Omar, Tlaib and Israel: A lose/Lose Situation No Matter What!

Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar recently prepared for a trip to Israel. Technically, no member of the US Congress should be banned from visiting Israel. As a matter of fact, the best way to get a balanced understanding of the Middle East crisis is to visit Israel and look at both sides of the conflict. If such a visit could be accomplished without any preconceived notions of who is at fault, much progress could be made towards peace.

When Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar announced their decision to visit Israel, it was first agreed that they could go, but there is a law in Israel that prevents people from entering the country if they support the boycott of Israel. It is known as "Amendment No. 28 to the Entry Into Israel Law (No. 5712-1952)." It is an amendment to a 1952 Law giving Israel's government the right to refuse entry to any foreigner with or without a visa. The 2017 amendment was passed (46-28) specifically to bar BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) supporters and promoters from entering Israel.
I am having a hard time understanding why Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar were surprised when they were stopped from entering Israel. Consider their positions on Israel's right to exist and their promoting of the BDS movement.

Rashida Tlaib is not shy about her support of BDS. In 2018, she said, "I personally support the BDS movement. Economic boycotts are a way to bring attention to issues like racism and the international human right violations by Israel right now.”  Ilhan Omar follows suit when she states, " Israel has hypnotized the world, may allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” or “I believe and support the BDS movement and have fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized." Both Congresswomen are what we could call "eliminationists." They promote the boycott of Israel not for justice but for the eventual elimination of Israel. So, let me get this right, "Israel has no right to exist" but they still want to visit?

Some would say that we should let them in and see for themselves. Assuming that they were interested in truth, I would agree, but as it appears, they are not. For starters, their trip's itinerary was titled "Delegation to Palestine", hardly an unbiased title for a trip to Israel! Additionally, Their trip was planned by an organization known as Miftah, led by Palestinian lawmaker and negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.

This is an organization that is far from being fair and has a reputation for being anti-Israel if not anti-Semitic. Using Miftah to organize a visit to Israel is far from being a neutral decision. Then, when Israel decided to allow Ms. Tlaib entry to the Palestinian Territories on a humanitarian basis to be able to visit her aging grandmother, she quickly turned it down and politicized the whole move. Does she hate Israel more than she loves her grandmother?

This attempt to visit Israel seems to be a farce. Tlaib and Omar have already made up their minds about the region and have dispensed plenty of antisemitic venom in and out of the US Congress to show their true colors. This will become a huge opportunity for the two congresswomen to do more bashing of the Trump administration and of Israel. It doesn't matter if they went or not because in both cases they would have found grounds for pointing the finger in the same direction.

If they had gone, they would have visited only Palestinian sites and met with pro-Palestinian people, and then return to make a case for how bad things are in the region. By not going, they can spin the story into a racist, colonialist, apartheid decision "proving their point about Israel."

They were quick to state (and some news outlet as well) that they were banned from entry because they are Muslim. The reason had nothing to do with their religion but with their anti-Israel position. Yes, they happen to be two Muslim women, and yes, there might be a connection with that and their hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, but this is not part of the reason why they were turned down, especially if you understand Israel's acceptance of Muslims even to the point of having Muslim members of the Knesset.

This failed attempt at coming to Israel will, unfortunately, serve their purpose as much as a visit would have. They are set in their ways and the only way to make sure that things don't get worse is to vote them out next time we have a chance. They were elected legally and are part of our government, like it or not. It is pretty much a guarantee that they will continue their war on Israel and the Jewish people, and they will pick up momentum and more supporters in the process. Again, to put a stop to it, we simply have the power to not re-elect them. For the time being, we expose their lies.  We also pray that they would have a change of heart. This too is possible because of the God we serve!

Trump and Israel: True Love or Biblical Obligation?

After less than a year in office, Donald Trump has done more to restore America's relationship with Israel than in the 8 years of the previous administration. These days, supporting Israel is a dangerous proposition for anybody from governments to institutions, to organizations all the way down to individuals. Over the last few decades, Israel has become a pariah state in the Middle East and much of the rest of the world. Supporting the Jewish State is often seen as racist or colonizing.

Lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians appears as the Holy Grail of global diplomacy. There hasn't been a US President since the rebirth of modern Israel in May of 1948 that hasn't endeavored to bring peace between Israelis and Arabs in the volatile Middle East. They all tried different methods, and they all pretty much failed, even if some degree of success was attained, like the Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel under Jimmy Carter.

Donald Trump is probably the most controversial and the most vocal President in the history of the United States. We are even seeing more polarization in America than what we experienced under the Obama administration. Yet in spite of all this, Mr. Trump remains a strong supporter of Israel in many ways, while still seeking to remain an influence on a Middle East peace process, if at all possible.  Amazingly, over 75% of US Jews did not vote for nor support Mr. Trump. Here are a few of Mr. Trump's recent moves related to Israel:

• In May 2017, within months of his inauguration, President Trump visited Israel, making him the first sitting US President coming to the Old City and the Western Wall.

• Donald Trump made a campaign promise to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Receiving a lot of criticism, He has moved away from that promise since, but just re-affirmed the US desire to move forward with the historic move.

• In a joint press conference at the White House in February 2017–less than a month after taking office, Mr. Trump declare that he was opened to both a One-State solution and a Two-State solution, depending on what both sides agree upon. In other words, possibly for the first time since the re-birth of Israel in 1948, a US President is not trying to force an agenda on Israel as much as he is trying to find a viable solution for both sides.

• President-Elect Trump nominated South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to be the 29th US Ambassador to the United Nations, and Miss Haley has proven to be a very vocal supporter of Israel. As a governor, she was the first to pass an anti-BDS law in the state of South Carolina.

• Mr. Trump is also talking to Mahmoud Abbas about peace in the Middle East. Originally, Mr. Trump on his first ever phone call to Abbas, and within minutes invited him to Washington D.C. Mahmoud Abbas appeared interested in moving forward, at least in his speech, but his actions thereafter didn't really match his words.

• Possibly as a result of Mr. Abbas' incitement against Israel, Mr. Trump spoke about closing the Palestinian Liberation Organization's office in Washington. It hasn't happened yet and it might remain open with "limitations," if the Palestinian Authority isn't being honest.

At first glance, some would accuse Mr. Trump of favoritism towards Israel, maybe blaming the fact that some of his family members are Jewish. But there might be another reason why the current US President shows so much support for the Jewish State, and that one has a biblical foundation. Vice-President Mike Pence has been very open about his beliefs. As an evangelical Christian, he understands that the Bible is replete with positive references about Israel and Jerusalem. Is it possible that Mr. Pence's biblical worldview might be influencing President Trump? I am not implying that America has now turned into a country led by evangelicals, but what if, for the first time in decades, there was a strong biblical influence in the White House? Some even believe that President Trump has become an evangelical Christian himself.

One doesn't need to be a supporter or opponent of the Trump administration to admit that Israel is very important to our current President. Is it true love or biblical obligation? as we can read in the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you, I will curse him who curses you," God made a covenant with Abraham promising to bless those who bless his descendants through Isaac and Jacob and the twelve tribes of Israel, i.e.: The Jewish people. If indeed, Mr. Trump chooses to align his foreign policy towards Israel with biblical truth, he is fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant. Time will tell how God will bless Mr. Trump and even America, but the biblical promise of blessings received for blessing Israel eternally stands. Thank you, Mr. Trump!

Labelling Israeli Products Can Work Both Ways!

On November 11, 2015, the European Union decided to start labelling Israeli products that originate from what the world calls the "Occupied Territories." I prefer the term "Disputed Territories", nevertheless, the two terms describe the same geographical areas. The decision was taken to label these Israeli products one of several ways: “Product from the Golan Heights (Israeli settlement)”, “Product from West Bank (Israeli settlement)”, “Product from West Bank (product from Palestine)”, “Product from Gaza (Palestinian product)” or “(Product from Palestine).”

The first two examples are meant to identify products that are of Israeli origin but come from "Palestinian territories", while the last three are to identify products that are of Palestinian origin and come from "Palestinian territories."

The little known fact is that the EU started to apply coding on similar products in 2003 for customs officials. This will be the first time that such labelling is done for consumers. The process started in 2012 and finally saw its official launching on November 11.

The reaction was immediate. People who support Israel started to look at the move and accuse the EU of boycotting. Many complaints came, trying to expose the European Union's move as a shameful, one-sided, political move to further ostracize Israel. While I don't believe that we can call the move a boycott of Israeli products, there are ramifications to its implementation, but I am not certain that they are all negative.

The first thing that we need to understand, is that labelling a product doesn't constitute a boycott in and of itself. It certainly can contribute to it or encourage people towards boycotting, but it is not a boycott. That being said, once the product is labelled something like “Product from West Bank (Israeli settlement)”, the words are not meaningless, they will invite a response that can vary from one individual to the next.

It also raises the issue of double-standards–something Israel has grown accustomed to over the years. There are other countries with territorial discrepancies in the world that are not affected by such labelling. Benyamin Netanyahu who felt that the EU should be ashamed and said "that the EU decision constituted a 'double standard' as the bloc didn’t label products from other disputed territories around the world." There are no questions that this constitutes a case of double-standards and that the labelling is much more political that the EU wants to admit. There is no way to add the word "settlement" in a description without having it carry the heavy connotation of "occupation" or "invasion" that the world has now accepted as fact.

Netanyahu's most recent reaction was to suspend diplomatic ties with the European Union (not necessarily with individual countries within the EU though!) This a sign of protest against that decision. I don't think it will force the EU to revert it, but it shows Israel's disdain for this biased move.

It is obvious that people will use the information differently and that some will choose to use it to facilitate their boycotting of Israeli products. These individual are mostly the same individuals who would indiscriminately boycott Israel with or without the labelling. I don't see the labelling as hurting Israel's economy that much. But no matter how much it might hurt, there is another side to that coin. Whatever product is labelled from the "Occupied Territories" is just labelled and not banned and it can just as well become a preferential label for some. Many people are fighting the boycott of Israeli product by going out of their way to purchase Israeli brands. This could easily be the case with the new labels applied to "Territories" products.

It reminds me of the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis chapters 13-50. Joseph was abandoned and sold by his brothers. Ultimately, he ended up in Egypt, became Pharaoh's right-hand man and was used in a mighty way to save and protect his extended family. There is a lot of negative to be found in the story of Joseph, yet we could all learn from Genesis 50:20 in Joseph’s final words to his family: : "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

What the enemies of Israel meant for harm can be used to glorify God and support Israel. The boycotting of Israel is not about to stop tomorrow, but we can all do our part to buy Israeli products and this is how I see that labelling Israeli products could work both ways. In the process, if you find products labelled "Made in Palestine" or "Made in the Palestinian Territories", nobody prevents you from boycotting these. I know I will!

Israel Not Taking Refugees is Not a Humanitarian Crime!

There are those who claim that the world is getting better as we are increasingly becoming more tolerant and accepting a multicultural/holistic approach to sharing our planet. I am not one of them! Don't get me wrong, I believe in tolerance and  multiculturalism (within reason and mostly within the home.) But let's face it, the world is far from getting better. Wars and rumors of wars are on almost every continent. The Middle East sits on a powder keg with a very short fuse. Iran is very, very close to lighting the whole region ablaze. Afghanistan is still in turmoil. ISIS has infiltrated just about every country around Israel (reminiscent of an ancient biblical prophecy found in Psalm 83.) Russia is moving weapons to the region, and Syria is being destroyed by a civil war with no end in sight. This is far from what you would expect if the world was getting better. This world is in crisis mode on so many levels!

Another sign of global crisis is the recent influx of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Albania, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Iraq into several countries of the European Union. Sweden and Germany have been on the receiving end more than any other European country because of the myriad of benefits they offer to refugees, and the fact that Germany announced that they weren't putting a cap on how many could come. The result has been a demographic tsunami hitting multiple borders at once. Even Greece–a bankrupt country desperately trying to rise out of its own ashes– has received several thousands refugees.

Most of the refugees come from Syria for reasons that no decent human being would disagree with. Syria has common borders with five countries: Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel (add Cyprus by sea.) The Russian military build-up in Syria is frightening. This refugee exodus creates a humanitarian dilemma all around Syria and far beyond but it also creates a security problem for the receiving countries. Israel of course is not exempt. Mr. Netanyahu just published a statement where he affirmed that Israel wasn't in a position to take in any refugees. I don't think that he meant solely Syrian refugees, but this will affect them [the Syrians] the most.

Mr. Netanyahu was unequivocally clear about the refugee situation: "Israel is not indifferent to the human tragedy of the refugees from Syria and Africa. We have already devotedly cared for approximately 1,000 wounded people from the fighting in Syria and we have helped them to rehabilitate their lives. We are speaking with African heads of state, and with the Italian Prime Minister recently and with other European leaders, about multi-lateral aid packages for the countries of origin in Africa – in agriculture, economics and security – in order to deal with the problem at its source. But, Israel is a small country, a very small country, that lacks demographic and geographic depth; therefore, we must control our borders, against both illegal migrants and terrorism. This is what we have done on our border with Sinai; we blocked illegal migration from there."

Of course, it was not long before Mr. Netanyahu was scolded by his own Israeli opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog who believes that Israel should take in refugees. Israel has often been accused of committing crimes  against humanity–the latest accusations coming from multiple foes regarding the 2014 Gaza War. The humanitarian crimes have become the leitmotiv of the Palestinian Authority and other enemies. So why is it that Israel decision to not take refugees doesn't constitute a crime against humanity?

Obviously, there are many other countries and states that cannot and will not absorb any refugees for demographic and /or geographic reasons. Israel is already struggling with it own infrastructure to receive the tens of thousands of olim (new immigrants) who just made aliyah (30,000 so far this year.) This would probably require more settlements to be developed and a further reduction of the "Palestinian boundaries" that currently exist. Would so-called "Palestinian refugees" living in Israel's "disputed territories" be willing to share some of their real-estate? Doubtful!

If  I was to make a list of reasons why Israel is right about not taking in any refugees, safety would have to be on top of that list. Once we understand that Israel is the size of New Jersey, with a constant and increasing influx of Jews returning to the land, we also have to consider what opening the borders to more people could do. A flow of unidentified people would undoubtedly include shady characters that could bring more trouble as they come in. There is no doubt in my mind that ISIS is taking advantage of the world's postmodern tolerance. This simplifies their goal of infiltrating as many countries as they can. Israel cannot afford to have terrorists infiltrate their borders when they are already dealing with terror inland on a daily basis.

European countries like Germany, Sweden and even France are opening their doors to more crime and terrorism–something that has also worried me greatly regarding our own borders with Mexico. I want to be clear about the fact that a border between two countries doesn't mean that refugees moving away from one into the next are all from that bordering country. Europe is starting to realize that as they see a massive number of refugees coming in from various places as well as many without any papers. These are hoping to become "instant Syrian refugees" and are banking on the asylum-offering countries tolerance for war refugees. But not all are war stricken and destitute. Many just want a better life for their families and who can really blame them?

It is also an undeniable fact that most of the refugees are Muslims. We know how difficult it has been for the West to identify radical and/or apocalyptic Islam from the rest of Islam. This refugee crisis will only exacerbate the issue.

I believe that Israel is doing the right thing by not accepting refugees but before anyone accuses me or the Jewish people of committing humanitarian crimes, we must consider all that Israel has done and continues to do around the world. As a matter of fact, Israel is helping several European countries with this very crisis by sending help as I write this. Israel has long been one of the first responders in global disasters and wars. This is the way that the only democracy in the Middle East rolls when it comes to partnering within the global village; they give, give, give.

So, Israel not taking refugees IS NOT a humanitarian crime because there is so much more you can do to help, and they are already doing that. In many cases, they are doing much more than the very countries pointing the finger at them!

Pushing Israel Under the Bus Won't be Easy!

After years of sanctions and failed attempts at curbing Iran's appetite for a  nuclear weapon, we now have a deal. What a relief to know that Iran will soon be added to the list of international powers, seeking to "better the world and promote peace."

It is both ironic and frightening to witness the caving in of America and other world powers, days after Iranians marched the streets shouting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran's al-Qud's day last week was once again the proof that we are dealing with a fierce enemy of democracy and progress. So, since all actions have consequences, we should lift all sanctions on Iran and pour up to $200 billion into their economy, right?

Could the US have at least demanded that incarcerated Pastor Saeed (along with three other Americans) be freed as part of the deal? Considering that President Obama said that "securing his freedom was a top priority", you would hope so. What an opportunity we have missed.

President Obama spoke from the White House delivering a clear and believable message–if only to himself, which seems to be what really matters. He said:" A comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This deals demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure... Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Wow!

Much of the world is scratching its head and asking the question "Why?" when in reality we are way passed the "why" on this matter. We are now into the "Now What?" We can continue to ponder whether President Obama acted out of ignorance, arrogance or even defiance. Unfortunately, identifying the motives this late in the game might be fruitful if you are writing a history book but will be pointless in the midst of what we should consider a global existential crisis. It goes along the lines of trying to determine if President Obama is a closet Muslim or not. It no longer matters since he has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is at the very least a sympathizer if not an open supporter of some of the worst terrorist organizations on the planet, now including Iran.

It could be easily argued that the Iran deal is akin to pushing Israel under the bus, but we must not forget that on the road to Islamic hegemony, America is next to be trampled down. If indeed this Iran deal is approved by Congress, it will not stop the clock on Iranian nukes but reset the timer on a shorter unchallenged run.

Incidentally, Congress is now faced with one of the most important decision in the history of our nation. Not so amazingly anymore but defiantly, our president has already threatened to use his veto if Congress gets in the way of this "historic" deal. Everything ends-up being historic at some point. The falling of the Berlin Wall was historic, and so were the rise of Hitler and his abuse of power. If Congress really wants to make history in a positive way, they will not let our current president intimidate them and they will get the two-thirds bi-partisan majority to stop the treaty from going into action.

In the meantime and once again, Israel finds itself in a very precarious situation. Prime Minister Netanyahu was of course quick to respond and laid out the facts that represent a real danger for Israel AND the world. In agreement with him, I see several great concerns ahead:

• A bold regime of Islamic thugs has just be made bolder by a lame, ex-leader of the free world.

• Iran's economic sanctions will be lifted, allowing the country to become a desirable prospect in the business world. In other words, a lot of people are about to make a lot of money in this deal, starting with Iran. So, really, what's the loss of a few lives in the grand scale of the global market? (This is sick but true in many cases.)

• Billions are going to be released back into the Iranian coffers as a sign of good will and to help them rebuild their future; a future including an Islamic Caliphate with no Israel and no America. Not only that, but even if a small fraction of those funds are funneled to finance Hamas, Hizbollah and other terrorist organizations, it will increase the already existing danger to a whole new level. Hamas and Hizbollah will greatly benefit from Iranian funds...and we should get excited about this deal because...?

• Iran's would have ten years before they can resume all nuclear operations. What is it exactly that they promised to stop doing under this deal? NOTHING. And if they promised or agreed to anything, we know that they cannot be trusted under their current regime.

• Israel will be forced to defend itself meaning that if they are alone in going after Iran's nuclear facilities, they will go alone. But what the rest of the world needs to understand is that once Israel makes a preemptive move, Iran's response will be global and not local to the region. It could turn out that Israel will lead a coalition of various countries in a campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. America will certainly not lead, at least not under this administration.

• Israel and many Arab countries are extremely concerned about the outcome of this deal. Like Netanyahu mentioned in an interview (2:30):" it doesn't happen very often in history but when Arabs and Israelis agree, it is worth paying attention."

It is possible that several countries are interested in stopping Iran's nuclear proliferation, but they have so much at stake that they will not make a move. Israel has become the "older brother" in the region, and when the world gets bullied, the older brother comes to the rescue. It certainly looks like the United States and other powers that agreed to the Iran deal are trying to push Israel under the bus. But Israel is determined to survive and as time might soon tell, this is to the world's benefit.

For the time being, it is indeed a win/win situation, but only for Iran. President Obama self-centered obsession for a legacy has reached a new high. If the deal goes unchallenged, it will become a legacy of huge negative proportions. That is of course if we are here long enough to write the history books retelling the events.

Now would be a good time to remind President Obama and the other nations involved that when you throw Israel under the bus, you throw the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well. This doesn't end well for Israel's enemies as Zechariah reminds us:

And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem
(Zechariah 12:9)

Bibi is Facing the Toughest Two Years of his Entire Political Career!

In the midst of a global crisis involving Iran's race for nuclear power, Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected for another two-year term. The landslide victory showed us that Israel isn't so fed-up with Bibi's policies. It actually proved that Israelis are very concerned about the Iranian threat and feel that Bibi is the best man to handle the crisis.

The Lausanne "Agreement"–if we can call it that–has left much to be desired. It transforms the West from an inspector into a powerless spectator. Iran's carefully crafted nuclear "smoke and mirror" show is supposed to appease the international community, so we hear from the media and President Obama.

In a recent interview for NPR, Mr. Obama delivered a 22 minutes promotional piece on the exciting deal that is being made with Iran. I would say that it was more propaganda than promotion. While he seems to denounce anti-Semitism, Mr. Obama doesn't see the need for Iran to recognize the existence of Israel as part of a viable deal as he said: "So there's still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime. But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment."

Mr. Obama's dismissal of Israel's safety goes along with the recent disclosure of a Department of Defense top-secret document exposing Israel's nuclear information. There were several other countries' sensitive nuclear information on that 360-pages document. Somehow, they were all redacted out of the document before its release, to leave only Israel's information readable. To be sure, Israel's nuclear capability is no news to the world, but this was the first official announcement about it by a foreign state. How could Mr. Obama possibly say that his administration has done more for Israel than any other previous president? Unless of course he means that he has done more than any other president to put Israel in arms way...Don't get me started on that one!

Yet Mr. Obama clearly wants us to believe that he is helping Israel when he says: "And as I've indicated before, if you look at my track record since I've been in office, we have had as much or greater military cooperation and intelligence cooperation with Israel than any previous administration. We have been steadfast in the defense of Israel when it comes to them defending themselves, even when there have been periods of great international controversy."

It looks to me as if Israel is left with the decision to strike Iran if they feel that the threat is getting to close for comfort. Frankly, this is a decision that is currently better left on Netanyahu's shoulders than any other Israeli prime minister. Additionally, I fear that the decision to strike Iran is no longer a matter of if but simply when! Iran knows how to play the clock. Deal or no deal, they continue to see the time span as a great opportunity to continue with their nuclear program with very little outside control. This will allow Iran to acquire the capability to build a bomb a lot sooner. For all we really know, Iran might be a lot closer than we think to become a nuclear lethal force.

The real danger that isn't discussed much is the fact that we are now in a stage of what has been called "Apocalyptic Islamism". There is very little if anything that the West can do to stop the raging hatred and determination of the mullahs in bringing in the "Twelfth Imam". Both ISIS and Iran–while not necessarily working hand in hand–have a common goal of Islamic global hegemony painted on a backdrop of End-Times with the blood of the “infidels”. Of course, Iran also helps fulfilling Hezbollah's agenda by proxy.

This really leaves only one option, and that is the physical destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities–a feat that only Israel seems to be willing to undertake. Of course, once the big boy on the Middle East playground has pushed the bully over, the rest of the cowards will magically appear on the scene. Then we might see an overnight alliance of powers who up to then didn't have the chutzpah to go after the Khameini regime. Even Mr. Obama might join the ranks of those who oppose Iran at that time.

It appears to be "damned if you do and damned if you don't" for Netanyahu, but since Israel's survival is a non-negotiable, It might just be a matter of time before Bibi makes a move. He certainly is facing some of the toughest decisions of his entire political career and could certainly use the prayer of those who love Israel.

Preventing Iran from going nuclear ISN'T ONLY A MIIDLE EAST PROBLEM, it is a global one. Ignoring a problem never made it go away, but we are being told than Iran is on the road to full compliance. Is it on that very road that they also shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Global leadership isn't necessarily measured in GNP or a country's worth anymore. It might be measured more by the ability, willingness and determination to avoid a nuclear cataclysm at any cost. In the case of Iran, I think that only Israel has got it and only Bibi can lead them into making such a decision. I still pray for all of it to be averted because any loss of life is a tragedy. Jews and Muslims alike need to be touched by God and meet their Messiah and redeemer (Isaiah 52:13-53-12). The Bible does shed some light on all of this.

There is a promise from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that He will not only protect Israel but also destroy her enemies. This eschatological promise is based on God's unconditional and eternal Abrahamic Covenant with Israel and the Jewish people (Genesis 12:1-3) and it should be an encouragement and a call to prayer for those of us who support Israel.

In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them. And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:8-9)

Appeasement is a Weakness Leading to Collaboration!

Western civilization might very well be on a new threshold as world leaders have met in Lausanne, Switzerland regarding Iran's nuclear deal. The deadline arrived and yet, the talks yielded very little. The apparent progress made in the last few days in Europe warranted that the dialogue would continue. One of the big issues that Iran has is with sanctions imposed on them. Their economy has suffered greatly in the last few years, and they demand that sanctions be lifted in a way that would also prevent them from being reinstated automatically. Iran wants to have their diplomatic cake AND eat it too!

Many international voices have been heard on the topic of a nuclear Iran, and few if any are looking forward to that prospect. It is obvious that Iran is politically and ideologically very unstable. That fact was clearly delineated in a speech to Congress on March 3rd when Netanyahu risked his whole career, two weeks prior to the Israeli elections. His plea wasn't for the safety of Israel but for the survival of Western civilization. Against all odds, a predicted Likud loss turned into a miraculous landslide victory. The White House felt that this was the last straw that justified what could one day be remembered as "The Great Diplomatic Divorce" of the 21st Century. Never before had an American president showed so much contempt for Israel and its current Prime minister.

Our President has great hatred for Israel and its leaders while he is working overtime to appease Iran. Both feats validate his destructive ambitions by weakening our best allies in the Middle East and strengthening what the West could rightfully call the Great Satan, also known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Obama is obsessed with the idea of striking up a deal with Iran as much as he is obsessed with the demonization of Israel. It would be understandable–albeit doubtful–if Iran would lie to America and the West about their intentions; but they don't even do that! How in the world do you even try to negotiate with a country that openly calls for the death of America?

This is a perfect example of appeasement. Mr. Obama is trying to convince the world that Iran not only can be included to the negotiating table, but that they can also be trusted. The Lausanne Iran Summit didn't yield the results hoped by world leaders. Iran made some promises in regards to slowing down enriching until they come to an agreement. But why would anybody trust Iran's pathological lying? They simply continue to provide lip service to a world that has its head buried so deep in the sand that nothing matters. All seems to indicate that sanctions will be lifted almost unconditionally. Additionally, Mr. Obama threatens to veto any move by the US Congress that would lead to new sanctions against Iran. This is pretty much the bulk of his foreign policy. He has worked very hard at trying to appease and even accommodate Iran's nuclear race. So much so that it could be argued that Mr. Obama is no longer simply appeasing Iran but he is now collaborating with Iran.

It is still a mystery to me why the US Senate was handed a report saying that Hezbollah and Iran are no longer considered part of the terrorist list. Seriously? Political analysts and pundits alike might speculate on Obama's reasons for forcing a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the results is what matters! At this point it has become irrelevant if Mr. Obama wants Iran to arm themselves with nuclear capabilities or if he believes that they [Iran] just want to modernize their country's energy, the results will be the same. If Iran is allowed to continue their nuclear program unbridled as it is, the Middle East will be forced into a frenzied arms race that will tip the global scale forever.

Instead of confronting Iran, Mr. Obama facilitates their agenda. While there are mistakes that world leaders make and even regret as they look back on their political career, ignoring Iran's call to kill Israel and America could help us reach a point of no return. This wouldn't be a mistake but a catastrophe!

All the while, the White House's energy is spent denigrating Benjamin Netanyahu before and during his electoral campaign. Israel's nuclear secrets are being divulged by the current US administration. Do they not understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot by exposing Israel's nuclear intel? His disdain for Netanyahu and Israel coupled with his collaborating with Iran is doubly dangerous and could prove lethal to many.
It is very difficult for me to see Mr. Obama's foreign policy strategy as anything else than a destructive agenda for both the Middle East region and the rest of western civilization. But then again, he claimed he didn't have strategy to fight ISIS, so I might be giving him too much credit regarding his ability to formulate and implement a constructive foreign policy. Mr. Obama follows in the infamous footsteps of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who saw no risk in dealing with Adolf Hitler. History proved him wrong. Let's pray that the current "Appeaser-In-Chief" doesn't turn into a "Collaborator-In-Chief"

Bibi's Miraculous Landslide Victory Will Help Identify his Enemies!

In listening to the media and a majority of political analysts, Benjamin Netanyahu had a tough road ahead in the 2015 Israeli elections. So when his Likud party won 30 seats (six seats ahead of Herzog's Zionist Union party), it was a bit of a surprise for most and even a shock for some. Netanyahu's victory could be considered a landslide victory, but certainly must be considered a miraculous victory. For the next few years, Israel will continue to thrive under the leadership of one of the strongest Prime Minister in her history.

Bibi's victory doesn't make everybody happy, especially after some of the announcements he made hours prior to the elections. His enemies will be quick to denounce and criticize him and his agenda.

At the top of the list we can obviously find the Palestinian Authority and Hamas doing everything in their power to delegitimize Israel. The PA continues to apply pressure at the International Criminal Court in The Hague to force them to investigate possible war crimes during the 2014 Gaza War. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared:“It is clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will form the next government, and for that, we say clearly that we will go to The Hague tribunal, we will accelerate, continue and intensify.” This is a despicable move akin to accusing Jews of crimes against humanity during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis. Hamas has also called for renewed confrontations with Israel...No surprise there!

Another disappointed enemy is the leader of Zionist Union Isaac Herzog who many had seen as a serious contender in the race for the Knesset. Herzog finally conceded and congratulated Bibi on his victory.

The Israeli government is a complicated political machine. The Knesset demands that the ruling party would form a coalition with other parties since 61 seats are required for a majority over its 120 seats. No party has ever won with a majority in Israel's 67 years of history. Very often the votes are so close that coalition governments are formed with members of the two parties who were competing for the win only the night before. But this time, with 30 seats, Netanyahu finds himself in a majority position from the start, allowing him to form a government much more center-right than ever before. This is a bigger defeat for the Left in Israel. Netanyahu will certainly gain more power from the get go.

Herzog campaigned on issues that he thought were attractive to Israelis like renewed talks with the Palestinians towards a Palestinian state, a strengthening of US/Israel relations, and a change in Israel's economy bridging the gap between classes. He wanted to bring "Change" to Israel. I think that someone, somewhere already tried that same socialistic ideology and it failed! As it turned out, Israeli voters were much more interested in the security of their country than the economy of their country. After all how good is a rebounding economy in a country that would be opening its doors to people determined to kill all the Jews. Security over economy doesn't mean that Netanyahu will not work towards a better Israel economically, but as he has said numerous times and repeated at his address to the US congress, the security of Israel's people is first and foremost.

It is also interesting to notice that the "Joint Arab List" became the third party in the Knesset. This will undoubtedly create a new dynamics within the Israeli government. What we need to remember is that the "Joint Arab List" comprises three different lists that strongly disagree within themselves. They had to form a mini Arab coalition to even become a reality within the Knesset. Will they find enough of a common ground in their loathing of Israel to work together? Time will tell, but I am certain that we will hear more from the "Joint Arab List."

Many international leaders are worried about Bibi's last minute shift to the right to garner the necessary votes from ultra-nationalist factions. They feel that it will only exacerbate the Palestinians and further bury the prospect of any peace in the Middle East. What they really fail to understand is that a more socialistic party like that of Isaac Herzog would facilitate the emergence of a group of people who have absolutely no interest in a two-state solution. They might hypocritically pretend to be open to the idea, but that is only until they have gained enough power to completely annihilate the Jews. Mr. Herzog idealistic vision is obviously blinded by his liberal leanings.

And then of course, there is the leader of the "United Welfare States of America", Barack Obama! While many heads of states will personally call Netanyahu to congratulate him on the Likud's victory, Mr. Obama gave the task to a White House aid who congratulated Israel without any mention of Netanyahu or the Likud. Some will accuse me of pettiness, but the least that our President could have done was to call Netanyahu in person. Then again, coming from the same man who chose to snub Bibi's recent congress speech, it shouldn't surprise us. What a shame!

It is unclear if Bibi's speech on March 3rd, 2015 in front of the US congress was a political move or just a heartfelt desire to cry out to the international community. It was probably a bit of both. What is certain is that it facilitated Bibi's victory. His stance on the "Iranian Deal" was powerful and obviously a slap in the face of our president and "King of Appeasement."

Relations between America and Israel are tense and fragile at best. There are still many Americans who support the Jewish state. We might expect that the already strained relations between Netanyahu and the White House could lead to a political divorce. The one positive aspect of this win is that Netanyahu will outlive Obama in office and could very well regain a respected position with the next US administration.

So it would appear that Mr. Netanyahu has many enemies to contend with, within and without Israel. Physical rockets will continue to fall over Israel as will the verbal rockets from the liberals, the current US administration and the media. In the meantime, I believe that Bibi's victory will ensure the best approach to Israel's security. The road ahead is a rocky one and would greatly benefit from the prayer of the friends of Israel.

Congratulation Mr. Prime Minister, my prayers are with you and Israel!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, May they prosper who love you. Psalm 122:6