German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Wednesday will land in Israel ahead of his expected meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Gabi Ashkenazi.

The visit’s official capacity is for Maas to acquaint himself with Ashkenazi. Unofficially, Maas intends to caution Israel against its stated intentions to begin annexing parts of the West Bank on July 1.

Maas is expected to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, and Ashkenazi. He will later also confer with Palestinian leadership over video conference after Israel cited its coronavirus quarantine orders to prevent Maas from visiting the West Bank. He will then travel to Jordan in the evening for additional talks.

This is Maas’ first trip outside of Europe since the outbreak of the coronavirus.

According to sources within the Foreign Ministry, Israel’s intent to annex West Bank settlements is a grave concern for Germany, which seeks to mediate between Israelis and Palestinians and prevent a violent escalation in the region.

Germany is a key ally of Israel in international organizations but is also a staunch defender of international law institutions.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declarations that annexation will be promoted on July 1, in less than one month, have put Berlin in a major quandary. On July 1, Germany will be taking over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union and will be assuming the presidency of the UN Security Council. These two roles will require the Germans to choose between their allegiance to international law and UN resolutions on the one hand and their historical commitment to Israel on the other.

• West Bank Annexation Will Harm Israel’s Relations With Germany but Berlin Will Oppose Sanctions, Officials Believe
• Trump’s Troop Cut in Germany Blindsided Senior U.S. Officials, Sources Say
• Germany’s Foreign Minister to Visit Israel, Warn Against West Bank Annexation

In late May, Germany and the Palestinian Authority released a joint statement expressing “grave concern” over Israel’s declared intention to begin annexing parts of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.

Source:  https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-german-foreign-minister-lands-in-israel-expected-to-warn-netanyahu-against-annexation-1.8910253

The post German Foreign Minister to Land in Israel, Expected to Warn Netanyahu Against Annexation first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The unparalleled presentation by Ambassador Danny Danon delivered to the UN General Assembly just after Passover a few weeks ago has gone viral on social media where it has been translated into numerous languages. In the 18-minute defense of Israel’s right to the Land, Ambassador Danon covered the biblical, historical and international facts proving that the entire Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria, belong to the Jewish people.

Quoting from God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis, Danon looked squarely into the eyes of the Palestinian delegate sitting across from him at the assembly, lifted his Bible high for all to see and said, “This is the deed to our land.” Danon then read the Bible in Hebrew, and then in English, from Genesis 17:7-8: “I will give this Land as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you.”

Using the Bible to defend the Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel is an extraordinary move in modern political realities. Until now, Israeli politicians have shied away from turning to Scripture in defense of Israel’s claims.

As expected, mainstream liberal media are reacting with scorn and rage, shaking their heads in disbelief that a government official, Israeli at that, would dare use the Bible in support of Israel’s right to the land. In interviews after the speech, CNN and Al-Jazeera hosts openly mocked the idea that the Bible would have anything to do with the Jewish people’s claim to a homeland in the Land of Israel.

Danon, however, remained unfazed. “The Jewish people’s ownership of Eretz Yizroel (meaning the whole land of Israel) is well documented in the Hebrew Bible and beyond (apparently a cryptic reference to the New Testament). The entire connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel begins right here,” he said, again holding up his Bible.

The ambassador pointed out that it is not only the Hebrew Bible that gives the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, but this is also true in Christianity and Islam. “The Koran itself accepts the divine deed of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel,” Danon told the assembly while pointing his finger directly at the Palestinian delegate. It was clear to all those watching that Danon is referring to the whole Land of Israel including Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank).

In the unprecedented speech, the Israeli ambassador went on to show that the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel is confirmed not only in the Bible and Jewish history, but in the history of the world as well. “The twelve tribes of Israel lived in this land for thousands of years,” he said. The largest tribe of Judah lived in the area now known as Judea.” Again, staring down the Palestinian delegate, Danon declared, “You all know the names Jew and Jewish. Jew and Jewish come from Judea. It was the home of our King David and Jerusalem, the capital of Israel,” he said.

Ambassador Danon concluded by pointing out that “Jewish rights to the Land of Israel are also according to international law as decided upon in this very body (UN). A stronger and safer Israel means a stronger and safer world,” he insisted.

See video: https://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/israel-to-un-god-gave-us-the-land-ambassador-dons-kippa-and-reads-the-bible-video/ 

Source: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=36671

The post Israel’s Ambassador Turns to the Bible first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Israel to UN: God gave us the Land. Ambassador dons kippa and reads the bible. (Video) first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

There has been more talk recently from the Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians about the option of a confederation as an alternative to the two-state solution in light of the political impasse reached between Ramallah and Tel Aviv. So what are the true positions of the three governments on this option, the chances of this being achieved on the ground, the official reactions of these countries, and public opinion on the matter?

Palestinian-Israeli relations have reached an unprecedented political stalemate because of the stalled negotiations between them since 2014. This may have prompted Palestinians to think outside the box or refer back to old talk of a confederation with the Hashemite Kingdom.

Such a confederation aims to establish one state for two peoples after the Palestinian state is established on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. This single state will have two capitals — Jerusalem for the Palestinians and Amman for the Jordanians — as well as a central judicial authority and joint armed forces led by the Jordanian monarch. It will also include a central council of ministers and parliament elected by both nations, while both will be allowed to move freely between the two areas.

In recent months, the Palestinian and Israeli media have been busy talking about a confederation in an attempt to find alternatives that take Palestinians out of the political impasse. According to Israeli academic and political circles, a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation is suitable given the political circumstances, with US President Donald Trump trying to revive the proposal. Israel is also trying to strengthen this option by restoring Jordanian control of parts of the West Bank, which is favourable for the Zionist state.

READ: Jordan to carry out aid projects in support of Palestinian refugees

The current Israeli assessment is positive because the Palestinian Authority cannot stay in the West Bank without financial support from the US and Israeli security. The PA will not succeed in finding alternatives to the generous US aid, so it may be appropriate for Trump’s aides to resume their efforts towards confederation.

The Israelis reject the two-state solution and believe that the Palestinian confederation with Jordan may be the best choice for themselves because it kills several birds with one stone. For a start, it spares Israel from the responsibility of managing the affairs of millions of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, with the PA’s reduced financial resources. It also means that the two-state solution is no longer feasible, which reinforces the opinion of the Israeli right-wing that the “two states” route is dead and buried. The current US approach, remember, rarely addresses the two-state solution as it moves towards greater, but still limited, autonomy for the Palestinians.

What’s more, Israel’s talk of Egyptian guardianship over Gaza becomes more credible, perhaps by transferring Egypt’s administrative and security responsibility for the territory, even if the parties themselves continue to reject it, at least in public.

Confederation also revives the old Israeli right-wing suggestion of the “alternative homeland” of Jordan, about which Amman has many reservations. There are Israeli predictions which surface from time to time that King Abdullah II will the last Jordanian monarch from the Hashemites.

Finally, a Palestine-Jordan confederation will preserve security in the West Bank given that the Jordanian security forces will maintain calm on the border with Israel that has lasted for decades. This is a win-win situation for Israel, as Jordan will be responsible for preventing resistance operations within the West Bank over issues of conflict, including settlements, the status of Jerusalem and borders.

This is not simply a subject of discussion within research and academic circles; the US administration has also proposed it to the Palestinians, according to PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The idea was presented as a single sovereign state — Jordan — that would be expanded to include an additional autonomous territory called the West Bank, although the Palestinians have reservations about this.

What it all means is that the idea of a confederation between Jordan and Palestine has returned to the agenda, so we could see the conflict resolved in a creative and innovative manner. This is despite the fact that concessions over the territories involved will be necessary if the proposal is to be viable.

The current Israeli election campaign is throwing up suggested programmes for alternatives to the current way of managing the occupied territories. One of these is to return at least part of the West Bank to Jordanian guardianship due to the failure of the Palestinians and Israelis to reach a solution. For a confederation to come into being, though, will require Israel to evacuate its troops and citizens from the Palestinian areas.

This Israeli proposal would mean that the Palestinians will become the demographic majority in the Hashemite Kingdom, which the Jordanians fear and are likely to reject out of hand. In any case, Amman will argue, the Palestinians have the legitimate right to establish their own independent state, although this does not mean that the Jordanians are open to any option which comes in a single package, under Washington’s auspices.

READ: Jordan denies pregnant Palestinian woman access to West Bank

Moreover, the four-way Israel-Palestine-Jordan-US discussion about a confederation suggests that the two-state solution has been taken off the table altogether. Although none of the parties has agreed as yet, it could be a serious alternative, and an important step for the future, even though the element of trust between the concerned parties is very weak. Israel believes that a Jordan-Palestine confederation can be implemented gradually by creating a network of cooperation across civil society which will be sufficient to create mutual trust and thus pressure on the Jordanians to be the Palestinians’ elder sibling.

Washington is preparing to announce the details of the “deal of the century” in the coming weeks, and views the confederation option as an important one, despite the fact that Jordan is not exactly rushing to embrace it with open arms, not least because of the potential for the Kingdom to be de-stabilized. There are clearly many questions and not so many clear answers, causing some important circles within Jordan to fear for their national identity within a confederation. Such concern is understandable, perhaps, when we look at the demographics: Jordan currently hosts 2.2 million Palestinian refugees, out of its total population of 9.5 million, meaning that only 6.6 million are indigenous Jordanians. Add around 3 million Palestinians from the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the nature of the Kingdom as “Jordan” could start to change into a de facto “Palestinian State”.

According to the latest opinion polls, the Palestinians welcome the idea of a confederation with Jordan and see it as an appropriate way out of their predicament. They have historical relations and family ties with the Jordanians, so a confederation may be an acceptable way to be rid of the Israeli occupation.

There is constant communication between the officials in Amman and Ramallah, with respected and prominent Palestinian figures going to the Jordanian capital to meet with senior officials. These individuals openly support the idea of confederation and show great loyalty to the Hashemites.

Nevertheless, there are legal difficulties. A confederation would require a referendum among Palestinians within Palestine and in the diaspora; this would be hard to conduct freely and fairly given the distribution of the Palestinians around the world. The institutions that would probably be expected to conduct the referendum, such as the PLO executive committee, are not constitutional because they were formed without being elected democratically by the Palestinians, so that is an obstacle. Furthermore, a confederation would bestow legitimacy on the Israeli settlements, while the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their land will be off the agenda forever.

The resultant “Palestinian state” in the West Bank will be made up of demilitarized cantons lacking in contiguity; it will not be a fully-fledged sovereign state. Israel will thus evade the legal burdens of occupation and any possibility of it being called to account for its crimes against the Palestinians.

We are entitled to ask why there is growing Palestinian support for confederation with Jordan. It may be because the Palestinians have lost all hope of having an independent state and no longer have much trust in the PA after witnessing its successive political failures in its dealings with Israel. Jordan may also be seen as their gateway to the world, bypassing the tools of the occupation which have kept them behind the hated Apartheid Wall and endless military checkpoints. All things considered, a Palestine-Jordan Confederation is becoming a very real possibility.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190218-a-palestine-jordan-confederation-is-becoming-a-very-real-possibility/

The post A Palestine-Jordan Confederation is becoming a very real possibility first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Israel is actively wooing populists in the EU with a view to dilute the bloc’s position on the Palestinian issue.

he Middle East European Common Policy, since its formation in early 1970s, is seriously under threat. The first to be hit is the likely Europe position on Palestine and other major Arab issues. The cohesion of the current European Union (EU) has already begun to show serious signs of cracks — for the first time since its membership expansion in late 1990.

In fact, the entire EU Common Policy and unity seems to be under question since some member states are in process of splitting up from the EU. UK was the first to go down this route after the result of a referendum in 2016 on the issue. 52 per cent of voters opted out of the EU during the term of former prime minister, David Cameron. There are many other reasons for the likely threat to the EU structural foreign policy, at the top of which is the rising power of authoritarian democrats and the relatively fast decline of liberal democracy in a number of important European countries.

The Visegrad Group of four Central European states of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia is a reflection of changing attitudes. The group, also known as the V-4, was founded shortly after the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and they all joined the EU in 2004. It was established as a cultural and political alliance with the view of advancing military, cultural, economic and energy cooperation with one another before they fully joined the EU.

V-4 carries the name of the Hungarian castle town of Visegrad on the river Danube. Visegrad was chosen as a location for 1991 summit (before Czechoslovakia was split). Visegrad was also the location of an earlier historic medieval Congress in 1335 between Kings of Bohemia (as Czech was known then), Hungary and Poland.

Netanyahu summit

However, it is highly rumoured that prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, will host a joint summit with the V-4 leaders in occupied Jerusalem in the second part of July, even though Israel is not a V-4 member. Nevertheless, in mid-July, Netanyahu is hosting his close friend Hungarian prime minister, Victor Orban, for his state visit to Israel. Netanyahu government has been trying to exploit the internal differences within the EU in recent years on immigration in an attempt to change the way the Middle East policy, particularly its Palestinian section, is shaped.

An earlier attempt to do just that was revealed in some of the liberal press in Israel reporting an incident during which a microphone was inadvertently was left open, Netanyahu was clearly heard assailing the EU in mid-July 2017 in a closed meeting with V-4 prime ministers held in Budapest. The Israeli prime minister’s words were heard by many journalists before they were cut off. He said: “The EU is the only international organisation which predicates its relation with Israel — which provides it with technology — on political considerations.”

He went on revealing very interesting views of other countries relations with Israel. He added: “We have special relations with China and they don’t care about political issues. [India’s Prime Minister Narendra] Modi told me he has to look after the interests of India, and Russia doesn’t set political conditions and Africa doesn’t either. Only the European Union does — it’s crazy. It’s contrary to European interests.” Netanyahu was the guest of honour of the V-4 states known to be the flag-bearers of ultra-nationalism within the EU. It is unprecedented to see the V-4 warming up to Israel despite the dark history of some their member states with their own Jewish population.

Netanyahu’s design is to push Israel’s policy of creating partnership with these countries on world stage to help him achieve his target in weakening the consensus among EU member states regarding various Middle East issues, particularly on the Palestinian issue. In fact, it seems Netanyahu was clearly on a mission when he told his V-4 counterparts: “I propose that you transmit a message to your counterparts in Europe: Don’t undermine the only country in the region that looks after Europe’s interests. Stop attacking Israel, Europe undermines its own security when it undermines Israel, due to a crazy attempt to impose political conditions.”

Orban of Hungry was the first to agree with Netanyahu’s disdain of the EU before the latter continued: “Europe needs to decide whether it wants to live and prosper, or to disappear.”

Netanyahu’s way of thinking of Europe’s future is identical to that of the right-wing world leader, namely the US President, Donald Trump. The latter has openly called the EU as “obsolete” and his views of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal democracy is no longer a secret. The German chancellor is rapidly losing to the likes of Orban, Trump and Netanyahu not only in Europe but also in the Middle East.

Mustapha Karkouti is a columnist and former president of the Foreign Press Association, London. Twitter: @mustaphatache.

Source: https://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/divided-europe-is-bad-news-for-middle-east-1.2249350

The post Divided Europe is bad news for Middle East first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.