Signs Of The Times (Part 179 of 0)

Signs of the Times – Part unknown

Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty by Christmas?

Last September, a summit meeting was convened at Camp David involving Washington, Cairo and Jerusalem The first reports issued seemed to indicate that a peace treaty would be signed between Egypt and Israel before Christmas The agreement made major provisions for the conclusion of the treaty insofar as the Sinai question was concerned

  1. Both parties agreed to negotiate a peace treaty within three months, the terms of which would be implemented within two or three years of signing
  2. Full diplomatic as well as economic relations would be established after signing the treaty
  3. Egypt would regain sovereignty over the Sinai Peninsula
  4. Within three to nine months after signing, Israel would stage a partial military withdrawal from Sinai All Israeli troops to be pulled out within three years
  5. Four Sinai airfields would be turned er to Egypt, which could then be used for civilian purposes
  6. Sea lanes would be opened to Israeli ships through the Gulf of Suez, the Straights of Tiron and the Gulf of Aqaba
  7. Partial demilitarization of the Sinai with peacekeeping forces from the United Nations based in the north, near to the border of Israel

Also included in the agreement was a vague reference to the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip Under the agreement, self rule would be granted the 11 million Palestinians now living there, coupled with a partial withdrawal of Israeli troops The final decision on the two areas is to be decided upon after a five-year transitional period Within three years, talks between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and elected West Bank and Gaza representatives would commence to decide the final status ‘ of the two occupied areas

The immediate reaction of the other Arab nations was predictable, The Saudis rejected the Camp David agreements, declaring it to be an inadequate formula for a definitive peace. King Hussein of Jordan whose participation in the peace negotiations is spelled out also issued a negative response. The Jordan cabinet in a statement said that Jordan “has no legal or ethical commitment to the Camp David agreement, in which it took no part.”

The more radical Arab states, Syria, Algeria, Libya, Yeman and the P.L.O. (known as the “Arab Steadfastness and Confrontation Front”) voiced their resistance to the accord and opened a “counter-summit” on September 20th to devise means by which the Begin-Sadat effort can be torpedoed. The greatest affront to them was Sadat’s determination to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

President Carter emerged from the conferences with the understanding that the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank would be achieved within the five year period, and that settlements there would be suspended until an interim government run by Palestinians had been established. However, Israel’s Prime Minister Begin plans to keep troops on the West Bank well beyond the five year transitional period. Begin’s authority, Israel’s leader claims, lies in the Bible: “I believe with all my heart that the Jewish people have the right to obtain sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.”

Although Sadat’s aim in reaching an agreement with Israel on the Sinai question was to lay a foundation for the resolving of two other questions: Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, and the settlements there, he is powerless to either speak for other Arabs or to make commitments for them. The West Bank accord is only the beginning. Nothing further can be determined until Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians decide to enter into negotiations.

Russia’s Increasing Military Strength

If a peace treaty is finalized between Egypt and Israel, the Arabs will find themselves facing a loss in military strength. Their ability to wage a war against Israel will be greatly reduced. Although Russia stands ready to supply weapons to them, the Arabs are hesitant about becoming too involved and defendant upon the Kremlin. Their greatest fear is becoming “Arab Cubas” under the Soviet power. Russia is finding itself working under serious handicaps in its efforts to boost its influence in the Mideast. Still stinging from the United States’ success in excluding the Kremlin from any role in the peace treaty, Russia finds deep suspicions of her intentions in the Mideast by the Arabs. At the present time, Russia does not want a confrontation with the United States over the Mideast, and is more concerned with continuing the Strategic-arms-limitation talks.

Of great alarm to American Strategists is the Kremlin’s continuing building up of her military strength. By 1983, most analysts predict, Russia will achieve an unprecedented advantage over the United States. As reported in the U.S. News and World Report; “With that advantage, the Soviets will be in a position to threaten a knockout attack against America’s entire system of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, continue to confront Western Europe with superior forces and intervene in remote crisis spots with increasing vigor. But there is another side to this picture, Russia’s impressive gains in military strength will coincide with worsening economic difficulties in the Kremlin, a growing challenge from China, probable strains in relations with Eastern Europe’s Communist states and further disintegration of the world Communist movement. In this situation, strategic analysts warn, the Soviets will be tempted to exploit their military advantage before the U.S. can reverse the balance and before the Kremlin feels the full effect of economic and political pressures.”

It is feared that a major conflict could take place as the U.S. and its NATO Allies in Europe take steps to challenge Russia’s bid for military superiority. Prof. Samuel P. Huntington, director of Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs observed: “Historically — and we can cite Hitler as an example — crisis and conflicts occur when one power has gotten a lead and the other party wakes up and attempts to catch up.” A key member of Henry Kissinger’s foreign-policy in the Nixon and Ford administrations concurred with Prof. Huntington: “Very roughly, it would appear that the optimal period for Soviet security policy will be the next five years or so. After that, trends may be more adverse. The overwhelming question therefore is whether the Soviet Union will try to take advantage of this optimal period to insure against some of the problems that will beset them in the late 1980s.” Hyland also observed, “Soviet strategy already gives some signs of a thrust toward the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, where the European and Japanese sources of oil are located. It can be argued, therefore, that we are already witnessing the political consequences resulting from a shift in the overall military balance.”

What is most feared is Russia’s newly acquired capacity to project military power into areas far from its borders. This capability has been witnessed in Moscow’s successful intervention in Angola and Ethiopia. Russia first transported Cuban forces into those trouble spots and then supported them with a substantial sea and air lift. A specialist from the Pentagon noted that the Soviet military manuals are devoting more space to possible operations in distant parts of the world. He explained, “Soviet troops are being inculcated with the notion that they may be asked to go aboard to protect the coming world order. This contrasts with past emphasis on defense of the Soviet homeland itself. If this trend continues, it will have major significance for us.”

This increasing mobility is of great concern to the United States, particularly in view of Russia’s deep-rooted interest in the Middle East. The Kremlin’s move toward the Persian Gulf with its vital oil supplies is considered as one of the most ominous threats to world stability. It is feared that Russia may launch an invasion, counting on a “paralysis of will” in Washington, in Saudi Arabia, Iran or elsewhere. With the unstable conditions in Iran, should a pro-Soviet government emerge it would provide the Kremlin with the ability to control all the Mideast oil. Russia’s own oil reserves are dwindling, and it is estimated that in a few short years she will be transformed from a major oil exporter, earning nearly 5 billion dollars on foreign sales, to an importer, spending as much as 10 billion dollars in 1985 for foreign oil!

In view of Russia’s poor economic posture and powerful military capability, she might feel that a military invasion in the Middle East is the most timely if executed within the next five years.

With the apparently successful conclusion to the Camp David peace talks, momentum has been restored once again toward a settlement of the vexed problems between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

It is perhaps strange that it has been Egyptian Prime Minister Sadat who has risked the most in this and the preceding peace talks. The Arab world for the most part is not really bothered by the lack of peace in the middle east, only by the presence of Israel in territories they consider their own. They have, therefore, not been very anxious to seek peace, although the more moderate Arab states of Jordan and Saudi Arabia have appeared to recognize the desirability of a peaceful settlement.

Both Israel and Egypt have vital issues at stake in the negotiations. Israel’s tiny size and complete encirclement virtually dictate a state of military preparedness at all times unless peace is obtained. The cost is heavy to them. Egypt, on the other hand, must speak in a manner that supports the precepts held by the Arab states, primarily that Israel must return all Arab lands taken in the 1967 war. This would include half of Jerusalem, the Sinai and the occupied west bank territories.

Apart from the oil fields already returned to them, Egypt has relatively little to gain from a defensive standpoint. From an offensive standpoint, however, the Sinai in their control, or at least not in Israeli control, would be a major advantage.

It is relatively unlikely that Jerusalem will ever be voluntarily returned by Israel They hold their capitol city too dearly to consider negotiating it. They would fight for it above all else.

In the light of these so strongly held positions, it is all the more interesting that a substantial point of agreement was reached between prime minister Begin and President Sadat. It is much too soon to say with any certainty just how large a step forward the Camp David Summit will prove to be. It is important to note the role played by the U.S. in these negotiations.

A major concession by Israel to remove four airbases at El Arish, Rafah, Ras en Naqb and Sharm el Sheik in Sinai came when the U.S. agreed to build two air-bases in the Negev Desert. The presence of the U.S. would be a strong deterrent to either side in making offensive moves toward the other. It could be a first step in making the Sinai neutral ground.

The reconciliation of Egypt and Israel seems clear from both Daniel and Ezekiel’s prophecies. In addition, before the invasion from the north, Israel must become safe dwelling “securely” within it own borders. Whatever the events of the next few months reveal, we should ultimately see the drift of the Mideast situation toward these conditions. The Camp David Summit may possibly be a small first step towards the end, and Christ’s return.

Lest the ponderousness of these steps lull us into a false sense of complacency, let us remember that the “Son of Man will come at the time you least expect Him.” Matt. 24:44 NEB.

By the time you are reading these lines, the meeting in London between Israel and Egypt will already be in progress, or perhaps over. The United States and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance have arranged a conference involving the foreign ministers. This meeting, the first since the talks broke off last January, is the result chiefly of the efforts of Vice President Walter Mondale in his four day tour of the Middle East. Egypt will be represented by its Foreign Minister Muhammad Ibrahim Kamel, and Israel by Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan. Although most observers see little chance of progress toward an agreement, United States officials are still pleased that diplomatic procedures are again starting after months of virtually nothing.

Sadat’s Plan

As Vice President Mondale was leaving Alexandria after his four day tour, he was handed a six-point plan by An­war Sadat to present to Israel. This was in response to a 26-point proposal submitted by Israel’s Prime Minister Begin last December. Sadat’s plan calls for the withdrawal of Israel’s troops and the removal of the settlements from the West Bank of the Jordan. It also stipulated Israel’s relinquishing of East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip — all this after a five-year transition period. The Regional military government set up by Israel would then be abolished, and control would pass to Egypt, Jordan and the “freely elected representatives of the Palestine people.”

U.S. Officials in the Middle East had a large hand in drafting the proposal. Consequently, it avoided spelling out issues so inflammatory to Israel. It does not mention the creation of a Palestine state, nor does it call for a specific role for the Palestine Liberation Organization with which Israel has sworn never to deal.

Pessimism on Both Sides

The main points of the proposal actually have not swerved from Egypt’s original demands. The document was very coolly received by Israeli officials who looked on it as a hardening of the Egyptian position. Even so, Israeli officials have agreed to go to London if for no other reason than to dispel their image as bad guys who continually stand in the road to a peace settlement.

Although Mondale received a cordial welcome from both Begin and Dayan, other Israeli officials backed popular resentment against him. Frequently in the tour, the noise of dissidents shouting and horns blowing made it impossible for Mondale to carry on a conversation with his hosts.

Privately in talks with the Vice President, deep pessimism was expressed by both Begin and Dayan about the coming London talks. They were quick to find flaws in Sadat’s proposal, being particularly concerned about the possibility of a Palestine state on their borders. During the discussion, Begin brought out a map before Mondale and explained how easy it would be for a West Bank gunman with a shoulder-held rocket launcher to “paralyze all our airports.” Israel’s Prime Minister also voiced his apprehension with Sadat’s reliance on Jordan for West Bank security following the five-year transition. Said Begin, “Suppose the PLO takes over after we pull out and the next morning the Jordanian Army marches in. How will this make us feel less threatened?” A few days later Israel made their formal response to the proposal at a Cabinet meeting. As anticipated, it was an out and out rejection of the document. A remark by a senior Israeli foreign policy official summed up their reaction: “It’s a very hard-lining proposal, much tougher than the worst the Egyptians offered last January. They believe that Washington supports Sadat’s views, and they’re trying to bunch up on us.”

Hopes in Cairo for a peaceful settlement were about as gloomy. This is most evident in the dismal and crippling inflation and increasing corruption that manifests itself in the ancient city. Many of Cairo’s 10 million inhabitants are still homeless, existing on rooftops or in the tombs of the old Mameluke cemeteries. The skyrocketing prices prevent them from even buying sufficient food on which to survive. Western aid rarely finds its way to the needy, being caught up in the reserves of the brokers, whose prosperity is conspicuous “for their European fashions and polished Mercedes automobiles.” No one bothered to repaint the faded signs which were seen everywhere when Sadat first visited Israel; gone are the hopes and enthusiasm which characterized his first visit.

Sadat, himself is feeling the effects of strain as he goes to the London talks. If this effort fails, he is faced with several uncomfortable options. He could join the “rejectionists” camp of Arab leaders whom he has severely renounced. Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid has suggested that Sadat abandon his lone venture and join with other Arab states in promoting an all-sides Mid-East peace conference in Geneva. There is another option open to him, less humiliating, but just as unattractive — that of resigning from his position. Sadat has fears that if he does this the reigns will fall to War Minister Muhammad Abdel Ghany el Gamasy and Vice President Husni Mubarak who probably lacks the ability to do a better job.

Begin- Key to Success

The main responsibility for either success or failure lies with Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Few people know of the background of the 64 year old leader of Israel. At one time, he was hunted as a terrorist, and actually shunned by his fellow Jews because of his hawklike policies.

He was born in a small town in Poland of parents who were devoutly Orthodox. Begin, himself is so orthodox that he will not ride in vehicles on the Sabbath. Anti-Antisemitism in Poland convinced him that the Jews could only respectfully exist in a homeland of their own. When Poland was invaded by the Nazis in 1939. Begin fled to a town which had been annexed by the Russians. Because of his Zionist activities, he was arrested and sentenced to eight years in a slave-labor camp. However because of an agreement between Stalin and the Polish government in-exile, he was released after only one year. Begin then joined the Polish army­in-exile and came to Palestine in 1942. Because of his prior involvement in a militant right-wing Zionist splinter group called Betar, he was persuaded to become the leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi group. At that time, this was a small disorganized militant organization, fighting for the Zionist movement. In deference to the Arabs, the British had severely curtailed Jewish immigration just before World War II. This effectively closed the door on those who had escaped the Holocaust in Germany and other European nations. Even after the war, Great Britain, under pressure of Arab objections to Jewish immigration, restricted drastically the flow of Jews to Palestine. In 1944, Begin declared war on Britain. Few realize how important Begin’s mini-war against this relative powerful foe actually was. His purpose was to disrupt normal life in Palestine to the point where Britain would no longer be able to govern. As a result, they would be compelled to agree to the establishment of a Jewish state there.

Although Begin’s “army” never numbered more than 40 full time fighters, they succeeded in blowing up police stations, trains, planes, bridges and oil pipelines. They even raided British bases to carry on these activities, supplying themselves with the most sophisticated weapons. So successful were these efforts of the Irgun, they managed to tie down 100,000 British soldiers and 30,000 policemen for more than four years. The violent activities of Begin alienated him from his fellow Jews, who supported the moderate Jewish quasi-government under the British mandate. Although they were just as eager to see the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, because the British were fighting Nazi Germany, they cooperated with them. The late David Ben-Gurion denounced the Irgun as the “enemy of the Jewish people.”

Begin then found it necessary to go into hiding and change his identity. This, however, did not deter his crusade against the British, and probably had much to do with Britain’s decision to withdraw from Palestine in 1948. It was not until then, when Israel declared their independence, that Begin surfaced, surprising many of his fellow Jews who had only known him as a voice on the clandestine radio.

When the Irgu was disbanded, Begin organized the Herut (Freedom) Party which he completely dominated. Later, elected to the Knesset, he found himself isolated in the parliament which was dominated by the socialist Labor Party. At meetings of the Knesset, Prime Minster David Ben-Gurion demurred to even utter Begin’s name, referring to him as “the man sitting next to Mr. Bader.”

Finally, in 1977, after eight successive failures to win the prime minister ship, Begin was able to topple the powerful Labor Party, and become Israel’s new leader. Since then, because of his austere image against the Arabs, his popularity has soared. He possesses an overriding concern for a peace settlement with the Arabs. Menachem Begin has long been regarded as the man less likely to succeed in coming to terms with the Arabs due to his hard line posture against the Arabs Yet, in his new posture, he is most likely to carry the majority of his people with him if he chooses to pursue peace negotiations with Egypt.

By the time the Tidings is in your hands, we may know the outcome of the London talks. At this point, in consideration of all the issues involved, it does not seem likely that much progress toward agreement will be reached. A peace settlement with the Arabs at this time may not be in the purpose of God. A continuance of hostile relations between Israel and her neighbors might be the very conditions which will set the stage for the invasion of the land by Russia, thus creating that situation which will herald the return of our Lord and the establishment of His glorious Kingdom.

It has been many months since the students of Bible prophecy have seen such exciting and thought-provoking events as those now taking place in the Mid-East. We suppose that there will be much speculation among them regarding the significance of each diplomatic maneuver as it takes place. It is interesting to note that the word speculate comes from the Latin speculatus, which means to spy out or examine, and specula, watchtower. How appropriate! for our eyes are always turned Zion ward from the watchtower of God’s word in our endeavor to relate what appears to be momentous news to Bible prophecy.

In November dramatic headlines appeared in the news media. “Breakthrough in the Mid-East and expressions like “it boggles the mind to see an Arab leader in Israel to talk peace.” This brought about a feeling of euphoria that seemed to settle over Egyptian and Israeli alike. The seemingly miraculous turn of events engendered the almost unbelievable question, “Can this be the beginning of the end of a bloody and costly 30 year conflict?”

President Sadat, by becoming the first Arab leader to accept an invitation to visit the Jewish state, threw down a challenge to both Israel and to radical Arabs. For Israel he offered this choice: Collaborate now with moderate Arabs in the search for peace or destroy an opportunity to end a struggle that in a single generation has erupted four times into major wars.

For radical Arabs, opposed to an acknowledgement of the existence of a Jewish state, he offered a choice of joining Egypt at a Geneva conference to negotiate collectively with Israel or risk a separate Cairo-Jerusalem settlement. The Arab radicals were put on notice by Sadat that he will not again allow Egypt to be dragged into another war because of their uncompromising hate for Israel.

This was in November. Since the initial phase of the visits of Sadat to Jerusalem and Begin to Cairo much has transpired to dispel the miraculous aspects of the so called “Middle East Breakthrough.” Today the tough reality of hard bargaining has become evident as proposals and counter-proposals are being considered.

It might be a good idea to look at some of the factors which underlie a Mid-east peace settlement. First of all the question may be asked “Why was such far-reaching significance attached to the first visit by an Arab leader to Israel” ? The answer would have to be, because of its symbolic and its psychological impact. A visit by Sadat and a face to face meeting with Prime Minister Menachem Begin represented unequivocal acceptance of the Jewish State by the leader of the most powerful country in the Arab world.

Since the establishment of Israel by the United Nations in 1948, Arabs have refused to recognize the legitimacy of its statehood and the more radical among them have been pledged to its destruction. Another reason why Sadat’s move was viewed as one of extraordinary importance was the fact that Egypt was the only Arab country strong enough to be a decisive threat to Israel and holds the key to any future war involving the old Mid-East adversaries.

We must also realize that a very important consideration is the economic condition of Egypt and Israel. Four wars have bled both countries white and their people are disenchanted with prestige that comes to the victor at a cost that they can’t afford to pay. The economic relief that would come to the people of Egypt and Israel through a peace settlement is a powerful incentive to press for continuing negotiations.

The problems are enormous, however, and the solution (if there is to be one) is so complex that even those who have an inclination to put the most favorable construction on the present state of affairs can only cautiously say that they are hopefully optimistic.

Let us consider briefly the main geographical areas that will be the basis for discussion if Egypt and Israel get to„the negotiating stage. Starting at the northern border of Israel we have the hills to the north and east of the Sea of Galilee. These strategic highlands are the Golan Heights and were taken from Syria during the 1967 war. Because they dominate the area they are vital in the protection of the Jewish Galilean settlements. Because Syrian President Assed has refused to negotiate so far, Israel has made no proposal on the Golan Heights.

Going south we next come to what is called the West Bank. The Jews refer to this section as Samaria and Judea and consider them part of the historic Promised Land. Israel offers self-rule under an elected council supervised by two committees with Israel, Jordanian and Palestinian members. Israeli forces would remain in the area. West Bank residents could choose either Israeli or Jordanian citizenship, and more Israeli settlements would be allowed. The arrangement would be subject to joint review within five years. Egypt wants eventual withdrawal of all Israeli forces and the creation of a Palestinian state with possible links to Jordan.

Jeruslame is our next stop on our journey south, Begin promised to produce a “special proposal” that would guarantee “freedom of access” of all faiths to their holy places, but the city would remain unified under Israeli rule. Egypt demands the restoration of Arab sovereignty over all East Jerusalem.

The Gaza Strip on the Mediterranean coast has a number of new Jewish settlements. It also has a large Arab community. Israel has offered to connect the short distance that separates the Gaza Strip from the West Bank by a land corridor. Egypt’s objections to the over-all West Bank plan also apply to the Gaza Strip proposal. Just south of the Gaza Strip in northwest Sinai is an area called the Refah Salient. It is not only a Jewish settlement area but is also strategically important. Israel wants to retain its civilian settlements south of the Gaza Strip and have them protected by Israeli police. It also wants to keep its military airfield in the Salient. Egypt would allow the settlements to remain but it rejects the presence of Israeli police and insists on regaining full sovereignty over the area.

Sinai is the most negotiable of all Israeli territory. Israel has offered to withdraw from this vast peninsula within three to five years. It wants to retain a road from Shermel Sheikh and it requests guaranteed shipping access to the Red Sea. The Sinai would be demilitarized east of the Gidi and Mitla passes. Egypt wants a withdrawal within one year and rejects demilitarization.

Everyone agrees there is hard bargaining ahead and tough opposition at home. Sadat faces bitter hostility and opposition in many parts of the Arab world. There is also the ever present possibility of his assassination. Begin must contend with those settlers on occupied Arab lands who don’t want to give up an inch of territory or make any concessions to Egypt. As one American woman who now lives in a northern Sinai settlement vehemently states “I did not come from Miami Beach to live in Egypt.”

The all over conditions in the Mideast present us, on the human level, with a picture of confusion, ambiguity and contradiction. Yet we seem to discern a vague feeling among the negotiators, Sadat, Begin, and President Carter, that they are not only trying to avoid war in the Mideast, but are trying to hold together the civilized world.

Our perspective, as Bible students, carries us farther than the events of the moment. There are other very important considerations which we know are related to the days which lie ahead. We are sure the question will be raised “what about Russia, has this international powerhouse written off its interests in the Mideast”? Of course the answer has to be an emphatic no. Recently the United States and the Soviet Union made a joint declaration on a mutual desire to bring about a permanent peace settlement in Arab-Israeli conflict. We can be sure that Russia, though apparently inactive at the moment, is very much involved behind the Kremlin’s’ walls in her own plans for maintaining its interests in this area.

Perhaps the most revealing information on Russia’s attitude came in an interview arranged by U.S. News and World Report with Malcolm Toon, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. It took the form of a question and answer session and a portion of the interview concerned the Mideast.

Question: “Do you feel any useful purpose has been served by the joint U.S.-Soviet declaration on the Mideast, in view of Moscow’s negative reaction to various peace initiatives by President Sa­dat of Egypt”

Answer: Yes I do. The purpose of the joint statement was to emphasize our joint adherence to a set of principles regarding the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. These principles are particularly pertinent now. We feel that the current Israeli-Egyptian talks are a positive contribution to such a peaceful settlement. We hope that Moscow, even if they do not view these talks in the same light, will come to appreciate that they are consistent with the objectives of our joint statement and will not complicate the prospects for peace.

Question: “Why does the Soviet Union seem to let the U.S. down each time Washington seeks Soviet support as a moderating influence in the Mideast”?

Answer: “I think it is incorrect to say that the Soviets “let us down” in the Middle East. True, they haven’t been helpful on recent developments. At the same time, we should not forget that our interests differ in the area. Nevertheless, we do have one goal in common with the Soviets — and that is to reduce the prospects for a situation that would bring the two great powers into conflict in the Middle East. This I interpret to mean working to lessen the prospects of another Arab-Israeli clash, which would trigger such a confrontation. Thus far we are disappointed that the Soviets have not taken a more positive approach to the current round of talks, and we are trying to convince them of these talks as a step toward a comprehensive peace.”

Question: “What in your opinion, is the ultimate Soviet objective in the Mideast? Is it peace, or a state of tension short of war.”

Answer: “As I have already mentioned, the Soviet Union perceives the dangers of a new war. Moscow probably believes that there would be enough opportunity for gains in the Middle East even with a peace settlement. After all, there is a good deal of tension between the Arabs themselves, and even after a peace settlement, there will be ample opportunity for Moscow to try to spread its influence.”

We are sure it will not be hard for the Bible student to see in the foregoing statements the alignment indicated in the 38th chapter of Ezekiel. Gog as the great northern Soviet power and its Anglo-Saxon opposition in the conflict depicted in this chapter. It seems quite in harmony with the prophecy that the peace sponsor should be the United States at this time. It is particularly significant that there is distrust and fear of the Soviet ambition and interest in the Mideast. Russia has only a few friends in the Middle East and these are only the most radical, least influential nations in the Arab world. The states that have the most influence are the fabulously rich oil producing members who support and underwrite those endeavors that favor their best interests. They fear and hate the Soviet Union, seeing in that irreligious and powerful nation a threat to their economic and religious existence. This is also true of President Sadat who is completely out of sympathy with anything Russian. Egypt owes the Soviet Union in excess of three billion dollars as construction costs for the Aswan dam and if it were not for the financial help of Saudi Arabia would be in economic chaos. Sadat, for political and ideological reasons, found it expedient to expel the Russians from Egypt and in so doing released the Arab bloc from much of the Soviet influence which was so detrimental to the allover interests of the Moslem world.

The writer is not discounting the possibility of a peace settlement in the Mideast. Many students of the Word have concluded that the 38th chapter in Ezekiel’s prophecy requires a condition of apparent security for Israel. The question addressed to Gog (Russia) in this respect is found in the 14th verse of this chapter. “In the day when my people of Israel dwell safely, shalt thou not know it”? There are many other verses in this chapter which also indicate the same state of peaceful security.

Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonians writes “for when they shall say Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape” 1 Thess. 5:3. Some have interpreted this to mean a crying after a condition that is greatly longed for but does not exist. Others believe the verse relates to an actual state of freedom from civil disturbance but mortally dangerous because of the degeneration brought about by spiritual inertia. This viewpoint seems to hold up within the context of Paul’s let­ter and his concern for the ecclesia in Thessalonica. He is obviously using Christ’s words in the Mt. Olivet prophecy “Behold I come as a thief” and his reference in the 4th chapter regarding “being caught up together” ties in with Christ’s reference to “one shall be taken and the other left. Matt, 24: 40, 42. The point in these references is that when the Master returns the people of the world, and the household, will be occupied with the everyday course of life. They will be eatting, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage and daily events will follow one another in the usual pattern. This is why the Master is so concerned. He pleads with his disciples not to fall into a routine that would be work and play regulated that his coming would be a shock rather than an occasion of great joy. “Behold I come as a thief” Christ warns and “in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.”

We all feel a great sympathy for the Jewish people and we would like to see the state of Israel have peace and prosperity. This almost involuntary feeling sometimes makes us forget that the Israelis today are the same people that came under condemnation by God for their hardness of heart and their stiff-necked attitude. They are still arrogantly confident in the arm of flesh and trust in their confidence to work out their own destiny. But they are God’s people and if we should probe deeply into our inner consciousness I guess we would come up with the conclusion that our concern for them is based on the same premise as the apostle Paul’s when he states “As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Rom. 11:28.

In summation the writer would like to share a very enlightening experience with you. I was pondering the whole current Mideast situation relative to writing this article and I became rather involved in my sympathy for the State of Israel. I suppose the longing and our oft repeated prayers ” for the peace of Jerusalem” made me a little over sentimental. After reading many of the news reports I found myself losing the perspective of the scriptures and leaning rather heavily on the hopes held out by the media for peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

Then as we did our daily readings together that evening good balance and sound reasoning returned. The reading was Psalm 14 and the verse was “Oh that the salvation of Israel was come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be gald.”

Commentaries and predictions may come from the news media but solutions can only be found in the Word of God.