To Waive or Not To Waive?
Unlike most Eye of Prophecy articles or any online post or newspaper article, today’s title is in the form of a sentence. It has a noun subject (President Trump), and a verb (wavering)—albeit what is called an intransitive verb, meaning one that normally doesn’t have or need a direct object. But in this instance, we do have an object … the Waiver.
It would be fun to dig into the grammatical nuances of intransitive versus transitive verbs, indirect objects in contrast to direct objects, and how prepositions (On) combine with nouns and pronouns to modify or enhance some other word; but the fun would be all mine, not yours.
Therefore, I’ll “waive” the fun, and spare you from any “wavering” whether to continue reading this article or not!
Seriously, though, setting aside the helping verb (Is), the preposition (On) and the definite article (The), leaves us with:
President Trump: who practically everyone in today’s smart phone, tweeter tuned, and Facebook linked world has heard of.
Wavering: the definition of which most people have at least some familiarity. “To vacillate irresolutely between choices: fluctuate in opinion, allegiance, or direction” (Webster’s Dictionary). Synonyms: Swing, hesitate.
Waiver: “The act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim, or privilege” (Webster’s Dictionary). The verb form of waiver is, of course, “waive.” Which, also according to Webster’s, is: “to relinquish voluntarily (as a legal right) … to refrain from pressing or enforcing (as a claim or a rule) … to put off from immediate consideration … postpone.”
So, you know that Donald Trump was recently elected President of the United States and, whether you voted for him or not, you’re aware (perhaps more so than any presidential candidate or president before him) of what he is like … sort of. Which, if nothing else, is unpredictable; spawned by his boisterous behavior and from spontaneous statements that can generate extreme pendulum-like reactions in even the most neutral of people. Yet, what set him apart from those we label as bureaucratic politicians and what many perceive to be too much federal government power and control was his resolve to fix a broken America and a large part of the world while he’s at it.
(One of many quotes made by Donald Trump)
Here is an excerpt from last week’s Eye of Prophecy article entitled, The World Wants a Messiah … But It Needs (The) Messiah. In italics:
From all the post-primaries, pre-election, and post-election results, I believe the evidence is clear: The greater majority of those who voted for Trump believe that he embodies the soul and spirit of America like no president since Ronald Reagan. Some say not since Abraham Lincoln—the true voice and representative of what America should be and did become as much as a nation can be. Which was for the most part: a government that, after the Civil War, endowed (in principle and more slowly in practice) all its citizens with “inalienable rights” of the US Constitution by abolishing slavery.
Many see Donald Trump in that same light, a President who strongly supports and will sincerely try to restore a nation governed by and for the people.
Most likely you knew the meaning of wavering before reading its definition. For even better understanding, picture a wave on the ocean—from which the word wavering is constructed both in form (the word itself) and substance. A wave that is tossed, rolling, undulating on waters that are constantly in motion … never seeming to be definitive or fixed or stable.
And I’m sure you had or now have a handle on what a waiver is. So, let’s talk about:
Beginning with a tough question: Do you know which Waiver the title of this article refers to, which is “The Waiver” on which President Trump appears to be wavering?
Here’s a (vague) clue: It’s been in the news recently and frequently.
Don’t know yet? Okay, a stronger clue in the form of two more questions:
Will the United States Embassy in Israel be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? The answer to that question depends entirely on President Donald Trump.
Second question: Should the US Embassy be relocated to Jerusalem?
Let’s get right to the answer.
YES, it should be moved. Says who? Says the American people!
Really, when did we say that?
We said that through our legislators in the House of Representatives and Senate when they passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, calling for relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In fact, the voting margin was overwhelmingly in favor: Senate 93-5; House of Representatives, 374-37. That’s as large a margin as you’ll ever see in Congress.
According to this Act, the move of our embassy to Jerusalem should have taken place no later than May 31, 1999. However, in deference to the authority of a United States President to recognize foreign sovereignty over territories, Section 7 of the Act allowed the sitting President to “waive” enforcement of the Act if the President felt that such a move might pose a risk to the security of the United States. With the stipulation, however, that such a waiver must be reviewed every six months, so as not to ignore this Congressional Law indefinitely. Since then, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have done just that … signed the waiver. As a result, the US Embassy is still in Tel Aviv. Hence, it was a binding, but floating piece of legislation.
Donald Trump made several prominent promises before and after his election, one of which was to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Soon after he became President, he was asked on more than occasion if he still intended to follow through on this commitment.
His response, “I always keep my promises.”
Just last weekend, however, he made a concession that the plan or procedure to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, “is not easy … has two sides to it … there’s certainly a chance of it, absolutely … I’ve always liked the concept of doing it, I’ll tell you that.”
He pledged to, “studying it very long and hard.” And, “I hate to do that because that’s not usually me. Usually, I do what’s right.” (Meaning postponing what he intimated would be a quick executive decision soon after being elected).
He concluded with the promise that he would, “…have a decision in the not-too-distant future.”
I take this to mean that President Trump is unwavering with regard to doing something about his unexpected and out-of-character wavering over “The Waiver.”
Congress Finally Got It Right
It’s vital to grasp the Biblical and historical preeminence that the Holy Land of Israel and the Holy City Jerusalem of the Holy Land bears in God’s providential plan for the Jews (and also Gentiles during the Millennial Reign of Messiah Jesus).
Prophetically, it’s of paramount importance to comprehend (as presented in Eye of Prophecy articles such as, Seven Times Seven to the 4th Power I, II, III, and The Omega Generation, posted 1-25-14 through 2-15-14 respectively) that God’s discipline of his chosen people ended in 1967; when Israel recaptured and (temporarily) reunified Jerusalem.
Consequently, as clearly conveyed in Scripture, the Lord once again began to protect Israel and his chosen people the Jews from Gentile domination. All of the prophetic warnings to nations and peoples that seek to harm the Jews and who are bent on divesting the Jews from their own land would be enforced by God, himself, especially after their return to the Promised Land. Not the least of which is Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt.”
God’s eternal promise to give Israel to the descendants of Abraham and to bring his people in great numbers back to Israel is now being fulfilled, an unmistakable sign that we are in the last days of the end times.
Peoples of the earth must realize that the success of their nation depends dramatically on their treatment of Israel and their recognition that, “…the people of Israel belong to the Lord; Jacob is his special possession. He found them in desert land, in an empty, howling wasteland. He surrounded them and watched over them; he guarded them as he would guard his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 32: 9-10).
For the most part, the United States Senate and House as elected representatives of the American people have favored Israel since her rebirth as a sovereign nation. But not until the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 did they do something legislatively about what was up to that time more of a wavering support.
I think it’s important enough to demonstrate our lawmaker’s acknowledgment of the historical prerogative of nations to select their own capital and Israel’s right to name Jerusalem as her capital, in particular, by listing the seventeen points (reasons) why the Senate and House passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of October, 1995.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.”
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1)Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
(2)Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.
(3)The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.
(4)The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.
(5)From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.
(6)In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.
(7)Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.
(8)This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.
(9)In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress “strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected”.
(10)In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
(11)The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for the resolution of “final status” issues, including Jerusalem.
(12)The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.
(13)In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher encouraging “planning to begin now” for relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of Jerusalem.
(14)In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem “should take place no later than….1999”.
(15)The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.
(16)The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.
(17)In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David’s entry.
As indicated, this Act was to be implemented no later than May 31, 1999, except if the President decided to waive enforcement due to possible breach of the security interest of the United States.
But we need to ask ourselves what is tantamount to a rhetorical question: How could relocation of the US Embassy in Israel jeopardize our security? The obvious answer is that it can’t; it won’t. If that was the case, then why did Islamic terrorists strike us on September 11, 2001? Or the recent Muslim terrorist mass killings in Florida and California?
Even if some answered, “Possibly” (a threat to security), should we be intimidated by such a possibility, remote or otherwise?
In reverse, another probing question could be asked: a “what if” scenario that might suggest a cause and effect correlation. If the US Embassy had been moved to Jerusalem by the deadline of May 31, 1999, would 9/11 have taken place? Hint: The answer weighs heavily on blessing or cursing Israel and God’s primary means of “cursing” nations that despise or mistreat Israel, which is withdrawal of his protection. No different than when the Lord twice in history ceased to protect Israel, herself, because the Jews abandoned, then rejected the Lord, their God (Exile to Babylon for 70 years, then exile to the four corners of the earth for nearly 2,000 years).
The real reason for waiving enactment of the law is because Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama yielded to Arab oil pressure. Even more so: appeasement of Palestinians and the misguided, uninformed notion that a Palestinian State will solve all Middle East problems including animosity toward Israel and the Jews.
As I have written in some Eye of Prophecy articles, such as A Palestinian State … No Say Many Arabs (posted 1-11-14), it’s not a state alongside of Israel that Palestinian want … it’s all of Israel. It’s a nation without one single Jew. Not only did the Arabs reject a two-state solution from the outset (the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the United Nations Resolution of 1947), they also rejected an amazingly magnanimous offer from two former Israeli Prime Ministers for some 98% of the West Bank.
(Current US Embassy in Tel Aviv)
(Part of the Jerusalem Embassy Act Involved Multimillion Dollar Funding Approval. All That Is Needed is a Change in Signs And Some Touch Up Paint to the US Consulate Building in Jerusalem, Pictured Above)
The United States Supreme Court Has Denied Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital
Here, I’d like to refresh your memory or inform you if you aren’t aware of another flash point incident that also relates to the ongoing dispute of Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel. I’m referring to the United States Supreme Court decision in June, 2015, declaring that passports of United States citizens born in Jerusalem must be stamped “Jerusalem,” not Jerusalem, Israel or just Israel.
Here are some excerpts from Eye of Prophecy article, Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country? (Posted 6-13-15) In italics (*Note: words or phrases not in italics were italicized in that article).
Jerusalem … A Capital without a Country?
Or is it: Israel … A Country without a Capital? It’s a shame that either of these two concepts should even be in the form of a question. But they are, and they must be faced head-on and answered. Any response depends entirely on whether a sovereign nation possesses the inherent right to choose its own capital; which is a reasonable presumption, or it should be. So we’ll begin with both barrels blazing and boldly assert: Of course, a sovereign state has that right! For Israeli Jews, the answer is as obvious as it would be to an American citizen who would never question whether Washington D.C. is the Capital of the United States of America … Jerusalem is the (eternal) capital of Israel.
Yet, the United States and virtually every nation on earth does NOT recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Instead, they have placed embassies in Tel Aviv; thereby, telling Israel that Tel Aviv is its seat of government, not Jerusalem. So drop the capital and the issue actually becomes: Jerusalem, a City without a Country? That is precisely how the US President and his staff, as well as most governments, classify Jerusalem—which reduces it to the same status as the Vatican … a city-state inside a country but without a country.
I wrote about this in an Eye of Prophecy article, entitled, Jerusalem … City of Peace? Published 12-27-14. That article originated from a November, 2014 agreement by the United States Supreme Court to review and rule on a decade old (lower) court struggle of whether the passport of a 12-year old Jewish boy, Menachem Zivotofsky, born in Jerusalem—whose parents (Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky) are American Citizens—could list Israel as his place of birth, rather than just Jerusalem. As indicated in that prior article, the crux of this conflict has far-reaching repercussions beyond one passport of one Jewish boy, although the issue was of vital personal importance to the Zivotofsky family.
Just this past Monday (June 8th), the Supreme Court reached its final decision, one that took longer than any other Supreme Court decision from its initial review to its final ruling (about seven months). Here are some of the headlines the day after, June 9th, 2015:
USA Today: Supreme Court sides with Obama in Israeli dispute
Note: I quoted other headlines in that article, but the gist of the issue was that the Supreme Court’s decision was much more about Israel’s sovereign right to make and maintain Jerusalem as its capital than a decision whether or not the Executive Branch or Congress possessed the ultimate right to formally acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Contrary to U.S. Ambassador Don Shapiro’s explanation that the Supreme Court’s ruling was exclusively about the separation of executive and congressional authority, I commented (continuing with that article):
I beg to differ. The Supreme Court decision had everything to do with Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Shapiro was merely (barely) technically correct by saying the Supreme Court’s review was to determine whether the U.S. Congress or whether the Executive Staff has the (legal) authority to recognize foreign governments and their capitals. But that was only a derivative academic offshoot of the original case, which was the issue of the passport that was directly connected to the dispute of whether Jerusalem is Israel’s capital; or whether it is an international city that is not part of any country. There’s no getting around it. To say that the Court’s decision was “solely” about the separation of powers (Executive Branch versus Congress) is a deflection, distortion, and denial of the real controversy.
I went on to say in that article:
The Supreme Court ruled (6-3) in favor of the Executive Branch, despite a law passed by Congress in 2002 that required the State Department to recognize “Jerusalem, Israel” or just Israel as the birthplace on passports … for Americans born in Jerusalem (of which there have been approximately 50,000 since Israel became a State). In so doing, that Congressional act effectively recognized Jerusalem not only as an Israeli city, but also its capital.
(Example Of A Passport for American Citizen Born in Jerusalem)
Any American citizen, who knows just a little about the functions of our three branches of government, understands that the Congress makes laws, the Executive branch enforces those laws, and the Supreme Court interprets those laws if there is a dispute over the constitutionally of an existing law.
Americans who respect the basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and support our republic representative government with the proper balance of power would/should agree with the statement of the Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch recently appointed by President Trump.
In USA Today’s article of February 1, 2017, we read: “Gorsuch, 49 … is a Scalia acolyte (referring to deceased Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia who died nearly a year ago) who says judges should interpret laws as they are written and enforce the Constitution as the nation’s framers intended.”
Quoting Neil Gorsuch: “Mr. President, I am honored, and I am humbled. In our legal order, it is for the Congress, and not judges, to write laws.”
Here are some additional excerpts from Eye of Prophecy article, Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country? They confirm the real reason for the Supreme Court’s decision that dual citizens of the United States and Israel (those born in Jerusalem) must have passports that show Jerusalem, not Israel as their place of birth … because Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel’s capital or even a city exclusively in/of Israel.
The following is a quote from my previous article (Note: here I’m referring to Eye of Prophecy article, Jerusalem, A City of Peace posted 6-13-15 when the Supreme Court agreed to accept the “passport” case) in which I refer to Justice Elena Kagen, one of the liberal members of the Supreme Court. In light of the ruling, it’s quite evident that five other members shared her sentiments to some extent or another … as shown in the recent 6-3 decision. As noted, this observation of Ms. Kagen reveals the (hidden) agenda that most members of the Supreme Court had when they ruled in favor of President Obama’s viewpoint and effectively against Israel and tens of thousands of American Jews born in Jerusalem. With the ultimate consequence of once again denying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Said Justice Kagen several months ago soon after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case:
“Right now, Jerusalem is a tinderbox. History suggests that everything is a big deal with respect to the status of Jerusalem.”
Her rationale reverberated and regurgitated what the State Department had said in that same brief to the Supreme Court, “…a simple passport alteration could provoke uproar throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”
God forbid that the Arab Muslim world should be provoked like that!
She made it clear that her vote (it’s obvious now, but even then, that she had already made up her mind) would be conditioned on the politically correct need to elude any further strife in the Middle East; which, in essence, would trump the real issue of whether Israel had the right as a sovereign state to declare Jerusalem as its capital. Thus, a vote to support the Congressional Act in 2002 would be tantamount to recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which would only make things worse in the Middle East.
The politically correct world view of six Supreme Court justices and their ensuing decision hinged on one perceived urgency: Whatever it takes, don’t increase the tensions in the Middle East that already exist.
Here is an excerpt of my response to her observations:
That part, she got right … mostly. Jerusalem is a big deal, unlike any other city in the world. But when in our time was Jerusalem not a tinderbox? I can tell you with a great deal of historically factual evidence to back me up: NEVER has Jerusalem since Israel’s rebirth in 1948 not been a powder keg ready to explode.
If anyone carefully examines the wars that Israel has fought since her national birth, the incidents of intifada terror that has killed and maimed thousands of Israelis, or just the daily stream of hate-filled verbiage from the mouths of Muslim leaders and much of the Palestinian people, they would realize that the level of tension really can’t get any higher. Meaning that when Muslim armies, terror groups, and lone wolf assassins decide it’s time to strike, that’s exactly what they do. They may cite a particular incident or problem, but it’s always just an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway. The balloon is always full of enough air to burst. The string is always tight enough to break.
Then the following summary excerpts from Jerusalem … A City of Peace, which were quoted in Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country?
Why is Jerusalem disputed as part of Israel … as Israel’s Capital? More specifically, who or what entitles the United States State Department or the Supreme Court or any other country or even global institutions like the United Nations to determine whether any city of any country qualifies as its Capital? Isn’t that the inherent sovereign right of a nation … to choose its capital?
…Jerusalem was the headquarters (Capital) of the ancient kings of Israel, and the self-governing land (State) of Israel was given to the Jews by God, himself. That is reason enough.
But there’s also a modern-day affirmation when the United Nations voted in November, 1947 to grant statehood rights to Israel; then later recognized the sovereign State of Israel after her declaration of statehood on May 14, 1948. Even though east Jerusalem and the so-called West Bank was under Jordanian jurisdiction in 1948, all of Jerusalem was captured in the remarkable Six-Day War victory of Israel over the same nations that tried to annihilate Israel and the Jews in the brutal attack on Israel on May 15, 1948—the day after Israel became a nation.
What if all the nations on earth (or just one of those countries) refused to recognize Washington D.C. as America’s Capital? Choosing, for example, New York City because the United Nations is headquartered there. What do you think our President and the State Department would do about that? Or Congress, or the Supreme Court?
Again, I must ask: Since when does the world family of nations (most practically represented by the United Nations) dictate to individual countries which city will be its Capital? Isn’t that the exclusive right of the nation itself? What if the United States decided that it would no longer recognize London as Great Britain’s Capital, but chooses Manchester instead? Or Marseille instead of Paris? St Petersburg instead of Moscow? Barcelona over Madrid? Most likely, those nations would immediately sever diplomatic relations with America.
But that’s exactly what our Executive Branch through the State Department has done with Jerusalem. They have refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital; choosing instead by official state policy to consider Jerusalem as a city unto itself. A city that, for all practical purposes, belongs to the world; or at least to the world’s three main religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A city that is still up for grabs (literally), with its destiny to be determined by … by who knows what. By another failed peace plan, by another war, by unilateral declaration from the Palestinians that Jerusalem belongs to them, by Israel’s (rightful) annexation of the Temple Mount and all of East Jerusalem?
Then a final analogy from that article:
Following the American Civil War, can you imagine that, after winning the war, the United States (northern states) agreed to cede the southern half of Washington D.C. to the Confederacy as the Confederate capital? For that matter, to even allow the Confederate States to exist as isolated states in a separate Union? Or for the first United States Congress or Executive Staff to do the same with Great Britain after their hard-fought victory in the Revolutionary War? Would the word, absurd, come to mind?
But that is exactly what the United States expects of Israel. I repeat for emphasis: Exactly.
What about Israel’s rights?! Or the right of any foreign nation to name its capital? That’s the decisive and divisive issue in front of us.
But since the Supreme Court has sided with the Presidency, then what about the fact that no sitting U.S. President has ever recognized a foreign country as a sovereign nation, without (default) acceptance of that nation’s capital. For that reason alone, Jerusalem is unprecedented in the annals of U.S. foreign policy; thus, the Supreme Court shouldn’t have been involved in such a decision. Particularly, when the United States Congress passed a law that granted Israeli citizenship and passport rights to Americans born in Jerusalem. By constitutional mandate, the US President is obligated to enforce this law (any law) passed by the Congress which represents the people of the United States of America.
In fact, that’s pretty much what Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the three dissenting votes, said. I quote: “Today’s decision is a first. Never before has this court accepted a president’s direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.”
(Judge Thomas Was One of the Six Judges Voting Against the Passport Measure, But He Still Submitted a Written Dissent)
Am I Suggesting That President Donald Trump Has Reneged On His Promise?
Not at all. With, however, the underlying clarification that, despite the (justifiable) rationale to postpone his decision, I can only hope and pray that he doesn’t relegate this dynamic issue to a White House back burner. That he will not waver on his previous promise to move the embassy. That he will waive the Waiver!
In fact, President Trump hit the ground running. His first 10 days of office resulted in an astonishing number of Executive Decisions; twenty to be exact (broken down into four main categories including Executive Orders) two more than Barack Obama in his first ten days of office. As you well know, Trump’s most controversial order was a temporary restriction of immigrants from seven countries deemed a security risk to the United States. They are: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.
Whatever your opinion on that ban, each of those nations directly or indirectly, in fact, do pose a legitimate threat to our security. Completely unlike the alleged security risk that our past three Presidents have only used as a pretext not to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. With the real reason dealt with at some length in today’s article.
Things to Ponder
Contrary to God’s explicit and eternal plan to restore the Jews to ALL of Israel, with the God-given borders of the Promised Land identified in Scripture, Israel is already divided and nearly cut in half by the existence of the West Bank and Gaza Strip designated as “Palestinian Territory.”
To deny that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel or, worse, to split Jerusalem into two capitals is to cut Israel in half again. More than that: It is tantamount to cutting out Israel’s heart and soul from her people.
Still worse: It is a direct defiance of God Almighty. It is a blatant disregard of the true and living God’s solemn warning of what will happen to peoples and nations who seek to harm the Jews and divide the Promised Land of Israel, particularly after their return from a 2,000 year exile.
To divide Jerusalem and especially to make what is now (erroneous and unbiblical) called East Jerusalem a separate capital for a Palestinian State would be a disaster of … well, Biblical proportions. For you see, the following prophecies are dangerously close to being fulfilled through both deliberate denial and unwitting ignorance of God’s Word:
“In the times of those events, says the Lord, when I restore the prosperity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather the armies of the world into the valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will judge them for harming my people, my special possession, for scattering my people among the nations, and for dividing up my land” (Joel 3:1-2).
Hundreds of Biblical prophecies have come to pass. More than anything else, it is fulfilled prophecy and mighty miracles that distinguish the God of the Bible from any other (man-made) gods and religions. More prophecies like the one just quoted and the following will surely come to pass:
“The day is near when I, the Lord, will judge all godless nations! As you have done to Israel, so it will be done to you. All your evil deeds will fall back on your own heads. Just as you swallowed up my people on my holy mountain, so you and the surrounding nations will swallow the punishment I pour out on you. Yes, all you nations will drink and stagger and disappear from history. But Jerusalem will become a refuge for those who escape; it will be a holy place. And the people of Israel will come back to reclaim their inheritance” (Obadiah 1:15-17).
To relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem is much more than symbolic. It is a decisive move that could preclude God’s harsh judgment of the United States of America before the Day of the Lord’s return. A return that begins with the remarkable Rapture of believers and ends with Messiah Jesus’s second coming to earth seven years later in power and great glory to fight for Israel and rescue her from imminent destruction.
If President Trump wants to make America great again, the first place (no better place) to begin is with the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. For in doing so, he is agreeing with God that Jerusalem, as the City that the Lord loves above all cities, is indeed the eternal heart and soul (capital) of Israel.
Sha’alu Shalom Yerushalayim. “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. May they prosper who love you” (Psalm 122:6, NASB).