The Vatican’s establishment of full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1993 has been credited as an overdue political consequence to the theological changes reflected in Nostra Aetate. However, in truth, there is much more going on than meets the eye. As early as April 15th, 1992, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger visited Israel and met exclusively with Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek. The Jerusalem mayor was quoted previously as saying, “The Israeli government should meet the Vatican’s demand to apply special status for Jerusalem.”[i] An Israeli journalist, Barry Chamish, has been working fearlessly for over two decades to expose a conspiracy which includes the current President of Israel, Shimon Peres, and his aid, Yossi Beilin. In his 2000 book, Save Israel, Chamish wrote:
In March 1994, the newspaper Shishi revealed a most remarkable secret of the Middle East “peace” process. A friend of Shimon Peres, the French intellectual Marek Halter, claimed in an interview that in May 1993, he delivered a letter from Peres to the pope. Within, Peres promised to internationalize Jerusalem, granting the UN political control of the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Vatican hegemony of the holy sites within. The UN would give the PLO a capital within its new territory and East Jerusalem would become a kind of free trade zone of world diplomacy.
Halter’s claim was backed by the Italian newspaper La Stampa, which added that Arafat was apprised of the agreement and it was included in the secret clauses of the Declaration of Principles signed in Washington in September 1993.[ii]
We took pains to fact-check Chamish’s claims, and to the extent that we were able, they checked out. Below is the original article which ran in the Italian paper La Stampa:
The headline reads “‘Now Jerusalem’ Secret Plan: to entrust it to the Pope”; the text below and to left of John Paul II’s photo reads, “The old town, under the auspices of the Vatican would be administered by the Palestinians Arafat told me: ‘I’m going to Jericho.’” The small print below that reads, “Mark Halter, French Israeli writer who, like other Jewish intellectuals played a mediating role in the difficult question, said here, the Pope would have the ‘spiritual sovereignty’ of the old town.” (translation Putnam)
It seems that the timing of the Vatican’s long overdue recognition of the state of Israel was motivated more by ambition than repentance. The major players on the Israeli side are the current President Shimon Peres (the Israeli representative at Oslo) and his aid, left-wing politician Yossi Beilin, a former Knesset member, Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, and Justice Minister. The secret deal was allegedly meant to sweeten the pot as a clandestine portion of the Oslo Accords. According to another Israeli journalist, Joel Bainerman, New World Order think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations was behind the deal all along and was encouraging a turnover of Jerusalem to the Vatican:
Pope Benedict XVI embraces Israel's President Shimon Peres
The plan was originally discussed in November 1992 (the same time the first meetings in London took place to discuss an agreement between Israel and the PLO which was probably arranged by Council on Foreign Relations executive, Edgar Bronfman) when then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres met with Vatican officials in Rome. Under the plan, Jerusalem will stay the capital of Israel but the Old City will be administered by the Vatican. Arafat agreed not to oppose the plan. The plan also calls for Jerusalem to become the second Vatican of the world with all three major religions represented but under the authority of the Vatican. [iii] (emphasis added)
It seems the plan is underway. On February 4, 2012, an op-ed piece ran on the Israeli news site Ynet News titled, “Don’t Bow to the Vatican.” The editorial by Italian journalist Giulio Meotti opposes the Vatican’s designs on Jerusalem, and speaks in the past tense referencing the sovereignty over the Cenacle (which houses the Hall of the Last Supper and King David’s tomb):
Don’t Bow to the Vatican
Israel reached an historical agreement with the Vatican to give up some sort of sovereignty over the “Hall of the Last Supper” on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. The Vatican will now have a foothold at the site: Israel agreed to give the Vatican first priority in leasing opportunities and access to it. [iv]
It appears that Rome’s Jerusalem ambitions are being implemented just in time for the arrival of Petrus Romanus.
Next week we will begin to examine how this potentially fits into biblical prophecy.
[i] As cited by Joel Bainerman, “The Vatican Agenda: How Does the Vatican View the Legitimacy of Israel’s Claims to Jerusalem?” last accessed February 13, 2012, http://www.joelbainerman.com/pages/vatican.html.
[ii] Barry Chamish, Save Israel (Israel: Modlin House, 2001), 117.
[iii] Joel Bainerman, “Secrets of Oslo,” last accessed January 10, 2012, http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/chronology.asp.
[iv] Giulio Meotti, “Don’t bow to the Vatican Op-ed: State of Israel Should Not be Giving Up its Sovereignty Over Holy Sites in Jerusalem,” February 4, 2012, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4185027,00.html.
About Cris Putnam
Anyone notice the “all seeing eye” under the chin of the “singing rat” in the photo of him and Peres.
Paul, Of course it’s just a girl in the audience behind them but the angle of the photo does give that effect.
Yea I realize that it is a physical occurrence on a natural level… not some spiritual manifestation. However, nothing happens without design or intent and I see it as a sign.
Anyhow Chris, the book looks very well researched and I will be buying a copy as soon as it becomes available.
I see the all seeing eye and you are right! I look forward to getting this book. The only thing that I hope is that the wording of this book is not such big words that I give up reading it. I don’t want to have to stop and look up words all time. I was raised Catholic, but I’m no longer Catholic and understand much about the Catholic faith, but the Lord led me in a different direction and I’m a follower of Jesus Christ now. So this book is something I’m looking forward to. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Chris,
Will you be on any radio broadcasts again soon? I really enjoyed the PID podcast.
Thanks Chris! I haven’t been able to find Parts 1 & 2, but this Article will suffice…IF, (and I DO emphasize “IF”), this does develop, then I have to ABSOLUTELY & with VIGOR thank you & Tom for your VERY precious “intel” on Global Current Affairs, and the most likely future…Do keep up your arduous labors of love!!
OOPS! Didn’t check the right column. Now that I’ve read the other 4 Articles: Whew!
WELL DONE Chris! And I agree that the two Communities of interpretation “Historisits” & “Futurists” DO have A LOT in common, much more than not.
When explained as well as you have, it’s clear that they give dimension, breadth & depth to our understanding of the value of current global events.
As is USUALLY true, (with Theological disagreements), both communities have a portion right, and when combined, they tend to expand our view of the horizon of History.
Thanks again! And yes! That “All Seeing Eye” in the photo, probably isn’t a mistake, or happenstance.
Christian Gains,
Thanks for your comment and encouragement. I do think that God is big enough that elements of the Futurist and Historicist school can both come to pass. When I think about all the great men of God who have invested so much scholarship, I cannot write off either entirely. As Christians, I believe the Holy Spirit must have some part in these interpretations of scripture. For that reason, I am willing to allow that elements of the various schools of thought can work together coherently. It seems we should be as open minded as we can, prophecy is often fulfilled in strange ways we do not expect.
Just now praying about the Scriptural agreement with taking elements from both Communities’ theologies, and the Lord reminded me of the “Blessings of Ya’acob on his sons”, (Gen.49: 3 – 27), as well as the blessings of Ephraim & Manasseh. 1st, note the “trick” Ya’acob pulled..blessing the younger with the GREATER blessings than the eldest Manasseh. This clearly displays a theme that god repeats time and again. Beginning, frankly with not the least examples: both Abraham [younger brother to Eber & King David, Jesse’s youngest son. The Lord’s point being, I believe, is that “Yahwey judgeth the heart”…and each person is “anointed” according to Yahwey’s knowledge of the individual’s NEEDS for growth. In simple terms “Different strokes, for different folks” is the case. Also, there really ARE differing “dispensations” of sorts…Abraham’s period, where there was no “LAWS”, so to speak…then the Mosaic era, then the establishment era, moving towards Nationhood, then the Davidic era. I’ll have to finish this later!
Just now praying about the Scriptural agreement with taking elements from both Communities’ theologies.
As I was praying, the Lord reminded me of the “Blessings of Ya’acob on his sons”, (Gen.49: 3 – 27), as well as the blessings of Ephraim & Manasseh.
FIRSTLY, note the “trick” Ya’acob pulled..blessing the younger with the GREATER blessings than the eldest Manasseh.
This clearly displays a theme that YAH repeats time and again. Beginning, frankly, with not the least example: King David, Jesse’s youngest son. The Lord’s point being, I believe, is that “Yahwey judgeth the heart”…and each person is “anointed” according to Yahwey’s knowledge of the individual’s NEEDS for growth, as well as Yahwey’s needs.
In simple terms “Different strokes, for different folks” this the case. Also, there really ARE differing “dispensations” of sorts…Abraham’s period, where there was no “LAWS”, so to speak…then the Mosaic era, then the establishment era, moving towards Nationhood, then the Davidic era.
Each of these were literally different stages of development of a GODLY NATION & YAHWEY FEARING people, and EACH must be judged by sightly different criteria, (with the exception of EACH MUST DEMONSTRATE “BELIEVING YAHWEY”[Gen. 15: 6]…”OBEYING Yahwey”[Deut. 28]….”FOLLOWING Yahwey”[Prov.3:5 – 6].
Why should we, here and now, think that there is not still a broad spectrum of degrees of faith, and vision, and anointing?
(I realize I’m being a bit general here, but please bare with me, as I’m laying a framework)…
The very statement: “And then will I profess unto them, ‘I never KNEW’ thee: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt.7:23), indicates a degree of intimacy that HE desires and acknowledges, BUT YET!
The very FACT that ONLY James, Peter and John, were present at EVERY event, and ALWAYS in HIS presence indicates another level or degree of intimacy. Yet, you have the other 9 Disciples — {and even then, one of THEM was NOT a “BELIEVER”}.
Then you have the tension between the Yerusalem Eklezia, (more “works” oriented), and the Peter & Paul contingent, (more “GRACE/FAITH”) oriented.
Thus, the “GREAT DEBATE” between those two schools of theology.
Is it erroneous to ABSOLUTELY expect “FAITH” to produce verifiable & examinable “FRUIT”? But, is it likewise wrong to take “STEPS AND ACTIONS OF FAITH”, without previous proofs?
I venture to state: NO!
BOTH are actually a part of the whole of TRUE AND FRUITFUL OBEDIENCE, but the WHOLE cannot be developed and completed until EACH state of “FAITH” / “FRUIT-“WORKS” is in harmony with the other: “FAITH is the SUBSTANCE of THINGS HOPPED FOR, the ‘TITLE DEED’ [hypostasis?] of things NOT SEEN”, BUT! “FAITH without works {good fruit} is DEAD!” Hope this makes good Theology…just an idea really…God Bless you Chris, you’re inspiring us to DEEPER “MEAT” in due season!
Since the admin of this website is working, no doubt very shortly
it will be famous, due to its feature contents.