The Pope Is NOT A Friend Of Israel Or Peace Rather He Is An Instigator Against Both

• ABOUT US
• EVENTS
• EXPERTS
• AUTHORS
• DONATE
• ARCHIVES
• MEDIA CITATIONS
• CONTACT
• MOBILE WEBSITE

Pope Francis Strengthens Palestinian Refusal to End Hostilities with Israel by Giulio Meotti January 19, 2017 at 5:30 am https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9798/pope-francis-palestinians-israel Share214   Comment By opening the Palestinian embassy during this critical time of intensified anti-Israel animosity, was the Pope justifying the Palestinian-Arab attempt to isolate the Jewish State and to impose on it unacceptable conditions of surrender through international pressure? Unfortunately, Pope Francis's papacy has been marked by a long list of anti-Israel gestures which did not advance the cause of peace the Pope claims to champion. The Pope also met with Palestinian "refugees," as if the 1948 war were the source of conflict between the two peoples, instead of centuries of Muslims having displaced Christians and other non-Muslims from Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa, Southern Spain, and most of Eastern Europe. The Pope called Abbas an "angel of peace". Really? An angel of peace? According to Shmuely Boteach, "Abbas spent his life murdering Jews," by financing the Munich terror attack in 1972, by inciting against Jews and by glorifying Palestinian terrorists. The Pope, in short is praising a corrupt supporter of terrorists, a torturer who has abolished any democratic process in the West Bank. During these four years, Pope Francis has continually put significant barriers in the way of peace between Israelis and Palestinians -- a peace based on dialogue, mutual respect and the end of conflict. Instead, this supposed man of peace has strengthened Abbas's refusal to negotiate with the Jews -- the Christians' "elder brothers", as Pope John Paul II bravely called them -- and to end hostilities with them. If this is his view of Caritas, what a tragic shame. Mahmoud Abbas's activities in Rome began on January 14, with the formal opening of the Palestinian Embassy to the Vatican. The "Palestinian president," now in the twelfth year of his four-year term, then met with Pope Francis for the third time since the start of his papacy four years ago. The high-profile get-together took place in the middle of the Palestinian attempt to bypass peace talks with Israel and to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A few weeks ago, the UN Security Council, in Res. 2334, condemned Israel for its "settlements"; failed to mention any wrongdoing, such countless Palestinian stabbings and car-rammings of Israeli civilians, and the Obama Administration, which had planned and orchestrated the UN ambush, refused, for the first time in forty years, to veto the anti-Israel resolution, thereby ensuring it would pass. This week, on January 15, 2017, the "Palestinian question" dominated the French "peace conference" in Paris. By opening the Palestinian embassy during this critical time of intensified anti-Israel animosity, was the Pope justifying the Palestinian-Arab attempt to isolate the Jewish State and to impose on it unacceptable conditions of surrender through international pressure? Unfortunately, Pope Francis's papacy has been marked by a long list of anti-Israel gestures that did not advance the cause of peace that the Pope claims to champion. When the Pope visited Israel in 2014, he was photographed praying at Israel's security barrier, which had been created simply to stop the wave of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. The Pope stood before graffiti that compared Palestinians with Jews under the Nazis. "Bethlehem looks like the Warsaw Ghetto", the graffiti read. If it does, it only looks that way because, since the once Christian-majority city Bethlehem was transferred to total Palestinian Authority control in 1995, most of its beleaguered Christians have fled, due to Muslim persecution. Pope Francis approaches the separation barrier near Bethlehem, May 25, 2014, on which was painted graffiti that comparing Palestinians with Jews under the Nazis: "Bethlehem looks like the Warsaw Ghetto." If it does, it only looks that way because, since the once Christian-majority city Bethlehem was transferred to total Palestinian Authority control in 1995, most of its beleaguered Christians have fled due to Muslim persecution. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot) Sadly, Francis's homily, delivered in Bethlehem, did not contain the language of peace; just admonition of Israel: "Are we like Mary and Joseph, who welcomed Jesus and cared for him with the love of a father and mother? Or are we like Herod, who wanted to eliminate him?" Was Pope Francis, as Caroline Glick wrote, likening the Israelis to Herod, when historically is the Palestinians who, like Herod, have wanted to eliminate the Jews? The Pope also met with Palestinian "refugees", as if the 1948 war were the source of conflict between the two peoples, instead of centuries of Muslims having displaced Christians and other non-Muslims from Persia, the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa, Southern Spain, and most of Eastern Europe. Pope Francis then accepted an invitation to visit -- along with Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- the Temple Mount, Judaism's most sacred site also the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. But this is the same Palestinian Mufti who justifies terrorism against the Israelis by saying, among other inflammatory declarations, that "the Hour of Resurrection will not come until you fight the Jews." A year before his visit in the region, Pope Francis, greeting the Catholic faithful at the General Audience in Rome, said: "I ask you to pray for the peace in the Middle East: in Syria, in Iraq, in Egypt, in Lebanon and in the Holy Land, where the Prince of Peace is born". Was it so difficult for the head of the Catholic Church to say the word "Israel," instead of the sanitized "Holy Land"? Previously, when he visited the shrine of St. Francis in Assisi, the Pope said: "Let us listen to the cry of all those who are weeping, who are suffering and who are dying because of violence, terrorism or war, in the Holy Land, so dear to Saint Francis, in Syria, throughout the Middle East and everywhere in the world." Again, the Pope refused to mention any Israeli Jews among the victims of terrorism. In the days before the launch of a devastating "Third Intifada" against the Israeli civilians, the Pope called Mahmoud Abbas an "angel of peace". Really? An angel of peace? According to Shmuely Boteach, "Abbas spent his life murdering Jews," by financing the Munich terror attack in 1972, by inciting against Jews and by glorifying Palestinian terrorists. The Pope, in short is praising a corrupt supporter of terrorists, a torturer who has abolished any democratic process in the West Bank. In May 2015, on "Naqba Day" ("Catastrophe Day") -- commemorating the day of Israel's birth, when five Arab countries launched a war against Israel to wipe it out in its cradle, but lost the war -- Pope Francis gave the Palestinians another symbolic victory by signing the treaty which formally recognized a "State of Palestine." During these four years, Pope Francis has continually put significant barriers in the way of peace between Israelis and Palestinians -- a peace based on dialogue, mutual respect and the end of conflict. Instead, this supposed man of peace has strengthened Abbas's refusal to negotiate with the Jews -- the Christians' "elder brothers," as Pope John Paul II bravely called them -- and to end hostilities with them. If this is his view of Caritas, what a tragic shame. Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author. © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Any Thinking Person Knows That Living In Israel Is Vastly Superior To Any Of The Other Arab Lands Therefore Why Is The Media Surprised When They Find This Out?

SHOCKER! HOW ARABS ACTUALLY LOVE ISRAEL

Exclusive: Joseph Farah likens situation to Hispanics moving to America

Published: 14 hours ago

 JOSEPH FARAH 

Editor’s note: Joseph Farah is leading the annual WND tour of Israel through Nov. 15.

JERUSALEM – Over the last 30 years, as all Americans know, the Hispanic population of the United States has exploded.

Immigration laws have been largely ignored. The huge border separating the U.S. and Mexico is virtually unpatrolled. And the illegal population of recent immigrants has been offered a series of amnesties forgiving past trespasses.

Yet, some within the Hispanic community – and it is certainly a small minority of the population – are actually resentful about life in America. Some, a distinct minority, are even promoting the idea of creating a separate Spanish-speaking state of Aztlan in the southwestern United States.

This raises an obvious question: If life in America is so bad for Spanish-speaking immigrants, why do they continue to flock to the United States in violation of our laws?

Why do I ask this question today? Not because I am writing about immigration in America, but because I want to make a point about immigration in the Middle East.

Conventional wisdom suggests a huge Arab population was displaced by the creation of Israel in 1948. It suggests the remaining Arab population in Israel has been mistreated. And it further suggests the solution to this problem is the creation of an Arab Palestinian state on Israeli land.

There are several glaring misconceptions in this view:

• The Arab population displaced by the 1948 war has been greatly exaggerated. The actual figure is no more than 500,000. Even more important is the cause of that displacement. The 1948 war was declared against Israel by all of its Arab neighbors. The refugees left Israel at the urging of those Arab states. They were told to leave because their homeland was about to be liberated by Arab forces. Of course, we all know Israel survived. Who is morally and legally culpable for creating those refugees? I would suggest it is the Arab states, not Israel.
• Far from being mistreated, the Arab population in Israel and in the territories administered by Israel has been freer than the population in any Arab state. Arabs in Israel vote. They elect leaders to the Knesset. They have their own political parties. They have their own newspapers. They have full rights to citizenship. They are free to speak their minds. As an Arab-American journalist who has spent a good deal of time covering the region, I can tell you there is more freedom for Arabs in Israel than in any Arab state.
• Land cannot possibly be the contentious issue as the Arab and Muslim states in the region already have 800 times as much territory as Israel. The Arabs have 50 times the population of Israel. The Arabs have all of the oil reserves of the region. They have 21 states of their own – all varying shades of police states. It’s difficult to imagine how one more will bring peace to a region that has known some of the most devastating and costly wars of the last century.

But, to top it all off, I – an Arab-American – seem to be the only observer asking pointed questions about the Arab-Israeli conflict: If conditions for Arabs are so bad in Israel, why is the Arab population exploding — and I don’t mean because of suicide bombers? Why do Arabs continue to flock to the tiny Jewish state from virtually every Arab and Muslim land in the world?

In 1949, the Arab population of Israel was about 160,000. Today, it is over 1.2 million.

This is hardly attributable solely to higher birth rates. Most of the growth in Arab population is due to migration. In other words, Arabs are picking up stakes in Arab lands and choosing to live in Israel.

This trend, of course, doesn’t include Arab Jewish migration to Israel. No one talks about the staggering number of Arab Jewish refugees – as many as 1 million – who fled the Muslim world with little more than the clothes on their backs to reach the safety and security of the Jewish state in the last 50 years.

We’re led to believe Arabs hate Israel – and, indeed, it’s true there is an irrational, inexplicable form of virulent anti-Semitism growing in the Arab and Muslim world. But when they vote with their feet, Arabs seem to love Israel. They continue to choose it as a place to live over life in their native countries as they have for the last half-century.

I’d love to hear this phenomenon explained by any of the Israel-bashers.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/shocker-how-arabs-actually-love-israel/#Euwz18rueBvDpTeI.99

Will Israel Face Iran Alone?

The answer in our mind is, yes!  Need I say more?

Israel has always had to stand alone so why would this be any different? Yes, there has been belated help like in the 1973 War when the United States under President Nixon sent tanks to replace those that had been destroyed early in the war.  But that is just my opinion.

Read more from internal Israeli sources in the following article. It is enlightening.

Will Israel Face Iran Alone?

P. David Hornik - FrontPage Magazine,  November 16th, 2011

Adrian Blomfield, Jerusalem correspondent for Britain’s Telegraph, reports that “Israel has refused to reassure President Barack Obama that it would warn him in advance of any pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” and that Obama “was rebuffed last month when he demanded” such a guarantee.

Blomfield says he has this dope from “insiders briefed on a top-secret meeting between America’s most senior defence chief and Benjamin Netanyahu​, Israel’s hawkish prime minister….” He’s referring to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s visit to Israel last month, during which, in a “private meeting with Mr Netanyahu and the defence minister, Ehud Barak,” Panetta conveyed Obama’s “urgent” demand. Yet

the two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States….

Alarmed by Mr Netanyahu’s noncommittal response, Mr Obama reportedly ordered the US intelligence services to step up monitoring of Israel to glean clues of its intentions.

The report meshes with Panetta’s not-so-veiled warning to Israel just before that visit to lay off Iran, and with his statement this week—albeit not explicitly directed at Israel—that an attack on Iran could have “unintended consequences…. It could have a serious impact in the region and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region.”

The same message came through from Europe this week. French foreign minister Alain Juppe said an attack on Iranian’s nuclear facilities would “drag the world into an ‘uncontrollable spiral.’” In the wake of last week’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear progress—confirming all of Israel’s warnings over the years—EU foreign ministers “ruled out any military action for now.”

Juppe did say the EU would be “asking the European Investment Bank to freeze loans to Iran.” Meanwhile the EU foreign ministers “decided to wait till their next meeting on Dec 1., before taking further action.”

It somehow doesn’t have that ring of urgency.

And yet, as The Telegraph’s Blomfield also notes, “many in [Israel] believe time is running out.”

Blomfield quotes Ephraim Asculai, former IAEA official and an Israeli expert on Iran’s nuclear program, saying that “if the Iranian regime decides to do so, it can produce a nuclear explosive device within a year, plus or minus a few months.” There are also warnings that Iran could soon be transferring most of its nuclear production under a mountain near Qom, making it much harder—or impossible—to bomb from the air.

Is Israel, then, facing the threat essentially alone? If so, it would hardly be unprecedented. There’s an inglorious history of the United States and Europe leaving Israel to fend for itself against threats, sometimes even existential ones.

It happened in Israel’s 1948-1949 War for Independence, when it found itself embargoed by the West (with Britain aiding the Arab side) and had to turn to the Soviet bloc for arms. Just before the 1967 Six Day War, Israel’s “ally” France slapped an arms embargo on the region that was mainly aimed at Israel.

Six years later, in the Yom Kippur War​, it took an Israeli threat to use nuclear weapons against its attackers Egypt and Syria for the U.S. to finally airlift desperately needed military supplies. Even then, America’s European allies refused the U.S. planes landing rights to refuel, with only Portugal finally acquiescing.

The record in recent years is not much better. Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield​ (2002) against the Palestinian terror war, Second Lebanon War​ (2006) against Hezbollah, and Operation Cast Lead​ (2008-2009) against Hamas in Gaza all evoked a clamor of Western demands for immediate ceasefires along with charges of Israeli moral offenses. The U.S. was sometimes more sympathetic than Europe but still distinctly uncomfortable with Israeli military action and showed short patience for it no matter what savageries Israel had been subjected to.

It may be too soon to conclude that the current situation is as stark. As Joseph Klein notes, Obama could “surprise us and show the boldness he displayed in making the decision to take out Osama bin Laden,” though “his record to date on Iran is dismal.” And while some of the Republican presidential candidates have made hawkish avowals on Iran, Israel—even if one of them eventually defeats Obama—has to watch the clock.

If the reports (notably in The Guardian and Time) that Israel’s Mossad was behind the blast at the Iranian missile base are accurate, it could be an indication that Israel is already taking its own tack. As Israeli author and military commentator Ronen Bergman told the Telegraph reporter:

People outside Israel don’t understand how profound memories of the Holocaust are, and how they affect future policy making. At the end of the day, this policy of “never again” would dictate Israel’s behaviour when intelligence comes through that Iran has come close to a bomb.