“You have no idea of the kind of pressure that is brought to bear on an Israeli prime minister when he enters the White House.” (The late David Bar-Ilan, Chief of Information and Policy Planning for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a personal conversation with this writer, November 1998.)
Netanyahu flew to Washington DC at the weekend, arriving Sunday morning, a day before his scheduled series of meetings with American President Barack Obama and other administration officials.
Despite calming words and promises from administration officials that the Americans won’t be too demanding “this time,” millions of Israelis and their friends are tense with anticipation about the outcome of these talks.
The US believes it has Israel over a barrel. Netanyahu must either endorse the “two-state-solution” or be seen to be resisting the will of the whole world.
What the prime minister is being asked to do is without precedent: Never has a national leader been ordered to surrender for all time his people’s claim to their costliest and most strategic national assets. On top of this, Netanyahu knows too well the bankruptcy of “land-for-peace” – how every effort to proceed with this American-led program has painfully backfired, costing thousands more Jewish lives and increasingly endangering the security of their state.
The “two-state solution” requires the ethnic cleansing of 300,000 Jews from their biblical heartland, the cradle of their nationhood. It calls for the destruction of all their homes and communities. It will add insurmountably to Israel’s already desperate water crisis. And it will leave Israel too small, too truncated, to properly defend – and this in a neighborhood that positively churns with hatred for the Jews.
In the words of Hebron resident Gary Cooperberg: For Israel, the two-state solution is another version of The Final Solution.
Were the eyes and ears of our inner man open to what is happening today in the spiritual realm over Washington DC, we’d be aghast at the fury of the fight. The atmosphere above the American capital is surely boiling, as heaven and hell vie for dominance over the institutions of government, especially the White House, the State Department and the Department of Defense.
Prime targets for the enemy will be within the presidential residence itself: In the room set apart for a three-hour meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, where the American will be doing whatever he can to seduce or coerce the Israeli into embracing two-states; and in the media briefing room, where the world’s press will be out in force to dig and poke into the Israeli leader after the summit, hungry to expose triumphantly either his failure to withstand Obama’s demands or, in their biased estimation, his intransigence and opposition to peace.
American arrogance in dealing with Israel can be breathtaking.
As recalled in The Jerusalem Post Sunday, after President Clinton met with then first-time Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996, the Oval Office was left seething.
Dennis Ross, a top advisor to Clinton on Middle East affairs, could barely contain himself. In his book, The Missing Peace, he fumes:
“Netanyahu was nearly insufferable, lecturing and telling us how to deal with the Arabs.”
“After Netanyahu was gone, President Clinton observed, ‘He thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.’”
Of course, Netanyahu could justifiably claim to know a great deal more about the Arabs than do most American leaders – and American Jews like Ross.
What should be thrown back at Ross and Clinton, though, and what should be spelled out for Obama to consider, is this: America may think that, because it is the superpower, it can bully little Israel into going along with whatever the US considers is in ITS best interest.
In fact, there is only one Superpower, one Ruler of the Universe. It is He who raises nations, and brings them down. He has done so with numerous powers in the past, and America is set to be next.
God has destined Israel to be chief among the nations, and the United States to serve her, or die. Obama can squirm and squeal at the thought, but he should be shaking in his chair. In heaven’s eyes, it’s a done deal.
There is a time, during military campaigns, when field commanders choose to hold back their forces and wait for the moment to strike. Factors under consideration include the element of surprise; the critical role of the immediate phase of battle; available time for the execution of the attack; comprehension of the bigger picture, i.e. what other battle plans will be put into play in the coming days, etc.
As we watch the nations gathering to come against Israel, we may wonder whether to call out for heavy weaponry right now, or wait until things get worse.
In fact, God’s Hosts have been warring with the nations for centuries already – almost everywhere opposing gentile efforts – through murder, forced exile or forced assimilation – to wipe out the Jews.
Through human eyes the battle is one-sided and Israel has no chance – one small country and nation against the Globalists in the international arena, the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, China, 57 Islamic states with their 1.4 billion people, hundreds of thousands of apostate churches with their billion-and-a-half or more adherents; global jihad, worldwide secular humanism.
There is certainly no way her prime minister and his team can stand under the crushing weight of this world and its forces.
But, seen through those spiritual eyes, the opposite is true. The combined forces of opposition to Israel are outnumbered and outweighed by the heavenly hosts.
In the film ‘Gladiator,” power pumps from the screen as the Roman General Maximus thunders his horse across the front line of his troops, infusing them with passion for a fiery and devastating assault on the attacking hordes.
“When you see my signal,” he roars, “Unleash hell.” And they do.
Only God knows, as the world’s leaders have lined up, one after the other, to demand and insist that Netanyahu agree to go along with their two-state solution, how many believers – in Jerusalem and in the nations – have been fasting and praying, groaning for Him to intercede for His people and His land.
In her album ‘Always on His Mind,’ Kansas City musician Misty Edwards prays for His drastic intervention in the earth.
“Prince of peace,” she cries. “Come, make war.”
Israel feels outnumbered, as do those of us who stand with God’s purposes for her. But as Edwards continues:
“When the nations are raging against You, we want to be with You where You are.”
We may not know His timing, but we know that the moment will come.
My cry today is: May God unleash heaven!
Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—
“ The LORD is one,”
And His name one.
(Zechariah 14:3,9)
The biblical land of Israel is actually the "land of YOUR forefathers" Pope Benedict told the Palestinian Arabs in Bethlehem last week.
With this statement the pontiff, who has now departed Israel after five days of meddling in the country's affairs on a "pilgrimage" he called "a mission of peace," authenticity on the massive deception that is "Palestinian nationhood."
At the start, in the middle, and at the end of his visit - which was hosted by the State of Israel at no small expense to the taxpayers and mass disruption of Jerusalemites' lives - the head of the Roman Catholic Church voiced his strong support for the creation of a Palestinian state on Jewish lands.
His first and last statements to this effect were made unabashedly in front of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - who has been trying to sidestep international demands that he surrender Israel's biblical heartland to the Arabs.
Speaking at PLO Chief and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' palace in Bethlehem, where he went to conduct a large mass, the pontiff spelled it out:
"The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders," he proclaimed.
Myths of Palestinian nationhood and their right to a historic homeland have circled the globe, winning support for this "cause" from virtually every political leader on the planet.
In the process, the real origin of the "Palestinians" - whose forefathers hail from Arabia - has been swept aside.
Israelis wondered how the head of a so-called Christian Church could have so wholeheartedly swallowed the Bible-refuting lies.
Congress concerned that military aid might be diverted to nuclear program
WASHINGTON - Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.
“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security.
Inside the Obama administration, some officials say, Pakistan’s drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms has been a source of growing concern, because the country is producing more nuclear material at a time when Washington is increasingly focused on trying to assure the security of an arsenal of 80 to 100 weapons so that they will never fall into the hands of Islamic insurgents.
A new generation of weapons?
The administration’s effort is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is producing an unknown amount of new bomb-grade uranium and, once a series of new reactors is completed, bomb-grade plutonium for a new generation of weapons. President Obama has called for passage of a treaty that would stop all nations from producing more fissile material — the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon — but so far has said nothing in public about Pakistan’s activities.
Editors Note....Only a blind man can fail to see that the world as we now know it is terminal.
When he meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House Monday, US President Barack Obama will have "proof" of his readiness to take seriously the Iranian nuclear program that threatens the Jewish state.
The American will be able to point to a just published online Newsweek interview in which he reiterates that the US will keep "all options on the table" when it comes to dealing with Tehran.
All the Israeli news media Sunday gave prominence to the interview, which without exception they saw as favorable towards Israel.
"I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why," Obama told the magazine.
Israel's "calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."
A Netanyahu aide said Sunday night the US knows that there is no subject more important to Israel than Iran .
But Obama is expected to try and use his paper pledge of a more robust American approach to Iran to lever more pressure on Netanyahu to play ball on two-states.
Last week, CIA chief Leon Panetta informed Netanyahu that Obama demanded Israel not launch a surprise attack on Iran.
Administration officials - including Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel - have in recent weeks linked America's willingness to wield a bigger stick in the mullahs' direction to Israel's readiness to support the two-state-solution the world insists is the "only solution" to the conflict.
An advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has compared Netanyahu's attitude towards Iran to the traditional Jewish view of Amalek, the ultimate enemy which must be destroyed.
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the New York Times Op-Ed section Saturday, said that Netanyahu is not bluffing with regard to the possibility of Israel attacking Iran. "His preoccupation with the Iranian nuclear program seems sincere and deeply felt," Goldberg writes. "I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: 'Think Amalek.'"
While Netanyahu is a non-observant Jew, the evocation of Amalek by an aide to could be a hint that some religious feeling is nonetheless coloring the Israeli government's view of the Iranian threat.
'Erase the memory of Amalek'
Amalek is a nation that wished to wipe out the Jews. It was the first to make war against Israel, attacking the rear guard of the Israelites on their deliverance from Egypt. Jewish tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. It also showed the way to the other nations as to how to destroy Israel.
Though no identifiable Amalekites remain in the world, the Torah commands the Jews to wipe out every last vestige of the evil that Amalek represents. Every year, when the Torah passage known as Zachor is read, Jews stream to their synagogues to hear the verse, " 'Remember what Amalek did to you on the way, upon your departure from Egypt'... 'You shall erase the memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens, you shall not forget.'."
Goldberg also quotes "friends and advisers" of Netanyahu who say that he took three lessons from his brother Yonatan’s death, in the heroic raid on Entebbe in 1976: "The first is that those who threaten Jews, and have the means to carry out their threats, should be neutralized pre-emptively. The second is that no one will defend the Jews except the Jews themselves. The third is that destiny has chosen the Netanyahus to expose and battle anti-Semitism — before it reaches the point of genocide."
Obama on Jews, U.S. and Holocaust
Another interesting quote that appears in Goldberg's piece is from President Barack Obama. Goldberg writes that the talk of containing Iran after it acquires a nuclear capacity "does not make the Israelis… happy and, in fact, might push them closer to executing a military strike." Obama "surely knows this," he estimates, and quotes something Obama told him during last year's presidential campaign:
“I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people," Obama said, "but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens.”
"There should be little doubt that, by the end of this year, if no progress is made, Mr. Netanyahu will seriously consider attacking Iran," Goldberg writes. If the quote from Obama is an accurate one, perhaps tough U.S. action against Iran is a more realistic option than many people currently think.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington on Sunday for a visit that will include what many expect to be a tense meeting between the Israeli leader and US President Barack Obama.
In fact, "tense" was how Ynet described the atmosphere aboard Netanyahu's trans-Atlantic flight, during which the prime minister's entourage wondered just how much pressure Obama would put on them publicly commit to the birth of a Palestinian Arab state, even if the Palestinians fail to meet their own peace commitments.
Regardless of how much pressure they come under, however, one Israeli official told the news portal that Netanyahu intends to stand his ground, particularly on its demands that the Palestinians give up terrorism, agree to remain largely demilitarized and recognize Israel as "the Jewish state."
Israeli Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, a close confidante of Netanyahu, indicated the prime minister in fact will go further than standing his ground and will promote fresh approaches to peace that don't involve handing land over to the Palestinians under their current leadership and until they have proved themselves true partners for peace.
Netanyahu also reportedly planned to turn the tables a bit on the Obama administration by insisting that the primary threat to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a nuclear-armed Iran, and so something must be done immediately about the Islamic Republic's defiant nuclear program before meaningful progress can be made toward Israeli-Arab peace.
Earlier this month, Obama's top aides suggested that the US would only really go after Iran after Netanyahu agreed to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian Arab state in the very near future.
Netanyahu was treated to a healthy dose of pressure before even departing for the US from both sides of hits unity coalition.
Members of Netanyahu's own Likud Party and other right-wing factions sent a letter to the prime minister at the weekend threatening to rebel if he breaks under US pressure as he did during his last stint leading the nation a decade ago.
But members of the left-wing Labor Party also sent Netanyahu a letter, warning him against "deluding" himself and the rest of the nation into believing he can resist the birth of "Palestine."
Meanwhile, Palestinian officials accused Netanyahu of planning to deceive the US president and change the terms of the peace process for no good reason. They insisted that the only thing that matters is a firm timetable leading Israel's surrender of Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of Jerusalem.
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.
Gallup also found public preferences for the extreme views on abortion about even -- as they are today -- in 2005 and 2002, as well as during much of the first decade of polling on this question from 1975 to 1985. Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.
Americans' recent shift toward the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys. The same three abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results, including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the self-identification question.
Additionally, a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, from 54% to 46%. The percentage saying abortion should be legal in only a few or no cases increased from 41% to 44% over the same period. As a result, support for the two broad positions is now about even, sharply different from most polling on this question since 1995, when the majority has typically favored legality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A survey conducted by Haifa University has revealed that the pull of Israel's Arab citizens into the arms of the nation's enemies may be far more advanced than many previously thought.
During a presentation of the survey results on Monday, Professor Sami Samocha said that only 41 percent of local Arab respondents recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. By comparison, in 1995 only 7 percent of Israeli Arabs said the Jewish state had no right to exist.
The steep rise in the number of Israelis Arabs who want to see the fall of the Jewish state may have something to do with the rampant Holocaust denial among their community. Over 40 percent of those polled said they do not believe the Nazi Holocaust ever took place, and that it is a fabricated justification for the establishment of Israel.
Ironically, while the world tries to paint Israeli Jews as racists, the Haifa University survey showed that 47 percent of Israeli Arabs object to having a Jew as a neighbor. Only 27.2 percent of local Arabs felt that way just five years ago.
Israel's Army Radio reported on Monday that a new official Jewish settlement will soon be built in Jordan Valley for the first time in 26 years.
A tender for the construction of 20 residential units in the settlement of Maskiot was recently issued following years of political and legal battles.
Former Defense Minister Amir Peretz of the left-wing Labor Party first proposed the establishment of Maskiot in 2005 as a new home for many of the Jews evicted from the Gaza Strip.
Peretz's plan was cancelled amid harsh criticism from Washington, but was picked up again last year by the Olmert government, and accelerated following the recent election of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Nearly all of Israel's political parties - excluding a few radical left-wing factions and the Arab parties - agree that under any peace agreement with the Palestinians, Israel must retain control of the Jordan Valley.
Jordan Valley Regional Council head David Elhayani said the best way to ensure Israel stays in the area is to built more communities.
Iran is in the midst of a multi-year plan that it hopes will culminate in the production of several hundred missile launchers and over 1,000 long-range ballistic missiles within the next six years, according to estimates in the Israeli defense establishment.
Teheran is believed to currently have an arsenal of 100-200 long-range Shihab missiles that have a range of up to 2,000 kilometers and carry up to one-ton warheads.
In addition, the Iranians last year test-fired a missile called Ashura believed to have recently entered production, the goal being to eventually replace the Shihab.
The Ashura is a solid-fuel missile, giving it a long shelf-life. Unlike the Shihab, it does not need to be fueled shortly before launching.
According to Israeli estimates, Iran's plan is to obtain 500 missile launchers and over 1,000 missiles with a range of 2,500 km. by 2015.
"The Iranians are making great efforts to obtain a significant number of missiles," said Tal Inbar, head of the Space Research Center at the Fisher Brothers Institute in Herzliya. "They already talk about how one of the ways they will overcome the missile defense systems is by firing salvos of missiles."
Inbar said that Iran was likely digging missile silos throughout the country that could be used to launch the Ashura solid-fuel missile.
In addition, regular trucks carrying hydraulic launchers could be manufactured in Iran and used as portable launchers, capable of firing from anywhere in the country.
According to estimates in Israel, Russia is still considering supplying the S-300 air defense system to Iran but is waiting to see what happens with the dialogue that the United States plans to hold with Iran.
Depending on the outcome of the dialogue and the status of relations between Washington and Moscow at the time, Russia will decide whether it will supply the system to Iran.
The S-300 is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world, with a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time.
It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 90,000 feet.
On Monday, the IAF will hold a countrywide exercise that the military stressed was not connected to current events.
The exercise will include the IAF's reserve forces and the public, should not be alarmed if it hears sirens and notices increased activity in Israel's skies, the army said.
Fatah and Hamas met for a fifth round of unity discussions in Cario on Sunday, but PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is prepared for the possibility that they won’t succeed.
Abbas warned Hamas last week that if the talks fail, he will move ahead with forming a new PA government in Judea and Samaria that won’t include the Gaza-based Hamas terrorist group.
In addition, Abbas traveled to Damascus last Thursday, home to Hamas’ leader Khaled Mashaal. According to Sunday’s A-sharq Al-awast newspaper, Abbas’ visit included a warning to Mashaal that if his group doesn’t come to an agreement with Fatah, he may have to leave Syria for Iran.
Israel says that negotiating with the PA is hindered by the lack of unity between Fatah and Hamas. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to make this point to U.S. President Barack Obama in their discussions on the Israel-PA negotiations on Monday in Washington.
Egypt, who has hosted the unity talks since Hamas and Fatah formally broke ranks in 2007, fears the negotiations are not bearing fruit and has started to put pressure on the two sides. “By the beginning of July, an agreement must be signed,” Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman said.
Hamas insists that the negotiations are serious and ongoing. “We are discussing with Fatah all issues besides recognizing the Zionist entity,” a Gaza based spokesperson said.
The head of the Fatah delegation, Azzam Al-Ahmad, claimed there were three main issues at stake, “the election system, security during the transitional period in Gaza, and a joint security force.”
He said he was surprised at Suleiman’s warning, but explained that the Egyptian official insisted that PA unity was crucial admitting that “no progress could be achieved in the [Israeli- peace process before ending the rivalry” between Fatah and Hamas.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew into Washington DC Sunday, a day before his scheduled first meeting with American President Barack Obama.
According to reporters on the plane from Israel, the prime minister's staff was tense as they crossed the Atlantic, in anticipation of a conflict that has been brewing for weeks between "Bibi" and his host.
Issues to be discussed include two existential threats facing the Jewish state: Iranian's panting pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the global demand that Israel surrender to the Palestinian Arabs the most treasured and strategically vital parts of its ancient lands.
Obama has acknowledged the former danger, but made the United States' opposition to Israel's use of military force to squash it.
Regarding the second threat, however, not only is the White House not withstanding it, it is leading the charge.
For Obama, the most desired outcome of their summit would be Netanyahu's embracing of the "two state solution."
America is requiring a concession of massive proportions; it would amount to nothing less than the the prime minister's signing away of his nation's right to, and control over, its most treasured historical lands and sites.
And it would further fuel the appetite of Israel's Arab foes, who see the establishment of Palestine as vital for facilitating the complete eradication of Israel.
According to officials accompanying Netanyahu, the Israeli leader's stance on this issue is clear.
In the face of dogmatic demands from the US, Europe, Russia, Egypt and Jordan, Netanyahu has resisted all efforts to get him to endorse the two-state solution.
What Israel will insist on - one unnamed member of the delegation told the media - is "Palestinian" recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and the international community's effective recognition - and not merely the mouthing of it - of Israel's security needs and concerns.
Ynetnews suggested American officials were trying to project a softened attitude ahead of the meeting. The service cited one official as stressing that while the administration had no intention of creating hostilities, it expected Netanyahu to affirm his government's commitment to previous agreements, and to comply fully with the world's demand for a settlement freeze.
Just how adamant Obama's expectations are will emerge in the coming hours.