Who surrounds Israel? Melanie Phillips gets it.

As I said to the vicar after church this evening, "If you were a Middle-East dictator trying to fight off the Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda and hold on to a modicum of liberty and stability to whom would you look?"

Obama has failed in his bid to get the Brotherhood encircling Israel, but has succeeded in getting Russian influence to do exactly that. 

In her latest blog post , Melanie Phillips analyses Obama's failure and achievements. She also sees Putin as the victor in this débacle. However, she can see that Obama is not a complete failure. In fact, he may not be a failure at all...

And why shouldn’t the First Narcissist preen? For he has achieved precisely what he wanted, his true goal that I described in this blog when Obama first ran for President: to extend the reach of the state over peoples’ lives at home, to emasculate the power of America abroad, and to make the free white world the slave of those he falsely characterised as the victims of that white world’s oppression.

He has achieved it, to the letter. Iran’s putative victims of its imminent nuclear arsenal of holy war against the non-Islamic world are now, terrifyingly, on their own.

Melanie Phillips gets it. So does Putin, and maybe even Obama, but do you...?

                                                                   Lies, all lies.

Conflicting Claims: You decide.

A couple of videos just in:

If this is the aftermath of a gas attack, where are the gas masks, the Chemical Weapons suits, the showers etc. etc?

Western Journalism really doesn't like Obama, I mean really doesn't like him. So take this with a pinch of salt, which is not to say that it is a lie. By their fruits ye shall know them.

The only things that we can be certain of are that we are being lied to - and Christians are dying. Sorry to be so cynical.

And Israel is still the only Middle Eastern country where Christians are safe.

Have we forgotten what it was like to be bombed?

I know most Americans have never experienced aerial bombing apart from Pearl Harbor and those who served in the forces, but we Brits have no such excuse.There are still plenty of people around who can remember the Blitz and more than enough War Memorials to remind us of the horrors of the Blitz. (Non-UK readers. This affected many more cities than just London).

You would think that this would give us pause for thought before we set about bombing others. Sadly, it does not seem to be the case. Our politicians are gearing up for more computer-game bombing with real casualties.

A vote against bombing in the House of Commons, when Parliament is recalled, won't necessarily make any difference. 

That there are reasonable doubts about who is responsible for the alleged gas attack does not seem to matter.

That we should wait for the UN Inspectors' report would seem reasonable, but what has reason got to do with anything?

In this article by Jerome Corsi of WND, you will see pictures and videos that cast reasonable doubt over the allegations that Assad is responsible.

This, very chilling,  example and more:

In the Telegraph, a straw poll shows 79% of readers against bombing at the time of writing. There are also two comment articles questioning the reasons for military action. This one questions why Assad would mount a gas attack and this one, MEP Daniel Hannan questions whether the UK has any national interest in Syria.

All this is in addition, to what I have previously posted on the topic here.

And as for the media, especially Al-Beeb, we are presented with images of child refugees fleeing Syria, immediately after reports about the gassing. They fail to mention that these children were not fleeing the gas or Assad. They were fleeing the Islamist rebels who kill Christians. The Assyrian Orthodox Church is fleeing Syria, its ancient homeland.

Syria used to be Christian. St. Paul was converted on the way to Damascus and was cared for by the Jewish believers in Jesus in Damascus.

There is a telling article over at Cranmer by a guest blogger, the Rev. Peter Mullen. I just hope that he is wrong about the historical parallels.

If you throw aside all the political rhetoric and let the trend of events speak for itself, I have to conclude that Obama wants the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the Middle East.

Goodson's law 

When the consequences of incompetence become indistinguishable from the consequences of malice, it is wiser and safer to assume malice.

Lots of lies in the Middle East

But there are some people who are telling the truth and asking the right questions.

Our good friend of this blog, Daphne Anson has this recent post: A former muslim on intolerance of Israel It includes a video.

There are two excellent articles over at Cranmer. The one is asking the right questions about Assad's alleged gassing of a suburb of Damascus. William Hague believes it was Assad, but if you read the article linked to carefully he has no real evidence. The Telegraph also links to an article about Syrian refugees but does not distinguish who these refugees might be except to mention the Kurds. What about the Assyrian Orthodox Christians who are not part of the rebel movement so beloved of Obama and Hague? They are refugees from their own country.

We might also consider previous experience in Egypt. At Israel Today there is an open letter from Dr Ashraf Rameleh, director of Voice of the Copts. He states that Obama is, effectively, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND has a possible explanation for Obama's apparent support of terrorism. His half-brother is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood!  Read it here and judge for yourself.

There is another excellent article in Cranmer about Anti-Israel propaganda at what used to be the evangelical flagship festival, Greenbelt. Cranmer's post includes a superb summary of the history and legitimacy of Israel which is well worth studying. It is by Fran Waddams of Anglican Friends of Israel.

It includes this telling picture.

In the interests of fairness and balance this is the official Greenbelt position on the debate here. 

Buried in the comments on the second Cranmer article is this analysis by one Carl Jacobs

The actual logic in play is this:

1. The root of the problem is oppression caused by Israeli power.

2. To achieve peace the Israelis must make themselves vulnerable.

3. Eventually the Arabs will stop feeling threatened and everyone will live in peace and harmony.

4. The Israelis as the stronger power (and unstated) because their oppressive behavior is the proximate cause of the problem, should endure the residual death inflicted upon them until the Palestinians come around.

The Middle East conflict is a lab experiment for Left wing non-violent conflict resolution. Their world view is tied into the success of their efforts. They want it to succeed because their world view tells them it must succeed. That's why they would be shocked at the slaughter attendant to Arab victory. Their world view won't allow them to predict it.

carl

23 August 2013 13:14

I think he's right about the general mass of Left-wing/Liberal opinion. I'm not so sure about some of the leaders.

We need to ask some simple questions.

1. Who is killing Christians and other dissidents from Islamism?

2. Who is protecting Christians and other dissidents from Islamism?

3. Who has a history of faking massacres for Western consumption? See here or search for 'Pallywood'.

4. What happened after our other efforts to liberate Islamic countries? 

Then there is Goodson's Law.

And finally, the acid test as proposed by the Lord Jesus, 'By their fruits...

It isn't really that difficult to work out who the liars are.

Smoke and mirrors

One of the tricks of the magician is distraction. Whilst you are looking one way, he is doing something else. The effect is magical, but the whole thing is deception.  All forms of magic are deception of one sort or another. It's just that the entertainers admit it and challenge us to spot the trick. Politicians can also be  adepts at distraction.

Daphne Anson recently posted a video with an imam vowing all sorts of punishment on America, France, Rome and Britain. He does this from the Temple Mount. He probably views Rome as the centre of Christianity. The man is deluded for all sorts of reasons but perhaps not totally crazy. He warns Obama that the Caliphate will return, as if Obama is some sort of Western oppressor. But is it smoke and mirrors?

Today WND posted another, very different pronouncement, not on the Temple Mount but concerning the Temple Mount. The source is a PA negotiator, so we have to treat it with great care. See here.

The Obama administration has quietly presented a plan in which the Palestinian Authority and Jordan will receive sovereignty over the Temple Mount while Israel will retain the land below the Western Wall, according to a senior PA negotiator speaking to WND.
The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. (WND)

It appears that Israel has not agreed to the Obama/Kerry plan.

The PA negotiator further said Israel rejected a Palestinian request that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree not to place the final peace plan up for referendum in the Knesset.

Indeed, Netanyahu announced today any plan must receive final approval in a national poll.

“I am committed to two objectives that must guide the result … if there will be a result. And if there will be a result, it will be put to a national referendum,” he said at the start of the cabinet meeting.

“Negotiations with the Palestinians will not be easy, but we are entering them with integrity, honesty and hope,” Netanyahu added. (WND)

Are the Arabs trying to stir things up as a negotiating tactic? Does Obama really hold the Temple Mount and the aspirations of Israel in such low regard? Is he trying to inflame the situation?

As far as the machinations of Israel's enemies, and so called friends, are concerned there are two things worth remembering:

Goodson's law 

When the consequences of incompetence become indistinguishable from the consequences of malice, it is wiser and safer to assume malice.

And, more importantly, Psalm 2. God's plans for the Temple will be fulfilled. Sorry, Mr. President.