If you give the Palestinian s
what they say will satisfy them for Peace
They are Not, and will Never be satisfied, Till they Sink Jews in Sea
If Israel settled with Palestinians by setting on the 1967 Borders
They would rocket and terrorize Israel to get the1948 Borders
If Israel settled on the 1948 border
s
it wouldn’t being Peace
Arabs WON’T Be Satisfied Till they drive Jews Into The Sea
Barry Rubin describes the Obama Plan as a Catastrophe
“It Is A Catastrophe Because HIS Policy HURTS ALL Of
America’s allies, strengthens revolutionary Islamists,
AND Discards BASIC U.S. Interests IN THE Region.”
Travail of the woman Israel who bore God’s Child
Can’t escape a date with Tribulation Birth Pangs
Outlined In I Thessalonians 5:3 And Isaiah 26!
TWO Jerusalem Post excerpts following Them
Outline the World Pressure On Israel to Get
Most of the Things Desired by Palestinians
That Will GIVE Them indefensible Borders
And Lead To Slaughter Of 2/3 of Israelis
Israeli Political Travail now Accelerating!
May 24, 2011
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.
Isaiah 26:17 to 27:1 – Like as a woman with child, that draweth NEAR THE TIME OF HER DELIVERY, IS IN PAIN, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O Lord. [18] We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen. [19] Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. [20] Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. [21] For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.
Begin Excerpt 1 from THE JERUSALEM POST
Zahar: Palestinians should not settle for 1967 borders
By JPOST.COM STAFF
05/23/2011 14:30
Hamas leader says 1967 borders not enough, asks Obama why he wouldn’t be willing to discuss 1948 borders.
Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Monday that it was clear that US President Barack Obama’s platform was not so different from the one adopted by former US president George W. Bush. According to Zahar, the 1967 borders, while “sacred,” were not the final borders on which the Palestinians should settle.
Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked “Why won’t we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won’t we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?”
Obama reiterated his statements from last Thursday at an annual AIPAC meeting in the US that a Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, which had sparked outrage from many in the pro-Israel community
According to Zahar, Obama “wants to keep us on 22% of the area of Palestine, and talks about the possibility of swapping land, including Jerusalem…and he wants us to give Jerusalem to the occupation in return for 5% of h istoric Palestine, which
is originally our land. This is a great trick.”
Zahar also said it was likely that Obama uses the US veto in the UN “against Muslims” in the issue of the settlement freeze. In February 2011 the Obama administration had exercised its first UN Security Council veto when it nixed a resolution calling Israeli settlements “illegal” and demanding they be immediately halted sparking heavy criticism by many the Arab, Muslim world.
The Hamas leader also mentioned that even while Israel and the US have both before called for a settlement freeze, no monitor was ever put in place to make sure this occurred.
Zahar also mentioned Palestinian governmental affairs, saying that a reconciliation deal between Hamas and Fatah did not come with an attached timetable. He said that any times, figures, or speculations put forth by the news media is incorrect.
The Hamas leader said the government would be formed on “national consensus,” and that without consent of all factions, “especially that of Fatah and Hamas, there will not be a government, and as for the characteristics and details of the government a special committee will be established that will choose a president and ministers.”
Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report.
Begin Excerpt 2 from THE JERUSALEM POST
The Region: Just what was Obama asking of Israel?
By BARRY RUBIN
05/22/2011 23:28
Why, then, did he so upset Israel and its supporters? Look at this remarkable sentence: “ Yet expectations have gone unmet.
Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks.”
I believe this is the first time he’s ever acknowledged that the Palestinians refused to talk, though this has been obvious to all Israelis for two years. But by not mentioning that at his request, Israel imposed an unprecedented building freeze and then, at his demand, added Jerusalem to that freeze, Obama shows that he will not appreciate or reward Israeli concessions.
So while trying to be even-handed, he’s signaling to Israel that it will gain nothing by doing what he asks.
THEN THERE’S Obama’s patronizing attitude – that he knows what Israel needs better than Israelis or Israeli leaders do.
He says “permanent occupation” does not benefit Israel. Well, it’s not the best outcome, but there are worse ones – something Obama and his colleagues (and the mass media) never understand.
It’s not enough to keep repeating that the status quo is untenable. One must provide a convincing vision of a better status quo. And in that, Obama, the Europeans and certainly the Palestinians fail totally.
They ignore the problems Israel would face with a real-world two-state “solution” under current conditions: cross-border raids, incitement, new demands, a possible Hamas takeover, or a Palestinian state reneging on its commitments.
At the very moment Egyptians are talking about abrogating their peace treaty, Obama urges Israel to sign another one. Israel made a deal with Lebanon’s government, that country’ s pre
sident was assassinated, and the deal was broken. Israel withdrew from south Lebanon and was attacked by Hezbollah.
Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip and was attacked by Hamas. Israel turned over land to the PA,
then faced terrorist attacks from the territory.
Yet Obama proposes doing the same thing again. He suggests Israel turn over the rest of the West Bank to the PA in exchange for security guarantees.
He has no interest in how ridiculous this sounds in the context of the Israeli experience.
Now we come to the big controversy: “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
To me, this is no big deal compared to the other problems. Far from demanding that Israel return to the 1967 borders, that sentence really leaves the issue open.
I don’t believe that Obama “hates” Israel. I think he has zero comprehension of Israel, and isn’t interested in learning more. But the big problem is his failure to recognize the threat of revolutionary Islamism, blindness about what’s happening with Turkey’s Islamist regime, and weakness toward America’s enemies. These also injure Israel indirectly, as well as America’s Arab allies, and the Iranian and Turkish people.
So, yes, Obama’s policy is disastrous, but not because he is attacking Israel directly or abandoning the traditional relationship. It’s a catastrophe because his policy hurts all of America’s allies, strengthens revolutionary Islamists, and discards basic US interests in the region.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (www.gloria-center.org) and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
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.