This is a copy of an article with links attached.
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT “palestinians” AND THE BIG LIE: There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.
So, going back 800 years, there’s no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel’s title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners.
Who were, continuing backward:
The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from
The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The terroritories comprising all other “Arab” states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
Prior to 1964 there was no “Palestinian” people and no “Palestinian” claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name “Palestinian” referred to the Jews of Palestine. In any case, today’s “Palestine,” meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, aeons ago. Major “native” tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17th century. India’s caste system reflects waves of fair-skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.
The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that “aboriginalism”—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?
Back to the Arabs I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs’ tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present? To answer that question, let’s look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we’ve discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted. The Jews’ willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN’s 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN’s partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel’s urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict, and Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel’s existence (achieved in ’48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in ’67).
The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been “stolen” from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel’s destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand.
The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as “oppressors,” and, of course, good old Jew-hatred. Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He offers his traditionalist conservative perspective at View from the Right.
What Is the Origin of the Name Palestinian? The term Palestinian is thought to have been derived form the greek and latin words for one of the chief enemies of the Israelites – the Philistines (Greek Palaistine, Latin Palaestina, for Hebrew Plishtim). The Philistine kingdom of Philistia occupied the narrow strip of coastal plain between modern Gaza and Joppa from thirteenth to seventh centuries B.c. Indeed, the word Palestine appears in the King James version of the Bible with reference to this region (Joel 3:4). However, more modern versions use the term Philistia. David Jacobson, an instructor at the University College of London on Jews and the classical world, believes tat Palestine may have originated as a Greek pun on the translation of “Israel” and “land of the Philistines”. He observes that the Greek and Latin terms frequently appear in ancient literature with reference not to the land of Philistines, but to the land of Israel. For example, Herodotus (circa 450 B.c.), reputed to be the father of history, recorded that the people of Palestine were circumcised, a distinction of the Israelites, not Philistines (who were uncircumcised). Likewise, Aristotle (fourth centure B.c.) observed in his writings that the Dead Sea was in Palestine (a geographical setting in Israel far to the east of Philistine territory). And Philo of Alexandria (first century A.c) indentified Palaistinei with biblical Canaan and remarked that “palestinian Syria was occupied by the populous nation of the Jews”.
Furthermore, if Palestine was derived from Philistine, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint (circa 250 B.c.), should have translated the Hebrew word “Plishtim” (Philistine) by the well-known Greek term Palaistinoi (Palestine). However, the translator chose the Greek transliteration Philistieim (revealing by the plural ending IM, a term of Hebrew origin). Jacobson argues that the Greek word Palaistine is quite close to the Greek word Palaistes, wich means “wrestler”, “rival” or “adversary”. This is the very meaning of the Hebrew word Yisra’el (Israel), based on Genesis 32:25-17, in wich Jacob received the name Israel because he “wrestled” (Hebrew sarita) with “God” (Hebrew El). To the Greeks, who liked to use wordplays, the word Palestine would have sounded both like the people of Israel, who were thought to be the descendants of a hero who wrestled with a god, and the Philistines, who lived in adjacent coast.
The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus , who wrote in Greek, supports this general usage by referring to both the land of the Philistines and the much larger Land of Israel as “Palestine”. However, he also distinguished the Land of Israel by this term when he wrote of “the events that befell us Jews in Egypt, in Syria and in Palestine”. The use of the term Palestine in identification with the Land of Israel officialy took root when the Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the country Syria Palaestina. It is often thought that Hadrian did this to punish the Jews for their revolt adainst Roman rule (the Bar-Kokhba Revolt of A.d. 132-135), for by removing their name for their country, the historic connection with their homeland would be severed. However, since the first-century Jewish writers Philo and Josephus had already used this term in Greek for Israel, and Roman writers continued this practice. Hadrian may have simply codified the ancient and accepted usage. Nevertheless, the designation Palaestina appears to habve been applied particularly to Judea, at the center of wich was the capital city of Jerusalem. Hadrian’s attack was clearly leveled against Jerusalem, wich he considered the heart of the rebellion. It was from this city he expelled the Jewish population and renamed it Aelia Capitolina (in honor of his own family name Aelia and the gods on Rome’s Capitol Hill).
To obscure the Jewish religion of the city, he plowed under the site of the Temple Mount and erected within it pagan temples and shrines. In this way Hadrian symbolically sought to remove the Jewish past and build a new and revised Roman future. Even tough Romans attempted to sever a connection between Palestine and the Jewish people, Palestine remaied identified with Israel as a place of promise “so that in later times the words Judea and Palestine were synonymous”. Therefore, in general sense, the name Palestine has moreof a historical link with the land of the people of Israel – the Jews – and in a restricted sense, also with the Philistines. In addiction, the later application to Judea and Jerusalem may well have arisen from an attempt by the Roman enemies of the Jews to revise their historical origins.
Who in Palestine Was Called a Palestinian? Greek and Roman writers used the terms Palestine and Palestinian to refer to the land of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. As we have seen, early secular writers such as Herodotus and Aristotle had used these terms in this way, as had first-century Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus. In the early first century A.D.the Roman poet Ovid decribed Jewish Sabbath observance with the words “the seventh-day feast that the Syrian of Palestine observes”. Other Latin authors, such as the poet Statius and the historian Dio Chrysostom, also spoke of the Jews as Palestinians and the Jewish homeland as Palestine. Likewise, in Talmudic literature (third century A.D.), Palestine is used as the name of a Roman province adjoining the provinces of Phoenicia and Arabia (i.e, the Land of Israel). In the fourth century A.D. the three provinces into which the Land of Israel had been divided were referred to as first, second and third Palestine. But the term Plestine seems to have disappeared completely after the Muslim conquest of A.d. 638. In fact, Palestine never appears in the Qur’an, wich refers to the area as simply “the holy land”(Al-Arad Al-Muqaddash). In like manner, Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur’an , and Arab historians variously referred to it as Iliya (adapted from the Latin Aelia), Bayt Maqdis (adapted from the the Hebrew Beit Hamiqdash, “the Holy House” or “the Temple”) or finally as Al-Quds (the holy one). The crusaders renewed the use of the three Palestines, however, after the fall of the Crusader kingdom, the name Palestine was no longer used officially, but was preserved only by Christians cartographers in maps drawn in their native lands. From the establishment of islamic rule over the land until the late nineteenth century, inhabitants of the region between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean appear to have referred to themselves primarily with respect to to their religions (mohammedan, Christians and Jews) The first modern use of the term Palestinian appears during the time of the British Mandate (1917-1948). To the classicaly trained British mind the Land of Israel had ceased to exist in ancient times; and Palestine had endured in the classical literature as the designations of the Jewish homeland and heritage. This may be seen , for example, in the Jewish Encyclopedia (published in London 1905), which states that Palestine is “the portion of Syria that was formerlythe possession of the Israelites”. Given the British penchant for historical accuracy, the term is applied witrh reference tothe Jewish residents of the country . Therefore, the standard British reference for defining terms, the Oxford English Dictionary, defines the term Palestinian as 1) “the Jews who returned to Israel from Moscow” and 2) “Jews from Israel who voluntereed to he British army to fight Germany”. In fact, Jewish soldiers serving with the Allies during World War II had the word Palestine inscribed in the soulder badges. In addiction, under the British mandate, the Jewish owned newspaper Jerusalem Post was known as the Palestine Post and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was called Palestine Philharmonica Orchestra, and postage stamps were issued bearing the apellation “Palestine – EI”, the abbreviation EI meaning Erets Israel (Hebrew for “the land of Israel”). These usages makes clear that even though the term Palestinian could have also been applied to Arabs or many other ethnic groups (such as the Armenians, Greeks, Syrians and Ethiopians pf Jerusalem’s Old City or the German Templars of its New City), under British rule, the term was especially understood to refer to a Jew from Palestine.
Palestinian Determination to Eradicate Israel is Endemic in Palestinian/Islamic/Quranic Culture
John Kerry, Philip Hammond, Ban Ki Moon, The Egyptian government, are all attempting to stop the fighting in Palestine. Hamas refuses to stop firing their indiscriminate rockets into Israel and Israel is determined to defend herself. But to the politicians really think they understand the problem or believe they can stop it?
The Hamas and Fatah constitution, backed by the word of Allah as in the Quran, means that Hamas and Fatah will not change their determination to eliminate Israel from their midst. It is so written into their constitution and unless these constitutions are removed or altered, their stance will be as immutable as the Allah’s Words in the Quran. So if it is immutable, their stance will also be immutable. Has anyone in 1400 years ever managed to change the ideology of the Quran. Does John Kerry think he is greater than Allah? Can’t the politicians see the intransigence of the situation. Peace cannot be achieved with Israel located in and surrounded by Islamic people no matter what the United Nations declares. Israel has the right to defend herself. The problem is not solvable under present circumstances. It is futile to attempt it. The rules will have to change.
The only way to stop the hatred is to demand the removal of the unacceptable clauses in the Hamas and Fatah Constitutions, to begin with. Then later, to get the Islamic world to delete all the anti-infidel verses in the Quran.
WHO IS BEHIND OBAMA’S OBSESSION?
That is, his malignant obsession with Jews and with Israel!
Untold numbers of words have been written about the woman and man Obama claims were his mother and father, the far-left Stanley Ann Dunham and the Kenyan-born Marxist, Barack Obama Sr. Then there is the couple he claims were his grandparents, the far-left Madelyn Dunham and Stanley Armour Dunham. I say “claims” because there is still no certifiable birth certificate that attests either to Obama’s parentage or citizenship. But we do know that these people “raised” Obama and along with Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, et al, profoundly influenced his hate-whitey, anti-American, and anti-Israel world view.
Last year, to the month, I wrote Obama’s Jewish Problem, in which I remarked that “to prepare for his meeting on May 18 with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama prepared a menu of poison pills – the kind given to people with the same Hobson’s Choice that Mafia attorney Tom Hagen gave to the imprisoned and about-to-testify-before-Congress Frankie Pentangeli in ‘Godfather Two‘ – either commit suicide or we’re going to kill you.” Sound familiar?!
In that article, I listed the people – more accurately, collaborators – who aid and abet what Mona Charen calls Obama’s “genocidal hostility toward Israel.” The following is the short list:
· Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who according to Dick Morris has had “relationships with terrorists [that] began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization [when] the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.”
· Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and has inspired dozens of articles with titles like these in Commentary: Susan Rice Is Doing Something at the UN: Targeting Israel and What Was Susan Rice’s Embarrassing Anti-Israel Tirade Supposed to Accomplish?
· Lee Hamilton, whom Ed Lasky calls the eminence grise of Obama’s Mideast policy and who has suggested that the U.S. should pressure Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and leave the West Bank – but not a word about dismantling Hamas or Hezbollah!
· Zbigniew Brzezinski, longtime Israel loather, who suggested that the Obama administration should tell Israel that the U.S. will attack Israeli jets if they try to attack Iran.
· John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, suggests, among other egregious things, that Obama & Co. “reach out” to Hezbollah.
· Samantha Power, now on Obama’s National Security Council, has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and written of her willingness to “alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews]…” She has also advocated, Ed Lasky writes, “that America send armed military forces,” “a mammoth protection force” and an “external intervention” to” impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.”
· Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Senior Advisor. According to Ulsterman, the by-nowinfamous Washington Insider, “weeks after widespread Middle East chaos first erupted, and with a growing number of nations now poised to join the likes of Egypt and Libya into all out rebellion, some are finally questioning the role played by the Obama White House in helping to hasten these events. Of primary concern is the reasoning behind Barack Obama’s quick repudiation of Egypt’s Mubarak, and near silence regarding Libya’s Gaddafi. Why such a disparity in tone between one uprising vs another? …Perhaps the answer to this disparity can be found with President Obama’s closest and most powerful adviser – [Iranian-born Muslim] Valerie Jarrett
In addition, according to Ryan Mauro, founder of WorldThreats.com: “The “most influential Muslim” in the White House is Dalia Mogahed…She is a close colleague of John Esposito, a staunch defender of the Muslim Brotherhood and a witness for the defense during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Officials from the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, have made a concerted effort to court these Brotherhood affiliates, including senior advisor Valerie Jarrett; chief counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan; Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough and many other lower-level government officials…”
And that is not to omit the aforementioned George Soros, the man who is running not only Barack Obama but just about the entire American media. According to Dan Gainor, Soros “spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004 [and today] has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.”
I can’t think of one of Obama’s advisors, czars, even Court Jews who is not floridly anti-Israel, in both word and deed. The belief, indeed conviction, that all of these people have in common is that everything wrong with their lives and with the world would magically disappear if only those damned Jews and their damned country Israel were destroyed. Hence the salami tactics to whittle away territory until Israelis simply cannot defend themselves and so perish at the hands of neighbors who have been promising nothing less than annihilation for decades.
This is Obama’s malignant intention, as well. Hence the 1967 lines!
This is the title of an article by Paul Schnee, in which he says that the Obama speech “confirmed in the starkest terms why his long held prejudices, cloaked as a foreign policy, have made his Oval Office not only the graveyard for any peace and justice in the Middle East but also the incubator for the next great conflict there.
“Obama’s intentions towards Israel have never been good,” Schnee adds, “but yesterday he proved just how hostile he is to the Jewish state of Israel. One of the most perverse forms of anti-Semitism is to expect Jews to die meekly… His speech was a shameful act in a career of shameful acts…”
Victor Sharpe, author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State, agrees. “Obama parrots the Arab policy of ‘stages‘ whereby Israel is forced to commit national suicide through the diabolical euphemism called ‘land for peace.’…Obama embraces the darkness of the Arab world and chooses – not from ignorance but from hatred – to enact under his watch the eventual annihilation of the Jewish state.”
Is there any light in this bleak picture? According to Professor Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, “Israel is not going to allow a president with no credibility, who clearly doesn’t understand what’s at stake, fails to support his Arab allies, is soft on his Iranian and Syrian enemies, doesn’t learn from his past errors, is sacrificing U.S. interests in the region, and pays no attention to what’s happening in Egypt, to determine its future.”
But the last word (at least of this article) has to go to writer and Army veteran J.D. Longstreet, who cites Amos and Jeremiah and Ezekiel in “America’s Betrayal of Israel,” in which he states:
“Let me be very clear here: ISRAEL WILL NOT LOSE. Its enemies WILL lose …as a result of the Obama’s announced policy demanding that Israel return to the pre-1967 war borders.
What Obama, and Israel’s other enemies, fail to understand (or understand it and choose to ignore it) is this: That of all the dry land on this planet earth, there is only one tiny little piece of geography that God, Himself, has designated as belonging to a single people – ISRAEL.
What the evangelical Christian Americans rightly understand is this: When God brought the people of Israel, His people, home and gave them a “state,” a nation, in May of 1948, God had already made it as plain as possible that Israel would never be moved from that land again – forever.
Obama Kicks Israel In The Teeth, Ambushes Netanyahu
A few weeks ago I wrote: “For the first time in its history, America is on the wrong side.
Our President, with his loyalty to the world and not to the country that trusted him with the sacred duty to be leader of America and Commander-in-Chief of the mightiest military force in all of history, has gone over to the “Dark Side.” He has turned his back on the one nation, which occupies the most important piece of real estate on the globe. He has made it clear he favors the countries, which consider themselves Israel’s most ardent enemies. Israel now knows they stand alone.” (You may read the entire article HERE.)
On Thursday, May 19th, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States of America, sold Israel out.
Before going further – allow me to say, Obama does not speak for all Americans. In fact, he speaks for fewer and fewer Americans every day. With his call for Israel to return to its 1967 borders he has alienated millions of Americans, especially the American evangelical Christians. And, my fervent hope is that he has awakened America’s Jewish community to his anti-Israel policies.
Obama backhanded the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu today as Netanyahu was preparing to fly to the US to speak before the Congress. Obama’s speech was a well-planned ambush of Mr. Netanyahu. It was intended to shake Israel’s Prime Minister and weaken him before his address to the Congress. It was, plain and simple, dirty politics. But we have come to expect this kind of attack from this American President. Down and dirty!
With Obama’s public unveiling of his “Throw Israel to the Wolves” policy, he has now publicly declared, for all to see (who will allow themselves to see), that he, Obama, supports Israel’s enemies and their efforts to drive Israel into the sea. By the way, Americans should never — for one moment — forget that Israel’s enemies are AMERICA’S ENEMIES, TOO!
Obama just lit the fuse to the powder keg that will blow up the world. If Israel is forced to return to the 1967 borders, a nuclear Armageddon will follow. Israel will not able to defend itself with conventional weapons and will have no choice but to employ its nuclear arsenal to defeat its enemies. And it will use them with well thought out effectiveness.
If you think the Middle East is afire today … you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Let me be very clear here: ISRAEL WILL NOT LOSE. Its enemies WILL lose and America will suffer, incalculably, as a result of the Obama’s announced policy demanding that Israel return to the pre-1967 war borders.
For those of our reader who rely on scripture as their guide, and on the accuracy of Biblical Prophecy concerning Israel we refer you to these statements concerning Israel’s home FOREVER:
Amos 9:15 — I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the LORD your God.
Jeremiah 3:18 — In those days the house of Judah will join the house of Israel, and together they will come from a northern land to the land I gave your forefathers as an inheritance.
Jeremiah 23:8 — but they will say, ‘As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.’ Then they will live in their own land.”
Jeremiah 33:7 — I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before.
Ezekiel 34:28 — They will no longer be plundered by the nations, nor will wild animals devour them. They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid.
Ezekiel 37:25 — They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.
Joel 3:20 — Judah will be inhabited forever and Jerusalem through all generations.
What Obama, and Israel’s other enemies, fail to understand (Or understand it and choose to ignore it) is this: That of all the dry land on this planet earth, there is only one tiny little piece of geography that God, Himself, has designated as belonging to a single people – ISRAEL. What the evangelical Christian Americans rightly understand is this: When God brought the people of Israel, His people, home and gave them a “state,” a nation, in May of 1948, God had already made it as plain as possible that Israel would never be moved from that land again — forever.
It seems so clear that anyone coming against Israel to drive them from that land will be subject to supernatural intervention from God — on behalf of Israel. That will insure the utter failure of those coming against Israel and, too, it will insure the utter destruction of Israel’s attackers.
I had not intended to climb into my pulpit in this commentary, but it is important that you, the reader, understand that it is not I making these predictions. And HE has a one hundred percent accuracy rate — plus a record of meting out justice, which is — complete destruction of Israel’s enemies.
On Thursday, Obama crossed the line and, in my opinion, will bring punishment to America such as we have never experienced in our history.
If there was ever any doubt where Obama’s sympathies lie — with Israel, or with Israel’s Muslim enemies, all doubt should have been erased by his revealing speech in which he sold out America’s only friend left in the Middle East and, very nearly, the entire world.
Pray for Israel… and pray that America’s punishment will not cripple her forever.
J. D. Longstreetis a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”.· He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.
Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.· A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.