America's Relentless Desire To Destroy Israel

As if G.W. Bush and Condi Rice weren't bad enough, now the man who created the "Office of the President Elect" out of thin air, "that one" who is potentially "that man of lawlessness", has declared that Israel should, "revert to its pre-1967 borders in return for official diplomatic recognition by the Arab world".

Barack Hussein Obama is about to wade into the Mideast peace process in a major way. He is going to push a plan that will have Israel revert to its 1967 borders in exchange for recognition by Arab nations. But such a plan will cede the high ground to Israel’s enemies, giving them a strategic vantage point over the nation’s cities.

A senior Obama adviser told the London Times that Obama will throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative that also has been endorsed by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the Arab League, and Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Under the plan:

- Israel would be able to veto the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948.

- Israel would restore the Golan Heights to Syria.

- Palestinians would be allowed to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

According to the senior adviser, Obama has said privately that Israel would be "crazy" to reject such a plan, since it would "give them peace with the Muslim world."

(Some text taken from © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.)

BTW, could B. Hussein Obama be "that man of lawlessness"? What if Philip Berg, Esq. is correct and Obama is really a Kenyan or Indonesian? If he is and if he remains President it would make United States law and the U.S. Constitution, like the Republican Party, completely irrelevant!

What about the religious angle? Many promote a pseudo-biblical idea that the temple in Jerusalem has to be rebuilt and the sacrifices restarted in order for the "Antichrist" to cease the sacrifices (very convoluted, I'd say). IMO the Bible doesn't say this at all. The ceasing of the sacrifices occurred with the advent of Christ. Christ IS THE TEMPLE. The reference in the book of Daniel refers to Christ, not the Antichrist. This is a classic conflict of Catholic teaching verses Reformation-Early Church teaching. Here's more on that if you're interested. In other words, Israel could very well be wiped off the face of the earth and it would not alter Biblical prophecy (altar? : ) - no pun intended).

The Observer