(S.T. Lloyd commentary: I know I have posted a lot today, but this one is too significant to leave out. The writer of this article is a member of the Meretz Party, a left-wing, social-democratic, green, and Zionist political party in Israel. Wikipedia defines Social democracy as a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe.
However, we know that those who promote these philosophies, don’t actually subscribe to them. They actually want to “decentralize” the power away from the people and sovereign states, to one very consolidated elite entity at the top of the pyramid. The so-called “representative democracy” they sell, only “represents” those who fall in line with (read that “obey”) the expectations and aspirations of the ones with the power. They want to redistribute only the corporate wealth of the worker class, to said power center, for multiplied power, as well as for bribes to entice the poor to vote them even more powers, Why do you think Obama worked so hard to move middle-income earners into the poorhouse? The freedom to finally (re-) build the third Jewish temple will be the dangled carrot that seals the deal.
So, this is significant as the opinion of an adviser with great influence in the Meretz party, as it relates to the Scripturally Prophesied Global government. Were Israel to join that trend which is currently being rejected, if not reversed by most of the free world, this would surely be an indicator of readiness for the long-awaited and much touted Peace Treaty. The Oslo accords and specifically U.N. Resolution 181, makes provision for the division of land into three parts, those being “Israel”, “Palestine”, and the “green line” of separation that includes Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Those areas would have been considered “international” but this was never actually put into force because of the War of Independence, and later Israel re-affirmed Jerusalem as their rightful capital in the wake of their astounding victory in the Six Day War. I’d say the Meretz party bears watching. Politics in Israel functions differently than ours. Prime Ministers have the authority to dissolve the current government, and forge new alliances when the current one is in a stalemate. Obviously I don’t agree with the author of this article on “America’s Position”, but anyway, on to the article itself):
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem?
BY ILAN BARUCH
Ilan Baruch is a diplomatic adviser to the head of the Meretz Party, chairperson of the ‘Policy Working Group’ – an advocacy team, and a former Israel ambassador to South Africa.
Yes, but only after a peace deal with a Palestinian capital in the city’s east.
Moving the embassy and the ambassador’s residence to Jerusalem prior to completion of a peace agreement would be a gross violation of the US position as an impartial mediator in any diplomatic process. Therefore, the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem should and indeed must happen, but only after a peace agreement is in place and the occupation ended, with a Palestinian capital, and a US Embassy to Palestine, in East Jerusalem.