December 27,
2000
Proposal for
Middle East Peace
It would be ludicrous for us to suppose that we
appear to be politically neutral in the discussion of what is transpiring on the world
scene. However, the appearance and the reality are sometimes unequal. The fact is that as
we follow with great interest the happenings of the Middle East we are witnessing the
unfolding of pre-written history. Having read the last chapter, we are obviously somewhat
biased as we comment on the unfolding story. We must confess to being literalists in our
understanding of Biblical prophecy. It seems apparent from prophecy that has already been
fulfilled that we can expect future fulfillment to be as literal as past.
We do not believe that God gave prophecies so
that we could have a crystal ball with which to tell the future. But we do believe that He
gave foresight through prophecy so that as it unfolds we will have the assurance that God
is working His plan and nothing has gone out of control. We take comfort from that, and
are made confident about our eternal future.
But beyond the simple fulfillment of prophecy we
are able also to observe the players as the scenes unfold. There are some who are godly,
and whose motives are worthy of respect even if some of their decisions may seem faulty.
There are others whose motives are clearly not honorable, even though some of their
decisions may seem wise at the time they are made. Seeing these things causes us to be
biased for some of the players and against others; it causes us to align with the
philosophies of one side and reject the position of the other. Therefore the appearance of
political positioning is unavoidable. However, our stands are not politically motivated,
but are assessments based on what we believe the Bible teaches.
A New York Times story dated Dec. 25,2000
reported that President Clinton has laid down a set of proposals for a peace accord
between the Israelis and Palestinians. Among the proposals are for Israel to cede
sovereignty over the temple mount, and for Palestinians to give up the right of refugees
to return to Israel.
Mr. Clinton, in spite of the Bible he sometimes
carries, seems to have no concept of what the temple mount means to Israel, and for how
many generations it has been the center of the nation's hope. Throughout the years of the
dispersion, in their feasts they have expressed the longing of their national hope,
"next year in Jerusalem." A Part of the land of Israel was not their focus, it
was Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.
According to the Times article, the wide-ranging
proposals, excruciatingly difficult for both sides to accept, are intended to form the
basis for a comprehensive, end-of-conflict agreement that Mr. Clinton is striving to seal
before he leaves office on January twentieth.
The key words here are "Mr. Clinton is
striving to seal before he leaves office Jan. 20." Mr. Clinton's legacy is an
obsession with him. It is extremely important to him that something profoundly historic
happen on his watch so that he will go down in history as a great man. But it would seem
he has no concern for the tremendous conflict that would precipitate from such an
agreement between these two men. Mr. Barak obviously has no confidence in Yassar Arafat
who has been nothing more than a terrorist who has pledged many times to drive Israel into
the sea. He has stated that there can be no peace until Israel is destroyed and has never
retracted those sentiments or rebuked any of his people for violently demonstrating them.
While Mr. Clinton is seeking a legacy for himself
regardless of the cost to others, Mr. Barak is seeking political capital for his own
ambitions. According to the N.Y. Times story, Mr. Barak, campaigning for a Feb.6 election
with a precipitous decline in popularity, has thrown all his political capital into
winning an accord that he can take to the voters as the candidate of final peace
with––and separation from––the Palestinians.
The Times story goes on to say, "If Mr.
Arafat and Mr. Barak signed the agreement contemplated, both would declare "an end of
conflict," meaning that neither side could make more claims on the other
afterward," a senior Clinton administration official said.
For Mr. Barak, this has been an essential element
so that he can argue that he has won a once-and-for-all peace agreement. The Prime
Minister has presented such a peace accord as a final separation between the Israelis and
Palestinians, says the Times article.
How naïve! As the saying goes, If he believes
this, I have a bridge I'd like to sell… Any promise of a final peace would be
knowingly fraudulent. The Palestinians have made it clear over a long period of time that
to them 'final separation' means Israel in the sea.
Even if Mr. Barak negotiates a deal the Israeli
parliament could stop it, observes the Times reporter. Right-wing opponents have quickly
attacked the proposals. Mr. Sharon of the Likud party, who is Mr. Barak's opponent in the
elections and is ahead of Barak in the polls, likened the proposals to a "clearance
sale" for Israel. And Ehud Olmert, Mayor of Jerusalem, said the Barak government is
working to dismantle the State of Israel.
Their observations are sound and many Israelis
see the conflict with the Arab world as a battle for survival. No matter what these
leaders may sign if they cease to struggle they will perish.
In Mr. Clinton's hard sell, he called his
proposal a comprehensive approach, a set of choices on each issue. "In our
judgment," said the Clinton official, "it provides something both sides can live
with. Israel would attain what was 'critical to the Jewish faith––the largest
Jewish Jerusalem in the history of the Jews. The Palestinians," he said, "would
get a state that was viable in size and contiguity."
This administration official is speaking for Mr.
Clinton. It is obvious that he thinks that the city and its historic sites are mere
religious icons, while to the Jews they are the heart and soul of Judaism. Indeed, they
are the concrete promises of God to which the Jews have held the deed since the time of
Abraham, before they were even called Israel. Of course no pact framed with an
illegitimate claimant such as are the Palestinians will satisfy the people, or bring the
conflict to an end.
According to the Times story the Clinton official
declined to delineate the exact proposals presented by Mr. Clinton on the question of
sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the site of the first and second Jewish Temples, and
perhaps the most contentious issue on both sides. But one of the proposals centered on the
Israelis ceding sovereignty, he said.
Imagine how difficult it would be for an earnest
Jew to make such a concession. It is one thing to have an avowed enemy in possession of
what they know to be theirs from God. It is quite another to willingly concede his right
to be there
The Camp David meeting broke down essentially
over who maintained sovereignty over the holy site, which Muslims revere as the place
where Mohammed allegedly ascended into heaven. The fact is that Mohammed's supposed
ascension into heaven is a myth that is not recorded in their holy books.
At Camp David, the Israelis refused to yield
sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and Mr. Arafat argued that unless they did, militant
Muslims would threaten him with assassination. But to protect Arafat from assassination by
his own thugs is not a good reason for Israel to abandon their own holy sites. In fact
here is a small insight into the mindset of these Muslims and how they view this matter.
Is it possible that Mr. Clinton actually believes he can achieve peace by browbeating
these men into signing an accord neither of them is comfortable with or confident about?
The stroke of a pen cannot wipe away nearly four millennia of hatred and division,
especially when this group of Arabs are viewed as illegitimate usurpers by the people of
Israel.
Mr. Clinton's persistent pressure will serve to
aggravate the situation. Perhaps it will be one of the things that will fan the simmering
hostility against Israel into a full scale war with Israel on one side and all the nations
of the world on the other, as the prophets in Mr. Clinton's Bible have foretold.
The kings of Israel and of Judah ruling from
Jerusalem go back many generations. Under King David Jerusalem was made Israel's capital
in 1048 BC. About 975 the Kingdom was divided in two, the northern part being Israel, the
south being Judah. They were later united again. But throughout all of that history,
Jerusalem was where the God of Israel chose to place His name. The Bible makes this
observation about Rehoboam, David's grandson:
So king Rehoboam strengthened himself in
Jerusalem, and reigned: for Rehoboam [was] one and forty years old when he began to reign,
and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD had chosen out of
all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name [was] Naamah an
Ammonitess. 2 Chronicles 12:13
The prophet Isaiah declared that Jehovah
himself would defend Jerusalem. Somewhere around 775BC he said, As birds flying, so will
the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver [it; and] passing over
he will preserve it. Isaiah 31:5
Thus 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.
And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in
the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and
in righteousness. Isaiah 40: 7,8
These are the promises of Jehovah to
Israel. And regardless of how lightly men may take this word, it is nonetheless what God
has said. Until now, every promise that he has made, both positive and negative has been
true. Therefore we can trust the rest. Some negative promises still lie ahead for Israel.
Therefore we know the promises of peace that men such as Clinton and Barak are making are
not true.
Concerning the latter days the prophet Zechariah
said about Jerusalem, Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided
in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;
and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of
the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off
from the city.
Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against
those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that
day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east. Zechariah 14:
1-4
And this shall be the plague wherewith the
LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall
consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their
holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. Zechariah 14:12
And it shall come to pass, [that] every one
that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to
year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it
shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem
to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. Zechariah
14:16 -17
It seems obvious from Scripture that it is
God who chose Jerusalem and made it the heritage of Israel decades of centuries ago. In
the meantime He has punished Israel for their sins and their unbelief, but He has never
changed His mind and withdrawn His promise. There are still many years of trial ahead, but
Israel shall still occupy the land with Jerusalem as its capital in spite of all that her
many enemies will do to evict her.
