straight talk

The Road to Peace and Security Thursday, June 25, 26, 2009.



Posted: Sunday, June 28, 2009

by straight talk

I will continue this series of articles gathering news information from varied sources and posting them on my own site and as many as possible. Since Webgazine is no longer available until next month, I will post it here for those who have an interest. I present some excerpts from articles in the Jerusalem Post and other sources which I venture to say you would not hear about in the USA . Some may be redundant information but I feel it is necessary to make the point.

The first article a bit of a controversy concerning settlements and what Israel had agreed to with the Clinton administration. Now the interesting part is Elliott Abrams, who sat in on the talks and was well versed on them stated that Israel and the USA had tacit agreements as to what Israel could and could not do. However, this administration and specifically from Hillary Clinton, states there were no agreements on settlements. Once again, better to ignore. What, what did you say?

In my opinion spread misinformation and distortion and you achieve your goal, who is right and who is wrong? Well none of that matters, or does it, because the Obama administration has taken the Palestinian side and demands no more settlements as a requirement for peace. You can read about it in The Jerusalem Post, today's edition.

Now also in that paper today you will note an article where the Israel IDF is cutting back their presence in certain cities in the West bank and turning that responsibility over to the Palestinians. How significant is this? Well it is a preliminary and required step in the final process. When that treaty is finally signed all will be in place.

Following this the very next day the leaders of the G8 and the UN and Middle eastern nations urged Israel to freeze their settlement expansion. I guess the earlier comments by Elliot Abrams will be ignored as if they never occurred. It sounds like my last article on "conniving"?

Now once again the pressure mounts on Israel to succumb to the world's demands. I wrote earlier to this aspect and it continues but with little interest from the secular crowd. Yet why would they be interested, they are part and parcel of the sum.  Yes in order to bring about peace Israel will need to give up much more then she receives, except for key considerations like Temple Worship which must be allowed for the Anti Christ to sit in it and proclaim himself God.

Now if you want some more information concerning possibilities around the rebuilding of the Third temple turn to Ezekiel from Chapter 40 verses 2 5. Now the key here verse 4 and 5. God says to the prophet why He brought Him to this spot! And here Ezekiel sees "the building of the city" to the south. That building is what is now the Dome of the Rock. Yes and he defines its exact measurements in verse 5. Ezekiel read it and pray on it because some bibles do not state the Word structure but building, which can confuse. Ezekiel revealed this prophecy as received from God and it reveals the exact location of the Third Temple [which will be built in exactly the same location as the original and second was. God commands him to reveal it so that in the last days it shall be discovered again. Do you doubt God, you who profess to believe? Keep on eye on this critical aspect of the end times. While I wait eagerly as you do there is much speculation concerning this and only when it materializes will the answer be proven.

It is also mentioned in Ezekiel Chapter 39 the prophecy against GOG. Read that one, it just may raise an eyebrow? Now moving forward we have to go back to an older article, believe it or not and many believe it our President Obama "is receptive to Arab peace demands." Would anyone of any intelligence think otherwise? The key words here soliciting "extreme" Israel concessions out of this administrations own lips. Per Arron Klien, Worldnet Daily, Nov 2008. The concessions, as elaborated in the article "would leave Israel with truncated hard to defend borders." Yet with a promise of protection, really. In reality the losers of two wars would gain everything they could, not get by force of arms. No, it would be the first time in history the victor of a war was subjected to conceed to the aggressor who started the war and lost. What can one say except if this isn't End Time happenings then what is and yes in my opinion it will happen just as it is printed?

If you like some of my other work please join me on realconsiderations.blogspot.com.

Robert T. Melaccio Sr. 2009 Copyright 2009 Robert Melaccio Sr.



Robert Melaccio Sr. has worked in the computer industry for 40 plus years in a diversified business and managerial environments. He enjoys freelance writing, giving seminars for young adults and teen groups as well as being an accomplished award winning poet of published poetry. He has worked teaching and as a youth minister. He is married and has three children and three grandchildren.

This Article has been viewed 191 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.