Mid-East Update 2000:

The Struggle for Jerusalem

by John Loeffler, World Affairs Editor

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
they shall prosper that love thee.--Psalm 122:6

This has been an active year for the Middle East peace process. Beginning with the Oslo Accord in the early 90s, the Middle East may not have achieved a permanent peace, but it did enjoy a stable condition of "no war." (1) Prior to this, there had been decades of strife, riots and terrorist activities.

In recent months, however, many safeguards guaranteeing this state of "no war" have been systematically knocked down with few replacement controls, creating the situation wherein war is now "more likely--by increasing the opportunities for war without removing the causes." (2)

Everyone knew, though, that once these pregame activities ended, hard ball would commence. Intractable issues would have to be passionately disputed, entailing final border determinations, water rights, the repatriation of Palestinian refugees, the ultimate status of Judea and Samaria and, last but not least, sovereignty over the city of Jerusalem. This includes control over the Temple Mount and what arrangements would be made to establish access "corridors" for pilgrims to access it without crossing opposition territory. (3)

Key factors in the previous stability of the region were a peace agreement between Jordan and Israel and the fact that the Israelis were able to withdraw from major Palestinian population centers, where the majority of Arab-Israeli violence had been occurring.

Until this year, the Arabs have had every reason to participate in the process, since it provided them a continuous stream of dividends for very little effort on their part. The Palestinians gained a territory of their own, complete with 30,000 armed policemen. And Jordan completed its post-Gulf War rehabilitation with the West at little cost to its relationships with other Arab countries.

Everyone also realized that once the peace process played out, the Arabs would have no further incentive to remain at the negotiating table and behave themselves, leaving a new round of war(s) as the only remaining option. The act of accepting a final agreement would force the Arabs to relinquish any future claims on the Israeli state, its people, and the very existence of Israel itself. It would be final; the events begun in 1947-48 would be over. In the world's eyes, the Arabs would lose all 'legitimacy" for further struggle.

In Review

The last 24 months saw several key players change in the Middle East. Jordan's King Hussein died and was replaced by his son and heir, King Abdullah. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad passed away, succeeded by his designated successor, Bashar. How the new leadership in those countries affects the peace process remains to be seen.

The First Collapse

Earlier this year, peace talks between Israel and Syria/Lebanon collapsed over the issue of the Golan Heights. The Golan is critical because the highland area plays a key role in the security of northern Israel. Syria wanted the Golan back. Israel twice obtained it at tremendous cost in lives and was now being asked to return it once again. There is tremendous opposition in Israel to doing so.

A second contention is that Syria maintains ongoing support of Hizbullah terrorists who have been totally opposed to the peace process and make continual efforts to disrupt it. Prime Minister Barak said, "The government of Israel cannot hold peace negotiations when the Syrians are not preventing Hizbullah from attacking the IDF in the security zone." (4) When the peace talks at Camp David collapsed, Hizbullah urged Yassir Arafat to once again take up arms against Israel.

Internal Strife in Israel

Internal politics in Israel have been stormy this year with constant efforts to force no-confidence votes through the Knesset. Prime Minister Ehud Barak's administration came under severe fire as the result of revelations that the Prime Minister violated Israel's election finance law during his campaign last year by laundering more than $1 million in illegal contributions through registered charities.

 The "piece process" is based on a false premise:
that Muslim ambitions can be appeased by reducing the borders of Israel.

Meanwhile, if that weren't enough, a previously secret Israeli report broke precedent by admitting that the Israeli security service, Shin Beth, used torture on detainees during the Palestinian Intifada of 1988-1992. (5)

The Vatican's Agreement

In February, Yassir Arafat signed an agreement with the Vatican covering the status of churches and freedom of worship in Palestinian-controlled territories, including Bethlehem and Jericho. (6) The agreement also stated that Jerusalem is sacred to three faiths-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--and, as such, "unilateral decisions and actions altering the specific character and status of Jerusalem are morally and legally unacceptable. (7) This was a hint that Israel should consult Christians and Muslims concerning its final status. The Vatican has never recognized Israel's claim to Jerusalem, and in this agreement joined the PLO in requesting an internationally guaranteed statute to preserve "the proper identity and sacred character" of the City. (8)

Rumors in the Land

By May 2000, there were rumors that Barak was ready to offer recognition of a Palestinian state, uproot Jewish communities in the disputed territories and turn over full control of Arab villages bordering Jerusalem. That came as news to other Israeli officials, who were apparently surprised. (9)

Barak also proposed giving the Palestinian Authority 80% of the ,West Bank, only keeping control over some of the larger Israeli settlements there. PLO leader Yassir Arafat refused this offer, demanding the entire West Bank and nothing less. (10) The same can be said for sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Knesset voted later in the year to transfer the East Jerusalem village of Abu Dis to the Palestinians. Abu Dis is considered the probable capital of a future Palestinian state, should Israeli proposals be accepted.

The IDF's Withdrawal from Lebanon

Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon, causing a mixture of joy and apprehension for those left behind to pick up the pieces. Many Lebanese were joyful that the occupation finally ended and they could return to the homes they left more than twenty years ago, but there was uncertainty whether or not the Lebanese government could keep the peace or if the country would return to the civil war that tore it apart before the Israelis came.

Israel invaded Beirut in 1982 to drive out the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Arafat, who was launching terrorist attacks against northern Israel. At that time Israeli troops were greeted as liberators, but when they did not retreat back into Israel, this gave rise to the Islamic terrorist group, Hizbullah. For 18 years Hizbullah has waged guerrilla attacks against Israeli troops, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives in both camps. (11)

It should be pointed out that while the world press has been more than willing to Point out the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, it has virtually ignored the Syrian occupation of over 50% of Lebanese territory, which has existed longer than the Israeli presence there.

Collapse of the Peace Talks

In June, President Clinton made a final push for compromise in the peace process. Beginning July 11, the President hosted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat at Camp David in a process that lasted well over two weeks.

Although many issues were involved, the core dispute revolved around the sovereignty of Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians want as their undivided capital. Both consider Jerusalem a holy city and the stakes (both political and personal) are high for anyone who surrenders any part of it.

After going deep into overtime, the negotiations crashed. Early media reports indicated there were compromises on the table allowing Israel to retain sovereignty over Jerusalem, but with Palestinians able to declare sections of East Jerusalem as their capital. Arafat rejected that. Some reports indicated Barak was even willing to give away sovereignty to parts of Jerusalem.

Toward the Future

The status of peace in the Middle East is now uncertain. Feelers for new talks have begun, but Arafat has reaffirmed publicly that he is pushing ahead with plans to declare an independent Palestinian state on September 13. (12) Barak has promised annexation of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) if he does.

Political observers are fearful that the summit's failure will unleash new conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas is demanding that Arafat once again take up arms against Israel. And since May, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has been preparing for the possibility of a new Intifada. After Arafat's proclamation of an independent Palestinian state. (13)

Political Status of the Players

Upon arriving home, Arafat was given a hero's welcome for refusing to budge on the hard ball issues. In a stinging remark, Arafat said "Whether they like it or not, Jerusalem is the single most important element of these negotiations, and Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state whether they like it or not. And if they don't, they can go and drink the Dead Sea." (14) (The water of the Dead Sea is fatally toxic.)

Shuttle diplomacy has seen Arafat flying all over the Middle East to muster Arab support for his position on Jerusalem. Both Arafat and Barak met with Egypt's President Mubarak, who is pushing hard for unequivocal unified Arab support of Arafat's refusal to accept Israeli sovereignty over the al-Aqsa mosque and Jerusalem.

The stakes are high, not only for the political entities but for the people involved as well. The editor-in-chief of the Arabic weekly Al-Mussawar, Makram Mohamed Ahmed, warned that if Arafat compromised on sovereignty over the entire holy city of Jerusalem, especially al-Aqsa mosque, "...he would immediately pay the price; he would be shot dead." Recall that far more Palestinians have been killed by Palestinians than Israelis. The cost of failure can be fatal.

Changes in the Political Winds

In Israel, Barak's political challenges are mounting. The Prime Minister faced much discord at home during the entire peace process, withstanding no less than two no-confidence votes, one of which failed by only one vote. Only about 50% of the Israeli people favor the terms of the current peace process and it is they who will have to ratify whatever agreements are made with the Palestinians.

Now Barak faces another crisis. The first reading of a bill to dissolve the Knesset and hold early elections passed by a vote of 61-51 in the first week of August. Barak was saved by the bell when the Knesset began its three-month recess, affording him time to force the peace process forward and reconsolidate a new coalition to keep his government afloat before the Knesset can reconvene at the end of October.

The Future

As we go to press, the Middle East becomes more unstable every day. The period of "no war" truly appears to be a thing of the past. Israel is seriously fearful of Saudi billionaire fugitive Osama Bin Laden, who has reportedly sent agents to launch terrorist attacks against both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. (15) He is considered a far greater terrorist threat than those with which Israel has dealt in the past.

Controversy over the Temple Mount continues. Muslims continue to excavate under the Mount without taking care to preserve archaeological evidence indicating long historical Jewish presence there. Meanwhile, plans to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount could provoke a war in the Middle East.

An announcement was made at the beginning of August by the Chief Rabbinical Council that it was setting up a committee to "realize our rights and sovereignty on the Temple Mount." (16) Ikrema Sabri, the current Mufti of Jerusalem, said that building a synagogue on the hill would start a war. They would be playing with fire.

Many Israeli Jerusalem Arabs are fearful of being transferred to Palestinian Authority jurisdiction if a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is reached. Eretz-7 news service reported that many of them have begun catching up on back taxes and other civil debts as well as bringing their documents up to date so that they can claim they are Israeli citizens in good standing." It is speculated that an overwhelming majority of Jerusalem's Arabs might choose to remain under Israeli control rather than come under Palestinian jurisdiction.

It is sobering to recall that virtually everything the Palestinians are demanding today the Israelis were willing to give them in 1948. At that time the Jews wanted only a small part of Palestine, which did not include Jerusalem. The Arabs rejected this, threatening to drive the Jews into the sea. Fifty years later and three subsequent wars have seen the Arabs consistently attacking Israel and losing those things they are now demanding back from the peace process, mainly land.

Many Israelis worry that after giving up the West Bank, chunks of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, there will be nothing to keep the largely Arab population of Galilee from wanting its independence, a concern well justified since many Palestinian separatists are calling on the Hizbullah to take its war into Galilee." (17) There is also a rising fifth-column movement inside Israel among Israeli Arabs.

Former Israeli Ambassador, Abba Eb an, once made an observation that the Arabs "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." It would seem that his observation was once again proven correct at Camp David.

The western world does not understand that the existence of Israel remains the core contention for the Islamic world. This can be seen in the Arabic-language press, which is almost never translated into English for the rest of the world to read. What is said by Arafat in English is designed to shape the mood of the Western world regarding the peace process. Hostility towards the existence of the State of Israel itself continues openly in Arab world media.

The concluding dialog at Camp David between Barak and Arafat is reported to have gone this way...

Arafat: "Our mosques stand on the [temple] mount."

Barak: "Yes, and under them rests our holy Temple.""

That was the end.


1. de Courcy, Joseph, "No war, no peace still best bet for the Middle East," Intelligence Digest, December 17,1999.

2. "Israel: Watch the Signs," Intelligence Digest, May 19, 2000.

3. Shragai, Nadav, "Treading Lightly on the Temple Mount," Haharetz, http://www.haaretzdaily.com, July 13, 2000.

4. Ibid.

5. "Israel admits torture," Worldtribune.com, February 9, 20,00.

6. Simpson, Victor L, "Vatican Joins Palestinian Criticism," Associated Press, www.dailynews.Y4hoo.com, February 15, 2000.

7. Copans, Laurie, "Israel Summons Vatican Envoy," Associated Press, http://www.dailynews.yahoo-com, February 17, 2000.

8. Op. cit., Simpson.

9. Amr, Wafa, "Israeli Official Offers Palestinian State Prospect," http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/20000501/ts/mideast-talks-7.html, May 1, 2000.

10. Jaub, Karin, "Israel Map May Not Be Last Offer," Associated Press, May 11, 2000.

11. Mishlawi, Tewfik A., "Occupation Is Over, Preoccupation Is Next," Washington Post, May 28, 2000.

12. "Arafat vows to push ahead with statehood," Reuters, July 27, 2000.

13. Furst, Christian, "Israels Armee bereitet sich auf eine neue Intifada vor," Die Welt Online, http://wwvv.welt.de, July 26, 2000.

14. Yassir Arafat's statement to reporters in Ramallah after his meeting with Prime Minister Cyorah Persson of Sweden, the country which has played host to Israeli-Palestinian t,41ks over the past months, News Report from Jerusalem, For Zion's Sake Ministry, June 13, 21)00.

15. Rodan, Steve, "Middle East Newsline," http://worldtribune.com, Tuesday, August 8, 2000

16. Temple Mount Synagogue 'May provoke a War,'" Times Newspapers Ltd., August 8, 2000.

17. Jerusalem Arabs Fear Final-Status Agreement," Arutz Sheva News Service, http://www.israelhational news.com, August 8, 2000.

18. Hazony, Yoram, "Israel's Northern Exposure," New York Times, June 13,2000.

19. Von Badde, Paul, "Zweikampf der Zivilisationen-Barak und Arafat zeugten der Welt was Samuel Huntington den 'Clash Of Civilizations' nannte," Die Welt, http://www,welt.de, July 27, 2000.

A Cup of Trembling:

Prognosis for Jerusalem?

by Chuck Missler

As this issue goes to press, the entire world is wondering what is going to happen to Jerusalem. About 2,500 years ago, the prophet Zechariah recorded God's predictions regarding this troubled city:

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be torn in pieces; though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. --Zechariah 12:2, 3

On the face of it, this prophecy would seem an absurd prediction for our modern day! Here is a city with no natural resources, no harbor, no river--no reason to have any strategic significance. It no longer controls any trade routes or has any apparent reason for geopolitical strategic relevance.

It wouldn't seem that important culturally: only a relatively small portion of Jewish people regard it as significant. Even if all Jews were concerned, it still would not represent a centroid for "all the people of the earth to be gathered together against it."

The Muslims controlled it for a thousand years and they let it crumble into rubble-until they discovered it was significant to the Jews; then, of course, it became critical to Islam.

Christians regard it for historical and Biblical reasons, but not to die for. And yet, the late lights are burning tonight in every headquarters of every capital of every nation that has international relevance, and their leaders are struggling with what to do about the issue of Jerusalem!

 Here is a city with no natural resources,
no harbor, no river
--no reason to have any strategic significance.


The Restoration of the Nation Israel

The centuries of debate concerning the destiny of the Jewish people-and disputes among Biblical scholars on the issue of the eventual restoration of the nation of Israel-should have come to a close with the restoration of the Jewish homeland in 1948. The prophet Isaiah seems to have anticipated this event when he penned:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. --Isaiah 11:11, 12

"The second time?" The first regathering was after the Babylonian Captivity. The second regathering began as the 19th century drew to a close with the efforts of Theodr Herzl and others, and finally climaxed with the form declaration on May 14, 1948, when the world listened on international radio to David Ben Gurion declaring that the name of the new Jewish homeland was "Israel."

 The entire "piece process" is based on a false premise:
it assumes that the Muslim ambitions can be appeased
by reducing the borders of Israel.

(The debates as to whether the Old Testament passages were to be taken seriously or not should have ended on that date.)

The subsequent struggles of this tiny state against seemingly insurmountable armed enemies have, of course, been the legends of modern times.

And the legacy of hatred continues to challenge their very right to exist.

The Peace of Jerusalem

Will there be peace in Jerusalem? Apparently not until the Prince of Peace takes over. Jesus said that,

...Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. --Luke 21:24

The "Times of the Gentiles" began with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and will continue until the Coming World Leader (known popularly as the "Antichrist") makes his appearance and is dealt with. There will be a false peace, however, when this "Prince that shall come" will "enforce a covenant," ostensibly for an anticipated period of seven years . (2)

The "Piece" Process

As we have repeatedly pointed out, the peace process that began at Oslo virtually guarantees a war in the Middle East. The entire charade is based on a false premise: it assumes that the Muslim ambitions can be appeased by reducing the borders of Israel, even though the Muslim leadership has repeatedly-before, during, and after the Oslo Accords and clearly maintained that they will not rest until the very existence of Israel has been eliminated.

They are insisting on what Israel cannot yield. The legacy of hate that they inculcate their children with continues without any pretense of abatement.

Will God Intervene?

The Bible does indicate that there will come a specific event which will herald God, once again, intervening on behalf of His people Israel: God will intervene to thwart an invasion from the far north. Speaking to the leader of the land of Magog (which we are convinced refers to Russia) (3) God says:

And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land, it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes

Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself- and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD. --Ezekiel 38:16, 23

This passage is well known to Bible prophecy buffs, as it also seems to suggest the use of nuclear weapons. (4) The more one knows about the technical details of this passage, and the more one knows about what is presently going on in that region, the more it would seem that this event may be on our near horizon.

But Why?

Why is God going to intervene? Why does Israel deserve such special attention? The answer is most surprising:

And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries. according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.

And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, 'these are the people of the LORD, and are gone forth out of his land."

But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land...--Ezekiel 36:19-24

It's not for their sakes: it's because God's name is on the commitment. So it is written, so it will be done.

A Most Exciting Time

It is disturbing to realize that the God of the Universe has put His name on a particular piece of real estate. While "the earth is the Lord's and fullness thereof," He has chosen to call a particular parcel of ground His Own. it doesn't belong to the Palestinians; it doesn't belong to the U.N. It doesn't even belong to Israel, except as tenants under conditions of obedience.

When we muck around in the Middle East foreign policies, we are poking our finger in the eye of God! It's His Land, and we need to stand clear of His plans and programs.

And yet, the future scenario has been described, in detail, in His Word. And we are approaching His consummation of all things. Here is the premise that we suggest you challenge--not accept- but check out for yourself.:

"We are being plunged into a period of time about which the Bible says more than it does about any other period of time in history--including the time when Jesus walked the shores of Galilee and climbed the mountains of Judea."

To check out this ostensibly preposterous statement, you need to do two things:

1) Find out what the Bible says about the "end times" (not what some popular book suggests, but what the Bible really says).

2) Find out what is really going on in the geopolitical horizon. This isn't easy when you recognize that the mainline media prides itself in shaping an agenda rather than informing a public. (John Loeffler's strategic review of the Middle East is an excellent start.)

The turbulence which may lie ahead can be an exciting adventure if you know where you personally stand in regards to it all. It is, indeed, time to do your own homework!

The future scenario has been described, in detail, in His Word. Check it out for yourself!


1. There are some competent scholars who regard the current as the first, and regard the Isaiah passage as looking to a subsequent regathering at the Millennium; however, they are a small minority.

2. Daniel 9:27.

3. Magog was the ancestor of the Scythians, the forebears of the modern-day Russians. See our briefing package, The Magog Invasion, for a complete study.

4. Ezekiel 39 indicates that the leftover weapons provide all the energy needs of Israel for seven years (39:9-10); that they will wait seven months before clearing the battlefield (39:14); that they will employ professionals to clear (39:14); and that if someone encounters something that the professionals have missed, they mark the location and let the professionals deal with it (39:15).

from Personal Update, September 2000

Koinonia House Ministries (http://khouse.org)