https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w8LmuHcnXc&t=164s

B.M., A Commentator From The Last Days Watchman Channel, Claims That U.S. President Donald Trump Is Likely To Establish A New Middle East Initiative Called The Abraham Shield. This Initiative Would Be Part Of The Abraham Accords, Aimed At Protecting Israel. However, These Assertions Are Primarily Based On B.M.’s Personal Beliefs Rather Than Actual Evidence. However, It May Be Best For B.M’s Self-Worth And Credibility To Stop Making False Claims About The DJT, Who Has Been Described As A "Buffoon" And A "Convicted Felon." He Is Not A Peacemaker, And Despite His Assertions, He Has Not Played A Role In Forming Peace Treaties Anywhere In The World. For Instance, He Had Nothing To Do With Any Peace Agreement Between India And Pakistan.
B.M.’s Analogy Suggesting That Trump Will Create Some Form Of Union Between Arab Nations And Israel For Israel's Protection Is Simply Unrealistic. Trump Often Comes Across As Someone Full Of Empty Promises And Unable To Differentiate Between Reality And Fantasy, And It Appears That B.M. May Share This Perspective.
Before The Election, He Claimed He Would Bring Peace To Both Ukraine And The Middle East, Yet We Are Still Waiting For Him To Deliver On These Promises, Which He Likely Never Will.
Furthermore, There Was Never An Official Peace Deal Between Iran And Israel. Trump's Announcement That Israel Only Needed To Stop Its Aggression Towards Tehran Was Not A Legitimate Peace Agreement; This Is Merely Another Instance Of Fabrication.

The prospect of former President Donald Trump forming a new Middle East through initiatives such as the Abraham Shield, as part of the Abraham Accords, invites a complex analysis of both the geopolitical landscape and the credibility of the claims surrounding these efforts. The Abraham Accords, which facilitated the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states, marked a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy. However, the question of whether Trump can effectively create a protective framework for Israel, particularly through the proposed Abraham Shield, remains contentious.

From a subjective viewpoint, one might argue that Trump's approach to foreign policy has often been characterized by a blend of bravado and unpredictability. His supporters may view him as a bold negotiator capable of reshaping alliances, while critics often describe him as a figure prone to hyperbole, lacking the diplomatic finesse required for sustained peace efforts. The assertion that he could forge a union between Arab nations and Israel for the latter's protection appears overly optimistic, if not entirely unrealistic. The historical context of Arab-Israeli relations is fraught with deep-seated animosities and divergent national interests, which cannot be easily reconciled by the mere will of a single leader.

Moreover, Trump's track record in international diplomacy raises questions about his effectiveness as a peacemaker. His claims of having brokered peace agreements, such as those purportedly between Israel and its Arab neighbors, often lack the substantive follow-through that would lend them credibility. For instance, the assertion that he could bring peace to both Ukraine and the Middle East has not materialized, leading many to view his promises as empty rhetoric. This skepticism is further compounded by the absence of any formal peace agreement between Iran and Israel, despite Trump's declarations that a cessation of Israeli aggression would suffice for peace. Such statements can be interpreted as oversimplifications of a highly complex geopolitical situation.

In considering the Abraham Shield, which is described as a political-security initiative aimed at stabilizing the region, one must evaluate its feasibility within the current geopolitical dynamics. The plan seeks to leverage existing relationships established by the Abraham Accords to enhance security cooperation among Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and other regional players. However, the effectiveness of such a strategy hinges on the willingness of these nations to collaborate, which is often undermined by historical grievances and competing interests.

The notion that Trump could orchestrate a new Middle East order through the Abraham Shield is, therefore, fraught with challenges. The skepticism surrounding his ability to deliver on such ambitious promises reflects a broader concern about the sustainability of the diplomatic frameworks he has championed. While the Abraham Accords represent a significant step forward in certain respects, the long-term stability of these agreements remains uncertain, particularly in light of ongoing regional tensions and the complex interplay of national interests.

In conclusion, while the vision of a new Middle East underpinned by the Abraham Shield is an intriguing one, it is essential to approach such claims with a critical lens. The historical context, coupled with Trump's track record in international diplomacy, suggests that the realization of this vision may be more aspirational than attainable. The intricate web of relationships in the region requires a nuanced understanding and a commitment to genuine dialogue, rather than the mere assertion of intentions. As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, the effectiveness of any proposed initiatives will ultimately depend on the willingness of all parties to engage in meaningful cooperation.

Blessings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w8LmuHcnXc&t=338s 

B.M. Of The Last Days Watchman Channel is a believer in Christ, While Also practising Judaism. He Firmly Believes That A Third Temple Will Be Built In Israel. However, The Question Arises: Is This Belief Supported By Scripture? It Is According To B.M. Because He Also Believes In Profiting From The Word Of God By Writing A Book On The Topic.

The contemplation of a third temple within the framework of Judaism presents a complex interplay of theological perspectives, particularly when juxtaposed with interpretations prevalent in Christian theology. From a Jewish perspective, the yearning for a third Temple is deeply rooted in its historical and spiritual significance. The first temple, built by Solomon, and the second temple, rebuilt after the Babylonian exile, served as central hubs of Jewish worship and identity. Their destruction represents profound loss; thus, the anticipation of a third temple embodies a hope for restoration and redemption.

However, the Christian perspective often diverges, positing that the temple of God, as referenced in scripture, is not an earthly edifice. Christians understand the body of believers, the Church, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This interpretation stems from the teachings of the New Testament, where the focus shifts from physical structures to the spiritual realm. The Apostle Paul, for instance, writes of believers as the temple of God, suggesting an internal, spiritual dwelling place.

The notion of a third physical temple is, therefore, viewed with varying degrees of scepticism within Christian circles. Some believe it will be built, while others maintain that the spiritual temple is the true and lasting one. The belief that God will not permit the construction of a third physical temple until the return of Christ is a nuanced position, reflective of eschatological views.

In navigating these divergent interpretations, the importance of respecting one's own religious understanding becomes paramount. Attempting to reconcile differing theological viewpoints can be a challenging endeavour. It is essential to approach scripture with humility and a willingness to consider diverse perspectives, while remaining true to one's own faith tradition. Ultimately, the most prudent course may be to adhere to one's own comprehension of religious texts, avoiding the temptation to manipulate scripture to align with alternative interpretations.

Blessings