What is Obamas' plan for the Palestinians ?

[Tom Grainger]

Low priority for Palestinian issue if Obama elected US president

October 17, 2008, 3:44 PM (GMT+02:00) DEBKAfile


US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama
The Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has decided not to treat the Palestinian issue as a top priority if he wins the Nov. 4 election, DEBKAfile’s Washington exclusive sources reveal. The Middle East experts on the senator's transition team advised him there was no hurry to address the issue in the early stages of his presidency because the Palestinian side has no leaders authoritative enough to sign a peace accord. Their internal divisions are too profound for such a leader to emerge in the foreseeable future, said those advisers.

Their chief recommendation was for the next president to assign top priority to a nuclear Iran and its relations with Syria, according to our sources.

While nothing is being said publicly, DEBKAfile’s sources report that some of Senator Obama’s advisers have remarked that Presidents Clinton and Bush discovered too late that over-involvement in the Palestinian-Israel dispute achieved nothing and in fact caused them to neglect more consequential Middle East business.

Their misplaced concern hurt their reputations for effectiveness as international statesmen.

By setting the Palestinian question aside, the Democratic candidate if elected will effectively terminate Bush’s 2007 Annapolis initiative and the subsequent on-and-off negotiations with Palestinian leaders conducted by outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert and his would-be successor foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

Those talks anyway achieved very little.

This was admitted in Amman Thursday, Oct. 17, by leading Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia who put the blame for the lack of progress on Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Comment:
I am a bit confused here with the Rev. Jesse Jackson & Samantha Powers advocating a change in US foreign policy will come after Obamas election to be very Pro-Palestinian, even perhaps to "force" (militarily?) a peace agreement on a recalcitrant State of Israel. It is also reported that President Bush & the State department are drawing up an agreement to be concluded soon for a Palestinian State with Israeli settlers removed from the West Bank, Jerusamem divided, Golan given to Syria etc. Ironically President Bush's actions seems to be in agreement with the CRC Justice committee position papers .
Can anyone help ?

[Tom Grainger]

With the US election over the following hghlights the consistency of the US State Department fom the Bush to the coming Obama administration. This will be very good news to some Justice Seekers.

Rice to pin down Israeli “concessions” for Obama team
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

November 9, 2008, 9:31 PM (GMT+02:00)


Condoleezza exits Middle East peacemaking empty-handed
Although the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have yielded no agreements on core issues, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has decided that a departmental panel will “summarize” their transcripts and hand them over to the Barack Obama team.

Rice said at the Middle East Quartet meeting in Egypt Sunday, Nov. 9, that she would hand over to her successor “in private” and then "you won't hear any more from me".

DEBKAfile notes: All the parties agreed in advance that the Israel-Palestinian talks would be confidential. They were held for several months on two tracks - Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas and foreign minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qureia. A news blackout was maintained although it was sharply criticized in Israel for keeping the public in the dark. The deal was that only issues agreed would be disclosed. However, no agreement was reached on any of the core issues, Jerusalem, refugees and borders.

DEBKAfile’s political sources report that assistant secretary of state David Welch will compile the report for submission to the Obama foreign policy transition team. This process means that any thought, hypothesis or suggestion floated in the confidential talks may be pinned down and presented as an Israeli concession for the next administration to pursue as such. The report may also may or may not be tilted in Palestinian favor.

Throughout the talks, Israeli intelligence leaders criticized Olmert and Livni for being too forthcoming and free with their ideas with their Palestinian interlocutors who by contrast stuck to demands. The Americans may decide to use the Israel negotiators’ words as commitments, they warned, particularly when they see their Annapolis initiative melting away before the end of 2008, the deadline the Bush administration set for a peace accord. But both Israeli leaders dismissed this, certain that Rice would play fair.

The fate of this report depends on the priorities of the new US president and the winners of Israel’s February election. However, Secretary Rice will have planted a bomb for her successors to use against Israel should they so decide when the time comes.

"He that keepeth Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps"

[Tom Grainger]

ps Psalm 121

also the following news item:

AUSTRALIA has switched its position to vote against Israel on two resolutions at the United Nations, ending the Howard government's unswerving alignment with the United States and raising concern from the Jewish community.
The move also signals to the incoming Obama administration that the Rudd Government plans to take a different approach to the Howard government on the international stage. In the weekend vote in New York, Australia supported a resolution calling on Israel to stop establishing settlements in the Palestinian territories and a resolution calling for the Geneva Conventions to apply in the Palestinian territories.
The resolutions on the Middle East peace process are held annually and the Howard government had backed both from 1996 to 2002 but in 2003 began to vote against or abstain. It was a move that aligned Australia with only the US, Israel, the US Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Micronesia and put the country at odds with Britain, Canada, New Zealand and France.
Australian officials told the UN the Government had changed its position because it supported a two-state resolution of the conflict to deliver a secure Israel living beside a viable Palestinian state and that Australia believed both sides should abide by their obligations under the Road Map for Peace. Australia said it was concerned activity in the disputed settlements undermined confidence in the negotiations. It was among 161 countries that supported both resolutions, with two abstaining and six against.

It appears political support for Israel is waning as the wisdom of men rules the day.

[VDB]

support for Israel is waning

What does the Bible say about this? Does that matter?

I am going to research this now.

[VDB]

TEL AVIV — For the first time since the 1960s, Israel's intelligence community has raised the prospect that the West could abandon its support of a Jewish state.

Officials said the intelligence assessment determined that European Union officials regard Israel as the main reason for the Western crisis with Iran, Middle East Newsline reported. They said Israel has become the focus of Iran and other Muslim states in what could result in a nuclear war in the Middle East.

More>

Ok, now what does the Bible say?

[VDB]

1 Kings 6:13 And I will live among the Israelites and will not abandon my people Israel.”

Micah 5:3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor gives birth
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.

Amos 5:2
“Fallen is Virgin Israel,
never to rise again,
deserted in her own land,
with no one to lift her up.”

But even more important ...

Jeremiah 17:13
O LORD, the hope of Israel,
all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
because they have forsaken the LORD,
the spring of living water.

Psalms 37:28
For the LORD loves the just
and will not forsake his faithful ones.
They will be protected forever,
but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;

Ezekiel 36:22
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.

Psalms 94:14
For the LORD will not reject his people;
he will never forsake his inheritance.

Nehemiah 9:17
They refused to listen and failed to remember the miracles you performed among them. They became stiff-necked and in their rebellion appointed a leader in order to return to their slavery. But you are a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. Therefore you did not desert them,

Revelation 21:12
It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 7:4
Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

What does this all mean?

[Wendy H.]

I was always taught that promises to Isreael in the Old Testament refers to the church, not the actual state.

This helped clear it up: http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=892

[Marc Peterson]

Wendy, I am not a "end of times, Israel in it's current govt. form must be saved for our salvation" type. Maybe someone here who knows more Greek might be able to help more, but given the profound timelessness of these promises and the fact that the Bible says that we are grafted in to the promise, not our own tree I think we should be careful. Romans 11:17 "If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches." There are conditional contracts which can be broken by either side and there are bold promises which are pronouncements. I think we should at least consider the possibility that there are plans we don't know all about, don't you think?

[Tom Grainger]

Hi Wendy & welcome to the group. Your input is appreciated & may I say that your comment is correct in that the CRC has a very strong repacement theology position and the attached views from a few Calvin Scholars may be of interest .

http://www.calvinseminary.edu/pubs/forum/99fall.pdf especially the Y2K article ;-)

This theological position can manifest itself in a dark world view that the modern State of Israel is a perhaps an ill conceived political entity, created as a guilt reaction to the WWII Nazi Holocaust & foisted upon the Arabs of the Holy Land. Hence any attempt to minimize, contain or ahem . to see it go away is a legitimate activity. If prophecy ended in 70 AD and all those elect are elected, so to speak , then any political entity is a historical fact but not much more. USA , Canada, Slovenia - No worries !

Marc - I like yourself am not sitting around looking for the Anti-Christ , however it has been my observation from trips to the Holy Land & Jordan is that the creation & preservation of the Modern State of Israel is amazing and miraculous. There is something more going on here than just a modern day crusader incursion in the middle east.

Paul in Romans 9,10 & 11 makes bold statements regarding the Jewish people & how should we respond ?
"What then ? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it but the rest were hardened, as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day "
Rm 11: 7 & 8

Are we missing an element in the replacement viewpoint ? How are we behaving as Christians to Jews ?
"So I ask , have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means ! But through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean !
Rmn 11:11
We can only strive to be living as Christians so to make others jealous.
What does "full inclusion" ? Zechariah 12: 10 - 14 ?

This thread has just attempted to show the flow of recent history and the will of men being played out.
Thanks for asking Wendy - where does God want us to be in all of this ?

[VDB]

This is an excellent discussion and getting to an important question. What is the evidence for "replacement theology"? And where does it come from? Do we accept it just because that is what we were taught? (I was taught a great many tjhings I have tossed off as I expererienced life and seen a bit of the world ... and walked with God in my own humble and crippled way.)

I agree, there is something at work here and I think it bears careful consideration and discussion beyond that which we were taught by those who were taught the same by those where were taught the same. What is actually biblical here? When God used concepts such as forever and as vast as the stars, did He mean something that would end in 70 AD? I have a hard time getting my limited mind around that.

[Dave Timmer]

This has been a good discussion. I need to plead a fair amount of ignorance on the subject - though I am interested in it - I just haven't invested a lot of thought on it. I do have a couple questions for those more knowledgeable.

First - van den Bosch those verses were quite powerful read in the context you presented them. It seems that the prophets though were talking to a specific audience that was in a bad situation - in exile or about to be in exile - hence the work of the prophets. But, those verses are powerful and forever is well.....forever. Especially in the context of that particular piece of land's significance to the Israelites. That land defined them. So the question that comes to my mind when thinking about this issue – Is the forming of the modern state of Israel a direct intervention of God fulfilling his promises? Or was it a well-intentioned but misguided political effort which seemed like the right thing to do in light what had just happened? I don't know.

Next. I have troubles interpreting those verses and promises through a Jesus lens. It seems like Jesus changes things. Again....I plead ignorance so if anyone has some insight as to why he wouldn't change things.........

My last question is how do we today seek Justice in this situation? Frankly, to me, the Palestinian experience feels unjust. As of May 15, 1948 their land was no longer their land. How do we regard that experience in light of what we today consider just or unjust? You know, how would I feel if a new country was created on my land. So......if we believe that the creation of the modern state of Israel was God fulfilling his promises - is it possible that God's action was unjust? Or am I not seeing the bigger picture? I think I might have trouble believing God's action was unjust.

[Dave Timmer]

Also - I think it would be political suicide to abandon Israel.

[VDB]

Agreed to the political suicide comment ... for now, but this could change even in the near future (remember history) and replacement theology's coziness with anti-Semitism (IMHO).

Re: Is the forming of the modern state of Israel a direct intervention of God fulfilling his promises? Or was it a well-intentioned but misguided political effort which seemed like the right thing to do in light what had just happened?

I suggest it is the former. What? Did God just go AWOL regading the very people He called out and from whom he brought in His only begotten Son? Really? I think not. And I am basing this opinion on my reading of the whole Bible. If I am wrong, please provide to me biblical evidence - clear evidence to support the claim that God did not mean forever when He said forever. Come on.

Dave, in answer to your question: is it possible that God's action was unjust? Here I can be certain. The answer is NO. And if we do not get that, then we should ponder, pray, read more Bible, and grow.

This is an incredibly important discussion here and well worth airing.