Signs of the Times

A View to the North

Since the fall of Communism in 1991, Russia has witnessed the rise and fall of several political parties, has seen several presi­dents and prime ministers and overall has experienced a general feeling of political instability. Somehow, despite the turmoil, Russia continues to plod along. The recent war in Chechnya, the continued stockpiling of war imple­ments, the reports of human atrocities in the Caucasian region and the continued chilled relationships toward the European Union (EU) are signs of Russia’s direction. This month’s ar­ticle will take a look at Russia (at time of writing the Russian people are heading to the polls to elect a new president),

At odds with the EU

Last month’s article highlighted the difficulties that are beginning to arise within the European Union as a result of the rise of Austria’s far right Freedom Party. The article described how 14 of the 15 member EU are at odds with the Freedom Party’s pro­motion of fascism. Despite the re­cent resignation of Freedom Party leader, Jorg Haider, punitive measures taken by the EU against Austria are continuing. It is interesting to note that not only is Austria at odds with the EU, but because of the prolonged war and reported atrocities by Russia in the Caucasian region, Russia, too, is at odds with the European Union. Russian commanders claim the mili­tary campaign against separatist fight­ers in the Caucasian province is virtually over; resistance is limited to a few isolated pockets in the mountains of the south. It is the accusations of indiscriminate violence against civil­ians that has brought forth the wrath of the European Union. The New York Times reported on March 2, 2000, “The European Union kept up pres­sure on Russia over its fierce war in rebel Chechnya on Thursday, insist­ing international humanitarian organi­zations be given broad access to the region.”

The article continued to state that if full unfettered access was not made available on a timely basis, sanctions imposed on Russia in February, 2000, would continue. Although the sanc­tions are mild, they do force contin­ued hardship on Russia as the EU sends the much needed Euro dollars elsewhere. It is interesting to note the reported atrocities that occurred in Chechnya while Russia was basking in the new leadership of Vladimir Putin. It can be concluded, therefore, that Putin knew about the atrocities and quite possibly authorized the mili­tary to take whatever means neces­sary to conclude the war in a timely fashion.

Putin’s advantage

As the New Year commenced, Boris Yeltsin stepped down as Rus­sian president and appointed Putin as acting president. Not only did Yeltsin appoint Putin as President, he also helped stack the deck by making it difficult for anyone else to be elected as president in March, 2000. Yeltsin’s final act as President moved the elec­tion forward, from June to March, while at the same time changing the criteria for presidential candidates. In order to run for office of the presi­dent, a candidate must collect one million signatures. As a result of these changes, only Putin and Gennadi A. Zyuganov of the Communist Party were able to enter the election.

For the most part, Putin remains a mystery to the West. Having spent 15 years with the KGB largely as an intelligence officer based in East Ger­many, his official KGB record is un­available. All that can be indicated about Putin, therefore, is what he has accomplished in his short tenure as acting president and a former prime minister. Some of the accomplish­ments include: ordering that a bust and plaque honoring the late spymaster and Soviet ruler, Yuri V. Andropov be re­placed at KGB headquarters. A de­cree that allows the government to monitor all electronic transmissions (including the Internet) that transits through Russia, and a desire to imple­ment mandatory military education in the schooling system.

Russia considers NATO

As Putin approaches the presiden­tial office he brings with him some interesting and significant ideas. By far the most important idea Putin de­sires to implement is having Russia apply for membership in NATO. An article that appeared in the March 6, 2000, issue of the New York Times notes that Putin “argued that the ex­pansion of NATO that has brought Poland, Hungary and the Czech Re­public into the military alliance should not be conducted without taking Russia’s strategic interests into con­sideration. ‘When we talk about our opposition to NATO’s expansion, mind you, we have never, ever declared any region of the world a zone of our spe­cial interests,’ Mr. Putin said, adding, ‘I prefer to talk about strategic part­nership.’ When asked directly whether from Russia’s standpoint it would be possible to join NATO, he replied: ‘I don’t see why not. I would not rule out such a possibility, but I repeat if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of any equal partner.'”

Looking to past glory

In addition to his wishes to join NATO, Putin desires to restore Rus­sia to its former glory. Quoted in the New York Times, Putin stated: “Any­one who doesn’t regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart…Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.” In other words, Putin is envious of the power that the former USSR wielded on the world front, yet not desirous of the baggage that the other republics brought with it. Putin is very careful not to upset Western powers in his desire to rebuild Russia into a “strong, powerful state.” He indicates this desire to rebuild Russia into a new powerhouse has nothing to do with aggression. “If we again and again go back to the terminology of the cold war, we are never going to discard attitudes and problems that humanity had to grapple with a mere 15 to 20 years ago.”

Restoring Russia to her former glory would be a challenge for any leader. The new leader of Russia, however, will have a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons at his disposal. The US government has indicated talks are underway in order to reach an agree­ment with the Russians on changes to the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. These changes would attempt to put teeth into the treaty such that missile quantities would be reduced. To date, these talks are not scheduled to com­mence until after the election.

Power from the north

During the latter days we are in­formed a power from the north will come upon Israel and its unwalled villages. It is difficult today to under­stand how the traditionally staunch allies of Israel could literally watch an attack of this nature formulating. (Ezekiel 38:13). Yet if Russia should proceed with NATO membership, the prophecy of Ezekiel becomes more likely in that other NATO members would be understanding of aggression by a fellow member.

Will this scenario come to pass? Only the Divine Creator knows the details of the working out of His plan. Our prayer is that that day may come quickly.

In Daniel Chapter 2, the king­dom of men in the last days is de­picted as being part iron and part clay: “As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay” (Dan. 2:43 RSV). During February, 2000, events occurred in Austria and the European Union which mirror the condition depicted by Daniel.

The Austrian election

In October, 1999, the Austrian people went to the polls to elect a new government. The results of this elec­tion were inconclusive with the votes being split three ways. The Social Democrats — who had dominated Austria for nearly 30 years — remained the majority party, but received only 33% of the votes. The conser­vative People’s Party and the far-right Freedom Party each garnered approxi­mately 27% of the popular vote. Five months after the election, the People’s Party and the Freedom Party decided to form a coalition government and begin ruling Austria. It was this coa­lition government, and in particular the leader of the Freedom Party, Jorg Haider, who created much turmoil and diplomatic furor.

Haider, who has been leader of the Freedom Party for close to a decade (but currently does not hold a formal post with the Austrian government) has stated his position clearly over the past several years. His record and remarks were chronicled in the New York Times on January 31, 2000:

“The SS officers and soldiers were not criminals; at most they were vic­tims” (October, 1990).

“In the Third Reich they had an orderly employment policy” (June, 1991).

“Concentration-camp inmates had been guilty of crimes, and thus pun­ishment was rendered” (February, 1995).

“There are still decent people of good character who also stick to their convictions, despite the greatest opposition, and have remained true to their convictions until today” (Septem­ber, 1995, remarks made to former Waffen SS members.)

“The Waffen SS was a part of the Wehrmacht and hence it deserves all the honor and respect of the army in public life” (December, 1995).

It wasn’t until after the October, 1999, election that Haider attempted to make amends for his past remarks. Haider was quoted in November, 1999, as saying: “In the past, some remarks have been attributed to me in connection with Nazism which were certainly insensitive or open to mis­understanding.” For the most part, however, the damage was done and no matter how Haider tried to make amends, the EU and the rest of the world was certain they were dealing with a supporter of the Third Reich.

Divided response

It took very little time for the 14 other members of the EU and the rest of the world to raise opposition to the new coalition government. The New York Times reported February 1,2000: “The European Union said all its mem­ber states would downgrade their dip­lomatic relations with Austria if Mr. Haider’s party, which they regard as xenophobic and extremist, was al­lowed into government.” The United States responded that the coalition government, “would affect our bilateral relationship.”

The nation of Israel reacted with the loudest voice. In Jerusalem, Foreign Minister David Levy said Israel’s ambassador to Austria was being recalled immediately “for consultations for an undetermined time.” He added, “In a country where a government symbolizes and backs opinions that would upset any Jew and non-Jew, there cannot be an Israeli ambassador.”

Within the EU, France and Belgium have taken the most vocal stance against Austria’s new coalition; their ministers walked out on a speech by Austria’s social affairs minister at an EU gathering in Lisbon, Portugal, on Friday. However, other EU nations were not as adamant in punishing Austria. A prominent German con­servative, Bavarian state Governor Edmund Stoiber, criticized EU mea­sures against Austria on February II, 2000 as “completely exaggerated.”

During a visit to the Bavarian capital, Munich, by Austrian President Tho­mas Klestil, Stoiber said the EU must respect democratic decisions of a sovereign member state.

Opposition hurts moderate

International measures to punish Austria for handing power to a far-right party may have backfired, giving an unwitting boost to the party’s leader and threatening the EU’s ability to conduct business as usual. Instead of weakening Freedom Party leader Jorg Haider, who holds no official government post, the furor has un­dermined support for the country’s moderate chancellor, Wolfgang Schuessel, whose presence at the top offers a counterbalance to the right-wing party. In effect the EU’s sup­posed action against Austria has man­aged to help bolster the cause of the extreme right wing in Austria while at the same time fractionate the EU it­self.

Iron and clay

The scriptures are quiet as to which sector of the feet will be made from iron and which from clay. However, we do know iron and clay can’t form a cohesive substance. Happily, in the near future, we believe the stone (Christ) will crush the image (king­dom of men) by striking its feet. Let us pray that day may come quickly.

Dear Bro. Don,

I enjoyed reading the article by Bro. George Rayner concerning the Middle East peace (10/99, p.384) where he gave details of the Wye River accord concerning the peace plan. Since its inception in 1948, Israel has had nothing but trouble with its neigh­bors which has prevented fulfillment of the Zionist’s dream of 100 years ago which envisaged Jews living in their own land, free of anti-semitism.

Over the past two decades, Israel has slowly achieved part of this dream with peace treaties which began with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s dra­matic visit to Jerusalem in 1977. Then the Oslo agreement came in 1992; in many ways this is a direct descen­dant of the Camp David accords. In Oslo, the then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat offered hope to a peaceful resolution to the wide-ranging conflict.

These agreements led to the 1994 treaty with Jordan and now it is Ehud Barak’s turn to try to negotiate peace with the PLO. As I pen this letter (mid-December, 1999) Ehud Barak is meeting for the first time with the Syrian leaders to negotiate peace terms and then Lebanon will follow on.

While we watch the angels at work, we can grow weary with the many twists and turns and delays on the rough road to peace, but it is all hap­pening before our eyes. We can see the final point of this process in Ezekiel 38:11-15 in preparation for the Gogian host to make its grand assault upon the mountains of Israel. “In that day, when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? And thou [Gog] shalt come from thy place out of the north parts.” “For when they [Israel] shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them” (I Thess. 5:3).

Several articles have been written over the years in Time magazine about the Pope saying peace and safety, but what is happening before our very eyes is that we see Israel becoming prosperous through diligence and hard work and now they are half way to dwelling safely and being at peace with their neighbors.

At the end of the day when all the peace agreements are signed and implemented, only then will a temporary peace be affected. As all Bible students realize, lasting peace will only come after our Lord’s return and Israel accepts her Messiah. Then “they shall beat their swords into plow­shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; and they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid…” Israel’s elusive peace will finally come in a way they do not expect, but in that day it will be true and lasting peace.

Keith Worthington, Durban, SA

As our brother is no doubt aware, there are several views current in the brotherhood as to how Israel will reach a position of peace prior to the Gogian invasion. Some, as our brother, feel it will be through the current peace initiatives some through Israel’s conquest of her neighbors and some through Christ’s’ return and conquest of the Arab peoples. While a difference of opinion may invite discussion and debate, we all ought to watch with interest what develops, rejoicing we are privileged to live in the last days. Most importantly, no matter how the details unfold, let us continue walking faithfully in the light so that when our Lord comes, we will be prepared to share with the saints of all ages in the full establishment of the kingdom age.

The Title for this month’s ar­ticle is taken from the words f Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak, commenting on the peace talks with Syria said he was hopeful these talks would finally provide “security and peace to Israel and the nations that surround them.” Given the volume of Christian news­letters coming from Israel, it is pos­sible Barak has heard the phrase as a biblical one and was using New Tes­tament words to explain his motives for achieving peace. Further, it is in­teresting to note peace is only being sought among those neighboring na­tions described in scripture as being in a non-adversarial position to Israel during the latter days. That is, Israel is not attempting to make peace with Persia, Libya or other nations described during the latter days as “those being against Israel.”

This month’s article looks at the talks, examines the process and mo­tives and notes an interesting feature of Bible prophecy.

The major issue

For the most part, the entire dis­cussion between Israel and Syria re­volves around a single issue, the Golan Heights. While water and security are on the peace agenda, they are over-shadowed by the Golan. The Golan Heights was captured from Syria dur­ing the 1967 Mideast war and is con­sidered a vital portion of land. The Golan area is elevated above the north­ern part of Israel and gives a great military advantage to Syria, should they elect to attack Israel. As is well known, Israel puts a high value on the security controls that could be pro­vided by early-warning stations. Stations such as these would be lost by a return of the land to Syria which could easily again shell northern Galilee.

The road ahead for Barak will be hard. The Syrian position is that it currently wants Israel to pull back another seven miles beyond the inter­national border to the line that divided them on June 4, 1967.

In early December, 1999, Barak won parliamentary backing for open­ing negotiations with Damascus. By a vote of 47-31 (with 24 abstentions) the Israeli government signaled just how deeply divided it is over what Barak called the “painful” price of peace with Syria. This painful price of peace is understood by all to mean the entirety of the Golan Heights. Seven members of Barak’s own 68-member coalition voted against the symbolic measure, and 19 abstained — an indicator of the tough battle he faces ahead of a national referendum on giving up the Golan.

By law, any turnover of the Golan must be approved by at least 61 mem­bers of the 120-member parliament. As well, Barak has promised to present a peace treaty to a national referen­dum. In addition to returning the land to Syria and compromising its secu­rity, Israel would also have to relo­cate some 17,000 Israelis who now live in 33 Golan Heights’ settlements.

The New York Times reported, December 7, 1999, “Coalition mem­bers made it clear Barak would have to fight for their support: all five mem­bers of the hard-line National Religious Party voted against the measure, along with two members of the four-mem­ber Israel B’Aliyah party, represent­ing Russian immigrants. All 17 mem­bers of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party abstained.”

Motives for peace with Syria

It may seem like an odd statement but the point has been raised several times as to why Israel would seek peace with Syria. Obviously, the world is demanding peace in the Middle East, but is the price of the Golan Heights and the resettlement worth the potential political turmoil for Barak. One of the major motives for Barak is the potential to preserve the lives of his fellow countrymen. The New York Times reported Barak said: “There were once those who said that without peace war was preferable.” He continued, referring to the 1973 war, “We had 3,000 graves and the picture changed.”

As well, money could be a moti­vating factor in the peace settlement. After the Camp David accord, $3 bil­lion in annual aid to Israel and $2.3 billion to Egypt over 20 years was provided by the U.S. government via the accord. In comparing and con­trasting the Camp David accord, the New York Times reported: “Others, though, note the peculiar cooperation that has developed between Israel and Egypt, which, since their aid levels are linked, almost jointly lobby Congress every year for continued high levels of financing. They say that if Syria were brought into the U.S. orbit, it would give the Americans and Israe­lis leverage. Assad, too, is reportedly looking to establish a close economic, military and strategic relationship with the United States.”

Bible silence suggestive

For the most part, the scriptures suggest, if only by omission, that Syria, Egypt and other nations directly surrounding Israel are not part of the group that invades Israel at the time of the end. It is yet to be determined whether peace with their immediate neighbors will lull Israel into a false sense of security and peace, or per­haps be a catalyst when others see an imbalance of power developing in the Middle East. In any case we know for certain that God rules in the king­doms of men and He will direct their affairs as they fit into His overall plan. Let us pray that it may come soon.

The United Nations has deter mined that the city of Toronto is the most multicultural city in the world. Toronto beat out New York and London to take the 1999 award. The UN makes a multicultural determination once a year and considers factors such as government policy, educational integration and a willingness to integrate.

As cultures intermarry and become intertwined, it is possible that the multicultural theme could become the latest trend for the new decade. Recently, the nation of Israel has debated a bill which is before parliament as to whether or not they should make the leap and declare themselves a multicultural nation. On the surface, this change would seem to be a positive step for Israel. However, there are severe implications with Israel becoming a multifaceted, multicult­ural nation.

Should Israel move toward the multicultural goal? This month’s article will examine this question and look at the bill currently before the Israeli parliament.

One culture, one people?

Should Israel value one culture above the rest? This is a point cur­rently being debated in the parliament.

It is, after all, the Jewish homeland, established on a policy of ethnic pref­erence to redress the enormity of the Holocaust as well as millennia of wan­dering The New York Tunes reported on December 6, 1999, “The debate has been ignited by the release of new sta­tistics showing that an increasing per­centage of recent immigrants are non-Jews It has been fueled, though, by a confluence of factors, including the increasing civil rights demands of the growing Israeli-Arab minority and the rise of a younger generation that ques­tions whether Israel should evolve into a post Zionist country”.

As well, new statistics released in late October showed that in the last year, for the first time, more than half the immigrants to Israel were not Jews according to Jewish law That is 53 percent did not have a Jewish mother or had not undergone a conversion Since the great wave of immigration began in 1989, about 208,000 of the 1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union have not been Jewish, according to official data.

The bill which is currently before the parliament is proposing to anchor into law the seemingly factual asser­tion that Israel is a democratic and multicultural state The bill would change forever the tact that Israel val­ues one culture above all others, the Jewish one Under the new proposed law, all cultures would be defined as one and the same and would have the same rights and obligations The un­fortunate aspect of the proposed new law is that some of the existing laws will have to be modified as a result of the proposal.

A homeland for the Jews

The primary purpose behind the creation of the nation of Israel was to provide a homeland for the Jewish people The law of the land provided for Israeli citizenship to be bestowed on Jews from anywhere in the world provided that they return to the moth­erland In 1970, this law was amended to include those with Jewish roots and connection to non-Jewish spouses, children and grandchildren of Jews This was a deliberate mirroring of the Nazi definition of Jewishness It meant to create a law that would em­brace those who might not consider themselves Jewish but might nonetheless face anti-Semitism or worse

The New York Tunes reports that “An old idea has been revived — to tighten the generous Law of Return that guarantees citizenship to almost anyone with Jewish roots or spouse But this time, it is not only the rigor­ously Orthodox who are questioning the law Immigration experts, liberal Orthodox, secular immigrants and mainstream newspaper editorialists are proposing that the supposedly sac­rosanct law be re-evaluated ‘The Law of Return is discriminatory,’ said Zehava Gal-on, a member of Parlia­ment from the Meretz Party ‘It dis­criminates between Jews and non-Jews I can accept that after the Ho­locaust, it was kind of a necessity But maybe after 51 years, we are not in the same situation, and we don’t need to run our country based on such un­democratic laws

Seeking useful immigrants

For much of the last 50 years, Is­rael was in the process of building a nation and eager to attract immigrants to a culturally rich but difficult life Now a relatively prosperous and even peaceful society, Israel is actually a magnet even to those who do not feel a Zionist bond And it seems that in order for Israel to continue with its economic upturn it must attract top immigrants

As one might appreciate, the pro­posed legislation has stirred incredible debate in the legislature The New York Tunes reports “Inside and out­side the legislature, the debate is al­ready raging, a national soul-search about Israel’s identity and Just how central Jewishness — much less Judaism — should be “

God’s land given to Abraham’s seed

The promises that God made to Abraham included descendants, a son and more importantly land (Gen 12 2) — land that would be given to his descendants forever As believers we wait for this day to come, realizing God has not yet fully established His people in His land.

Ironically, it is Abraham’s natural descendants who are ignoring the very promises that have preserved them through the centuries They may think they are acting reasonably but as mankind attempts to reach for peace, they are doing so by ignoring God’s promises and principles.

The citizens of Israel are now debating what should become of God’s land, a land promised to them and which they were forced to fight for and now feel they have the right to govern however they choose.

The New York Tunes concludes its article with the following quotation see this as a deep, profound debate going way beyond our immigra­tion law,’ said Yult Tamir, the immi­gration minister ‘What will the nature of Israel be ) A religious Jewish state? A state of all its citizens? A secular, demociatic and Jewish state? It is a debate that will engage us for many, many years'”

May the debate be terminated by our Master’s return and the reestab­lishment of his Father’s kingdom in the land of Israel Let us pray that it may come soon.

On October 24, 1998 after nine straight days of negotiations, Israel and Palestine signed yet another peace agreement. The mod­est document, referred to as the “Wye Agreement,” was heralded as a lifesaving measure that would “restore life to the Middle East peace effort and open the way for talks on a final resolution of the 50-year-old fight over whether the Palestinians will have a state.” Yet, as has been consistent with the majority of the past agreements, before the ink was thy the peace agreement was in trouble.

The agreement

Although the agreement was signed in late October, it was but the end product of highly significant actions. Benjamin Netanyahu became the first Israeli Prime Minister to cross over to a Palestinian settlement. And, as captured by an October 8 headline in the New York Times, a significant event occurred, “Netan-yahu and Arafat Break Bread for First Time.”

What is not remembered by many is that the deadline for the entire Oslo process is about to expire. The Oslo peace accords, signed in 1993 and 1995 by then Israeli Prime Minister Itzak Rabin and Palestinian leader Arafat, set out specific terms and dates that had to be met. By May, 1999, should the Oslo accord not be fully ratified and enacted, then the land for peace swap would expire, effective with that date. It is prima­rily for this reason that the Americans were keen on revitalizing the accord. It was the hope of the negotiators that some of the more difficult questions regarding Palestinian borders could be resolved and thus a Palestinian state could be fully established. Currently, the Palestinians control both the Gaza Strip and portions of the West Bank area of Israel. (The West Bank is an area of 2,263 square miles, immediately north of the Dead Sea and west of the Jordan River.)

Israelis insist on change in charter

As one may appreciate, the Israe­lis had insisted upon a public change in the Palestinian charter removing all 26 clauses calling for Israel’s destruc­tion. As reported in the October 24 New York Times, “Mr. Arafat stated that although the clauses had long since been deleted from the charter, the Israelis demanded a formal vote by the large Palestine National Coun­cil, which contains expatriates and terrorists living abroad.” As well as removal of the clauses, Israel also won a Palestinian pledge to jail 30 of the 31 Palestinians wanted in Israel for killing Israelis. However, Israel did not get Mr. Arafat to agree to jail the chief of the Palestinian police in Gaza, Ghazi Jabali.

The New York Times continued: “The Palestinians, for their part, got an agreement from the Israelis to release 750 prisoners in three stages and a guarantee that they will get a third Israeli redeployment from the West Bank, as called for under the Oslo accords. But Israel gets to determine the redeployment’s size, which Netanyahu has told his Cabinet will be an additional one to two percent of the West Bank.” All told, this will bring areas under Palestinian control to more than 40 percent of the West Bank.

United States deeply involved

As noted, the main purpose of the agreement serves to commit the two sides once again to actions they had already promised in 1993 and 1995 but not yet enacted. This agreement sets a detailed timetable for the Israelis to withdraw from 13 percent of the West Bank in three phases over 12 weeks starting as soon as the agreement is ratified (which may end up taking longer than expected).

This agreement differs from the Oslo accord as the Americans are directly involved with the implementation. As noted in the New York Times, “This accord marks an important and little understood deepening and institutionalizing of the U.S. role in the Middle East. Not only did Clinton promise yet more financial aid — to Israel for security measures and to the Palestinians for development. But the CIA will play an uncomfortably visible role as the validator of Palestin­ian performance on fighting terrorism, as it sits on a committee with the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian security services.”

Ratification delays

The November 5 New York Times reports, “An Israeli official said Net­anyahu had been hesitant to present the Wye agreement to the Cabinet because he feared that the Palestin­ians would evade their obligations to arrest the fugitives. ‘This is like a real estate deal,’ the official said. He wants the money in the bank before turning over any land, and not any promissory notes. He can’t accept it if it’s another promise that ‘the check is in the mail.’ If he starts with that now, then the whole system of Pales­tinian promises goes down the drain.”

On November 6, 1998, this entire accord was jeopardized when a car bomb exploded outside a marketplace in Jerusalem. The bomb killed the car’s two bombers, wounded 24 and disabled the peace effort. Immedi­ately after the bomb exploded the Is­raeli Cabinet suspended deliberations calling on Arafat to prove he was cracking down on terrorism. The New York limes comments (November 6), “This morning’s blast was the second since the Israelis and the Palestinians signed a new land-for-security agree­ment two weeks ago.”

Another hurdle to ratification is that Netanyahu does not have a parliamentary majority and as such must appease his coalition partners of six different parties into accepting the agreement. And support from his own party is not assured as Netanyahu has been attacked from his own right wing for agreeing to meet with Arafat.

There are so many factors in play concerning the Middle East peace initiative, it is a wonder that the pro­cess has proceeded this far. As Bible students looking ahead to the new year, we realize that any peace in the Middle East will merely be a temporary situation brought about by eco­nomic expediency, political alliance, or some as yet-to-be-revealed catalyst. We know that true peace will only occur with the return of Christ, the true “Prince of Peace,” and the establishment of God’s Kingdom which will center its rulership and influence from the very city of Jerusalem.