Monday, August 31, 2009

Solana: Israel to Agree to Freeze Before UN Meets

Curt Here...

Javier Solana is back in the picture. Not that he ever left, but according to the article posted below Solana announced that Israel has all but agreed to US demands for a "building freeze" in Judea and Samaria. Solana who is on a Middle East tour said "I believe that a final deal will be in place by September 18Th or 19Th, before the United Nations meets."

I find it very interesting that President Barack Obama appears to be the front man on this push for peace and Javier Solana appears to be working behind the scenes. If you think about it, this arrangement works quite well as President Obama clearly is the more charismatic of the two and Javier Solana clearly is much more diplomatic. It appears as if they are working very well together in their clearly defined roles. Could these two have prophetic importance together? Not sure yet, but I am watching them.

This "building freeze" deal would be implemented for at least nine months as Israel and the Palestinians work on a comprehensive peace deal. If I am doing my math right, nine months from Sept 18Th is about the middle of June 2010. Which of course is the middle of the 7 year ENP agreement between Israel and the EU.

So, after the end of nine months what happens if Israel and the Palestinians do not agree to a comprehensive peace deal, or at least do not make significant progress towards this goal? Is this time frame a coincidence? Again I am not sure yet, but I am starting to wonder.

Stay tuned as the end of September is going to be quite interesting.



Solana: Israel to Agree to Freeze Before UN Meets

At a press conference in Jerusalem Monday, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana hinted that the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was prepared to accept American dictates to halt al building in Judea and Samaria – and in fact has already agreed to do so. The "building freeze," according to security sources, would be implemented for at least nine months. Reports last week said that an unofficial building freeze has been in place for some five months already.

Speaking to reporters, Solana said that Israeli and American officials were in Washington working out an arrangement. "The details they are working on are more technical than political," he said. "I believe that a final deal will be in place by September 18th or 19th, before the United Nations meets."


Anonymous said...

Thanks Curt. I am with you in the watching of these 2 very intriguing people. It is to important to just brush aside.


the70thweek said...

Hey Wickus,

Good to have you visiting this blog. Your comments are always welcome.


Sharon down under in nz said...

I have just posted this comment below on Constance Cumbey's blogsite but thought I'd post it here as well as it seems to be more topical at the moment - Constance's site wanders away from the main deal at times! No criticism of her site by any means though!

Just a thought.
It seems the covenant of Daniel's prophecy in 9:27 is generally thought to be a "peace treaty" but I put forward a new thought for comment. In the whole prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 there is no actual mention of "peace" anywhere - it has been assumed by people for ages. The Septuagint - otherwise known as the LXX manuscript (which Jesus, the disciples and the early church read from ) does not mention any peace covenant either. Verse 27 in the LXX reads thus: "And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away ..."
My thought is that instead of the covenant dealing with "peace" it is a covenant which allows Jews to set up sacrificial offerings in exchange for things which the other treaty partners seek; but the Antichrist breaks this covenant halfway through. The breaking of the covenant is associated with the stopping of the sacrifices in verse 27 and I suggest it has nothing to do with a peace treaty!
Incidentally, it seems that Sir Isaac Newton thought in terms of the covenant being connected to re-establishing sacrificial offerings on the temple mount for what that is worth.
Looking forward to yours and other readers thoughts on this!

the70thweek said...

Hey Sharon,

I would completely agree with you. No where in scripture does it say that the covenant with the many is a definitely a peace treaty. It is fairly frustrating to me that this mistruth is such a commonly held belief.

Thanks for posting the The Septuagint - or the LXX manuscript. That is pretty interesting stuff and supports the idea that the breaking of the covenant is simply putting an end to sacrifices.


Sharon said...

Hallo Curt,
Yes, it is frustrating to see people assume that because it has been always been spoken of as a peace covenant it must be that. I used to think that way but have changed my mind.
Incidentally Sir Isaac Newton thought the same - he studied scripture earnestly and had a wonderful understanding of the temple and measurements all having prophetic meaning! He believed the temple was central to God's dealing with man in time and space so therefore any dealings with Jerusalem at the end have to do with the temple. The Jews are very much wanting to have a temple for sacrificial offerings again and I imagine they would agree to almost anything including international oversite of the city possibly if they could be assured of the temple being set up again. It doesn't take much to provide one either - an alter apparently is all that is needed. Interesting days for sure!
The Septuagint version is certainly interesting - seeing the differences between it and the KJV! The site where I read it is as follows:

the70thweek said...


I used to think that way also, but the more I studied scripture, the more I realized that much that I was taught or assumed simply was not there.

I would also agree that a working altar appears to be all that is needed for sacrifices and offerings to begin. Ezra 3 shows this clearly.

Anyways, thanks for the link. That is a pretty cool website.