No doubt you have already seen the photos that were released regarding
Friday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama. Between Netanyahu's cold, angry stare, and Obama's tense, reciprocal glare, I don't know which was worse. Considering the
obvious animosity which exists between the two leaders, not to mention their diametrically opposed viewpoints regarding how to move forward in the
so-called Middle East peace process, I honestly don't know how they even managed to remain in the same room with each other, much less sit down to a meal together, and hold two hours plus of discussions. The atmosphere must
have been absolutely electric. I would imagine that most of that expensive
food was left uneaten. Who could possibly peacefully eat under such
conditions, while your worst critic is sitting across the table from you?
Then again, most politicians are pros when it comes to civility, political correctness and diplomacy. They will smile for the cameras, even while they
are holding their breath and gritting their teeth.

Since President Obama gave his much-anticipated speech last Thursday,
criticism has indeed been strong. Powerful Republican politicians, as well
as many other American pro-Israel supporters, have been quick to pounce on President Obama, due to his firm stance regarding what he believes must be
done in order to achieve peace in the Middle East. The position he has
adopted is obviously not popular with these people, and never has been, but what other fair, equitable solutions are there? Continued occupation is not
an option. Neither is a Palestinian State that is so divided in a physical
and geographical sense that it isn't really even a state, and thus cannot function properly.

Many people no doubt realize that returning to some semblance of the
pre-1967 borders may be the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but it is a very bitter pill to swallow for Jews and pro-Israel supporters alike. That is why no one is currently offering to lead the way, other than Obama himself, and his supporters within his administration. Obviously, that does not include Dennis B. Ross, who is Israel's favorite American son and loyal mouthpiece.

While the liberal, pro-Jewish press has been quick to heap scathing
criticism upon Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not received equal treatment. So I must ask, why not? It should be clear to everyone by now that Netanyahu has driven the last nail into the coffin of
the Middle East peace process. He drew a very firm line in the sand when he declared the following points:

1. he will never accept pre-1967 borders.

2. he will never recognize the Palestinian right of return.

3. he will never deal with the Palestinian government as long as Hamas is a part of it.

Based on those remarks, going forward, it is an illusion and a deception to even refer to it as the Middle East peace process. Don't kid yourself. There
is no peace process. It is dead in the water, and has been for some time
now. The Palestinians obviously realize this, which is why they now intend
to approach the United Nations General Assembly in September. The Israeli leadership habitually says that they have no peace partner. It seems to me
that based on Netanyahu's remarks, the Palestinians have the right to say
the very same thing. As long as both sides are so adamant in their
positions, any form of further discussion is absolutely futile at this
point. It would just be more years of fruitless, empty talks which contain
no real substance, and which would lead to nothing concrete.

So what comes next?

If it weren't for the one remaining hope -- perhaps a false hope -- that the Palestinians have in the United Nations General Assembly, I wouldn't
hesitate to say that the potential exists for a sudden, steep climb in the level of violence against Israel. In retrospect, intifada number one and intifada number two might be insignificant compared to what a third intifada might be like; because it would be fueled by a total loss of hope on the
part of the Palestinians.

If thousands of Palestinians were willing to mass on Israel's borders a week ago -- even at the risk of facing death -- imagine if many thousands more
did the same thing, or worse. If the Tunisians, the Egyptians, the Syrians,
the Yemenis and the Bahrainis have been willing to rise up against
oppression, why not the Palestinians? Who knows. If they don't get what they want from the United Nations come September, anything could happen, and probably will.

I am reminded of some verses that were written by the Old Testament Prophet Zechariah where he writes the following:

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though
all the people of the earth be gathered together against it . . . In that
day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is
feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David
shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come
against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as
one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one
that is in bitterness for his firstborn . . . In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
for sin and for uncleanness."
Zechariah 12:2-3, 8-10, 13:1, KJV

While certain modern Bible teachers claim that the previous verses are describing our current time, and the situation in the Middle East, I am not
so certain of this. I am more inclined to believe that they are referring to the time of the Roman occupation during the First Century, and more specifically, to the siege against Judah and Jerusalem in 70 AD by Roman General Titus -- the son of Emperor Vespasian -- which I discuss in a number
of my articles.

There are two key hints in the previous verses which make me believe that
this is so. These hints appear to be prophecies concerning the Crucifixion
of Jesus Christ, and the spiritual Salvation which would result from His
Death.

Please notice that Zechariah states "and they shall look upon me whom they
have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only
son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for
his firstborn." In my view, that clearly seems to be a prophecy concerning
the sufferings of Christ.

Zechariah also writes that "there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness". As
all Christians realize, there is only one fountain, or one source, for cleansing us from our sins and uncleanness, and that is Jesus Christ. As
Jesus Himself stated in the Gospel of John:

"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who
it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir,
thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave
us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall
thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a
well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 4:10-14, KJV

But my point in sharing the verses from the Book of Zechariah with you is to say this: Just as Jerusalem became a burdensome stone and a major problem
for the Romans due to the belligerence of the Jews -- so much so that the Romans ultimately smashed Jerusalem to bits in 70 AD -- modern Israel and Jerusalem once again weigh heavily on the minds of many politicians, both in America and abroad. Despite effort after effort, the years and decades pass, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, and the level of
hostility towards Israel continues to grow. Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly
not doing his nation a favor by publicly displaying such belligerence and obstinacy. He is an incorrigible hawk who is set in his ways, and he needs
to move out of the way before it is too late.



Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files. We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1
* Origin: Armageddon BBS -- Guam, Mariana Islands (1:345/3777.0)

No doubt you have already seen the photos that were
released regarding Friday's meeting between Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack
Obama.

Nope.

Between Netanyahu's cold, angry stare, and Obama's
tense, reciprocal glare, I don't know which was worse.
Considering the obvious animosity which exists between the
two leaders, not to mention their diametrically opposed
viewpoints regarding how to move forward in the so-called
Middle East peace process, I honestly don't know how they
even managed to remain in the same room with each other,

Netanyahu desperately needs US support. Obama controls that
support, no matter how much BN doesn't like that fact.

much less sit down to a meal together, and hold two hours
plus of discussions. The atmosphere must have been
absolutely electric. I would imagine that most of that
expensive food was left uneaten. Who could possibly
peacefully eat under such conditions, while your worst
critic is sitting across the table from you? Then again,

Well, Obama could if he wanted to, since he holds all the power,
no matter how Netanyahu poses. OTOH, it could be he really is
serious about peace, so that might trouble him.

...

Since President Obama gave his much-anticipated speech last
Thursday, criticism has indeed been strong. Powerful
Republican politicians, as well as many other American
pro-Israel supporters, have been quick to pounce on
President Obama, due to his firm stance regarding what he
believes must be done in order to achieve peace in the
Middle East.

It also happens to be the position that has been known as the
necessary route to peace in the Middle East for a very long
time, including by a great many Israelies.

**************************************************************************
*In 2008, Then-Israeli Prime Minister Edud Olmert Stated That
Israelis Must "Return To The Core Of The Territory That Is The
State of Israel Prior To 1967."* On the anniversary of the death
of Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by an Orthodox Jew
opposing the Oslo Accords, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert stated: "We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem
and return to the core of the territory that is the State of
Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the
reality created since then." From /Haaretz/:
**************************************************************************

Also George W. Bush:


**************************************************************************

* From Bush's statement during a May 26, 2005, press conference
with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas:

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties,
and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to.
A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank,
and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also
be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the
position of the United States today; it will be the position of the
United States at the time of final status negotiations.

**************************************************************************

The position he has adopted is obviously not
popular with these people, and never has been, but what
other fair, equitable solutions are there? Continued
occupation is not an option. Neither is a Palestinian State
that is so divided in a physical and geographical sense
that it isn't really even a state, and thus cannot function
properly.

Which, very likely, is Netanyahu's real goal.

Many people no doubt realize that returning to some
semblance of the pre-1967 borders may be the only solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is a very
bitter pill to swallow for Jews and pro-Israel supporters
alike. That is why no one is currently offering to lead the
way, other than Obama himself, and his supporters within
his administration. Obviously, that does not include Dennis
B. Ross, who is Israel's favorite American son and loyal
mouthpiece.

IOW, Obama is showing moral courage beyond what anyone expected.

As he did in the killing of OBL.

While the liberal, pro-Jewish press has been quick to heap

As opposed to the conservative pro-Jewish press? The
conservative talking heads and print media have been far more
savage than any liberal press or media.

scathing criticism upon Obama, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu has not received equal treatment. So I
must ask, why not? It should be clear to everyone by now
that Netanyahu has driven the last nail into the coffin of
the Middle East peace process. He drew a very firm line in
the sand when he declared the following points:

1. he will never accept pre-1967 borders.

2. he will never recognize the Palestinian right of return.

3. he will never deal with the Palestinian government as
long as Hamas is a part of it.

Based on those remarks, going forward, it is an illusion
and a deception to even refer to it as the Middle East
peace process. Don't kid yourself. There is no peace
process. It is dead in the water, and has been for some
time now.

Maybe. With Obama behind it, he can drive it no matter what
Netanyahu wants.

The Palestinians obviously realize this, which is
why they now intend to approach the United Nations General
Assembly in September. The Israeli leadership habitually
says that they have no peace partner. It seems to me that
based on Netanyahu's remarks, the Palestinians have the
right to say the very same thing. As long as both sides are
so adamant in their positions, any form of further
discussion is absolutely futile at this point. It would
just be more years of fruitless, empty talks which contain
no real substance, and which would lead to nothing concrete.

Hmmm... you seem to be making sense. Frightening.

So what comes next?

If it weren't for the one remaining hope -- perhaps a false
hope -- that the Palestinians have in the United Nations
General Assembly, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the
potential exists for a sudden, steep climb in the level of
violence against Israel.

Nope. For one reason. The Palestinians have never been a
significant force for violence against Israel, and no other
Middle Easter country is going to take up their cause with
violence.

And yes, the Palestinians have never been a significant force
for violence against Israel. All those rockets getting fired,
yet the almost never hit anyone. Whereas, when any real exchange
takes place, Israel kills Palestinians 100 to 1 over Palestinians
killing Israelies. And the Palestinians kill Israelis soldiers
10 to 1 over civilians, whereas Israelies kill Palestinian
civilians 10 to 1 over Palestinian fighters.

In retrospect, intifada number one
and intifada number two might be insignificant compared to
what a third intifada might be like; because it would be
fueled by a total loss of hope on the part of the
Palestinians.

That part does make sense.

If thousands of Palestinians were willing to mass on
Israel's borders a week ago -- even at the risk of facing
death -- imagine if many thousands more did the same thing,
or worse. If the Tunisians, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the
Yemenis and the Bahrainis have been willing to rise up
against oppression, why not the Palestinians? Who knows. If
they don't get what they want from the United Nations come
September, anything could happen, and probably will.

That is quite possible.

I am reminded of some verses that were written by the Old
Testament Prophet Zechariah where he writes the following:

...

shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy
all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will

Except that you are not going to see any nations come together
against Israel.

...

While certain modern Bible teachers claim that the previous
verses are describing our current time, and the situation
in the Middle East, I am not so certain of this. I am more

And you are right.

...

But my point in sharing the verses from the Book of
Zechariah with you is to say this: Just as Jerusalem became
a burdensome stone and a major problem for the Romans due
to the belligerence of the Jews -- so much so that the
Romans ultimately smashed Jerusalem to bits in 70 AD --
modern Israel and Jerusalem once again weigh heavily on the
minds of many politicians, both in America and abroad.
Despite effort after effort, the years and decades pass,
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, and
the level of hostility towards Israel continues to grow.
Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly not doing his nation a
favor by publicly displaying such belligerence and
obstinacy. He is an incorrigible hawk who is set in his
ways, and he needs to move out of the way before it is too
late.

Dang you made sense. Stop that!


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Hezbollah in New Orleans? Fanatical killers, but at least they're not FEMA. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)