Wednesday, 29 May 2013


Islamists Tell the Truth When They Think Western Eyes Aren't Watching

If you want to keep up on what’s going in the Middle East, and what Islamists really think, MEMRI-TV is an excellent resource for accomplishing both.

MEMRI, which stands for the “Middle East Media Research Institute,” monitors Arab, Iranian, and Turkish media, schoolbooks, and sermons. MEMRI then translates them into English so we can know exactly what is being said in those cultures—unfettered by our gutless politicians and leftists media so punch-drunk on political correctness they feel the need to cover for those who wish us harm.

One of MEMRI’’s recent clips definitely is worth watching. It features an April 1st talk given by former Jordanian Prime Minister Abdelraouf Al-Rawabdeh, who served from 1999-2000 and graduated from the American University in Beirut (Lebanon).

To fully understand the context of what that means, consider the American University in Beirut was originally founded by American Christian missionaries in 1866, U.S.-Jordanian relations have been close since King Abdullah II ascended to the throne in 1999, and U.S. taxpayers have provided at least $13 billion in foreign aid to Jordan as well.

In other words, American taxpayers both educated and put food on the table for the likes of Al-Rawabdeh. That means we’ve been pretty good to Al-Rawabdeh and his ilk if you ask me. In fact, many of us went to work to pay for our own food and education so that our tax dollars could take care of the Al-Rawabdehs of the world.

Explaining to a friendly audience why he and his fellow Islamist politicians often say one thing to the people at home when they don’t think the West is watching, and then are all smiles for the Western cameras when they know we are, Al-Rawabdeh said the following:

The preacher speaking from the pulpit, the philosopher, the politician, the university professor, the school teacher – they are all attuned to the conscience of the nation. Listen carefully to what I am saying. They are attuned to the conscience of the nation, and they are true to what they believe in, but they are not responsible for its implementation.

A preacher stands up in his pulpit and says ‘we must confront America the spearhead of heresy.’ Fine. What does he want us to do about it? He doesn’t say. Along comes the politician, whose job it is to understand the local, regional, and international balance of power, and he talks only about what he can accomplish.

Once, when I was running for office, someone tried to give me a hard time. He approached me and asked: "What do you think about America?" I asked him: "Are you asking me as a politician or as a candidate?"

He said he was asking me as a candidate. So I said "America is an enemy state, which provides weapons to Israel, kills our Palestinian people, controls our Arab countries, expropriates our oil, and destroys our economy."

So he was pleased, but then he said: "And as a politician?" I said: "America is our friend. It stands by us and provides us with aid."

(Crowd cheers and laughs)

He said: "Don’t you see that as a moral contradiction?" "No," I said. "I say that America is an enemy in order to appease you, and I say it as a friend in order to get you food. Which one do you prefer?"

(Crowd cheers and laughs again)

Translation: When stupid American politicians are willing to confiscate the wealth of their own people to prop us up, we’ll wink and nod to go along to get along. But when push comes to shove, don’t believe the propaganda, we hate America every bit as much as you do.

In the West we have a saying: “never look a gift-horse in the mouth.” I don’t know about you, but I’m not exactly feeling warm and fuzzy about seeing my prosperity redistributed to people that hate us no matter how much we pay them not to.



The London Horror and Jihad Denial!!

1369265011181.cached It began on Tuesday last week in Woolwich, London, when two young men in a car deliberately ran over an off-duty British soldier who was walking to a nearby military installation, then “hacked and chopped” at his body and attempted to decapitate him as they shouted “Allah akbar!” They forced witnesses to film the scene, saying: “We swear by Almightly Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.” When police arrived, the murderers “charged at them wielding firearms, knives and a machete.” They were apprehended alive, and are now in hospital. It has since emerged that one of them, a son of Nigerian immigrants, was born in Britain as Michael Olumide Adebolajo, converted to Islam in 2003, changed his name to Mujaahid (i.e., jihadist), and for several years attended meetings of the group Al-Muhajiroun, founded by terrorist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed. Late Thursday afternoon, U.K. time, the murdered soldier was identified as 25-year-old Lee Rigby, a drummer in the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the father of a two-year-old son.
Just like this week’s nightly riots by “youths” in Stockholm, the brutal slaughter in Woolwich was plainly a jihadist act. Yet just as the Swedish elites are continuing to dance around that uncomfortable core truth, their British counterparts are engaged in some fancy footwork of their own – led by Prime Minister David Cameron, who described Tuesday’s atrocity as “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life” but “also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.” (Does it need to be said that for a British leader to haul out this ragged, repulsive lie in the year 2013 is itself a betrayal – a shameless, craven betrayal of precisely what Cameron pretends to be standing up for, namely Britain and…the British way of life”?)

The papers were full of the standard-issue stuff. The Muslim Council of Britain made the usual assertion that the latest heinous act committed in the name of Islam had “nothing to do with Islam.” Baroness Warsi, a Pakistani-English Muslim who serves as “Communities Secretary” in the current government, painted the familiar pretty picture of “faith communities coming out together” in the wake of said heinous act “and showing a unified condemnation of this.” The Guardian ran the obligatory hand-wringing article about the “fear of backlash” against Muslims in the wake of the heinous act in question. (The headline of another Guardian article actually indicated that there had been “Anti-Muslim reprisals after Woolwich attack”; it turned out that one man was “in custody on suspicion of attempted arson after reportedly walking into a mosque with a knife in Braintree, Essex,” and that “police in Kent were called to reports of criminal damage at a mosque in Canterbury Street, Gillingham.”) And Ken Livingstone, the loathsome ex-mayor of London (which he described as “the most successful melting pot in the history of the world and the city of the free”), warned those less evolved than himself not to “scapegoat entire communities for this barbaric act.” This from the sometime host, defender, and chum of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is famous precisely for encouraging such barbaric acts.

Newspaper commentaries on the atrocity added up to a depressing profile of the pathetic, obstinately reality-challenged psychopathology of the British elite when confronted with Islamic violence. The prize for sheer inanity of approach must go to Laborite Dan Hodges, who spent a whole column in the Telegraph elaborating on the theme that “for me, yesterday’s barbaric act of terror in Woolwich was literally senseless. None of what happened actually made any sense.” The murder, he asserted, was “confusing, horrific, bizarre.” He proceeded to repeat this refrain in one paragraph after another: “none of it made sense….Still none of it made sense….It didn’t make sense….It didn’t make any sense….Yesterday was the senseless day.” Reading this feeble, embarrassing nonsense, one could not help wondering: was Hodges equally stumped by 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, the Boston bombings? One of the things that didn’t “make sense” to Hodges was that one of the murderers spoke of “our lands,” meaning the Muslim world, even though “he had a south-east London accent.” It was as if the Woolwich killers were the first “home-grown terrorists” to ever come to Hodges’s attention. How remarkable that during all these years when the non-Muslim world has been racked by one death-dealing jihadist assault after another, Hodges’s contemplation of these incidents has apparently yielded absolutely nothing in the way of awareness or insight.

Brendan O’Neill, also writing in the Telegraph, was also purportedly baffled beyond all hope by Tuesday’s events, professing to find it “shocking” and “bizarre” (that word again) that one of the terrorists “claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims,” speaking “as if he were a representative of the ummah.” Again, one would have thought that this was the very first time such a thing has ever happened. “How can a couple of men,” O’Neill asked, “so thoroughly convince themselves that they speak for all Muslims, to the extent that they seriously believe their savage and psychotic attack on a man in the street is some kind of glorious act of Islamic resistance?” Unlike Hodges, however, O’Neill had a theory. A certain kind of thinking, he posited, had led directly to the Woolwich atrocity. Jihadist ideology? Nope: contemporary British identity politics. You see, “in this era in which any old fool can claim to be a ‘community spokesperson’, and can be treated seriously as such, these murderous loners seem to be trying a psychotic version of the same trick – claiming that by dint of shared skin colour or common religious sentiment they have the authority to speak on behalf of millions of people they have never met or whose lands they have never visited.” Somehow, O’Neill would appear to have missed the news that it’s not only in Merrie Old England that jihadists have proudly proclaimed themselves to be jihadists.

Some observers emphasized that it was crucial to “keep calm.”  Writing in the Independent, sociologist Frank Furedi urged Brits not to “over-react” – and, moreover, not to “redefine” this “incomprehensible act of violence” (yes, he was mystified too) as “an act of political terrorism.” If O’Neill saw the two killers as products of British identity politics, Furedi, calling it “unlikely” that they had “been busy reading al-Qaeda’s terror manual,” cast them instead as products of “reality entertainment” culture, noting their decision to record their monstrous actions on camera. “The murderers may have adopted the role of idealist jihadists as one of them chanted ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,’” wrote Furedi, “but what they really meant was that we will never stop performing.” Furedi’s advice to his readers: don’t give “recognition to two self-obsessed killers who did not deserve it.”
Michael White made a similar argument under the headline “Woolwich attack: let’s try a bit of keeping calm.” Hey, here’s a thought: could it be, just possibly, that official Britain has been too damn calm for too damn long? How about finally getting a little angry? Just to begin with, how about reforming the insane immigration and deportation policies that have made London a sanctuary for some of the most contemptible preachers of Islamic terror on the planet? How about cutting out all the smooth lies, the slick euphemisms, the talk of “Asians” when the subject is really Muslims? How about somebody in a position of authority screwing up a little courage and facing a few facts – and thereby maybe, just maybe, causing Churchill to stop spinning in his grave?

White had a lot to say. Protesting that the publication of photos of the Woolwich perpetrators’ “rusty knives and meat cleavers” was “indecent” and “voyeuristic,” he proposed that today’s Brits adopt the “Keep Calm and Carry On” attitude of their World War II-era forebears – in other words, turn away from the gruesome images and don’t exaggerate the importance of these evildoers (who might just as easily have been members of some street gang unrelated to Islam rather than “ill-educated and unemployed young men…who have been watching jihadi video nasties on the internet”). Suggesting that the Woolwich killers are “lone wolfs” (sic) whose acts have no wider meaning or organizational backing, he maintained that “the only visibly organised conspiracy” in the picture is the English Defence League (that tacky pack of unspeakable rowdies). He went on to insist that, in any event, ordinary street gangs are “a greater problem for life in our big cities than wannabe jihadis.” And he found it appropriate to add that British soldiers of the non-Islamic persuasion are, after all, sometimes “attacked” or “even occasionally murdered” by “their drunken co-religionists.” So why make a fuss about the Islamic roots of this unfortunate affair? (For good measure, White worked in a passing reference to the nightly riots in Stockholm by “the unemployed.”)
What artful dodgers! The lesson was clear: with very few exceptions, the British elite is terrified to call jihad by its rightful name. It would rather condemn the English Defence League for the thousandth time than choke out even the most muted, gracefully nuanced acknowledgment that there might, in fact, be something of a causal connection between the instructions to the faithful spelled out in the Koran and the actions carried out in Woolwich on Tuesday afternoon. Yet it’s precisely that elite’s dishonest, irresponsible, lily-livered response to abominable transgressions like this one that is driving more and more people into the arms of the EDL. For while Cameron, Livingstone, and company were responding to the Woolwich killing by defending Islam, feigning perplexity, and/or dismissing the idea that this murder had any larger significance, EDL leader Tommy Robinson was speaking the plain and simple truth, accusing the country’s leaders of being “scared to say the word Muslim” and flatly rejecting the fatuous falsehoods about Islam that are proferred in Britain’s classrooms and endlessly reiterated in its media. Said Robinson on Tuesday: “Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam.”

Wednesday, 22 May 2013


Prophecy News Headlines
Israel- God's Timepiece
Muddled Israeli-US Policies On Assad Set Stage For Golan Offensive Against Israel
Four days after a “senior Israeli official” warned Assad through The New York Times of Wednesday, May 15 that he risks forfeiting power if he retaliates for Israeli attacks on weapons supplies to terrorists, “Israeli officials” were telling the London Times of Saturday, May 18 something quite different ....  Click here for full story
Israel- God's Timepiece 
Will Israel Destroy Russian Missiles?
The main reason for the heightened tensions on the northern front is Iran and Syria's interest to intensify and hasten the arming of Hezbollah. Tehran apparently believes the West's patience is running out quickly and that by the end of the first half of 2013, or by the end of the year, Washington or Jerusalem – or both – will decide on a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities .......  Click here for full story
Christian Worldview/Issues 
Robert Downey Jr/Iron Man Causes Stir with Reference to Bible Prophecy Teacher "Chuck Missler"
Recent comments by Robert Downey Jr/Iron Man on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart about a well known Bible Prophecy teacher are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to an increasing interest in Bible Prophecy ....  Click here for full story
Christian Worldview/Issues 
Science Proves Premarital Sex Rewires The Brain
There’s a reason why breaking up from a sexual relationship is much more emotionally painful and much harder to forget than one that didn’t involve sex. There are several neurochemical processes that occur during sex, which are the “glue” to human bonding ....  Click here for full story
Apostate Christianity
Jay Bakker’s Rainbow Bread “Communion”
This week Minnesota became the twelfth state in the United States to redefine marriage. Jay Bakker, son of the televangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, marked the occasion by offering “rainbow bread” for “communion” at the inaugural service of Revolution Church Minnesota on Sunday, May 12th .... Click here for full story
Rise Of Islam
Christianity Declining 50pc Faster Than Thought – As One In 10 Under-25s Is A Muslim
A new analysis of the 2011 census shows that a decade of mass immigration helped mask the scale of decline in Christian affiliation among the British-born population – while driving a dramatic increase in Islam, particularly among the young ....  Click here for full story
Revived Roman Empire?
François Hollande Calls For 'European Political Union' Within Two Years
A beleagured President François Hollande went on the offensive today calling for an “economic government” for the Eurozone and “political union” in Europe within two years  .....  Click here for full story


Israel must return to ’67 borders for solution: Turkish PM

Israel must recognize a Palestinian state according to pre-1967 borders for a two-state solution to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Turkish Premier Erdogan said. He also noted that Fatah and Hamas must reconcile for peace talks.
World Bulletin/News Desk
A possible two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would require Israel to return to borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.
In search for a solution to the long-boiling conflict, Erdogan referred to the ‘four proposals’ of the Middle East Quartet, comprising the United Nations (UN), the United States (US), the European Union (UN) and Russia.
“The most important of those four proposals was the number one, which is the issue of borders,” Erdogan told a gathering of press members after his address at Washington-based think tank Brookings Institution. “It is requisite that Israel return to ’67 borders.”
The establishment of a Palestine state was a necessary condition in order for there to be a peace process, the prime minister said.
“The two-state solution was always at the forefront of discussions regarding the conflict, now we see that some of those who accept the Israeli state cannot say yes to a Palestinian state,” Erdogan said. “What to talk about peace unless Israel accepts a Palestinian state first-”
Erdogan said Turkey approached the conflict as if it were a domestic issue.
“I don’t say ‘it’s a domestic issue for us’ but we approach it with that sensitivity,” he said. Turkish PM conditions Hamas-Fatah reconciliation for Israeli-Palestinian peace -Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said Hamas and Fatah should immediately reconcile for Israeli-Palestinian peace
Turkey’s prime minister on Friday said that reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a must for Palestine-Israel normalization process.
“We have to acknowledge one fact within the Palestinian-Israeli normalization process, which is first of all, Hamas and Fatah should reconcile with each other. If not, negotiations with Israel cannot yield any results as it did not until now”, said Recep Tayyip Erdogan, replying to questions after he delivered a speech titled “Global Order and Justice in the 21st Century” at the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) in Washington.
Saying, “We cannot differentiate Hamas and Fatah, both are brothers in heart,”, Erdogan expressed that besides Gaza, he would also visit the West Bank in June.
He added that he would plan the date of the visit when he returned to Turkey.

If you like action, suspense, and mystery, check out newly released novel by Lyn Leahz, Soul Deceiver, BOOK ONE in the fast-paced Eternal Soul Series. Recommended by Walid Shoebat & Joel Richardson .. It’s a page turner!  CLICK HERE to find out more!

No peace without Hamas
Referring to 2009 Davos Summit, he said, “As you know, we had a Davos adventure, where I explained to Tony Blair, then the director of Quartet that if Hamas was not on the negotiation table, there will be no peace. And he told this during the session in the summit, however, we did not reach at a conclusion still.”
Defining the system in Palestine as “controlled democracy”, Erdogan stated that Hamas was obstructed in many ways after it had won the elections in 2006. “Hamas has not been allowed to use the authority given by the public. There are taxes to be paid, but not allowed to do so. Economic pressure started to be applied immediately. Therefore there is a new process now. An immediate national reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is important in terms of determining the negotiator party with Israel,” said Erdogan.
Erdogan added that Turkey would do everything falling under its responsibility within this process, and added, “I believe we can help. We can affect to some extent.”
Hamas-Fatah reconciliation    
“First and foremost, we need to see a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah,” Erdogan said. “I don’t believe a conclusion can be reached in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process unless they agree.”
Erdogan said Turkey could do a lot to bring the two Palestinian groups together.
“We’re on good terms with both Hamas and Fatah and communicate well with both. As far as we’re concerned, there is no difference between them, all are our brothers,” he said.      
Syrian sufferings ‘must be addressed at UN’    
According to NATO findings, Syria shot 283 rockets and purportedly used a chemical weapon called sarin, Erdogan said.
“All this needs to be brought up at the Security Council and even discussed at UN General Assembly,” he said.
No-fly zone
A no-fly zone over Syria would only be enforced by the decision of the Security Council, not through a joint action by the United States and Turkey, Erdogan said, adding the planned peace talks, the second round of the ‘Geneva process’, would be backed by his country.
The first Geneva process last June brought together major powers under the same roof, only to end in a failure to call for the ouster of embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, and saw the countries agree instead on a plan for political transition with little practical value. Erdogan had then described the talks as a “vain attempt.”
World religious leaders to unite against Syria massacre
Upon a question, Erdogan said, “religious leaders should unite, the representatives of Islam, Christianity and Judaism should come together and give a common message to world about what kind of a stance to be taken against the massacre in Syria,”
Stating that he was anti-war, however at the point where all other means turned out to be useless, war would mean justice, Erdogan said that the role of world religious leaders was very critical before the decision to apply military means.
No FTA between US and EU without Turkey    
Regarding the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to be signed between Turkey and the US, Erdogan said that this was a move within FTA between the US and the European Union, and would take time to achieve. “However”, added Erdogan, “Turkey is a member of Customs Union. Therefore within this process, Turkey will definitely take part in. The EU and the US should consider Turkey in their evaluations, as well.”
China to improve life standard in East Turkestan
In response to a question about East Turkestan, Erdogan stressed that there were positive developments for improving life standards in terms of human rights by the new Chinese administration and he was hopeful about the process through a dialogue between Turkey and China. 

Sunday, 19 May 2013



Map of Qatar
Map of Qatar
A surprising and ambitious newcomer on the international scene and in the politics of the Middle East is the Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar, a country that became independent in 1971 when Britain ended its protectorate there.  This small country, with a population of 1.8 million, a large part consisting of foreign workers, is “punching above its weight,” to use a phrase of which President Barack Obama is fond.
The question for the United States and for Israel is how in their own policy-making to reconcile the various and seemingly incompatible policies of Qatar.
Qatar is fortunate because of its abundance of natural resources.  It is the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas due to development of the technology called the Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger, which can cool the gas and make it usable.  The result Qatar, with very high GDP growth and a low unemployment rate, now about one percent, has become the country with the highest per-capita income in the world.
As a result of its wealth, Qatar under the autocratic rule of the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani , who took power in 1995 after a bloodless coup against his own father, has been relentlessly active in acquiring valuable and prestigious assets around the world.  Some, if not all, of these acquisitions are known publicly and can be briefly listed.
In France, Qatar owns the popular soccer team Paris Saint-Germain and the accompanying PSG handball team.  In addition it has  holdings in Louis Vuitton as well as in French heavy industry, in the French oil company Total, in the media, and in real estate on the French Riviera.  Through its Al Jazeera Sports, it launched the French TV channel beIN Sport.  With its investment fund, Divine Investments SA, it is preparing to buy Printemps, the department store chain, a transaction worth $2 billion.  It outbid Galéries Lafayette, the other great French store, which was interested in buying its rival.
In Italy, Qatar controls the fashion house Valentino.  It has holdings in Tiffany’s, in Crédit Suisse, in the Banco Santander Brasil, and in the Agricultural Bank of China.  In March 2013, the emir of Qatar, who already had investments in Greece, bought six Greek islands in the Echinades, in the Ionian Sea, for about $10 million; he intends to build palaces there for his three wives and 24 children.  In Germany, the Qatar holdings include high-end real estate property in Berlin, including the five-star Grand Hyatt hotel in Potsdamer Platz, as well as holdings in Porsche, Volkswagon, Siemens, and the construction group Hochtief.
The emir, as well as his son, was educated partly in Britain, where he has been purchasing significant pieces of property and shares, particularly in enterprises in London, where he is almost at home.  The most striking of these are the prestigious London store Harrods, previously owned by Mohamed Al Fayed; part of the United States Embassy building in London; the five-star Park Lane Intercontinental Hotel; the 72-story skyscraper Shard, the tallest building in the European Union; parts of Canary Wharf Group; the very expensive One Hyde Park, an apartment block estimated to be worth more than $1.5 billion; about 20 percent of the London Stock Exchange; and shares in various companies, including Sainsbury’s, the third largest chain of supermarkets in Britain; Barclay’s Bank; Royal Dutch Shell; the Anglo-Swiss Xstrata, a major producer of coal; and Heathrow Airport, among others.  Qatar has also tried to purchase the art auction house Christie’s and the retailer outlets of the House of Fraser.
The United States became familiar with the activity of Qatar when its TV station Al Jazeera, the most important media outlet in the Middle East, bought Current TV, founded by Al Gore, who received $70 million for his 20-percent share of the station.  Among the other properties Qatar has acquired or is acquiring in the United States are liquid natural gas assets in the anticipation that they will be developed as liquefaction facilities like those in Qatar, thus becoming  companies that will export gas from the U.S.  Other holdings include the investment group Filmyard Holdings, which bought Miramax from Disney.
The country has bought a number of the advanced Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and a team of Boeing mechanics is expected to arrive shortly in Doha, the capital of Qatar, to modify the batteries of the planes, and thus rectify the electronic problems that have plagued the new aircraft.  Qatar already has a large fleet of planes that fly to over 125 cities in the world: in the U.S., they serve New York; Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and Houston.  Qatar has now ordered more than 250 aircraft from Boeing as well as the European Airbus, including the latter’s A380 and A330 jet airliners, Europe’s challenge to the Dreamliner.
In this buying spree, Qatar has been acquiring strategic shares in major companies throughout the world, claiming that these are good investments.  It also claims that it has no mission to conquer the world.  Perhaps this is the case, yet it is reasonable to expect that its large investments will begin to influence economic and political decisions in the countries in which they are made.  The immediate question is the character of the political agenda that results from Qatar’s great wealth.
In fact, Qatar is now playing an increasingly political international role.  It has become a member of important organizations: OPEC; the Gulf Cooperation Council, which it helped found; and the Arab League.  It has made a show of friendship to the U.S. by allowing the use its air bases to supply American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yet Qatar also allowed the Taliban, which America sees as a terrorist organization, to open a bureau on its soil.  Thus, the direction of Qatar policy remains unclear.
Qatar has intervened in Middle Eastern affairs, especially since the downfall of Egyptian President Mubarak, playing a role in Libya, in Syria, and in Egypt.  Its activity in Libya in helping to bring down the Gaddafi regime was said to have been on behalf of the rebel group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, it is supporting and arming the Islamic Nusra Front, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda and is part of the opposition to the regime of President Assad.  In this Qatar appears to be competing with Saudi Arabia, which is supporting a different opposition group.  Again, it has good ties with Shiite Iran, but it also gave $5 billion in aid to Egypt after the overthrow of Mubarak and is giving it another $3 billion, thus aiding the survival of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.
Qatar has become involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, appearing willing to play a constructive role in that conflict’s resolution.  In October 2012 the emir himself, accompanied by one of his wives, paid a visit to Gaza, where he was officially greeted by the Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya.  His visit led to a $254-million Qatar project to rebuild in the Gaza Strip.  With additional allocations, the gift totaled $400 million.
This action, however, seems incompatible with the views expressed by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, Qatar’s prime minister and foreign minister in Washington, on April 29, 2013.  He then not only spoke of general support for the 2002 Saudi Arabian peace proposal and negotiations between the two parties, but also suggested compromises “comparable and mutually agreed minor exchanges” of land.  This was a position not espoused by the Palestinians.  Noticeably, Al-Thani specifically did not mention Jerusalem or the Palestinian refugee issue.
By taking this viewpoint, Qatar is implicitly assuming that the 1967 armistice lines, with minor changes, will be the borders of a new Palestinian state.  While the particular way in which the proposal has been framed may not be completely acceptable to the Israelis, it is contradictory to the position of the Palestinians who insist, as a minimum, on Israel’s return to the 1948 lines.  In addition to the differences over Al-Thani’s statement, Qatar’s relationship with Hamas and its policy towards the feud between Fatah and Hamas is also not defined.
What is clear is that Qatar’s influence is being taken seriously.  That Qatar is now regarded as an important player was noticeable when Afghan president Hamid Karzai visited the emir to discuss prospects of peace in Afghanistan, and to seek the emir’s help in dealing with the Taliban.
The question for the United States and for Israel is how in their own policy-making to reconcile the various and seemingly incompatible policies of Qatar.  On the one hand, Qatar is a supporter of Islamist beliefs and parties, as a country with a seemingly cordial relationship with Hamas in Gaza and a more ambiguous but generally friendly one with Saudi Arabia.  On the other hand, it has established ties with the U.S. and European countries through involvement in the economies of the West.  It also appears willing to encourage the Arabs to strive for peace with Israel.  As a small but wealthy emirate in the turbulent Middle East, perhaps Qatar is seeking to secure a safe position by assuming a role in the economy and politics of the world.
The Western countries are confronted with the question of whether they are capable of dealing with the uncertainties, mysteries, and doubts about Arab policies.  Whatever the answer, Qatar is now to be taken seriously by the United States and Israel.
With permission of the American Thinker
Michael Curtis is professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University and has taught at several other institutions, including Yale University and Cornell University. He has written and edited more than fifteen books in the fields of comparative politics, political theory, and Middle East affairs. MIchael is a writer for Gatestone Institute, The American Thinker & Senior Writer for the Balfour Post.
Michael Curtis is professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University and has taught at several other institutions, including Yale University and Cornell University. He has written and edited more than fifteen books in the fields of comparative politics, political theory, and Middle East affairs. Michael is a writer for Gatestone Institute, The American Thinker & Senior Writer forthe Balfour Post.

Friday, 17 May 2013




In the always volatile region of the globe that is comprised of the nations that make-up the Middle East, the current hotspot of Syria’s civil war is boiling away at a fever pitch and spilling into neighboring countries, with the soon possible entrance into that quagmire of even larger outside forces. The ongoing conflict between those rebel groups seeking to overthrow the regime of Bashar al Assad and his loyal forces has raged on for over two years, claiming the lives of upwards of 70,000 people with no end in sight. Couple that fact with the now suspected usage of chemical weapons into the theater of operations by either the insurgents or more than likely, the Assad regime itself, has the international community─including some concerned Arab league nations as well─chomping at the bit to do something to end the violence and oust Assad from his reign of power.

To further add fuel to the out of control conflagration that is consuming Syria, the Israeli IDF over the past weekend felt compelled to launch two strikes within the country to prevent a shipment of Iranian missiles from being transferred to the nefarious terrorist group Hezbollah, which has long been an Iranian proxy organization seeking to destroy Israel. The nation of Israel has its own “red lines” in place. And the transfer of such weapons─sophisticated missile systems and/or any chemical or biological weapons is such a red line, or game changing event that it would necessitate such an incursion into Syria as to stop those movements. The coming days may reveal more required strikes by Israel, or could portend a backlash of retaliation from Syria prodded on by their Iranian counterparts.

The situation in Syria is a difficult one. The international community is fed up with the carnage and loss of life, and is not exactly sure which actions to take. Compounding the problem have been the veto wielding countries of Russia and China to implement any worthwhile procedures that might spell a resolution to the conflict, via sanctions, intervention or other countermeasures. Most would like to see the downfall of the Assad regime but now no one is sure which group would rise to power in the absence of the present government. To make matters worse, the terror group Al Qaeda is said to be among the rebel groups fighting Assad’s forces, and no one wants to see them gain a foothold in the nation and then seize control of the country.

Even the USA has backed down from its threats of how the usage of chemical weapons in the war would be a game-changing event that would entail strong repercussions, after it has been suspected by British and French officials that indeed those weapons have been used; so far, in a limited role. Just how to go about securing such an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a vexing problem. A war weary America and for that matter, the rest of the world also, does not want to see American or NATO troops on the ground there. The cache of WMDs may be secreted in various locations throughout the country and finding them all might prove to be difficult. There is also the risk that bombing known sites might disperse extremely dangerous agents into the air in and around populated areas. Given all these factors, it is a problematic issue for the international community to ponder and a lot of hand wringing has ensued.
There are prophetic verses all throughout the Bible that deal mainly with the nation of Israel, but also portend judgment against countries that decide to come up against the Jewish homeland. One such foretold event recognized by students of Bible prophecy has to deal with the country of Syria, and more precisely its capital city, Damascus. The prophecy is found in the book of Isaiah, the 17th chapter. It starts off talking about the burden of Damascus:
“Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap ““(Isaiah 17:1).
The prophecy concludes with this chilling prediction:
“And behold in the evening, trouble; and before the morning, he is not. This is the consequence of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us” (Isaiah 17:14).

The language of the prophecy seems to indicate that the destruction of the city will be almost immediate and not requiring days, weeks or even months to level the capital of Syria. There is only one device that is capable of utterly devastating a city in such a fashion: a thermonuclear weapon. The city of Damascus is said to be the longest, continually inhabited metropolis in the world and has never witnessed such a horrific demise. It is obviously still a future event. But what would compel another power in wielding such force against a city and people to fulfill such a prophecy?
Another verse of interest in Isaiah’s burden for Damascus─ a burden given to him prophetically from the God of the Bible─is the verbiage in Isaiah, verse 4:
“And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.”
Jacob was the name of the son on Isaac, and his name was changed to Israel: by the Lord Himself. This is an obvious reference to the nation and people of Israel and the description fits what would happen to a group of citizens if chemical weapons or biological agents were launched against them. Saddam Hussein of Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds in his country, and the vivid pictures broadcast to the world after the attack mirror the end-result described in the aforementioned verse: “the fatness of their flesh waxed lean.”

Israel repeatedly has been fired upon with salvos of crudely made rockets from the terrorist elements of Gaza to the west and from Hezbollah in the north. Israel has always responded by using conventional weapons. If Assad in Syria, or any rebel group within the country were to acquire and use such weapons against Israel and inflicted a massive amount of casualties, Israel would more than likely exercise their Samson option by using a tactical nuclear device against Damascus, especially if they felt the very existence of Israel was being threatened.
Assad has in the past, threatened to use such chemical or biological weapons against any force – foreign or domestic – that imperiled his continuance to govern in Syria. According to outside intelligence sources, he may have already used them on a limited scale. He is now promising that if Israel conducts any more strikes within Syria’s borders, that there will be retaliation. But how severe would those counterattacks be?
There are some students of Bible prophecy who believe that the Isaiah 17 prediction to destroy Damascus could be the fuse that ignites an even larger war that is prophesied in Ezekiel 38 and 39. This war, referred to as the Gog-Magog war, will most likely involve the nations of Russia, Persia (or modern day Iran), Turkey and some other Islamic nations of Africa that will ultimately invade the nation of Israel. What would instigate such a mass invasion into Israel by these forces?
The prophecy foretells that they come to take spoil─maybe the newfound gas fields off the coast of Israel or maybe even all the land itself, as the Islamic nations want to take back all the land─but almost certainly if Israel were to use a nuclear device against Damascus, these enraged nations would attempt to rise-up and end the existence of the nation of Israel. There will be no limit to the fury and hatred against the Jewish nation after such an attack against the Syrian capital.
Without a doubt, the seriousness of the situation in Syria and the fallout from attacks and counterattacks by both sides cannot be underestimated. One misstep by either party could ignite the entire region into an all-out war; maybe even the start of a World War III. The situation there bears very close watching. One last interesting piece of the puzzle of the tensions in the region, a couple of more verses in Isaiah 17 and toward the end of the prophecy:
 Isaiah 17.12-13:
“Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!”
The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.”
THEN, the prophecy concludes again with:
“And behold at evening, trouble; and before the morning, he is not. This is the consequence of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us” (Isaiah 17:14).
Are those verses regarding many people rushing into Israel an indicator that the destruction of Damascus will be concurrent with the Ezekiel 38 and 39 invasion─coming to take a spoil─or will the rushing into the nation result in the aftermath in the leveling of the city? It could very well be that Damascus will not meet its demise until the other nations of the Gog-Magog battle have already begun their invasion of Israel, which would be in agreement with the talk of rushing nations into Israel proper, then the resultant destruction of the Syrian capital.
Or, one last scenario could involve the almost expected strike by Israel against the nuclear facilities of Iran. Should Israel launch an attack, Iran has threatened retaliation and could use its proxies in Gaza (Hamas), Hezbollah in Lebanon, and their Syrian counterparts to launch missiles into Israel. They most likely would not physically march into Israel like rushing peoples, but could still inflict enough damage onto Israeli cities and populations to warrant a huge response from Israel─especially if chemical or biological weapons are deployed.
In any case or scenario, no matter what precipitates a decisive blow to the Syrian capital by Israel, the days leading up to such a conclusion are drawing near. The prophesied players are all in place; the ever-increasing tensions are mounting. Any misstep or rash decision could spark an inferno that engulfs not only the immediate region, but the world’s leading superpowers as well. We could wake up any day now and it could have already begun. The seriousness of what is transpiring in Syria presently could be a world-changing event.

Thursday, 16 May 2013


Google-Berg: Global Elite Transforms Itself For Technocratic Revolution

Authoritarian, anti-democratic power networks are being re-branded as trendy, philanthropic-style forums
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones May 13, 2013
Eric Schmidt. Image: Wikimedia Commons
The secretive Bilderberg Group is currently undergoing a major transformation that will see it and other high profile networks merge under the banner of Google as the elite accelerates its plan to consolidate its technocratic agenda.
This past weekend, Infowars reporters Paul Joseph Watson and Jon Scobie visited the luxury Grove Hotel in Watford, UK, site of the 2013 Bilderberg Group conference set to take place June 6-9, a clandestine annual gathering of over 100 of the world’s most influential power brokers in the fields of politics, academia, technology, business and banking.
The investigation was prompted by our sources, who advised us to visit the Grove in advance of Bilderberg 2013. This is part one of what promises to be a developing story as the pieces of the jigsaw fall into place backed up by years of Bilderberg tracking and research.
What we discovered was groundbreaking and represents one of if not the most important development in Bilderberg’s 59 year history.
Put simply, Bilderberg is merging with Google under the stewardship of Google CEO Eric Schmidt, a regular Bilderberg attendee. Google’s annual Zeitgeist conference, which has been based at the Grove since 2007, immediately precedes the Bilderberg Group conference by a matter of days.

Backed up by prior research, we were able to confirm in conversations with hotel managers and others that the Grove is now a central base for Google’s agenda to control the global political and technological landscape.
The talk in the Grove is not of Bilderberg, that is barely a footnote, the real excitement centers around Google Zeitgeist, which was described by the London Independent as, “a cuddlier version of the Bilderberg Group, the supposedly shadowy network of financiers that holds a private annual assembly, recast in the image of our new tech masters.”
Bilderberg is indeed being recast as ‘Google-Berg’ – partly because of efforts on behalf of activists to tear away the veil of Bilderberg’s much cherished secrecy, and partly as a means of re-branding authoritarian, undemocratic secret gatherings of elites as trendy, liberal, feel-good philanthropic-style forums like Google Zeitgeist and TED.
In reality, behind the scenes Google is using such forums as proving grounds on which to form the consensus that shapes the globe. We were told directly that the organizers behind the so-called “Arab Spring,” which began in Tunisia and Egypt, which as we have documented is in fact a series of contrived western-backed color revolutions masquerading as organic uprisings, were recruited by Google and subsequently attended the Zeitgeist conference at the Grove.
It’s also well documented that the man responsible for kick-starting the “revolution” in Egypt, which led to the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship which the west can now use as a justification for further intervention, was Google employee Wael Ghonim.
Google’s growing influence within both the British and American governments is also well documented. Eric Schmidt was a campaign advisor and a major donor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. He was also reportedly offered the post of Treasury Secretary within the Obama administration. In Britain, Google representatives have met no less than 23 times with Conservative Party officials since the general election in 2010. David Cameron addressed the inaugural 2006 Zeitgeist conference before going on to become Prime Minister four years later. British Chancellor George Osborne paid a visit to Zeitgeist just weeks before he also attended Bilderberg 2011 in St. Moritz, Switzerland.

The crossover between Zeitgeist and Bilderberg has deepened in recent years, with the London Telegraph comparing the power of the Google confab to the World Economic Forum in Davos, “attracting figures of global significance to talk and to network.”
Former US President Bill Clinton, groomed by the Bilderberg Group, has also given speeches at Zeitgeist, as has fellow Bilderberg attendee Prince Charles. Another Telegraph report described Zeitgeist as, “one of the most high-powered gatherings of business leaders, thinkers and those that are considered to generally shape the global future.”
Google is clearly positioning itself to become a force more powerful than governments in controlling and monitoring people’s behavior across the globe through all manner of different means, from cars that drive themselves (and are constantly tracked by a centralized Google database), to Google Glass which is akin to having a Google microchip in your forehead, to Google’s deep involvement in manipulating mass movements through social media as they did in Egypt and Tunisia.
The Grove Hotel is a perfect staging ground for such machinations given its role in World War 2 as a “secret wartime HQ for the London, Midland & Scottish Railway” named “Project X”.
The direction in which this is all heading can clearly be surmised from remarks made by Eric Schmidt himself, who has repeatedly made it clear that he thinks privacy is a relic of the past and plans to turn Google into the ultimate Big Brother that makes George Orwell’s 1984 look like a children’s fairy tale.
“We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”
“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
“We need a [verified] name service for people,” he said. “Governments will demand it.” (Chinese-style Internet control).
“We know everything you’re doing and the government can track you.”
“We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time…Your car will drive itself, it’s a bug that cars were invented before computers…you’re never lonely…you’re never bored…you’re never out of ideas.”
In numerous speeches, including those made at Google Zeitgeist, Schmidt has outlined his vision for a collectivist, permanently networked world in which individuality and privacy are ostracized and those who refuse to sign up to the new religion of transhumanism are shunned as sub-human savages.
That is the primary agenda now being formulated by Google Zeitgeist luminaries in concert with the Bilderberg Group, which shares many of the same members.
A Busy Time at the Grove
Our source told us that there were “four or five big conferences” coming up at the Grove in May, June and July, but intimated that Google Zeitgeist was clearly considered the biggest, with the 227 room hotel not even large enough to accommodate all the guests and administrative staff required to be in attendance, adding that they had to be put up in London hotels.

Huge temporary structures, watched by security guards, were also being constructed on grounds near to the hotel when we visited. These are set to be used for Google’s ‘Big Tent’ event, which is a more public showcase than their private ‘Zeitgeist’ confab. Whether the facilities will also be used by the Bilderberg Group remains to be seen.
The source emphasized that Grove staff had been told not to disclose any information about the Zeitgeist conference and that Google only released information they wanted the public to know. However, the upcoming confab was the talk of the bar and both employees and guests were clearly excited about it.
The source said that security for the event was the same as when heads of state would visit and that the hotel was coordinating with “state security” to run the conference, which inevitably means that taxpayer money will be used to fund the operation, as it is admittedly being used to provide security for Bilderberg. He added that the likes of Google and Bilderberg chose the Grove as a venue because security was far easier to provide compared to hotels in London which are surrounded by high-traffic streets.
Bilderberg’s 2013 Agenda
In terms of Bilderberg’s agenda for the 2013 confab, early indications from our inside source have thrown up a number of different issues that will be up for discussion before Bilderberg instructs its members to implement the agreed upon consensus in each of their fields of influence.
Bear in mind that the motivation behind Bilderberg’s scheming can probably best be encapsulated by remarks made by Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger which recently came to light thanks to Wikileaks.
“Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’ [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that,” said Kissinger.

At least some if not all of the following issues will be discussed and agreed upon at Bilderberg 2013.
- Targeting Iran’s nuclear processing facilities for destruction via air strikes within the next 3 years if Tehran refuses to give up its nuclear program.
- Prolonging the war in Syria by arming the rebels and overturning recent military victories by Assad’s forces.
- The threat of a global pandemic, caused in part by rising resistance to antibiotics, which given the role of some of the pharmaceutical companies represented at Bilderberg in “accidentally” releasing viruses is somewhat rich.
- The manufacturing revolution of 3D printing and ways to control it and prevent the democratization of production.
- So-called “cyber resilience,” which means more state control over the Internet. There is much talk of “Digital Wildfires” – they are scared stiff about losing control over information dissemination.
- Setting up a Ministry of Truth for the Internet similar to that advocated by Bill Clinton. Controlling what can be published on the Internet.
- Advancing so-called “smart cities” that spy on every aspect of public behavior. Installing systems like Intellistreets that record street conversations. Rolling out the landscape of the technocracy.
- The threat caused to social stability by declining living standards and wealth.
- A desperate last gasp move to prevent Britain from leaving the EU and crushing the dream of a centralized European federation.
- More bailouts to prop up the euro.
- Minimal economic growth in 2013.
- Increasing the amount of power obtained by central banks under the guise of “bank reform”.
- Organizing more aggressive powers of tax collection
- Managing a growing credit bubble that threatens runaway inflation in Europe.
We will expand more on Bilderberg’s 2013 agenda as and when more information is obtained from our sources.

Monday, 13 May 2013


     Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Italy for 3 days in early May, 2013. His visit was a predictable betrayal of the Jews, beginning with his new Franciscan "peace" award:"
Peres will also hold a series of diplomatic meetings with the President and Prime Minister of Italy, and take part in a ceremony in the city of Assisi.
The mayor of Assisi, where hundreds of Franciscan monks live, will present its first-ever Medal of Honor for Peace to President Peres for his "unique contribution to dialogue and the cause of peace." At the ceremony he will receive the Medal of Honor for Peace and will be greeted by "hundreds of Franciscan monks" at the central Basilica, according to an official statement.

Those who know Peres acknowledge his, honestly, psychopathic need for medals and awards, to the point of bribing the Nobel committee for a prize:

Last week, Yoav Yitzhak, in the wide circulation newspaper Maariv, revealed that Peres gave Terje Larsen, the UN Middle East representative, $100,000 to secure him a Nobel Prize.
This week, David Bedein, writing in Makor Rishon, applied the coup de grace. He interviewed a member of the Nobel Prize Committee, Kaare Kristiansen, who not just confirmed the bribe but described Larsen's pressure on the committee in full detail.

But accepting made up accolades from the Franciscans is utterly insulting to anyone with a modicum of understanding of recent Jewish history. From the mid to late '40s, the Franciscans (along with the Dominicans), in what is known as Operation Paperclip, hid in their monasteries over a hundred thousand Nazis, before smuggling them to freedom worldwide. It is estimated that just the US received 30,000, largely Franciscan "refugees."
     So while in Italy, naturally Peres lavished in the praises of the Nazi saviors and then was practically smothered by a pope, not named like many believe after a talking mule, but by the very same church leader that the Franciscans honor, Francis I:   

No sooner had Bergoglio taken office, than Peres invited the new pope to visit Israel, asking him to contribute to peace as a spiritual, rather than a political, leader. He'll be a welcome guest in the Holy Land, as a man of inspiration who can add to the attempt to bring peace in a stormy area," Peres said."All people here, without exception, without difference of religion or nationality, will welcome the newly elected pope."

Now why would Peres offer such a deceitful invitation? Could it be because: 
Peres Raises 'World Capital' Solution for Jerusalem
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Shimon Peres, the head of Israel's opposition Labor Party, has suggested resolving Israeli-Palestinian conflict over Jerusalem by putting its holy sites under U.N. stewardship, a spokesman said Tuesday. His plan calls for declaring a holy area of sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem's old walled city as a "world capital," with the U.N. Secretary-General serving as mayor.

To those who understand the perfidy of the Israeli President, they recall his royal welcome to the previous Nazi pope:
Francis's predecessor Benedict XVI visited the Holy Land and met Peres in 2009.
In a remarkable coverup, the fact that nazi youth member Yosef Ratzinger voluntarily joined the Wehrmacht and willingly risked his life for Hitler, somehow escaped the notice of the truly dumbed-down Israeli people, except for an outraged Dr. Daisy Stern:
NOBODY HEARS A PEEP about what's  going on: we just find out that BENEDICT XVI is coming for a visit to Israel. ONLY 10 million dollars used to prepare for his visit, among others 6 million NIS, one for every Jew killed in the Holocaust, to RENOVATE CATHOLIC HOLY PLACES. Among others, the CENACLE, which until now had BARE WALLS, because NO PARAPHERNALIA OF IDOL WORSHIP ARE ALLOWED IN A YESHIVA -that is, the Diaspora Yeshiva of Har Tzion. But no worry: RENOVATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THERE. With other words, the PROPERTIES are being READIED for the pope's arrival, turned into proper Catholic shrines, Jewish or not.

Let her provide the background to Peres' Franciscan triumph in Assisi:
So let's see what Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin concocted in 1993, the year of the Oslo Accords, with the help of the Meshumad (apostate) Israeli, Franciscan "Father" David Yaeger, representative of the Vatican and specialist of Canon Law (apparently, the process started in 1992, pretty much at the time of Rabin and Peres's election, and PRECEDED the OSLO agreement).In what is described as a much more important accord than the Oslo Accords themselves, called the FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT of 1993, these negotiators, who were not even empowered by the Israeli Government under Rabin to do so - the Knesset never ratified the agreement -, signed a document, which was also signed by the Vatican representatives. This document contained three major points:

                   Normalization of relations between the Vatican and Israel- i.e., full diplomatic relations -

2. To be seen in the WIDER CONTEXT OF IMPROVED CATHOLIC -JEWISH RELATIONS (i.e. pogroms, Inquisition, Holocaust, etc. relinquished, replaced instead by a newly found "friendship" worldwide), and -

                  Relationship between the Vatican and Israel as regards legal status of Church properties, taxation, return of properties the Church considers HERS.

Having negotiated an eventual handover by Israel of all Vatican "holy" sites, Peres is off and running this year by manipulating the turnover of the Last Supper room to the Franciscans:
An historic agreement has been drafted between Israel and the Vatican. The Israeli authorities have granted the Pope an official seat in the room where the Last Supper is believed to have taken place, on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and where David and Solomon, Jewish kings of Judea, are considered by some researchers, to also be buried. It is the culmination of a long campaign by the Catholic Church to regain religious stewardship over the place where Jesus is supposed to have broken bread and drunk wine with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion.This is an enormous issue pushed through without any public debate. According to our sources, the agreement, which is expected to be ratified next June, gives the Pope a special authority over the second floor of the building, so that Christian pilgrims will be able to celebrate religious functions like Pope John Paul did in 2000...The Catholic Church has long wanted control over part of the area on Mt. Zion so as to turn it into an international religious center for Catholics. The blueprint of the agreement reads as follows: The Vatican hands over this use of the Cenacle to the Custody of the Holy Land which will keep the Cenacle open from 6 AM to 8 AM for the celebration of the Holy Mass..The Custody of the Holy Land, the Franciscan order who, with Vatican approval, is in charge of the holy sites, campaigns with the Arabs against Israel...The Vatican wants the Jews out of the Old City and apparently Israel's government is agreeing with them.
     Now we know why the Franciscans so honored Peres at Assisi.