hilary Leila Krieger and Herb keinon, jpost correspondents , THE JERUSALEM POST

In Washington, Netanyahu refrains from mentioning 2 states, says Palestinians must recognize Israel as Jewish state; Obama demands settlement freeze. [——]

BEGIN EXCERPT FROM HAARETZ

Obama: U.S. backs Palestinian statehood, no Iran deadline

By Natasha Mozgovava, Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters

May 18, 2009

U.S. President Barack Obama voiced support for creation of a Palestinian state in talks on Monday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who held back from endorsing the main cornerstone of Washington’s Mideast policy.

With Israeli leaders mostly skeptical of Obama’s efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, Netanyahu had planned to stress Israel’s growing concerns about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Israeli officials said before the talks.

Obama, speaking along with Netanyahu to reporters in the Oval Office, said after the two-hour meeting that he saw no reason to set an artificial deadline for diplomacy with Iran, but the U.S. would like to see progress with Tehran by the end of

the year.

He said he was not closing off a “range of steps” against Iran, including sanctions, if it continues its nuclear program, which Washington believes is aimed at producing an atomic weapon but Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.

Obama also reminded Israel of its commitment, under a 2003 U.S.-backed peace road map agreement to cease settlement activity in the West Bank.

“We talked about restarting serious negotiations on issues of Israel and the Palestinians,” Obama said, adding that it was in the interests of both sides “to achieve a two-state solution.”

Netanyahu, in his remarks, reiterated that he supported self-government for the Palestinians but made no mention of a state, a position underscoring a rare rift in U.S.-Israeli relations.

“We don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want them to govern themselves,” Netanyahu said, echoing statements he has made in the past.

Obama sees engagement in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking – in contrast to the Bush administration’s largely hands-off approach – as crucial to repairing the U.S. image in the Muslim world and to convincing moderate Arab states to join a united front against Iran.

There have been signs Obama hopes to sway Netanyahu with the prospect of normalized ties between Israel and all Muslim countries, but such a comprehensive deal would require extraordinary diplomatic work by the United States.

[——]

BEGIN DESCRIPTION OF WHAT GOD WILL DO FOR ISRAEL WHEN SHE STANDS ALONE WITH HIM

Revelation 12:6,15,16 – And the wom an fled into the wilderness, where she h

ath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her t

here a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

[15] And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

[16] And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

I have already exposited on all the verses prior to verses 15 and 16 in Parts 1 through 6 of previous Birth Pang Updates. The woman, Israel, has received a population decrease of two-thirds, evacuated the city of Jerusalem, and forced to live in the Negev south of Beersheba for more than three years. But the Scriptures indicate that this remnant will one day return, and at that time they will call God their God, and He will once again call them His people. The “residue” (remnant) will not be “cut off” from Jerusalem forever, but will come north out of the Negev, following the battle of Armageddon, to retake the city. Zechariah 13:8 to 14:2 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. [9] And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God. [1] Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. [2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

The confederation of Armageddon, led by antichrist, is moving like a rolling flood southward toward Beersheba in verses 15 and 16. The word “flood” is used several times in the Old Testament to refer to an army advancing like a flood. One use is in Jeremiah 46:8. Jeremiah 46:8 – Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and

the inhabitants thereof.

Ezekiel 39:1,2 – Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: [2] And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

Revelation 16:15,16 – Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

[16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Revelation 12:16 – And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his

mouth.

Across southern Israel, from Hebron to Beersheva, are numerous topographical folds in the rock strata oriented northeast to southwest, and in these folds are hinge faults with the same orientation. This type of fault is capable of suddenly opening during the occurrence of earthquake activity.

An army passing through this zone in hot pursuit, if large earthquakes suddenly rippled through it from Israel’s Arabah Fault in the Jordan Valley, could suffer many casualties by being swallowed up in it.

Revelation 12:5,6,17 – And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. [6] And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. [17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The man child seed of the woman is Jesus Christ. God promised in Genesis 3:15 that this seed would one day crush the power of Satan, but in so doing would suffer for the price he paid while walking and dying on this earth. Even though the woman is herself a Jewish remnant, there will also be a Jewish remnant within the remnant, a living remnant of believers who testify to the unbelieving Israelis that Jesus is the Messiah, and keep the commandments delivered to them by Jesus Christ. They are a sealed believing remnant of 144,000 Jews living among the one-third of Israel that flees to the Negev. This one-third will number between 1.9 and 2 million.

Revelation 7:4 – And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Through the testimony of the 144,000, and the preaching of the two witnesses who lead them, it will cause all Israel to be saved when Jesus returns, and a spiritual nation shall be born in a day.

Romans 11:25-27 – For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. [26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: [27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Zechariah 13:9 – And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

By Tomorrow We Might Know The Beginning

Of Plans that will set the stage for the Ending

Of Prophesied Finish of the Age of the Gentiles!

Today’s Meeting Between Obama and Net any

ahu

Is Previewed By The Excerpt From The UK Guardian,

It Gives an Excellent Assessment of What’s at Stake!

What is decided cannot lead to true Middle East Peace,

But it is likely to open the door to how a false peace Will!

There’s no HUMAN plan that can change what’s Prophesied

And Prophecy Indicates ONLY Jesus Christ Brings True Peace!

May 18, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

I, like many of you, anxiously await the outcome of the historic meeting of the two new leaders of America and Israel. We may finally be able to know the “how” of how the long awaited false peace, the time of false “Peace and safety,” will come on the turbulent Middle East, a false peace that will be broken by “sudden destruction” upon those who proclaim it. Believers cannot “know” for sure the exact time it will come, but they should be able to know the general time of “sudden destruction” by events which lead up to it, for God did not plan to keep them in “darkness” about it. The meeting later this morning is likely to shed some light into the darkness of the “how” it will happen.

I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. [4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

The meeting and the players are graphically outlined in the excerpt which follows.

Begin The Observer Excerpt Extracted from the UK Guardian via World News

Obama makes his bid for Middle East peace

Tomorrow the Israeli prime minister meets the US president at the White House. The following week Obama will also meet the Egyptian and Palestinian leaders. America has signalled it wants solutions in the Middle East, but are the president’s guests ready to make concessions?

Jason Burke and Ewan MacCaskill in Washington and Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem

The Observer,

Sunday 17 May 2009

Late tomorrow morning President Barack Obama will welcome Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, into the Oval Office at the White House. Leave five minutes for the pleasantries, 30 seconds for the coffee to be poured, and 84 and a half minutes will remain to kick-start what is perhaps the most ambitious bid to bring peace to the Middle East for nearly a decade.

Once again, true to his campaign motto of “Yes we can”, Obama is boldly plunging in where others fear to tread. May will see an extraordinary series of meetings for the new president: Netanyahu will be followed to the White House by President Mubarak of Egypt and Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian National Authority. Other regional allies will be consulted, envoys dispatched, world leaders called and cajoled. And then, in the first week of June, Obama will fly to Egypt, where he will deliver a historic speech aimed not just at outlining his own strategy for bringing peace to the Middle East, but also at reframing America’s entire relationship with the Muslim world, so damaged during recent years.

The contrast with hi s pre

decessors could hardly be greater. President Bush was committed to isolating Iran while fighting in Iraq, and gave almost unconditional support to Israel; Obama has elected to engage with Iran, is withdrawing from Iraq, and has signalled a very different approach to Israel. After the radical change that Bush sought in the Middle East comes a new bid to alter the political map of one of the world’s most dangerous and critical strategic zones.

There is a sense of urgency and commitment – and an equal desire to avoid getting bogged down. According to Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Washington is looking for “real results”. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, returned to London from talks with Hillary Clinton, his American counterpart, saying that the administration was “throwing itself into the peace process”. Obama is reported to have plunged into an in-depth study of the history and geography of the issue, reading up on key issues such as Jewish settlements, the Golan Heights, the right of return of Palestinian refugees and the security threat to Israel. Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy for the “quartet” of the US, the European Union, the UN and Russia, is convinced that something important is about to happen; he told the US Senate foreign affairs committee last week that Obama can “reinvigorate the credibility of the road to peace” as he stood in front of a map pointing a laser pen at strategic locations in the territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War, which could feature in negotiations.

Though Blair described himself as “optimistic”, few doubt that the obstacles remain enormous. Chief among them may be the president’s ability to devote the attention necessary to the impossibly complicated issues. Obama and his team are already fighting a host of foreign policy fires bequeathed them by the Bush administration – in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq – while wrestling with massive economic problems. “Obama is fighting on a huge number of fronts and the extent to which he can actually deliver on them has got to be doubtful,” said Nicholas Pelham, the Jordan-based Middle East expert for the International Crisis Group thinktank.

And though the departure of Bush was greeted with a regional sigh of relief, Obama’s charm and presence may not be as effective in the hard-bitten world of the Middle East as elsewhere.

“Certainly goodwill and charisma will take him some distance but not far, especially not in the Middle East. I think any honeymoon he had is over,” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a specialist at the conservative Foundation for Defence of Democracies in Washington.

On the ground, there is deep scepticism.

For Efraim Inbar, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv, “American foreign policy has always been characterised by sudden bursts of optimism and naivety”, and few predict a breakthrough.

First, there is massive “negotiation fatigue”; local populations are now “allergic to so-called peace processes”, in the words of one local analyst with long experience of brokering agreements between hostile parties.

Secondly, the Palestinians are split between the relative moderates of the West Bank and the extremists of Hamas, the Islamist armed organisation in the Gaza Strip, so a united response to any putative Israeli negotiating offer is unlikely. The violence of the war fought in Gaza earlier this year by the Israelis in a bid to stop missile attacks by Hamas militants has further embittered an atmosphere already poisoned by years of violence and further polarised the region. The rockets fired into Israel caused deaths, shock and anger. Hamas is still committed by its charter to the destruction of the state of Israel, and the popularity of Abbas, the key moderate interlocutor on the Palestinian side for Obama, is waning.

And everywhere economic hardship and a sense of humiliation are as deep as ever.

“The situation on the ground is not very conducive to progress currently,” admitted Tamara Cofman Wittes of Washington’s Brookings Institution thinktank. ” On both sides there are very weak leaders and a breakdown of trust.

The Palestinians cannot offer the Israelis anything at the moment.”

Nor is there much sign that the Israelis are keen to be offered much. “There is great scepticism about the Palestinians being able to reach any agreement and implement it,” said Inbar at Tel Aviv.

Though centrists actually won recent elections, it was Netanyahu, known for his tough stance on security issues, who was able to form a government in Israel with a solid bloc of right-wing support in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Netanyahu, who appointed a prominent nationalist as a foreign minister, has not once spoken of an independent Palestinian state since taking power, despite this being the basis of almost all peace negotiations for years. Instead, he insists that Iran and its nuclear ambitions are by far the most pressing regional issue and should be the focus of efforts for now.

He suggested to Egypt’s Mubarak and to Jordan’s King Abdullah in meetings last week that the best thing would be more investment in the Palestinian economy and more training for the Palestinian security forces to reduce extremism and violence. This will almost certainly be the same message he delivers when he sees Obama. “You have a series of blockages that will keep the status quo. The realities of the Middle East will impose themselves as they always do,” said Dr Toby Dodge, Middle East expert at Queen Mary College, the University of London.

The shape of Obama’s ambitious new plan is now becoming clear. First, after years of strong support from the US, Israel – the largest single beneficiary of American overseas aid – now appears likely to come under much greater pressure to make crucial concessions.

And last night, Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak said he believes Netanyahu will endorse the creation of a Palestinian state during his upcoming meeting with Obama in Washington.

The Bush administration was solidly behind Israel. Obama’s position is more ambiguous. In his home town, Chicago, before running for the presidency, he made comments sympathetic to the Palestinians but later adopted a more pro-Israeli line. Secretary of state Clinton, as senator for New York, was regarded by contrast as a solid supporter of Israel, but in recent weeks has been critical of Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank.
America last week voted for a UN Security Council statement drafted by Russia that reaffirmed the backing of the international community for a formula that would see a “two-state solution” – that is, an independent Palestinian state established on land under Israeli military occupation for 42 years. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, indicated that the US wanted to reinvigorate proceedings of the quartet group as another means of moving forward.

US officials have even mentioned that they would like to see Israel sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would put it under pressure to declare and give up its nuclear arsenal – unthinkable a year ago – and have moved to open space for a possible deal with a Palestinian government that might include the extremists of Hamas.

“Prepare yourself for change,” the veteran Israeli journalist Eitan Haber last week counselled Netanyahu, who had a fiery relationship with President Clinton while he was prime minister in the late 1990s. “This is not the America you used to know.”

At the very least, the new tone of the US administration has sparked broad political debate in Israel.

On Thursday night, dozens of right-wing Jewish settlers gathered on congested Aza Street in Jerusalem outside Netanyahu’s heavily guarded home.

With placards and speeches they challenged the new prime minister not to give an inch when he sees Obama tomorrow. “You don’t have a mandate for concessions,” read one of the boards in Hebrew.

But the next morning, the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom placed one of its weekly advertisements in the Ha’aretz newspaper reading simply: “The real Israeli patriots are hoping – if not praying – that president Obama will influence prime minister Netanyahu, and not the other way around.”

In America, powerful lobby groups representing Israeli interests appear resigned to a change in US policy. Earlier this month, at the annual meeting in Washington of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the vice-president, Joe Biden, reflected the new approach of the administration when he called for a freeze of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, prefacing his remarks with: “You won’t like this.”

But Aipac is adaptable: after eight years in which it was in tune with Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, it voted in Lee Rosenberg, a Chicago businessman close to Obama, as its president-elect.

The real strength of Obama’s strategy lies in the regional dimension. His team is following the dictum “If you can’t solve a problem, make it bigger”. Their aim is to dilute the knotty intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in a broader environment, in the hope that regional powers such as Jordan and Egypt can offer Israel incentives that the weakened Palestinians cannot or will not give.

By linking all the various elements of the complex matrix of conflicts and rivalries that comprise Middle Eastern politics, the White House hopes to get something, somewhere, to give.

Some of those blocks might be clearing. Moderate Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt, as well as US allies like Saudi Arabia, are concerned both by the continuing threat of radical Islamic violence and by Iran’s bid for regional primacy and may be prepared to make concessions themselves or press the Palestinians to do so.

Last week King Abdullah refloated the idea of Arab and Islamic states recognising Israel in return for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. “The Arab peace initiative has offered Israel a place in the neighbourhood and more – acceptance by 57 nations, the one third of the UN members that do not recognise Israel,” King Abdullah told a World Economic Forum meeting in Jordan.

“This is true security – security that barriers and armed forces cannot bring, inaction is not an option.”

This month’s push will climax when Obama delivers his speech in Egypt, outlining his strategy while simultaneously restarting US relations with the Islamic world.

Time, however, is short. Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, says the Iranians could be, in a worst-case scenario, 12 to 18 months from building a nuclear weapon. According to King Abdullah, failure to find a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would lead to war within the same period. Tomorrow’s meeting with Netanyahu is only the first step on a long, hard road.

The key players
Binyamin Netanyahu

Israel’s new right-wing prime minister believes the Palestinians are not ready for a state that would allow Israel to live in security without attacks from militant groups such as Hamas. Instead, he wants to focus on economic development and more training for the Palestinian security forces. He sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a far more pressing issue for the region.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran’s president, who faces an election next month against two reformist candidates, supports the Palestinians, and is often accused of funding and arming the Islamist movement Hamas. He is a bitter opponent of Israel. He wants to maintain Iran’s nuclear programme, against the mounting concerns of Israel and the West.

Bashir Al-Assad

Syria’s president for the past nine years wants re-engagement with the West and a peace deal with Israel that would see the return to Syria of all the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in the 1967 war and later annexed. Indirect talks were mediated by Turkey last year but broke off when Israel launched its war in Gaza.

Honsi Mubarak

Egypt’s president for the past 28 years supports the Palestinian goal of an independent state. He wants Egypt to maintain its role as the key player in the Arab world and his government has been trying to broker a new truce and prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and a reconciliation between the rival Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah.

Mahmoud Abbas

The president of the Palestinian Authority wants to negotiate a full peace agreement with Israel that would create a viable, independent Palestinian state along the pre-1967 war borders with a capital in east Jerusalem and an agreed solution to the question of Palestinian refugees. He is under pressure from those Palestinians who complain that peace talks, which began in 1991, have failed to achieve full statehood.

The key issues

Syria and the Golan Heights

The Golan Heights are an area of disputed sovereignty wrested from Syrian control by Israel in 1967, which then annexed the 700 square miles of territory in 1981. Syria has insisted ever since on the return of the land and the UN backs its claim. Although previous Israeli governments came close to negotiating the return of the land, Netanyahu has said that Israel will keep the Golan Heights forever, saying that giving them back would mean giving Syria’s ally, Iran, a route into Israel.

Refugees’ right of return

The right of return of Palestinians forced to flee their homes was acknowledged in a UN resolution in 1948 and the principle has been enshrined in international law. The government of Israel says allowing Palestinian refugees back to their former homes in Israel cannot be a right, but has to be treated as a political demand to be resolved as part of a peace settlement.

It would also like to restrict the right to Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. Around 3.7 million Palestinians live in refugee camps in the Middle East.

The role of Hamas

Founded in 1987 to fight for an Islamic Palestinian state, Hamas shot to political success in 2006 when it won a landslide victory in the Palestinians’ first democratic parliamentary elections, wresting control from the ruling and fractured Fatah party. Hamas’s original charter is committed to replacement of Israel by an Israeli Palestinian state.

The recent invasion of the Gaza Strip was in part prompted by Hamas firing rockets into Israel, in response to the economic blockade of the Strip by Israel that began in 2007. Hamas emerged intact from the Israeli onslaught and its popularity will be a crucial factor in any new peace process. Its military wing is considered a terrorist organisation by the US, the UK and the EU.

Israeli settlements

One of the most contentious issues of the conflict is the fate of the communities of Jewish settlers who have moved on to disputed territories or land owned by Palestinians and built homes, citing a biblical right to be there. The settlements have existed and expanded since the 1967 Six Day War, when they were backed as strategically important. Israeli governments have both actively encouraged the settlements and also, during the Gaza withdrawal in 2005, removed people by force. The Palestinians believe settlements are a barrier to peace and the UN security council, the EU and the International Court of Justice have said that they violate international law.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.