KING JESUS IS COMING FOR US ANY TIME NOW. THE RAPTURE. BE PREPARED TO GO.
ISRAEL SATAN COMES AGAINST
1 CHRONICLES 21:1
1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
ISRAELS TROUBLE
JEREMIAH 30:7
7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble;(ISRAEL) but he shall be saved out of it.
DANIEL 12:1,4
1 And at that time shall Michael(ISRAELS WAR ANGEL) stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:(ISRAEL) and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation(May 14,48) even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,(WORLD TRAVEL,IMMIGRATION) and knowledge shall be increased.(COMPUTERS,CHIP IMPLANTS ETC)
ISRAEL SATAN COMES AGAINST
1 CHRONICLES 21:1
1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
ISRAELS TROUBLE
JEREMIAH 30:7
7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble;(ISRAEL) but he shall be saved out of it.
DANIEL 12:1,4
1 And at that time shall Michael(ISRAELS WAR ANGEL) stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:(ISRAEL) and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation(May 14,48) even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,(WORLD TRAVEL,IMMIGRATION) and knowledge shall be increased.(COMPUTERS,CHIP IMPLANTS ETC)
Israeli ties with U.S. deteriorating amid differences over Iran nuclear talks, Palestinians
AP Photo/Jason Reed, PoolU.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry checks his phone before a meeting with EU
High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton and Iranian
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva, Switzerland, Saturday
Nov. 9, 2013.
JERUSALEM
— A pair of testy public exchanges this week appear to have undone
whatever good will was created between the Israeli and U.S. governments
during a high-profile visit by President Barack Obama early this year.Tensions burst into the open during a swing through the region by
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. In an interview broadcast on both
Israeli and Palestinian TV, Kerry questioned Israel’s seriousness about
peace with the Palestinians. Hours later Netanyahu fired back, vowing
not to cave into concessions to the Palestinians — and also saying he
“utterly rejects” an emerging nuclear deal between world powers and
Iran.The rancour signals a tough road ahead for the twin American goals of
finding a diplomatic solution for Iran’s nuclear program and forging
peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And it raises the spectre of a
return to the uncomfortable relationship that has often characterized
dealings between Obama and Netanyahu.Israeli news reports describe Netanyahu as being in “shock” over the
possible Iranian compromise. Netanyahu, who sees Iran as an arch-enemy,
has vowed to do anything, including a military strike, to prevent Iran
from reaching weapons capability.“If there were a synoptic map for diplomatic storms, the National
Weather Service would be putting out a hurricane warning right now,”
diplomatic correspondent Chemi Shalev wrote on the website of the
newspaper Haaretz. “And given that the turbulence is being caused by an
issue long deemed to be critical to Israel’s very existence, we may
actually be facing a rare Category 5 flare up, a ’superstorm’ of
U.S.-Israeli relations.”Obama and Netanyahu took office just months apart in 2009, but seemed
to share little in common. At joint appearances they appeared
uncomfortable and even occasionally sparred. In one famous instance,
Netanyahu lectured Obama on the pitfalls of Mideast peacemaking in front
of the TV cameras at a White House meeting.The lack of chemistry seems rooted in vastly different world views.
Obama is a proponent of diplomacy and consensus, while Netanyahu
believes Israel can trust no one and must protect itself.Netanyahu also enjoys strong ties with U.S. Republicans. In 2012, he was widely perceived to have backed challenger Mitt Romney.And there has been constant friction over Netanyahu’s insistence on
continuing to settle Jews on occupied land even as he negotiates with
the Palestinians.Last March, Obama travelled to Israel for a visit widely seen as an
attempt to reboot relations. The two leaders appeared together at a
series of events, smiling and sharing jokes. But even then there were
signs of trouble. Obama urged an audience of university students to
pressure Israeli leaders to change their ways and take bold new steps to
reach peace with the Palestinians.Since then, officials on both sides have stressed the countries are
close allies regardless of politics. But the atmosphere gradually soured
again as Obama pressed forward with his two major diplomatic
initiatives.Over the summer, Kerry persuaded Israel and the Palestinians to
return to the negotiating table for the first time in nearly five years.
The sides agreed to talk for nine months, with an April target date for
reaching a peace deal.To get talks going, Palestinians dropped a longstanding demand for an
Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank and east
Jerusalem, captured territories that the Palestinians claim for a future
state. To get Palestinians back to talks, Israel committed to releasing
104 long-serving Palestinian prisoners. The U.S. also apparently gave
vague assurances settlement construction would be restrained.With negotiations making no visible progress, Israel’s release of a
second round of Palestinian prisoners two weeks ago — all jailed for
killing Israelis — set off an uproar. Netanyahu followed the release by
announcing plans to build thousands of settler homes, infuriating the
Palestinians, the Americans and also the moderate camp in Israel itself.In surprisingly blunt comments, Kerry told Israel’s Channel 2 TV on
Thursday that Israel faced the possibility of international isolation
and renewed violence with the Palestinians if peace efforts failed. He
also said the continued settlement construction raised questions about
Israel’s commitment to peace.“How can you say, ’We’re planning to build in the place that will
eventually be Palestine?”’ Kerry said. “It sends a message that somehow
perhaps you’re not really serious.”Netanyahu responded the next morning ahead of a meeting with Kerry.
“No amount of pressure will make me or the government of Israel
compromise on the basic security and national interests of the State of
Israel,” the visibly agitated premier said.Netanyahu also slammed the emerging agreement with Iran. “Iran got
the deal of the century, and the international community got a bad
deal,” he said. “This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it.”He warned that Israel is “not obliged” to honour the agreement and
would do “everything it needs to do to defend itself.” Following a tense
meeting stretching more than two hours, a planned joint appearance with
Kerry and Netanyahu to the media was cancelled.
While negotiators in Geneva hammered out details Saturday, the
discussed deal appeared to include some relief from painful economic
sanctions in exchange for limits on Iranian nuclear activity. However,
chances of a deal being struck looked slim late Saturday.Netanyahu has said international pressure should be increased, not
eased, until Iran dismantles all suspicious nuclear activities. White
House spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said Saturday the Obama
administration was in “full agreement” with Israel — though that didn’t
seem to be the case.For now, Netanyahu’s options appear limited. Despite longstanding
threats to carry out a military attack on Iran if necessary, it would be
all but impossible to do so in the current diplomatic environment. On
the Palestinian front, Netanyahu holds most of the leverage and is
showing little inclination to change.Nicholas Burns, a former senior State Department official, said that Netanyahu made an error by airing his grievances publicly.“Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public outburst was unfortunate and
ill-advised,” Burns, who now teaches at Harvard University’s John F.
Kennedy School of Government, wrote in an email. “It has gone down very
badly in the U.S.”Associated Press writer Josh Lederman in Washington contributed to this report
Yonatan Sindel-Pool/Getty ImagesU.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Israeli President Shimon Peres
at the Israeli leader's residence November 6, 2013 in Jerusalem
Crisis of faith’ between Israel and US over possible Iran deal
Netanyahu ‘in a state of shock’ over terms, believes agreement would enable Iran to become ‘nuclear breakout state,’ TV reports say; deal seen as putting an end to any Israeli military option
November 9, 2013, 1:51 am
43
Agitated Netanyahu wonders if he left it too late
The prime minister’s very public horror at the deal taking shape in Geneva reflects his concern that he is failing in what he sees as his central mission
November 9, 2013, 2:58 pm
1-The Times of Israel
But this weekend, his concern has been
elevated to new heights. Unsourced reports on Friday night’s Israeli TV
news programs suggested that the prime minister feels he has been misled
by the Obama administration, and that the offer put on the table to the
Iranians in Geneva — which would allow them to continue to enrich
uranium to 3.5% and thus, in Israel’s assessment, to establish
themselves as a “breakout” state capable of racing to the bomb at a time
of their choosing — is far more dangerous than anything he had
anticipated. As he declared Friday in that highly agitated Ben Gurion Airport appearance, Iran, under the deal on the table, “gets everything that it wanted at this stage and pays nothing.”Ensconcing himself as the prime public face of
international opposition to the deal taking shape in Geneva, Netanyahu
openly acknowledged that he had pleaded with Kerry “not to rush to sign,
to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal… This is a bad deal, a very,
very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very
dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.”Underpinning the prime minister’s undisguised
horror at the direction of the Geneva talks was his worry that he has
mishandled the crisis. Nobody could credibly assert that Netanyahu has
failed to sound the international alarm. He has been warning the world
relentlessly about Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, and his constant
highlighting of the danger played a central role in pushing the
international community into the sanctions that finally brought Tehran
to the negotiating table.What the prime minister is likely asking
himself this weekend, however, is whether he should have moved from
warnings to action — whether the moment for his threatened resort to
force has already come and gone.Persistent reports have suggested that
Netanyahu did want to intervene militarily in the past, most
particularly in the summer of 2012, and that he was deterred by
opposition from the United States and from Israel’s own security chiefs,
past and present. Others close to him, however, insist that had
Netanyahu truly believed that it was a case of now or never for a
military strike, he would have ordered one. “If
he had thought that military action was crucial at the time, he would
have acted,” Tzachi Hanegbi, the Likud MK, and former minister for
nuclear affairs, who is closer than most others in the party to the
prime minister, told this writer just a few days ago.Hanegbi added
that Netanyahu “most likely decided not to [resort to force in the
past] because there are great advantages to waiting until Israel comes
as close as possible to the limits of its tolerance. Because when that
point is reached, we can use all of the previous restraint as a very
powerful tool for strengthening the legitimacy of our actions.”For Netanyahu now, though, the question of whether he has waited too long. As he made crystal clear in that UN address,
he is certain that “Iran is developing nuclear weapons” and he believes
that ”when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power,
sooner or later its appetite for aggression knows no bounds.”He vowed in that speech that Israel would “not
allow” Tehran to get the bomb. But now the entire international
community is publicly lined up in search of an accord with the
ostensibly newly moderate Iran. If a deal — however “bad” and
“dangerous” — is being done by diplomats led by the United States, can
Israel seriously contemplate defying the world and taking on Iran
militarily? To paraphrase those comments he made at his father’s
funeral, the prime minister will be asking himself whether he proved
incapable of identifying the danger and drawing the necessary
conclusions in time.