We're talking about different stuff, and the misunderstanding is my fault, because I was mixing things in my personal life and things in the news, up and down and out and through. I don't always explain my connections.

You're looking at big picture things in your body-politic sense with your particular view of prophetic writings, and it comes across to me as something like a view from the inside top of a dome, looking down at what is spread below inside that framework.

I'm taking a spider's eye view, sliding along connecting lines, slim as silken threads and proportional in strength, which is to say, the threads are stronger than they look. I am running into more spiders than before. They are more energized. They are spinning. Connections.

I do not believe what you said about the forces of good and evil working together. (On the "evil/good...satan/God" thread.) Of course there is a natural action-response, yin-yang thing always, but that has been the case, always.

You seem to me to be pulling for evil and catastrophe and calamity and misery...and I guess that's reflective of what I presume to be your expectation that the particular people you think should get raptured will get raptured, and then, eventually, there will be a new kingdom of Christ.

...And, you know, that would be cool. He and I love each other and we'll be really glad to see each other, as always.

But, meantime, what CHRIST said, (who, admittedly is not John of Patmos) is that we're supposed to be doing the work here and now. Finding the kingdom of God within and invoking that kingdom to come, that transcendant will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. As above, so below. By serving our fellow people, loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Greg and Sabra have indicated they are seeing this more. I am seeing this more. The kingdom is more clearly apparent to me now than it was yesterday, more apparent yesterday than it was a week ago, more so a week ago than six weeks ago.

As I said, this may partly be a personal thing, because I am putting myself out to run into it more. But I feel a broader, more active reality "out there" from my vantage point on the spider line than I did for years. And I think it's happening beyond just me and mine, beyond my neighborhood and community. I do believe it.

Your pushing that idea of "false peace" bothers me. (I guess that was also over on that other thread.) But anyway, it seems like you're implying that people shouldn't work for peace because it's predestined to be false. In all of history, the world has never had a worldwide "true peace" anyway. The more peace and justice that can be achieved, the better. Sneer at peace efforts all you want, and say they're doomed to failure, if that's how you choose to spend your mental/spiritual energy.

But it strikes me as selfish and uncaring. And you say you want to promote selflessness and love, and I do not doubt your sincerity about those things. But as I was saying, there are people in the Israeli-occupied territories who need food and medical care and other basics required to support life, and they need them NOW, not after the apocalypse.

I want a miracle of peace and understanding to dawn, not only in the holy land, but also in the holy earth/heart in the new Aquarian age, and I'm praying for it, even if it screws up the expectations of the lastest crop of apocalyptic thinkers.

I'm damn proud of the Franciscan brothers in the church, whose food is gone because they shared it. If you want to dump on clergy, let's go to the appropriate thread. This one carries my unabashed love and admiration for the millions of clergy and members of religious orders worldwide who take their oaths knowing that, to one extent or another, right up to the ultimate sacrifice, they are giving their lives to serve others, in the name of love and peace and in the interest of fair treatment among people.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings with any of this, but a woman minister friend of mine used to say "Speak your truth and get on with it." So I usually do.

Love,
Maria

I know what you mean. Everybody wants redress of their grievances. And it's like, OK, can we all agree that we've all had grievances and we all need to live? And get on with it? Everybody needs certain stuff to live, so everybody gets some. OK, good. Problem solved.

But humans are ridiculous.

Sigh.

Love,
Maria

oooffff!

Don't you all see!!!!
That this is the very basis of all the original divisions?

Humanity was a child 4000 years ago, needing laws and regulations, combined with a fear of god to protect itself.

Humanity now (to me) is an adolescence and has been the past 2000 and so years. Using these very laws and interpreting them in ways to separate themselves in clans and create endless feuds resulting in violence.

In late 20th century, i have seen humanity as young adults, rebelling againsts these laws and institutions while a part of them are still hanging on to their ridiculus traditions/religions.

Are we soon going to become full grown adults and realize that we don't need those boundaries placed by religions, institutions and the like.
We can start realising that we can live a spirituality that does not involve segrigation, fear or outdated customs.

Why are people so gun-hoe to hang on to traditions that don't work anymore!!!!!

Why not look ahead and create new customs to fit our age?

It's like an adult wanting to keep going to high school classes when he clearly can be opening a buisiness...

Is humanity not ready yet to shed that layer of dried out cancerous skin? What it is afraid of? Loosing their traditions? Oh P...lease!

I feel we are like flies kept in a jar soooooooo long that even though someone should open the lid to show there is an existance beyong the inside of the jar... they will not fly out of it and be free.

It takes a shift in perception.

I'm gone for awhile.

I havent mentioned the word "rapture" That term is NOT in the bible,and it MAY be something "the darker force" want us to believe in. Dont forget,there was a lot of damage done between early original scripture,and the bible of today. Rapture could mean anything from a snatiching away, to a falling away, to spiritually reforming to the christ consciousness within. I have no idea..and I dont waste time dwelling on that issue. Theres more at stake here.

Please dont "assume" I always LIKE what I see,and what I know or feel is to come..I have learned to live with the energies and this is the whole basis to further studies,in astrology, in the origins of man, and other interests.
Im at the "wanting to know all the whys" stage

The truth IS out there..somewhere..and the truth about the vatican will soon be shown to us. On a prophetic nature,it isnt all good for that topic...sorry if you dont like that idea.

The Hopis have a term...its called the "great purification"...and they are some of the most spiritual based people around. Its because they "understand" the connections with humans and mother earth...how one cant live with the other,unless its harmonious...they understand cycles. They know,its all necessary for a brand new world.

But, this is not to say that we do not make a difference. We do make a difference in the capacity we least expect. For a little act of kindness and genuine love, moves greater mountains than a single nuke. As Aries said, we can't see this happening on our plain on earth, but what happens spiritually has powers beyond our comprehension.

"My strength is made perfect in your weaknesses."

So, on a personal level, we need to make effort to love. And now, even as I'm preaching, I've got to forgive my brother at home, and restrain my vengeance and my schemeful attacks.

And when we have Love invading every selfish ambition, we will be able to see Truth. And be able to make the right judgement for this Kingdom. How we get there is a journey we have not taken but will take with determination to love. It may be a journey filled with the uggliest apocalypse we do not want to accept as truth. Or it may be a journey that finally Love overcomes everything and is carpeted with support from the community.

But, whatever it is, it begins with Love and us. Filling ourselves with anguish doesn't help. But filling ourselves with the hope of Love does.

Let's pray. Pray for your enemies, pray for the poor, and may we be used as the vessel of Love to fulfill our prayers.

If you spread hatred under the guise of prophecy, it's still hatred. It still has consequences.

I can understand Rachel wanting to just blow everything up. I don't like it, but I can empathise. Equal opportunity nihilism. Who doesn't feel that sometimes? Who doesn't sometimes think that everybody who lived before us was a dork and we are virtual gods in own terrific modernity? Oh, so much smarter than all those people like Shakespeare and da Vinci. They were such babies. Thank God it passes.

But you, Aries... you're promoting bigotry, and I'm calling you on it.

Sincerely,
Maria

Thank you for your peaceful post. Are you sure you're not a Pisces?

I will take your advice. Tired as I may be, it is, nonetheless, prayer time.

See you,
Maria

Rest up.

Nope, no Pisces in me, not a bit. But, I'm looking for a Pisces to complement me.

Well, I'm not sure if I'm always as peace loving. But, in the end, it matters not, who is right but whether we are able to discern what is right when the time comes.

Of course, it would be wise to keep an open eye on certain pointers we feel suspicious, but not to outrightly judge that "it" is what we think it is. As we are certainly not omniscient, and our knowledge is time centered. But, we'll surely know one day.

What is going on? Who wants to blow up anything?

Let's just all agree that we all see the world differently.

Hoping one day we'll be united under one god/one universe/one ideal.

to live in peace, food in everyone's stummock, a roof over everyone's head and clothes on everyone's back.

And most of all, love in everyone's heart.

I am not a catholic, I am orthodox and boy can i say a few things about orthodoxy. But hey, that's ok!

We have to always keep everyone on their toes, including governement.

Do go on expressing my dear knowflakes! It is your right!

Conditions deteriorate under Bethlehem siege
By MARGOT PATTERSON

Conditions inside the besieged Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem are growing increasingly desperate, sources inside and outside the church report. Going into its third week, the standoff between the Israeli Defense Force and the 250 Palestinians holed up inside the church along with 45 monks, nuns and priests seemed at press time little closer to resolution than when it began in early April.

The crisis is taking a toll on both those inside the church and without. Bethlehem residents living near Manger Square, where the church is located, continue to live under curfew. The Israeli army has said it will continue its siege, which began April 3, until it captures about 30 men inside the church whom the army says are wanted as terrorists.

Reached by telephone April 16, Franciscan Fr. Amjad Sabbara, parish priest at St. Catherine’s Church, the Latin church that adjoins the 1,400-year-old Orthodox basilica enshrining Christ’s birthplace, said the most serious problem for all those at the Church of the Nativity is water. The Nativity complex, which includes Catholic, Orthodox and Armenian monasteries in addition to the basilica, has one well. With some 250 more people now living there, water is running low. So far, the Israelis have permitted the delivery of a crate with 20 bottles of water, but no food. Sabbara reported that those inside the church are living on one meal a day.

“Fifteen days like this are very hard,” Sabbara said.

A youth who escaped from the Church of the Nativity April 15 provided a fuller picture of the squalid conditions inside the church. In an article printed in The New York Times April 17, 16-year-old Jihad Abdul Rahman said cold and the stench from rotting bodies and gangrenous wounds drove him from the church. There was no water for washing and only one toilet for the 250 Palestinians taking shelter inside the church, Rahman said.

Dwindling supplies of food and water are not the only problems those inside the church are contending with. The Israeli army is exerting psychological pressure by blasting loud music and shrieking cries at night as well as intermittent demands to those inside the church to give themselves up.

“It’s the Noriega technique,” said Bethlehem resident Br. Kenneth Cardwell, referring to the tactics the U.S. government adopted in its efforts to dislodge former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega from the Vatican embassy in Panama City where he sought refuge in 1989. “They play really repulsive music very loudly.”

Located a half-mile away at Bethlehem University and speaking with machinegun fire in the background and a view of the Church of the Nativity in front of him, Cardwell said he and other members of the Christian Brothers community there remain under curfew and are kept awake by the frequent disruptions staged by the Israeli army.

“They broadcast loud commands to surrender in the middle of night. They explode huge explosive charges and then lesser flash-bangs I call them. We’re a half-mile away and we wake up five, six times a night with this racket. There are blimps with a cable below. There’s been a drone flying overhead all day today. Yesterday colored gasses wafted across the square,” Cardwell said. He added that a box dangling from a large crane the Israeli army has brought into or close by Manger Square “gave a laser light show the other night and that was pretty exciting.”

As disruptive as the situation in Manger Square is to residents, Br. David Scarpa, director of teaching development at Bethlehem University, said most people in Bethlehem are probably more concerned about their own situation.

“Telephone wires are down,” Scarpa said. “The breaks in curfew are uncertain. A lot of the water mains were broken. We’re in a semi-arid area, so water is extremely precious. Nobody is able to get out to repair them. People who have mistakenly left their homes have been shot. There’s been a lot of gratuitous damage.”

On April 15, a consortium of five Christian organizations delivered food to Bethlehem residents. Tom Zimmerman, assistant country representative for Catholic Relief Services in Jerusalem, one of the contributing Christian organizations, said the convoy was not allowed access to the Church of the Nativity, though Zimmerman said it’s clear that those inside the church are running out of food. A request by an outside party for food to be delivered to the church was made to Catholic Relief Services two days later but was then withdrawn several hours afterwards, said Zimmerman, who added that the agency was willing to go to the church on a moment’s notice.

The Christian relief effort is being directed throughout the West Bank, where Zimmerman said conditions remain very difficult. He described random shooting of civilians, including women and children, and said that ambulances were still being prevented from evacuating the wounded. Palestinian clinics and hospitals need medicines for patients, he said.

The Israeli Defense Force has given no indication of when it plans to withdraw from Bethlehem. Scarpa said the problems would not be over when the Israeli army leaves.

“It will take a long, long time to recover. And at the same time there will be very strict cordons around the town. This is the most serious problem in terms of developing the economy according to the World Bank and the United Nations,” said Scarpa. With tight travel restrictions in place, Scarpa said, staff worry that students may not be able to get to the university even after Israeli troops leave. “We’re concerned about what may happen to this university,” Scarpa said.

Scarpa said all the computers of the Palestinian Authority in Bethlehem have been destroyed in what he called a deliberate attempt by the Israeli government to destroy the Palestinian economy and the Palestinian Authority.

“Yesterday in Ramallah, the central bureau of statistics, all that data was destroyed. They’ve done the same in hospitals. We were quite lucky not to have information destroyed here,” Scarpa said.

“The situation for Palestinians is far, far worse than before the peace process started,” he said. “All of the Palestinian cities and towns that have been given their autonomy are surrounded by checkpoints so the Israelis have far more control of the Palestinian cities than they had when they were in them. Most Palestinians feel they’ve been tricked. They expected freedom and security, and what has actually happened is that any attempt to develop the economy has been prevented.”

Cardwell said, “We watch on TV the great support Israel is receiving from the Jewish people in the United States. If they only knew what this government is doing to the Palestinian people, they would repent in dust and ashes. American Jewry has a very high sense of moral responsibility for the widow, the stranger and the orphan, and they just are blind to what the Israeli government is doing.”

Margot Patterson, NCR senior writer, visited Bethlehem in mid-March.

(c) National Catholic Reporter, April 26, 2002

quote:

---

Cardwell said, "We watch on TV the great support Israel is receiving from the Jewish people in the United States. If they only knew what this government is doing to the Palestinian people, they would repent in dust and ashes. American Jewry has a very high sense of moral responsibility for the widow, the stranger and the orphan, and they just are blind to what the Israeli government is doing."

Margot Patterson, NCR senior writer, visited Bethlehem in mid-March.

---

In response to the statement "... and they are just blind to what the Israeli government is doing", it seems that the Palestinians are also blind to what the Israeli government is doing and how Arafat is hindering the peace process.

The following is a transcript of an interview given by Dennis Ross (Former U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East) to Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002. Dennis Ross was in the middle of all these negotiations at the Camp David talks.

Sabra

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html

BRIT HUME, HOST: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to
achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days in
office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at Camp
David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the
Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed
Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.

Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes
joins the questioning.

So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that
we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.

DENNIS ROSS, FMR. U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: Thank you.

HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks,
there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to
December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?

ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in
perspective.

Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on
the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the
borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there,
he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair
to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was
that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used
as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?

ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there. After the
summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have
another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no
from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to
something like that."

He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the
Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious
discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the
end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were
poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked
good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence
after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift
a finger.

Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private
channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to
present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the
negotiators here.

HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?

ROSS: Absolutely.

HUME: All right.

ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.

HUME: All right. And they were?

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they
basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5
percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent
swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go
to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the
capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the
refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a
fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for
either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement,
rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence,
in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very
far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to
what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate,
discussion with each side.

BARNES: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the
president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he
added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of
the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be
for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover
the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected
that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new
formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance
the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian
airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in
over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through
otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the
Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at
least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza. And what
you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli
control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented.
But we presented something that did point out that it would take six
years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space
along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians
would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say
there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian
state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an
elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be
not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that
this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?

ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the
president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left
the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and
checked to be sure that every single word.

The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could
record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot
accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw
them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we
meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this
is the end of it, we withdraw it.

So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the
Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.

BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further
negotiations so he'd get more?

ROSS: Well, exactly.

HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.

ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it
couldn't be a floor for negotiations.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.

HUME: This was a final offer?

ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.

HUME: This was the solution.

BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his
negotiators?

ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the
best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was
not prepared to accept it.

HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort
of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the
intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?

ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli
elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we
would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of
time.

They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the
fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides
said we understand this is the point of decision.

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said
no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We
had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is
the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause.
Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave
his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've
got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because
the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer
rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton
administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to
it...

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?

ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he
could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind
that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and
on us and maybe the rest of the world.

And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak
was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having
demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't
available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.

Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and
unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.

HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.

The fault here is that NONE of the leaders "responsible" to the people thought it important enough to inform any of us about this offer. They can backbite each other all they want to about whose motivations for the secrecy were worse, but it doesn't really matter. Because of the ego and power games of the leaders, the Israeli people did not know of this offer, the Palestinian people did not know of this offer, the American people did not know of this offer. Had we all known of it, we might very well have INSISTED that it be implemented (leaders, after all, are bound to obey the will of the people, are they not? And if not, then we should all stop pretending that we live in "democracies.") But instead, this opportunity passed without any chance for those whose lives are on the line to have a voice in it ... and now LONG after the opportunity has passed, the story is leaked to the press by way of "proving" that Arafat doesn't want peace. Well, perhaps he doesn't. And perhaps Sharon doesn't. By all appearances, they are both men of war, not peace. But it is the blood and guts and human misery of the human beings these leaders supposedly represent, who want only to be left alone to live their lives in peace and respect, that pays for these leaders' politicking and war games.

I feel very strongly that it is time for us to stop politely asking our leaders to do something about this problem. It is the Israeli and Palestinian people's sons and daughters who PAY for this misery with their lives -- and the American people who PAY for it with the BILLIONS of dollars in Aid that comes out of my pocket and the pockets of my fellow American citizens every year for the Israeli leadership to spend any way it chooses to spend it, with no oversight whatever - which currently includes crushing civilian populations in body and spirit with tanks and war machines purchased with my money. I'm mad about it. If the United States wants to keep prattling about "leadership" in the world, then it is time for us to make two firm commitments, and stand by them like the principled people we once were: 1) tell the Israelis they WILL either agree to a reasonable peace plan that provides for Palestinian sovereignty and a complete withdrawal of all Israeli occupying forces AND IMPLEMENT IT IMMEDIATELY, or we will immediately cut off every penny of aid. Period, end of sentence. And 2), tell the Palestinians that they WILL immediately end the terrorist attacks or we will send in an INTERNATIONAL (not Israeli) occupation force to oust the terrorist-sponsoring leadership and install a democratic one, as we claim is our right and intention everywhere else in the world.

It is time for the world to stop countenancing this conflict ANY more.

Love,
Greg

and as David Icke maintains, one of the key components to mass mind control is this constant trauma/shock action/reaction environment. it appears this method is in full force now, and tell me, how to convince our leaders to abandon these very intricate plans which they have so meticulously connived thus far for this precise effect?

according to them, it would seem, all is progressing exactly as designed. if possible, i really would love to know, as we often discuss here, how to reverse their plans and sincerely convince them to change their hearts and minds.

is it ever going to happen?

love and light, snowpea

The way to stop them is with the word "NO!" We the people have, and have always had, the ability to control our leaders. No matter how deeply entrenched their power, it cannot stand agains the collective will of the population. But they are not worried about that, because they are smugly certain that they have us so completely brainwashed and cowed into submission that we will not dare to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. We are programmed to conform, embedded in a social system where the most horrible thing imaginable is to stand out from the crowd or be ridiculed by others, so we all keep our mouths shut about what is really important while arguing about the surface issues that divide us.

Just look at the unconscionable abuse and ridicule that has been heaped on the one lone black woman in Congress who has had the guts to stand up in defiance of the "patriotic" media manipulated propaganda behind the terrorist attacks and the administration's responses and simply ask reasonable questions about reasonable doubts that any clear-headed person would have in the wake of such a disaster with so many unexplained circumstances surrounding it, and simply ask for the depth investigation that would routinely be given to a major ariline accident or any other disaster. She is vilified as unpatriotic, accused of treason and madness, threatened by her fellow sheep lawmakers to be censured and punished -- and not one of her actual questions has even been addressed or even acknowedged as existing except as "dangerous and delusional rantings." If that's what happens to someone of uncommon bravery and principle, why would the leaders have anything to fear in the way of ordinary citizens stepping up to take a stand against them?

But that's what we must do if we want things to change. Regardless of the ridicule we will receive. Regardless of the threats against our jobs and security and standing in the community. If we are unwilling to do that, then you are right, it is completely hopeless, and we will all queue up quietly for the slaughterhouse.

Love,
Greg

Where have the Mahatma Gandhi's and Martin Luther Kings's gone?

Sabra

Love,
Greg

Sabra

Maria

Two years ago, less than 8 percent of those who took part in a Gallup poll among Jewish Israelis said they were in favor of what is politely called "transfer" -- that is, the expulsion of perhaps two million Palestinians across the River Jordan. This month, that figure reached 44 percent.
Professor Martin van Creveld is Israel's best-known military historian. On April 28, Britain's conservative newspaper The Telegraph, published an article outlining what Van Creveld believes Sharon's near-term goal: "transfer," otherwise known as expulsion of the Palestinians.

According to Van Creveld, Sharon's plan is to drive two million Palestinians across the Jordan using the pretext of a U.S. attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike in Israel. This could trigger a vast mobilization to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs. In September 1970, Van Creveld recalls, King Hussein of Jordan attacked the Palestinians in his kingdom, killing perhaps 5,000 to 10,000. Sharon, serving as Commanding Officer, Southern Front, argued that Israel's assistance to the king was a mistake; instead it should have tried to topple the Hashemite regime. Sharon has often said since that Jordan, which, according to him, has a Palestinian majority even now, is the Palestinian state, and thus a suitable destination for Palestinians to be kicked out of his Greater Israel.

Van Creveld writes that Sharon has always nourished the idea of driving all Palestinians out. A U.S. attack on Iraq sometime this summer would over-appropriate cover. Sharon himself told Secretary of State Colin Powell that nothing happening in Israel should delay a U.S. attack on Iraq. Other pretexts could include an uprising in Jordan, followed by the collapse of King Abdullah's regime or a major terrorist outrage inside Israel.

Should such circumstances arise, according to Van Creveld, then Israel would mobilize within hours. "First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government. A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armored, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east, as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas."

In Van Creveld's view (he does say flatly that he is utterly opposed to any form of "transfer"), "The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison. He discounts any effective response from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon or Iraq. "Saddam Hussein may launch some of the 30 to 40 missiles he probably has. The damage they can do, however, is limited.

Should Saddam be mad enough to resort to weapons of mass destruction, then Israel's response would be so 'awesome and terrible' (as Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister, once said) as to defy the imagination."

But what about international reaction? Van Creveld thinks it would not be an effective deterrent. "If Mr. Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States. The United States, however, regards itself as being at war with parts of the Muslim world that have supported Osama bin Laden. America will not necessarily object to that world being taught a lesson -- particularly if it could be as swift and brutal as the 1967 campaign; and also particularly if it does not disrupt the flow of oil for too long."

Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days," Van Creveld writes. "If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed. Israel would, of course, take some casualties, especially in the north, where its population would come under fire from Hizbollah. However, their number would be limited, and Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973."

We've been warned.

Alexander Cockburn
Creators Syndicate
05.02.02

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=13248

Nineteen Israelis, including at least one student were killed in the attack, and several youngsters were among the wounded.

Sabra

quote:

---

A deadly morning in Jerusalem

JERUSALEM, June 18 — The force of Tuesday's blast sheared off the top of bus number 32a like a huge can opener, blowing it apart as it made its way up a Jerusalem hill toward a high school in rush-hour traffic. Inside the destroyed bus, as it sat smoldering, a young woman sat upright on a seat, clad in a pretty blouse and almost composed. Next to her sat a man, his legs crossed, perched almost serenely. Both of them had been decapitated by the force of the blast. It was a day of despair in Jerusalem, as at least 19 people were killed in the worst suicide attack this city has witnessed in six years.

WITHIN MINUTES, rescue teams were at the gruesome scene, picking through scattered body parts and pinning pictures taken from the victims' belongings onto their body bags.

The workers, clad in distinctive lime-green vests, calmly collected severed hands and feet, sifting through the wreckage of a bus carrying people to school and to work on what should have been a lovely, warm sunny day in Jerusalem.

There was a terrible symmetry to what could be called a well-orchestrated rescue and clean-up effort, with Orthodox religious workers — specially trained for the task — remaining stoic and business-like, even as they sifted through a scene of horrific carnage.

The bombing was claimed by the militant Islamic group Hamas, which identified the bomber as Mohammed al-Ghoul, from the West Bank city of Nablus.

Dozens of people were wounded by the blast, the effects of which were magnified by metal shards packed around the bomb, doctors told MSNBC, designed to maximize causalities.

Toward the back of the crowd, a 14-year-old student at the Ort Spanian High School stood quietly, reassuring his family over his cell phone that he was all right. The boy, clearly in shock, had been waiting get on the bus behind the ill-fated 32a.

"I'm scared. I don't know what to do," the youth, who asked that his name not be used, told MSNBC. "Should I go home or go to school? I just don't know what to do."

Meantime, the rescue crews quickly cleared the scene.

Within two hours of the bombing, the body parts and bus wreckage had been mostly sorted through.

Within three hours, all of the dead had been removed from the scene.

Within four hours, the bus had been hauled away and the street was almost bare again.

BOMBS MADE DEADLIER

Doctors at Hadassa Hospital, where most victims of the attack were taken, told MSNBC that X-rays showed ball bearings had been lodged inside victims.

This type of attack is especially deadly because, superficially, survivors of bombings seem to have suffered only minor injuries, the doctors said. In time, however, a piece of metal lodged in bone or tissue can prove deadly.

At the beginning of the current Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, which began in September 2000 after peace talks deadlocked, Hadassa Hospital had four surgeons working on the victims of the suicide blasts. But in the most recent attacks, with the bombs designed to have an even deadlier effect, 40 surgeons are kept on hand at its trauma center, the main such unit in Israel.

Several hours after the bomb tore apart the bus, the West Bank town of Ramallah was quiet. The city, where Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's headquarters is located, went about its business as usual. After past suicide bombings of such magnitude, the Israeli military has struck hard at Arafat's command structure.

For now, it is quiet. Palestinians in the West Bank are going about their daily lives. Cars are on roads and people are buying groceries. But there is a sense that all they can do is sit and wait for what looks to be an inevitable Israeli retaliation.

Bob Arnot is MSNBC's special foreign correspondent.

---

MSNBC

The Holy Land, where war has been declared on peace.

Aries, is there a particular prophecy you are seeing unfold, specifically in relation to Israel/Palestine? I am asking sincerely, knowing that your interest and probing in that area has gone quite a bit beyond mine. Things do look a bit more apocryphal to me with my forest burning than they did before. <Crooked smile.>

Love to all,
Maria