Which of these two excerpts do you think is worth a Dime?
I Am Believing THE Second Excerpt AT THE PRESENT Time,
But Since I Know the BIBLE Says this Age Will be Ending,
I Hope SOON Iran & Pals a False Peace will be Sending!
If Hamas LIES to do what excerpt 1 says in the Future,
A false peace will be sewed together by U.S. Sutures!
One day Jihad will see a False Peace is the only Way,
Israel Can be Deceived to Let Arabs have Jihad Day,
AND At Point IN Time Twixt 2010 & 2015 THEY MAY!
January 29, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
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.
Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran are now under pressure from within and from Sunni “moderate” Arab states to “cool it.” The beating Hamas took in the G az
a Strip and upcoming elections in Iran, coupled with the demonstration by Israel in the last three days she is going to continue a program of an eye for an eye with the Hamas on an event by event basis, is causing the aforementioned four to rethink the best way to defeat Israel. I believe at some point in time between 2010 and 2015 the “big four” will finally wise up that to defeat Israel, they must lull her into a false sense of security. So, while I do not believe Excerpt 1 is true at the present time, I do believe is it likely to become valid at some point in time before 2015. Until that point in time arrives, Excerpt 2 will be the existing scenario in place.
THIS EXCERPT MAY BECOME TRUE ONE DAY BEFORE 2015
I HOPE IT BECOMES TRUE SOONER THAN I THINK!
Begin Excerpt 1 from Middle East Online via World News
2009-01-28
Hamas would recognise Israel within 1967 borders
French Jewish writer: Meshaal said – several times – that Hamas is willing to recognise Israel.
PARIS – Hamas would recognise Israel if it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, a French Jewish writer said this week after meeting the exiled leader of the democratically elected Palestinian movement, Khaled Meshaal.
“He told me that Hamas was prepared to recognise Israel on the lines of June 4, 1967. He told me so several times,” Marek Halter said on Monday.
The date refers to Palestinian demands for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, captured in the 1967 war.
Halter’s meeting with Meshaal took place in Damascus last month, on the eve of Israel’s 22-day offensive, which left more than 1,330 Palestinians dead, mainly civilians, and vast swathes of the territory in ruins.
The writer said he informed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of Meshaal’s comments at the start of the Gaza conflict, which ended January 18 as Israel and Hamas declared unilateral ceasefires.
“Now they will have to decide,” whether to talk to Hamas, said Halter, who said Meshaal had newly decided to support peace negotiations with Israel.
Meshaal called in a speech aired on Arab satellite televisions last week for Western powers to lift a ban on contacts with his movement.
THIS IS THE EXCERPT WHICH IS TRUE AT THE PRESENT TIME
Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post
Obama and the Muslim cold war
January 27, 2009
HILLEL FRISCH , THE JERUSALEM POST
The Middle East is gripped by a Muslim cold war, fiercer than anything since the 1950s.
This deep political divide could stymie US President Barack Obama’s well-intentioned efforts toward creation of a Palestinian state, engagement of the Iranian and Syrian regimes and quick withdrawal from Iraq.
Relations among the Muslim states of the Middle East have never been worse, not since the days when Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser sent his agents to assassinate political figures in Jordan and conduct a war in Yemen against the Saudi-backed royalists.
A razor-sharp cold war separates the moderate Arab Sunni states, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and most of the Gulf states, from an Iranian-led axis that includes Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and, less importantly, Qatar.
The issues over which these two camps struggle are as clear as the divide between them.
Meeting the Iranian threat is the most important of them. For the Gulf states, Iran’s success might threaten their survival. For Egypt, Iranian ascendancy would end its perennial claim to regional preeminence.
Moreover, Iranian nuclear capabilities would saddle the Egyptian state with the colossal costs of embarking on a nuclear weapons program at a time it desperately needs to continue allocating resources for social development. This ordering of priorities was the main reason Egypt opted out of its confrontation with Israel and signed a peace treaty with the Jewish state 30 years ago.
IRAN’S SUPPORT for Hamas in Gaza ranks probably second on the list of concerns for the moderate Arab Sunni states. Hamastan is anathema to this camp, for it sets a number of bad precedents.
Gaza is the first area in the Arab world to be ruled by an organization that rose from the ground up, a fundamentalist movement that can claim a certain democratic legitimacy. Hamas is creating a revolutionary theocracy in the area under its control.
It is the “deepest” Iranian bridgehead in the Arab world.
Moderate Arab states also oppose another Iranian bridgehead in Lebanon. Just as among the Palestinians these states clearly support Mahmoud Abbas, so they just as clearly support the Siniora government – a coalition of Christians and Sunnis under Saad Hariri (whose father was probably assassinated by the opposing axis) – against Hizbullah and its Iranian and Syrian allies. Thus, in both the Palestinian and Lebanese arenas, deadly local enmity is fed by the larger Muslim states’ cold war.
Less well-known but palpable nevertheless is the contest between the two camps over Iraq’s future. The moderate Sunni states are worried about a Shi’ite-led Iraq that would play a major role in cementing the Iranian-led Shi’ite-heterodox arc from the Iranian border to a Hizbullah-controlled Lebanon. Saudi Arabian support for Sunni parties in Iraq is well known, but Saudi Arabia probably supports armed Iraqi Sunni groups as well.
Obama will be most surprised to discover that objection to any substantial movement on a Palestinian state will come less from Israel, and more from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan – which fear that under the present circumstances Hamas would probably take over Judea and Samaria via an expanded Palestinian state. As far as they are concerned, Israel did not batter Hamas sufficiently to allay their suspicions. These states prefer “process” over meaningful movement regarding the Palestinian problem.
Nor will these Arab countries be pleased about the newfound American desire to engage Iran and Syria. Saudi Arabia remains committed to seeing Bashar Assad tried in an international court, not letting him off the hook by engaging him.
All the moderate Arab states would like to see a US that wields a big enough stick at Iran – short of war – to compel it to desist from its nuclear program.
Needless to say, a rapid US military withdrawal from Iraq is hardly the way to wield the big stick at Iran.
President George W. Bush also angered moderate Arab countries, but for a different reason. With Bush, moderate Arab states felt threatened by his focus on democratization.
Obama, however, now threatens them with a policy of engaging the Muslim enemy.
Thus, the mainstream Arab countries, like Israel, seek US resolve in confronting the Iranian-led axis, not an “outstretched American hand” to the radical part of the Muslim world. An America that “engages” this radical axis could turn the Muslim cold war into something far more ominous.
The writer is a senior research associate and Arab affairs specialist at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan 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.