What the West Doesn't Realize: It's in a Fight for Survival

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

What the West Doesn't Realize: It's in a Fight for Survival

article by Melvin Rhodes





Islamic fundamentalism became front-page news after Sept. 11. There certainly had been plenty of warning, although nobody could have predicted the precise way in which terrorists would get the West's attention. Few would have listened anyway.



Parviz Radji was the Iranian ambassador to London in the years leading up to the overthrow of the shah in January 1979, a few weeks before British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to office. Before that, Mrs. Thatcher was the leader of the opposition Conservative Party.



In his book In the Service of the Peacock Throne, Mr. Radji recounts a dinner with Mrs. Thatcher before a visit she was to make to Tehran, capital of Iran. The account from his diary entry of Wednesday, April 26, 1978, reads: "I try to impress Mrs. Thatcher with my analysis of the Iranian/Middle Eastern situation but I suspect that I somehow fail. There is, to be sure, 'perfect understanding,' to use the hackneyed diplomatic phrase, on such subjects as the dangers of world communist expansionism, the need for strong defenses, and a firm hand in dealing with terrorism. But on less clear-cut issues, such as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its anti-Western bias, I don't believe I retain her interest" (1983, p. 172, emphasis added).



As we see here, even some of the greatest leaders can make serious misjudgments. It's easy to understand why in this case. The post-Christian West no longer takes religion seriously, so it is difficult for Western leaders to comprehend the threat that could come to the West from non-Christian religions.



A few months after that dinner, America learned firsthand the threat of Islamic fundamentalism when Iranian students, followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, whose supporters overthrew the shah, stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held embassy staffers as hostages for 444 days. For the next two decades Americans would look back and blame the drawn-out affair on the perceived weakness of their president.



Sadly, the West lost an opportunity to prepare for a major assault by the forces of Islamic fundamentalism. Even more sadly, there still seems to be little understanding of the serious threat to the free world that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism poses. Sometimes the problem is simply a failure to connect the dots, to put two and two together.



Increased challenges for allies

For months now there has been talk of forcibly replacing Saddam Hussein as president of Iraq. While talk of the ambitious military action this would require has continued, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has flared up with a new, even more deadly round of violence. Coincidence? Not when you consider that Saddam has offered to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000, a lot of money to people who have spent decades in refugee camps with little prospect of an end to their misery.



As long as the heightened tensions continue in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it is more difficult for the United States to act against Saddam. To say that this is a victory for Saddam does not detract from the reality that he is a despotic tyrant who poses a major threat to the West. Try telling that to the Europeans, who are busily making money from trade ties to Iraq and other Mideast nations that sponsor terrorism.



Consider also Kashmir, the mountainous region of northern India. Attacks by Kashmir-based Islamic militants on Indian villages and military camps have brought Pakistan (whose sympathies lie with the militants) and India to the brink of another military conflict—one that this time could go nuclear. Any outbreak of hostilities between these two powers will automatically put a stop to any allied efforts to find Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and any leftover al-Qaeda diehards who might still roam the mountains of the Hindu Kush. This will be another victory for the forces of militant Islamic fundamentalism.



A further victory for Islam became apparent during President Bush's visit to Europe several months ago. The deterioration in relations between Europe and America since Sept. 11 is extraordinary. The Bush administration, reacting to the biggest attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, understandably has made the war on terror a top priority. But many Europeans have a different perspective. A few even think the United States deserved what happened on Sept. 11. Demonstrators accused the president of being a "cowboy," ready to aggressively attack poor and backward nations to pursue American interests.



It's difficult for Americans to understand this attitude. Earlier this year French nationals were killed in a terrorist attack on a bus in Pakistan and German tourists died in Tunisia in an attack on a synagogue. But perhaps the tendency toward appeasement goes back to the end of the colonial period, when Western Europeans began to sympathize with nationalist movements rebelling against the ruling Western powers.



Also part of the equation is Europeans' sense of guilt over their wealth in contrast to the relative poverty of some of their former colonies.



In reality, the Soviet Union was the greatest imperialist power of the latter half of the 20th century. Liberal (socialist) ideas swept across Europe in advance of the Soviet army. But reality has little to do with perception, particularly when many of the news media are dominated by left-leaning reporters with their own agenda. The Palestinians are usually portrayed as poor, oppressed, subject peoples, while the Israelis seem like the big, bad Western colonialists. In reality, Israel is a small country with a small population surrounded by hostile powers having vastly larger populations.



Just as Europe and America are drifting apart, Americans themselves are increasingly divided. Some in the United States realize terrorism poses perhaps the greatest threat to the American republic ever. Increasingly, others believe in business as usual, wanting to return to the party politics of personal self-aggrandizement and the pursuit of their own interests.



My own local newspaper in Michigan is back to long articles on the rights of gays and minorities, including Muslims. Perhaps it's simply a case of denial, a refusal deep down to contemplate the realities facing the United States. One American commentator described the United States as the only country that suffers from national ADD (attention-deficit disorder). Nine months after Sept. 11 a growing number of Americans just want to put it all behind them and forget about it.



Fight for survival

Not so for conservative columnist Cal Thomas. In a May editorial titled "U.S. Is in Fight for Its Survival," he wrote about Vice President Dick Cheney's warning one week earlier that "another terror attack on the United States is 'inevitable'" and the warning from the FBI director that it's only a matter of time until suicide bombers attack America again.



Reminding readers that the Senate Intelligence Committee estimates that 100 al-Qaeda terrorist cells exist in the United States, Mr. Thomas asks how the U.S. government will react when the terrorists in these cells "decide to simultaneously blow themselves up in shopping malls, apartment buildings, a mega church, a synagogue and several airports all on the same day, killing thousands of people?"



Continuing, Mr. Thomas writes: "An acquaintance of mine predicts 'vigilante-ism of a kind like we've never seen before' following any new terrorist attacks." In proposing solutions, he adds: "We must find new ways of keeping people out of America who come from regions of the world with a record of exporting death. That means no more 'students' from Middle Eastern countries and no more immigration until we can do a better job of profiling those who come here. If that means stationing troops along both borders, electric fences, high walls, guarding our ports and installing listening devices, so be it."



In summation he adds: "Should another terrorist attack occur, we'd better be prepared to strike at home and abroad without warning, without hesitation and with the full force of American military, political and moral might." The point is that, if America's will to win falters, the advantage then shifts to the terrorists.



The ailing 82-year-old pope also sees the impending threat, though his concern is not focused on the United States. Visiting Azerbaijan the day before President Bush recently arrived in Europe, the pope again reached out to Islam in the hope of averting further religious conflict. With only 150 Catholics in the country, his visit was not to his own flock. It was political. The Catholic Church has all too often been at the center of the 1,400-year-old struggle between Islam and Christianity.



Others see the increasing threat too. First France and then the Netherlands were shocked at recent election results that saw big gains for the extreme-right political parties. They join Austria, Italy and Denmark, making five ancient European nations whose citizens show an increased fear of foreigners and, in particular since Sept. 11, Muslims.



It will be interesting to see who wins the next German election. Germany's Social Democratic government may be replaced by conservatives led by the Bavarian Edmund Stoiber, whose mentor was Munich-born Franz Josef Strauss (1915-1988), once prominent in the West German government.



Russia also sees the threat from Islamic fundamentalists. The deaths of Russian veterans and children in a terrorist bomb blast on Victory Day, commemorating the end of World War II, visibly angered President Putin, who blamed Chechen rebels—Muslims supported by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.



Prophesied Mideast threat

Bible prophecy is interesting in the light of these developments.



Daniel 11 gives us an overview of the Middle East in prophecy. Although most of the chapter was fulfilled more than 2,000 years ago in the centuries after Daniel's death, the last few verses are yet to be fulfilled. With no Jewish nation in the Middle East from the time of the Romans until the restoration of a Jewish homeland in 1948, this chapter reflects a long time gap. Suddenly in verse 40 we read: "At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships ..."



A power to the south of Jerusalem is prophesied to attack ("push at," KJV) a power to the north of Jerusalem. Remember that directions are relative. The king of the south in ancient times was Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty; the king of the north was Syria under the Seleucids. These two powers often fought over Jerusalem and its environs, as did the later Roman Empire. Their repeated invasions followed the Middle East's ancient invasion routes from the south and the north.



Could the modern king of the south be associated with resurgent Islam? For two centuries the Western colonial powers dominated the Middle East. Since World War II the West has been progressively pushed out of the area as first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism took over. The biggest single turning point was the rebirth of the Jewish homeland in May 1948. Immediately five Arab armies surrounded Israel and tried to crush the half million Jews who were the controlling occupants of the new nation. They failed. But their failure has not stopped attempts to destroy the Jewish state.



The humiliation of the Arab armies led to revolutions in some Arab nations. In 1952 King Farouk of Egypt was overthrown. Six years later the king of Iraq and most of his family were murdered in a bloody military coup that led in time to Saddam Hussein's coming to power. Many attempts were made on the life of the late King Hussein of Jordan.



The British were pushed out of Aden and withdrew from the Gulf states; the French lost Algeria. King Idris of Libya was overthrown in 1969 by the fanatical nationalist Muammar Gadhafi. Ten years later Islamic fundamentalism overthrew the non-Arab shah of Iran. One after the other, pro-Western governments were replaced by more-radical regimes, either Arab nationalist or Islamic fundamentalist.



Now we see the two coming together. Though Saddam Hussein is an Arab nationalist, he was never seen as a religious man—until now. Since Sept. 11 he is increasingly portrayed at prayer on Iraqi television and billboards and is lavishly spending millions of dollars to build the biggest mosque in the world. He offers total support to the Palestinians in their struggle with Israel, as does Osama bin Laden. The distinction between nationalists and fundamentalists is increasingly blurred.



At the same time, cooperation between al-Qaeda leaders and the leaders of the Islamic nations is on the rise as peoples throughout the Islamic world are increasingly incensed at what is seen as Israeli aggression against the Palestinians.



Why now? Satellite television, that's why. Until four years ago there was no Arabic-language satellite TV station. Now there is. Now Muslims across the region can see Palestinians suffering 18 hours a day broadcast from Abu Dhabi. Naturally, there is no film of Israelis suffering daily homicide bombings.



American newscaster Ted Koppel, monitoring the al-Jazeera television network shortly after the September terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, was shocked at how anti-American all callers into a four-hour phone-in program were. Graphically illustrated was a simple logic: "Israel is trying to kill the Palestinians. Israel must die. America supports Israel. America must die."



Whether he is dead or alive, Osama bin Laden's perceived victories against the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1989 and against the United States in September 2001 have inspired Muslims across the world to push against the West.



This attitude had been building for some time. J.T. Caruso, assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, told a congressional committee on Dec. 18 that "al-Qaida had supported 'Islamic fighters' in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya and the Philippines" (Neil Clark, "Colonial Wars," The Spectator (UK), April 13, p. 24). And, yes, your memory is working correctly—the United States was on the same side as al-Qaeda, helping it, in fact, in the first three of those five conflicts.



The future troubles. Islamic fundamentalism is obviously on the rise. Ironically, if the United States can remove Saddam from power, the most likely eventual replacement for his regime will be an Islamic-fundamentalist government—though that could perhaps be forestalled for a while.



The same is true in other nations across Islam. Pakistan is particularly vulnerable in this area. Islamic, or sharia, law is already in force in the country, as it also is in distant northern Nigeria, where Christian meeting places have been burned to the ground with worshipers inside them. The Sudanese civil war continues with the ruling northern Muslims persecuting southern Christians and even taking them as slaves. Indonesia, too, has seen Muslims attack Christians.



Perception lags behind reality

Connecting the dots, we see that Islamic forces across the globe are increasingly cooperating, working together to defeat their common enemy, the West. Those jubilant crowds on the streets of the Islamic world within minutes of the successful terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were not atypical. What we see here is the beginning of another world war, in the sense that the conflict is international, with outbreaks of violence occurring on four continents.



Meanwhile, the West has scarcely moved on since that Iranian ambassador's dinner with Mrs. Thatcher in 1978. Western governments still maintain that the threat is not Islam in general but a few militants in particular. Immigration policies remain largely unchanged, allowing the internal threat to worsen with every arriving plane. Hollywood still churns out entertainment garbage that only feeds the universal hatred of Western values. Little if anything is done anywhere to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.



George Orwell, author of the classic works 1984 and Animal Farm, is acknowledged as one of the great writers of the 20th century. Orwell involved himself in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) on the side of the leftist republicans against the fascists aided by Nazi Germany and Italy's Mussolini. Vainly trying to warn the dominant Western power of the time, Great Britain, Orwell wrote an essay called "While England Sleeps," warning of the impending threat from fascism. Meanwhile, Britain's prime minister was negotiating with Hitler and promising "peace in our time."



The West is still asleep to the crisis that is building daily. Today almost all the wars that dominate our nightly news have a certain commonality that can be summed up in one word: Islam. Events are moving inexorably closer to the emergence of a final king of the South.



We may be seeing the prophesied biblical scenario coming to pass before our eyes. GN

.

Who Will Dominate the Middle East?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Who Will Dominate the Middle East?






article by Rod Hall





As America pulls out of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, other powers are rushing in to fill the vacuum. Domestic, regional and global forces are all vying for influence. Where are events in the ever-volatile Middle East headed?







Massive crowds protested in Tahrir Square, Cairo, in early 2011 to demand change - and they got it.



Source: WikimediaWith the shifting sands of the Middle East and North Africa, the United States appears to be losing its ability to shape events in the region. Things are certainly looking bad for the state of Israel. In fact, with so many contending over this region, things are looking bleaker and more dangerous for everyone.



Last year's so-called "Arab Spring" saw dissident groups of vastly different overall aims coming together to remove dictatorial regimes. But that temporary unity based on sharing a common enemy is already beginning to unravel.



Where are the geopolitical changes in the region headed? Let's consider five factors underlying the major power shifts underway.



Islamists dominate newly elected parliaments

Post-uprising elections have swept political Islamists into office. These have garnered the vast majority of seats in parliaments in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Kuwait.



The same will likely occur in the up-coming Libyan elections, where Islamist strains run through almost all parties. And Yemen's new Muslim president will likely be joined by Islamists coming to power in parliamentary elections.



Egypt's presidential elections scheduled for May 23 and 24 may see the Islamists' newfound political power in parliament at work as kingmakers push for their selected candidate. Furthermore, Islamists in parliament are determined to curtail the president's powers in the next constitution, giving more say in the running of the country to the legislature they now dominate.



(The interim caretaker prime minister and cabinet the military rulers installed are expected to relinquish power this summer. But the diminishing of the military's power in dominating the government is expected to be a gradual process.)



In Egypt and elsewhere Islamists are winning because they have the most organized networks to mobilize voters, are the most trusted public or political groups, and have a track record of challenging oppressive or autocratic regimes.



Muslim Brotherhood offshoots in Libya and Syria, where they have suffered persecution from the government for decades, recently established political parties in anticipation of future elections.



Cairo-based journalist John Bradley, authorof After the Arab Spring: How Islamists Hijacked the Middle East Revolutions (2012), argues that the Islamist groups that have taken power in the Middle East are here to stay—with dire prospects for liberal democracy anywhere in the region. Asked in Zócalo Public Square online magazine whether some Islamist groups have already peaked, giving room for secular agendas to grow in the future, he responded:



"The opposite is true. It's secularism and liberalism that have peaked in the Arab world. Remember, [Iraq's] Saddam Hussein was a secularist, as was [Yemen's] Ali Abdullah Saleh, [Egypt's] Hosni Mubarak, [Libya's] Colonel Gaddafi, and [Tunisia's] Ben Ali. It's therefore not difficult to understand why most Arabs now associate secularism and liberalism with corruption, torture, tyranny, poverty, and a lack of dignity . . . That's the vacuum now being filled by political Islam. What will happen in the long-term nobody can predict. But the medium-term belongs to the Islamists" ("What Moderate Islamism?" March 4, 2012).



This does not bode well for the West in general and Israel in particular. Islamists in general are more hostile than secularists to peace with Israel and are supportive of Hamas, the terror organization now governing the Gaza Strip.



Sunni Crescent vs. Shiite Crescent

Regional geopolitics pit the powerful "Sunni Crescent" led by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates against the beleaguered "Shiite Crescent" states—Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.



Barry Rubin, director of global research in the International Affairs Center in Israel, sizes up the strategic battle for influence in The Jerusalem Post: "The new Middle East strategic battle is heating up, and this is only the start. It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with two more serious lines of battle: Arabs versus Persians [of Iran] and Sunni versus Shia Muslims . . .



"The real struggle is over who will control each Muslim majority country and who is going to lead the Middle East . . . The Sunni Arab position was stated very clearly by Amr Moussa, a veteran Arab nationalist and candidate for Egypt's presidency: '(The) Arab Middle East will not be run by Iran or Turkey'" ("The Region: The New Middle East's Internal Divisions," March 4, 2012).



Rubin later clarifies what is emerging: "What we are seeing again, for the first time in three decades . . . is an Egyptian bid to lead the Arabic-speaking world and even the whole region. On this point, Egyptian leftists, nationalists and Islamists are united.



"And in the first round, the battle over control of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, Egypt won and Iran lost." (See "Hamas' Shifting Allegiance Reflects New Mideast Dynamics")



Egypt is the largest Arab country, with a population of 83 million, and has long had a major influence on the region. Now that Islamists have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house and nearly as many in the upper, this fundamentalist orientation will likely be a major influence on the growing number of Islamic governments in the region.



Regional geopolitical jockeying

As Hamas and Egypt push for regional influence, other regional players are doing the same. In its annual forecast, the global intelligence service Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting) pointed out that Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are involved in a dance for dominance in the shifting political sands of the region:



"Iran's efforts to expand its influence will be the primary issue for the Middle East in 2012. The U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq has rendered Iran the pre-eminent military power in the Persian Gulf . . . Turkey, Iran's natural regional counterweight, is rising steadily, albeit slowly" ("Annual Forecast 2012," Jan. 20, 2012).



Turkey, the report states, will continue to face significant challenges to its regional ascendency due to instability near its borders. It continues its efforts to mold an opposition in Syria, counterbalance Iranian sway in Iraq and influence the rise of political Islamists, particularly in Egypt and Syria. But analysts don't see it making much headway.



Stratfor also explains how Iran affects Saudi Arabia's push for regional dominance: "Iran's regional expansion will be felt most deeply by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royals now doubt that the United States has the ability or the willingness to fully guarantee Riyadh's interests. Adding to Saudi Arabia's vulnerabilities, the Gulf Cooperation Council states fear that if Iran is not contained within Iraq, it will exploit continued Shiite unrest in Bahrain and in Saudi Arabia's Shia-concentrated, oil-rich Eastern Province."



Saudi Arabia is leading efforts to shore up and consolidate the defenses of Gulf Cooperation Council members to try to ward off the threat posed by Iran. But those efforts will not be a sufficient replacement for America's role as a security guarantor.



Stratfor goes on to examine the tug-of-war underway in Iraq and Syria: "The effects of Iran's expansion efforts will be most visible in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, Iran's main challenge is to consolidate Shiite power among several competing groups.



"As Iraq's fractured Shiite leadership tries to solidify its influence with Iranian support, Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish factions increasingly will be put on the defensive. This ethno-sectarian struggle and the security vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal will degrade Iraq's overall security conditions.



"Meanwhile, Turkey will attempt to contain the spread of Iranian influence in northern Iraq by building up political, economic, military and intelligence assets."



The fight in Syria is really two contests in one. It's a struggle between Syrians over the nature of their government and society, but it's also a regional rivalry between Iran and its adversaries, as Stratfor explains:



"In Syria, the ultimate goal of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States will be to disrupt Iran's Shiite arc of influence by trying to crack Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime. However, without direct foreign military intervention, the Syrian regime is unlikely to collapse."



Even the normally feeble 22 nations of the Arab League took unprecedented actions in calling for the Assad regime to leave and hosted a "Friends of Syria" meeting to try to gain support for boycotts and possible military assistance.



The League pushed hard for a resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling on Assad to step aside, but even a watered-down version calling for a cease-fire and talks was blocked by Russia and China.



Also, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all calling on Assad to go. But as of this writing they remain ambivalent about direct military action, although Saudi Arabia is providing some arms to the rebels.



Syria's ties to Iran complicate its status in the Middle East's power balance. The two countries are commercial partners, have signed a mutual defense agreement and in the past have supported the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas, which act against Israel. As pointed to above, the tie to Iran is undoubtedly a major factor in the Arab states calling for Assad's departure.



Unlike the other Arab Spring uprisings, Syria's rebels do not reflect a sweeping cross-culture movement. There is still a large segment of the populace remaining loyal to Assad, so the fighting is likely to be protracted.



Writing in Foreign Policy, journalist Nir Rosen explains the Islamic base of the revolt in Syria: "Syria's uprising is not a secular one. Most participants are devout Muslims inspired by Islam. By virtue of Syria's demography most of the opposition is Sunni Muslim and often come from conservative areas. The death of the Arab left means religion has assumed a greater role in daily life throughout the Middle East" ("Islamism and the Syrian Uprising," March 8, 2012).



Big stakes for the big powers

In addition to the regional forces vying for dominance in the Middle East, the Arab Spring has sparked a global tussle as well. It has become a springboard for big-power geopolitics among the world's greatest military powers—America, Russia and China.



Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has yet to adjust to the post-Soviet reality, and Russia has not settled on its relationship with the rest of the world. And China's growing economic and military prowess means it has a greater need for vital Middle East oil but also the means to secure what it needs.



Syria has emerged as a key battleground for a Cold War–style tug-of-war between these powers. Russia sent warships to discourage foreign intervention in Syria. China has sent emissaries to Syria to try to broker a cease-fire deal and is being drawn more deeply into Iran's confrontation with the West. And America has less and less influence in the region.



Syria is often called Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East. The relationship between them goes back four decades. It formed the centerpiece of the Soviet position in the region during the Cold War, the Soviets then equipping and training the Syrian military.



Moscow today continues to arm and politically shield the Assad regime. The Russians are intent on keeping their only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus. In addition, Russia is thought to have major economic interests in Syria, including arms contracts and plans for nuclear energy cooperation.



But America seems equally determined to see a pro-Western regime in Damascus. This has created diplomatic tensions with Russia and China who oppose measures that could lead to military intervention or forced regime change in Syria.



Russia sent at least three guided missile frigates—reportedly loaded with anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles—to Syria. Russia's main interest in blocking UN sanctions against the Assad regime is to prevent NATO intervention in Syria and to keep the country in its sphere of influence.



The threat of nuclear attack and proliferation

Just as Russia's approach to the Middle East is at a turning point, Iran seems as determined as ever to move ahead with its nuclear program in defiance of America, Israel and the rest of the West—and the broader world. Even Russia and China oppose Iran getting a nuclear weapon.



Iranian society 33 years ago was steeped in revolutionary fervor. Today it suffers from revolutionary fatigue. This is one reason Iran's 2009 uprising did not have the same durability as the popular uprisings that have unsettled and unseated numerous Arab dictatorships. People may aspire for revolutionary ends, but there's no romanticism about it and a limited appetite for it.



Iran has been a quasi-theocracy since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It has been at odds with America and the West for much of that time.



Israel sees the prospect of a nuclear Iran that calls for its annihilation as an existential threat. Israeli leaders maintain that a decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities will have to occur by the time Iran is on the verge of shielding these facilities from attack—what they call the "zone of immunity."



Some experts oppose an attack because they claim that even a successful strike would, at best, delay Iran's nuclear program for only a few years.



Many experts believe the greatest threat associated with the Iranian nuclear program is that it might trigger a regional nuclear arms race that would be deeply destabilizing and would dramatically increase the risk of a weapon falling into irresponsible or fanatical hands.



The president of the United States, Barack Obama, has said that nothing is off the table when it comes to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.



But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after meeting with Obama, acknowledged that differences still exist in the Israeli and American timetables for contending with the Iranian nuclear program, as reported by The New York Times:



"Mr. Netanyahu reiterated the point he had sought to make forcefully in Washington: that if Iran did not change course, Israel, which considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its existence, would not allow itself to be in a position where its fate was left in others' hands" ("Netanyahu Says U.S. and Israeli 'Clocks' Differ on Iran's Threat," March 9, 2012).



Negotiation efforts are underway to try to come to a diplomatic solution. The six-power talks with Iran include the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany. Obama was hoping talks would help quiet the "drums of war." But others think the Iranians' agreement to these talks is just a false show of cooperation while their nuclear development still goes on.



Reuters news agency reports on the U.S. stance: "'Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,' [U.S. Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta told the annual policy conference of the biggest U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. 'But make no mistake, when all else fails, we will act'" ("Obama Says New Iran Talks Should Calm 'Drums of War,'" March 6, 2012).



Regional transformation will lead to what is foretold

What all this adds up to is that these multilayered shifting sands of domestic, regional and global forces blowing through the Middle East and North Africa are changing the region more dramatically than at any time in the last half century.



The factors underlying the major power shifts carry long-term effects, creating a dramatically different Middle East than what this generation has known.



And there's another source to help us see what's happening. Bible prophecy reveals how all these shifting forces will eventually play out.



The Arab Spring uprisings, in the short term, have focused the Arab world's attention on the changes swirling around them and away from their longtime nemesis—Israel. But, as prophecy lays out, the persistent hatred of Israel will in the long run grow exponentially as Islamic influence grows. Prophecies indicate that a more united group of Arab nations, perhaps sparked by religious zeal, will focus their rekindled hostility toward Israel.



This hostility will grow to a major crescendo leading to all-out war as we approach the end of this age. Psalm 83 contains an intriguing prophecy that shows a number of Middle Eastern countries forming a confederation of nations determined to cut off Israel from being a nation (verses 3-8).



Out of this region will arise a strong end-time leader Daniel the prophet calls "the king of the South"—successor to the ancient Greek rulers of Egypt (Daniel 11:40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.



See All...). This ruler, probably backed by other Islamic nations joined in confederacy with him, will start the cascade of terrifying events leading to a massive war with the power and ruler the Bible refers to as "the king of the North"—successor to the ancient Greek rulers of Syria.



This power is synonymous with the final revival of the Roman Empire referred to in Scripture as the Beast—which will consist of a brief union of 10 nations (Revelation 17:12-14 [12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

[13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

[14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.





See All...).



The forces of the North, Europe at this time, will sweep down through the Middle East in a major military counterattack that will overthrow the southern power and occupy key portions of the Middle East (Daniel 11:40-41 [40] And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

[41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.





See All...). (See also "The Middle East: Focus of End-Time Bible Prophecy")



Ultimately, however, this European power and other eastern forces arrayed against it will resist the return of Jesus Christ as coming King and will suffer utter defeat (Revelation 16:12-14 [12] And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

[13] And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

[14] For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.





See All...; 17:14; 19:11-21). (Our free Bible study aid booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy gives more details.)



In the meantime, Jesus tells all of us to stay on the alert to events heralding His coming (Matthew 24:42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.



See All...; Luke 21:36Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.



See All...). One major indicator we should be watching for is the rise of a unifying force and leader in the Middle East. Keep your eyes and interests fastened on significant developments in this critically important region.

.

World News and Trends: Turkey: Independent regional powerhouse?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

World News and Trends: Turkey: Independent regional powerhouse?






article by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder





Modern Turkey's claim to a unique global role is partially based on its development out of the Ottoman Empire



British Labour Party Member of Parliament Denis MacShane recently summed up Turkey's current circumstances: "In the Cold War years Turkey was unquestionably accepted as the West's most important frontier nation. Now it seems to prefer coddling Iran over backing the U.N. Security Council's harder line against Tehran. Disputes with Israel, once a key friend of Turkey, have become so bad, there is almost a rupture between the only two democracies in the region" ("Stop the Blame Game," Newsweek, July 23, 2010).



Turkey has even voted against United Nations–sponsored sanctions intended to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions.



Time magazine selected "Turning to the East" as the title for a feature article about Turkey. The teaser for the article stated, "Feeling betrayed by Israel and snubbed by Europe, Turkey is forging a new identity as an independent regional power" (Pelin Turgut, July 5, 2010).



Modern Turkey's claim to a unique global role is partially based on its development out of the Ottoman Empire (roughly 1345 to 1918)—stretching from just outside Vienna, Austria, to the Persian Gulf. Ankara, Turkey's capital, also remains centrally located between East and West— theoretically interfacing between these two different worlds.



Newsweek's feature piece placed "Ankara in the Middle." The article stated: "Once an unquestioning U.S. ally, and [today] at odds with most of its neighbors, Turkey is now forging a new foreign policy, with itself at the very center" (Owen Matthews, Newsweek, July 26, 2010).



U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed that "if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought" (as quoted by Marc Champion and Peter Spiegel, "Gates Says EU Pushed Turkey Away," The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2010). Clearly America's political leadership has become very concerned about this new direction in Ankara's thinking. (Sources: Time, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal. )

.

Erdogan's Grand Vision for Turkey and the Arab World

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.


Erdogan's Grand Vision for Turkey and the Arab World






article by Paul Kieffer





Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan's actions and words confirm his country's independence in determining its foreign affairs. What course is he charting for Turkey's future?



It began with a dramatic scene at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2009. During a panel discussion on the Israeli intervention in Gaza, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan walked off the stage when he was refused extra time to speak. Immediately prior to his departure, he angrily told Israeli President Shimon Peres that "when it comes to killing, you [Israelis] know well how to kill."



At first, some observers thought Erdogan's harsh criticism of Israel's intervention in Gaza was merely a momentary lapse of diplomatic restraint. The following 12 months, however, showed that Erdogan's outburst reflects what appears to be a radical change in Turkey's foreign policy toward Israel. The inflammatory language continued when the Turkish leader promised a retaliatory air strike "like an earthquake" if Israel were to violate Turkey's air space in attacking Iran. He also predicted that "Allah's revenge" would come on Israel.



One year after the angry remark in Davos, the Turkish government threatened to recall its ambassador from Tel Aviv. According to Erdogan, such retaliation was appropriate after Israel's deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon delivered a protest to Turkey's ambassador Ahmet Oguz Celikkol in a humiliating manner—refusing to shake his hand and having him sit in a lower position. Israel's complaint was about the popular Turkish television series Valley of the Wolves, which, among other offenses, depicted Israeli intelligence operatives kidnapping children to convert them to Judaism.



Even in averting the diplomatic crisis, the war of words continued. Ayalon did not retract his criticism of Turkey, though he did declare his intention to be more careful in the future. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu then said he was satisfied with Ayalon's statement but emphasized that the criticism of Turkey was justified. The Turkish foreign ministry in the capital of Ankara responded by emphasizing its historic responsibility to warn and criticize Israel.



Prior to the Davos incident, Turkey and Israel had long enjoyed close diplomatic relations and had even conducted small-scale joint military maneuvers. Turkey also had an important function as a potential mediator in any future peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. Why would Turkey change its approach toward Israel? And what does this mean for the future of the Middle East?



Turkey's uncertain future in Europe



Since World War II, Turkey has been a loyal supporter of the West. Turkish troops fought alongside U.S. forces in the Korean War; and as a member of NATO, Turkey was home to military installations monitoring Soviet activities. America supports Turkey's bid to join the European Union. Turkey has had "associated status" since 1963 (then with EU predecessor the European Economic Community), and it first applied for full membership in 1987. When negotiations began in 2005, Erdogan emphasized that his country would settle for nothing less than full membership.



Progress on negotiations has been slow, with the EU expecting Turkey to amend its constitution to prevent intervention in state affairs by the military, to improve human rights and to give greater rights to its ethnic minorities. Since 2005, only 11 out of 35 "negotiating chapters" on admission to the EU have been opened for discussion, and only one has been "provisionally completed" so far.



The main point of contention between Turkey and the European Union is Turkey's intransigence on the issue of Cyprus. The Turks control the northern part of this island country and reject the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus (or Greek Cyprus), which rules over the southern part of the island—and the Republic of Cyprus is an EU member.



In a diplomatic note signed in Ankara in July 2005, Turkey had recognized the EU customs union as including Cyprus. That agreement was the last obstacle removed in paving the way for the start of official negotiations on Turkish EU membership. Yet after official negotiations began in October 2005, Turkey continued its blockade of all ships and planes originating from southern Cyprus. This stance violates the basic EU principle that all member states recognize each other and impose no trade barriers.



If Turkey's position on Cyprus remains unchanged, then acceptance of Turkey into full EU membership would require sacrificing basic principles. And that does not appear likely in this case.



Even if negotiations are completed successfully, all it would take for Turkey's bid for EU membership to fail is for one EU member to block approval for admission. With national referendums a possibility in more than one country—notably France and the Netherlands—final approval is by no means a certainty.



This prospect is what observers see as the catalyst behind Turkey's shift in foreign policy. Last summer even U.S. President Barack Obama warned that Turkey might align itself outside the West if negotiations on its bid for EU membership remain inconclusive.



Obama told Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra that he did "not think the slow pace or European reluctance is the only or predominant factor at the root of some changes in the orientation recently observed in the Turkish attitude. But it is inevitably destined to play a role in how the Turkish people see Europe . . . if they do not feel themselves part of the European family, it is natural that they should end up looking elsewhere for alliances and affiliations" (quoted by Reuters, July 8, 2010).



Turkey's courtship of the Islamic Arab world



With future EU membership uncertain, Turkey has begun courting its historic realm of influence: the Islamic Arab world, much of which was once under Ottoman Turkish rule for hundreds of years. Erdogan's visit to the Persian Gulf region in January 2011 makes President Obama's comments seem prophetic. Speaking on Jan. 11 at the Turkish-Arab Relations Conference in Kuwait, Erdogan reminded his listeners that Muslim Turks and Arabs had resisted Christian crusaders together. And he urged Arabs and Turks of today to forge their own union and determine the fate of the Middle East:



"The Arabs are our brothers and sisters. We are their brothers and sisters . . . Regardless of what some say, we will continue to develop brotherhood and cooperation with our Arab brothers and sisters . . . We will not turn our back to regions with which we have been sharing friendship and brotherhood for centuries. Our union is political, economic, commercial and cultural. We are members of the same civilization. We share a common history. We wrote our joint history together . . .



"Through solidarity, we can overcome the Palestine problem and end the pain in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not have to apply at others to help us. Yet, at foremost, we need to establish our own union. We can strengthen stability in Lebanon and prevent terror acts in Egypt. Through solidarity, we can overcome poverty in the region" ("We Will Determine Our Own Foreign Policy, Turkish Premier Says," The Journal of Turkish Weekly, Jan. 11, 2011, emphasis added).



With Turkey's open criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, Erdogan and his government are increasingly popular among the Arab populations of the Middle East. "When children in Gaza were massacred," he said, "we felt their pain as if our own children went through a massacre. Jerusalem's problem is our problem. Gaza's problem is our problem" (ibid.).



In fact, analysts see Turkey's shift in foreign policy toward Israel as a move calculated to legitimize any future leadership role for Turkey in the region. The shift appears to be paying off, with Erdogan in 2010 being awarded the Arab world's equivalent of the Nobel Prize, the King Faisal International Prize for Service to Islam.



Turkey and a future Islamic confederation



Turkey's independent foreign policy appears to be shifting in a direction that was warned of in Bible prophecy millennia ago. Psalm 83 contains an intriguing prophecy of many Middle Eastern nations that, while it may have applied in part to events of ancient times, appears to be as yet unfulfilled and to possibly tie in with end-time events. If so, it foretells a confederation of Arab nations and Turkey determined to eliminate Israel.



"They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, 'Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more.' For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You: The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagrites; Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assyria also has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot" (verses 3-8).



These biblical names are significant when we understand the areas and peoples to which this prophecy refers. Edom includes the Palestinians and some of the Turks. The Ishmaelites, descendants of Ishmael, are many of the Arab peoples throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Moab is the area of central Jordan. The Hagrites appears to be other descendants of Hagar, mother of Ishmael.



Gebal, meaning "mountain" or "boundary," is commonly equated with the Phoenician city of Byblos, modern Jubayl in Lebanon. Ammon refers to northern Jordan around Amman, the capital (which gets its name from Ammon). Amalek appears to refer to a branch of Edomite Palestinians. Philistia is the area around what is today known as the Gaza Strip. Anciently, Tyre was a major city-state in southern Lebanon along the Mediterranean coast. The children of Lot refers to Moab and Ammon—again, regions of modern-day Jordan.



Arab unity has long been elusive, but slowly a common purpose is bringing the different peoples of the Arab world together. This common purpose is the desire to destroy the nation of Israel and its chief backer, the United States of America, along with the West's liberal culture, long perceived as a threat to the Muslim way of life. Edom, which includes modern-day Turkey, is mentioned first in the prophecy of Psalm 83 and therefore seems to play a prominent role in this development.



Turkey and the European Union



Another nation listed in Psalm 83 is Assyria. While in a historic/geographic sense that could refer to what is now northern Iraq, the reference could be an ethnic one to inhabitants of Central Europe, whose ancestors "migrated into Europe from the Caucasus and the countries around the Black and Caspian Seas" ( Smith's Smaller Classical Dictionary, 1910, reprinted 1940, p. 226).



Hundreds of years before Christ, the Hebrew prophet Daniel foretold future occurrences in the Middle East and the world at large, including Europe. His prophecies were later complemented and fleshed out in the book of Revelation, revealed to the apostle John near the end of the first century.



The prophecies these men delivered show that a European-centered superpower will rise to dominate the world in the end time, just before Jesus Christ returns to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. As revealed to John, this superpower will be a union of 10 rulers of nations or groups of nations (Revelation 17:12-14 [12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

[13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

[14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.





See All...). By all appearances, this final superpower may not be that long in coming. The foundation is being built before our eyes, and prophecy seems to show cooperation with Middle Eastern peoples in opposing Israel.



But what if Turkey's bid to join the European Union is unsuccessful? Would that negate prophetic indications of cooperation? Not necessarily. There is always the possibility of a strategic alliance based on a "privileged partnership."



Gündüz Aktan, who had held several diplomatic posts for Ankara and helped write Turkey's application for membership to the European Union, wondered before negotiations had even started whether full membership would be the best course for his country: "Negotiations could last 20 years, but a 'privileged partnership' could be decided upon immediately, and Turkey would not be required to give up full membership at a later date. Turkey would be given a vote in the committee of European defense ministers. As a 'privileged partner' Turkey would receive nearly as much financial assistance as a full member without being forced to accept many EU standards which would result in higher [domestic] prices" (translated from Die Welt , June 8, 2005).



Aktan did not mention the most important aspect of all: Since Turkey has announced that it will not accept anything other than full membership in the EU, a "privileged partnership" offered by the EU as an alternative to full membership would be rejected. The result would be strained relations between the EU and Turkey, lasting years. If, on the other hand, Turkey were to withdraw its bid for membership unilaterally—possibly to save face because of the likelihood that its bid for membership will be rejected—it could accept the "privileged partnership" and retain cordial relations with Europe.



Despite tensions that might exist now over the question of Turkish EU membership, it appears Turkey will remain affiliated with Europe. This is a country that straddles both Europe and Muslim Asia—forming a bridge both geographically and culturally between East and West. And, as a possible key player in a future confederation with the Arabs, it seems that Turkey will also provide a link between the Arab Islamic Middle East and Europe. WNP

.

Majority Rule May Spell Islamic Tyranny

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Majority Rule May Spell Islamic Tyranny






article by Tom Robinson





In discussing democracy, it's important to specify what is meant.



Pure democracy is simply the rule of the majority. That may sound great and even practical—unless you are in the minority and the issues concern your well-being and perhaps even your life.



A popular adage, anonymous but often misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, says in one of its forms, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Majority rule is, in essence, the tyranny of the majority, wherein dissenters are oppressed. At its worst, it can devolve into mob rule, a fearful circumstance that can break down into anarchy and calls for authoritarian clampdown by a single leader.



American Founding Father John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty” (letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814).



With such thoughts in mind, America was founded as a republic. In a republic, representatives represent the interests of constituents in a voting assembly. When these representatives are chosen by the populace, the form of government is called a democratic republic, which is the case with the United States. Of course, some countries refer to themselves as democratic republics even if truly free elections are absent. Communist regimes are notorious for this.



Yet even a true democratic republic does not necessarily promote freedom. The forces of democracy are still at work in selecting representation. A takeoff on the humorous quote up front notes that in a republic, the flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on lunch. The question is, what do the majority support? Are they selfish, or do they care about others? This is why Adams earlier said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (military address, Oct. 11, 1798). It is clear from other quotes that the religion he had in mind was Christianity. It certainly was not Islam, which he inveighed against severely elsewhere.



The religion of Islam has itself been an oppressive force in the Middle East. Yet ironically, it has been held in check by the totalitarian regimes of the recent past. The rise of democracy in this region where the common people are predominantly Muslim fundamentalists could spell increased imposition of sharia (Islamic law) domestically and a step up in jihad (struggle or holy war) abroad.



Consider the Palestinians. Free elections in Gaza handed the government over to Hamas, a terrorist organization devoted to wiping out the state of Israel. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.



There is great concern about Egypt, the most populous nation in the Arab world, as well as many other Muslim nations. One source reports: “Much of the Egyptian population that in recent days has rebelled against the thirty-year regime of Hosni Mubarak says that it prefers democracy to any other form of government. At the same time, however, and in an overwhelming majority, they want those who commit adultery to be stoned, thieves to have their hands cut off, and those who abandon the Muslim religion to be put to death. This is the result of a survey conducted in Egypt and in six other majority Muslim countries by the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the world leader for research in this field” (Sandro Magister, “‘Democratic’ Egypt Sends Apostates to Their Death,” chiesa.expressonline.it, Feb. 3, 2011).



According to the survey, this is true of majorities in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Nigeria. Only in Turkey and Lebanon were these minority positions. But fundamentalism has made headway in Turkey, while in Lebanon the terrorist organization Hezbollah has recently achieved a dominant position in the government.



The Pew survey further stated that 54 percent of Egyptians want to end their nation’s peace treaty with Israel (“Egyptians Back Sharia Law, End of Israel Treaty, Poll Shows,” Bloomberg, April 26, 2011). And “in a runoff between modernizers and fundamentalists, 59 percent of Egyptians say that they side with the fundamentalists, against 27 percent who root for the former. . . Returning to the death penalty for those who abandon Islam, called for by 84 percent of Egyptians, it must be pointed out that those who want it are men and women, old and young, educated and uneducated, without distinction. In Jordan, the level of support for sentencing apostates to death rises all the way to 86 percent” (Magister, emphasis added).



Here’s a clear case, then, where democracy does not equate to freedom.

.

Jerusalem's Deep Divide

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Jerusalem's Deep Divide

A commentary by Darris McNeely

If you go to Jerusalem as a tourist today, you can visit the Western Wall, the Temple Mount and other sites throughout the city virtually unencumbered.



Overshadowed by the passage of a health care bill this week was the growing rift between the United States and the state of Israel over plans to continue building additional housing in portions of Jerusalem long contested between the Israelis and Arabs.



The problems erupted a couple of weeks ago while Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel at the same time the planned expansion was announced. This created an embarrassing furor. This week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington and held more than three hours of private talks on Tuesday with President Obama.



At issue is not only this planned housing expansion, but also the special alliance between the two countries. America has been Israel's biggest supporter, something that takes its toll on American relations in the Arab world. Israel will push ahead with its housing plans, but it cannot afford to lose America's support.



I have been watching this carefully. In recent trips to Israel I have clearly seen the growth of the city and the new housing springing up in disputed neighborhoods. I have a personal interest because I spent a summer living in one of the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, which is now the focus of this expansion. In the Sheik Jarrah section sits the now abandoned Shepherd Hotel where, in 1971, I lived while working on an archaeological dig. The building is slated to be torn down and a 20-unit apartment complex is due to be built by a wealthy Jew from New York.



Since 1967 Jerusalem has been a unified city under Israeli control. During the period it has gone through unprecedented growth while being the focus of religious and ethnic strife. It is the capital of Israel while Palestinians want part of the city to form the capital of their independent state. It is an impenetrable conflict that threatens the stability of the region, which is always on the verge of a wider conflict. What began as a conflict between two peoples has become a clash of civilizations.



Regardless of how one falls in the arguments between Palestinians and Israelis, and I have personally heard the stories of both Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers, there is the undeniable fact that since 1967 all major faiths have had access to the religious and historical shrines of the city. If you go to Jerusalem as a tourist today, you can visit the Western Wall, the Temple Mount and other sites throughout the city virtually unencumbered. You could not do this before 1967. It is now an open city. But it is also a city of dispute and contention because of the politics and religious tension.



Jerusalem today is far from being the "City of Truth" (Zechariah:8:3Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.). It is still a "heavy stone" before the nations (Zechariah:12:3And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.). It is a city I love to visit and one in which I feel safe and quite comfortable. Jerusalem gets in your blood and excites the senses. It takes nothing more than a walk through the narrow streets of the Old City or across its sprawling hills to see why it has been a magnet through the centuries for pilgrims and prophets and all who seek to understand God's will on earth.



Jewish tradition calls Jerusalem the center of the world. One day it will indeed be the center of a world at peace under the reign of Jesus Christ the Messiah. All nations will stream to it to learn of God's eternal way of truth (Isaiah:2:3And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.).



God speed the day when Jerusalem truly becomes the City of Peace.



Keep watching!

.

Gaddafi's Violent Past Catching Up in Libya

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.


Gaddafi's Violent Past Catching Up in Libya


article by Melvin Rhodes





On Sept. 1, 1969, Libya's King Idris was overthrown in a violent coup that brought a young revolutionary Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to power. For more than 40 years his revolutionary fervor has spread mayhem and discord.







Source: WikimediaIt was early on a Monday morning. Our church office was on the lower floor of our home in the capital of the West African nation of Ghana. I will never forget the date—June 4, 1979.



As I descended the stairs heading toward the office, our office clerk came running out shouting: "A coup! A coup!"



We were about to experience a classic African coup, the violent overthrow of a government. We listened to the radio that was playing martial music, interspersed with occasional gunfire as the government-controlled (and only) radio station changed hands two or three times during the day—with junior officers of the air force attempting to overthrow the senior officers of the army who had enjoyed power for more than six years.



Two days of fighting followed, during which time it was too dangerous to go anywhere. For more than four days we had no electricity—which meant that all the meat in our freezer was ruined, food that had been difficult to find. Our water supply was intermittent, which was a far greater concern. We had two children at the time, one only weeks old.



Four days after the coup, a Friday, the headline in our local paper was simply: "NO FOOD." The new revolutionary government of young, idealistic socialists had introduced price controls on food items, leading to inevitable shortages. A few days after this a number of senior Ghanaians, including former heads of state, were taken to a local beach and summarily shot.



Libyan fingerprints on events

It turned out later that this coup had been encouraged by Libya's revolutionary Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who had himself come to power in a coup 10 years earlier. His youthful zeal inspired others to follow suit. Ghana was one of three countries where successful violent coups had a Libyan connection.



A few months later, I made a second visit to Liberia. The first time I traveled there, the ruling president was a descendant of the African- American slaves who returned to Africa and founded the country in the early part of the 19th century. By my second visit, he and his government had been overthrown in a coup arguably more violent than Ghana's. Members of the old cabinet had been taken out to the beach, tied to stakes and executed.



Over two decades of violence and civil war was to follow before the country could start to rebuild. Again, Libya's hand was in the coup.



Similar events took place in Burkina Faso, Ghana's neighbor to the north, where Thomas Sankara came to power in 1983. To another young Marxist revolutionary with pan-Africanist ideals like those of Gaddafi, violence was the means to an end.



These three coups impacted me greatly. Exactly how many government overthrows throughout the region owed their origins to Libya's Gaddafi I cannot say, but these three assuredly did.



Will Gaddafi again turn to terrorism?

Scripture tells us that "those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matthew:26:52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.). As I write this article, Libya's president is waging a fierce fight to keep his throne—and I do not use the term throne incorrectly. Although Gaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969 and established a republic, he clearly wanted to start his own dynasty, planning on one of his sons taking over the reins when it's his time to go.



One thing is clear: If Gaddafi is not removed by the rebel forces on the ground—which would only be made possible by effective air raid strikes of the primarily Western coalition of forces that have come against him—he will seek to hit back against them with all the violent means at his disposal.



In the March 10, 2011, Security Weekly newsletter from Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting), Scott Stewart asked, "Will Libya again become the arsenal of terrorism?" He explained: "During the 1970s and 1980s, Libya served as the arsenal of terrorism. While this role may have received the most publicity when large shipments of weapons were intercepted that Libya was trying to send to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, Libyan involvement in arming terrorist groups was far more widespread. Traces conducted on the weapons used in terrorist attacks by groups such as the Abu Nidal Organization frequently showed that the weapons had come from Libya."



Because of Libya's continued involvement in terrorist acts, there were frequent tensions with Western nations. In 1981 the United States shot down two Libyan fighter planes trying to enforce Libya's claim to international waters in the Gulf of Sidra. In 1986, U.S. forces sank two Libyan ships and attacked missile bases that had fired at American aircraft.



In retaliation a bomb tore through the side of a TWA flight in Europe, killing four; three days later another bomb blew up a disco in Berlin frequented by U.S. servicemen. Three were killed, including two American military personnel, and some 200 others injured. In retaliation, U.S. planes bombed Libya.



Conflict with Britain and France

Gaddafi certainly gave Libya a higher profile than his predecessor. In 1983 a British policewoman was shot and killed by gunmen inside the London Libyan embassy in total violation of international laws that govern the conduct of embassies. A siege of 11 days followed until Britain allowed the Libyans to leave the country.



In 1988 I was in Ghana when I heard the news of the midair explosion that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I remember the date well because my wife had flown home to Detroit to visit her mother, and friends started calling thinking she might have been on the flight. I'm thankful to say she was not, but 259 people were—all of whom were killed, in addition to 11 other people on the ground.



Investigators traced the bomb back to Libyan agents. Only recently did a prominent Libyan make it clear that the bomb would not have been authorized by anybody but Colonel Gaddafi.



It's interesting to note that the French government first suggested the no-fly zone that went into effect in late March. More than 20 years ago it was France that thwarted Libya's plans to overthrow the government of neighboring Chad, a former French colony. In retaliation, Libyan agents placed a bomb on a French plane taking off from Chad's capital in September 1989, killing all 170 on board.



Clearly, Libya under Gaddafi has made many enemies, so it's not surprising that Western governments, notably the French and the British, have a vested interest in seeing him removed from power and are doing what they can to help the rebels fighting against him. However, this is fraught with danger for the major Western powers.



In his Stratfor analysis, Scott Stewart expressed concern that the current turmoil in Libya could boost Islamic jihadists. "The conflict in Libya could provide jihadists in Libya more room to operate than they have enjoyed for many years," he wrote. "This operational freedom for the jihadists might have an impact not only in Libya but also in the broader region, and one way this impact could manifest itself is in the supply of arms.



"The looting of the arms depots in Libya is reminiscent of the looting in Iraq following the U.S. invasion in 2003. There are also reports that foreign governments are discussing providing arms to the Libyan rebels . . . While it is far from clear if any of those discussions are serious or whether any potential patron would ever follow through, past operations to arm rebels have had long-lasting repercussions in places like Afghanistan and Central America."



Clearly, the attempted overthrow of Gaddafi is not simply an example of an oppressed people seeking freedom by overthrowing a tyrant. While many may want a democratic system, there are others who don't, including Gaddafi loyalists and jihadists seeking to take advantage of the situation.



In a further analysis by Stewart titled "Libya's Terrorism Option" (March 23), he speculated about further acts of terrorism against the Western nations intervening militarily in Libya: "Certainly, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has no doubt that the U.S. and European military operations against the Libyan military targets are attacks against his regime. He has specifically warned France and the United Kingdom that they would come to regret the intervention . . .



"Given Libya's past use of terrorist strikes to lash out when attacked by Western powers, Gadhafi's threats certainly raise the possibility that, desperate and hurting, he will once again return to terrorism as a means to seek retribution for the attacks against his regime. While threats of sanctions and retaliation have tempered Gadhafi's use of terrorism in recent years, his fear may evaporate if he comes to believe he has nothing to lose."



A coming clash between north and south

Those familiar with Bible prophecy must now ask if this could be a precursor to events prophesied in the last few verses of Daniel 11: "At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships" (verse 40).



References to the kings of the North and South in chapter 11 of Daniel refer to two great empires of the ancient world that came about following the premature death of Alexander the Great. After his demise, his empire was divided up among four of his generals.



One was Ptolemy, who founded the Ptolemaic dynasty of ancient Egypt that ended three centuries later with the death of Queen Cleopatra. This kingdom was to the south of Jerusalem, hence the references to the "king of the South." The "king of the North" referred to leaders of the empire of the Greek general Seleucus and the Seleucid dynasty, the capital of which was Antioch. These two powers were often in conflict.



At the time of the end, once again there will be two major powers in conflict in the region—a revived Roman Empire to the north in the form of a new European-centered superpower and an alliance from the Islamic world to the south. The former will invade North Africa, including Egypt and Libya, areas of so much recent turmoil. (For more details, see "Egypt in History and Prophecy" and "The Origins and Future of Mideast Conflict Over Israel".)



Major terrorist attacks against Europe sponsored by Gaddafi or other terrorist-friendly regimes could certainly lead to events gaining momentum towards fulfillment of these prophecies. With turmoil in the Middle East affecting many nations, it seems more likely that the outcome of the current crisis is going to be the coming to power of Islamic jihadists across the region who may then seek to attack Europe, bringing on a great war between civilizations.



We must keep our eyes on the Middle East, the ground zero of Bible prophecy!

.

A Note About Inflation

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

A Note About Inflation


article by Tom Robinson





It should be realized that inflating the money supply is actually massive fraud and theft.


 By printing more dollars for the government's and central bankers' own purposes, the value of every dollar held by others is made less. In essence, the value of the dollars in your wallet is stolen by the government and Federal Reserve to use as they see fit. Of course, this means that dollars and other debt instruments held by foreign countries are also worth less—and if inflation is unabated, these nations will eventually tire of having so much stolen from them and will transfer their wealth somewhere more secure. (Of course, these other nations do the same with their own currencies.)

.

Osama Bin Laden and the Book of Esther - Some Parallels

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Osama Bin Laden and the Book of Esther - Some Parallels


Submitted by Don Hooser




Regarding the death of Osama Bin Laden, I’m grateful for many reasons but not gleeful. When I watched on TV people gathering around the White House and in Times Square in New York to cheer, chant and dance, one part of me felt like joining in and another part of me felt disturbed as I remembered Proverbs:24:17-18[17]Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:[18]Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him. which warns, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the LORD see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him.”



It’s good to see an evil person brought to justice. But keep in mind the difference between a sense of justice and an attitude of revenge. Seeking vengeance is God’s job and He doesn’t approve someone is trying to do His job (Hebrews:10:30-31[30]For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.[31]It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.).



The celebrating made me think of the story in the book of Esther that ends up with all Jews and their friends celebrating. So I just re-read the book to compare the events in that story with the life and death of Bin Laden. There are important similarities and important differences.



The setting of the book is the powerful Medo-Persian empire that stretched from India to Ethiopia and, in particular, the capital of Shushan (aka Susa) in the area that is now Iran. King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, a proud and evil man, to be second in command and ordered everyone to bow and pay homage to Haman. Because a Jew named Mordecai would not bow before him, Haman became so infuriated that the thought of killing only Mordecai was a revenge not sufficiently satisfying. He became determined to kill all Jewish people in the entire empire.



The story is fascinating, better than any fiction. The first cousin of Mordecai, a beautiful young Jewish woman named Esther, becomes queen. She, working in cooperation with Mordecai, exposes Haman’s evil plot. Esther and Mordecai become the saviors of the Jewish people.



It’s a story of amazing poetic justice. Haman had gallows built upon which to hang Mordecai and Haman ends up getting hanged on those gallows. Mordecai is promoted to be second in command. The scheme of slaughtering all Jews is turned into a strategy for killing many of the enemies of the Jews. In the capital city 500 enemies were killed and throughout the empire 75,000 enemies were killed (Esther:9:16But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey,). From the story, it seems no Jews died, so obviously God was fighting on their side!



All the Jews immediately celebrated and Mordecai made it official that the Jews would from then on have an annual two-day celebration which became known as the feast of Purim.



That series of events is quite significant. If Haman’s plot to annihilate all Jews had been successful, there would be virtually no Jews after that. Christ the Savior could not have been born into the tribe of Judah to fulfill that prophecy because there would no longer be a tribe of Judah. There would not have been a Jewish nation and temple for Jesus to come to. The first Christians would not have been Jewish.



Satan the devil has tried many things to interfere with God’s plan for mankind. There have been many efforts to exterminate Jews and Israelites, including Hitler’s attempt. Think of Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus when He was a baby. Think of Satan’s “success” in influencing the Jewish and Roman leaders to kill Christ.



Now let’s think of some comparisons with Osama Bin Laden. Haman despised the Jews. Osama despised the Jews and all their allies and supporters.



Bin Laden and his followers had some successes. However, I believe that God has performed miracle after miracle to protect the U.S. and other western nations from terrorist attacks. With so many enemies just “dying to” kill us, it’s amazing and inspiring that there has not been a lot more death and destruction from terrorist attacks than what there has been.



Esther proclaimed a 3-day fast, obviously to seek the favor and help of God (Esther:4:16Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.). Many people have been sincerely praying for God’s mercy, help and protection from terrorists.



Haman was eventually killed, plus 10 of his sons. Osama was eventually killed, along with one son.



In Esther’s day, the Jews celebrated, but why? It was not because of the death of enemies nearly as much as it was about their own survival!



“The Jews had light and gladness, joy and honor” (Esther:8:16The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour.). Mordecai established “that they should celebrate yearly the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar, as the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies, as the month which was turned from sorrow to joy for them, and from mourning to a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, of sending presents to one another and gifts to the poor” (9:21-22).



The focus of celebration was not the death of one arch-enemy. Haman “had plotted against the Jews to annihilate them” (9:23). They were celebrating the profound relief and joy at knowing they were not going to be annihilated after all!



Wouldn’t this day be ultra-joyous if we knew there were no more followers of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, or other terrorist organizations?! If there was no more plots or even desires to destroy Israel (that they call “the little Satan”) or the United States (that they call “the great Satan”)?!



The death of Osama Bin Laden is significant for concrete reasons and psychological reasons, but it’s only a small success when one thinks of all of today’s threats to peace and security.



May the King of kings soon return to earth to defeat all would-be murderers and establish real peace on earth!







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Osama Bin Laden Killed - Relief and Ramifications

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.



Osama Bin Laden Killed - Relief and Ramifications


A commentary by Darris McNeely



Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been killed by U.S. military forces. While we all feel a portion of justice has been accomplished, the world is a still a dangerous place. What will follow this momentous event?





Source: AFP Photo/HOLate on Sunday evening the world was informed by President Barack Obama that United States Special Forces had engaged Bin Laden in Pakistan and killed the terrorist leader of al Qaeda. It turns out Bin Laden was living in a specially built mansion north of Islamabad. It was a mansion roughly eight times larger than any other home in the area, surrounded by 12 to 18-foot walls. It had no Internet or telephone service and no windows facing the road. The home had been under surveillance for months, and once it was determined that the inhabitant fit Bin Laden's profile, plans were made to attack. The President gave the order to proceed on Friday after holding several meetings in March.



Bin Laden's death "momentous"

True to the information age in which we live, it turns out a local Pakistani live-Tweeted the helicopter attack on the home. Sohab Athar, an IT consultant, knew something was up when he saw the attack and came to realize it was not part of the Pakistan military. His "live reporting" gained him thousands of new followers in a matter of minutes.



Former President George W. Bush, who launched the War on Terror after the 9/11 attacks that made Bin Laden a household name, called the event a "momentous achievement." Bin Laden's death came eight years to the day after Bush declared "mission accomplished" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. In his statement, Bush said, "This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done."



What next for the Middle East?

Bin Laden's death comes at a critical moment throughout the Middle East. U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq later this year. Many speculate whether the Iraqi government and military can hold the country together against the competing pressures of sectarian violence and regional ambitions of neighboring Iran. Unrest in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are yet to determine the future shape of these nations.



Egypt has seen the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. New elections in September could create a more Islamist centered government. The military supported government has just recently moved to form closer ties with Iran, something not seen in recent decades under the Mubarak regime.



With Libya still in civil war and the fate of Muammar Gaddafi in question, that corner of the Arab neighborhood continues to keep NATO and the West intensely focused. The entire region is in turmoil with unstable governments, shifting alliances and foreign troop occupation. Now with the death of Bin Laden, many wonder what impact it will have on the Arab mood—especially the hardcore terrorist network.



The Middle East continues to be the focus of the world. Not since the end of World War I, when the current map of the region was created, have we seen such a time of change in this region. More change will come, and it appears a new map of alliances and relationships will emerge. Our booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy fills in much of background and details of what to expect in the final round.



One final note of irony: The announcement of Bin Laden's death comes on the same day the death of Adolph Hitler was announced in Berlin. Can we not take some hope in divine justice from this fact?

.