The Plan All Along

Reblogged from http://www.hallindsey.com/ww-3-29-2015/

By Hal Lindsey

 

According to conventional wisdom, just before the elections in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu said things so egregious that the United States has been forced to rethink its position as Israel’s friend and advocate before the UN Security Council.  But the conventional wisdom is wrong.  The change didn’t come as a result of Netanyahu’s comments.  His words made a “handy excuse,” but the change in policy was the plan all along.  The following is a brief history of how we know this.

We know this from several sources.  One is a man named Martin Indyk.  He served as U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli–Palestinian Negotiations from 2013 to 2014.  In effect, he ran the peace talks for the Obama Administration.

Indyk now serves as vice president and director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution.  That organization recently received $14.8 million dollars from the government of Qatar.  The New York Times pointed to that transaction as a classic example of a foreign government buying influence in Washington.  Qatar’s philanthropy also extends to several terror organizations, especially Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Back in February, well before the election, Indyk told the Institute for National Security Studies, “If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward.”  Otherwise, he said things would get ugly for Israel.

The Jerusalem Post reported at the time that without a change in Israel’s government, “Indyk warned, there will be ‘international actions’ pursued not by the Palestinians, but rather by the international community ‘in terms of a Security Council resolution’ to ‘lay out and preserve the principles of a two-state solution in the future.’”

Security Council resolutions are subject to veto by any of its permanent members.  That means that these things could not happen without U.S. approval.  So, this ultimate Obama Administration insider — the man they chose to lead what they considered crucial peace talks — warned that the U.S. would turn on Israel if it re-elected Netanyahu.

In the understatement of the year, Indyk said such actions would likely be “against Israel’s will.”

This means that before the elections and before Netanyahu’s offending remarks (which he didn’t say anyway), the plan was already in place to withdraw support for Israel from the UN Security Council and other world bodies.  Blaming the shift on Netanyahu’s manufactured comments is simply a ruse at best.

Blessing and Cursing

The current strain in relations between the United States and Israel has been well-documented.  That relationship stands at the lowest point since Israel’s founding.  Statements against Israel made by the President and Secretary of State have been bad enough, but the level of rancor shown by lower level White House and State Department aids has been absolutely stunning.

The problem has been characterized as a clash of personalities between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu.  But the real problem is Israel’s security.  The president and his men seem to believe that the Palestinians will turn into good guys when certain terms have been met – terms that have been debated and rejected, since they will leave Israel undefendable.

But Netanyahu and most other Israelis have heard such pipe dreams from previous administrations of both parties, and they’re not buying it anymore.  They know the history.  They remember their own recent experiences with the Palestinians in Gaza and the disastrous Oslo Accords.  From those giveaways, they learned that you will never win by trying to appease an insatiable foe.

The new American policy toward Israel has already begun to manifest itself.  The recent declassification of U.S. documents pertaining to Israel’s top secret nuclear arms program makes a good case in point.  What kind of nation tells the world its ally’s most important secrets?

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Peggy Noonan expressed the opinion of most observers when she said, “I think U.S.-Israeli relations right now are in the worst shape I have ever seen them in — the worst shape they have been in since 1948 when America was instrumental in inventing Israel.”

That’s an interesting phrase — “instrumental in inventing Israel.”  It’s hard to fathom how a 239 year old nation could possibly have “invented” a nation that came into existence over three thousand years ago.  Of course, she means the modern State of Israel, but it’s still not in any way an American “invention.”

Israel is God’s invention.  He created it.  He made certain promises to it and about it.  No matter what the United States does, God Himself will take care of Israel.  While the Bible tells about some terrible times in store for that small nation, it will endure.

And God will deal with nations according to their dealings with Israel.  In Genesis 12:3, He said to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse.”  [NASB]

Anyone who thinks that verse refers only to Abraham as an individual and not to the Children of Israel, should look at Numbers 24:9.  There the promise is repeated as an oracle from the Lord, but this time specifically to the nation of Israel.  “Blessed is everyone who blesses you, And cursed is everyone who curses you.”  [NASB]

We see the pattern hold true throughout the Old Testament.  Even those nations used by God to punish Israel when it strayed, were themselves punished when they treated Israel poorly.  Babylon is a perfect example.

In 1948, the United States, led by President Harry Truman, became the first nation to officially recognize Israel.  He did so only eleven minutes after their Declaration of Independence became official.

 Warren Austin, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, was so outraged by Truman’s decision that he left and went home.  According to the Truman Library, Secretary of State Marshall had to send “a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.”  Marshall did this despite the fact that he and most of the rest of the U.S. foreign policy team had also opposed Truman on the issue.

What followed for the United States was an era of growth and prosperity unlike anything in the history of the world.  From that time through 1973, the U.S. economy grew by almost 4% a year.  Household income grew an astronomical 74%.  Compare that to the last few years when we’ve seen household income actually fall.

When God said He would bless those who bless Israel, He meant it.  In the United States, we’ve seen it with our own eyes.  But if He meant one side of the equation, He meant the other side as well.  He will curse those who curse Israel, just as we see happening before our eyes to the United States.

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.

Avi Lipkin commentary - 2015 Israeli elections

Netanyahu wakes up to shock election victory

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4638197,00.html
With 99 percent of the ballots boxes counted, Likud opens six seat lead over Zionist Union with 30 mandates, Joint Arab List retains third place; Lieberman, who was polling at the electoral threshold, surprises with 6. Yaron Druckman Latest Update:  03.18.15, 06:20 / Israel News While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been trailing his Zionist Union opponent in the polls leading up to the elections, the real-time results on Wednesday morning show the Likud leader enjoying a major advantage over the left-wing's Isaac Herzog. The exit polls conducted by three major Israeli television channels showed a slender Likud lead over its rival, with a one seat margin of victory, while the partial returns counted by 6 am have Netanyahu with a six seat lead on the Zionist Union, at 30 and 24. Netanyahu (Photo: Reuters) A count of 99 percent of the ballot boxes had Likud with 30 seats and Zionist Union with 24. The Joint Arab List placed third behind the two major parties with 14 seats. Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid received 11 seats. Moshe Kahlon, lauded as this election cycle's kingmaker, received 10 seats in the count, with Bayit Yehudi maintaining its eight seats, Yisrael Beytenu with six seats, United Torah Judaism and Shas at 7, Meretz dropping to 4. Eli Yishai's Yachad did not pass the election threshold of 3.25 percent.