If Hamas & Hizbullah EVER Decide To Recognize Israel
As a Jewish State, such an action means only one Thing,
They’ve finally Wised Up to Understand it is the Only Way,
They Can Lull Israel Into A False Sense Of Peace And Safety,
Which is the Only Way Islam Will Ever Be Able to Defeat Israel!
June 19, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Does the following Scripture mean they have signed a piece of paper called a Peace Treaty – or does it simply mean Israel and the rest of the world believe the major dis agreements
have been breached, such that it appears “Peace and safety” finally is about to come
to the Middle East? To most interpreters of prophecy, it is very easy to take Daniel 9:27, and answer the question by dividing Daniel’s last week of seven years into two neat little 3 and ½ years. The first box being 3 and ½ years of peace after a peace treaty is signed with the Antichrist, and the last 3 and ½ years being 3 and ½ years of war when the Antichrist breaks the peace treaty in the midst of the week of seven years. The problem with that interpretation is that it arose out of the Evangelical Age which began in 1730.
I accepted what was taught before 1760 about Daniel 9:27 many years ago, and have not seen anything in Scripture that has caused me to change my mind.
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.
Since I believe we are approaching the end of the Age of the Gentiles, and have a deep conviction about the interpretation of Daniel 9:27 I intend, Lord willing, to repeat the Daniel 70 Weeks Series as one of the two Blogs we issue daily. Even if you don’t agree with it, I hope you will consider it.
Begin Series of Excerpts from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert
Excerpt 1 from AP and Washington Post
Hamas Rejects Carter Plea to Recognize Israel – Ben Hubbard
After meeting former President Jimmy Carter in Gaza on Tuesday, Ahmed Youssef, the deputy Hamas foreign minister, said Wednesday that “Recognizing Israel is completely unacceptable.” Youssef said the other two international conditions – renouncing violence and accepting past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians
– are irrelevant. According to Hamas ideology, there is no room for a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East. The militant group has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel, killing hundreds. Carter’s meeting was itself unusual since the U.S., EU and Israel consider Hamas a terror group and refuse to deal with it directly.
(AP/Washington Post)
Excerpt 2 from New York Daily News
Double Standard for Israel’s Peace Efforts – Editorial
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week accepted the idea of a Palestinian state as part of a Mideast peace settlement.
His good deed did not go unpunished. In return for envisioning “two people…side by side in amity and mutual respect,” Netanyahu was branded, in far too many corners, as an obstacle to peace for placing what were called “conditions” on his offer. Chief among them was a call for Palestinian demilitarization and “public, binding and unequivocal” Palestinian recognition that Israel is “the state of the Jewish people.” How dare he insist on the very survival of his country!
Former President Jimmy Carter visited Gaza Tuesday, territory that the Palestinians had turned into a rocket-launching pad after the Israelis ceded it for self-rule. He proclaimed that Palestinians there are being “treated more like animals than human beings.” There was a reason Israel staged strikes against Gaza last year. In fact, 7,000 reasons: missiles Hamas lobbed before Israel had to defend itself. And there’s an excellent reason Israel imposes tight security on Gaza: suicide bombings sponsored by the Hamas terrorists who run the place.
Carter didn’ t men
tion those. (New York Daily News)
Excerpt 3 from New York Times
A Palestinian Choice – Editorial (Wall Street Journal)
On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered a detailed speech in which he hailed President Obama’s “desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.” He said he was “willing to meet” with Arab leaders “at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut and in Jerusalem as well” to make peace. He invited Arab entrepreneurs to “assist the Palestinians and us to give the economy a jump-start.” He committed his government to all of Israel’s international agreements. He said “we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements.” “In my vision of peace,” he said, “there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence.”
To this, the Palestinian reaction was to say the speech was “worthless,” “nothing but a hoax,” that it had “destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution,” and that Mr. Netanyahu was “a liar and a crook.” And that was the reaction among the Palestinian moderates.
The transformation of the Gaza Strip into an armed and hostile Hamas enclave is evidence enough of why any future Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized. Nor should the thought of Israel as a Jewish state be controversial: That’s how it was conceived by the UN resolution that helped bring it into existence, and that’s how it was recognized by Harry Truman minutes after it declared independence.
For too long the Palestinians have practiced a kind of fantasy politics, in which all right was on their side, concession
was dishonor, and mistakes never had consequences. Mr. Netanyahu’s speech now offers them the choice between fantasy and statehood. Judging from early reactions, they’ re choosing wrongly again.
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 underst anding 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.