We are always interested in any movements by the EU to control borders in and around Israel in the context of a future confirmation of the covenant per Daniel 9:27:
The European Union offered Friday to take charge of Gaza’s border crossings and work to prevent illegal arms flows, insisting on a durable truce and saying a return to the status quo for the region “is not an option.”
As EU foreign ministers held an urgent meeting in Brussels about global conflicts, Hamas negotiators met with the Islamic militant group’s leadership in Qatar to discuss a proposal for a long-term truce with Israel. An official said the group was inclined to accept the Egyptian-mediated offer.
The Gaza blockade remains the main stumbling block. Imposed by Israel and Egypt to prevent Hamas importing weapons, it has greatly limited the movement of Palestinians in and out of the territory of 1.8 million people, restricted the flow of goods into Gaza and blocked virtually all exports.
The EU ministers offered to reactivate and potentially extend its monitoring of Rafah and other border crossings — if given a mandate by the U.N. Security Council and if it helps living conditions improve in Gaza.
Hamas negotiators met with the Islamic group’s political leadership in Qatar Friday to discuss a proposal for a long-term truce deal with Israel, amid conflicting reports over whether it would accept the proposal, and no comment on the terms from Israel.
Israel’s Channel 2, quoting Hamas sources Friday night, said the Egyptian offer “doesn’t give Hamas a thing,” and that while most other Palestinian factions were inclined to accept it, Hamas — under the Qatar-based political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal — was not.
The long-term ceasefire proposal includes 11 clauses that Egypt says must be agreed upon by Israel and Hamas in order to end hostilities, according to a leaked document published by Egyptian newspaper al-Shorouk. The Israeli security cabinet met Friday to discuss ceasefire prospects but ministers left the session without comment, and Israel has neither confirmed the terms of the Egyptian proposal nor stated whether it is prepared to work within its framework.
In his remarks to the cabinet, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett urged the government to abandon the talks in Cairo, asserting that the negotiations will only serve to empower Hamas. Bennett said Israel should not deal with a terrorist group, but should instead take unilateral steps, including the opening of Israel’s borders with Gaza and the expansion of the offshore fishing zone.
A Hamas source told Israel Radio Friday that he believed the fighting wouldn’t start again, even if a deal wasn’t reached by Monday. Another unnamed Hamas official who spoke to Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin said the Islamist group wanted a long-term ceasefire with Israel, and would even accept international oversight to ensure that the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip took place above ground instead of below.
Palestinian delegation in Cairo warns progress made but chances for ceasefire deal no higher than 50%; despite truce, Lebanese TV shows Qassam Brigades bracing for new clashes as fighters filmed preparing rockets in tunnels
A five-day truce began amid rocket fire midnight Wednesday, but held through Thursday and Friday. On Friday an Egyptian newspaper published details of Cairo’s 11-point ceasefire offer, and accounts varied on whether Hamas and Israel were close to clinching a deal or whether differences remained too great. Israel’s negotiators are due back in Cairo Saturday night.
‘Hamas has not agreed to the Egyptian proposal’
No more ceasefire proposals, says Egypt
Yesterday, President Obama announced that the siege of Mount Sinjar that had trapped tens of thousands of Yazidi refugees was over. “Because of the skill and professionalism of our military and the generosity of our people, we broke the [ISIS] siege of Mount Sinjar,” Obama said. Actually, it was the Kurdish peshmerga that performed the heavy lifting in the operation, but our close air support no doubt was decisive.
But is it true? Has the siege been broken?
Not so fast, says the UN and humanitarian workers. The Yazidi member of parliament says the US only cleared the north end of the mountain while aid workers say that, contrary to US claims that things were getting better for the Yazidis on the mountain, the situation was still "fgrave."
An Iraqi MP and United Nations relief workers today dismissed claims by the U.S. and the UK that the humanitarian crisis on Mount Sinjar was all but over.
Yazidi MP Vian Dakhil claims some 70-80,000 refugees are still stranded on the mountain despite assertions from American and British leaders that they number only in their low thousands.
President Barack Obama yesterday said the ten-day siege by the Islamic State had been 'broken' by missile strikes and humanitarian aid drops, allowing tens of thousands of Yazidis to escape.
Downing Street also said the situation had improved so much that further aid drops may not be necessary.
But Ms Dakhil said this was not the picture she was getting from other Yazidi leaders she had spoken to in the area.
She is currently being treated at a hospital in Istanbul, Turkey, after she was injured when a helicopter crashed while trying to airlift her off the mountain.
Speaking from her hospital bed, she told the New York Times: 'It’s better now than it had been, but it’s just not true that all of them are safe — they are not.
'Especially on the south side of the mountain, the situation is very terrible.'
She suggested that American reconnaissance missions had only visited the north side the mountain.
During a parliament session this month, Dakhil broke into tears while describing the plight of her fellow Yazidis during the onslaught by IS in northern Iraq.
Her claims were backed up by the UN which said the crisis was 'by no means over'.
David Swanson, a spokesman for the United Nations co-ordinator of humanitarian affairs in Iraq, said: 'Although many people managed to escape from the north side, there are still thousands of others up there, under conditions of extreme heat, dehydration and imminent threat of attack.
'The situation is far from solved.'
What would possess President Obama to declare the end of an emergency when it wasn't nearly over? It was about 24 hours after the assessment team arrived on the mountain that this determination was made. It could very well be that the team was not sent to evaluate the situation and come up with military options, but rather it was sent as a smokescreen to give the president an excuse not to do anything about it.
No doubt the president fears that any kind of a rescue mission to get the Yazidis off that mountain would draw the United States further into the conflict. And maybe he thinks he can continue the air drops while the Kurds handle the evacuation.
But the question is - is he deliberately misleading the public or is he genuinely unaware that the situation is still dire? The president may simply be grasping at straws, hoping he doesn't have to make a decision on rescuing the Yazidis. Given his lack of decisiveness in the past, that may be the best explanation.
- Yesterday afternoon, two UK reporters working forthe Guardian and Telegraph, supposedly located by the border in east Ukraine, reported that they were "eyewitnesses" as a convoy of military trucks crossed the Russian border into the breakaway Donetsk republic, aka Ukraine. While there have been photos of the military trucks that have accompanied the Russian humantiarian convoy on Russian territory, there has so far been no proof, aside from said eyewitness reports, confirming Russian military vehicles entered or were in Ukraine.
- This morning Ukraine military’s spokesman, Andriy Lysenko, shocked the world when newswires reported that Ukraine forces had attacked an armed convoy from Russia, and "destroyed" a part of it. This was subsequently reiterated by the president of Ukraine himself who said that "the given information was trustworthy and confirmed because the majority of that machines had been eliminated by the Ukrainian artillery at night", and by the secretary-general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said that the alliance had detected an “incursion” of vehicles from Russia last night, adding that “what we have seen last night is the continuation of what we have seen for some time." Alas, as in the case above, just more verbal reports, with zero actual evidence.
- Shortly thereafter, Russia responded when the Russian defense ministry said that there was no Russian military column that crossed into Eastern Ukraine, and that the above reports are based on "some fantasies."
This is where the breakdown of logic occurs, because for Russia to make such a formal statement it clearly implies that Russia believes there is no evidence of destruction of a Russian convoy in Ukraine territory, something which obviously would exist if indeed as Ukraine's president had claimed, the "majority of the machines had been eliminated."
If true, it also implies that either Ukraine had fabricated the entire story, and certainly the part about the destruction of the convoy and by extension that Russians had ever entered into East Ukraine. Furthermore, that would also suggest that the reports of the British reporters were also a fabrication.
More to the point, the onus is on Ukraine to present some evidence, in fact any evidence, of a destroyed Russian military convoy instead of merely building upon a story conceived by the two UK media outlets, because if Ukraine indeed has no evidence, then its story falls apart and what's worse, the credibility and reputation of its government, of NATO and certainly of the UK press would be in tatters.
So what other possibility is there? Well, one that is all too unpalatable for Ukraine, namely that in its excitement to blow something up, it may have well destroyed some of its own military vehicles. A possible lead to such a turn of events comes from this Interfax report citing the leadership of the breakaway Donetsk People's Republic.
The leadership of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic has dismissed the Ukrainian government's statement on destroying a convoy of what appeared to be Russian armored vehicles in eastern Ukraine.
"We haven't received any armored vehicles from Russia. No Russian units, including Russian armored vehicles, have crossed the border. Hence, no Russian armored vehicles could have been destroyed," DPR First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Purgin told Interfax on Friday evening.
Purgin claimed that, on the contrary, the militias destroyed about 100 Ukrainian armored vehicles.
"A lot of Ukrainian armored vehicles were destroyed today, 7 at one place, 12 at another. And the same all over the DPR territory. A total of about 100 of them," Purgin said.
The implication is clear: while 100 or so Ukraine armored vehicles may or may not have been destroyed, one wonders if indeed the Ukraine army was responsible in "aiding" the separatists with what would appear to be a friendly-fire incident?
But perhaps the most damning evidence comes from none other than the White House itself, which according to CNN just admitted that while it accuses Moscow of "incursions" it can't confirm the convoy was destroyed by Kiev.
Perhaps for the simplest reason that there is no evidence to help with the confirmation process?
Which is rather unpleasant, because as explained above,without confirmation of a destroyed convoy, the whole story falls apart as merely yet another unprecedented warmongering fabrication, one involving not only the Kiev regime, but NATO and the UK press as well!
What is worse, is that if indeed the specter arises that Ukraine is lying about an event that nearly gave the market a heart attack on the belief that a new international war involving Russia may be about to break out, was Ukraine also lying about flight MH-17. And else may the Kiev regime been lying about?
Even today, the false East/West paradigm continues, with America painted as the bumbling villain and Russia painted as the stalwart and reasonable objector. Yet Russia’s top government officials and our top government officials work closely with and answer to the same international financiers and elites, like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements, as I outlined in great detail in False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency and Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too.
Even closer to current events, the U.S. has now entered into military operations against ISIS insurgents moving rapidly through Iraq’s northern regions toward Baghdad. However, if ISIS is the enemy, why did the U.S. and our ally,Saudi Arabia, support and train ISIS agents in Syria as well as Iraq?
Is it just irony that our government helped birth ISIS and now the White House is at war with the group? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a greater plan is afoot?
If you don’t understand the concept of “order out of chaos,” then you’ll never understand a thing.
Engineered chaos serves several purposes. It provides distraction and cover for the elites to implement other plans that they would rather not have noticed.
For example, the globalists at the IMF have been discussing the establishment of a global basket currencyfor years to replace the U.S. dollar.
Russia and the East have also, conveniently, been calling for the IMF to replace the dollar with their Special Drawing Rights basket.
And finally, as well as conveniently, the elites in the U.S. government have launched a controlled coup in Ukraine and initiated direct economic confrontation with Russia, thereby giving the East the perfect excuse to dump the U.S. dollar as world reserve and replace it with a basket currency system under the IMF. Despite claims that Vladimir Putin is “anti-globalist,” the Russian is in fact an avid supporter of the IMF, and has stated his goal is tocontinue Russia’s IMF membership in a larger capacity:
"In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests. First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this."
Hopefully, you have the sense to see how this works: problem, reaction, solution. Economic or physical war is launched between East and West, while the dollar is killed in the process. The masses react by demanding a fair and balanced replacement for the dollar as world reserve so that economic stability can return. The Americans blame Russia and the East for their fiscal misfortune. The East blames the hubris of the West for its own downfall. Neither side blames the banksters, who started the whole calamity to begin with. And the elites swoop in as saviors with a new Bretton Woods-style agreement to appease all sides and cement their global currency system, the system they had always wanted. And with a global economic currency and authority in place, global governance is not far behind — order out of chaos.
This process is more psychological than political in its goals. One could argue that if the elites already have control of all central banks and governments, then why do they need a global government? The answer is that these men do not want secret global governance, they want openglobal governance. They want us to ACCEPT the idea as a fact of existence, for only when we agree to participate in the lie will they then have truly won.
The end result of World War I was the creation of the League of Nations and the argument that sovereignty leads to disunion and catastrophe. World War II led to the creation of the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. I believe that a third world war is nearly upon us, one that may involve weapons of monetary destruction more so than weapons of mass destruction. Each supposed disintegration of global unity has eventually led to greater centralization, and this is something the skeptics seem to forget. The progression of crises suggests that the next war will lead to total globalization under the dominance of a minority of elitists posing as "wise men" who only wish to bring peace and harmony to the masses. In the meantime, the skeptics will continue to mindlessly debate in the face of all reason that the whole thing was a fluke, an act of random mathematical chance, leading coincidentally to the one thing the establishment rulers crave: total global totalitarian micromanagement.