Signs of the Times – Part unknown

The Earth Filled with Violence

In comparison with other years 1981 might be considered a year of relative peace for the world There were no wars on the scale of the two world wars or revolutions on the scale of the French or Russian revolutions Yet in many ways the year 1981 was a year of unprecedented violence The world was shocked by the assassination of President Sadat of Egypt President Reagan and Pope John Paul II barely survived assassination attempts Riots and arson swept through the cities of Britain and in America crime in the streets was a serious political issue

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan continued in such an inconclusive manner that it has been characterized the Soviet Vietnam Deteriorating economic conditions in Poland brought that nation under martial law, although the much feared Soviet invasion did not occur Israel carried out two preemptive air strikes that incurred the world’s disapproval First, the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor with the potential for the manufacture of nuclear weapons for use against Israel, then a few weeks later a crowded neighborhood in Beirut was bombed in retaliation against PLO terrorist activity

Fanatical religion was responsible for its share of violence as scores of Iranian government leaders were assassinated and hundreds of dissidents were executed in reprisal Ten Northern Irish prisoners stared themselves to death in a vain attempt to influence government policy in the dispute between Catholics and Protestants

Terrorism made itself felt as the French ambassador to Lebanon was gunned down in his car by Arab ter­rorists Libyan threats against U S leaders caused a tightening of security at the borders is well as increased personal protection for the President and other officials In Italy the Red Brigade terrorists performed what Prime Minister Spandolini called “A quantum leap in the strategy of terrorism” when they kidnapped United States Brig. Gen. James Dozier of the NATO command.

Guerrilla warfare continued in Central America and Africa, and victims of Haiti’s population explosion perished in small boats on the high seas.

These are but a few of the more prominent examples of the Violence that seems to be a part of human nature when it is not disciplined to God’s law. Genesis, chapter 6, verses 11 to 13 tell us how God felt about a similar situation in Noah’s day and Jesus said that as those days were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matt. 24:37)

Golan Heights Made Part of Israel

Since taking the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war, Israel has steadfastly maintained the position that this territory is essential to her security and will never be willingly given up. From 1948 to 1967 Israeli settlers in Galilee were harassed by Arab gunfire from this high plateau east of the Jordan River which overlooks all of Galilee. In the old testament scriptures this area is known as Bashan and was inhabited by the half tribe of Manasseh. Golan was the name of one of the cities of refuge located there.

One day last December as the world was occupied with the Polish crisis, Prime Minister Begin introduced a bill in the Knesset to annex this territory and make it a permanent part of Israel. After but six hours of debate the measure was passed 63 to 21. The move immediately brought a storm of protest from the outside world. The U.N. Security Council voted 18 to 0 in favor of a resolution introduced by Syria demanding that Israel rescind the measure. Israel of course refused this request.

There has been much speculation regarding Israel’s reasons for taking this action at this particular time. One theory is that with Egypt scheduled to receive back the third and final portion of the Sinai in April, Egypt’s reaction to the Golan annexation will be restrained so as not to interfere with Israel’s Sinai withdrawal which Egypt very much wants. Another view is that Begin felt the need to reassure his hard line supporters in preparation for the unpopular evacuation of Israeli settlers from the Sinai when Egypt takes over. Already resistance to the Sinai withdrawal is mounting. Israeli settlers in the Sinai now number about 5,000 at 15 legal settlements. The Israeli government intends to compensate those with investments who will have to move out and many are ready to leave. Even as some are preparing to move out other illegal squatters are moving in and setting up unauthorized settlements aided by organizations opposed to the withdrawal. The strategy of the anti-withdrawal movement is to bring such numbers of people to the area that the government will find it difficult to move them out by April. Prime Minister Begin, however, has assured Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel will withdraw on schedule and Defense Minister Sharon has pledged to use the army and police if necessary to clear the area when the time comes. When and if this is done there are many activists who plan to make the withdrawal such a national trauma that any future withdrawals from settlements such as those on the West Bank will be unthinkable.

West German Ties to The East

The crisis in Poland has served to emphasize a growing ambivalence on the part of West Germany. During the years of detente the Germans have been developing a booming trade with the Soviet bloc. An estimated 450,000 West German jobs now depend on trade with the East and with unemployment now running the highest in the postwar period at 6.4 percent anything that would disrupt this trade would be considered politically catastrophic for the government of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.

So when the Reagan Administration called for sanctions against Poland and the Soviet Union, Schmidt in no uncertain terms refused to go along. The German position is that the crisis is an internal affair of Poland even though Soviet involvement has been documented by intelligence reports.

In addition to trade ties to the East, ethnic and family ties have also been a growing influence. Since 1975 East Germany has allowed 55,000 ethnic Germans each year to move to West Germany. Poland has allowed 200,000 to leave and 170,000 are waiting exit visas. Others wait in the Soviet Union and Romania. This immigration is an important political influence on the West German government to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union.

A proposed Soviet gas pipeline from Siberia to West Germany is another tie the Germans find hard to break. The 3600 mile 10 billion dollar pipeline is the biggest commercial deal ever between Western Europe and the Soviet Union and thousands of jobs will be created building machinery for its construction.

The agreement on this project was reached last year in spite of U.S. protest. The U.S. position is that upon completion of this project the Soviet Union will have virtual control of a large part of the energy supply for Western Europe, a serious threat to the political independence of that continent from the Soviet Union.

Although the West Germans still identify with the West and consider themselves part of the Atlantic Alliance, the enticement of these lucrative trade deals draws them ever closer to the Soviet sphere of influence.

Egypt Loses a Leader

The assassination of President Anwar Sadat of Egypt came as a shock to many in the western world who had admired him for his statesmanship and his willingness to lay aside Arab prejudices for the long term good of his nation. Like the late Shah of Iran, Sadat had incurred the wrath of Islamic extremists by his willingness to deal realistically with the twentieth century world. He had made himself the pariah of the Arab world by his recognition of Israel and it was a tribute to his political adroitness that he had been able to survive politically for the three years following his historic trip to Jerusalem.

It is ironic that the moslem fundamentalist group responsible for his death had been severely repressed by his predecessor Gamal Abdel Nasser but had been given amnesty in the early days of the Sadat regime as a strategy to gain support and to counteract leftist opposition. Islamic fundamentalists have long been active in Egypt as they have in other middle eastern countries. In 1965 an assassination plot against Nasser failed and the leaders were executed or put in prison. When Sadat came to power in 1970 following Nasser’s death from a heart attack, he released many political prisoners in an effort to strengthen his leadership against the opposition of socialist elements. The tolerant policy of the government allowed the Islamic movement to grow and arm itself. The group is dedicated to the violent elimination of any who they perceive to have departed from the strict application of Islamic law.

Last August Egyptian intelligence uncovered a plot to assassinate both Sadat and his wife at their Alexandria summer palace. The danger became so great that on September 25 Sadat with reluctance, because of his fear of American disfavor, cracked down and arrested over 1500 dissidents. The roundup however failed to include a colonel in military intelligence, one Aboud El-Zomor who is credited with masterminding the assassination less than two weeks later. Zomor was arrested two days later after a shoot-out with police. A total of over 700 arrests have been made in connection with the plot.

What After Sadat?

Before the assassination many observers were concerned that if anything happened to Sadat the peace process with Israel might fall apart because his personal leadership was so much involved in Egyptian policy. Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak has pledged to continue Sadat’s policies toward Israel. His tough measures against religious and political extremists have for the time being at least ended any threat of the coup that appears to have been the goal of the assassination. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin has given Mubarak his personal pledge that the Sinai withdrawal scheduled to take place next April will be carried out as planned.

To help him hold the support of the military — a major force in Egyptian politics — the U.S. has promised to increase shipments of weapons. The mili­tary has recently been critical of the U.S. for not supplying all the arms they feel are needed.

Mubarak’s first objective is to consolidate his power and ensure political stability for Egypt. Then he will have to face the nearly insurmountable problems that Sadat failed to solve — overpopulation, poverty, unemployment and inflation. Closer ties with the wealthier Arab oil states might be helpful in solving these problems and some observers feel that Mubarak may find it expedient to move in that direction.

Saudis Present a Plan

With the Camp David peace process facing an uncertain future, attention has shifted to an eight-point Saudi plan for a middle east settlement. Put forward in August by Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia the plan at first reading appears to be merely a restatement of the old Arab demands for the return of occupied territory and establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as the capital, — all totally unacceptable to Israel. The point that has caught the attention of many western diplomats is a clause which proposes the recognition of the rights of all states in the region to live in peace within secure borders. This is taken as a subtly implied recognition of Israel as a state, a recognition that in the past has been unthinkable for any Arab League nation. The European community sees the plan as a major breakthrough in the stalemated middle east peace process. President Reagan said the proposals were “worthy of consideration” but the U.S. State Department was quick to explain that The Camp David peace talks are the only plan to which the U.S. is committed.

Alarmed at the interest the plan has drawn and the possibility of a U.S. shift away from the Camp David process, the Israelis are vigorously protesting against it. The Saudis have expressed a preference for the U.N. Security Council as a forum to debate the plan. This preference is understandable considering the anti-Israel bias shown by that body in the past. To emphasize their rejection of the plan, Israeli leaders have said they plan eight new settlements in the West Bank, one for each point of the proposal. Considering the plan’s total unacceptability to Israel, most observers give it little chance of being adopted in its present form and see little progress on the Palestinian issue until after the return of Sinai to Egypt next April.

Anti-Nuclear Protests in Europe

When U.S. and Soviet representatives meet in Geneva November 30 to discuss nuclear arms reduction in Europe one advantage that the Soviets will have is the growing fear in European countries that the presence of NATO nuclear weapons in their territory will make them a target for Soviet missiles. NATO is committed to a weapons modernization program that calls for the installation in 1983 of 572 Pershing and cruise missiles on European soil. The Soviet Union has an array of SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe said to number 250, many of which are targeted toward the West. In addition to these there are estimated to be 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons now located in Europe.

The growing concern was demonstrated one recent weekend when 650,000 anti-nuclear protesters took to the streets in four countries in a campaign against the new weapons. There is increasing fear on the continent that Europe can, as it has twice in this century, become a battle ground for the major powers, this time with nuclear weapons. Most of the protesting is against the United States because of the perception that the U.S. might be willing to fight a limited nuclear war in Europe to protect North America.

The fears of the Europeans were increased by the Reagan administration’s decision to produce but not deploy the “neutron bomb,” a weapon designed to halt a Soviet tank assault. Although many of the dissidents favor unilateral disarmament, some including West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt have urged the negotiators to go for what is called the “Zero option” — cancel the NATO deployment in exchange for a Soviet pullback of SS-20’s. This is con­sidered by U.S. analysts to be biased in favor of the Soviets because the withdrawn SS-20’s being mobile are capable of redeployment in a relatively short time if a crisis should develop.

The nations of Europe, especially the smaller ones, although desirous of maintaining their independence from the Soviet Union, are understandably fearful of the consequences of a retaliatory nuclear arsenal on their soil in the control of others. Thus the trend appears to be continuing toward the Soviet orientation of Europe that the prophetic writings indicate.

Turmoil in Iran

The power struggle that has been going on in Iran during the two and a half years since the Shah was overthrown has suddenly escalated The number of political assassinations of government leaders on the one hand and the arrests and executions of opposition leaders on the other make politics in Iran a very hazardous occupation indeed

Since the ousting in June of the moderate leftist president Bani-Sadr the government has executed over 700 members of opposition parties Last June 28 an explosion at a meeting of the ruling Islamic Republican Party killed the party’s leader the Ayatollah Beheshti along with some 74 other party leaders

On August 30 President Rajai, BaniSades successor, along with Prime Minister Javad Bahonar was killed by a bomb at a meeting in the president’s office The national police chief was imured and later died Less than a week later the nation s chief prosecutor, responsible for some 659 firing squad executions was slain in another blast

Blame for the bombings was placed on the leftist Mujahedeen Khalq, a troublesome rebel group originally organized to wage a guerrilla campaign against the late Shah The leader of this organization accompanied the ex-president Bani-Sadr on his flight to exile in Paris. Because of the asylum given these two by the French, a terrorist campaign has been launched The French embassy in Teheran was attacked by mobs and for a time it seemed as if a hostage crisis might result. In another incident the French ambassador in Lebanon was shot to death in his car

On the Side of Gog

The importance of these events from the standpoint of Bible prophesy lies in the fact that Iran, formerly Persia, is mentioned in Ezekiel 38, verse 5 as one of the nations to accompany Gog in the invasion of the land of Israel leading to Armageddon. When the Shah was in power Iran was aligned with the west and was favorable to Israel. When the Shah was forced into exile all this changed. The fundamentalist Moslem regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini was violently anti-American, persecuting any religious or political group not approved by the Moslem Mullahs.

Although far from pro-Soviet, Khomeini finds that inciting hatred for the United States whom he calls the “Great Satan” is a convenient means of diverting public attention from the misery caused by his regime. In spite of the bombings and assassinations the Ayatollah’s Islamic Republican Party as yet remains in firm control. The opposition which in addition to the Mujahedeen includes the pro-Soviet Tudeh party and the remaining pro-Shah loyalists, appears to be too fragmented to mount a serious threat as yet. But with economic and social conditions deteriorating this may change. There is massive unemployment, a 60 per cent rate of inflation, a continuing war with Iraq, and mass arrests and executions.

If a popular uprising should occur the most likely foreign beneficiary is the Soviet Union. A pro-Soviet government in power in Iran would be of inestimable strategic benefit to the Soviets and an equally grave disaster for the west. The U.S. is therefore reluctant to see the Islamic regime fall in spite of the hostage and other problems that this government has caused.

The Unpredictable Qadoafi

Libya, another of the nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38:5, has also been in the news lately. After the shooting down by the United States of two Libyan planes over the Gulf of Sidra, Libyan leader Muammar el-Qadoafi has been using the incident to try to unify the Arab nations against the U.S. and Israel. In a series of meetings from Ethiopia to the Persian Gulf, Qadoafi, portraying himself as a victim of American imperialism, has sought to convince other Arab states of the need to join together under his leadership to protect themselves from the United States. The response was mixed. He was acclaimed a hero in Ethiopia and Syria. The other Arab states gave a sympathetic hearing but none was willing to go beyond giving lip service to him.

When he took power in 1969, Qadoa­fi’s avowed objective was to become the leader of the Arab world. To this end he has sought union with the neighboring states — Egypt, Tunisia and Chad — but the leaders of those states rejected the idea. Most Arab leaders see Qadoafi as too unstable and unpredictable to allow themselves to be led by him. Last year, following the Israeli annexation of Jerusalem, Libya and Syria announced a merger to oppose Israel but the plan has apparently gotten nowhere. The United States sees him as a serious destabilizing force in the African continent, as he has provided training for rebels and terrorists from all parts of the world. The presidents of several African states have accused him of attempts to have their governments overthrown. Last November Libyan troops invaded neighboring Chad and continue to occupy the Uranium rich Aozou strip.

One of Qadoafi’s ambitions is to obtain nuclear weapons, but so far he has been unable to find a nation willing to sell him this capability. He has helped Pakistan finance and obtain a source of Uranium for a nuclear plant that may eventually produce weapons but direct access to this source is not likely to be allowed.

An arsenal of conventional military weapons has been accumulated far in excess of defense needs. This equipment supplied by both France and the Soviet Union is so much in excess that some analysts have speculated that some of it may be part of a Soviet rapid deployment force for the eastern Mediterranean. Others feel that it may be an arsenal for an Arab war with Israel. In spite of the military aid he has been allowed to purchase from the Soviets, Qadoafi has not yet permitted Soviet bases to be established in Libya. But then neither has his anti-western policies extended to the American oil companies and their 2,000 employees that produce the oil profits which finance the adventures of this unpredictable leader.

American Military Base in Israel

As this is being written Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin has come to Washington to meet for the first time with President Reagan. Begin has many times put forward the idea of a formal defense alliance with the United States and is expected to once more make this proposal. He will offer military support facilities in his country for United States forces in defense of the middle East and the Persian Gulf. Among the facilities offered are areas for stockpiling weapons and war materials, warplane maintenance facilities and hospitals for U.S. casualties. During his visit in August Egyptian President Anwar Sadat made an offer of similar facilities in the Red Sea area but would not discuss U.S. bases in the Sinai desert which Israel is to return to Egyptian control next year.

Obviously an alliance such as this would be advantageous for Israel because of the protection that the presence of a super power can provide the nearby population. Ezekiel 38:11 (RSV) gives “dwelling securely” as a condition of the land at the time the Gogian host decides to invade. It is obvious that the inhabitants of the land at the present time do not have this sense of security. Might not the presence of American forces help to provide protection necessary for the security and prosperity foretold by the prophesy ?

Failure of Nonproliferation

The Israeli raid on Iraq s nuclear reactor has drawn attention to one of the most serious problems facing the world — failure to control the spread of nuclear weapons The raid has raised the question of the adequacy of international agreements to safeguard the security of potential victims of nuclear attack In spite of the fact that Iraq had signed the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and was allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy (IAFA), not only the Israelis but many governments, including that of the United States, were convinced that Iraq was building a plant capable of making atomic weapons

The problem is that the same technology used for producing nuclear electric power can also be used to produce a bomb After the Arab oil embargo of 1973 197-1 many energy poor nations began to look to nuclear power as a more secure energy supply Oil rich countries like Iraq now had the money to buy advanced technology even though they have no present need for energy Under the Nonproliferation Treaty non-nuclear na­tions would agree not to build nuclear weapons in return for assistance with peaceful power programs The pact also called for the nuclear nations, United States, Britain, France, Soviet Union and China, to reduce their nuclear arsenals One hundred fourteen nations signed the treaty but about 50 did not Among these are Israel, South Africa, Pakistan and Brazil, all thought to be capable of building a bomb but none will admit having done so

A Powerless Treaty

The weakness of the NPT is that it is powerless to enforce the safeguards that it is intended to provide Under the treaty nations that have the know how are required to sell facilities on demand to nations that have pledged not to build a bomb. But any nation can withdraw from the treaty on 90 days notice. So there is nothing to stop a nation such as Iraq from getting the facilities, the know how and the materials for peaceful power and then withdrawing from the pact and going ahead on its own to develop a weapons capability.

Another weakness is that the international inspections cover the facilities imported under the treaty but not other facilitates that the nation might be developing on its own. The IAEA has neither the right nor the obligation to question a nation’s need for the facilities or the amount of material purchased. In fact the treaty rather than controlling weapons proliferation has provided a cover under which any nation can acquire the technology to make nuclear weapons.

The case of Iraq is a classical example of what has been going on. Here was a country with a small population but was one of the largest exporters of petroleum. The waste gas from Iraq’s oil production could more than supply its electric generation needs. But in 1975 France, in need of both money and oil was persuaded to sell nuclear technology to Iraq. The low-enriched uranium proposed by France was rejected and instead weapons grade fuel was insisted upon by Iraq. Italy, another technologically advanced nation in need of both money and oil supplied Iraq with facilities for extraction of Plutonium, a material for making bombs. Large quantities of uranium had been contracted for with Brazil, Portugal and Niger.

Iraq’s Humiliation

In view of these facts and others uncovered by Israeli intelligence, Israel decided to act. The attack was not an unprovoked attack of one nation on a peaceful neighbor since Iraq has remained in a state of war with Israel ever since its founding in 1948. With the meticulous planning and dispatch for which the Israelis have become famous, a blow was struck that some have characterized as the worst humiliation Israel has inflicted on an enemy since the Six Day War. For the rest of the world the raid focused attention on the inadequacy of the system of safeguards against the spread of nuclear weapons. To the observer of these events in the light of Bible prophecy the fear in the hearts of men for the things coming on the earth is evident. The nations seem powerless to halt the decline into the ca­otic state of international terror characteristic of the last days.

An Indecisive Election

Whether the Israeli raid on Iraq had a direct effect on the Israeli elections is open to conjecture, but after the votes have been counted it appears that Menachem Begin will remain prime minister. In the closest election ever his party received only 48 of the 61 seats in parliament necessary for a majority so a coalition with some of the numerous lesser parties will therefore be necessary to form a government.

The parties most likely to join Begin’s Likud party to form the coalition are the religious parties of which the National Religious Party with 6 seats is the largest. To get the minor parties to join the coal­ition, concessions have to be made to them such as membership in the cabinet or passage of laws catering to their special interest. This can complicate the governing of the country because the religious parties are often more interested in fostering their particular religious interests at the expense of the best interests of the country as a whole. A story is told of the party that threatened to overthrow the government because a shipment of mili­tary planes had been accepted on the sab­bath day. In another instance a religious party demanded and got passage of a law outlawing both abortion and autopsy.

Some observers feel that a government ,formed under these conditions will only be a caretaker Government until new elections are held in perhaps a year, but in any case the hard line policy in dealing with the Arabs and Palestinians is expected to continue. This worries the U.S. administration whose policy calls for accommodation with the Arabs so that U.S. troops and weapons may eventually be deployed in the area as part of the new strategy for Southwest Asia and the Persian Gulf. Hope for a solution to Israel’s dispute with Syria over the SAM missiles in Lebanon also appears dim as the Soviet Union provides quiet but substantial support for Syria. The Soviet navy is reported to be bringing additional ships from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean and will be holding training exercises there involving landing craft and marines. This is clearly a sabre rattling move against Israel in support of the Soviet’s client state Syria.

Ties to Egypt Still Intact

Although Egypt came out in denunciation of Israel for the Iraq raid, little change appears to have taken place in the relations between the countries. Egypt like Israel has a troublesome neighbor, Libya, led by the unpredictable strong man Mu­ammar Kaddafi. Libya is heavily armed with Soviet weapons which Egypt perceives as a serious threat along the long common border. Some Middle East observers think that President Sadat has already approached Israel on the subject of military cooperation in the event of war with Libya. Egypt among the Arab countries is one of the few that recognizes a Soviet threat to the Middle East. This position seems to be quite in harmony with Egypt’s absence from the list of nations in Ezekiel 38 that join Gog in coming against the land of Israel. Some interpreters of the Bible prophecy see a latter day role for Egypt as a refuge for God’s people as she was in Joseph’s day. Current events are certainly not contradictory to this view.