YES ISRAEL SHOULD REBUILD 3RD TEMPLE

EU treaty ratification may be difficult, experts say
27.07.2007 - 17:51 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Even if the EU manages to avoid referendums on its new Reform Treaty, ratification of the text may prove less easy than has been assumed so far, a Brussels think tank has warned. A paper by the European Policy Centre released on Thursday (26 July) highlights hurdles and traps in member states' ratification of the reform treaty, which the Portuguese EU presidency hopes to get signed by EU leaders before the end of the year.France, which rejected the original EU constitution in a referendum in 2005, has this time opted for treaty ratification via the parliament.But Mr Sarkozy may run into unexpected problems according to the EPC paper.

Before it can ratify the reform treaty, Paris will first have to make changes to its own national constitution because it still contains direct references to the old EU constitutional treaty.These references were agreed by French deputies in 2004, in the expectation that the EU constitution would soon come into force - before French voters said no to the treaty.It is true that the constitution should be changed, said a French official, adding that this process should take place quickly during 2008.But in order to have the French constitution amended, Mr Sarkozy needs a three-fifths majority in the French Congress - a body combining the country's national assembly and the senate.For this he depends on the support of the opposition socialists.

The socialist are in a very difficult situation right now. They could use this opportunity to take revenge at Sarkozy and negotiate to the maximum, said Philippe Moreau Defarges, a senior analyst at the French Institute for International relations (IFRI).Mr Defarges indicated that it is unlikely that the socialists will actually block the constitutional changes, but added that the party's internal disarray makes its behaviour unpredictable.Once the constitutional hurdle in France is cleared, parliamentary ratification of the EU treaty is set to be relatively easy, as for this move Mr Sarkozy would only need a simple majority of UMP deputies, who dominate in the assembly.

Obstacles on the road

Other governments in the EU, however, do need a three-fifths or two-thirds parliamentary majority to have the treaty ratified, the EPC paper points out.In Austria and Finland there are no signs that a two-thirds majority will pose a problem, but Poland and the Czech Republic may prove more problematic, the paper notes.Warsaw still needs to indicate what parliamentary procedure it wants to follow, but opposition support in parliament may prove crucial to pass a two-thirds threshold, with a eurosceptic party in Poland's ruling coalition recently saying it could vote against the treaty.In the Czech Republic, opposition support may also be necessary for a three-fifth majority.

An even bigger problem could be posed by possible referendums down the line, the think-tank argues. So far, only Ireland has officially announced that it will call a referendum, but other member states are facing pressure to do the same, including the UK, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Denmark, Spain and Luxembourg.
Much could depend on which country is first to ratify the new treaty - and whether any other member state apart from Ireland decides to call a referendum at an early stage in the process, according to the report.If that happens it will be increasingly difficult for those governments which find themselves in the grey area to avoid having one.

Parliaments, not voters, to ratify new EU treaty
By Justin Stares, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:42am BST 29/07/2007

The new European Union treaty has several hurdles to jump before it can become law.

• Ireland, where voters rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001, looks set for another vote next year. I'm assuming we will have to have a referendum, Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, told opposition leaders last month. Ireland's shock 2001 rejection of the original treaty forced Dublin to seek an amendment ensuring the country could not be dragged unwillingly into EU military action. After obtaining it, a second referendum was held, and a majority voted yes. The Irish would again be expected to vote yes to the new treaty.

• Denmark is another country where a new vote could take place. The Danes have rejected a key EU treaty before in a referendum - the Maastricht Treaty - though approved it in a second vote after Copenhagen obtained an opt-out from the euro and from moves towards a common EU defence. According to a recent poll, more than half of all Danes want a referendum on the new treaty, though Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Prime Minister, has yet to commit himself.

• In Holland, debate on the desirability and necessity of another vote has split parliament. The hot potato has therefore been handed to the country's highest court, the Council of State.

• In Portugal, too, there could be a referendum, although the country's long-standing pro-European bias would make the outcome of any such vote a foregone conclusion.

• The French are not expected get another chance to vote because the new mini-treaty was the brainchild of President Nicolas Sarkozy. He made it clear that he would only put the text to a vote in parliament during his election campaign earlier this year. The more sceptical EU countries are not expected to bar ratification for the same reason: parliaments, not the people, will decide. This is also the case in the Czech Republic, where the new treaty enjoys support among the government and the opposition, and in Poland though here the outcome is less easy to predict.

• In the remaining EU member states, moves towards greater integration enjoy either a majority or overwhelming support.

Vatican City: Islam a Threat, Pope’s Adviser Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - Published: July 27, 2007

Msgr. Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict XVI’s secretary and close adviser, warned of the Islamization of Europe and stressed the need for the Continent’s Christian roots not to be ignored. In comments released in advance of an interview to be published today in the German weekly Süeddeutsche Magazin, he said: Attempts to Islamize the West cannot be denied. The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness. He also defended a speech Benedict gave last year linking Islam and violence, saying it was an attempt by the pope to act against a certain naïveté.

This Week with Rabbi Eckstein COME WITH US TO ISRAEL
July 27, 2007

Dear Friend of The Fellowship,

Today, I am back in Jerusalem, discussing plans for this fall’s Journey Home Tour to Israel 2007 with Fellowship staff. I’ve been telling you for several months about this trip, and am greatly looking forward to meeting and sharing a Sabbath meal with tour participants. The Bible promises, Blessed are those … who have set their hearts on pilgrimage (Psalm 84:5) – and I want to again invite you to take your own pilgrimage to the Holy Land with us. Registration for the tour is officially closing on August 1, so if you have been planning to register, now is the time to sign up for what promises to be the trip of a lifetime.

Several years ago, The Fellowship led its first tour to Israel. All the participants on that first trip went home with memories, friendships and experiences that will endure a lifetime. Even today, we hear from Fellowship supporters who reminisce about their first day in Jerusalem’s Old City, or their first prayer at the Western Wall. They recall the smile of a child at Migdal Ohr, the Fellowship-funded orphanage in the Lower Galilee that is home to more than 6,000 children. They tell how serving meals at a soup kitchen in Jerusalem, holding babies in a day-care center in Bet She’an or meeting Ethiopian immigrants grateful for the klitah (resettlement) assistance they’ve received has made them view their support of The Fellowship with greater appreciation and understanding.

They also tell of the impact the trip has had on their faith. Following that first tour, one participant said something that has stayed with me ever since. If you know the Bible, if you read the Bible, if you believe in the Word of God, come and walk through the Bible and see it with your own eyes, she said. One trip to Israel is a life changing experience that no Sunday school can ever teach. It's really walking in the footsteps of the Bible, being there where it all happened. Nothing can replace that.

If you are interested in growing in your faith by walking in the footsteps of the Bible, and in seeing how your gifts help transform lives in Israel, please contact us today to be part of The Fellowship’s Journey Home Tour 2007. I promise you, it will be an unforgettable, life-changing experience. As you prayerfully consider this invitation, my prayer is that God will bless you, even as you have blessed his people, Israel.

With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
President INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS

AMERICA DO NOT HELP ANY ARAB COUNTRIES WITH WEAPONS, THEY WILL USE THEM AGAINST ISRAEL. HELP ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL WITH 30 BILLION DOLLARS AND LOTS OF WEAPONS.

Israel Confirms Increased $30 Bln. U.S. Defense Aid JULY 29,07

(RTTNews) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the U.S. military and defense aid was an important element for the security of his country, confirming a U.S. plan to significantly increase military aid to Israel. Olmert said the proposal was discussed at his meeting with U.S. President George Bush in Washington last month, and was a sign of U.S. commitment to maintain Israel's military advantage over the Arab states. There have been reports in U.S. newspapers that the U.S. was planning a 25% increase in military and defense aid package to Israel aggregating about $30 billion spread over the next ten years. Israel currently receives $2.4 billion U.S. defense aid annually. It was also reported that Washington is in the process of preparing a major arms package sales to Saudi Arabia and five other middle-East countries, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE.

US readies arms deal with Saudis, eyeing Iran: official Sat Jul 28, 9:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is readying a major arms package for Saudi Arabia with an eye to countering a changing threat from Iran, a senior US defense official said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to discuss the US recommendations with the Saudis next week in a visit to the kingdom with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the official said Friday.We've been working very hard on the Saudi arms package, which we believe is critical to the overarching architecture that we believe we are going to need ... to deal with the changing strategic threat from Iran and other forces, the official said.

The official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity said discussions with Congress on the arms package have just begun and that no announcements were expected during Gates' visit to Saudi Arabia.What there may be is discussion about what the administration is willing to go forwards with (and) ... what we would recommend to the Hill and others, she said, referring to Congress on Capitol Hill.The Pentagon provided no details on the arms package, which will reportedly total 20 billion dollars over the next decade.But administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it would include selling Saudi Arabia advanced weapons known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs.

JDAM is a low-cost guidance kit converting existing unguided free-fall bombs into accurately guided smart weapons.Munition equipped with such kits can attack simultaneously multiple targets in a coordinated strike by single or multiple aircraft.JDAM weapons were extensively used by the United States in recent conflicts. More than 650 of them were dropped during the 1999 operation in Kosovo, more than 4,500 during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2002 and over 6,500 during the invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, according to defense experts.

The package also will include new weapons for the United Arab Emirates, another US ally in the Persian Gulf, and both military and economic support to Egypt, the officials said.Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reported in March that it is believed to include air and missile defense systems, advanced early warning radar aircraft, and light coastal combat ships.The New York Times reported in April that the package had been delayed because of Israeli concerns over the sale to Saudi Arabia of certain precision guided munitions.Gates and Rice are expected to emphasize US commitment to the region's security at a time when there is fierce debate at home of whether to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

Congress has the power to block such sales, but the White House is hoping to avoid a major fight on the issue.Israel, meanwhile, is reported to have asked for the F-22 Raptor, the stealthy US fighter jet, which is difficult to see on radar.

EVEN IF A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE AGAINST REBUILDING THE 3RD TEMPLE, ITS GOING TO BE REBUILT BEFORE THE 7 YEAR PEACE TREATY IS SIGNED. IN DANIEL 9:27 WE SEE THE ISRAELIS SACRIFICING TO GOD FOR THE FIRST 3 1/2 YRS OF THE TRIBULATION PERIOD.

Jul. 24, 2007 5:11 - Should Jews build the Third Temple?
By STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG - JERUSALEM POST

Traditionally the Temple Mount Faithful attempt to set up a foundation stone for the Third Temple on Tisha Be'av, and the police routinely prevent them from doing so. The occasion for this street theater is the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and that of the Second Temple in 70 CE, both said to have occurred on the same calendar date. It is certainly right that the date be commemorated; but would rebuilding the Temple be an appropriate act for the State of Israel today?

Assuming there were no Dome of the Rock and no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, no Wakf and no Aksa Mosque, the pressure to rebuild the Temple would be enormous - but would it, in historical terms, be sound? The last time such an opportunity occurred was in the time of Julian the Apostate, in 362 CE. That Roman Emperor, who succeeded Constantine, reversed his predecessor's decision to turn the empire into a Christian state and returned to the former pagan religions, which were permissive of other cults, including the Jewish one. It seems that he gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt, and then went off to fight his enemies. In Jerusalem work commenced on reconstructing the altar, but hardly had a few stones been put one on another, when a massive earthquake hit the area and the work collapsed. Worse still, Julian was killed in Persia and his place was taken by the Emperor Jovian, who reinstalled Christianity as the official religion. Any hope of rebuilding the Temple ceased, never to return.

IN 638 CE, the hordes of Islam conquered Jerusalem and by 692 the Caliph Abd al-Malik had completed the Dome of the Rock, which stood on the mountain inviolate for the following 1,315 years. During the Crusader years it was converted to Christian use, and most Crusaders thought it had been built originally as the Temple of Solomon, but it was not changed structurally and returned to the Muslims on expulsion of the Crusaders in 1187. However, it did not return as a mosque, as it had never been one. As the Dome was not a mosque, why did Abd al-Malik build it? It may be that he was attempting to set up a place of pilgrimage in competition to Mecca, which was controlled by his rival, Ibn al-Zubayr, but it seems more likely that, probably advised by an ex-Jewish companion, he recognized the historic significance of the site and in particular of the rock, the foundation stone, the even shetiya, that carried so much religious baggage. It was the scene of the Mihrab of Dawood (shrine of David) and the Bayit al-Makdis of Sulayman (Temple of Solomon) so al-Malik may have selected the site as a kind of location of ultimate holiness, maybe even for the Day of the Last Judgement.

The unique design of the building, a circular dome over an octagonal base, emphasized its concentration on the central feature, the Rock. Unlike any mosque, the building had no directional focus and was entered by four doorways, one to each of the cardinal points, as if to encourage access to persons or, indeed, their souls coming from the four corners of the earth. LATER THE Muslims observed that the Rock was the mythical arrival and departure point of Mohammed on his white steed Buraq, but Abd al-Malik had recognized the precedence of Solomon and even Abraham on the site. This makes it clear that the sanctity of the site stems from its Jewish origins, though the Muslims, of course, claim Abraham as one of their own, and venerate Solomon as divine. Now, even if the Muslim attitude would be to allow a Jewish presence, and even a rebuilding on the site, would it be in the Jewish interest to proceed with a third Temple?

WHEN HEROD decided to rebuild the Temple in 19 BCE, 18 years after having been handed the throne by the Romans, there must have been much trepidation among the population, the priests and others, about his intentions. He managed to calm their fears by employing only priests on the Temple itself and by enabling the Korban Tamid, the daily sacrifices, to continue without interruption. The resources that he used were vast and would have pleased the local craftsmen, who were provided with employment for many years. The end result pleased even his rabbinic critics, though well after the event: Whoever has not seen Herod's building has never seen anything beautiful, they crowed. This was a surprising reaction, as very few rabbis were yet around to see the Temple in its glory. Additionally, modern reconstructions show a rather high, lopsided building with an overblown classical front sitting on a vast platform that completely ignores the beautiful mountain it covered. Such an oversize terrace must have intimidated anyone venturing on to it.

The huge expanse of uncovered space would not be conducive to our weather, be it sunshine or rain. For all its glory, the structure was not completed until 60 CE, well after the death of Herod, and it only stood another six years before its service was embroiled in the revolt against the Romans. So what did Herod's great work really achieve? Did it achieve unity among the Jewish people? Did it achieve harmony between our different factions? Did it achieve reconciliation with our governors, the Romans, who admired the structure built on classical lines by their favorite Jewish ruler? Did its presence give us protection against our enemies or absolution for our sins? QUITE THE contrary. The daily sacrifices were used by the zealots to exclude the offering of the Roman emperor, which led to reprisals and insults by the occupying army. Different parties saw different ways of resolving the crisis, but could find no unanimity among themselves. The High Priest, who might have been a potential leader, was just another political appointment, as he had been under the Seleucids; even his sacred clothing was held hostage in the hands of the Roman governor. The priests were divided in their loyalties and unable to conduct the divine service in a dignified manner.

When it came to the actual revolt in Jerusalem, things turned perilous, and civil war reigned. The zealots, led by John of Gischala, got the upper hand and the peace party was unable to stop them. Another zealot leader, Simon bar Giora, was welcomed into the city to oppose Gischala, but the two soon joined together against the moderates. That union did not last and within a short time there were three gangster parties (in the words of Josephus) who burnt each other's grain supplies, not realizing that they would all suffer in the end. Only the Romans could benefit from the chaos, and so they did, in spite of the brave efforts put up by the separate parties, one of whom used the Temple precinct for a heroic, if vain, last stand. The magnificent Herodian Temple, as finally completed, had stood for only 10 years.

THIS WAS not so different from the vicissitudes of the First Temple. Solomon completed it with forced labor shifts, directed by his chief taskmaster, Adoniram. On Solomon's death, the majority of the tribes revolted against his successor Rehoboam, put the hated Adoniram to death by stoning, and set up the Northern Kingdom, which had no use for the Temple.In the south, the Temple was sacked by Pharaoh Shishak in about 925 BCE, and all its gold was stripped away and taken to Egypt. Rehoboam was forced to present to the people shields of polished brass to simulate the looted metal. The golden glory of Solomon's Temple had lasted for just 40 years. Not long after, king Asa had to use the replaced Temple treasures to bribe Ben-Hadad of Aram (Syria) to help him fight against Baasa, king of Northern Israel. Worse than all that loss of treasure was the fact that the First Temple, as described in our sacred books, became the focus of idol worship in the reigns of the Judahite kings Asa, Jehoram, Amaziah and the queen Athaliah, who gave its treasures to the House of Baal.

The timely restoration under Hezekiah was undermined by his son Manasseh, and the renaissance initiated by Josiah was sabotaged by the desecration of his successors that culminated in defeat by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, followed by destruction 11 years later. What happened to the glory of the First Temple? It lasted 40 years. The Second Temple never achieved glory until its rebuilding by Herod, and that lasted 10 years. Will a Third Temple fare any better? The records of history are against it.

The writer is a Fellow of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem.