Liberals-socialism-black liberation theology changing US Policies!
Obama, Biden, and Clinton set the stage for last war of Age,
This Is NOT The First Time Joe Biden Has Lectured Israel,
He Threatened Angrily in 1992 to Cut Off US Funding,
Over the question of Jewish settlements in Israel!
God gave Jerusalem to the Jews, not the Arabs,
US Should Support Them, NOT Lecture Them!
March 22, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Psalm 137:5,6 – If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. [6] If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
Ezekiel 37:21-28 – And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whi ther
they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: [22] And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: [23] Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. [24] And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. [25] And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. [26] Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. [27] My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [28] And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
Psalm 122:1-9 – I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord. [2] Our feet shall stand within thy gates,
O Jerusalem. [3] Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together: [4] Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord. [5] For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. [6] Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. [7] Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. [8] For my brethren and companions’ sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. [9] Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.
Begin Essay Excerpt 1 from the Wall Street Journal via World News
The Long Battle of Jerusalem
March 20, 2010
The U.S. and Israel have agreed before that a divided city cannot stand; preventing a return to barbed wire
By SETH LIPSKY
In July of 1996, shortly after Benjamin Netanyahu had acceded for the first time as leader of the Jewish State, he gave a speech to a Joint Meeting of the U.S. Congress. The speech ran to nearly an hour. The young prime minister, a free-market reformer from a country that had long suffered from socialist economic policies, was speaking to a Congress in which another free-market reformer, Newt Gingrich, had recently acceded as speaker.
So the mood was exceptionally warm, and the Israeli was interrupted by applause several times in the first 40 minutes. But the biggest applause came when Mr. Netanyahu turned to what he called “a subject that has been on your mind and ours, and that subject is the city of Jerusalem.” He spoke of how, in his boyhood, he “knew that city, when it was divided into enemy camps, with coils of barbed wire stretched through its heart.” Then he said:
“Since 1967, under Israeli sovereignty, united Jerusalem has, for the first time in 2,000 years, become the city of peace….For the first time, a single sovereign authority has afforded security and protection to members of every nationality who sought to come to pray there.
There have been efforts to re-divide this city by those who claim that peace can come through division, that it can be secured through multiple sovereignties, multiple laws and multiple police forces. This is a groundless and dangerous assumption, which impels me to declare today: There will never be such a re-division of Jerusalem. Never. ”
When he repeated the word “never,” suddenly the whole chamber rose, on both sides of the aisle. The ovation lasted nearly a minute.
It would be imprudent to make too much of that applause. It was Prime Minister Menachem Begin himself who used to warn that it would be a mistake to try to settle the question of Jerusalem in the U.S. Congress. But it would also be imprudent to make too little of it, particularly as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu next week in Washington in an effort to patch up the extraordinary contretemps of the past week.
One of the reasons Congress leapt to its feet in that ovation for Mr. Netanyahu’s declaration in 1996 is that it was by then becoming clear that the Middle East was at the start of what the Jewish Forward newspaper had already begun calling the Battle of Jerusalem.
It’s been a long struggle. The phrase Battle of Jerusalem has also been used to describe General Allenby’s taking of the city from the Turks in World War I.
It was the first time Jerusalem came under what might be called Christian rule since the 12th century. The first time it was divided was after the partition of Palestine was voted by the United Nations in 1947 and the British mandate was brought to an end in 1948.
The U.S. at the time refused to recognize Israeli claims, even in the western party of the city, despite the fact that by the mid-19th century Jerusalem had already emerged with a Jewish majority. Instead the United Nations was advancing a scheme under which Jerusalem would become an international city, belonging to no country. The U.N.’s non-binding resolution on the matter was repudiated by Israel.
President Harry Truman waffled a bit, but eventually abandoned the internationalization idea. The division of the city lasted until 1967, when Jordan, which controlled the eastern sections and despoiled Jewish graves and other sacred sites, joined the attack against Israel, only to be driven out altogether. Israel then annexed the eastern part of the city, and the walls and wire that divided the city were removed.
In the following decades, as the Arabs pressed their long war against Israel, a remarkable transformation took place. Jerusalem’s population soared, to more than 700,000 today from 263,000 in 1967 and 165,000 in 1948. Both the Arab and Jewish populations have risen sharply in the years since Israel gained control of the entire city.
In 1993, Israel, led by Yitzhak Rabin, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, led by Yasser Arafat, signed a Declaration of Principles, seeking to set the stage for peace negotiations. It deferred the question of Jerusalem to the end of the process, to what were called permanent status negotiations. Mr. Clinton would devote much of his political capital to trying to bring it all together before the end of his presidency.
Congress, however, h ad long since begun to grow restive for recognition of the new re
alities, and in 1995, it passed, by an overwhelming vote, a measure called the Jerusalem Embassy Act. It was designed to end the absurdity of America failing to move its embassy in Israel to the country’s capital and to establish Israel’s capital in America law. It held that “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected” and that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.”
Yet since then, no U.S. president, nor any state secretary, has acknowledged Congress’s standing on the question of Jerusalem. Mr. Clinton refused to sign the Jerusalem Embassy Act, and it went into law without his signature. Nor have subsequent presidents abided by the spirit of the legislation. Instead they relied on a waiver in the law that gave the president discretion to delay the embassy move by six months—and to renew the delay by six months—to protect national security interests.
The waiver has since been used over and over again. When President George W. Bush used the waiver, he repeatedly stated that he intended to move the embassy at the right time. But President Barack Obama has dropped any statement of his future intentions. His administration, moreover, is now advancing so-called “proximity talks” that hold the danger the city could yet be divided in the way the Congress once cheered against dividing it.
This is the context in which Israel’s religious Jewish community was so eager to have issued zoning approval for the apartments for the Haredi—or fervently religious—Jews. The timing of the action, coming as Vice President Joseph Biden was in Israel, has been widely denounced, even after Mr. Netanyahu himself apologized. It may be that, as Mr. Netanyahu suggested, the timing of the announcement was, from his point of view at least, an accident.
But it may also be that the religious Jews who control the ministry that made the announcement just looked at the political situation and decided they’d best mark their rights. And for all the hubbub the religious faction provoked, there are those of us who think they were wise to do so precisely at the moment of maximum sensitivity, when the visiting American vice president was to travel to the seat of the Palestinian authority at Ramallah.
There is a déjà vu quality to the whole thing. After Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister, President Clinton undertook a campaign to pressure Israel to give ground and keep the so-called peace process intact.
Mr. Netanyahu did, in 1997, retreat from much of Israel’s second holiest city, Hebron, leaving the religious Jewish families who wanted to live near the graves of the patriarchs and matriarchs in an armed camp.
The Clinton administration put great hope in the election, in 1999, of Ehud Barak, leader of the Labor Party, as premier. One of Israel’s greatest military heroes, Mr. Barak had vowed in his political campaign that he would never permit a division of Jerusalem.
As he got drawn into the peace process, however, he did offer, at the talks known as Camp David II, to give the Palestinians part of Jerusalem as a capital. Yasser Arafat spurned a deal and returned to instigate what became known as the Second Intifada. The voters promptly ousted Mr. Barak and brought in as premier the man the left had for so long detested, Ariel Sharon.
Mr. Sharon had the good fortune to enter office as the American leadership was being turned over to Mr. Bush, who had enormous respect for his Israeli counterpart—for his military prowess, for the long historical sweep of his world view and for his vast experience in government.
They both understood that in the war that followed Sept. 11, 2001, America’s enemy was also Israel’s enemy.
So Messrs. Bush and Sharon decided early on to attenuate the quarrelsome issues to focus on their own strategic military issues—Mr. Sharon defeated the intifada and Mr.
Bush levied the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a tragedy it is that Mr. Obama has not been able to reach a similar modus vivendi with Mr. Netanyahu. The latest contretemps seems to have been taken by the Palestinians as an invitation to yet more violence. Which, if past is prologue, will lead to more demands on Israel and more threats.
It is a moment for Ms.
Clinton to remember one of Prime Minister Begin’s visits with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is recounted in an often-quoted 1992 column by Moshe Zak, then of the Jerusalem Post.
The conversation grew so heated over the question of settlements that one of the senators raised his voice and banged on the table with his fist, threatening to cut off aid. Mr. Begin kept his dignity, replying that the desk was “designed for writing, not for fists.” He warned that, though Israel was grateful for America’s help, America was not “entitled to impose on us what we must do.” The senator who had lectured him was Mr. Biden, who would go on to co-sponsor the Jerusalem Embassy Act.
—Seth Lipsky is founding editor of the New York Sun.
Begin Excerpt 2 from THE JERUSALEM POST
The Biden incident
By C. KRAUTHAMMER
21/03/2010 22:20
Why did Obama decide to turn the e. J’lem construction announcement into a crisis?
Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in US-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject and you don’t bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move – step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless, the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in US-Israeli relations.
Clinton’s spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace – literally dying for peace – since 1947, when they accepted the UN partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.) Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton’s own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu’s defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David Talks.
Arafat rejected it.
In 2008, prime minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
IN THESE long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a “peace process” – now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state – the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewishconstruction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assistedWest Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Clinton herself called “unprecedented.”
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That’s why the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks” – a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat’s groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that’s an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies – therefore Israel shouldn’t take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world – and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital
?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel – at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews – about candidate Obama’s abiding commitment to Israel.
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.