Daily Headlines

This first article details the cascade of events which will occur in the EU when Greece eventually defaults and when it does, the ramifications will be significant:

What happens when Greece defaults

It is when, not if. Financial markets merely aren’t sure whether it’ll be tomorrow, a month’s time, a year’s time, or two years’ time (it won’t be longer than that). Given that the ECB has played the “final card” it employed to force a bailout upon the Irish – threatening to bankrupt the country’s banking sector – presumably we will now see either another Greek bailout or default within days.

Below we see the beginning effects which will occur upon this expected Greek default. The article lists several more events and effects which will stem from the default - they are all worth reading; below is just a sample:

- Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent.
- The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece.
- The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks.
- To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons, safe or not?

ISLAMABAD: An assault on a naval base in Karachi is the latest militant attack on military installations in Pakistan, raising fears about the safety of the country’s nuclear arsenal.

Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world and in a decade could pass France as the fourth-largest nuclear power, so such brazen attacks on secure military establishments – militants also attacked the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi in 2009 – give Western leaders nightmares about militants acquiring nuclear materials, or worse, an entire weapon.

U.S.: Al Qaeda has interest in strikes on energy infrastructure

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have warned police across the United States that al Qaeda has a "continuing interest" in attacking oil and natural gas targets, a department spokesman said Friday.

The warning issued Thursday came as a result of information seized during the May 2 raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, a U.S. official said.

CNN obtained a copy of a DHS/FBI intelligence bulletin that says al Qaeda has been interested in "targeting unspecified oil tankers abroad" as a means to "draw the West into an extreme economic crisis" by disrupting a significant portion of the oil supply for several years.

Is Iran culpable in 9/11? It 'knew about terror attacks before they happened and trained hijackers'

Iran knew about 9/11 before it happened and helped train hijackers, court papers say.

Lawyers representing September 11th victims’ families claim new evidence shows Iranian officials assisted in training hijackers and had advanced word of the attacks.

There is ‘clear and convincing’ evidence for damages and a federal judge should find Iran culpable in the terror attacks, according to papers filed in Manhattan, New York.

Waging War by decree

Why is this article significant? Just look at the third paragraph below for a clue:

Barack Obama basically stomped on the War Powers Act last week in a hissy fit proclaiming that it did not apply to his Libyan War/Conflict kinetic military action.
Showing clear disdain for the Act and America in general, Obama claimed that it was not applicable since the Libyan debacle was not actually a full-blown war. Under the War Powers Act, the President has 60 days to get authorization from Congress for any military involvement, and if he fails to get that authorization, he must end the involvement within 30 days. The 60-day authorization period expired on Friday the 20th. He penned a letter to Congress saying that the role of the US in the conflict was so limited that he does not need to seek congressional approval.

Bovine excrement. From the beginning of Obama’s invoking the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. Now he disowns the Act and in typical forked tongue fashion, he utilizes the War Powers Act and then dismisses it when it is no longer pertinent to his agenda. You know, sort of like the way he views our Constitution.

The Libyan debacle was never voted on because Obama knew it would never be passed. Libya was not a current threat to the US. I contend it was a dry run to see how Responsibility to Protect would play out if used in other actions. Such as, just being hypothetical here, Israel.

Obama's call for Israel to self-destruct

This article presents an excellent overview of Israel's claim to their land and the various significant events in the region since 1948. The following paragraphs represent the introduction to this detailed article:

President Obama demands that Israel withdraw to armistice lines that existed after the Arab-Israel War of 1948 ended. These lines did not constitute a border but merely the military positions that existed after the Arab attempt to annihilate Israel failed.

In six days in June, 1967, Israel was forced to fight another war for its survival against a new aggression by Egypt, Syria and Jordan. All three Arab countries lost territory as a direct result of their new genocidal war against the Jewish state failed again.

As a consequence, Israel threw back the Syrian army from its positions on the Golan Heights; the strategic high ground from which Syria had bombarded and shelled Israeli farmers in the Hula Valley below and Israeli fishermen on the Sea of Galilee.

Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula and Israeli forces dug in on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal and developed the Abu Rodeis oil field. All the territory and the oil fields were given away to Egypt in return for a piece of paper; a peace treaty which now is at the point of being torn up by a likely new Egyptian government under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Jordan, which had nineteen years earlier invaded and occupied the territory they subsequently called the West Bank and divided the city of Jerusalem in half, were also thrown back after launching an all-out attack upon Israel.

As a result, the ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria was liberated from Jordanian Arab occupation. At the same time, Jews were able to pray again at their ancient holy places and synagogues in Jerusalem, which had been desecrated by the Muslim Arabs. Jerusalem, under Israel’s governance was now for the first time open freely to members of all religions to worship; something the Jordanians had forbidden.

And this part of the commentary (below) is critical to understanding the conflict in the region:

The Arab-Israel conflict is not, and never has been, merely a war over territory. It is, and always has been, a religious war. Islam will never accept a non-Muslim state, whatever size or shape it may be, within lands previously conquered by Muslims in the name of Allah. This is a paramount and fundamental fact, which strangely is never understood.

Look at what the Muslims have done to once primarily Christian Lebanon and what fate awaits the Christian Copts in an increasingly Muslim Brotherhood Egypt. That is why “land for peace"is nonsense. Tiny Israel can give precious land away but it will never receive peace from the Muslim Arab world.

Thus the “two-state solution”, so beloved of President Obama and President George Bush before him, requires the biblical Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria (so-called West Bank) to be given away to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

But these Arabs have no intention of making peace, which should be enough for any Israeli government and Prime Minister with intestinal fortitude to defy the world’s pressure for the Jewish state to slowly and surely disappear.

Pushing Israel back to the “Auschwitz lines”, as Abba Eban, Israel’s early UN delegate and former Foreign Minister had called them, where the Jewish state is only nine miles wide at its most populous region, is what the “Two-State Solution” is all about.

This is what Barack Hussein Obama now demands of Israel. That other dread euphemism employed by the Nazis, “The Final Solution,” was code for the Holocaust, and now comes chillingly to mind.

Power Struggle in Russia

This was too predictable. As many of us speculated Russian PM Putin isn't ever going to give up the reigns to power, and now as expected, he is planning on making another bid for the presidency:

Putin decides to retake presidency

RUSSIAN Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has decided to run for the presidency next year, raising the possibility of a power struggle with his protege Dmitry Medvedev, the incumbent Kremlin leader, say highly placed sources.

Insiders familiar with both leaders said Mr Putin, who served eight years as president before becoming Prime Minister three years ago, had begun to lose confidence in Mr Medvedev's loyalty.

If you aren't familiar with this story, here is how we arrived at this point in history:

The Russian constitution allows the president to serve no more than two consecutive terms. Mr Putin stepped down in 2008 and handed the reins to Medvedev on the tacit understanding that he could come back next year if he wished.

At the end of Putin's term, he basically renamed himself as the Prime Minister and also transferred most of the power to the PM position. It was clear that the new President, Medvedev, would serve as a puppet to Putin until Putin could run again. The "rule" was that a president couldn't serve two consecutive terms, Now he will run again, as many of us predicted.

Under the constitution, Mr Putin's move to reclaim the presidency could see him rule for two consecutive six-year terms until 2024, when he will be 72. If so, he would have served as prime minister or president for 24 years in all.

The Russian constitution allows the president to serve no more than two consecutive terms. Mr Putin stepped down in 2008 and handed the reins to Medvedev on the tacit understanding that he could come back next year if he wished.

At first Mr Medvedev was regarded as a puppet. He even took to imitating Mr Putin's distinctive macho stride and speaking style. But three years later, Mr Medvedev, who at 45 is still Russia's youngest leader in more than seven decades, is understood to be reluctant to step aside for Mr Putin.

The President is said to be frustrated at the perception, both at home and abroad, that he is a lame duck. A second term would give him the power to pursue a more liberal agenda of greater political freedom and sweeping judicial reforms, in contrast to that of Mr Putin, who is viewed as authoritarian.

This power struggle will be interesting to watch. Given that we are approaching the epic battle of Gog-MaGog, this political situation in Russia has added significance. It is hard to envision Mr. Putin not gaining the presidency in one way or another; after all, he found a way to maintain power through a loophole in the two term limit by simply changing his title. Now it looks like he may have found a way to remain in power for 24 years.

Could one of these two leaders end up being the "Gog" of Ezekiel 38-39?

Iran continues to flex its muscles

Below we see some news regarding Iran:

Iran continues to flex its muscles

As the Middle-East descends into chaos and Mr. Obama asks our only reliable ally in the region to surrender territory which is vital to its defense, Iran continues to spread its influence and build its military capabilities. Reuters reports:

Iran’s military received a new ballistic missile system on Sunday, which it said demonstrated the country’s self-sufficiency in mass producing weaponry.

“The new surface-to-surface missiles, Qlyam (Resurrection) 1, were successfully tested and delivered to the armed forces today,” Iran’s Arabic-language state television channel Al Alam said.

It did not disclose the range of the missile, delivered to the aerospace wing of the elite Revolutionary Guards, but said it was designed to be less easily detected than older models.

The build up to war and the subsequent "rumors of war" continue with Iran. This fact is even more troubling given these details:

With the Bushehr nuclear reactor just weeks away from going online the very real threat of a nuclear armed Iran should demonstrate the vital role of our Israeli allies in maintaining a semblance of stability in the troubled region.

Israel sees the potential of a nuclear armed Iran – which refuses to recognize the Jewish state and supports Hamas and Hezbollah – as a major threat to both it and its ally Washington do not rule out military action to prevent such a scenario.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack by targeting US interests and Israel.

Next, we see this bit of ominous information:

The Tehran Times reports that Iran’s intelligence service has delivered a serious blow to our intelligence network.

In a statement published on Saturday, the ministry announced that it managed to identify and break up the complicated spy network and identify 42 CIA intelligence officers in different countries through carrying out major intelligence and counterespionage operations at home and abroad.

According to the statement, a number of CIA intelligence officers established the network in several countries and starting setting various traps for Iranian citizens to elicit information from them and convince them to spy for the United States.

If the Tehran Times is to be believed this would be a serious setback for our intelligence community. Still Mr. Obama seems to think that everything will be alright if only he can persuade Israel to pull back to its 1967 borders.

Revolutionary Guard unveils Iranian-produced missile

Iran's military received a new ballistic missile system on Sunday, which it said demonstrated the country's self-sufficiency in mass producing weaponry.

"The new surface-to-surface missiles, Qiyam (Resurrection) 1, were successfully tested and delivered to the armed forces today," Iran's Arabic-language state television channel Al Alam said.

It did not disclose the range of the missile, delivered to the aerospace wing of the elite Revolutionary Guards, but said it was designed to be less easily detected than older models.

"The mass production of the Qiyam missile, the first without stabilizer fins, shows the Islamic Republic of Iran's self-sufficiency in producing various types of missiles," Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi was quoted as saying.

Iran's military gets new missile system

Israel sees the potential of a nuclear armed Iran - which refuses to recognize the Jewish state and supports militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah - as a major threat and both it and its ally Washington do not rule out military action to prevent such a scenario.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack by targeting US interests and Israel.

Just as we were told by Jesus - we can expect to see a constant flow of "rumors of war" during this age, and indeed that is certainly the case in today's world.

The build-up to war which has been ongoing for several years now continues to escalate. Just the raw number of missiles held by Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, and located within easy reach of Israel is staggering.

Right now we are seeing the preparations for the final battles in and around Israel.

The powder-keg also known as the Middle East just needs a small spark to become ignited. And once it does, the dominos will fall quickly. We see a region that is just on the brink of war.

It will happen. All in God's perfect timing and no sooner.

Harold Camping and the End of the World

It would probably be better to simply ignore this, but the following commentary makes a lot of sense, and characterizes what a lot of us have been thinking and discussing.

End of the World

The bottom line on these folks who selected a date for the rapture - is the fact that they hurt our prophetic "witness" tremendously. Ridicule is often the choice of those attempting to put down things that they don't understand or don't have the desire to probe deeply for truthful answers. By using ridicule, it allows the critic a way to oppose what they don't understand.

It also allows the critic an easy way to lump all Christians together and make mockery. This process is even worse for those of us who take a systematic, literal approach to prophecy. Now the skeptics can simply point to Harold Camping and his group and say "See, you're all a bunch of nuts, and you're all the same." Case closed, no need for further discussion.

I have already encountered this several times, and I bet you have too.

Here are some quotes from this interesting commentary:

The media has been having a prolonged belly laugh at a group that had the temerity to suggest that the world would end today.

Of course it’s ridiculous when Harold Camping predicted that the world will be over today, but not when Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would melt in five years. True believers in Gore would say that’s the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don’t follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?

That is an interesting and germane parallel - one that I hadn't considered before.

Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole.

Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan. Camping is ridiculous, but Al Gore is right on the money.

The only real difference between Harold Camping and Al Gore, is that Harold Camping believes what he’s saying, while Al Gore preaches one thing to his followers, but lives a lifestyle in direct contraction of it.

The Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet. Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better.

Good points. How can anyone disagree with this observation?

This is another excellent commentary; below is the conclusion:

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It’s not the end of the world they’re waiting for, but a commercial break.

The Epicenter of the World

We already knew that - Israel, aka the "epicenter" is supposed to be the center of the world's attention in the last days, and searching the world-wide news this weekend seems to confirm that idea.

There are more and more commentaries regarding the new U.S. position which proposes that Israel return to their 1967 borders and within these commentaries we see information not previously discussed. Each of these articles are worth reading, but I'll just quote new bits of information that may be interesting.

We shouldn't be surprised that the vast majority of news from the Middle East revolves around Israel and whatever "plan" becomes a reality - it was foretold by our prophetic scriptures.

Obama's sour notes in Israel are music to Europeans

Of course - we would expect nothing else from the EU:

The Quartet – EU, US, UN and Russia – on Friday issued a statement lauding Obama’s template, which included a call for negotiations to be held with the 1967 lines and mutually agreed land swaps as their basis as well as for talks to address land and security disputes before moving to other final status issues.

So the US feels it not only needs to offer sweeteners to the Palestinians to come back to the negotiating table, but also assurances to the Europeans that there’s an alternative path for progress on the peace process. To that end, Obama’s rhetoric hit the right notes on the other side of the Atlantic.

The statement concluded, “The Quartet reiterates its strong appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral negotiations without delay or preconditions.”

How interesting. The EU states that they are happy with a mandate to begin negotiations with a basis rooted in the 1967 borders (aka a "precondition") but then states that they need to undertake a new round of negotiations "without preconditions". This kind of "doublespeak" comes directly from Orwell's "1984". Amazing.

Obama Demands Israel Downsize: This is the New Humbler Foreign Policy?

Obama’s idea of “helping” our ally Israel is demanding they unilaterally surrender massive areas of territory to quiet their enemies, despite being bordered on every side by mortal foes.

Have we mentioned these countries already invaded Israel multiple times without cause?

First, Israel is a sovereign country. All the US aid in the world doesn’t change that fact. Hello? Second, how exactly does tiny Israel hemorrhaging huge sections of land in a region already dominated by armed and hostile Muslims help make them, and the region—more secure? Third, if this move is not pro-Muslim at Jewish expense, how else can it be described? Stopping Barack’s nonsensical Israeli policy to stabilize the region and stave off potential world war is the topic of this essay.

This article summarizes the "History of Israel" and it is a great read - highly recommended. I can't resist the conclusion:

Since Israel was invaded the day after it was born, how can anyone claim Muslims fought a just war? Lands confiscated by the Jews are rightly theirs because they were illegally attacked and gained enemy territory upon counter-assault. This is an acceptable taking according to St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Grotius, and the Hague Convention.

Further, it would be irrational to abandon these lands when they act as a buffer against murderous neighbors which have already unjustly invaded 4 times in the last 60 years. So how does Obama claim friendship with Jerusalem?

Let’s refute the idea Palestinians want any peace with Israel. Instead, we must see Barack’s latest hare-brained scheme menacing every Israeli. For the smaller Israel becomes, the likelier their opponents will believe they can attack and win. Further, the notion appeasement creates lasting peace is the hope of cowards and fools

The Coming Assault on Israel

Nobody who reads the European news can doubt that the radical left is colluding with radical Muslims to delegitimize Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. That is the single most significant fact in international politics today. If you doubt it, check out all the articles on American Thinker and European websites.

In London, the Hamlet Towers district has just gone shari'a. Those Muslim votes were imported by the Labour Party when normal British voters were turning against the left. That's how Tony Blair stayed in power for a dozen years.

The other day Obama assured a brainwashed group of American Jews that those "Arab Spring" riots are bound to improve the chances for peace in the Middle East. He should have been laughed out of the room. Instead, liberal Jews seem completely willing to believe in Tinkerbell and the Fairy Queen again. Liberals all over the world are in nodding off to sleep, and the radical left plays them like a Hawaiian ukulele.

A month ago Barack Obama told Egyptian President Mubarak to leave office, thereby throwing the Middle East into a dizzying downward spin. Every Muslim country is now torn by vicious in-fighting between reactionaries and modernizers. Turkey has become a Muslim Brotherhood satrapy after seventy years of the most benign government in a bad neighborhood.

And we see this little recognized fact about the epicenter:

The irony is that "Palestine" was the Roman name for the place where Jesus was born. Those were the same Romans who routinely crucified Jewish rebels, remember? None of the Arabs in former Palestine knew they were Palestinians; they were Syrians or Druze or Bedouin, but why pick up that old Roman name? Today the world is conditioned to believe in "Palestinian" as a nationality, which brings us right back to the time of Jesus.

'Hamas Attacked You, Mr. President'

Netanyahu, in contrast, took Obama back to the basics of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He explained that the 1967 borders were indefensible and that they were the “boundaries of repeated conflicts.” While Obama merely acknowledged that that “Hamas is an organization that has resorted to terror,” Bibi made the statement more starkly and tried to fold Obama’s views in with his own: “Hamas, as the president said, is a terrorist organization, committed to Israel’s destruction.” He also highlighted a specific and recent act of terror, Hamas’s anti-tank-weapon attack on a school bus. Netanyahu then brought Hamas’s hostility to the U.S. home to Obama, pointedly saying that “Hamas attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States, for ridding the world of bin Laden.”

Netanyahu further explained that the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 created two refugee problems, of equivalent numbers. In addition to the Palestinian refugees, Israel’s Arab neighbors expelled their Jewish residents during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The difference, Netanyahu said, was that “tiny Israel” absorbed their refugees, while the Arab countries refused to do the same with the Palestinians. Finally, he brought out his trump card, 4,000 years of Jewish tragedies, including pogroms, expulsions, and massacres.

The paragraph above should be permanently etched in our minds. In fact, it could be considered as the bottom line with this entire issue. While Israel absorbed not only Jewish refugees, but thousands of Arab refugees, the Arab neighbors refused to take in any "Palestinian" refugees. Why not? Because thee refugees were a powerful means to achieve their ultimate goal: To reduce the size of Israel in order to make the destruction of Israel a reality. Period.

In Oval Office, Bibi Offers History Lessons

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to think he needed to educate President Obama on some issues today, so in the Oval Office he described in some detail to the president a history of the refugee problem in the region dating back 63 years, as well as his view on the need for Israel to be able to defend itself in the context of thousands of years of Jewish suffering.

“We don't have a lot of margin for error,” Netanyahu said to the president. “Because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.”

In 1967, Netanyahu said, “Israel was all of 9 miles wide -- half the width of the Washington Beltway... So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan.”

Krauthammer's Take

Krauthammer offers a realistic view of the Middle East today:

What Obama did today is something that no American president has ever done, which is to endorse the return to the 1967 lines, which … would reduce Israel to a country with a waist eight miles wide.

Now, the reason this is odd is because you would expect it would be at least in return for something. But the Palestinians in the two and a half years of this administration have not offered anything as a concession to the Israelis.

Isn't that fact alone striking?

[Palestinian leader] Mahmoud Abbas has boycotted the negotiations. And then, a few weeks ago he joins in a government with Hamas, which is dedicated to the extermination of Israel. In return for all of those anti-Israel gestures [by Abbas], Obama makes the biggest concession [to the Palestinians] of the entire Arab-Israeli negotiations in 50 years.

And look at this little known fact (little known because the MSM refuses to propagate this message):

In 2004, Israel was preparing a withdrawal from Gaza, and it got explicit written promises from the U.S. government that it [the United States] would not ask Israel a return to the ‘67 lines and it [the United States] would support Israel holding on to the close-in settlements as a new “reality on the ground.”

What Obama did today is to tear up that agreement.

I'll let Caroline Glick close this summary:

Obama's abandonment of America

Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, "a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities."

And you know what that means. If the US doesn't end the "spiral of division," (sounds sort of like "spiral of violence" doesn't it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

And he also said that the US will "support the governments that will be elected later this year" in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.

And here is her summary of the entire situation:

Then of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:

He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;

He didn't say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;

He again ignored Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;

He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;

He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;

He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley - without which it is powerless against invasion - by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.

And this:

Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words - security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it - were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.

Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.

What does that mean "with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?"

It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.