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.
