Signs of the Times

As we approach yet another new year and the official new century, we reflect on the past and look for­ward to the future Most may recall that one of the widely anticipated events of the year 2000 never materi­alized. The infamous Y2K computer bug was supposed to start the New Year off with a bang by causing havoc around the world But the computer glitches were few and far between, actually remarkably light considering how many programs had been rewrit­ten in anticipation of the problem.

What did come as a surprise, how­ever, was the extent of conflict in the Middle East just when the peace pro­cess was supposed to be accomplish­ing some grand targets Israel erupted in something just short of a full-scale war.

Year of turbulence, talk of peace

Throughout the year, Israel, Pal­estine and the violence between these two old foes has dominated the head­lines around the world Palestine has been vying for an independent state, and Israel, for its part, has granted several concessions to the Palestin­ians Despite the concessions, Pales­tinian leader Yasser Arafat will stop at nothing short of an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital As we approach the end of the year, the scene of peaceful talk followed by violence continues in its sanguinary conflict.

For example, on November 8, 2000, as clashes turned deadly in the Gaza Strip, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made his clearest offer yet of an independent Palestinian state but said it must be the result of negotia­tions that would resume only after the violence abates.

As reported in the New York Times “Barak’s pledge of a ‘viable Palestin­ian state’ came in a long letter to the heads of all the world’s governments, meant to explain Israel’s policy in its weeks of conflict with the Palestinians”

Despite the pledge of a viable Pal­estinian State, an Israeli customs agent was killed in an attack that Barak said called into question Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s intentions at reviving the peace talks.

In early November, Israeli leader Barak’s letter to world leaders stated that Israel had made far-reaching con­cessions during a Mideast summit at Camp David, Maryland, in July The letter said “We could resume nego­tiations which — based on the ideas discussed at Camp David — will lead to the creation of a viable Palestinian state, or we can succumb to the route of violence and unilateral Palestinian action ” If the Palestinians choose violence, he warned, “Israel will be forced to take measures to ensure the security of our citizens”

In the past Barak has said he would not rule out the creation of a Palestin­ian state, but his letter contained state­ments that were the clearest promise yet of eventual Palestinian indepen­dence It should be noted that Barak’s letter appeared, in part, aimed at un­dercutting possible world support for a unilateral Palestinian proclamation of independence.

The chances for such support have been mitigated by Western criticism that the Palestinians are sending youths to the front lines as a means of gar­nering world sympathy One of the two Palestinians shot dead by Israeli soldiers during clashes in the Gaza Strip in early November was 16 The Palestinian authority said it is work­ing to persuade teenagers to stay out of confrontations with Israeli soldiers.

During November the fighting es­calated to the point that Israel tracked down and assassinated a Fatah com­mander It was Israel’s first targeted, planned slaying of a Palestinian militia leader since the violent confrontation in the West Bank and Gaza began And it was meant as a tough message, an Israeli Army spokesman said “Be­ware you who hurt us You will be hurt ” Israeli Army officials said the militia leader, Hussein Obaiyat, 34, was suspected of being the master­mind behind many shooting attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians that emanated from the Bethlehem area A spokesman said that several days ago the army received permission for the killing “from the highest political level” and chose today because “it was a very good tactical time to do it”

Compromise government

Since her inception in 1948, Israel could always rely on the American government to support her During the 1967 war, the United States air­lifted supplies to Israel on a continual basis During every conflict, the Americans were there to help ensure that Israel would survive both on the UN level and militarily The assistance was provided to Israel in most part because the American government could act quickly and decisively If Israel required help, both the executive and legislative branches of the government had a clear enough man­date from the American people to re­spond to their cries.

In the past year, U S President Bill Clinton has huddled with Syrian and Israeli envoys in Shepherds-town, West Virginia, flown to Geneva to meet Syrian leader Hafez Assad, presided over 14 days of grueling Israeli-Pal­estinian talks at Camp David and, last month, worked virtually around the clock to broker an Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire at a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

But the near-collapse of the Middle East peace process on virtually all fronts is prompting some critics to wonder whether Clinton might have erred by investing so much time and energy in the region’s tangled diplomacy Though it might seem counterintuitive, these critics — in-eluding senior advisers to Republican George W Bush — suggest that by devoting so much of his attention to Middle East peace negotiations, Clinton has devalued the power of his office to influence Arabs and Israelis According to this analysis, presiden­tial attention is a kind of currency You spend it only when the chance of a payoff is high.

At the time that this article goes to press the outcome of the U S elections remains uncertain In the clos­est election in years, both the Senate and the House are almost evenly divided As well, the executive branch of the government this year has been selected by one of the slimmest margins ever Whatever the outcome one thing is certain, the newly-elected gov­ernment will be a government of compromise In order to pass a law or seek help for a foreign nation, a com­promise solution must be worked out in a bipartisan manner Could the next four years become known as the years that the United States is unable be­cause of compromise to provide sup­port to Israel.

During the latter days we are told that there shall be merely talk of peace and that the nations will stand around while the northern power marches into Israel Will the New Year bring this prophecy to fruition? We all eagerly await the consummation of the king­dom of men and the ushering in of the kingdom of God.

During the First Week of October, 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, were having a garden party, breaking pita bread and trading jokes in the yard of Mr. Barak’s private, suburban home in Israel. Exactly one week later the scene had changed dramatically; their people were killing each other in the streets. Palestinian rocks were flying; Israeli tanks were charging, and bodies were piling up at the morgue. As every day passed, violence progressed and each leader expressed greater distrust of the other side; in turn both sides reverted to the negative dynamic of their old, familiar roles as enemies.

Throughout the year one single headline has dominated world events. The happenings in Yugoslavia have come and gone as have the Olympics. Still, the situation in Israel remains smoldering, ready to ignite at any moment. This month’s article will continue to follow the events that surround Israel and in particular, Jerusalem. Indeed as the prophet Zechariah has told us, “Jerusalem will be as a burdensome stone for all people,” not merely for those who dwell in it.

The temple mount

There are bound to be bitter debates about what motivated Ariel Sharon, the opposition leader and veteran hawk, to enter the Islamic holy compound, commonly referred to as the Temple Mount, under a huge guard in late September given the near-certainty that the Palestinians would see it as a provocation.

Following Mr. Sharon’s visit it seems that war spontaneously broke out. But was it spontaneous? As reported in the Washington Post on October 5, 2000, “The preacher at the al-Aqsa mosque called at Friday prayers to eradicate the Jews from Palestine. Official Palestinian television began playing over and over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993 showing young people out in the streets throwing stones. The Voice of Palestinian radio began playing patriotic war songs. Mr. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street.” It was only then that “war” broke out.

The so-called war continued to escalate to the point that when a Jewish settler killed a Palestinian; a Palestinian killed a Jewish motorist. Not exactly the “people to people” component envisioned by the peace effort. Stabbing for stabbing, stoning for stoning, as if to borrow a passage from Exodus, “an eye for an eye.” Within Israel itself, tensions between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs have also been laid bare and are so raw right now that at a mall outside Nazareth they hurled rocks at each other. After Palestinians sacked the shrine known as Joseph’s tomb in early October, Israeli Jews vandalized an Israeli-Arab house of worship, an old mosque in Tiberias, one day later.

The Israeli political situation can be described as tenuous at best. To the political right, the Likud party is glumly smug, for this is exactly what they had been warning against. The political left finds it difficult to believe how quickly the peaceful situation in Israel has deteriorated. It should be noted, however, that peace existed in the Israel primarily because the people thought that a final and lasting peace was being negotiated, and it would merely be a matter of time before it was achieved.

How far apart?

The violence that has precipitated in Israel over the past several weeks is nothing more than an expression of the level of frustration that exists between the two sides because of a number of major differences. Following are the obstacles that must be overcome before peace can be achieved.

	Palestinians	Israelis
Water:	Final say over the use and distribution of water flows through the West Bank.	To retain control of the aquifer which provides Israel with a quarter of its water.
Jerusalem:	East Jerusalem to become the Palestinian capital	City to remain under Israeli control, with a symbolic Palestinian role.
Borders:	Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza to the 1967 borders.	To keep 10% of the West Bank. this would include major settlements.
Refugees:	Israel to accept responsibility for refugees, to grant them a right to return and compensate those who can’t.	Not responsible for Palestinian refugees and minimal rights of return to allow some families to reunite.

Chart courtesy of the Washington Post

In order to achieve peace in the territory, both parties have called in a team of marquee persons to help facilitate the mandate. Included in the all-star line up are U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright; U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan; Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov and Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.

Despite the team of all-stars it looks as though peace will be highly elusive. It is unlikely that Israel will give up 25% of their fresh water supply, nor will they withdraw to pre-1967 borders However, by far and away the most difficult hurdle to clear are the issues surrounding Jerusalem. As can be noted by the table, both the Israeli’s and Palestinian’s desire to maintain control over the city, a city which the Lord has told us will be “a burdensome stone to all people.”

As believers we can merely watch, wait and listen to the signs around us and conclude that our Master’s return is imperative in order for a true and lasting peace to be achieved. Let us pray that it may come quickly.

On September 10, 2000, the Palestinian government heeded to international appeals and postponed a dramatic deci­sion that would have declared the Pal­estinian State a sovereign nation. This decision was made because the on-again off-again peace talks were going to resume, and it was felt that a sovereign nation decision may jeop­ardize the talks.

The major stumblingblock in the peace negotiations (as reported last month) concerns the city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians desire to exert control of the city, as does Israel, the Armenians and various Christian groups. In order to solve this com­plex problem, it was suggested that a Divine City State should be formed with God declared as the head of state. This month’s article will further ex­plore the problems surrounding Jerusalem and determine that only a divine solution will bring peace to Zion.

The temple mount

At the center of the city of Jerusalem exists the temple mount known to Arabs as Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). At this location Jews believe that Abraham was pre­pared to offer his son Isaac as a sac­rifice to God.

The temple mount is the most sa­cred of all places in Judaism, as it is the site of the first and second temples destroyed by the Babylonians and the Romans. To Muslims, the site with its two Muslim shrines, the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa Mosque, is among the holiest of all sites. While important to both, it is the Arabs who control access to the site and have done so for over a century. The New York Times reported September 8, 2000, “Yaser Arafat has been saying since the Camp David talks when the question of sovereignty over the site was raised that the temple does not exist, a senior administration official said. By insisting what the Jews con­sider to be the most sacred of their holy sites was not even a Jewish place, Mr. Arafat was denying a basic re­spect to his main negotiating partner.” The official went on to say, “This can’t be solved by denying the beliefs of one of the great religions.”

At Camp David, Israeli Prime Min­ister Ehud Barak tentatively agreed to the notion that the Palestinians could be granted religious sovereignty over the mount with the Israelis retaining political sovereignty. But after leav­ing Camp David, Barak made clear that nothing was agreed to until every as­pect of the deal was part of an agree­ment. At a news conference at the United Nations on September 7, 2000, Barak, who has come under fire at home for conceding too much at Camp David, reiterated that Jerusa­lem and the temple mount “are the cornerstone of Jewish identity.”

Israel can’t compromise

He went on to say that, “No Israeli prime minister will ever be able to sign a document that gives up sovereignty to the temple mount to the Palestinians.” He then chided Arafat for his attitude to the temple mount and the peace talks. This was not the time for Arafat “to rewrite the history of the three monotheistic religions. The very word of temple mount tells the real story of temple mount.”

In order to further emphasize his point and help make sure that this was not merely a Jewish and Palestinian issue, Barak dragged the Christian sector into the issue by saying, “when Jesus walked in Jerusalem, he did not see Christian churches or Muslim mosques. What he could see is the Jewish temple.”

Barak’s fairly harsh words about Arafat appeared to reflect the Israeli leader’s increasing frustration with what he considers the Palestinian’s refusal to seriously negotiate. In pri­vate meetings with American Jews since he has been here, Barak has said that he cannot give more in negotiations. He has also described the chances of a peace deal as well under 50 percent.

Yet talks continue

Despite the gloomy nature of the remarks, neither Barak nor Arafat have threatened to walk away from the peace talks. They have both pledged to keep going. But the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton is not prepared to keep talks going for the sake of talking. During the eight years of his presidency, Clinton has spent more time than any other president talking and negotiating with Israelis and Palestinians in search of a final peace agreement. He oversaw the momentous signing ceremony for the Oslo peace accords in 1993 at the White House, where he extended his arms to ensure a handshake between Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. And the president also helped broker the accords reached after great pain at Wye Plantation in 1998. But yesterday, Mr. Clinton sounded uncertain about future steps.

Rabin’s widow speaks out

On one hand, Barak is attempting to find a solution for Israel that will provide for its peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian nation. On the other hand, Barak does not want to give up any control, whether it be land or se­curity, in order to facilitate the agree­ment. For Barak, attacks are coming from all sides. Within his own coali­tion government Barak is being chas­tised not to “sell the farm to achieve peace.”

In early September, a new voice was added to the ranks of his critics. Leah Rabin, wife of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, spoke loudly and firmly about the situation. “Yitzhak Rabin would never have of­fered Palestinians control over parts of the Old City of Jerusalem, as Ehud Barak has done,” Rabin’s widow said in remarks published in the Israeli press. “Yitzhak is spinning in his grave,” Leah Rabin told the daily Yediot Ahronot. As Rabin started the peace process with the Palestinians, his widow’s remarks were likely to inspire Israeli hard-liners, who oppose Barak’s proposed concessions to the Palestinians.

Rabin was gunned down in 1995 by an opponent of his peace policies after he became the first Israeli premier to shake the hand of Palestinian leader Arafat, reviled as a terrorist until he signed an interim peace accord with Rabin’s government in 1993.Despite Clinton’s zeal for achiev­ing peace in the Middle East before his tenure expires, it is unlikely that the issue over Jerusalem will be able to be easily solved. The Lord tells us through His prophet Zechariah that: “Lo, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling to all the peoples round about…On that day, I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples, all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves” (Zech. 12:2,3). Al­though the final day of judgement is not yet upon us, it is remarkable that a prophecy written centuries ago is being fulfilled in our lifetime. Let us pray that the prophecies concerning the latter days will be fulfilled shortly.