Obama a Demon?!

from the New York Times - When Demons Are Real - published Sunday, December 29, 2013
by T. M. Luhrmann

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/opinion/sunday/when-demons-are-real.html?_r=0

(excerpt)

To be in Africa is to encounter a God different from that of a charismatic church in the United States. People say that the boundary between the supernatural and the natural is thinner there. Certainly religion is everywhere — churches and church billboards seem to be on every street — and atheists are few. American evangelicals often say that faith is more intense in Africa. There is something to this. Compared with Ghanaian charismatic Christianity, American Christianity can seem like soggy toast.

It is not just the intensity that seems different. In these churches, prayer is warfare. The new charismatic Christian churches in Accra imagine a world swarming with evil forces that attack your body, your family and your means of earning a living. 

J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, a professor at Trinity Theological Seminary in Legon, Ghana, argues that these churches have spread so rapidly because African traditional religion envisions a world dense with dark spirits from which people must protect themselves, and these new churches take this evil seriously in a way that many earlier missionizing Christianities did not. Indeed, I have been at a Christian service in Accra with thousands of people shouting: “The witches will die! They will die! Die! Die!” With the pastor roaring, “This is a war zone!” 

While this feels very different from soft-toned American evangelical Christianity, which emphasizes God’s loving mercy rather than God’s judgment, spiritual warfare is deeply embedded in the evangelical tradition. The post-1960s charismatic revival in the United States, sometimes called “Third Wave” Christianity (classical Pentecostalism was the first wave and charismatic Catholicism the second), introduced the idea that all Christians interact with supernatural forces daily. That included demons. 

In fact, I found American books on dealing with demons in all the bookstores of the African charismatic churches I visited. In one church where I stood looking at the shelf of demon manuals, a helpful clerk leaned over to fish one off for me. She chose an American one. “Here,” she said as she handed me Larry Huch’s “Free at Last,” “this one is good.” 

In many American evangelical churches, people will tell you that demons are real, but they do not treat them as particularly salient. Demons don’t come up in Sunday morning sermons, and for the most part people don’t pray about demonic oppression. Their encounters with supernatural evil were like the ghost stories I heard at summer camp: more exciting than terrifying. One man told me of an angel who’d protected him by driving off the devil: “When I turned completely around, just right there, the woman, the vehicle, the lights shining, they were gone. They were gone. But in my brake lights, I saw the guy running over that hill.” 

But not always. A 2012 poll found that 57 percent of Americans believed in demonic possession. It’s unlikely to be entertainment for all of them. 

One way to think about demons (if you happen not to believe in supernatural evil) is that they are a way of representing human hatred, rage and failure — the stuff we all set out to exorcize in our New Year’s resolutions. The anthropologist Gananath Obeyesekere, who grew up in Sri Lanka, got a Ph.D. from the University of Washington and, eventually, a job at Princeton, once remarked that all humans deal with demons. (He was quoting Dostoyevsky’s “Brothers Karamazov” — “In every man, of course, a demon lies hidden.”) The only question, he said, was whether the demons were located in the mind, where Freud placed them, or in the world. It is possible that identifying your envy as external and alien makes it easier to quell. 

But it is also true that an external agent gives you something — and often, someone — to identify as nonhuman. In West Africa, witches are people, and sometimes, other people kill them or drive them from their homes. In an April poll conducted by Public Policy Polling, over one in 10 Americans were confident that Barack Obama was the Antichrist — and the Antichrist is, as it happens, associated with war in the Middle East. If those people think that demons are real, they don’t mean that Obama is misguided, confused or mistaken. They mean that he is real, inhuman evil.

That is a terrifying thought. 

T. M. Luhrmann is contributing opinion writer, a professor of anthropology at Stanford and the author of “When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship With God.”

 

 ?

Towards A Polish Ruthenian Commonwealth

the proposed Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenium Commonwealth
to elevate the Cossacks and Ruthenians to the position equal to that of Poland and Lithuania as a "Commonwealth of Three Nations"

this idea was OPPOSED by the Roman Catholic Church,
with the Jesuit Counter Reformation selling out Poland for its geopolitical objectives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian%E2%80%93Ruthenian_Commonwealth

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Trojga Narodów, Commonwealth of Three Nations) was a proposed (but never actually created) European state in the 17th century that would replace contemporal Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The creation of a Duchy of Ruthenia was considered at various times, particularly during the 1648 Cossack insurrection against Polish rule in Ukraine (see Khmelnytsky Uprising). Such a Ruthenian duchy, as proposed in the 1658 Treaty of Hadiach, would have been a full-fledged member of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which would thereby have become a tripartite Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth. In May 1659, the Polish Diet (Sejm) ratified the treaty with an emended text.^[1]

The idea of a Ruthenian Duchy within the Commonwealth was completely abandoned.^[2] Canadian historian Paul Robert Magosci believes that it happened due to divisions among the Cossacks and Muscovite invasion^[3] which, however, both occurred much earlier than the Treaty of Hadiach was signed. Russian historian Tairova-Yakovleva considers the resistance of the Polish society and the papal pressure as the reasons for the incomplete ratification.

The idea of Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth returned during the January Uprising, when in 1861, a patriotic demonstration took place at Horodło. The so-called Second Union of Horodło was announced there, by the szlachta of Congress Poland, former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Volhynia and Podolia. New Poland, based on the Second Union of Horodlo was to be based on the three nations, and its proposed coat of arms consisted of Polish eagle, Lithuanian Pahonia, and patron saint of Ruthenia, Archangel Michael.

Towards this end was the Treaty of Hadiach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Ruthenia

The Treaty of Hadiach (Polish: ugoda hadziacka; Ukrainian: гадяцький договір) was a treaty signed on 16 September 1658 in Hadiach (Hadziacz, Hadiacz, Гадяч) between representatives of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (represented by S. Bieniewski and K. Jewłaszewski) and Cossacks (represented by Hetman Ivan Vyhovsky and starshina (sztarszna, the elders) Yuri Nemyrych, architect of the treaty, and Pavlo Teteria). It was designed to elevate the Cossacks and Ruthenians to the position equal to that of Poland and Lithuania in the Polish–Lithuanian union and in fact transforming the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth into a Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita Trojga Narodów, "Commonwealth of Three Nations").

The specific features of the Treaty of Hadiach were:

1. creation of the Duchy of Ruthenia (Polish: Księstwo Ruskie) from Chernigov Voivodeship, Kiev Voivodeship and Bratslav Voivodeship (The Cossack negotiators had originally demanded that Ruthenian Voivodeship, Volhynian Voivodship, Belz Voivodeship, and Podolian Voivodeship be included as well), which would be governed by a Cossack hetman, elected for life from among four candidates presented by the Cossacks and confirmed by the King of Poland;
2. creation of parallel Ruthenian offices, tribunal, academy (Kiev's Orthodox Collegium would be raised to the status of an academy; a second Orthodox higher institution of learning would be founded; and as many schools and printing presses "as were necessary" would be established), a judicial system, treasury and mint as existed in Poland and Lithuania (see Offices in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth);
3. the Duchy would be connected with the Commonwealth by the common king. There would be only one national parliament (Sejm) and one foreign policy in the Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth;
4. admission to the Senate of Orthodox ecclesiastic members: the Archbishop (metropolitan) of Kiev and other Orthodox bishops (of Lutsk, Lviv, Przemyśl, Chełm and Mstislav) and elevation of the Orthodox religion and Church to the same level as Catholicism. No Uniate monasteries or churches were to be built in the Duchy - the Union of Brest would be dissolved on the territory of the Ruthenian Duchy;
5. ennoblement of Cossack elders (starshyna kozatska). Each year the hetman would recommend to the king 1,000 Cossacks to receive a patent of hereditary nobility, and up to 100 Cossacks in each military regiment could be personally ennobled as well.
6. establishment of a Cossack army, in the form of the Cossack register of 30,000. The officers of these forces would be elected by their own members. The Cossacks' own forces would be supplemented by 10,000 regular mercenaries, paid from public taxes. No other Commonwealth troops were to be allowed in Rus' without the consent of the Cossack hetman, except in the event of war, and then they would come under the Cossack hetman's command;
7. return of land and property to Commonwealth nobility (szlachta), which had been confiscated by Cossacks after the 1648 Khmelnytsky Uprising;
8. a general amnesty for previous crimes would be decreed.

History and Importance

Historian Andrew Wilson has called this "one of the great 'What-ifs?' of Ukrainian and East European history", noting that "If it had been successfully implemented, the Commonwealth would finally have become a loose confederation of Poles, Lithuanians and Ruthenians. The missing Ukrainian buffer state would have come into being as the Commonwealth's eastern pillar. Russian expansion might have been checked and Poland spared the agonies of the Partitions or, perhaps just as likely, it might have struggled on longer as the 'Sick man of Europe'" (p. 65).

In spite of considerable Roman Catholic Clergy opposition, the Treaty of Hadiach was approved by Polish king and parliament (Sejm) on 22 May 1659, but with an emended text.^[1] The idea of a Ruthenian Duchy within the Commonwealth was completely abandoned.^[2] It was a Commonwealth attempt to regain influence over the Ukrainian territories, lost after the series of Cossack uprisings (like the Khmelnytsky Uprising) and growing influence of Muscovy over the Cossacks (like the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav).

Hetman Vyhovsky supported the negotiations with the Commonwealth, especially after he suppressed a revolt led by the colonel of Poltava, Martyn Pushkar, and severed relations with Tsardom of Russia for its violations of the Treaty of Pereyaslav of 1654.^[3] The Treaty of Hadiach was, however, viewed by many Cossacks as 'too little, too late', and they especially opposed the agreement to return land property to the szlachta. After the 1648 revolt, the Commonwealth was very unpopular with ordinary Cossacks. Rank-and-file Cossacks saw Orthodox Moscow as their natural ally and did not care for alliance with the Commonwealth. Furthermore, Hadiach was too much a deal that merely benefited the elite of the Cossacks—the "starshyna"—who wanted to be recognized as equal to the Polish nobility. Thus, while some Cossacks, among them the hetman Ivan Vyhovsky supported the Commonwealth, many did not, and Cossack unrest continued in Ukraine.^{[4][not in citation given]}

The Commonwealth position was further weakened by a string of losses in the Russo-Polish War (1654–67). The Tsar felt threatened by the Treaty of Hadiach, which weakened his hold on Cossacks. The Russians saw the treaty as an act of war, and even before it was ratified sent an army into Ukraine. Although Polish forces under hetman Stefan Czarniecki dealt defeat to Russian forces at the battle of Polonka, and recaptured Wilno in 1660, lack of other Commonwealth military successes, especially in Ukraine, further undermined Cossack support of the Commonwealth. Vyhovsky's early success at the battle of Konotop in June 1659 was not decisive enough, and was followed by a series of defeats. The Russian garrisons in Ukraine continued to hold out; a Zaporozhian attack on the Crimea forced Vyhovsky's Tatar allies to return home, and unrest broke out in the Poltava region. Finally, several pro-Russian colonels rebelled and accused Vyhovsky of "selling Ukraine out to the Poles."

Unable to continue the war, Vyhovsky resigned in October 1659 and retired to Poland. The situation was further complicated by the Ottoman Empire, which tried to gain control of the disputed region and played all factions against each other. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth was weakened by the rokosz of Jerzy Lubomirski.

In the end, Russia was victorious, as seen in the 1667 Treaty of Andrusovo and the 1686 Eternal Peace. Cossacks fell under the Russian sphere of influence, with much fewer privileges under the Hetmanate than would have been granted under the treaty of Hadiach. By the end of the 18th century, Cossack political influence has been almost completely destroyed by the Russian Empire.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BNR_%28Ruthienie_Blanche%29_Map_1918.jpg

1993 Ukrainian Proposal for Alliance with Poland

By late 1993 [Ukrainian President Leonard] Kravchuk was determined to press forward towards an alliance with Poland directed against Russian predominance in Eastern Europe, perhaps one in which the Ukraine would provide a nuclear umbrella with the weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union.  Ukraine was, at the time, in possession of more nuclear weapons than any country except the United States and the Russian Federation. 

In spring 1993 Ukraine proposed a "Baltic-to-Black Sea Pact" of which the Ukrainian-Polish partnership would be the nucleus.  This idea, long favored by Ukrainian national activsist, was not just an attempt to balance Russian power.  It was also meant to stabilize the middle ground between Russian dominance (seen as undesirable) and European integration (understood to be a matter of decades).  It referred to the common Polish-Ukrainian experience within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was after all a great power between Western Europe and Russia.

p 265 The Reconstruction of Nations- Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999

Belerus Is Polotsk

as suggested by such a name as POLOTSK : "POL + SK"

Less from migrations, and more via conquest and redefinition

Read the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_%28eastern%29

According to chronicalized legends, the largest cities of the eastern Polans were Kiev, Pereyaslav, Rodnia, Vyshhorod, Belgorod (now Bilohorodka village at the Irpin river) and Kaniv. In the 10th century, the term "Polans" was virtually out of use and exchanged for "Rus", with Polans as a tribe being last mentioned in a chronicle of 944.<sup>[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Polotsk</sup>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polock_Voivodship


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesia

Ukraine Split - Ghosts of the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth

  

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Principalities_of_Kievan_Rus%27_%281054-1132%29.jpg

This article is from the blog http://mypolitikal.com/

http://mypolitikal.com/2010/08/25/analyzing-ukrainian-elections-part-2/

Two Ukraines

Modern Ukraine is a strange hybrid of two quite different regions. One part, composed of western and central Ukraine, is politically more aligned with the West; it favors, for instance, joining the European Union. This part includes the capital Kiev. The other part of Ukraine, consisting of the Black Sea coast and eastern Ukraine, remains more loyal to Russia and the memory of the Soviet Union. It includes Donetsk Oblast (formerly named Stalino Oblast), the most populous province in the country.

This division is reflected in Ukrainian politics. Take the 2004 presidential election, in which pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko faced off against pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych:



Few things better illustrate the boundary between east and west Ukraine than this election, which Mr. Yushchenko ended up winning by a seven-point margin.

These divisions have long-standing roots. During the 16th and 17th centuries, for instance, much of Ukraine was under the control of the Poland-Lithuania. This country, which at one point constituted the largest nation in Europe, declined in the 18th century and was eventually partitioned by its stronger neighbors Prussia, Russia, and Austria.

Here is a map of Poland-Lithuania at its peak:



As the map makes clear, there is a strong correlation between the parts of Ukraine once controlled by Poland-Lithuania and the parts of Ukraine that today vote for pro-Westerners such as Mr. Yushchenko. Although Poland-Lithuania is long gone, the vestiges of Polish influence still exist in these places, drawing western and central Ukraine closer to the West than eastern Ukraine and the Black Sea region. [emphasis added]

These two parts of Ukraine differ in another, even more important aspect: language. Take a look at the most Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine:



The correlation between the percentage of Russian speakers and the vote for pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych is even stronger here. The three provinces with more than 60% of Russian-speakers gave Mr. Yanukovych’s his strongest support; Mr. Yanukovych managed to gain greater than 80% of the vote in each of them, despite losing the overall vote by 7%.

Language was a matter directly related to the Soviet Union. While on paper all languages were equal in the Soviet Union, in reality there was little question that speaking Russian was necessary to succeed. Today the situation is the opposite; the government encourages individuals to speak Ukrainian, although many in the country use Russian.

Ironically, Mr. Yanukovych himself is a native-born Russian-speaker. According to the Kiev Post, his Ukrainian remains imperfect to this day. The current president is reported to desire adding Russian to Ukraine’s list of official languages (which at the moment includes solely Ukrainian). This would be quite controversial if actually done.

Ukraine’s Future

Polarization, like that illustrated in the humorous picture above, is a disturbing phenomenon for any country. In Ukraine’s 2004 presidential election, all but one province gave more than 60% of the vote to a single candidate. This is the type of political division that sometimes leads to civil war, such as which occurred in Yugoslavia. That is one possible path for Ukraine to follow, unlikely as it may seem at the moment.

Yet polarization of this sort does not necessarily lead to separation. In the 2010 presidential election, polarization declined slightly; as memories fade, this trend may continue. And fortunately for Ukraine, the East-West division does not extend to ethnicity; Russian-speakers and Ukrainian-speakers may have a different language, but they look the same. It is a sad comment on the human condition that this makes a break-up of Ukraine less likely.

Moreover, a number of other countries contain similar electoral divisions without splitting up. Former East Germany votes quite differently from former West Germany (especially with regards to the Left Party, the ex-communist party), but Germany certainly will not break-up into pieces anytime soon. After the Civil War, the South unanimously supported one party for decades – parts of it still do, if one excludes blacks – but the idea of another national schism is unthinkable today. If things go well for Ukraine, the electoral divide in its voting patterns may remain nothing more than that.



Ukraine Split - Ghosts of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.ro/2014/01/ukraine-split-ghosts-of-polish.html


The Reincarnation of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth & Eastern Germany 
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.ro/2014/03/the-reincarnation-of-polish-lithuanian.html

The Polish Commonwealth

the answer for today's problems in the Ukraine?



 https://www.facebook.com/groups/69141925912/

The goal of this group is the promotion of the traditions of the Polish Commonwealth around the world. The Commonwealth, which was a union of Kingdom of Poland and GDL, was unique at its time for it's high level of ethnic and religious diversity. Rzeczpospolita (The Commonwealth) was known throughout Europe for having religious tolerance unusual for its age.

The Polish Commonwealth was a dualistic state ruled by a common monarch. It was one of the largest and one of the most populous countries of 16th- and 17th-century Europe and a multi-ethnic population of 11 million at its peak in the early 17th century. It was established at the Union of Lublin and disappeared as an independent state after the Third Partition of Poland in 1795.

The Union possessed features unique among contemporary states. Its political system was characterized by strict checks upon monarchical power. These checks were enacted by a legislature controlled by the nobility. This idiosyncratic system was a precursor to modern concepts of democracy, constitutional monarchy, and federation.

Poland was the dominant partner in the union.

Hitler and Stalin did all they could to destroy the beautiful diversity of Poland, unfortunately with success. This group exists to change the way of history, and revive the so long oppressed and today lost traditions of the Polish Commonwealth.

Chamish On Pope Francis SJ

www.barrychamish.com

                                                                                                   POPE GOES THE WEASEL
                                                                                                        by Barry Chamish

       It appears the Pope will be arriving in Israel this May to weasel concessions from the government. The first step in the long road to grandeur was taken this month.

Sara Netanyahu: “We can hardly wait for the Pope”
December 4, 2013

The prime minister’s wife, repeated the invitation. “We’re expecting you, we can’t wait”.

Officials in the Vatican made a nod to the pope’s plans to visit the Holy Land, but no official announcement was made. According to Israeli media, an advance team from the Vatican is expected in the near future to prepare for Pope Francis’ expected visit in May.
In April, the pope reportedly accepted an invitation for a visit to Israel extended by visiting President Shimon Peres.  On Monday, Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s wife, repeated the invitation. “We’re expecting you, we can’t wait,” Israeli media quoted her as telling the pontiff after the meeting.

       In the midst of the upcoming show of dignity which Israelis will be swamped by, they will be asked to concede vital chunks of territory. The plan has the nation so caught up in the pageantry that it agrees to anything. There is only one bright spot in the bleakness. One writer is on guard: 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Author.aspx/863

Giulio Meotti

The writer has just published a book about the Vatican and Israel titled "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books.

Pope Francis has praised Jews for keeping their faith despite the Holocaust and other “terrible trials” throughout history, and reaffirmed Judaism as the “holy root” of Christianity.

In a letter, published on the front page of La Repubblica Italian newspaper, the Pope writes that "since Vatican Council II, we have rediscovered that the Jewish people are still for us the holy root from which Jesus germinated".

As archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio had celebrated Rosh Hashana in local synagogues, he had voiced solidarity with Jewish victims of Iranian terrorism and co-written a book with a rabbi, Avraham Skorka. He attended a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of Nazi attacks against Jews in November 1938.

But as this new letter shows, one of the grave dangers in the Vatican's dialogue with Judaism is the Church's attempt to drive a wedge between the “good” and docile Jews of the Diaspora and the “bad” and arrogant Jews of Israel.

Pope Francis has never addressed the Israelis in his messages, nor has he openly defended the Jewish State since he was elected by the college of the cardinals. It seems that there is no room for stubborn, faithful Zionists in the Pope's lenient smile. In his speeches, Jewish national aspirations are ignored, if not denigrated.

            Sixteen years ago, when I was an Israeli idealist, I stood on guard alone:

http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=657&q=1

The Vatican's Jerusalem Agenda

By Barry Chamish

Mon Sep 22 1997

Did Shimon Peres make a deal with the Vatican?
Consider the evidence:

• On Sept. 10, '93, just three days before the signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington, the Italian news magazine La Stampa reported that part of the peace deal was an unwritten understanding that the Vatican would receive political authority over the Old City of Jerusalem by the end of the millenium. The newspaper reported that Shimon Peres had promised the pope to hand over the holy sites of Jerusalem the previous May and that Arafat had accepted the agreement.
• In March '94, the Israeli newsmagazine Shishi published an interview with Mark Halter, a French intellectual and close friend of Shimon Peres. He said he delivered a letter from Peres to the Pope the previous May, within which Peres offered the Vatican hegemony over the Old City of Jerusalem. The article detailed Peres's offer which essentially turned Jerusalem into an international city overseen by the Holy See.
• In March '95, the radio station Arutz Sheva announced that it had seen a cable sent by the Israeli Embassy in Rome to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem outlining the handover of the Old City of Jerusalem to the Vatican. Two days later Haaretz published the cable on its front page. The Foreign Ministry explained that the cable was genuine but someone had whited out the word "not." ie We will not transfer authority to the Vatican. Incredibly, numerous Bnei Brak rabbis who had cancelled Passover meetings with Peres over the issue of the cable accepted the explanation and reinvited him to their homes.

The Foreign Ministry's Legal Affairs Spokesperson, Esther Samilag, publicly complained about "various capitulations" to the Vatican. She was immediately transferred to a post at the Israeli Embassy in Katmandu, Nepal.
MK Avraham Shapira announced in the Knesset that he had information that all Vatican property in Jerusalem was to become tax exempt and that large tracts of real estate on Mount Zion were given to the pope in perpetuity.
Jerusalem's late Deputy Mayor Shmuel Meir announced that he had received "information that properties promised to the Vatican would be granted extra-territorial status."
Beilin was forced to answer the accusations. He admitted, "Included in the Vatican Agreement is the issue of papal properties in Israel that will be resolved by a committee of experts that has already been formed." If so, this committee has not since released any proof of its existence.
With all this in mind, how do we interpret the Vatican's current position on Jerusalem?
The following report, circulated by MSANews may shed some light on that:

Vatican City, Jun 14, 1997 (VIS) - Archbishop Renato Martino, apostolic nuncio and Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations, spoke June 9 on the status of Jerusalem at the New York headquarters of the Path to Peace Foundation. The archbishop addressed members of this foundation as well as U.S. members of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. He began by briefly summarizing the "well-known and long-standing position of the Holy See with regard to Jerusalem. He stated that Jerusalem "for us, of course, along with the rest of the Holy Land, is that special link between heaven and earth, that place where God walked and ultimately died among men. And of course we recognize that others revere Jerusalem as the city of David and the prophets and the city known to Mohammed.... It is a spiritual treasure for all of humanity, and it is a city of two peoples, Arabs and Jews, and of the three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam." Archbishop Martino added that "in recent years it has been increasingly difficult to break through the political and media-imposed stranglehold on the question of Jerusalem." he recounted Jerusalem's recent history, recalling in particular the UN's General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 calling for Jerusalem to be considered a 'corpus separatum' under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations," a resolution which Israel accepted. He pointed out that, in addressing the gridlock which has resulted from the 1967 Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, "the Holy See has therefore advocated the granting to Jerusalem of an 'internationally guaranteed special statute. That is the phrase used by Pope John Paul II in his 1984 Apostolic Letter 'Redemption is Anno'."
This statute "asks that regardless of how the problem of sovereignty is resolved and who is called to exercise it, there should be a supra-national and international entity endowed with means adequate to insure the preservation of the special characteristics of the City, its Holy Places, the freedom to visit them, its religious and ethnic communities, a guarantee of their essential liberties, and its city plan'."
The apostolic nuncio recalled the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Israel in 1993, when both signed the 'Fundamental Agreement." He noted Article 4 of this agreement where "both the Holy See and Israel affirm their continuing commitment to the 'Status quo' in the Christian Holy Places."
He also spoke of the problems sparked by Israel's recent authorization of "a project for the construction of settlements in occupied territory in East Jerusalem" for which "there was wide-spread international condemnation." This issue, he reminded those present, was brought before the UN Security Council on March 7 and March 21 of this year, but without resolution "because the sole country on the Security Council which opposed the Resolution was the United States."
An Emergency Session of the General Assembly, "organized only nine other times in the history of the United Nations" was held on April 24-25. The Holy See delegation was contacted and asked for suggestions for a Resolution, Archbishop Martino said. And he recounted the meetings, rough drafts of proposals and negotiations which followed.
The approved texts of the eventual Resolution, he underlined, contained "those points championed by the Holy See.... The General Assembly has here called for 'internationally guaranteed provisions' - the equivalent of the 'internationally guaranteed special status' called for by Pope John Paul II. This is particularly noteworthy because in this case, the Arab delegations all voted for this Resolution and therefore for this provision."
"The Holy Places within Jerusalem," concluded Archbishop Martino, "are not merely museum relics to be opened and closed by the dominant political authority, no matter who that might be at any given moment. They are living shrines precious to the hearts and faith of believers." DELSS/STATUS JERUSALEM/UN:MARTINO VIS 970616 (640)

Could that supra-national entity which will oversee the international city of Jerusalem be the Vatican just as Peres promised? And how do we react to Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert's recent announcement that he will begin negotiations with the Vatican, but "only over holy sites?"

          Today, I don't believe that Israel will do right by its people. The Pope is coming in May, he is contriving a long list of nefarious demands, and the Israeli government is preparing to be so moved by the moment that it concedes to all of them.

end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqsuK8B7b4g&feature=em-share_video_in_list_user&list=PLTQSTGefsTgzex6NSuxPf8-N8ZGVv95R7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXxEBXJx2mo

I set up a web blog some time ago with your book "With The Kennedys"

http://withthekenndys.blogspot.co.uk/

Or better, buy it at:

http://www.lulu.com/content/590092

Film producer Steve Stavro sent me a few copies of his powerful 3 hour DVD on Vatican diplomacy, Clear And Present Evil, with me as a core interviewee. A few will get a signed copy for $40. if they write me quickly. Also, write me for my relevant DVD, The Vatican's New Crusade For Jerusalem.

My latest book is The Stinger Not The Stung:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/barry-chamish/the-stinger-not-the-stung-israels-not-so-civil-war/paperback/product-20554733.html?showPreview=trueAnd if you saw and liked then you can start with:
Bye Bye Gazahttp://www.lulu.com/content/575116

Then work your way through the rest.

You might enjoy my exclusive e-mail list. I keep you informed of all hidden, obscure news for a minor cost. My readers swear by the service. Get on for a free month by writing me at: chamish@netvision.net.il   After that...if you liked it...you pay a bit.

And if you believe, at long last, that I am the only writer telling close to the whole truth, it's time to say so with a contribution!

Barry Chamish
POB 840157
Saint Augustine, FL  32080

Paypal:  chamishba@gmail.com
My Rabin lecture in Hebrew: Some people, I'm told, had to copy and paste this to open it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOYpkCP1WNM

My radio show is found at:

www.libertyarchives.com

 

Pope Francis S.J. TIME Person of the Year 2013

for a masterful job as a PR campaign to make the Vatican appear reformist.