November 4, 2000
By: S.R. Shearer

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

- George Orwell

[Information for much of this report was derived from articles by Joseph Churba, David Shipler, Charles Krauthammer, and Jay Shapiro of Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio; finally, we want to thank Sean Mayfield for his invaluable research.]


[This is the first in a series of articles dealing with the fighting in the Middle East; this particular article - Part I - deals with the question of who the REAL enemy of Israel is in the Middle East, and it is not the Palestinians, as you will see.  Part II will deal with the Scriptural basis of what's happening there today.  These two parts will then form the basis for all the articles that will follow.  We urge you, therefore, to study this article and the one to follow carefully.  If you don't, you will most assuredly lose your way in the articles that follow them.]

The Church
(The Lampstand)
(Revelation 1:20)

(The Olive Tree)
(Romans 11:15-26)

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, ...  And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it." (Zech. 12:2-3)


What's occurring today in the Middle East is the climax of an "End Game" that has been going on since 1948.  It signals the end of a long, 2,000-year period of time in which the Church has had history to itself; re-inserts Israel as a "player" on the world's stage; and introduces a coming age (i.e., the Millennium and eventually, even Eternity) in which both Israel and the Church (as separate, distinct, and independent entities) are destined to hold the stage together.  This "End Game" is now reaching its climax in the fighting over Jerusalem. David Shipler of the New York Times gives a brief overview of how this "EndGame" is proceeding and how intractable the facts on the ground are between the two antagonists that are presently involved.  He writes:

"The Israelis and Palestinians are now being pulled violently toward the black hole of their conflict.  They have been there before - a place so dense in passion that it emits no light by which they can truly see the other's legitimacy as a people.  If they get there again, they will be back at the core of the battle.  This has always been a clash of two nationalisms trying to defy the law of physics by occupying the same space at the same time.  The problem was visible a few weeks after the 1993 Oslo accords that launched the peace process when nine Palestinian teenagers gathered in a West Bank classroom to reconsider their attitudes toward Israeli Jews.  Born and raised in the caldron of Israeli occupation, they now faced a confusing moment of hopeful skepticism.  Seeing into the negative stereotypes were new, admiring images.  Israeli Jews were violent, but educated, the students said, controlling but industrious, morally corrupt but more protective than Arabs of women's rights.

"On one point, however, the ambivalence evaporated.  The Jews, said a high school senior named Fahed, had faked their ancient history in Jerusalem and surroundings.  'They created the ruins (i.e., the Temple Mount, Joseph's Tomb, etc.) to prove that it was their land', he declared.  The Jews don't belong here, a girl added.  Did that mean the Jews should leave, they were asked.  The answer came in a chorus: 'No!'  'Israelis don't have any other place to go', another girl conceded.

"This revealed the adult blend of realism and fantasy that still drives the struggle.  Conceding that the Israelis are there to stay does not overcome the power of denying their historical right to do soYasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, have reportedly made private remarks dismissing Jews' ties to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where the Temple stood until destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70.  The denial touches the deepest Israeli fear, that no peace agreement will render them authentic inhabitants in the eyes of Arabs."


Shipler's analysis above gives an idea of how tempestuous and "fouled up" perceptions are as to what's occurring in the Holy Land.  While "peaceniks" on both sides - "moderate Jews" and "moderate Muslims" (like the three "moderate" Muslim students Shipler cites above) - are appalled at all the blood that has been shed in recent days over the question of Jerusalem, their perceptions as to which group has a legitimate right to the Holy Land, and most particularly Jerusalem, are written in stone.  And it is precisely this inflexibility that is inexorably leading both sides (and the other nations of the region - and, indeed, the world) down the path towards war, fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah,

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, ... And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for ALL people ..."  (Zech. 12:2a-3a)


As hard as it is for most American evangelicals to grasp, the fact of the matter is, Arafat and Mubarak actually believe that the Israelis have "created history" in order to legitimize their presence in the Holy Land! They (i.e., Arafat and Mubarak) really believe that the history surrounding the Temple Mount is a figment of the Jews' imagination! - and, of course, if they think that, then where is there any possibility for a compromise? There is none!  The Jews are interlopers; they have no historical claim to the Holy Land, and that's the end of it!

There is no Temple Mount!  There is only the "Dome of the Rock," and "Al-Aqsa."  That's all.  Nothing more! And it is precisely for this reason that at Camp David in July, Arafat balked at any solution for Jerusalem that denied him FULL SOVEREIGNTY over the Temple Mount and all of eastern Jerusalem, saying that otherwise he feared a Muslim assassin's bullet.  The PLO chief warned,

"... there will be no peace and no stability in the Middle East region if [Jerusalem] does not return to its legitimate owners."

Then, as if to make sure his hearers understood what he meant, Arafat continued,

"I will NOT be flexible concerning the holy places.  They are Palestinian, Arab ... and Muslim holy places, and everyone must respect it."

Palestinian Authority (PA) cabinet secretary Abed el-Rahman expanded on what Arafat had just said,

"If the thieving Israelis continue holding on to our lands, another intifada awaits them - and worse things as well."

Arafat ended the week (the 15th of October, 2000) on the same abrasive note, telling CNN:

"You have to remember, you are speaking to Yasser Arafat. I will continue to liberate all the Islamic and Muslim holy places. I can't betray my people. I can't betray the Arabs ... I can't betray the Muslims."

Mubarak echoes Arafat's fear.  He too is afraid of what could happen to him if he were to yield to Israel on the question of Jerusalem, believing that if he becomes a party to a compromise, he will invite on himself the endless wrath of Muslim extremists and possibly murder at the hands of his own people.

Ultimately, what Arafat wants is to declare a state by raising the Palestinian flag over a "liberated" Temple Mount.  What he and Mubarak are willing to settle for in the interim - and what Arafat actually suggested to Clinton - is that the Temple Mount be transferred to "Islamic sovereignty," entrusted to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, but with Palestinian administrative control.  It was an option Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak quickly ruled out.


Technically, the Oslo Accords are supposed to guarantee access to the Temple Mount area to the Jews as well as to the Arabs, a right which the Jews have always claimed, but have never exercised [other than demanding access to the so-called "Western Wall" (which is, in reality, not part of the Temple Mount complex itself, but is merely an old "retaining wall" below the actual Temple Mount which was built after the construction of Herod's Temple to prevent erosion to the Temple's foundation)].  Because they have failed to exercise their "right of access" to the Temple Mount itself over the years (LARGELY AT THE INSISTENCE OF THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT), many Israelis now fear they will lose that right altogether - not only on a de facto level, but on a de jure basis as well.

Reality in the Middle East is based more on perception than on fact - and if the Jews continue to absent themselves from the Temple Mount area (and continue to confine themselves merely to the so-called "Western Wall."), then control of the actual Temple Mount itself will invariably pass to the Arabs not only on a practical level, but also as a matter of law - and all this regardless of what the Oslo Accords mandate.

These mandates are, after all, not written in stone.  Indeed, there are growing numbers of Jews who believe that these guarantees (i.e., right of access to the Temple Mount area and other sacred spots) are even now not worth the paper they are written on.


It was precisely for this reason that Likud chairman Ariel Sharon decided to put the Oslo guarantees to a test by visiting the Temple Mount on the eve of Rosh Hashana - a visit that Sharon advertised in advance as a "simple pilgrimage" to Judaism's holiest site, a "pilgrimage" which was supposedly guaranteed to the Jews by law.  Sharon reasoned that if such a "pilgrimage" could not be undertaken now at a time when ultimate authority over the Temple Mount still rests with Israel, what would happen if this authority were to pass to the Arabs - either directly or indirectly?

What occurred is probably exactly what Sharon had expected: the promises contained in the Oslo Accords amounted to nothing on the ground!  The morning after Sharon's visit, over 20,000 enraged Muslim radicals converged at the Al Aqsa mosque to hear the Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ibrahim Ekrima, refer to Sharon as the "Jewish butcher of Muslims" who was "challenging more than one billion Muslims all over the world" by his DESECRATING presence the previous evening on the Temple Mount. The Mufti appealed for a pan-Islamic Jihad (holy war) "TO ERADICATE THE JEWS FROM PALESTINE."  In case one still didn't get the message, Voice of Palestine radio began playing patriotic war songs and Arafat closed the schools; called a general strike; and urged everyone to "take their wrath to the streets."  Since then, more than 130 people have been killed and nearly 2,200 wounded, mostly Palestinians. 

PA minister Abed Rabbo warned,

"Trying to touch or to play with the issue of Al-Aqsa (i.e., the Temple Mount) will lead to a religious war which would last for generations.  Any attempt to touch even a stone in the Aqsa mosque will provoke more than a billion Muslims all over the world."

And all this ruckus because Sharon decided to exercise a right of pilgrimage that was presumably guaranteed to him by the Oslo Accords?  This doesn't say much for these guarantees - especially in light of the fact that the world press has all but called for Sharon's lynching for exercising these supposed rights.  Indeed, Molly Ivins, a well-known columnist closely tied to the Clinton government in the United States suggested in a syndicated article that appeared on October 17th, that Sharon be "charged with treason" for putting the Oslo guarantees regarding Jewish access to the Temple Mount to such an open test.  In light of all this, one should excuse average Jews for believing that the Oslo guarantees are worthless.


What then do we have here?  Exactly what Shipler has said: two nationalisms trying to defy the law of physics by occupying the same space at the same time.  Where is there any room for compromise here?  There is none. Israelis must give up their claim to the Temple Mount and all of East Jerusalem if there is going to be peace.  Otherwise, there will be war! - and make no mistake about it, if it comes to war, the world will hold Israel responsible!

A frustrated Charles Krauthammer, another syndicated columnist in the United States and a friend of Israel, writing in the Washington Post on Friday, October 6, 2000, remarked cynically on the unbelievable naivet´┐Żof the Israeli "peaceniks" for trying to negotiate a peace with the Arabs in light of this kind of intransigence,

"The (Israeli) doves are stunned. Avraham Burg, speaker of the Israeli parliament and one of the architects of the Labor government's bend-over-backward peace proposals, writes perplexedly:  'Do we really understand what is going on? After everything was given,  there are still demands on the other side'."

"'Suddenly we  discovered', he (i.e., Burg) continues plaintively, 'that what we mean by peace - which is mutual reconciliation - is not being met by the other side'."


Jay Shapiro of Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio in a broadcast on Oct. 19, 2000 went a long way in finding an answer to Avraham Burg's pitiably morose question, "Do we really understand what's going on?"  He said,

"Now that Oslo seems to be in its death throes, it may be valuable to take a step back and reflect on the psychology that got us into this mess in the first place.

"Do you know how to boil a lobster? Those of us raised in kosher homes don't; our mothers were busy with chicken soup and chopped liver. But several years ago, an acquaintance of mine taught me how to boil lobsters because he thought it would be an important contribution to my general education.

"There are some people who try to cook lobsters by throwing live ones into a pot of boiling water. This generally doesn't work because the lobsters carry on terribly and start jumping out of the pot. In order to do this properly, you have to take into account the nature and character of the lobsters. There are two facts about lobsters that are crucial: First, they are cold-blooded creatures; this means that they assume the temperature of whatever environment they happen to be in. Second, and contrary to the conventional wisdom, lobsters are very clever and they can only be beaten by cunning.

"What you have to do is take a pot of water at room temperature and place it on an unlit stove. Then you place the lobster gently inside and allow it time to settle in and get comfortable. Then, very quietly and stealthily, you reach over and light the burner under the pot. It has only to be a small fire. Then you wait a while. The lobster will sense the slight change in temperature and rearrange his internal temperature accordingly. After a while you quietly raise the fire somewhat and, again, wait. The lobster will again make the proper adjustment. You continue to do this in little steps and, after a while, the lobster begins to notice that it is getting uncomfortable and more difficult to make the necessary internal changes. However, the lobster, being a clever creature, begins to reason with itself. "It is getting uncomfortable here," it says to itself, "but it used to be quite nice and maybe it will be again. Besides, why should I jump out and maybe find out what is causing all this trouble and put a stop to it. I don't know what is outside and maybe it is worse out there than in here? So there is no alternative other than to get used to this situation."

"After a while, the temperature has gotten pretty high and there are bubbles coming up from the bottom of the pot. But the lobster, continuing to reason with itself the same way, pretends not to notice them. Then, finally, the temperature reaches a point where the lobster can no longer make the internal changes - and it is boiled.

"That's how you cook a lobster.

"That's also how you cook a Jewish State."


Shapiro then explained exactly what he meant insofar as the present predicament Israel finds itself in:

"First, you make an agreement with a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the State. This is done preferably in some quiet, out-of-the-way place - say, like Oslo, Norway. The State gets comfortable with this new environment, especially when any aroused suspicions are overshadowed by an impressive ceremony, like on the lawn of the White House, with all kinds of dignitaries present.

"Then, after a while, you bring the terrorist leader and his accomplices to some place where no one really knows or cares - like Gaza. And, stealthily, you let him and his friends also take over another place that's off the beaten track - like Jericho. The State gets used to this and even looks upon it as a blessing since it really wanted to get rid of those locations anyhow.

"Then, you allow the terrorist to bring thousands of his friends into the area and you even arm them and turn over military institutions to their army and secret police. No one really notices this since most people are busy with their own problems and don't want to be bothered. There really isn't much time to think about these things which, anyway, are the kinds of problems that the government gets paid to worry about.

"After a while, the terrorists kill a few innocent people. And the State reasons that, what the heck, this used to happen before so there is really no viable alternative. Besides, each person figures that it can't happen to him and his family so why bother. Then, the terrorists say that they want half of the capital city. And the State figures that most people don't go there anyway so why not?

"Then the government allows the terrorist secret police to kidnap and kill Arabs who cooperated with the State. And everyone says, I don't know those guys anyway. Besides, they probably deserve it. While all this is taking place, the news media keep talking about the wonderful peace partners and all the nice things that are happening since the agreement was signed at Oslo and how all the terrorists have nice titles like "Doctor this" or "General that" and they seem like such nice smiling people on television. And they speak English so nicely and dress so well. Then a settler is murdered but, the State reasons, it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there. Besides, the Prime Minister has explained that defending the settlers is a strain on the budget and the army so who really cares? Then, the government turns all the areas near the major urban centers over to the terrorists who then bring all their armed friends there from outside the country and ...."

Shapiro continues by describing the circular logic of Israel's "peaceniks," as they enthusiastically embraced the "Oslo Process,"

"In this regard, it must be kept in mind that the Oslo process was not based on facts. It was based on an ideology, which, like religion, is a matter of belief, and any facts that disagreed with that belief were simply hidden or overlooked. The media in Israel share the blame with the politicians for hiding the facts that disagreed with their ideology. In events reminiscent of the Yom Kippur War, the leadership and the media were caught in a conceptual trap of their own making. The Oslo process began, and continued - because Peres and Rabin were intent on creating their "New Middle East" despite the facts. And Rabin, "Mr. Security," we were told, would never do anything to weaken Israel! "Alas, Israeli governments over the past seven years did not wish to complain about Palestinian incitement and violence, since that might have slowed down the Oslo process. The tone for this stupid and blind approach to the Oslo process was set by Rabin and Peres back in 1995. At that time, a cassette was made available to the Israeli government, containing a speech made by Arafat at a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa. In his speech, Arafat said that the whole Oslo process was simply a tactic to weaken the Jews. It was like the agreements that Mohammed had made with tribes that were stronger than him. As soon as he had enough power, he simply violated the agreements and destroyed his enemies. When this cassette was played to Rabin, his comment was: "If this is true, it's very bad." Of course it was true - it was a recording of Arafat! But Rabin and Peres could not be bothered with the truth because it disagreed with their theory."

Shapiro goes on by explaining the futility of trying to base one's arguments on facts when those who disagree with you don't want to hear any facts that might contradict stands they have already taken.  Facts in such instances are "hindrances to progress."  Shapiro writes:

"When Barak went to Sharm-a-Sheikh (to meet with Clinton and Arafat to try to end the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem and elsewhere), he took along a special group of so-called experts to explain the Israeli position to the foreign press. The people whom Barak sent to run around Europe and explain our (i.e., the Israeli) position are the same ones who were fully aware that the Palestinian Authority was, for some time, training children to fight and kill Jews; they kept the information quiet since it would upset their concept of the "peace process."  Now, they are trying to explain why so many Palestinian children are being shot by Israeli soldiers defending themselves against the stone-throwing mobs. One of the main tricks of the Palestinians is to send children first to throw stones while behind these mobs they dispatch snipers who shoot at our soldiers. Many of these Arab kids spent the summer at terrorist training camps and are now in schools that utilize PLO textbooks that teach them to hate Jews and promote the destruction of the State of Israel."

In this kind of process, of course, there is no way that the Israelis can win the "public relations" battle.  They've been "SET UP" to take the "FALL" - and they have been "SET UP" in a very deliberate and purposeful manner.  But by whom? - that's the question.


Shapiro's analysis as to what has been occurring insofar as the "Oslo Process" is concerned is very precise - as far as it goes.  Indeed, most Israelis by now would probably concur in Shapiro's explanation.  But he leaves unanswered the question as to who's really behind the process; what forces are driving it - maybe because it's too difficult for him to acknowledge.

The fact is, however, what most Israelis hardly dare admit - except for those at the extreme right and the extreme left of the Israeli political system - is that it's the Americans (specifically, the American elites) who are driving this very dangerous process, a process that is, with each passing month, taking on a decided anti-Israeli tone. That's a difficult thing for most Israelis to come to grips with - both Hawks and Doves. Why? - because if the Americans are against them who do they have left in this world to trust?

Now this isn't to say that average Israelis aren't aware that the Americans are deeply involved in the "Oslo Process," they're certainly cognizant of that fact.  But what they don't know - or at least what they don't want to admit to themselves - is that the American elites themselves are the ones behind the anti-Israeli tone that has taken hold on the Oslo Process in recent months, and that they fully realize that, in the end, the process could very well prove to be SUICIDAL for Israel - at least insofar as Israel's chances of remaining a JEWISH state are concerned.

Moreover, what's infinitely worse for Israel, is the fact that not only do the American elites realize that the process may be suicidal for Israel, they embrace this prospect with some degree of enthusiasm - and so much so that it's probably not too much to say that it's no longer just the Palestinians that are attempting to boil the Israeli lobster, but the American elites as well.  In the end, all the Palestinians may be doing is acting as America's "go-fer" in this process. Significantly, even the power in Washington of the Jewish establishment has not been enough to prevent America's tilt in favor of its anti-Jewish policy insofar as the Oslo Accords are concerned.


The fact of the matter is, as we have indicated in previous articles, the American elites who are driving the "Oslo Process" have a very checkered history insofar as Israel and the Jewish community are concerned, and when James Baker, one of Ronald Reagan's key advisors and George Bush's Secretary of State (and a card-carrying member of the American elite), said, "F-ck the Jews," it was not merely a slip of the tongue; he was simply giving expression to the traditional feelings the American elite has had for the Jewish community.  [Please see The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons, pg. vii.]

The truth is, the social class out from which most of America's elite (including Baker et. al.) has sprung has historically been saturated with a very profound and deep anti-Semitism.  Anti-Semitism was (and, if the truth were really known, still is) one of those "markers" for people of "good breeding" and forms, even today, a kind of "in-house" philosophy among the upper-class who are attracted to the U.S. diplomatic service.  Today, of course, all this is carefully hidden behind a "front" or "facade" of "political correctness," and it is true that many Jews have managed to scramble up the State Department's bureaucracy to some very lofty heights. Indeed, Madeline Albright, the current Secretary of State, is a Jew - still, it's not something that she admits to readily (she just found out about it).  Indeed, she seems to be quite embarrassed by it, and there is nothing more anti-Semitic than a self-loathing Jew.  All this, of course, doesn't say much as to the depth that "political correctness" has sunk its roots in America's foreign policy establishment.

But there is much more than raw anti-Semitism at work in the American elite that predisposes it against Israel: it's the life-blood of the elite that, in the end, inclines it against the Jewish state - MONEY!  And in this regard, one must remember that if money is the life-blood of the American elite, then oil is at the heart of the elite's "net worth."  As we have said previously, the elite is inextricably tied to "Big Oil" - from George Bush (and, indeed, the entire Bush family) to Al Gore and his family as well; from Dick Cheney to George Schultz; from James Forestal to Cap Weinberger; from James Baker to, well, ad nauseum.  "BIG OIL IS THE AMERICAN ELITE" (or at least the heart and soul of the American elite), and once one understands this fact, then it's not too difficult to measure the elite's (and, ipso facto, the American government's) REAL disposition towards Israel.


The sad truth is, while America (or at least the elite that governs America) has been posturing as Israel's champion for the past fifty-five years, it has at the same time been secretly working to destroy it.  This is the conclusion of John Loftus and Mark Aarons in their book, The Secret War Against The Jews.  And, again, why is that? - OIL  The Arabs have it and the Jews don't - and if one is going to pump oil out of a region whose inhabitants despise the Jews, some consideration to the passions of the region must be displayed if one doesn't want his project to go up in flames.

It's a given fact that as far as the Arabs are concerned, whoever opposes the Jews in the Middle East is their friend; and whoever evinces sympathy for Zionism is their enemy.  For the oil companies who want to pump oil out of the Middle East, it's a "no brainer" - and for this reason the oil companies have been anti-Zionist from the very beginning, fighting the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 through their minions at the State Department and the Department of Defense (i.e., George Marshal and James Forestal), and failing that (largely because of Truman's intervention) seeking since then to hinder and "neutralize" Israel at every turn of the way.


As difficult as it is for most American evangelicals to come to grips with, the elites with whom they have made their bed in the United States (and we have reference here most particularly to those elites connected to the Republican Party) DESPISE Israel.  The fact is, to deny that the oil companies are anti-Zionist is tantamount to looking at the color black and calling it white.  And, furthermore, to say that the oil elites don't call the shots insofar as American foreign policy in the Middle East is concerned is absolute nonsense.  The experience of Joseph Churba, who was the Middle East Intelligence Estimator for Maj-Gen. George Keegan, then Chief of US Air Force Intelligence in the mid-1970s is illustrative of this fact. Churba recounts a December 1972 National Intelligence Estimate meeting he once attended which was devoted to the Middle East in which representatives from the oil companies, all in observer capacity, actually outnumbered the participating officials.

Churba was shocked by his experience.  He relates, "Here was blatant evidence of an incestuous relationship between the CIA (and the American foreign policy establishment) on the one hand, and the oil companies on the other. The oil firms were allowed to provide crucial data, and to actually oversee the members of the intelligence community in the performance of their estimating task. Invariably the estimates that emerged were in concord with the prevalent interests and views of the oil industry. That was my introduction to 'independent' US government policy formulation." [Please see Joseph Churba, The Washington Compromise, 1995]

And nothing has changed since - and so much so that, according to Churba, the CIA continues to insist on using data provided by the oil industry as the foundation for their National Intelligence Estimate for that part of the world.  The very real fact of the matter is, since the end of the Second World War, U.S. policy formulation insofar as the Middle East is concerned has been strongly influenced, if not dominated, by the interests and positions of the key oil companies operating there.  Indeed, according to Churba, the grip of the main U.S. oil companies and their Arab partners in the innermost U.S. decision-making process as it relates to the Middle East has never been successfully challenged by anyone, anywhere, at any time.


But what about the Islamic terrorists?  What about the Mujahedin? What about Hamas?  What about HizbAllah?  Surely the virulent anti-Americanism of these Islamic terrorist organization would place the United States squarely in the Israeli camp?

But such a question betrays a very profound ignorance of America's relationship with these radical Islamic organizations.  And why's that? - because, the fact is, for the past twenty years or so, American foreign policy objectives in the Middle East have been inextricably bound up with these organizations, and in some cases, even their creation.

Take the Mujahedin of Afghanistan, for example. Since the late 1970s and all during the 1980s, the US played a major role in the creation (at least in its present form) and the sustenance of this organization.  The primary U.S. objective in doing so, of course, was to prevent the USSR from reaching the oil resources of the Persian Gulf, and wresting control of these resources from the American elites which control them - and in order to prevent this from happening, the U.S. elite was more than willing to ally itself with the devil, something that for the U.S. is not a particularly difficult thing to do.

The same is true of America's involvement with the Islamic resistance to Russia in the Caspian Basin and Central Asia where the United States has played a central role in supporting the irregular Islamist forces fighting the Russians in Chechnya, while at the same time providing a strategic and diplomatic umbrella for Turkey in its effort to revive radical Islamic militancy in the Caucasus.

And this is true not only of Afghanistan, the Caspian Basin and the Caucasus, but it's also true insofar as America's support for radical Islamic forces in the Balkans, even to the point of allowing so-called Mujahedin "freedom fighters" to penetrate the Balkans through the U.S. blockade of the region in order to strengthen Muslim forces in Bosnia and Kosovo - and so much so that today the de facto governments in control of both Bosnia and Kosovo are RADICAL Islamic ones allied with the Mujahedin.

In all three cases, the U.S. has sought to intervene and manipulate geo-strategic forces in the Middle East to its advantage in order to ensure the American elite's control over regional oil and gas resources - and in every instance that it has done so, the US intervention has always been on the side of MILITANT Islam.  Moreover, in each case the U.S.'s primary objective has been to deny Russia access to the region's oil and gas resources by breaking Russia's grip on first, Afghanistan, then the Caspian Basin, and finally the Balkans - and all this despite the fact that most of these Islamic forces have been as virulently anti-US as they have been anti-Israeli and/or anti-Russian.

The fact is, the ascendance of America's oil elite in U.S. foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East means the dominance of "Muslim interests" in that region, in addition to the Balkans and the Caucasus. Hence, the American government has done its utmost to ensure that Bosnia-Herzegovina would become a radicalized Muslim state, bombed the civilian-economic infrastructure of Yugoslavia to ensure the domination of Kosovo by the Muslim Albanians and risked the alienation of Russia to Cold War levels in order to empower the Chechens.


You say that this doesn't make sense?  But it does if one keeps his eye on what America is really up to in the Middle East, specifically, control of Middle Eastern oil.  You must remember that the subservient situation of the nations of the Middle East to the will of the United States is no different than the situation that Colombia suffers under (or for that matter, Guatemala, or El Salvador, or Nicaragua, etc.).  The status of the countries of the Middle East  as "client states" (albeit very important and specialized ones) in America's "New World Order" System is the same as any other in America's "New World Order" System; as such, these countries (i.e., America's "client states" in the Middle East) are INHERENTLY UNSTABLE.  What renders them unstable, of course, is the fact that "client states" in the "American System" enjoy very little popular or mass support. As a result, they are "congenitally" beset by civil disturbances and popular unrest.

Because of this, the United States intelligence community is in the habit of maintaining clandestine liaison with opposition forces throughout its "client state" system in order to ensure that should unrest reach a point where the indigenous government can no longer control events, the U.S. can simply switch sides, reach an accommodation with the new elite, and carry on as if nothing had occurred.  This is exactly what it did when Marcos was overthrown in the Philippine Republic; when Pinochet was ousted in Chili; when the military junta in Argentina was overturned; when Mobutu was thrown out of Zaire (now the Congo); when Suharto was toppled in Indonesia, ad nausium.

This is, as we indicated in an earlier article on Colombia, precisely what was behind the President of the New York Stock Exchange Richard Grasso's visit to the jungles of southern Colombia (along with representatives of Morgan-Stanley, CitiBank, Chase-Manhattan, etc.) to meet with the fatigue-clad, gun-totting representatives of Colombia's rebels?   THE WHOLE EPISODE REVEALED HOW UTTERLY LACKING IN IDEOLOGY OR MORALITY AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY IS. THE PURSUIT OF MONEY IS WHAT AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY IS ALL ABOUT.  THAT'S IT!  THERE IS NOTHING ELSE!  The whole thing would have been laughable if it hadn't been so tragic - it was akin, as we indicated in our Colombia article, to the presidents of these elite institutions sitting down and talking with the Gambino crime family and other members of the New York Mafia about how to divide New York City up among themselves to their mutual benefit!

But then this is the American elite's modus operandi!! - the American way of doing things!!  First, co-opt the opposition; second, corrupt it; third, replace the old elite with the new (and now co-opted and corrupted elite); and, fourth, carry on as before.  As a result of this modus operandi, the U.S. views terrorist groups like the Mujahedin, Hamas, HizbAllah, etc. as future indigenous elites that it may someday have to co-opt and enlist as an indigenous "client state" elite with which it can do business to each group's mutual benefit.


Sometimes, of course, it doesn't work - as in the case of countries like Iran and Cuba where the new elites cannot so readily be co-opted and corrupted; but normally, it does; and when it doesn't, the U.S. isolates the "offending" state, and cuts it off from the rest of the so-called "world community" until it finally caves in and cries, "Uncle."

This is, after all, exactly what the U.S. did with Yasser Arafat's PLO. There was, after all, a time when the PLO was viewed by average Americans with as much horror as the Mujahedin, Hamas, and HizbAllah are viewed today. The PLO, it should be remembered, is the same terrorist organization which slaughtered American and Israeli civilians indiscriminately in the 1970s and early 80s, to wit:

  1. LOD AIRPORT - May 30, 1972:  PLO attacks Puerto Rican pilgrims.  Thirty killed; seventy-three wounded.
  2. MUNICH - September 5, 1972:  PLO terrorists attack the Olympic Village; twelve Israeli athletes slaughtered; one wounded.
  3. GREECE - September 9, 1974:  TWA plane crashes into the sea.  All eighty-eight men, women, and children killed.  PLO claims responsibility.
  4. MA'ALOT, ISRAEL - May 15, 1974:  PLO terrorists attack school; twenty -eight killed, including twenty-one innocent children; sixty-five are injured.
  5. BEIRUT, LEBANON - June 16, 1976: U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Francis E. Miller, Jr., and two aides are kidnapped and murdered.  PLO claims responsibility.
  6. TEL AVIV, ISRAEL - March 11, 1978: terrorists seize two buses. Thirty-four are killed; eighty-two are injured.  PLO claims responsibility
  7. JERUSALEM, ISRAEL - June 2, 1978: bomb blast kills six and injures nine on city bus.  PLO claims responsibility.

But that was then, and this is now.  The PLO is now working for the Americans.  It has been co-opted, "cleaned up" (at least insofar as its "press image" is concerned) and is now acting as a "new" elite in the service of U.S. interests in that part of the world. You might say, Where is the morality here? - there is, of course, none!

There is NO morality in money - and there is, as a result, no morality in the way America conducts its foreign policy in the Middle East - and that should say something to those evangelicals who think that America is doing God's will in the Middle East insofar as Israel is concerned.

The fact is, so "cleaned up" has the PLO become under the impress of the corporately-controlled American media that one could today be excused in thinking that the PLO is nothing more than a humane and gentle company of "angels" bent on liberating the Holy Land from the oppression of the Jews, people that the same corporately-controlled, elite press is coming dangerously close to portraying as Nazis bent on the merciless subjugation of an "inferior race" (i.e., the Palestinians).

The Jews as Nazis and the Palestinians as Jews - now that's the kind of propaganda coup Joseph Goebbles, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, would have been proud of!


Ultimately, what the U.S. elites have been aiming at over the past several years in Israel is the "secularization" of the Jewish state.  THE AMERICAN ELITES ARE MORE THAN COGNIZANT THAT NO ACCOMMODATION WITH ISRAEL OVER JERUSALEM AND THE OTHER "HOLY SITES" IS POSSIBLE WITH A JEWISH STATE WHERE RELIGION PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE. This is why both Republican and Democratic administrations in the United States have in recent years supported Labor governments, even to the point of interfering in Israeli elections to a degree that would be considered absolutely illegal in this country - i.e., sending millions and millions of dollars to Israel in order to ensure a Labor victory over the more hawkish Likud, and even sending U.S. experts at "voter manipulation" like James Carville to Israel in order to doubly guarantee a Labor win.

And there can be no doubt about it, the American elites have had much to show in recent years for their efforts - especially in strengthening the secularization process in Israel, and increasing the strength of those on the far left of Barak's government like the Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset who seems to favor "peace at any price;" the same Deputy Speaker who declared herself last month to be in favor of a "SECULAR REVOLUTION" which would make Israel a "secular state" like "all the other nations of the West" and one which, presumably, would give Islam the same rights in the Jewish state that Judaism holds today.


As in the United States, those who favor "secularization" as a political and social policy in Israel are particularly clustered around the Israeli educational establishment.  In recent years this cabal of secularists have had a profound affect on attitudes in Israel through the publication of such books as Benny Morris's Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999; Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World; and, in Hebrew, Tom Segev's The Days of the Poppies: Palestine Under the British.

The kind of anti-Zionism that these books have engendered in Israel among Jews has been quite shocking - especially as it has impacted Israeli schools.  Many liberal Jews in the United States support and applaud this process.  Take Ethan Bonner of the New York Times, an advocate of the secularization of Israeli society, for example;  in a recent editorial dealing with the secularization of Israeli high school textbooks, Bonner wrote:

"(Israeli) school-children have long been taught that the Jews have always been surrounded by enemies and that their victory over five Arab armies in the 1948 War of Independence was a near miracle of David-and-Goliath proportions ... (But) the new books say that it was the Israelis who had the military edge in the War of Independence (and) that many Palestinians left their land because they were afraid, and in some cases expelled by Israeli soldiers.  The books freely use the word "Palestinian" to refer to a people and a nationalistic movement, unheard of in the previous texts. They refer to the Arabic name for the 1948 war - the nakbah, or catastrophe - and they ask the pupils to put themselves in the Arabs' shoes and consider how they would have felt about Zionism.  Finally, the books no longer separate Jewish and Israeli history from events around the world but weave them into a single tapestry ... 'Only ten years ago much of this was taboo', reflected Eyal Naveh, a history professor at Tel Aviv University and the author of one of the new ninth-grade textbooks.  'We were not mature enough to look at these controversial problems.  Now we can deal with this the way Americans deal with the Indians and black enslavement. We are getting rid of certain myths'."

Bonner's editorial in the Times was dated August 14, 1999 and came out under the title, "Israel's History Textbooks Replace Myths With Facts." The editorial was enthusiastically embraced by many in the liberal Jewish establishment in the United States who thought in doing so they were doing nothing more than pushing the same secularization process in Israel that had worked so well for them in the United States. In doing so, they believed that they were being consistent on a principled basis by accepting the same secularization for themselves (really, for their co-religionists in Israel) that they had so vigorously pushed in America insofar as the Christian community was concerned.  Secularization in America had brought peace and acceptance for Jews here; couldn't the same process in Israel bring acceptance and peace for Jews in the Middle East?


This, of course, is what many in the Palestinian community say they are pushing for - a secularized Israel - i.e., AN ISRAEL THAT HAS BEEN "CUT OFF" FROM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB - where both Jews and Muslims can live in peace together in one state.  But in the long run, to Arafat and his cohorts it appears that all secularization is, is a short "way station" along the road to the total Islamization of the Holy Land - a step that would be easy enough to achieve once Muslims outnumbered Jews in Israel.  Secularization, as Arafat said in Johannesburg, South Africa, is just another tactic to weaken the Jews -

"... like the agreements that Mohammed made with tribes that were stronger than him. As soon as he had enough power, he simply violated the agreements and destroyed his enemies."

But an Israeli state where the Jewish religion was just one of many other religions? An Israel "free" of its Jewish roots?  An Israel that had turned its back on its founding principle to be a "safe haven for Jews the world over?"  An Israel that repudiated the words of its own national anthem "HaTikvah" which say: "... to be a free nation in our (Jewish) Land?"  As the thought has begun to take root in the minds of many otherwise liberal and secular Israelis, they have been revolted by it - and not only among Jews in Israel, but also among growing numbers of secularized Jews in this country that have at last begun to seriously count up the cost of what the "End Game" of the Oslo Accords might be all about.


And, again, who is pushing this decidedly anti-Jewish process?  Can there be any doubt that it's the Americans.  This is exactly what Carville was doing in Israel prior to Israel's last election - the one that brought the Barak government to power.  What Carville was attempting to do was make secularization an acceptable process to the Jewish community, or at least to those Jews allied with Barak and the "peace party" - even to the point of making palatable to Jews in the "peace party" an alliance with Israeli Arabs designed to neutralize the "natural majority" against the Oslo Accords in the Jewish community itself.

And make no mistake about it, the Republicans are as involved in selling secularization to the Israelis as the Democrats are.  There's no difference here.  The Republicans are as willing to "sell out" the Israelis as the Democrats are, their alliance with the evangelical community notwithstanding.

NOW STOP AND THINK ABOUT ALL THIS FOR A MINUTE! ISN'T THIS THE EXACT SAME ELITE - THE ONE THAT IS AIMING TO DESTROY ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE (i.e., THE AMERICAN ELITE) - THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR INSOFAR AS THE CHURCH IS CONCERNED? - SURELY IT IS!! Isn't this the same elite that is seeking the destruction of the church, at least the true church? - surely it is!  What does this say then?


Doesn't all this say something to you?  Do you think that all this is just "happen-stance?" A coincidence?  If you do, you are a very, very naive person.  These people - i.e., the elites - the same people who are pretending to be both Israel's friends and the church's friends (but who in reality are seeking the destruction of both) are UTTERLY wicked and THOROUGHLY evil people.  THEIR GOD IS THEIR MONEY, and they have been TOTALLY corrupted by it.  As we said in our Colombia article, these people are people who HURT other people; the kind that "drown men in destruction ..." (1 Tim. 6:9); who "... walk after the flesh ... and despise government" (i.e., who despise being told what to do, though they revel in the fact that they are able to tell others what to do); "... presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of ... (divine things)" (2 Pet. 2:10);  "they are wells without water, clouds that carry themselves around as if in a tempest ..." (2 Pet. 2:17);  "... they speak great swelling words of vanity ... (and) allure (disciples to themselves) through the lusts of the flesh" (2 Pet. 2:18); they are "... raging waves of the sea ... wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." (Jude 1:13).

God help both Israel and the church to free themselves from such people, for while they (i.e., the elites, and most particularly the American elite) pretend to be the friends of both, they are in reality doing everything in their power to destroy them.  These men serve a system that is UNALTERABLY opposed to both the church and Israel, and when such people come bearing either Israel or the church gifts or alliances of any kind, one should be cognizant of the fact that it is not meant for their good, but for their ruin.

More next time!
God bless all of you.

Antipas Ministries

We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]




© Antipas Ministries