Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country?

13 Saturday Jun 2015

Tags

Palestinian State, Passports, Supreme Court

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 8^th), 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

WND, through Prophecy News Watch article: U.S. Supreme Court Turns Its Back on Israel – Rejects Jerusalem Passport to List Country as Israel

Breaking Israel News: US Supreme Court Sides with Obama in Denying Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

Israel Hayom: United Jerusalem is eternal capital of the Jewish people

Aerial View of The Knesset … Israel’s Seat of Government Located in Jerusalem

Exactly What Did the Supreme Court Rule On?

According to U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, who commented on the ruling: “The decision was not about whether Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. It was solely about the separation of powers between the executive branch (the president) and the legislative branch (the Congress) of our government, and which branch has the right to recognize foreign governments and their capitals … US policy on Jerusalem was not decided by today’s ruling. That policy has been the same under every administration since 1948—namely that the status of Jerusalem has not been decided and must be determined by negotiations.”

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.

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.

Why can I, with a great deal of certainty, say that Shapiro was wrong when he claims that the court’s decision was solely over the quarrel of whether the Congress or the President has the greater (final) authority to recognize sovereignty of foreign countries; in this case specifically applying to passports of a U.S. Citizen born in Jerusalem … dual citizenship? Although the passport problem precipitated this extraordinary review by the Supreme Court; the long-term, overriding issue is not just about passports.

The underlying motive for the US Supreme Court’s decision to review the case, then rule on it, was all about Israel’s historical and contemporary right to declare Jerusalem as its capital. If it wasn’t about that, then why does our State Department stipulate that Jerusalem must be listed on such passports, not Israel? What difference would it make otherwise? Why would they care, unless “Israel” stamped on a passport signifies and validates Jerusalem as a (the capital) city within Israel’s national borders? Meaning if you are born in Jerusalem, then you are born in Israel.

Six members of the Supreme Court accepted the President’s position on the matter, based on an Executive brief to the Supreme Court that recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel, “…would critically compromise the ability of the United States to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process.”

How much clearer can this be? President Obama and his staff fully intend that a Palestinian State will be created and that Jerusalem (at least the eastern half of Jerusalem) will be the capital of this state. In order for that to happen, the United States Executive Staff and now the Supreme Court has overruled the U.S. Congress (who is empowered to make such laws, with the main role of the President to enforce those rulings). At the time the bill was passed, US President George W. Bush actually signed it into law but never really enforced it, nor has President Obama. Both Presidents Bush and Obama considered the congressional act to be more of a recommendation, not the law. Really? I guess even Presidents make mistakes!

But concerning the possibility of a Palestinian State, all of this is really a moot point. Because of one monumentally significant truth and fact: Israel will never ever allow Jerusalem to be divided into two capitals. In that context, why can’t Ramallah in the West Bank be the capital of any future Palestinian State? That is the current headquarters of the Palestinian Authority. Or any city in the Gaza Strip, current headquarters of the governing authority, Hamas? I’ll tell you why. Because the Palestinians do not want Israel to exist at all, and certainly not Jerusalem as Israel’s God-given capital.

It’s equally clear that the Supreme Court’s decision was immensely influenced by and primarily predicated on the status of Jerusalem itself, not on whether the US Congress or the Executive Staff has the authority to declare recognition of foreign nations or passports. Frankly, I’m amazed that the Supreme Court even agreed to take this case in the first place. But once they did, they missed a golden opportunity to acknowledge and affirm the right of Israel to determine its own capital. In fact, some members of the Supreme Court gave away their true intentions early on by voicing their real motives when they agreed to review the case.

Inside the Knesset

Evidence Confirming the Real Reason for the Supreme Court’s Review and Decision

The following is a quote from my previous article 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 as quoted from the previous article, Jerusalem … A City of Peace, which is even more pertinent now that the decision is in.

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.

I also said: 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?

Temple Mount

Let’s return for a moment to Ambassador Shapiro’s statement that the Court’s decision was “solely” over whether the State Department or the US Congress has the authority to: recognize foreign governments and their capitals. Do you see the fallacy in his conjecture? When he said, “recognize foreign governments”, he should have stopped there. But he went on to say, “…and their capitals.”

Since when has the United States ever recognized the sovereignty of a foreign nation without accepting whatever city the nation designated as its capital? I haven’t looked it up, but believe I can say with a great deal of certainty: NEVER. Except, that is, for Jerusalem. When Israel became a sovereign nation in 1948, she chose (reaffirmed the historical record) Jerusalem as the capital of the reborn Jewish nation; even though part of eastern Jerusalem was conceded to Jordanian regulation, including Temple Mount.

If Palestinian Arabs had any historically viable religious or political attachment to or concern for Jerusalem, then why is Jerusalem not once mentioned in the Koran? Any former Arab association with Jerusalem (during the rise of Islam) was to make sure the Jews didn’t live there (in great numbers) or claim it as the Holy City of Israel. That’s why they built the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount, where the Jewish Temple once stood.

The US Executive Staff Refuses to Acknowledge the Real Issues

President Obama will not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because he contends that Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations for a Palestinian State. Knowing full well of Israel’s solemn promise to her people … that Jerusalem is the ONE thing that cannot be negotiated. That Jerusalem always has been and always will be Israel’s undivided capital city, not just West Jerusalem. In actuality, there is no such thing as West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem … that is what the rest of the world thinks and refers to. Some Israelis refer to east and west Jerusalem only because virtually the entire world does so.

Thus, President Obama and many heads of states are simply refusing to accept Israel’s right (as a sovereign nation) to name Jerusalem as its capital. As said earlier, what would our President do if, for example, France refused to accept Washington D.C. as America’s capital? Do you think we would permit France to place their embassy in New York City? Or meet with their ambassadors in Boston? I think not. But that is exactly what our State Department expects of Israel. It gives a whole new meaning to the term, Double Standard.

And let’s not forget the Jewish family involved in this historical Supreme Court decision. What a heart-breaking result for them. The family’s attorneys said: “Presidents (US) have been permitted by American public opinion to maintain, as American foreign policy, the absurd position that no country is sovereign over Jerusalem, and that no part of the city, including the western portion of Jerusalem, is in Israel.”

Then a statement directly from the Jewish boy’s father Ari Zivotofsky: “We are truly disappointed and surprised. The ruling is significant, because it reveals U.S. policy—it doesn’t consider even west Jerusalem to be part of Israel. It greatly disturbs us that the U.S. does not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel.”

Menachem Zivotofsky and His Father, Ari

Followed by Jerusalem Affairs Minister Zeev Ekin’s comment: “United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and will remain so forever. I call on the (Obama administration) to adopt the congressional legislation, a simple fact that is the cornerstone of Jewish heritage.”

And then Jerusalem’s Mayor Nir Barkat: “Just like Washington is the capital of the U.S. and Paris is the capital of France, Jerusalem has been and will always be the capital of Israel.” (Which is the analogy I used in my previous article).

This last quote should preclude anyone, especially a U.S. citizen, from an overreaction to what they might consider the brash, unwarranted (who do you think you are) statement from Zivotofsky’s attorneys when they said that U.S. Presidents (based on public opinion) had adopted the “absurd position that no country is sovereign over Jerusalem.” I suppose the statement could have been toned down a bit. Yet the attorney was simply telling the truth by inferring that the American public (and so should our Presidents) would not tolerate and would consider it absurd if other nations decided that Washington D.C. was not the sole, undivided capital of the United States. Conversely, that the United States should extend individual and national diplomatic courtesy by recognizing Jerusalem as the (undivided) capital of Jerusalem.

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.

The question of whether the Congress or the President has rightful authority over diplomatic recognition of foreign nations (and their capitals … which is the same thing as the nation itself), is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe Congress has this prerogative, but I wouldn’t take much issue at all over the dissenting opinion that this right belongs to the Executive Branch. Instead, the fundamental and destiny-determining issue before the United States Government, nations the world over, and you and me is the right of Israel (not US constitutional rights) to declare Jerusalem as its capital … seat of government.

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.”

United States Supreme Court Justices

Summary

So if the Supreme Court is going to evade the real reason for their review and decision (status of Jerusalem), the least they could have done was to acknowledge the fact that the ruling should have been whether the Executive Branch can refuse to uphold a law enacted by the Congress of the United States. (Either they do or they don’t). Or, putting it another way: Does the President have the right to ignore, circumvent, or defy an act of Congress after the fact? Because the fact is: President George W. Bush didn’t veto the bill. Rather he signed it, with the implicit understanding and obligation that the Executive Branch would enforce it.

Thus, the problem isn’t who has the authority to recognize foreign nations (save that for another bill for another day). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that this Congressional Act was unconstitutional; despite the fact that President Bush signed it into law. It’s like the Supreme Court was protecting the Executive Branch from itself … from a poor decision to approve an Act of Congress!

God bless the USA should be followed by, God help this country.

The actual argument is what the case was all about in the first place … Jerusalem as not only a city of Israel, but also its capital. Does Jerusalem belong to Israel?

If anyone, including presidents, prime ministers, parliaments, congresses, and individuals on the planet say No, then they are denying one or more of the following: (1) that all Sovereign Nations have the inalienable right to declare any city in its borders as its capital. (2) Jerusalem is legally and territorially part of Israel, a Sovereign State with boundaries that border Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt; as opposed to non-existent internal boundaries with an equally non-existent Palestinian State. (3) That Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War in which she regained control (control, not ownership—as Jerusalem already belonged to Israel) was invalid. Meaning that Israel had no right to defend herself or recapture and assume control over a city that belonged to them in the first place.

(4) Most important of all: The ancient, but timeless promissory covenant deed initiated by the one true God for the Jews. That Israel (much larger than modern-day borders) would be given to the Jews as an everlasting inheritance. Non-negotiable!

“After Lot had gone, the Lord said to Abram, ‘Look as far as you can see in every direction—north and south, east and west. I am giving all this land, as far as you can see, to you and your descendants as a permanent possession … Go and walk through the land in every direction, for I am giving it to you’” (Genesis 13:14-17). Later, these boundaries were specified in more than one Bible passage, including an amazing detailed description requiring seven chapters (Joshua 13 through 19).

Three thousand years ago, King David made Jerusalem what we in modern terms call the capital of Israel. There are many Bible passages that undeniably show Jerusalem as the geopolitical, cultural, and religious center of Israel … thus, its capital. Jerusalem and its companion name, Zion, can be found hundreds of times in Scripture. Whereas, Jerusalem is not mentioned even ONE time in the Koran. That alone should tell us to whom Jerusalem belongs, and who has the right to declare it their capital.

How strange: If children of American Jews were born in any other city of Israel, their passports would show, Israel, as their place of birth. For that matter, other than Jerusalem, what other passport the world over shows just the city of birth? Easy answer: None. It’s always the country (including the state if a USA passport) of birth. My passport shows, Kansas, USA. When I displayed my passport to Israeli officials during my trip to Israel in 2006, no one asked me what city of Kansas I was born in.

How ironically repulsive: the stamp of Jerusalem on a passport for someone born in Jerusalem is both a real and symbolic denial that Israel’s Holy City is even part of Israel, let alone its capital.

Example of USA Passport for Someone Born in Jerusalem

Things to Ponder

A little history lesson: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is His people; Jacob (Israel) is the allotment of His inheritance … He encircled him (Jacob or Israel), He cared for him, He guarded him as the pupil of his eye” (Deuteronomy 32:8-10, NASB, italics for emphasis).

*Note: The italicized words in the Complete Jewish Bible are translated, “…according to Israel’s population.” This means that God—in his infinite wisdom, plan, and fairness—selected a very small part of the earth for the Jews (Israel), based on what he knew would be a (comparative) proportion of Israel’s population to the rest of the world.

And a reminder that the following will take place (soon) when Messiah returns to rescue Israel and Jerusalem … to protect the pupil (apple) of his eye:

“Then I, myself, will be a protective wall of fire around Jerusalem, says the Lord. And I will be the glory inside the city … After a period of glory, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies sent me (Messiah) against the nations who plundered you. For he said, ‘Anyone who harms you harms my most precious possession. (NASB reads, touches the apple of His eye) I will raise my fist to crush them … Then you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has sent me.’ The Lord says, ‘Shout and rejoice, O beautiful Jerusalem, for I am coming to live among you. Many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day, and they, too, will be my people. I will live among you, and you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies sent me (Messiah) to you.’ The land of Judah will be the Lord’s special possession in the holy land, and he will once again choose Jerusalem to be his own city. Be silent before the Lord, all humanity, for he is springing into action from his holy dwelling” (Zechariah 2:5-13).

Click on the video. Clap, move, dance, rejoice with Jerusalem. The chorus contains, kulano b’simcha, which means, “all of us in joy.”

Israeli Occupation … Fact or Myth?

16 Saturday May 2015

Posted by garybowers in Current Events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Gaza, Palestinian State, West Bank

Israeli Occupation (of the West Bank)?

“Don’t bother them with the facts,” is a cynical but nevertheless accurate assessment of and accusation against those who pursue a seemingly worthy cause that is simply not based on history, reality, or the obvious evidence in front of them. For the most part, we can overlook and even excuse the average person’s opinion of this or that issue when they sidestep the truth of the matter, as long as they are willing to (eventually) listen objectively to the facts and consider the possibility that they could be wrong, in light of those facts.

But when the President of the United States persistently disregards the true story (history) of Israel, we can rightfully question his real agenda for Israel. Does President Obama truly believe what he said during an interview with a London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat?

Listen to this statement from the President: “As I said when I visited Ramallah two years ago, Palestinians deserve an end to the occupation and the daily indignities that come with it; they deserve to live in an independent sovereign state, where they can give their children a life of dignity and opportunity.”

Apparently, that is exactly what he believes, as he hasn’t changed his viewpoint.

The implication of his words is all too clear: The occupation pertains to the Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and a small area of the rest of the West Bank; which is, in reality, Judea and Samaria—part of Israel proper. The daily indignities are clearly meant by the President to originate from and by the Israelis against the Palestinians. That they deserve to live in an independent state so their children can live in dignity and opportunity, supposes that the Jews have stripped the Palestinians of all dignity and denied them opportunities they otherwise would have.

Really? So, simply create another state within a state and, presto, you have instant peace between Jew and Arab. Palestinians will immediately possess dignity and seize opportunity that ceased to exist after Israel became a State in 1948?!

What about the dignity and opportunity for peace and security of millions of displaced Syrians and Iraqis not to mention hundreds of thousands of Arabs killed in civil war between Muslim Sunnis and Shi’ites? What about the slaughter of Christians throughout the Middle East and Africa by terrorist groups and governments alike? What is the United States and the European Union doing about that? I mean really doing?

This occupation mindset of the White House and of several European nations was once again (recently) vented against Israel when they denounced Israeli settlement construction plans in Jerusalem for 900 homes/apartments. Actually, this housing development was first announced in 2010 during Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel, which created a diplomatic clash between Washington and Israel. According to US State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke, this plan of additional housing was “damaging and inconsistent” … harmful to resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Jewish “Settlement” in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria)

Never mind that both Israelis and Palestinians fully realize that a few more Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem will not bring a screeching halt to peace negotiations. Because, the fact of the matter is: there are no negotiations for peace or anything else. Moreover, all past negotiations have been broken off by the Palestinians through terrorist attacks, intifada uprisings, missile launchings, or outright rejection of Israeli land offers in exchange for peace.

For example: When the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon years ago, the terrorist organization Hezbollah grew stronger and instigated a war against Israel. When former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon closed down all Jewish settlements in Gaza and forcibly relocated all Israelis from Gaza, what did the Palestinians under the newly elected terrorist group Hamas do? They began to launch unprecedented missile and mortar attacks (thousands) against southern Israel. Not until Israel built a security fence through the West Bank did Palestinian suicide (homicide) attacks against innocent Israelis virtually cease overnight. Israel has been (time and time again) sanctioned and criticized for this wall, which is no different than the fence erected by the United States along the Mexican border, to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. At least these illegals didn’t cross the border to kill Americans, like the Palestinians did to the Israelis.

Back to Rathke who went on to say: “…Moving forward with construction of housing units in east Jerusalem is damaging. We continue to engage with the highest levels of the Israeli Government, and we continue to make our position clear that we view this as illegitimate.”

Followed by an official European Union statement on May 9th, “Israel’s determination to continue its settlement policy despite the urging of the international community not only threatens the viability of the two state solution but also seriously calls into question its commitment to a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians.”

With the EU’s clear connotation that the Palestinians ARE committed to negotiations.

Really? As is said: Give me a break!

It’s obvious that Rathke, along with the entire White House staff and the EU, has no clue what is legitimate and illegitimate when it comes to Israel and its borders. More on that shortly.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to the US and EU chastisement over the settlements was realistic, rational, and reasonable. “I don’t understand this criticism, and I don’t accept this position. Arabs in Jerusalem freely buy apartments, and nobody says that is forbidden. I will also not say that Jews cannot buy property in Jerusalem. There cannot be discrimination between Jews and Arabs. This is a normal process, and I see no reason to discriminate.”

Insistence on a Two-State Solution … No Matter That It Won’t Work and is forbidden by God

Despite the fact that neither the majority of Palestinians nor Israelis believe a Palestinian state is a feasible solution to the problem, President Obama continued his relentless rhetoric with the following statement: “We look to the new Israeli government and the Palestinians to demonstrate—through policies and actions—a genuine commitment to a two-state solution.”

Although President Obama is certainly not the only head of state to push for a Palestinian State, it’s becoming all too evident that our President is adopting a far more aggressive approach. To the extent of doing something unthinkable: supporting, if not actually introducing, a unilateral resolution in the United Nations to form a Palestinian State. Which would circumvent and negate any input from Israel, or any viable dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. In other words, if Israel doesn’t at least negotiate for a two-state solution, then the United States will, through the United Nations, create a Palestinian State of its own making, boundaries and all.

This is exactly what (lame duck … his 9^th year in office having been elected for a four-year term!) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the United Nations in his September 26, 2014 speech; “The hour of independence of the state of Palestine has arrived.”

You may recall that the PA’s petition to the UN to be recognized as a sovereign state (even though there still is no such thing as a Palestinian State) fell short of approval in 2012. However, the United Nations granted, “nonmember observer status,” for the Palestinians, which is normally the final step before full membership is approved. In the past such nations as Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Monaco and Vietnam were granted full membership status in the United Nations. Currently and curiously, the only other entity that has observer status is the Holy See (Vatican).

Ostensibly, the justification for Abbas’ declaration that the time has arrived for an independent Palestinian State correlates with the unity agreement between the Palestinian Authority (which rules the West Bank in Israel) and the terrorist organization Hamas (which rules in the Gaza Strip) that was signed in June of 2014. However, as the entire world knows, this unity agreement is a sham, producing more disunity than existed even before such an agreement. Neither of these corrupt organizations will concede any degree of authority to the other, as to who should govern a future Palestinian State. Furthermore, if such a state was created, there would undoubtedly be civil between these two groups just as there is between rival Muslim factions in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya.

*Note: As this article was in progress, another amazing story crashed the headlines: The Vatican, directly through Pope Francis, has drawn up a document that would recognize The Palestinian State … a state that doesn’t even exist! The Vatican is evidently calling it a treaty that would affirm the UN General Assembly’s recognition of (a potential—the idea of) a Palestinian State. Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet with Pope Francis on Saturday (May 16^th), the day that this Eye of Prophecy article will be published.

Italian Prime Minister Renzi Greets Mahmoud Abbas in Rome (5-15-15) Just Before Abbas Meets with Pope Francis (Pope Francis calls Abbas, “An Angel of Peace”)

It’s one thing for the White House to pull out all the stops in this misguided and uniformed effort to create a Palestinian State. It’s quite another to base this objective on the absolutely groundless and erroneous (false) premise that Israelis are “occupying” the West Bank which includes East Jerusalem. I repeat for emphasis: Jewish settlements in the West Bank are not occupation of land that doesn’t belong to them. In fact, it’s just the opposite: the land does belong to them, thus, if anyone is (wrongfully) occupying the land, it’s the Palestinians.

The term “occupation” has been grammatically and politically reversed in its meaning, because that is the only way for those opposed to Israel’s historically rightful claim to the land to justify their assertion that the Palestinian Arabs have exclusive ownership rights.

The Israeli government continues to recognize the right of Palestinian Arabs to build houses and apartments in East Jerusalem which, in fact, have been legally purchased by and deeded to them. But the Palestinians do not acknowledge, whatsoever, the same right for Jews to build on land that they have purchased; simply because this land is within the parameters of the so-called West Bank. In fact, there is no such thing as a national or state boundary without a nation or state to set those boundaries and neighboring nations to agree on where those boundaries are set. The only TRUE and LEGAL boundaries of Israel are between Israel and surrounding nations (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt), not the West Bank or Gaza.

But as periodically mentioned in past Eye of Prophecy articles, it’s not just all of East Jerusalem (there is no legal distinction between West and East Jerusalem) that the Arabs want; it’s all of Jerusalem, all of Israel that they lay claim to. Which is why on two notable occasions in the past, the Palestinian Authority (when Yasser Arafat was in control) rejected generous offers from former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert to relinquish East Jerusalem and over 93% of the West Bank to the Palestinians. In exchange for virtually nothing else than recognition of Israel as a sovereign state. That was too much to ask of Arafat and is still too much to ask of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas—neither of which has backed down from their sinister scheme to drive the Jews out of Israel.

The Real (rest of the) Story of Occupation

Here is a quote from Louis Rene Beres in an October, 2014 article posted in the on-line editorial news source of Gatestone Institute: “At its core, President Obama’s, Sweden’s and Britain’s policy toward Israel and ‘Palestine’ reveals dangerous and hard-to-correct bewitchments of language. However unique, the ritualistic canard (false rumor that becomes a myth) of an Israeli ‘occupation’ has now been repeated so often, and so authoritatively, that it is generally taken prima facie as irrefutable ‘fact.’”

He continues: “One Israeli prime minister after another has attempted to trade land for peace and each has received, in response, only endless terror attacks, rockets, and protracted war … Both the PA and Hamas leaderships, for example, demand that Israel continue to have 1.8 million Arabs as full citizens of the Jewish State, but simultaneously insist that not a single Jew be allowed to remain as a citizen of the impending Palestinian state. This expectation, that Palestine will be … free of Jews, is a total contradiction of the original U.S. support for the Palestine Mandate, and of all authoritative international law.”

The international law referenced by Beres was expressly validated by the United Nations vote to recognize Israel as a sovereign state in November, 1947; followed by the rebirth of Israel as a nation in May, 1948. But the Palestinian Mandate cited by Beres goes back much further. On June 30, 1922, the U.S. Congress in a joint resolution unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine” which affirmed the irrevocable right of Jews to resettle in the area of Palestine … anywhere they chose, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Beres is saying the same thing that I am saying and others who recognize Israel’s right of perpetuity possession and prerogative to occupy ALL of Israel’s boundaries, should they choose. But the Jews have both politely and pragmatically afforded Arabs in Israel the privilege to “occupy” two fairly large portions (relative to the total land space of Israel) of Israel … West Bank including east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

You read that right: In essence, Israel has extended permission for non-citizens of Israel (Palestinians who have refused to apply for Israeli citizenship unlike hundreds of thousands of their Arab brothers who are called Israeli Arabs—citizens) to occupy the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. (Through United States tradition, we would call this homesteading). But that doesn’t mean that Israelis are, therefore, illegally occupying a “foreign land” when they build subdivisions in East Jerusalem. It is already their land! Do you understand the difference here?

But it’s more, much more, than international recognition of Israel’s rights to what was once called Palestine, which was long before that called Israel. Had not one country on earth, including the United States of America, acknowledged the right of Jews already living in Israel and the right of Jews all over the world to return to Israel, the fact remains that the true and living God promised the land of Israel (borders of which were much broader than currently exists) to the Jews—the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is reason enough!

If someone doesn’t think so, they are free to take up the case with God, himself. If so, I would encourage them to do so with an open heart and mind that really seek to know the truth. I’m referring to the universal truth of salvation, and that salvation comes through the Jews. To include the divine covenant between God and Abraham; that he and his descendants through Isaac (the Jews) were given a very small section of this planet to pursue life, liberty, and the happiness of knowing and serving the God of the Universe. The adversarial alternative of ranting and raving against God and God’s chosen people … well, let’s see what God has to say about that.

“I warned the proud, ‘Stop your boasting!’ I told the wicked, ‘Don’t raise your fists! Don’t raise your fists in defiance at the heavens or speak with such arrogance.’ For no one on earth—from east or west, or even from the wilderness—should raise a defiant fist. It is God alone who judges; he decides who will rise and who will fall” (Psalms 75:4-7).

And, “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 you 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 … And the people of Israel will come back to reclaim their inheritance” (Obadiah 1:15-17). The rest of this passage describes how Israel will be restored to its original borders decreed by God, as originally found in Joshua Chapters 13 through 19.

God continues to speak through Obadiah: “Then my people … will occupy the mountains of Edom … will possess the Philistine plains … take over the fields of Ephraim and Samaria … occupy the land of Gilead … occupy the Phoenician coast … return home and resettle the towns of the Negev … And the Lord himself will be king!” (Verses 19-21, italics for emphasis).

Think about it: The Sovereign God who created the earth, indeed, the entire universe, picked a tiny portion of this planet for a chosen people to live. He could have selected all of the earth (except the land given to Israel) for the Jews and given only this small portion to the rest of the world. Had he done that, then the vast majority of the world’s population would be “occupying” land that doesn’t belong to us!

What would you think (historically) if the colonies had subsequently given all of Washington D.C. (or even some of it, say the eastern half) back to England to govern and control? The analogy is all too clear: That would have been absurdly impractical and intolerable to Americans; it would have negated the entire reason for revolting against England’s unfair reign over the colonies in the first place. Later, we fought a civil war to deny southern secessionists from establishing a separate capital (confederate nation) in this country. If either one of these events had taken place, we could no longer call ourselves the United States of America.

Why, then the double standard with Israel and its sovereign capital of Jerusalem? Why the incessant rhetoric against Israel accusing her of increasing tensions with the Palestinians by doing this or not doing that? With little to no sanctions against the Palestinians who fire mortars and missiles into Israel killing Israelis. Instead, we heap criticism upon criticism against Israel for (legally and rightfully) building more homes for their people. But now the criticism has turned to threats: How dare the Jews increase Middle East tension and jeopardize a peace process invented by the United States to solve a problem we have totally misdiagnosed with a solution that will cause more problems than it will solve. Here is an excerpt from a previous Eye of Prophecy article entitled, Jerusalem City of Peace, published 12-27-14.

Technically, legally, and historically there is no such thing as a Palestinian … not really. Because there is no such thing as Palestine … nor the State of Palestine. The very name of the nation of Israel was changed to Palestine by an ancient Roman emperor who hated the Jews, and so named the land to mock the Jews with a name that sounded like and reminded them of an ancient enemy, the Philistines. From that time until 1948, Palestine has been nothing more than a region or territory all the time inhabited by at least a remnant of Jews, who subsequently outnumbered the Arabs in population. In fact, before 1964, if anyone used the label Palestinian, they were referring to the Jews (of Palestine)! Nor has there ever been a Palestinian language. Only Hebrew and Arabic.

Silwan, an Arab Community (Settlement) Near the Old City of Jerusalem

More Evidence to refute the “Occupation Theory” of Israel’s Critics

Another excerpt from Louis Beres article: “A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs—a Muslim land occupied by ‘Palestinian’ Arabs—has never existed—not before 1948 and not before 1967. Moreover, the UN Security Council Resolution 242 never promised a state of Palestine. Even as a non-state legal entity, ‘Palestine’ ceased to exist when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate.”

He goes on to say; “During the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza came under the illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively. Nothing in prior international law, including the 1947 U.N. General Assembly partition resolution, had ever said anything about any Jordanian or Egyptian title to these lands. The West Bank and Gaza were simply seized—those were the lands that were ‘occupied’—by these two Arab states after their 1948 aggressions against Israel…

“These Arab aggressions in 1948 did not put an end to any already-existing Arab State of ‘Palestine.’ Ironically, what these aggressions did manage to accomplish was the deliberate prevention of an Arab state of ‘Palestine.’ From the start, it was, and continues to be, the major Arab states—not Israel—that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty. The current predicament of what to do with West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza is the direct result of Arab states’ non-compliance with the original UN partition plan of 1947, for which the Jewish side, however reluctantly, has given its full approval.”

I fully concur with Beres’s summary when he states: “President Obama’s still-proposed ‘Two-State Solution’ derives from a misunderstanding based on ignorance—legal, historical and conceptual—of Israel and ‘Palestine.’”

Throughout history, the right of victors in war (among other things) is to control land they have conquered; this is especially true of just wars, such as the American Revolutionary War and certainly the Six-Day War or Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 or the Yom Kippur War of 1973. However, when Israel defeated Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, and recaptured the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, they relinquished much of the West Bank and nearly all of East Jerusalem including Temple Mount back to the Palestinian Arabs and Jordan; and Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula back to the Egyptians. (Israel did this under extreme pressure from the United Nations and the United States). Moreover, neither Jordan nor Egypt (as indicated by Louis Beres) had any legal right to these territories in the first place.

Actually, the more I hear what our President has said and is saying and study closely his real agenda, I believe it’s more than just ignorance of the facts. Indeed, the United States (President) is treading on dangerous ground by claiming that the Jews are “occupying” land that doesn’t belong to them. To make such an allegation is a deliberate distortion of the facts. More than that; it is a blatant disregard of Scriptural truth and international law. The charting of such a course by seeking to divide Israel is tantamount to raising a defiant fist in God’s face.

This is not merely my opinion or the opinion of others who also keep their thumb on the pulse of Israel and the Middle East. It is the sovereign truth and opinion of God, himself.

For example: “At the time 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, italics for emphasis).

How can we know that the God of the Bible IS God? Conversely, that the god of the Koran or the gods of other so-called sacred texts is not God? I’ve written much on this subject in some prior Eye of Prophecy articles. For purpose of this article, I will simply summarize by pointing out two amazing proofs found in the historical record of the Bible. (1) God’s own statement that only he can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Hundreds of these prophecies have come to pass; dozens more are awaiting fulfillment. (2) The many miracles of Jesus to prove that he is who he said he is: The Son of God and God the Son. No other man has ever restored the sight of a man born blind, or turned water into wine, or walked on water, or fed thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fish, or … on and on it goes. Culminating with resurrection from the dead! Will you be able to do that on your own when you pass from this earth?

For anyone to reject the indisputable historical proof of fulfilled prophecy and divine miracles is to say what was said to begin this article: “Don’t bother me with the facts.” In other words it is a matter of the heart, not of the head. It’s, “I refuse to believe, no matter what the evidence shows.” It’s what Paul said about much of mankind to the Romans: “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them … Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks…” (Romans 1:19-21).

Then Verse 25: “They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.”

Things to Ponder

Not only powerful (fulfilled) prophecies and marvelous miracles attest to the fact that the God of the Bible is God; but also the miracle of changed hearts in people the world over. Former Muslim terrorists, Jewish rabbis, heads of state, religious and atheists alike, addicts, convicted criminals, and every-day people like you and me—transformed from the inside out when we place our trust in the atoning sacrifice of Yeshua haMashiach. (Jesus the Christ)

“This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun! And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ … For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them … For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ” (II Corinthians 5:17-21).

The Seven Year Treaty

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by garybowers in The Rapture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Palestinian State, Temple Mount

The Seven Year Treaty

Just a few days ago, United States Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, who along with Secretary of State John Kerry has participated in negotiations with Iran over nuclear issues, warned Israel that abandonment of the two-state solution in Israel would complicate America’s traditional support of Israel in the United Nations.

This was nothing more than a regurgitation of what President Obama and John Kerry said in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement shortly after he was reelected. A summary of the Prime Minister’s position on the possibility of a Palestinian State alongside (actually inside Israel’s sovereign borders) of Israel is that he couldn’t continue to pursue such a “solution” because neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas had budged an inch in their refusal to recognize Israel as a sovereign Jewish State.

Ms. Sherman qualified her comments by noting that the US Administration would withhold a final decision. She said: “We will be watching very closely to see what happens after a new government in Israel is formed on this issue of working towards two states living side by side in peace and security.”

According to Netanyahu, it simply isn’t feasible (at this point in time) to resume negotiations with the Palestinians, as they still maintain an avowed duty to reclaim a land that was never their land in the first place. They don’t really want peace in Israel, they want a piece of Israel … a piece here, a piece there; or, preferably, the entire State of Israel dismantled and the Jews destroyed or at least driven from the land. In some Eye of Prophecy articles, I have partially addressed this matter of a two-state solution and who the land actually belongs to. But in the article entitled, A Palestinian State? (No, say many Arabs), published 1-11-14, I dealt with it more extensively, particularly from the viewpoint of the Palestinians.

Here are a couple of excerpts from that article:

Why would so many Arabs NOT want a Palestinian State? Isn’t that what all Arabs long for in Israel? Isn’t that the reason for past terrorist attacks on Israeli Jews? Or, the incessant demands by the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas and its rival counterpart Hamas in the Gaza Strip for Palestinian rights? Or the greater majority of world opinion to end so-called Israeli settlement occupation of certain territories within Israel?

There are several divisive issues and obstacles to a peace accord between Arabs and Jews in Israel, including an independent Palestinian State within Israeli borders. But none more so than the question of Israeli control of Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley for national security reasons. And then for religious and political reasons—exclusive control of East Jerusalem by the Arabs which would, for all practical purposes, mean that Jerusalem is not Israel’s capital.

And as Palestinian journalist, Khaled Abu Toameh writes in his article for Gatestone Institute, “It was hard this week to find even one Israeli Arab who publicly supported the proposal.” Khaled goes on to say, “Arab Knesset members … do not want to wake up in the morning and discover that they are citizens of a Palestinian state. It is much easier for them to accuse Israel of racism than to admit that they do not want to be part of a Palestinian state.”

At face value that seems and sounds incredible—that Palestinians wouldn’t want to be governed by their own people. But after further review, it’s all too practical and easy to grasp. Pretty much ever since Israel became a nation, and especially since 1967 when hundreds of thousands more Arabs suddenly became citizens of Israel, those Israeli Arabs have been far better off than their Palestinian brothers living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although there’s still a lot of hostility emanating from Israeli Arabs toward Israel, they understand that Israeli citizenship affords them much more freedom, democracy, a higher standard of living, movement throughout Israel, more places to shop for and buy the things they want and need; in short, a better way of life. The last thing they want is an abruptly changed life in a Palestinian State, controlled by a Palestinian government that could just as quickly take away many of the privileges they currently enjoy as Israeli citizens.

Why a Palestinian State is Not the Solution

Not just many Israeli Arabs in Israel, but many citizens of Jordan (one of only two Muslim countries that have officially recognized Israel as a sovereign state … Egypt being the other) would pragmatically prefer Israel as the only state to its west. For you see, Jordan relies on Israel both politically and economically, as Jordan no longer trust its fellow-Arab countries. Recently a Jordanian columnist, Maher Abu Tair accused Arab countries of turning their backs on Jordan. Also, he and other Jordanians know all too well: virtually every other Arab nation has spurned the Palestinians within Israel. Actually, this has been going on for decades.

Said Tair, “This is the unfortunate reality, and those who follow events can see Jordan’s headlong rush towards Israel and the overlap of (their) political and economic interests. It is as if Jordan is saying one of two things: that all Arab doors are closed to it, or that Israel is its safest ally and the only refuge in the region. Alternatively, perhaps the former is pushing Jordan towards the latter. The naked truth is that Jordan no longer has any Arab allies, and today its only ally against the entire Arab east is Israel…”

This is absolutely astonishing! But it reinforces the undeniable practical reality of what is really taking place in Israel and the Muslim nations that surround her. Though not stated by Abu Tair, he and other knowledgeable Jordanians fully grasp the potential effect of thousands upon thousands more Palestinians who would seek refugee asylum in Jordan should a civil war break out between Muslims factions in a Palestinian State. In fact, Jordan has already absorbed thousands of Palestinians who (voluntarily … not by Jewish hands) fled to Jordan during the Independence War of 1948, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the Yom Kippur War of 1973, each of which was initiated by Arab coalitions, including Jordan itself in 1948.

For that matter, the so-called unity agreement of just a few months ago between the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) of the West Bank and Hamas (ruling authority in Gaza) has failed miserably. These two Palestinian organizations are at each other’s throat again in a heated dispute, both claiming the right to govern the Palestinians. Hamas is the more violent of the two, but both groups would use (misuse) a Palestinian State that suddenly would have sovereign boundaries to launch more terrorist’s strikes against Israelis. Moreover, the creation of a Palestinian State would require a route (highway) to connect the West Bank to the Gaza Strip right through the heart of Israel.

In actuality there would be no civil war (one that would last any length of time) between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas if there were no Palestinian State. Why? Because Israel would intervene to (1) protect its own citizens—both Jews and Arab Israelis in Israel proper; and (2) protect its settlements in the West Bank. However, if a Palestinian State was created, national borders would be drawn for such a State. Which, in turn, would exacerbate even more the hostility between Fatah and Hamas and more likely than not precipitate a civil war much like we have seen in other Muslim countries like Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Anyone paying the slightest attention to Middle East events is aware of the bloody civil conflict between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims in those nations.

Aleppo, Syria … Bodies Found After Water Drained

Theoretically, Israel would not be able to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign (Palestinian) State, and would be criticized even more harshly and unjustly by Muslim nations, by the European Union, and even by the United States. Any preemptive Israeli incursion into the boundaries of a Palestinian State would undoubtedly be condemned by the United Nations as an (unlawful) Act of War, with who knows what kind of repercussions.

No, it’s not the Palestinians or majority of Israelis that support a two-state remedy to the problem. And the reason is because most Arabs and Jews fully understand what the problem really is: an ancient animosity of Arabs against Jews that goes all the way back to Abraham’s sons—Ishmael and Isaac. Instead, it’s the United States, the European Union, Russia, and most Mid-Eastern nations that are feverishly working toward a “peace plan” designed to resolve an otherwise irreconcilable dilemma without truly grasping the real source of the problem, let alone the solution to that problem.

What is the underlying motive for the world’s insistence that Israel be divided into two states? Though somewhat of an oversimplification, the two fundamental reasons originate from two divergent sources:

Western Nations (primarily the EU and US): Some sort of conceited super-power desire to create a legacy of the nation or nations that successfully orchestrated peace in the Middle East.

Russia and Mid-Eastern Muslim Nations Hostile toward Israel (principally Iran but all nations other than Jordan and Egypt … for now): Their true agenda would be to usurp control of this Palestinian State (as a proxy) through massive economic and military aid. But it wouldn’t matter which nation exercised this kind of control and influence; as either Hamas or Fatah would continue to compete for supremacy (civil war), for reasons no different from those that have produced the current Mid-East civil wars, including Muslim radical groups fighting against other Islamic terrorists.

In short: Could there, will there ever be an Israeli State and a Palestinian State “living side by side in peace and security?” In my opinion based on Scripture, NO. That is: not until a spectacular occurrence that will shake the inhabitants of this earth like never before … The Rapture of true believers in Messiah Jesus. Soon after this colossal event, the reappearance of the Antichrist beast from the Abyss will stun the world to the extent that he will (easily) manipulate Israel and Muslim nations into signing a treaty.

Right now, the adversarial conditions between Israel and Muslims (including Palestinians) preclude any such pact for several geographical, political, religious, and social reasons, which will be soon explained in this article. But even if all of those disputes were somehow resolved, there is one monumental obstacle to a two-state solution. It is such a barrier that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinian Arabs (indeed, Muslims the world-over) will even place it on the table as a possible point of negotiation.

Jerusalem, a City Divided

I’m referring to Jerusalem. More specifically, what is now classified as East & West Jerusalem. Even more precisely, Temple Mount. The Palestinians demand complete control of Temple Mount and have said time and time again that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian State. For the majority of Israelis this is unthinkable, not the least of which is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and what will be his parliamentary coalition headed by the prevailing Likud party.

It was not always this way. It hasn’t been all that long since former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered East Jerusalem to the Palestinians in exchange for recognition of Israel as a sovereign state (and other concessions from both sides). Each time the Palestinian Authority rejected this incredibly magnanimous offer; which, among other things, reveals their real (not so hidden) agenda of wanting all of Israel.

*Note: What part of the Muslim Palestinian (paraphrased) objective that, “We want all of Israel and will drive the Jews into the sea to get it,” doesn’t our United States President and the European Union understand!? Is the repeated menace from high-ranking Iranian officials including their Ayatollah of “Death to America, Death to Israel,” just an idle threat? Hello? I think not.

Both times, many Israelis breathed a sigh of relief that these offers were rejected by the Palestinians, as they now realize what a stupendous blunder it was to even make such an offer. In the past few years, polls in Israel have demonstrated that even liberal leaning Jews currently comprehend that Palestinian control of East Jerusalem would, in no way, guarantee peace between Arab and Jew. This is particularly true given the realization that stronger Muslim countries (like Iran and Turkey and even Egypt) would seek some measure of control (as alluded earlier in this article) over a Palestinian State, which would endanger exponentially an already volatile, even explosive situation between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

What about the other issues separating the two sides? Well, why don’t we listen to the words of an Israeli Prime Minister named Ilan Rosen who disclosed the details of an amazingly unprecedented treaty between Israel and Palestinian Arabs (indeed, all Arab nations)!

“Ladies and gentlemen, citizens of Israel, we have a treaty with the Arab coalition. The Knesset and the IDF unanimously support this magnificent achievement. I must acknowledge the splendid efforts make by all parties, especially by the European Union, and specifically by its President, Juan Iago Castilla. Mr. Castilla mediated the more difficult articles of this covenant. He proposed the most radical compromise—one that your own government did not think to introduce. Now, then, are you ready for some details?”

Six million Jews replied in unison, “Yes!”

“Number one: the State of Israel will be unequivocally recognized and accepted by all Muslim nations and by all countries involved in this treaty. This will include parties with terrorist affiliations such as Hamas.

“Number two: Israel will be granted a seat on the security council of the United Nations. Number three: With the exception of two Muslim nations, an Israeli embassy will be placed in the capitals of Arab countries. Number four: All signatories to the treaty will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

“Impossible!” The word reverberated throughout Israel. Muslims had sworn never to accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But then most had sworn never to recognize Israel.

His extended hand had no effect on the deafening shouts, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem!”

“My friends, we must reciprocate. There are times when we must allow even our enemies to be right, so long as it doesn’t jeopardize our security.”

Many (in the crowd) nodded, but some frowned.

Ilan continued: “All Gaza and West Bank checkpoints will be turned over to the Palestinians. Those residents will have free passage in and through Israel, as long as they have a stated purpose. Those purposes will be worked out by the time the treaty is signed.

“An allotment of the so-called (Palestinian) refugees in various Arab nations will be allowed to return if they desire. The number will be limited to 150,000. We will leave this to the Palestinian Authority, but they will probably resettle in the vacated Israeli settlements of Gaza and the West Bank. Subject to the normal citizenship procedures, they can become citizens of Israel if they choose to do so.”

More frowns, but Ilan had expected this reaction.

“If there are no terrorists attacks, mortar launchings, or threats of military mobilization against Israel within one year of the treaty, Israel will accept and recognize a Palestinian State within our borders. And at all times, Arab citizens of Israel will have a minimum of sixteen electorates in the Knesset.

“With the exception of convicted murderers, all Palestinian, Arab, and international prisoners will be released. They must return to their homeland, be it Gaza, the West Bank, or a country outside of Israel.”

Low grumbles and loud groans permeated the crowd, “We give too much,” some shouted.

At this point, Prime Minister Rosen was about to end this remarkable speech to Israel, but he was reminded by the Israeli Defense Minister of the most astounding accomplishment of this treaty. Which was a ploy by Ilan to increase the suspense and heighten the excitement of the moment. He continued with his message:

“This treaty would not have been possible without one additional article. It is the one I referenced earlier in my speech. It would appear that we have another miracle. This one has been two thousand years in the making. Effective the day after the treaty is signed, we will begin construction of Jerusalem’s third temple. The location of our temple will be none other than the Temple Mount.

“Religious or secular, for or against a rebuilt temple, it did not matter. Israel gasped as such a tremendous accomplishment, both real and symbolic. The bewildered crowd exploded in jubilation. All of Israel joined them with shouting, laughing, weeping, and dancing. Loud cries of, “Praise God,” erupted from the chief rabbi, who had leaped from his chair only a few feet from Ilan. Soldiers began to sing, Politicians praised their prime minister with a symphony of continuous adulation. An orthodox rabbi jumped in the air. He pointed in the direction of Temple Mount, fell to his hands and knees, and kissed the ground. Children screamed in delight. A young liberal rabbi did a backflip, then another one.

“Cars and buses screeched to a halt, doors flung open, and occupants pranced around their cars with outstretched arms. From every building in Israel, the celebration spilled into the streets. People held hands and danced in circles to the right. Circles within circles danced to the left. They struck beautiful chords of harmony as they sang “Hava Nagila.” Strangers hugged and kissed. The orchestra had become a concert ensemble, replete with singers and dancers. Like floodwaters from a breached dam, cascading chants filled the air.

“Eelan—Isra’el! Eelan—Isra’el! Eelan—Isra’el!”

“Such rejoicing had not been heard since Israel achieved statehood. Some would say not since the Exodus.”

Temple Mount Model

Perhaps not, but by now you have probably figured out that the above scene has not actually occurred in Israel … not yet anyway. You would be right, as this unheard of treaty comes from a fictional Israeli Prime Minister Ilan Rosen as found in Chapter 19 of my novel, O Israel … The end is the beginning for those left behind. And, as stated by Ilan Rosen, credit is given to Juan Castilla (Antichrist in the novel) for initiating and moderating this treaty, particularly the most troublesome item of a rebuilt Jewish Temple.

Though O Israel was published in 2007, this fictional treaty produced resolution of the core elements of the current and virtually impassable areas of disagreement between Jew and Arab in Israel. And, I’m completely convinced that some, if not all, of these disputed matters will be zones of concession and agreement in the treaty orchestrated by the Antichrist shortly after the Rapture. As, however, I later realized through an amazing disclosure from the Lord (the main theme of my subsequent non-fiction book Out of the Abyss), the Antichrist beast of Revelation will not be a modern-day born man; rather he is none other than the Roman Emperor, Nero.

The Seven-Year Treaty

First, where in Scripture do we find the announcement that there will be a Seven-Year Tribulation? What passage or verse? Is it found in the Book of Revelation? No, it is not found in Revelation. Surprised? Then it must be in the book of Daniel, you say? No, not there either. In fact, nowhere in the Bible do we actually see the phrase Seven-year tribulation. Yet it is, by far, the most commonly used expression by prophecy students.

Alright, to a certain extent these are trick questions, but only in part. The phrase is actually a hybrid of two passages in Scripture. (1) “For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will” (Matthew 24:21, NASB). These are the very words of Jesus who, in response to his disciples request about the end times, warns about the cataclysmic events of the last days.

(2) The reason that this period of tribulation is given a seven-year duration is, of course, directly from Daniel’s astonishing prophecy of, “a ruler (who) will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple” (Daniel 9:26). For those who have read my book Out of the Abyss or some of the Eye of Prophecy articles on this subject, you have found ample documentation from this passage and several others than pertain to the little horn, king, ruler, man of lawlessness, beast (all designations of the most frequently used term, Antichrist); that Nero is the beast who returns from the Abyss (Revelation 17:8). These articles can be found in the category of Antichrist, most recently the three-part series entitled, A Beast by Any Other Name … Is Still a Beast.

More specifically, the seven-year tribulation finds its origin of time (seven years) in the following verse: “The ruler will make a treaty with the people (Israel) for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings…” (Verse 27).

Thus, Bible scholars and teachers have, by logical deduction and correlation, linked the one set of seven (Hebrew expression for seven years) to Jesus’s prophecy of the coming great tribulation, with the two prophecies combined together in the catchphrase, Seven-Year Tribulation.

This is further reinforced by companion language in Revelation that tells us the Antichrist’s (full) authority will last three and a half years (42 months), which undoubtedly will begin when he breaks the treaty with Israel half way through it. “Then the beast was allowed to speak great blasphemies against God. And he was given authority to do whatever he wanted for forty-two months” (Revelation 13:5).

Actually, the first descriptive reference to this horrendous period of turmoil and terror is, in fact, from the prophet Daniel. It follows Chapter 11 in which Daniel is given detailed prophecies of the Antichrist prototype, Antiochus IV, then the Antichrist, himself. The angel continues this revelation by telling Daniel, “At that time Michael, the archangel who stands guard over your nation (Israel), will arise. Then there will be a time of anguish (tribulation) greater than any since nations first came into existence” (Daniel 12:1).

Then later in this chapter, at Daniel’s request of, “how long will it be until these shocking events are over?” the angel’s response is: “It will go on for a time, times, and half a time…” (Verses 6-7).

As we know, neither Daniel nor anyone else could or would understand these phenomenal predictions until the Messiah was born, lived, died, and arose back to heaven. And even then, not until the (final), “revelation of Jesus Christ,” was given to John as recorded in the book of Revelation.

In returning to the main theme of this article (is peace or some form of peace through a covenant between Jews and Arabs possible), I believe Scripture is foundationally very clear that only a miraculous event or series of events can and will be the catalyst for an otherwise impossible treaty agreement between Israel (Jews) and Arab countries (Muslims). The first event is the divine supernatural resurrection from the dead of believers in Christ (hundreds of millions the world over) and transformation/transference of all living believers to heaven. Followed shortly by the reappearance of the beast from the abyss (Revelation 17:8) and his arrangement of a seven-year treaty. Culminating in the magnificent return of Jesus Christ to the earth to rescue Israel by soundly defeating the kings and nations of the earth aligned against him (Armageddon).

You might ask: “How will Nero achieve what no one else has accomplished, i.e. a treaty between Jews and Muslims? First to preface the answer on the scriptural clear premise that God gives this authority to Satan and, indirectly to the Antichrist. Second: this treaty of peace is anything but real peace. Rather it will be a deliberate deception perpetrated by Nero to accomplish his malevolent agenda which is to establish the kingdom of Satan over the earth. In reality it will be a false peace that will plunge the world into the greatest war induced carnage of all time.

The answer to your question is found primarily in Revelation Chapter 13. For two reasons, Nero will have virtually no problem with or opposition to this treaty.

“I saw that one of the heads (Nero is one of the seven heads or kings of Revelation 13 and 17) of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery—but the fatal would was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast. They worshiped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they also worshiped the beast. ‘Who is as great as the beast?’ they exclaimed. ‘Who is able to fight against him?’” (Revelation 13:3-4).

First, Antichrist Nero will dazzle the world with what they perceive to be the miracle of resurrection. Thus, many (including most Arabs and many Jews) will give him their immediate loyalty, even to the extreme of worship. Secondly, they will also fear him greatly. After all, who could possibly oppose or fight against someone who returned from the dead? How on earth can you even kill someone like that!? Their conclusion: you can’t, so the only choice is to do what he says. Thus, if he wants the Jews and Arabs to broker a treaty, neither side will have much of a problem with resolving all the irreconcilable issues listed earlier in this article, not the least of which is permission (accepted by the Arabs) for the Jews to rebuild the Temple.

Things to Ponder

Following the Seven-Years of Tribulation, Christ will return in great power and glory. At that time, “The Lord will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).

It can’t be stressed enough: True, lasting peace will only be possible through the Prince of Peace, Messiah Jesus.

But before there can be national peace between peoples, there must first be individual peace with God. How can that happen? “Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us” (Romans 5:1).

Whether individual or national peace, the Hebrew word, Shalom, is by far the best expression for peace. It is much more than the absence of war. Shalom conveys wholeness, wellbeing, harmony, contentment, security, rest, and tranquility.

During the Millennial Reign of Messiah on earth, he alone will mediate disputes between nations. Likewise, now (until then), “…there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone…” (I Timothy 2:5-6).

Then there will be no need for treaties, whatsoever. For there will be one Man (the God-man Christ Jesus) who will be the very embodiment of Righteousness, Justice, and Shalom throughout the earth.

	garybowers on The Incomparable Power and Aut…
	garybowers on Times of & Fullness of the…
	garybowers on Two Thirds of the Jews Killed…
	Lawrence Bishop on The Incomparable Power and Aut…
	Sylvia Reynolds on Times of & Fullness of the…
	Murray Jones on Two Thirds of the Jews Killed…
	garybowers on Universal Preoccupation with…

eyeofprophecy … watch and wait

~ "For the essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus" (Rev.19:10)

Tag Archives: Palestinian State

Jerusalem … A Capital Without a Country?

Israeli Occupation … Fact or Myth?

The Seven Year Treaty