Michal Cotler-Wunsh's powerful speech at the UN about the ever-mutating ...

AMERICA & ISRAEL IN DANGER: Prayer & Fasting Alert!

Psalm 121 Song of Purim

Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day

U.S. Church Puts Five Israeli Banks on Investment Blacklist

 Republished from haaretz.com
 The pension fund of the United Methodist Church, the largest Protestant group in the U.S., makes the move in an effort to exclude companies that profit from abuse of human rights; Officials: Israel will try change the decision.
The Associated Press and Barak Ravid Jan 13, 2016 12:03 PM




A tourist photographs a sign painted on a wall in the West Bank biblical town of Bethlehem, June 5, 2015. AFP/Thomas Coex

    Protestant churches split over anti-Israel divestment resolutions
    United Church of Christ votes to divest from companies with ties to Israeli settlements
    United Methodist Church's pension board divests from Israel-linked company
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.697148

The pension fund for the United Methodist Church has blocked five Israeli banks from its investment portfolio in what it describes as a broad review meant to weed out companies that profit from abuse of human rights.

Senior officials in Israel's Foreign Ministry said they are still examining the decision, but added that Israel will make quiet efforts to convince the leaders of the church to change or soften the measure ahead of the Methodist General Conference in May.

The fund, called the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits, excluded Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, First International Bank of Israel, Israel Discount Bank, and Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, according to the pension board's website.

The Israeli bank stock the board sold off was worth a few million dollars in a fund with $20 billion in assets. The fund also sold holdings worth about $5,000 in the Israeli real estate and construction company Shikun & Binui, and barred the company from the pension group's investment portfolio.

The pension board identified Israel and the Palestinian territories among more than a dozen "high risk" countries or regions with "a prolonged and systematic pattern of human rights abuses." Other countries on the list include Saudi Arabia, the Central African Republic and North Korea.

The Methodist church has about 13 million members worldwide and is the largest mainline Protestant group in the United States.

The pension board had initiated the review in 2014 with a focus on protecting human rights and easing climate change. A total of 39 companies around the world were excluded from the fund's investments over human rights concerns and nine more were blocked over worries about their alleged contribution to global warming. The fund remains invested in 18 Israeli companies, according to board spokeswoman Colette Nies.

The banks had been among several companies targeted by United Methodist Kairos Response, a coalition of church members who advocate for divestment from companies with business in the Israeli occupied territories.

"This is the first step toward an effort that helps send a clear message that we as a church are listening and that we are concerned about human rights violations," Susanne Hoder, a leader of United Methodist Kairos Response, said Tuesday. "We hope it will also be encouraging to people in the Jewish community who are working for justice."

A competing group, United Methodists for Constructive Peacemaking in Israel and Palestine, said in a statement that the pension board action should not be viewed as divestment from Israel, since the top Methodist legislative body rejected proposals in 2012 to divest from companies that produce equipment used by Israel in the territories. The same body, called General Conference, passed a resolution denouncing the Israeli occupation and expanding Jewish settlements in the territories.

The pension board's decision came at a time when divestment is gaining momentum among liberal Protestants as a tool to pressure Israel over its policies toward Palestinians. Last year, the United Church of Christ voted to divest from companies with business in the Israeli-occupied territories. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) took a similar vote in 2014.

$m.stack.teaserArticleAuthorImage.content.a11yDescription.value

The Associated Press
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.697148

Eye to Eye Part 2 - Bill Koenig and Gary Stearman

Israel Targeted for International Isolation by the EU, Vatican and FIFA

Wednesday, 20 May 2015 08:32 By: Jewish Voice Staff 

 

As Israel continues to find herself under unyielding existential siege by her immediate Arab neighbors and the ever present threat to annihilate the Jewish state by Iran gains traction with each passing day, it now appears that influential international organizations have escalated their concerted efforts to isolate Israel in the world community.

According to a recent report in the Guardian of London, a cadre of high profile former European political leaders and diplomats have issued demands that the European Union (EU) urgently reassess its policy on announcing its formal recognition of a Palestinian state and have insisted that Israel be held accountable for its “actions” in the so-called occupied territories.

The Guardian reported that the signatories on the letter included Hubert Védrine and Roland Dumas, former foreign ministers of France, Andreas van Agt, former prime minister of the Netherlands, John Bruton, a former prime minister of Ireland, Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France, Javier Solana, former NATO secretary general and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former UK ambassador to the UN. The group is known as the European Eminent Persons Group.

 

The leaders charge that the financial and political aid that the EU has given to the troubled region has only exacerbated the “preservation of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and imprisonment of Gaza”.

Reports indicate that the timing of the letter by the European leaders comes on the heels of the recent electoral victory of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his success in cobbling together a right-wing coalition.

These leaders and others in senior European political circles have often criticized Netanyahu for what they perceive as his efforts to intentionally place obstacles in the path of US initiated peace negotiations as well as stalling direct talks with the Palestinian Authority.

The letter clearly expresses increased frustration over the moribund peace process and continued illegal Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, according to the Guardian report.

In a scathing critique of EU policy, the letter says: “Europe has yet to find an effective way of holding Israel to account for the way it maintains the occupation. It is time now to demonstrate to both parties how seriously European public opinion takes contraventions of international law, the perpetration of atrocities and the denial of established rights.”

The issue of recognition of a Palestinian state is expected to be presented before the UN security council in the coming months, according to the Guradian report.  It will likely be in the shape of a new draft resolution currently being examined by France. The leaders say::“If this means recognition of a Palestine government-in-waiting for the territories within the pre-1967 borders, or the setting of a deadline for the negotiation of a two-state solution, the EU should be united in support.”

Moreover, the leaders have asked the EU to make their relations with Palestinians and Israelis conditional on the “parties attitude to progress towards a two-state solution”.

In a recent interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, President Obama said that he had not given up hope for a two-state solution but tensions in the region and “serious questions about overall commitment” have made progress difficult, according to the Guardian report.

“It’s no secret that we now have a very difficult path forward,” Obama said in the interview. “We look to the new Israeli government and the Palestinians to demonstrate - through policies and actions - a genuine commitment to a two-state solution.”

The European leaders’ letter follows an April report sent to the EU foreign policy chief about a potential boycott of products manufactured in the disputed territories. The report called for the “correct labelling of settlement products.”

As such, the letter asked for “tougher measures to contain [Israeli] settlement expansion and steps to operationalize the EU’s policy of non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty beyond the 1967 borders across the full range of EU-Israeli relations”.

Condemning what they perceive as Netanyahu’s intransigence as it pertains to implementing practical steps to furthering the peace process, the letter stated their belief that the Israeli Prime Minister has “little intention of negotiating seriously for a two-state solution within the term of this incoming Israeli government.” They also came down hard on the role of the Obama administration by writing: “We also have low confidence that the US government will be in a position to take a lead on fresh negotiations with the vigor and the impartiality that a two-state outcome demands.”

On the flip side of this ongoing debacle, while the EU has played a significant role in pressuring successive Israeli governments regarding peace negotiations with the Palestinians, they have consistently funded NGOs that work to delegitimize Israel through campaigns of Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions (BDS).

According to acclaimed author Joseph Puder, in an article appearing on the Front Page Mag web site, he writes: An “industry of lies” manufactured by the Palestinians have been accepted by the EU’s media and academia, who have turned them into accepted “truths” and disseminated them widely among those in the European “street.”  BDS is quite simply a form of political warfare that exploits the language of human rights and international law to promote the destruction of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

He adds that, “The EU’s unquestionable support of radical Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and of the Palestinian Authority (PA) encourages Palestinian refusal to arrive at a reasonable and peaceful settlement with Israel. “

FIFA and the Proposed Suspension of Israel

In other related matters, efforts are underway in the realm of professional sports to undercut Israeli influence in the lucrative world of international football or soccer. Recently, the Palestinian Football Association had called for Israel’s suspension from FIFA, (Federation Internationale de Football Association) which is world soccer’s governing body.

On Tuesday, May 20, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to meet FIFA President Sepp Blatter in Jerusalem to see if measures can be taken to convince the Palestinians to withdraw their proposal for the suspension of Israel, which is on the agenda in FIFA's annual Congress in Zurich on May 29.

According to a Jerusalem Post report, Blatter is traveling to the region in the hope of finding a diplomatic solution to the campaign to isolate Israel.

The report indicated that the chances of a scenario unfolding in which Israel would be jettisoned from participation in FIFA are slim to none; nonetheless, Israel is taking the Palestinian bid quite seriously.

In the last few weeks Israel has lobbied many of the 209 countries of FIFA against the proposal. It takes a 75 percent majority – or 157 countries that would have to vote to support the move.

Israel argues that the proposal would adversely politicize the sport, and assert that the Palestinians are only using this international platform to further their political agenda of internationally ostracizing Israel.

Reports have noted that restrictions have been placed on some Palestinian football players because of their involvement in terrorist organizations.

The JPost reported that Israel Football Association chairman Ofer Eini and CEO Rotem Kemer will participate in Netanyahu's meeting with Blatter. They went to Zurich last week to discuss the matter with FIFA chiefs at the organization's headquarters.

Is Abbas an “Angel of Peace?”

During a meeting on Saturday, May 16, at the Vatican, widespread reports emanating from the AFP and AP news services indicated that Pope Francis I called Palestininan Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas an “Angel of Peace.”

INN reported that the purported comments were received as something of a coup by PA officials and their supporters - but it appears they were the result of a mistranslation.

Francis's original remarks appeared in the Italian-language newspaper La Stampa, which the English-language outlets in question translated as the pontiff calling Abbas outright an "angel of peace."

But doubts were first cast on the accuracy of the translation by the Israellycool blog, which pointed out that the Italian was written in the exhortative (using the word "sia").

Several Italian-language experts have confirmed that to Arutz Sheva, saying that Francis actually told Abbas that he "may" or "could" be an "angel of peace," in an attempt to persuade him to return to peace talks with Israel.

As leader of the Catholic world, the Pope's stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict is closely scrutinized, leading to several high-profile controversies.

Just last week Pope Francis declared he would recognize "Palestine," sparking an uproar - just days after he declared that the Vatican would canonize "Palestinian saints."

In May 2014, while on an official visit to Israel, the Pope called the Palestinian Authority (PA) the "state of Palestine," and made an unexpected stop at the security barrier between Jerusalem and Bethlehem in Judea to pray at a section with "Pope we need to see someone to speak about justice. Bethlehem look (sic) like Warsaw ghetto. Free Palestine" spray-painted on it.

Abbas was in Rome at the invitation of the Pope for the canonization Sunday of two 19th-century nuns from what was then Ottoman-ruled Palestine. The new saints, Mariam Bawardy and Marie Alphonsine Ghattas, are the first from the region to be canonized since the early days of Christianity.

Joining Abbas were over 2000 Palestinians who waved flags in Vatican square during the ceremony.

Church officials have said that the canonization of the new saints is a sign of hope and encouragement for Christians in the Middle East at a time when violent persecution from Islamic extremists has driven many Christians from the region of Christ's birth, according to published reports.

In a statement Saturday, Abbas praised the two new saints as inspirational models for today's Palestinians and urged Christians like them to remain in the region.

"We call on Palestinian Christians to stay with us and enjoy the rights of full and equal citizenship, and bear with us the difficulties of life until we achieve liberty, sovereignty and human dignity," he said.

Giulio Meotti, a Vatican scholar and expert on the history of anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church, recently offered quite a different analysis of the Church’s position on Israel. He called the Pope’s recognition of a Palestinian state. The Pope’s decision he said is “nothing new.”   He added that, “Despite the fact that there are many Catholics around the world who share a pro-Israel attitude, the Catholic Church has always been at war with the Jewish State and did everything in its power to prevent its establishment and then to derail it.” 

A controversy is currently swirling around a widely reported remark made by Pope Francis I to Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas when they met at the Vatican on Saturday. He allegedly referred to the terrorist leader as an “angel of peace” after a canonization ceremony of two 18th century nuns from Ottoman controlled Palestine. (Photo Credit: Conservativebyte.com)

 In a strongly worded letter to Federica Mogherini (pictured above) the EU’s foreign policy chief, the group of former European leaders expressed their serious misgivings concerning the role that the US can play in leading substantive negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in terms of a two-state solution.

Pilgrims wave Palestinian flags before a holy mass at St. Peters Square in Rome as the Pope canonized two 18th century nuns from the Ottoman controlled known as Palestine

Turning Against Israel - Hal Lindsey

Reblogged from http://www.hallindsey.com/watchman-warning-3-23-2015/

According to the media, on March 16th, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu told the world there will never be a Palestinian state as long as he serves as Prime Minister.  There’s only one problem.  That’s not what he said.

Here’s what he actually said.  “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to radical Islam against the state of Israel.  There is a real threat here that a left-wing government will join the international community and follow its orders.”

The key word is “today.”  That means, “Under the present circumstances”… “As things are now”… “In the current situation.”  “Today” does not mean “forever.”
In media coverage, we rarely hear the actual quote. Instead, they describe him as saying “as long as I’m Prime Minister.”  But he didn’t say “as long as.”  He said, “Today.”
The New York Times characterized Netanyahu’s statement as “declaring definitively that if he was returned to office he would never establish a Palestinian state.”

The New York Daily News called such assessments “pure bunk.”
The Daily News seemed to be one of the few major news outlets to examine Netanyahu’s actual words.  Their editorial showed how reasonable his comments were.  “Israel would necessarily have to surrender territory to the Palestinians under any two-state pact,” they wrote.  “Netanyahu’s indisputable point was that doing so, as the facts on the ground now exist, would better position hostile forces to launch assaults.”

The media loves what they see as the story of the “real Netanyahu” coming out in the heat of the campaign, and showing his true feelings regarding a two-state solution.  Why should they bother with the facts when the fiction perfectly fits their prejudices?
The Obama administration also seems intent on reading the worst into Netanyahu’s statement.  The Department of State is the department of diplomacy.  They usually bend over backwards to see the words of foreign leaders, especially allies, in the best possible light.  Yet, the opposite is happening here.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, President Obama said, “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available.”

It doesn’t matter that he didn’t say it.  It doesn’t matter that he later explained in interview after interview that his words didn’t mean it “wouldn't happen during his prime ministership.”  It doesn’t matter because the administration sees this as an opportunity for leverage over Israel.

The president and his team have decided that under Netanyahu’s leadership Israel will never give up East Jerusalem, nor negotiate away Israel’s national security.  They now believe that a negotiated peace is not possible.  So their new plan seems to be an imposed peace.  They’re using Netanyahu’s statement (the one he never really said) to give them political cover for turning against Israel.

The president misrepresented the prime minister’s position, then said, “That's why we've got to evaluate what other options are available….”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest threatened that Netanyahu’s campaign statements will “have consequences.”  A senior administration official told the Wall Street Journal that such consequences might involve “potential action at the U.N. Security Council.”
The Security Council is the only United Nations body authorized to issue binding resolutions to member states.  The one safeguard is that permanent members of the Council have veto power over such resolutions.  In the past, the U.S. used its veto power to protect Israel.  But the U.S. now threatens to use Netanyahu’s supposed comment as an excuse to remove its protection.

On April 1st, the Palestinians will officially become part of the International Criminal Court.  Their expressed purpose in seeking membership has been to gain the ability to file war crimes suits against Israel.  Will America have Israel’s back?  It’s being “reevaluated.”
The BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) against Israel has had little impact so far.  However, the United States government’s newly inflamed anger against Israel gives anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes new political cover.  In fact, rage against Israel has become politically correct on university campuses worldwide, and from there it’s spilling over into the streets.  If the U.S. government turns on Israel, the rage will go unchecked.

Will the United Nations be allowed to simply draw new borders at its own whim?  Will Judea and Samaria be stolen from Israel by international fiat?  Will trade restrictions on Hamas-run Gaza be removed allowing that terrorist organization to openly import its weapons of terror?  Will East Jerusalem be taken from Israel and given to the Palestinian Authority, a group now actively partnering with terrorist Hamas?

The angry U.S. response to Netanyahu has had the effect of hardening Israel into a position it never took and the U.S. never wanted — no two-state solution, no more dividing the land.  Interestingly, that has been God’s position all along.  In Joel 3:2, the Lord speaks of judging those nations who “have divided up My land.”


America has been Israel’s staunch defender for many decades.  But Zechariah 12:3 speaks of a time when “all the nations of the earth will be gathered against” Jerusalem.  Is the United States now turning to this dark side?

Folks, things are happening fast.  The return of Jesus is very, very close.

Thank You, Israel, for Lending Us Bibi

Reblogged from www.cbn.com       
By John Waage

CBN News Sr. Editor

Friday, February 27, 2015

In the days ahead, Jews around the world will celebrate Purim, a festival the Bible directs us to remember, when the Jewish people were delivered more than 2,000 years ago in Persia (modern day Iran) from an evil anti-Semite --Haman -- who had manipulated the king into issuing a decree that would annihilate the Jews.

According to the biblical account, Esther, a Jew, and her cousin, Mordecai, who raised her, were the instruments of deliverance. 

This Tuesday, just hours before the Purim holiday begins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, to explain why his country cannot tolerate the threat from another group of evil anti-Semites in Iran to annihilate the Jews: the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei and his government.

The city of Washington, as is its custom, has been buzzing for weeks about the political ramifications of the Netanyahu speech. Once again, it's all about them.

The Obama administration, failing to disguise its contempt for the prime minister, refuses to attend, calling the whole process of inviting him unseemly, coming just two weeks before Israel holds elections.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice, having seen no advance copy of the speech, calls it "destructive." Commentators and reporters poll and pontificate, as a few dozen lawmakers deliberate about whether to boycott an address by our closest and most reliable ally in the Middle East.

But millions of Americans, and others around the world will be grateful: to the nation of Israel, to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and to Speaker Boehner and the lawmakers of both parties who will welcome him.

They'll be grateful because they are hungry to hear the truth spoken at the highest levels of international discourse --thankful that at least one leader (there may be others; Canada's Stephen Harper comes to mind) is willing to speak the truth on the world stage when the spirit of hatred and murder is on the loose, radiating from the Middle East to every continent.

Who else has warned for more than a quarter century about the danger of putting nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's Jew-and-Christian-hating theocracy?

Who but Netanyahu has taken on the kangaroo courts of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which pounces on Israel after every conflict, but ignores real atrocities just miles away in the realm of Hamas and the battlefields of Syria, Iraq, and Iran?

Has another leader exposed the pretense behind the Palestinian Authority's celebration of terrorist suicide bombers and its goal to take all of Israel back in stages, while the West pumps billions of dollars into P.A. coffers?

Is there another head of state who musters the courage to tell smug, high-ranking American and European diplomats that it's not a crime for Jews to build apartments in their eternal capital?

Israelis may be irritated at their leader for his sometimes abrasive personality. They may be miffed that he plunged their country into elections and another round of endless advertisements and political wrangling.

Or they may think he's too hardline and is jeopardizing Israel's relationship with the United States or doesn't pay adequate attention to their country's social needs. Or all of the above. They will have an opportunity to render their verdict on March 17.

In the meantime, the gravity of the world situation and the daily reports of the persecution and murder of Christians and Jews has focused the attention of millions of Christians, as well as Jews, on what Netanyahu has to say. Many will pray and intercede, and others will fast, as Esther and her people did in biblical times.

We will pray for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's leaders, for wisdom for our own leaders, and for discernment to navigate the dangerous waters ahead. Who knows whether, as in the days of Esther and Mordecai, the address wasn't appointed "for such a time as this."

Long after the political ebb and flow of the winter of 2015 is forgotten, the Netanyahu speech may well be remembered as one that defines the central conflict of the era. That makes his adversaries, no matter where they reside, uncomfortable.

So, thank you, Israel -- and "Hag Purim Sameach!" Happy Purim!

Netanyahu Warns US, World Powers Israel Will Block Iran Nuclear Threat

Reblogged from www.jewishpress.com via servehiminthewaiting.com 

PM Netanyahu issued a blunt warning to the US and world leaders that Israel will stop Tehran from achieving an atomic weapon - regardless of deals signed.

By: Hana Levi Julian

Published: February 8th, 2015

 
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu arrives at the weekly cabinet meeting. Photo Credit: Alex Kolomoisky / POOL 
 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had some grim words of warning Sunday in his statement at the start of the weekly cabinet session.
Netanyahu noted that major world powers and Iran are “galloping towards an agreement that will enable Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons” and will endanger the security of the State of Israel.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif held private talks over the weekend, Netanyahu said, after which they announced they intend to complete a framework agreement by the end of March.

Israel’s response, he said, will be to stop what he called a “bad and dangerous agreement.”
The prime minister underscored that Israel will “do everything and will take any action to foil this agreement that will place a heavy cloud over the future of the State of Israel and its security.”

It is precisely for this reason the Democratic party and U.S. President Barack Obama have worked to derail the prime minister’s scheduled address to a joint session of the Congress set for March 3. The speech falls at the end of the same week Netanyahu is slated to appear at the annual AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) conference in Washington DC, and just two weeks prior to Israel’s national elections on March 17.
The deadline for talks between world powers and Tehran over a rollback on Iran’s nuclear technology activities is March 31. The Obama administration is deeply committed to seeing some signed agreement emerge from those talks, apparently regardless of its cost to the Jewish State. 

Iran has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel off the world map. Any agreement that allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium – thereby enabling it to achieve an atomic weapon – presents an existential risk to Israel.

About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

The president is not involved in helping defeat Netanyahu, of course not. It would be a breach of protocol!

Caroline Glick

Reposted from Facebook

 23 hrs · Edited ·

Obama won't meet Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו in Washington when he addresses the Joint Houses of Congress in March because of Netanyahu's visit's proximity to the Israeli elections. And Obama, of course believes in protocol and propriety which is why he won't get involved.
No, he's not getting involved at all. He's just sending his 2012 field campaign manager to Israel to run a campaign to defeat Netanyahu. That's all. No interference whatsoever.
By the way, the link below is to a report of the article in Haaretz that I linked to in the previous post in Hebrew. For whatever reason, Haaretz chose not to translate this article in its English edition. http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=66198

IMRA - Monday, January 26, 2015 Foreign Funding Bankrolls Anti-Netanyahu Campaign – Flies in...

Foreign Funding Bankrolls Anti-Netanyahu...

imra.org.il

Israel indicts American over plot to bomb Muslim holy sites

Published December 10, 2014 

Reblogged from

FoxNews.com

Oct. 5, 2014: Palestinians from Gaza pray in front of the Dome of the Rock during their visit at the compound known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City. (Reuters)

An American Christian is facing charges in Israel of plotting to blow up Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, Israeli authorities said Tuesday.

Adam Everett Livix, 30, was identified by the Israeli Police and the Justice Ministry. Livix faces drug charges in the U.S. and that he once turned down an offer from a Palestinian to assassinate President Obama during a visit to Israel in 2013.

The Justice Ministry said the man they identified as Livix underwent a psychiatric evaluation Tuesday after his indictment Monday on charges of illegal weapon possession and overstaying his visa by more than a year. Operating in cooperation with Israel's Shin Bet security service, police went to arrest Livix last month at his 7th-floor apartment, the ministry said, but he initially tried to escape by leaping down to a patio on the floor below.

Livix, posing as an ex-Navy SEAL, was asked by a Palestinian to assassinate Obama with a sniper rifle in March 2013 when Obama was making a trip to the region, Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfield said. Livix did not go through with it and the FBI ended up investigating the matter.
 
Later that year, Livix entered Israel, the Justice Ministry said, and told Israeli friends he had strong anti-Arab sentiments. The ministry said Livix later cooperated with his roommate, a serving soldier in the Israeli military, to obtain 3 pounds of explosive material to blow up the unidentified Jerusalem holy sites. The ministry said police discovered the plot in October.
Livix's indictment comes at a time of rising tensions in Jerusalem, mostly over a disputed holy site known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and Jews as the Temple Mount. It is the third holiest site in Islam and the holiest in Judaism.

As members of the Israeli government demand that Jews be allowed to pray at the Muslim-run site, Palestinians fear it is a pretext to a Jewish takeover.

This isn't the first time there have been allegations of a foreigner threatening a holy site in Jerusalem. In 1969, an Australian Christian started a fire at the complex's Al-Aqsa Mosque in hopes that it would hasten the second coming of Jesus Christ. The man, Denis Michael Rohan, was subsequently committed to a mental institution.
The Associated Press contributed to this report

IDF set to open field hospital for wounded Gazans | The Times of Israel

IDF set to open field hospital for wounded Gazans | The Times of Israel

Hear, O Israel

Reblogged from Prophecy in The News

By Gary Stearman on March 27, 2014

In this season, we contemplate the amazing series of events given in the narrative of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The dramatic story of His crucifixion began in the dark of night, when He was arrested and tried. A strange occurrence is mentioned in connection with this incident. Taken by itself, it seems almost superfluous. But its message is laden with deep meaning. It is the confrontation between Peter and Malchus, servant of the High Priest.

Deuteronomy 6:4 is a pivotal verse in the life and history of Israel: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.” This command to “hear” signifies the hearing of the heart, not merely that of the ears. This verse is deemed so important that it is affixed to the doorposts of the Jewish faithful.

Jews refer to this verse as the “Shema,” from its first Hebrew word: “Shema Israel,” meaning “Hear, O Israel…” These strong words are a direct command to the twelve tribes to listen carefully to the message that follows them. They are a constant reminder to Israel that it must never forget the proclamations of the Lord, even to the point of attaching them to their doorposts and wearing them on their bodies, in the form of tefillin.

On the right side of the main entrance to a home or building, a few of the key verses from this section of Scripture are attached in place. They are rolled up as a miniature scroll and inserted into a small case called a “mezuzah,” which happens to be the Hebrew word for “doorpost.” Thus, they are upheld as one of the most important parts of the Torah. When passing through such a doorway, Jews pay respect to the presence of the Word of God by lightly kissing their fingers, then touching the mezuzah. Its presence there is considered to be a blessing to the household. But its key Scriptural admonition is for those who live there to “hear,” that is, to remember and understand.

God requires the faithful to “hear” Him, but hearing requires more than mere exposure to the Word. The interpretive power of the Holy Spirit must be present in the believer before the full meaning of the Word becomes clear.

Jesus illustrated this to His disciples following His rejection by the leaders of national Israel, as told in Matthew 12. There, we find the narrative of the Pharisees attributing the power of Jesus’ work to Satan, rather than the Holy Spirit. In the chapter which follows — Matthew 13 — He began to speak of the Kingdom in parables. His disciples wondered why He did this, instead of speaking plainly. His answer is quite clear in its implications:
“11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand” (Matt. 13:11-13).

Jesus here announces that He has acted judicially against the House of David — in effect cutting off their hearing because of their unbelief. In fact, Scripture is full of pictures of the hearing of faith versus the deafness and blindness of unbelief.

The Ear Is Cut Off

Later in the book of Matthew, a remarkable event takes place. It illustrates not only the principle of spiritual hearing, but may also present a prophetic picture of Israel’s spiritual future.
The event in question comes as Jesus is betrayed by Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. As Judas approaches with an assorted band of soldiers and Temple officials, he comes before Jesus and greets Him with the infamous kiss of betrayal.
Making no resistance, Jesus announces His identity to the crowd, uttering His authoritative, “I am.” But one of His disciples, in a burst of zeal, draws his sword and lunges at the servant of the high priest. This is first mentioned in Matthew 26:51:
“51 And behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.”
Virtually the same account is given in Mark 14:47. Here, however, the swordsman is described simply as a bystander:
“47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.”

Again in Luke 22:50 and 51, the brief narrative of this event is given. This time, however, even more new detail is added:
“50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 And Jesus answered and said, suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.”
Now we see that after the ear is cut off, Jesus, in some miraculous way, restores it fully — in the end, it is completely healed. Again, in the book of John, the record of this event is given, now in its most complete form. Here, we find Simon Peter named as the swordsman and Malchus identified as the servant of the High Priest. It tells us, “10 Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it” (Jn. 18:10, 11).
Jesus clearly states that His mission is not to make war against the political and religious system of the world, but to do the will of His heavenly Father. This is but one of many times that Christ must rebuke Peter, who is both quick to hear and quick to forget. But the event is a beautiful prophetic foretelling of the healing of Israel that will come in the Kingdom Age.

Add caption

As he had often done before, Peter impulsively lunged forth to do what he thought was right at the moment. No doubt, he felt that attacking the High Priest’s representative would give him the best chance at forestalling Jesus’ arrest. Since he attacked with a sword, he probably meant to leave Malchus with a mortal wound.
But Peter was a fisherman, not a trained swordsman. Malchus must have dodged at the last moment. Instead of his throat or chest, Peter took only an ear. Significantly, however, it was the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Spiritual Hearing

Here, it is important to make a connection between an action and a word. Simon Peter’s first name comes from the Hebrew, shamah, meaning “hearing.” Scripturally, the name is applied to the gift of spiritual hearing, as given by the Holy Spirit. His role, as one chosen by Jesus as a founding father of the church, is centered on the fact that he has spiritual ears to hear.
In the Old Testament, the same name appears as “Simeon,” who was Jacob’s second son through Leah. At his birth she names him on the basis that God had heard of her plight:
“And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon” (Genesis 29:33).

Simeon was named for the hearing of the Lord. In the New Testament, Simon Peter lives up to the meaning of his name. In Matthew 16:15 Jesus asks Simon, “But whom say ye that I am?” Of course, he then identifies Jesus as Messiah, the Son of God. The 17th verse then characterizes Simon’s spiritual hearing:
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
Here, Jesus acknowledges that Simon has ears to hear the revelation about Christ, which has come from heaven. Though he still has many tests ahead of him, Jesus takes this opportunity to surname him as Peter (meaning “rock”) signifying that he would become an immovable stone in the foundational structure of the church.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

The Prophetic Picture

To complete the prophetic picture, we now come to the High Priest’s servant. His name—Malchus—is a linguistic variant of the Hebrew word melech meaning “king.” By the time this event took place, the leaders of national Israel had already rejected Jesus. The Jewish priesthood was under judgement. They were about to fully act out that judgment by wounding their true King. As Isaiah 53:5 says, “He was wounded for our transgressions …” But He was healed of those wounds, rising again to restore a world that sinned against Him.
Ultimately, He will even heal national Israel, itself. In their own land, He will bring the Jews a Kingdom under His leadership, and their hearing will be restored so that they may once again serve a righteous priesthood. In a way, the wounding of Malchus (king) is a picture of the wounding of the true King, Jesus.

But more than that. The wounding of Malchus’ ear is curiously symbolic of the people of Israel. As a servant of the High Priest, Malchus depicts Israel’s role. Like him, Israel served a corrupt priesthood. They listened to the wrong voices and would soon call for the death of their Messiah. Their hearing had been cut off.
But Jesus healed the ear of Malchus. In so doing, He was prophetically acting out that future day when He would heal the hearing of Israel. In that day, they will serve Jesus as their true High Priest.

Peter correctly believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that He would bring the Kingdom to earth in the very near future. In the flesh, he acted on that belief, attempting to protect his King, even if it meant giving up his own life. Of course, he was wrong.
Once before, shortly after publicly proclaiming Jesus as Messiah, Peter had acted in the flesh. This incident is recounted in Matthew, where we read, “21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matt. 16:21-23).
Jesus severely reprimanded Peter, even accusing him of acting in the spirit of Satan, rather than God. He knew that he must “suffer many things” in order to complete the plan of the ages.

Centuries before, Moses had spoken to his people about the power of the coming Messiah who would, in the end, avenge them for all that they would suffer at the hands of their enemies. In Deuteronomy 32, the Song of Moses opens with a ringing command: “Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear. O earth, the words of my mouth.”
The context of Moses’ prophecy concludes with the judgment of the nations gathered against Israel during the Tribulation. In verse 44, it concludes with these telling words: “And Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the people….”
Once again, there is a clear linkage made between prophetic utterance and the ear. The ear of Malchus was once healed and made complete. We are never told what happened to him after that.
It is possible that, having experienced the loving touch of the Savior, he went on to become a Messianic believer. In that future day when Israel’s hearing is healed, that is precisely what they will become.

Paul and the Gospel

This theme is carried out in many New Testament writings, but becomes especially clear in the life of Paul. During his first Roman imprisonment, at the end of the Book of Acts, we see the principle of spiritual hearing with absolute clarity:
“23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. 25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it” (Acts 28:23-28).

In many of his epistles, Paul asks his listeners whether they can fully hear what he has to say: Gal. 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Over and over again, Paul asks this basic question, based upon the premise so firmly enunciated by Jesus, that faith is a matter of spiritual hearing. Perhaps one of his most oft-repeated statements comes from the letter to the Romans:
“17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

In this season, as we remember the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, we ponder the amazing fact that His own people couldn’t hear what He had to say. We should always remember that this is the perennial issue when we present the Gospel.
And we should always keep in mind that even the smallest details in the life of Christ are freighted with deep meaning.

Our World: Letting go of Abbas

Rebbloged from carolineglick.com
Monday, May 19th, 2014
 
What makes PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas tick?
In 2008, when Abbas rejected then prime minister Ehud Olmert’s expansive offer of Palestinian statehood, he did so for the same reason that Yassir Arafat rejected then prime minister Ehud Barak’s expansive offer of Palestinian statehood at Camp David in 2000.
In both cases, the PLO chiefs believed that if they waited, they could get everything they demanded from Israel – and more – without giving anything away.

As Abbas and Arafat both saw it, eventually either the Israeli Left would successfully erode Israel’s national will to exist, or the Europeans and the US would join forces to coerce Israel into giving up the store. Or both. So there was no reason for the PLO to give up anything.
To get everything in exchange for nothing all they had to do was continuously escalate the PLO’s political warfare against the legitimacy of Israel internationally, and escalate its subversion of Israeli society through political intrigue and terrorism.
Back then, Abbas and Arafat looked forward to the day when they could frame Israel’s unconditional surrender and nail it to their wall.

But things have changed.
The rise of the revolutionary forces in the Islamic world since December 2010 has transformed the political landscape.
The Syrian civil war, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the resurgence of al Qaeda franchises, the US’s abandonment of its traditional Arab allies in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Barack Obama’s aspiration to reach a meeting of the minds with the Iranian regime have completely upended the political calculus of all regional actors, including the PLO and Abbas.

As Palestinian affairs expert Reuven Berko wrote in an article published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism last week, if in the past Abbas wouldn’t make a deal with Israel because he could get more by saying no, today Abbas cannot make a deal with Israel.
Any deal he concludes will lead to his overthrow.

Noting that Abbas was recently threatened by al Qaeda chief Ayman Zawahiri who called him, “a traitor who is selling Palestine,” Berko explained, “The threats, veiled or not, by radical Islamists… and a quick look at [the] Arab-Muslim world, especially Syria, have made it clear to the Palestinians what the future has in store for them, and it now appears that in the meantime, they prefer the status quo to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.”

As Berko sees it, Abbas’s primary problem is the residents of the UN refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and beyond. Israel’s unwillingness to accept a so-called “right of return,” which would enable millions of foreign Arabs residing in terrorist-controlled UN-run refugee camps to immigrate to a post-peace agreement Israel, means that in an era of peace, they will move to the newly created state of Palestine.

Berko rightly notes that these immigrants will not regard Abbas as their savior, to the contrary.
“The Palestinian leadership knows that if their demand for Palestinian control of the Jordan Valley crossings were accepted, the operative result would be floods of people seeking entrance into ‘liberated Palestine.’ They know that among them would be operatives of all the Palestinian terrorist organizations, to say nothing of the armed jihadists currently active in the Arab-Muslim world, especially in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, who would stream in ‘to liberate all Palestine.’ The new Palestinian state would have no grounds to refuse entrance to the ‘jihad heroes,’ or to close its borders to all those attracted by the prosperity in Judea and Samaria, or to those who hoped to enter Israel or to those who intended [to] use ‘Palestine’ as a convenient base from which to attack Israel.”

The new immigrants would overwhelm Abbas and his comrades, making the Hamas ouster of Fatah forces from Gaza in 2007 look like a walk in the park.
Berko limited his discussion to a scenario in which these foreign Arabs are confined to “Palestine.” But if Israel were to agree to his demand that they move into its sovereign territory, Abbas’s future would be no different.

If Israel were to publicly renounce its right to exist, cancel the Declaration of Independence and adopt the PLO Charter as its new constitution, Abbas would be no better off than if he conceded Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, compromised on the so-called “right of return,” and accepted the settlements.

In both cases, he would end up like Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi.
It is because he knows this that he will do anything to prevent a peace deal with Israel.
Some Israelis are pleased with Abbas’s stand. As they see it, his position enables Israel and the Palestinians to operate under the status quo more or less unchallenged for the foreseeable future.

There are two problems with this view. First, neither the Americans nor the Israeli Left are willing to let the peace process go. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s decision to devote two hours to yet another meeting with Abbas last week, despite Abbas’s unity deal with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, shows that Kerry is constitutionally incapable of disengaging.
Likewise, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni’s wildcat diplomacy, which involved an unauthorized meeting with Abbas in London last week, demonstrates that like the Americans, Israel’s Left cannot relent.
Livni and her comrades have no issue other than the Palestinian issue. Their political survival is tied to the peace process.

The second problem is Abbas. Whereas he needs to prevent a settlement to keep the jihadists at bay, he needs to escalate the conflict to keep the local Palestinians at bay and maintain the support of the Europeans and the American Left.
Only by scapegoating and criminalizing Israel worldwide can Abbas maintain his relevance to the international Left.

And only by enabling and glorifying terrorism and actively inciting for the destruction of Israel can Abbas maintain what is left of his credibility among the Palestinians – five and a half years after his term of office legally ended.

The two-state model is his life preserver. The policy paradigm is based entirely on the false claim that the cause of all the region’s ills is the absence of a Palestinian state. That state, it is believed, would exist save for Israel’s land greed.
Those who uphold Abbas and the status quo ignore the consequences of Abbas’s own imperatives. In the international arena, preserving the status quo requires Israel to maintain its allegiance to the two-state paradigm’s inherent and malicious slander of the Jewish state. This allegiance in turn makes it impossible for Israel to defend itself effectively against the Palestinian led campaign to deny its right to exist.

In its internal affairs, maintaining faith in the two-state model and in Abbas as a legitimate and moderate Palestinian leader makes it almost impossible for Israel to take effective measures to defend against the Palestinian terror infrastructure.
That infrastructure relies on the Palestinian security forces, which Abbas, our purported peace partner, controls. Israel cannot discredit its “peace partner,” without disowning the phony peace process and rejecting the two-state paradigm. Consequently, it cannot take the necessary measures – like demanding that the US military stop training the Palestinian security forces — to effectively protect its citizens.

The time has come for Israel to show Abbas the door. It would be best if we can do it quietly – offering him the opportunity to relocate to somewhere warm and retain all the loot that he and his cronies have siphoned off for their personal use.
Once Abbas is gone, Israel will have to choose between applying its laws to parts of Judea and Samaria and offering the Palestinians outside those areas a limited form of autonomy, or applying its laws to the entire region, conferring permanent residency status on the Palestinians and offering them the right to apply for Israeli citizenship.

Alarmists argue that without Abbas, Israel will go broke having to finance the Palestinian budget. But this is ridiculous. Once you subtract the hundreds of millions of dollars that go missing every year, and you take into account that Israel managed to govern the areas for 24 years, you realize that this is just one more empty threat – like the demographic threat — made by people who have no political existence without the facade of a peace process.
Abbas is not an asset. He is a liability. It is time to move past him.

Caroline B. Glick is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.