Saturday, July 29, 2006



By Marsha West

July 28, 2006

Is it possible for a Christian to know God’s will and not have to agonize over it? Should a believer make a decision without first spending hours in prayer, asking God to reveal His will? Must a Christian avoid making a decision until he or she has a “peace about it”? What about waiting for a “sign” from God? Is it OK for a Christian to consult a psychic or a Ouija board to seek God’s guidance?

A married couple, John and Tina, is faced with a dilemma. They would like to move to Colorado to be closer to John’s family. They’ve been praying about it, asking God to show them His will. Their decision must be made before the end of the week, yet they’re still not sure what God wants them to do -- should they stay or should they go?

Naturally John and Tina are confused and frustrated. John is leaning toward moving because he knows it will be good for the kids to live close to their grandparents. He’s even getting excited about it. Not Tina! She wants to wait for a “confirmation,” from God before they pull up stakes and move half way across the country.

John and Tina are in the proverbial pickle.

Many Christians talk about finding God’s will as though it were some deep dark secret, hidden away in the pages of Scripture. Maybe God doesn’t want us to find it.

Where does the Bible teach that God tries to hide His will from us?

Tina and John believe their heavenly Father loves them, yet they’ve decided that He’s hiding His will from them. Maybe God likes playing hide and seek.

Most good parents want what’s best for their children, right? So does it make sense that God would want to hide His will from those He loves? If Tina and John really believe He’s a loving Father, why are they clinging to the ridiculous notion that He wants to keep them in the dark?

If you search the New Testament you’ll find no explicit command to “Find God’s will.” Read through the book of Acts and you’ll see what I mean. The Apostles were given no clear instructions on how they were to discern God’s will. No prayer ritual. No magic formulas. Nothing!

Christians shouldn’t waste their time searching for a magic formula that will cause the Almighty to reveal His will. Since God forbids pagan divination, dabbling in the magic arts is risky business. Yet professed Christians are using eastern meditative techniques to hoping to gain secret information that God has not chosen to reveal. Followers of Jesus Christ should never seek supernatural powers. God has determined the means by which we come to Him in prayer--and He set certain boundaries! Try to imagine, if you will, Christians determining the boundaries for themselves. There would be no limits whatsoever!

Some Christians push the limits to the brink. Mystics like Brennan Manning and Richard Foster believe God can be found within through achieving an altered state of consciousness. Individuals involved in contemplative prayer commune with God through meditation and yoga. By using these techniques they’re able to reach stillness, thus opening themselves to new experiences within, and receiving illumination. Gary Gilley gives us this insight into what Christian mystics believe, “[T]he mystic has no confidence in human knowledge accessible through normal means such as the propositional revelation of God (Scripture). If we are to know God, it must come from a mystical union with Him that transcends the rational thought process or even normal sensory experience. This takes place through following the three stages of purgation, illumination and union; implementing the spiritual disciplines and most importantly, practicing contemplative prayer.”[1]

Contemplatives admit that the means they use to commune with God can be dangerous as it invites demon oppression. And for those who are not Christians, it invites demon possession! In Acts 8 we learn that Simon (the sorcerer) Magus was severely rebuked by Paul for seeking supernatural powers. Christ himself criticized the “perverse generation” that always asks for a sign from God.

Looking for signs through coincidences, or flipping through the Bible and placing your finger on a verse, or relying on the first thought to enter your mind after a prayer, are forms of Christian divination.

In order for Christians to mature in their faith they must read and study Scripture, meditate on it (this does not mean eastern meditation), then put its principles into practice. We must put our Bibles before all the other books we’re reading! It's the only book that has God's direct message to His people.

“I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word -- Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law--Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors -- I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws…Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight” (Psalm 119:16-35).

An important aspect of reading the Bible is knowing how to interpret Scripture correctly. Paul said to Timothy, “[T]he things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2Tim 2, 15). We must seek accurate interpretations--and correctly handle the word of truth! That way we will not only know what the words say, but the intended meaning of the words. Christian Apologist Greg Koukl makes this point: “Private interpretations do not yield accurate meaning--theree is a particular truth--a determinate meaning--God intends to to convey. Individual, personalized interpretations that distort this meaning only bring danger.”

Stay out of the danger zone! Applying esoteric meanings to Scripture is irresponsible! Anyone who distorts God’s Word does so “to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

I haven’t forgotten about John and Tina. Why haven’t they received an answer from God on the Colorado question? A simple yes or no will do. They’re not expecting God to appear to them in a burning bush or through thunder and lightening as He did with Saul. Why the silence?

We may think God intends to reveal His plan -- but what if He chooses not to? What if He has no intention of sharing His plan with us? Part of God’s plan for Job’s life was to allow ghastly things to happen to him. What if Job had known in advance about the losses he would suffer, the pain he would have to endure? The man would never have left his tent! God’s plan for Job was that he should suffer more than any man. God never told Job about His plan. Job never found out why he was made to suffer.

God still speaks to us today--but not through a burninng bush! He speaks to us through the pages of Scripture. If we read and study the Bible, we’ll discover that His will for us is not hidden. In fact, it’s crystal clear. So why do so many believers agonize over it?

I’ll answer this burning question (pun intended) in Part 2 of my essay. As well, I’ll outline six qualifications that should help Christians determine God's will for their lives.



By Dr. Laurie Roth Ph.D.
July 28, 2006

Condollesa Rice told those Israelis!!! "We will only give you 10 more days of political cover." So finish the bombing was the big message! After that I guess you are on your own in the region. Now….that is certainly how the pressure sounded to my ears!!! Now I understand that Rice has been in an awkward, high pressure situation with all kinds of Arab and Muslim leaders over there demanding an immediate cease fire and speaking of the Israeli arrogance, protesting her appearance and pressuring her ears. Of course, to many of the world and some of you, the Jews are arrogant for just wanting to stay alive surrounded by a sea of deadly sharks! Why don't they just die nicely!?

Just a small after thought…………………Shouldn't the ultimatums be given to Hesbullah, Iran, Syria and Hamas? Why are we playing "control freak" and "passive aggressive" with Israel? Last I heard, it was THEY who were attacked and who have been attacked for decades by the ship of fools sending in thousands of rockets…..again! What should have been said to Hezbullah for starters, "we will give YOU 10 days to disarm, pull out, return the troops unharmed and leave Lebanon forever or face the wrath of Israel and the US." We should then have a formal and threatening response to Iran and Syria acknowledging the long term poisoning and financing of the region's terrorists against Israel and the US in Iraq. "We also give you 10 days to pull out ALL the people you have sent in to kill the democracy in Iraq, kill our troops and those funds and people sent to Hezbullah, out of the region or face a formalized and dramatic response from the US. 1. We will stop buying oil from you. 2. We will pressure our allies to do the same. 3. We will take out all our nuclear research facilities just for starters.

I weary of the immediate rush to judgment with most the world, the US ignorant and our media regarding this war in Israel. The latest smear against Israel is the 4 UN peace keepers who were killed this week. The UN is furious and of course Israel has already formally apologized. However, does anyone wish to look at any facts so far or just the gossip? All 4 of the peace keepers were in a heavy fire, war zone and surrounded by Hezbullah fighters. Oh…..but those evil Jews! They just mowed down, on purpose those PEACFULL UN observers. Never mind where they were, (dummies), who they were surrounded by (dummies) and that bombs were flying all over (dummies).

I heard on Fox last night that anti Semitism is on the rise in our country. Even on my radio show I have noticed the intense hate mail against my support for Israel, our democratic allies in the middle east! I was even called the other night a lying Jew with an agenda! Isn't that wonderful that someone finally told me who I was, especially that apparently for hundreds of years the Roths have lied to me and all my ancestors about being Scotch, Swiss and Welsh. Instead we are all lying Jews!

Do you not yet understand that Israel just wants to exist and has had to endure thousands of attacks and murders since 1948? We need to back our allies, the Israelis until they can take out Hezbullah. At the same time we need fierce conversations with ultimatums to Syria, Hamas and Iran. No one wants an escalated blood bath BUT the Muslim Extremist mind over there running Syria and Iran and most of their terrorist offspring, ONLY UNDERSTAND a position of strength! As usual, without clear, in your face conversations with them all, they are managing to escalate, fund and push more destruction everywhere….including sleeper cells here. Remember all the attacks we have endured since 1979………and the sleep we responded with. Did our looking the other way slow down the on slot? Yes…..our gift for doing little or nothing was 9/11!! I don't want any more "gifts" I want to give them a few little gifts!!!


By Berit Kjos

July 27, 2006

"The new generation...[has] a deeper sense of solidarity as people of the planet than any generation before them.... On that rests our hope for our global neighborhood."[1] Report of The UN Commission on Global Governance.

"Welfare depends on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind,"[2] Federico Mayor, then Director General of UNESCO
During the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), I attended a day-long "Dialogue" on the meaning of "Solidarity" at Istanbul’s elegant Ciragan Palace. Registered as a reporter, I received a list of 21 panel members. It included UNESCO's Director General Federico Mayor, the now discredited UN leader Maurice Strong, World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin, and Millard Fuller who founded Habitat for Humanity. Together with other globalist dignitaries, they would explore the missing factor in the old Soviet version of dialectical materialism: a spiritual foundation for an evolving global ethic.[3]

"To speak of solidarity is to speak of things of the spirit," began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. "For we are well aware that the future of our human settlements... is not just a matter of bricks and mortar but equally a question of attitudes and determination to work for the common good.... This spiritual dimension is the only ingredient that can bind societies together."[4]

N'Dow had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert McNeil (of McNeil-Lehrer), "one of the gurus, the spiritual lights of the media industry today."[4] Moments later, McNeil introduced the panel of dignitaries ready to shape the new vision of oneness.

"What’s needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe," said James Morton, former dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine. "The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals of every… faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian… and provide opportunity for sacred expression needed to bind the people of the planet into a viable, meaningful, and sustainable solidarity."[4]

Dean Morton's version of "Christianity" is actually a universalized distortion of truth that fits easily into the new religious union. Anything less would be dismissed as fundamentalist extremism.

Millard Fuller, President of Habitat for Humanity, fit right into this interfaith dialogue. Like other emerging leaders in the neo-Christian movement, he redefined Scriptures to "prove" his message:

"When Jesus launched His ministry 2000 years ago, He said, 'We must repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.' In English, that sort of connotes feeling sorry for getting caught. But in the Greek, we read that what He really said was to metamorphose. Metamorphose is what a butterfly becomes when it metamorphoses out of a little fuzzy caterpillar.... Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you. ... The only way we will achieve human solidarity in dealing with it is to have a completely new way of thinking."[4]
This "new way of thinking" has already permeated every segment of society: education, business, government, and the church growth movement, including Purpose-Driven churches. Pushing transformation in all these sectors are the leadership training programs that pursue the vision of management gurus such as Peter Drucker, Peter Senge, and Ken Blanchard. The core of their teaching is "general systems theory" or "systems thinking." In short, everything is interconnected, therefore all is One and all divisions and boundaries must be eliminated in order to establish the "Global Neighborhood," i.e. New World Order. Emerging Church leaders like Brian McLaren call it "The Kingdom of God." (This will be covered more thoroughly in Part 2: "SOLIDARITY versus CHRISTIANITY.")

God makes us "one" in Christ when we respond to His gospel with faith and genuine repentance (acknowledging our sin and humbly turning to God). Millard's "new way of thinking" points people to the world's corrupt system, not to God and His ways.

Let’s not forget that familiar words with strategic new meanings are likely to mislead the masses. For example, in Webster's Dictionary (1989) the familiar meaning of solidarity sounds perfectly safe: "common interest and active loyalty within a group." But contemporary change agents have infused that word with a far more revolutionary meaning. Let's take a closer look.


During a break, I asked moderator Robert McNeil to define solidarity for me. In his answer, he acknowledged that solidarity is strengthened by a common enemy as well as a "common good":

"It means people with shared values or responsibilities cooperating or working together. In our culture, it was probably exemplified most often by the union movement. Industrial unions often used the phrase solidarity-- 'solidarity forever.' And in the socialist movement, of course, solidarity was a very strong word -- the solidarity of the workers against the employers, their oppressor, capitalists.... whatever it was...."[4]

"Solidarity is like a social contract, like people agreeing that this is the way it should be. Whether I am poorer or richer than you are, we somehow agree that the way it is set up works best for all of us."
What if we don't agree? Then we are vilified as divisive resisters -- excluded from the feel-good solidarity. Pastor Brian McLaren, an acknowledged leader in the Emerging Church movement, summarized it well:

" be truly inclusive, the [earthly] kingdom must exclude exclusive people, to be truly reconciling, the kingdom must not reconcile with those who refuse reconciliation.'"[5]
Social contracts hold people accountable to the new standard. It pushes people toward the planned conformity, whether the society is a church, a school, or the "global neighborhood." So it didn't surprise me to hear UNESCO's Federico Mayor make the same point. "The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity," he said. "We have to redefine the words... [and write a new] social contract."[4]

This evolving "social contract" has been written into every UN treaty and declaration. And former President Clinton's Executive Order 1310 helped turn that UN "contract" into US policy. It is being implemented through government policies as well as laws whether the treaties were ratified by Congress or not. [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules]

This "social contract" guarantees "freedom from want," from fear, from hunger, and from offense by those who might voice contrary values. It also promises "freedom of thought and expression" -- but only to those who share the UN vision. Remember, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "...these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."[6]

Reflecting the same communitarian constraint, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice President of the World Bank, said:

"We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities. It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction.... The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism."[4]

A cooperative media is essential to the planned change in public consciousness. As in totalitarian regimes, "voluntary" social transformation relies on effective propaganda. That's why our Education Department's Community Action Toolkit, The President's Council for Sustainable Development, and the UN's Local Agenda 21 all call for partnerships between educators and the news and entertainment media in every community. The public must be persuaded to give its consent; the people must learn to feel so uncomfortable with dissent that contrary voices would be silenced.

The masses must never notice that this manipulative process is changing their minds and actions. Since few people do notice, Professor Raymond Houghton's triumphant promise in a 1970 NEA publication is becoming an alarming reality:

"...absolute behavior control is imminent. ... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened."[7]
This plan for "behavior control" would include three essentials steps: (1) a supportive news and entertainment media willing to disseminate politically correct information and inspire values that erode the old boundaries, (2) a management system for measuring and monitoring change, and (3) universal participation in the dialectic (consensus) process.

The latter has become the norm in US schools, corporations, government agencies, and communities. The dialectic process used to control the masses in the former Soviet Union has invaded every corner of U.S. society – even churches. The goal is to involve every human resource (human capital) in the UNESCO program of lifelong learning -- a continual process of training and immersion in the new way of thinking and relating to others.

To succeed, every level of this hierarchical management system (marketed as "local control) must continually assess change, monitor compliance, and remediate the non-compliant.[8]

We shouldn't be surprised. God warned us long ago that the world's ways would lead to corruption and tyranny, not peace and love. His lasting peace is reserved for those who will face the rising hostility with faith and love:

"... in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.... And from such people turn away!" 2 Timothy 3:1-13

“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” John 16:33


1, Our Global Neighborhood, "UN Report of The Commission on Global Governance" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); 357.
2, Forum Discusses Ways in Which To "Humanize" The City.
3, Maurice Strong didn't come to the Dialogue as scheduled.
4, I taped and transcribed this part of the "Dialogue" at the UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, 1996.
5, Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could change everything (Nashville: Thomas Nelson's W Publishing Group, 1006), page 169-170.
6, Trading US Rights For UN Rules
7, Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's (The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the NEA, 1970).
8, Brainwashing in America and Moulding Human Resources For The Global Workforce

© 2006 Berit Kjos - All Rights Reserved


Berit Kjos is a widely respected researcher, writer and conference speaker. A frequent guest on national radio and television programs, Kjos has been interviewed on Point of View (Marlin Maddoux), The 700 Club, Bible Answer Man, Beverly LaHaye Live, Crosstalk and Family Radio Network. She has also been a guest on "Talk Back Live" (CNN) and other secular radio and TV networks. Her last two books are A Twist of Faith and Brave New Schools. Kjos Ministries Web Site:

Andrea Yates: Guilty as sin

Andrea Yates: Guilty as sin

Posted: July 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Andrea Yates, by her own admission, murdered her five children. So, how is it possible that she can be considered "not guilty"? Her children were murdered. She committed the crime. She confessed it. Case closed. Her state of mind, sane or insane, is of no relevance whatsoever, nor should it even be considered a mitigating factor. In the world of "whodoneits," this one is a no-brainer. She done it. It's a fact. Any sane person can see that, and anyone who can't is, perhaps, more insane than Andrea Yates. The truth is she is guilty by reason of insanity.

But if she isn't guilty, then who is? Who's to blame? The thoughtless husband? The negligent psychiatrist? While I think a number of people close to Yates can all have a slice of the blame pie, in the end, she's the one who drowned the kids.

The whole notion that one can be considered "not guilty by reason of insanity" is, itself, a product of madness or, at the very least, a perverse form of logic. The whole premise is flawed. Guilt is determined by the commission of a wrongful act, not the "reason" for the act. Indeed, the commission of any crime would seem to demonstrate an utter lack of reason. Criminals are notoriously stupid. When it comes to crime, there is no true reason, in any sense of the word. Motive, not reason, would be the correct term here, and it's important to remember that the motive for a crime is always used as evidence in proving guilt, not innocence. One's motive does not grant absolution, as the verdict would suggest. What a not-guilty verdict really means in this case is "not accountable."

So, what was Yates' motive? In other words, why did she do it? Humanist psychology and moral relativism yield no satisfactory answers to this question because they do not recognize sin. Yes, I said sin. Andrea Yates is guilty of not just a crime, but a sin. An unspeakable sin. Five times over. And who can understand sin? The Bible calls it "the mystery of iniquity." If we put aside our worldly "knowledge" of the human heart and mind, however, and look at what God teaches us about them, I think we can push closer to the heart of that mystery.

Andrea Yates has been described as a high achiever. She set high standards for herself in her previous academic and professional careers, and when she became a mother, she was determined to meet those same high standards. She was a perfectionist. She wanted to do everything perfectly, including raising her children. She wanted to be a perfect mother. She wanted perfect children. Anything less was unacceptable.

Striving for perfection, however, is a fruitless and dangerous pursuit, not only because it is unattainable, but because it is a sin. It is a product of pride. Pride, in God's eyes, is a detestable sin. It is the mother of all sin, one of the seven deadly sins. Why does God hate pride so much? Because it breaks our fellowship with Him. Because it is an attempt to usurp His sovereignty. Because it makes us rely on our own power, and not God's. Because it makes us trust ourselves, not God. Because it makes us lust for more power. Because it makes us stubborn, greedy, envious, covetous and perverse in every way. Because it compels us to lie, steal and murder. Because it drives us crazy. Yates' homicidal mania was not caused by insanity, but by pride. Her insanity was just one link in a degenerate chain of sin that began with pride.

Andrea Yates considered herself a Christian, a fact the media take a wicked delight in trumpeting. But her actions reveal that she was never a true believer to begin with. Simply put, real Christians don't murder their children. Moreover, real Christians know that salvation depends on God's grace, not on their own merits and achievements. In Yates' fevered mind, her children's salvation was to be her magnum opus, her crowning achievement, for it was her belief that, if her children died before they went astray and before the age at which they would be held accountable for their sins, then their salvation would be assured. Mission accomplished!

"But," you might say, "she said she felt inadequate. How can that be prideful?" It is prideful because she believed that her actions, not God's, would save them. She trusted in her own accomplishment, not in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. She relied on her own plans, not God's. We're all inadequate, and we know it, but believers know that that is precisely why we must humbly trust in God, unlike the proud who desperately search for answers only within their woefully inadequate selves.

While her children's salvation seems assured, what also seems assured is Yates' own damnation. I'm not saying that she has committed an unforgivable sin, because God's grace is sufficient to cover all sins. What I am saying is that I believe that on the road to perdition, a sinner can reach a point of no return. There are sins so heinous that the sinner is incapable of confronting them. If Andrea Yates were to look at the destruction she has wrought, the grief would probably kill her, and so she won't. If I could ask Yates just one question, it would be "How can you live with yourself?" I'll attempt to answer my own question by saying that she can live with herself precisely because she is content to make excuses for herself. More pride. Pride is the antithesis of humility, and without humility, there can be no recognition and confession of sin, and without confession, there can be no repentance, and without repentance, there can be no forgiveness. And therein lies what is perhaps the saddest irony in all of this: While her children may be in heaven, it seems likely that she never will be. For Yates, hell will be a continual reminder that she will be eternally separated from them, never to be reunited.

So, is she really "not accountable"? Not in this world, evidently. But God will hold her accountable in the next. Although man's justice, like Andrea Yates, is far from perfect, we may comfort ourselves with the blessed assurance that God's justice is always perfect. Such assurance will provide no comfort to her defenders, however, whom God will also hold accountable for their complicity in her sins.

Elizabeth Shimabuku

U.N. deaths: Accident, or setup?

U.N. deaths: Accident, or setup?

Posted: July 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Hal Lindsey

Four United Nations peacekeepers stationed along the border Israel shares with Lebanon were killed when their base was hit by an Israeli air strike.

According to all accounts, the base suffered at least five direct hits, and, according to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Israeli air strike was "apparently deliberate." The U.N. post was "long established and clearly marked," Annan said Wednesday.

That is evidently the only fact not in dispute – that the base was clearly marked and had been there a long time. Israel is well aware of the base; IDF soldiers have been routinely attacked or kidnapped from within sight of the U.N. outpost for years.

But, as to the charge that the strike was "apparently deliberate" – that is a bone of some contention. To read mainstream media accounts, the peacekeepers made repeated calls to Israeli officials, "pleading" with them to lift their fire. For example the Los Angeles Times reported, "The calls went unheeded and the fire continued even when a U.N. rescue mission was under way after a direct hit on the observer post."

It does sound like Israel was doing a little getting even with the U.N. for 28 years of looking the other way while Hezbollah attacked the Jewish state with impunity.

Most of the mainstream coverage of the war has followed the same pattern: Western journalists report from the Israel side as rockets rain down randomly on Israeli cities.

But the in-depth reporting about civilian death and damage is all about the carnage being inflicted on the Lebanese side by Israeli precision air strikes and artillery barrages. From time to time, some reference is made to the fact that Hezbollah is fighting from inside civilian areas, near hospitals, schools and mosques. Occasionally, some accounts will even note that Hezbollah is storing its weapons caches inside private homes. But by and large, it is Israel that is invariably blamed for the collateral damage, rather than Hezbollah for putting the civilians in harm's way.

Need proof? Kofi Annan blamed Israel for "apparently deliberately targeting the U.N. outpost" – but said nothing about the fact that before the peacekeeping unit was "begging" Israel to lift their fire, they were begging Kofi to relieve them of their post.

What role do peacekeepers have to play in the midst of a battlefield, anyway? Why didn't Kofi approve their request to withdraw? More than a week before, the Canadian officer in charge of the installation warned the Circus on the East River that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" their installation. He noted that Hezbollah was setting up and firing rockets only yards outside the U.N.'s compound. He expressed his fear that Hezbollah, by its presence, was painting a target on them, in an e-mail since released by Canadian Gen. Lewis McKenzie.

The U.N. refused to relieve the peacekeepers, and the Canadian officer who sent the e-mail was among those killed in the air strike. It was almost as if Kofi was daring Israel to return fire so close to a U.N. outpost.

Or hoping that they would.

A world without Israel

A world without Israel

Posted: July 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2006
The world is full of Israel-haters.

I don't know why. It probably has something to do with anti-Semitism – and even more to do with lack of knowledge and understanding about the Middle East.

So, I thought it might be a good exercise to consider what the world would be like if Israel had never been reborn in 1948.

Let's suppose that United Nations vote to partition the Palestinian region into two – one Arab and one Jewish – went differently. Let's imagine the Soviet Union or some other nation that supported the Jewish state voted the other way. What would the Middle East be like today? What would the world be like?

Well, for starters, the blame-Israel-first crowd needs to remember that the bloodiest conflicts in the Middle East in the last 60 years would still have taken place – because they had nothing to do with the state of Israel.

For instance, does anyone doubt that the Iran-Iraq war, which killed more than 1 million people and featured the widespread use of chemical weapons, would still have taken place – even without an Israel on the map?

Not even Saddam Hussein or the Ayatollah Khomeini could suggest that Jews had anything to do with that little dust-up. It was simply the latest round in fighting between ancient enemies, a turf war between a Sunni Muslim dictator and a Shiite Muslim dictator.

But what might have happened to nearly 1 million Jews in Arab lands who found a home in Israel after 1948? Those million refugees often left hostile Arab lands with little more than the clothes on their back. They often risked their lives to flee. Today, those Jews, if they were lucky, would still be living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny, living in "dhimmi" status. Surely many would have been murdered in the kinds of pogroms that regularly occurred in Arab and Muslim countries while they still maintained Jewish communities.

We hear so much about the "Arab refugee crisis" that was created by the 1948 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The highest estimates of Arabs who fled Israel during that war are put at 500,000. They fled, most often, because they were instructed to do so by the Arab leaders who declared war on Israel at its very birth. Yet, nearly 60 years later, this refugee population hasn't decreased, it has increased exponentially!


Not because Israel has created any new Arab refugees. It is because the Arab nations have refused to settle the original refugees they encouraged into refugee status. They see them as critical pawns in their asymmetrical conflict with Israel.

One thing is certain. Without Israel, there would have been no Palestinian national movement. There would be no Palestinian Authority. There would be no future Palestinian state.


Because prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel conquered what we call the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there was no such movement. Even though there was no Palestinian Arab state and never had been, no one had ever promoted one. When Jordan controlled the West Bank, the so-called "Palestinians" were not agitating for a homeland. They'd never had a country of their own and apparently never wanted one. Suddenly, when Israel captured the ancient Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, the Arabs discovered their sense of Palestinian nationalism for the first time ever.

I can also promise you that if Israel had not unified Jerusalem and declared it the eternal capital of the Jewish state, it would not be considered the third-holiest site in Islam.

How do I know this?

Because during the time that East Jerusalem was under the administration of King Hussein of Jordan, prior to June 1967, not a single Arab leader ever visited – including the king himself. It would seem that if Jerusalem had always been so important to the Muslims, their leaders would have expressed some interest in it before Israel captured the city in war.

The modern Islamic jihad movement is thought to have been launched in earnest in 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power from the overthrown shah. At the time, Khomeini made clear that the real enemy – "the Great Satan," as he called it – was the United States of America, not Israel.

No one, of course, knows what might have happened or not happened if Israel had never been reborn. But it does seem clear that most of the bad things that happened in the Middle East in the last 60 years would have happened anyway. Could it be that, if the Jewish state had never been, many more horrible things might have happened?

Personally, I suspect so.

Friday, July 28, 2006

The global jihadists' perpetual will to war

The global jihadists' perpetual will to war
Posted: July 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Alan Keyes

© 2006

The fundamental flaw of the Bush administration's war policy lies not so much in its actions, as in the failure to articulate a right understanding of the nature and goals of the war. The Bush policy flounders and seems to fail because in their discussion of the situation, some policymakers still rely upon a shallow, inadequate understanding of war. This shallow understanding prevails in our day, as we see every time the war against Israel erupts into actual fighting. Whatever the occasion of battle, though it be a blatant act of aggression or terror, voices arise calling for an immediate end to "violence," i.e., Israel's military response. They purport to speak for peace, but in this case putting an end to violence is not the same as bringing an end to war.

As Thomas Hobbes observed, "war consists not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known; and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lies not in a shower or two of rain but in an inclination thereto of many days together, so the nature of war consists not in actual fighting but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary." (Leviathan, I, 13) By this understanding, the Middle East has been and remains in a state of perpetual war and will continue in that condition as long as there are those in the region who effectually make known their "will to contend by battle."

In light of this understanding, it becomes clear that peace cannot be achieved until the will to contend by battle is extinguished, or until those who, in word or deed, proclaim this will have been effectually eliminated.

For many years the European governments, and to a greater or lesser degree successive U.S. administrations, have pursued policies that ignore both the nature of war and the key prerequisite of peace. So-called peace efforts in and about the region have included, without discrimination, parties that openly and persistently proclaim their dedication to contend by battle until their goals are achieved. This means, of course, that any involvement in negotiations is for them simply an element of strategy, meant to influence the opportunity for battle and its outcome.

In Lebanon right now, the IDF is experiencing the fruit of this kind of diplomacy. Since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon some years ago, Hezbollah has enjoyed a free hand in the area that borders Israel. They have not only made known their disposition to do battle, they have continually engaged in acts of violence. The nature of the resistance Israeli forces are now encountering demonstrates that Hezbollah also used their undisturbed hegemony in the area to prepare the region for battle with stockpiles of new weapons, and a network of underground tunnels and bunkers to facilitate the supply and movement of their war-making forces.

Thanks to the diplomatic framework of Israel's withdrawal and the weight of political pressure and opinion, Israel did not periodically move to disrupt Hezbollah's development of this war-making infrastructure. Now Israel's forces pay the price as they seek finally to dislodge a profoundly entrenched enemy.

If we think this through, it becomes clear that in the context of perpetual war, the supposed devotees of peace who clamor for an end to violence the moment battle begins contribute mainly to the strength and success of those whose "will to contend by battle" is responsible for the state of war. Thanks to the very real constraints imposed by the influence of these self-styled peace lovers, the war makers can at will choose the time and place of battle. They can keep their opponents constantly on the defensive. They can demonstrate over time to the populations they seek to govern that the war path leads to power and advantage no peaceful path could offer.

When we say "advantage" Americans immediately think in terms of material advantages, the opportunity to enjoy the good things of life. This is mainly because, given our situation in the world, this sense of advantage at once satisfies both our desires and our pride. In today's world, however, the pride of the peoples of the Middle East cannot be satisfied by the measuring rod of material prosperity. By this measure, thanks mainly to their continual scientific advances, others such as the United States, Europe and Japan must stand higher in the scale of power and achievement. The holy-war mentality promoted by the Iranians and al-Qaida, however, introduces a different basis for measurement, one in which the purity of faith and fierce devotion count for more than material goods. On no other basis could al-Qaida's No. 2 leader conjure the prospect of Islamic hegemony from "Spain to Iraq," re-establishing the era – glorious for Islam – when regimes of that faith dominated the Mediterranean basin and reached well into Europe and South Asia.

Though much of our experience since World War II suggests otherwise, most Americans still operate on the assumption that our material advantages necessarily translate into superiority in war. If all means could be ruthlessly employed whenever they would be militarily effective, this assumption could be justified. In reality, however, conscience and the enjoyment of peace have an effect upon the national will that limits, for good and ill, the means we can employ. The self-proclaimed holy warriors of Islam labor under no such constraints. They see no wrong in their unprovoked attacks on Israel or anyone else they choose. They see no wrong in violent attacks aimed at taking the lives of masses of unarmed civilians. Their will to war extends beyond aggression to terrorism of every description, and beyond the Middle East to every region of the world.

At the beginning of his famous treatise "On War," Clausewitz describes war as "an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." But since the application of available forces depends upon the will, it is will not force alone that ultimately determines the outcome. But the will in question is precisely the will to war, the will to wage battle by every available means until the enemy is eliminated or defeated. In the confrontation between the holy warriors of Islam and democratic republics such as the United States and Israel, the former may have a natural advantage when it comes to sustaining the will to battle over the long term.

Most people prefer peace to war. They would rather enjoy a good meal than devour their enemies in battle. They would rather build a home or a business than destroy the strongholds of the ungodly. They would rather seek pleasure in the battle of the sexes than victory in the embrace of glorious death. The passion for holy war must appear to them a kind of madness, and this is precisely why it is so hard for them to deal with the reality to which it gives rise. In democratic republics, the will of most people ultimately prevails, along with its limitations. Given the popular inclination toward peace, can such republics cope, over the long term, with the challenge of adversaries whose very identity and spirit are defined in terms of war? Most people grow weary of life in war. The holy warrior lives for the prospect of a fulfilling death that cannot be had without it.

This does not mean that the people in democratic republics can never meet the challenge of holy war. It does suggest, however, that their survival depends on never predicating their actions on the notion that the will to peace that they take for granted is universal. Wisdom begins when they accept the fact that the holy warrior does not want peace, will never want peace and cannot even conceive of peace as they do. The holy warrior finds peace in the smile of his god at the moment of his glorious death. He thus makes peace only by killing all his enemies. ("But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." Isaiah 57:20)

This is the root of the perpetual war in the Middle East, and of the threat that it poses to the rest of the world. The dedication to holy war results in a permanent will to war that may change only when all enemies have been eliminated or reduced to submission. This was the spirit in which Islamic armies forged the great empires the leaders of al-Qaida and Iran now seek to recreate. With such people it may be possible to negotiate temporary cease-fires and truces of dubious duration, but no peace is possible with those who embrace the culture of holy war. When they are involved, the very idea of peace talks is a dangerous delusion.

Unfortunately, the shallow understanding that has characterized U.S. and European policy toward the Middle East has inexorably led to a situation in which the terror-minded forces of holy war now play a decisive role. Though no one would yet dare to suggest that anyone should negotiate with al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah have moved to the fore as de facto negotiating parties in the current battles. Though both continue to be devout practitioners of terror, "leaders" like Kofi Annan at the United Nations and spokesmen for the various European powers press for a quick cease-fire on terms worked out directly or indirectly with their participation. Prior to the present outbreak, the general assumption was that no dealings should take place with Hamas until and unless it renounced terror and aggressive war. Now, by means of terror attacks and aggressive war, the Hamas-Hezbollah combination has advanced to de facto negotiations. The war path has once again borne fruit.

The strategy they now follow is similar to the course followed by the PLO through decades of posturing and manipulation of the so-called Middle East peace process. As an inexhaustible source of war and violence, Yasser Arafat made himself an indispensable element of the process, by providing time and again the crisis to be talked about and resolved. Extinguished by time and corruption, such leaders as Arafat have given way to a new generation, following a more blatant and open form of the same strategy. Recruiting their strength with the ideology of holy war, they become the permanent source of violence that keeps the "peace process" alive by making sure that talks are always necessary and peace is never possible.

After several generations as the feckless dupes of such leaders, one would think that both European and American leaders would have learned something. But they continue to follow the terrorist factions in this dance of deadly delusion because the alternative contradicts all the rosy platitudes that they wrongly present as the basis for mankind's progress toward peace. Somehow, despite contrary facts that are palpably clear in the historic record, they have managed to convince themselves and the world that the most terrible wars of the 20th century occurred because nations didn't do enough talking to resolve their differences. In fact, they occurred because shortsighted, peace-minded leaders allow good intentions and wishful thinking to take the place of an accurate assessment of the identity and intentions of their adversaries. They occurred because democratic societies want so badly to believe that war is an episode, even when dealing with people whose spirit and intention have already made it a permanent, inevitable reality.

The true breach of the peace comes not in the act of violence that reveals the battle, but in the inclination of heart, character and culture through which a people declare themselves to be in a state of war. Once a people or their accepted leaders have exposed this inclination, war exists, and no amount of talking will wish it away. Two courses of action are sensible: to defeat the war-makers by fighting the war as effectively as possible; and to work for peace by breaking and eliminating the culture and mentality that produces their warlike inclination. Though parleys may occur as these actions proceed, they make sense only insofar as they serve one or the other of these purposes.

This reasoning has clear application to the present situation. Rather than pressing for a cease-fire in any form, people who really want to see an end to war in the Middle East should press for the total defeat and elimination of the forces who now represent the settled determination to do battle. Though Israel's short-term security may be served by a result that merely pushes Hezbollah away from the Israeli border, regional peace can only be served by the effectual elimination of its war-making capability. The same is true of Hamas, and in the long run of Iran.

It should be the clear and unyielding policy of the United States and all who truly desire peace in the region to insist that no peace talks of any kind can take place until, by word and deed, the leaders and regimes who have declared their settled inclination to do battle renounce that inclination. All support for and involvement in terrorist activities in any form must end. All unprovoked attacks must end; all declarations of holy war, battle and struggle must cease and be vigorously disavowed. Leaders who have declared their irrevocable commitment to such things must step down or be removed. Absent these steps, taken and confirmed beyond doubt, the United States and any others determined to make real peace possible should hold firm in the determination to prosecute the war these others insist upon until either their means or their will to make war are eliminated.

A television documentary team has pieced together details surrounding the case of a 16-year-old girl, executed two years ago in Iran.

Execution of a teenage girl
A television documentary team has pieced together details surrounding the case of a 16-year-old girl, executed two years ago in Iran.

On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka.

Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity".

The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery and described her as 22 years old.

But she was not married - and she was just 16.

Sharia Law

In terms of the number of people executed by the state in 2004, Iran is estimated to be second only to China.

In the year of Atefah's death, at least 159 people were executed in accordance with the Islamic law of the country, based on the Sharia code.

Since the revolution, Sharia law has been Iran's highest legal authority.

Alongside murder and drug smuggling, sex outside marriage is also a capital crime.

As a signatory of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has promised not to execute anyone under the age of 18.

But the clerical courts do not answer to parliament. They abide by their religious supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, making it virtually impossible for human rights campaigners to call them to account.

Code of behaviour

At the time of Atefah's execution in Neka, journalist Asieh Amini heard rumours the girl was just 16 years old and so began to ask questions.

"When I met with the family," says Asieh, "they showed me a copy of her birth certificate, and a copy of her death certificate. Both of them show she was born in 1988. This gave me legitimate grounds to investigate the case."

So why was such a young girl executed? And how could she have been accused of adultery when she was not even married?

Disturbed by the death of her mother when she was only four or five years old, and her distraught father's subsequent drug addiction, Atefah had a difficult childhood.

She was also left to care for her elderly grandparents, but they are said to have shown her no affection.

In a town like Neka, heavily under the control of religious authorities, Atefah - often seen wandering around on her own - was conspicuous.

It was just a matter of time before she came to the attention of the "moral police", a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whose job it is to enforce the Islamic code of behaviour on Iran's streets.

Secret relationship

Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.

Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.

Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.

Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse

When she returned to her home town, she told those close to her that lashes were not the only things she had to endure in prison. She described abuse by the moral police guards.

Soon after her release, Atefah became involved in an abusive relationship with a man three times her age.

Former revolutionary guard, 51-year-old Ali Darabi - a married man with children - raped her several times.

She kept the relationship a secret from both her family and the authorities.

Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse.

Local petition

Circumstances surrounding Atefah's fourth and final arrest were unusual.

The moral police said the locals had submitted a petition, describing her as a "source of immorality" and a "terrible influence on local schoolgirls".

But there were no signatures on the petition - only those of the arresting guards.

Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women
Mohammad Hoshi,
Iranian lawyer and exile

Three days after her arrest, Atefah was in a court and tried under Sharia law.

The judge was the powerful Haji Rezai, head of the judiciary in Neka.

No court transcript is available from Atefah's trial, but it is known that for the first time, Atefah confessed to the secret of her sexual abuse by Ali Darabi.

However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law - within the confines of marriage - is nine, and furthermore, rape is very hard to prove in an Iranian court.

"Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women," according to Iranian lawyer and exile Mohammad Hoshi.

"They can say: 'You know she encouraged me' or 'She didn't wear proper dress'."

Court of appeal

She was my love, my heart... I did everything for her, everything I could
Atefah's father

When Atefah realised her case was hopeless, she shouted back at the judge and threw off her veil in protest.

It was a fatal outburst.

She was sentenced to execution by hanging, while Darabi got just 95 lashes.

Shortly before the execution, but unbeknown to her family, documents that went to the Supreme Court of Appeal described Atefah as 22.

"Neither the judge nor even Atefah's court appointed lawyer did anything to find out her true age," says her father.

And a witness claims: "The judge just looked at her body, because of the developed physique... and declared her as 22."

Judge Haji Rezai took Atefah's documents to the Supreme Court himself.

And at six o'clock on the morning of her execution he put the noose around her neck, before she was hoisted on a crane to her death.

Pain and death

During the making of the documentary about Atefah's death the production team telephoned Judge Haji Rezai to ask him about the case, but he refused to comment.

The human rights organisation Amnesty International says it is concerned that executions are becoming more common again under President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who advocates a return to the pure values of the revolution.

The judiciary have never admitted there was any mishandling of Atefah's case.

For Atefah's father the pain of her death remains raw. "She was my love, my heart... I did everything for her, everything I could," he says.

He did not get the chance to say goodbye.

Iran: Israel Has Hit Self-Destruct Button With Lebanon Invasion

Iran: Israel Has Hit Self-Destruct Button With Lebanon Invasion

Thursday , July 27, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran — Israel has ordained its own destruction by invading Lebanon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday, according to the state news agency.

Addressing the clerical staff of the Friday prayer sermons in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said Israel and its supporters "should know that they cannot end the business that they have begun."

"The occupying regime of Palestine has actually pushed the button of its own destruction by launching a new round of invasion and barbaric onslaught on Lebanon," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted the president as saying.

A top Iranian negotiator reportedly visited Damascus on Thursday for talks on the Lebanese crisis with the Syrian and Hezbollah leaders, starkly outlining the shape of the triparty alliance arrayed against Israel.

The reported meetings also supported the Israeli and U.S. insistence that Syria and Iran have a powerful influence with the Shiite Hezbollah organization and its guerrilla fighters.

In Washington White House spokesman Tony Snow said Syria and Iran "are playing leading roles" in the conflict in Lebanon "and need to step up" to the task of finding a solution.

"We have already made it clear to both parties what is necessary and what is necessary is for Hezbollah to lay down arms and choose a political rather than a military track."

Snow's remarks reinforced those of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after the Syrians held out their diplomatic hand to the United States this week. The top American diplomat said there already were sufficient contacts and the Syrians were aware of what they needed to do — stop supporting Hezbollah and press it to disarm.

Visit's Mideast Center for more in-depth coverage.

The reported Damascus meeting, which could not be confirmed by FOX News and which sources inside Syria and Iran say did not happen, was reported by two Iranian news agencies and Kuwait's Al-Siyassah newspaper, which is known for its opposition to the Syrian regime.

The newspaper said the meeting was called to discuss ways to maintain supplies to Hezbollah fighters with "Iranian arms flowing through Syrian territories."

Al-Siyassah said it learned of the meeting from "well-informed Syrian sources" it did not identify. It reported that Nasrallah — who Israel would try to kill if it knew his whereabouts — was moving through Damascus with Syrian guards in an intelligence agency car. He was dressed in civilian clothes, not his normal clerical garb.

The Mehr news agency in Iran said Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, was in Damascus for the meeting, but gave no details. Similar reports were carried by the Iranian Labor News Agency and the Fars agency.

Al-Siyassah said Larijani was to have met Syrian President Bashar Assad and Nasrallah.

Hezbollah officials reached by The Associated Press in Beirut Thursday said they did not know if Nasrallah had traveled to Damascus.

Iranian state-run media did not mention Larijani's travels. A spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said there "was no information" on the reported trip.

In Damascus, Iranian Embassy No. 2 Ghazanfar Rokn-Abadi would neither confirm nor deny the reported meetings, telling The Associated Press: "We, too, heard and read in the media this report."

Syrian foreign ministry officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment on the meeting.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made a hastily arranged visit to Malaysia for talks on the Lebanese crisis with other foreign ministers in Kuala Lumpur for a security conference that Rice also attended after her diplomatic foray in the Middle East and Rome earlier in the week.

It was not clear whether his visit had anything to do with Rice's schedule. A U.S. official rejected any possibility for Rice to meet him. She, however, cut short her visit by one night and was believed headed back to the Middle East.

Because of its strong alliance with Tehran and Hezbollah, Damascus can serve as a link through which the Bush administration, no matter how much it may loathe the prospect, could talk to Hezbollah and Iran about ending the Lebanese crisis.

Rice said this week that America's poor relationship with Syria had been overstated, noting the U.S. still had a diplomatic mission there and State Department officials working in the Syrian capital.

"The problem isn't that people haven't talked to the Syrians. It's that the Syrians haven't acted," she said. "It's not as if we don't have diplomatic relations," she said. "We do."

The U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled last year after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syrian officials have been blamed for the murder, which Damascus denies.

The U.S. has also imposed sanctions on Syria, blaming it for fueling the insurgency in Iraq and supporting Islamic militant groups in the Palestinian territories, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Syria denies the charges but hosts exiled leaders of those groups in Damascus.

Regardless, Syrian officials have said they were ready to talk with Washington.

"If the United States wants to involve in Syria's diplomacy, of course Damascus is more than willing to engage," Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

But Syrian officials said Damascus would only cooperate within the framework of a broader Middle East peace initiative that would include a return of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967 and annexed in 1981.

Analysts said Syria's role could not be ignored if a solution to the crisis was to be found.

"Syria is a major player in regional politics. After being sidelined and isolated for a long time, it now holds the keys to many of the region's crises," says Amin Kammouriyeh, a political analyst with Lebanon's leading An-Nahar daily.

Writing in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat this week, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, director of Al-Arabiya television, said Syria remained a pariah state in the eyes of Washington, which would find it hard to engage Syria seriously after blaming it for supporting the insurgency in Iraq and Harriri's death while criticizing its alliance with Iran.

"This is why opening that door will not be easy," he wrote.

But there is increasing pressure on the United States to engage its enemies. At the diplomatic gathering in Rome Wednesday to seek solution to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said a lasting end to the conflict would "require the constructive engagement of the countries in the region, including Syria and Iran."

Iran testing Israel ahead of confrontation?

Iran testing Israel ahead of confrontation?
Lebanese leader says Tehran trying out its weapons, intel in Hezbollah conflict

Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006

Druze leader Walid Jumblatt (
JERUSALEM – Tehran is using Hezbollah's confrontation with the Jewish state to test the abilities of Iranian weapons and to observe Israeli military capabilities, Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt charged in a WorldNetDaily interview yesterday.

Jumblatt also said he fears Syria will take advantage of the growing crisis in Lebanon to reassert its influence in the country and convince the international community Syrian domination of Lebanon is crucial to the stability of the Middle East.

He warned Damascus might initiate a wave of terror in Lebanon following Israel's military campaign there to further destabilize the country, including by assassinating the Lebanese prime minister.

"Iran is bringing in [to Lebanon] sophisticated weaponry," said Jumblatt who is head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party and is largely considered the most prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese politician. "The Iranians are actually experimenting with different kinds of missiles in Lebanon by shooting them at the Israelis. Iran is using this violence to test certain of [Israel's] abilities,"

Iran is accused of supplying Hezbollah was thousands of rockets the terror group has launched the past three weeks into northern Israeli population centers, including Haifa, the country's third largest city. Many of the fired rockets have been Katyushas he says were upgraded by Iran. Hezbollah is also in possession of Iranian Zalzel missiles, with a range of about 125 miles, making Tel Aviv vulnerable.

Earlier this month, an Iranian Silkworm C-802 radar-guided anti-ship cruise missile struck an Israeli naval vessel, killing four soldiers. It was the first time the missile had been introduced in the battle with Israel. Military officials here say the Israeli ship's radar system was not calibrated to detect the Silkworm, which is equipped with an advanced anti-tracking system.

Jumblatt said he is worried Syria might try to gain more control of Lebanon following Israel's military campaign.

"Syria will likely try to tell the world, 'Look, see, since we left Lebanon the Cedar Revolution and the forces in Lebanon that got our military out through popular support, those forces are not able to control Lebanon. While we (the Syrians) were in control, Lebanon was a safe place. Now it's not. We need to come back in,'" said Jumblatt.

"I would not be surprised if they even try to wiggle their way into a deal by convincing the Americans that Syrian influence in Lebanon will stabilize the region," Jumblatt said.

Syria originally sent forces into Lebanon in 1976 during the Lebanese Civil War. It militarily occupied the country until Syrian troops withdrew last year under intense international pressure following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, for which Damascus was widely blamed.

Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese, led by Jumblatt and other anti-Syrian politicians, had staged a "Cedar Revolution" of popular protests demanding freedom from Damascus.

Jumblatt predicted Syria will attempt to further destabilize Lebanon to advance the argument of asserting its influence in the country.

"I would not be surprised if the Syrians try to overthrow our government and assassinate [Lebanese Prime Minister Faud] Sinora. [Syrian President Bashar] Assad made comments last month about al-Qaida infiltrating Lebanon. Now Assad can send into our country the same extremists he has been sending into Iraq to blow themselves up and wreak havoc here and blame it on al-Qaida. No one can prevent him from doing this."

Asked if he feared another full-scale Syrian military occupation of Lebanon, Jumblatt replied, "Another? In truth the Syrians never left Lebanon. They triggered this war through their proxy Hezbollah. They continue to hold us hostage."

Israel rules out United Nations role in peacekeeping force

Livni says she backs French offer for aid corridors in Lebanon

By Aluf Benn, Yoav Stern, Amos Harel and News Agencies

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said she was favorable to a French proposal to open humanitarian corridors in Lebanon and urged France to use its influence in the region to push for a full disarmament of Hezbollah.

"We accept (the proposal of humanitarian corridors) because we are not making war on Lebanon, nor on its government, nor on its civilian population," Livni was quoted as saying in an interview for Saturday's edition of Le Figaro daily, made available on Friday.

"We are making war on Hezbollah," she said.

France has pushed for corridors to be set up on both land and maritime routes to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches civilians in Lebanon.

Livni praised French diplomatic efforts in the region and urged the country to "finish its magnificent work in Lebanon" by pressing for the full application of UN resolution 1559 that calls, in part, for the disbanding and disarmament of all militias in Lebanon.

France, which has long-standing historic links to its former colony, Lebanon, helped broker the 2004 resolution and has taken a leading role in working to resolve the current crisis. It was the first country to begin large-scale evacuations of Lebanon, and the first to send a top official, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, to Beirut.

The UN humanitarian chief called Friday for a three-day truce between Israel and Hezbollah to evacuate trapped civilians and replenish supplies to areas cut off by the fighting.

Jan Egeland told reporters that thousands of children, elderly and disabled had been stranded after more than two weeks of war, while supplies of food and medicines are dwindling.

He said he hoped the three-day pause could be the start of a larger cessation of hostilities between the two sides.

Egeland said that, for now, he would ask the Israelis and Lebanese "for at least a 72-hour start of the cessation of hostilities, so that we can evacuate wounded, evacuate children, evacuate the elderly and the disabled from the crossfire in southern Lebanon."

He said that humanitarian workers were "stepping up" their work and, awaiting security guarantees and safe routes for convoys, will be able to provide 10,000 to 20,000 tons of food in Lebanon in the next month.

"But is only the cessation of hostilities that will end the suffering of the civilian populations," Egeland said.

UN to remove observers from Israel-Lebanon border
The United Nations will remove unarmed observers from their posts along the Israel-Lebanon border, moving them in with the peacekeeping force in the area, a spokesman said Friday.

The decision came after one of the posts of the observer force, known as
UNTSO, was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike earlier this week, killing four.

"These are unarmed people and this is for their protection," said Milos
Struger, a spokesman for UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force whose 2,000 members have light weapons for self-defense.

UNTSO has about 50 observers in four posts along the border, two of which have already been abandoned - the one that was destroyed at Khiam and a second near the village of Maroun al-Ras, which was abandoned after one of the observers was seriously wounded by Hezbollah gunfire on July 23, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the UNIFIL peacekeepers.

Staff were being removed from the remaining two posts to be placed at UNIFIL posts along the border, Struger said. He would not say whether the move had been completed.

UNTSO - the UN Truce Supervision Organization - was established in 1948 to observe the cease-fire following the war that followed Israel's creation.

UNIFIL - the UN Interim Force in Lebanon - was created after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in in 1978. It has over 30 observation posts and bases along the border, monitoring and reporting on violence in the region.

Israel rules out United Nations role in peacekeeping force
Israel's ambassador to the UN ruled out Thursday major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation.

Dan Gillerman also said Israel would not allow the United Nations to join in an investigation of an Israeli air strike that demolished a post belonging to the current UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. Four UN observers were killed in the Tuesday strike.

"Israel has never agreed to a joint investigation, and I don't think that if anything happened in this country, or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation," Gillerman said.

He apologized for the strike that killed the four UN observers, but said the conflict was a war and that accidents happen.

"This is a war which is going on," he told reporters. "War is an ugly thing and during war, mistakes and tragedies do happen."

Gillerman, who spoke at an event hosted by The Israel Project advocacy group and later inside the United Nations, gave a heated defense of Israel's two-week campaign against Hezbollah militants. He said some diplomats from the Middle East had told him that Israel was doing the right thing in going after Hezbollah.

His refusal to conduct a joint investigation will be a slap to UN officials, who have specifically sought to partner with Israel to investigate the bombing.

Gillerman was highly critical of the current UN peacekeeping force, deployed in a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon since 1978, saying its facilities had sometimes been used for cover by Hezbollah militants and that it had not done its job.

"It has never been able to prevent any shelling of Israel, any terrorist attack, any kidnappings," he said. "They either didn't see or didn't know or didn't want to see, but they have been hopeless."

Gillerman even mocked the name of the force - the UN Interim Force in Lebanon.

"Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said.

The flaws with the UN force make it imperative that any UN force come from somewhere else, though it could have a mandate from the United Nations, he said.

"So obviously it cannot be a United Nations force," Gillerman said. "It will have to be an international force, a professional one, with soldiers from countries who have the training and capabilities to be effective."

Any such force must have two main objectives. It must disarm completely and make sure Hezbollah has lost all its capacity as a terror organization, he said, and it should monitor the border between Syria and Lebanon "to make sure that no additional shipments of arms, rockets, illegal weapons, enter Lebanon."

Despite Israel's opposition to a UN force, Gillerman said Israel was not "excluding anybody," and that "the makeup, the composition and the countries which would supply the soldiers to that force still has to be decided."

Gillerman said Israel would welcome any information from the UN as it conducts its investigation, and will consider any UN requests for information.

UN Council expresses 'shock' over IAF attack on UN post
The UN Security Council adopted a statement on Thursday expressing shock and distress at Israel's bombing of a UN outpost in Lebanon that killed four unarmed UN peacekeepers.

China demanded Thursday morning that Israel apologize for the death of a Chinese UN observer in southern Lebanon on Tuesday. Three other observers - an Austrian, a Canadian, and a Finn - died in the air strike.

The policy statement, which carries less weight than a resolution, was weaker than one proposed by China and other nations, after more than a day of negotiations and objections from the United States, which wanted to make sure Israel was not directly blamed for the attack.

China, expressing frustration at the delay, earlier warned the United States that its opposition to the statement could could jeopardize UN negotiations on a resolution ordering Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment. One of the peacekeepers killed on Tuesday was Chinese. The other three came from Austria, Canada and Finland.

The final draft adopted by the 15-member council eliminated wording "condemning any deliberate attack against UN personnel" as well as a call for a joint Israeli-UN investigation, which UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had asked for.

Instead, it called on Israel "to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this incident, taking into account any relevant material from United Nations authorities."

It said the Security Council "is deeply shocked an distressed by the firing by the Israel Defense Forces on a United Nations Observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July, 2006, which caused the death of four UN military observers."

Israel has apologized and called the incident a mistake.

UN officials said they asked Israel a dozen times to stop bombing near the post in the hours before it was destroyed.

Jane Lute, an American and an assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, briefed the Security Council that the outpost came under Israeli fire 21 times, including four direct hits.

After the statement was adopted, China's UN Ambassador Wang Guangya said he was relieved action was taken even if the final draft was watered-down. He had previously said that he was frustrated by the U.S. position.

Hizbullah Used Civilians, Mosques in Attack on IDF

Hizbullah Used Civilians, Mosques in Attack on IDF
Thursday, July 27, 2006 / 2 Av 5766

Hizbullah refused to allow civilians to leave their village and used mosques in their ambush on IDF soldiers at Bint Jbeil Wednesday. Names of the nine fallen soldiers were released. Morale is high.

Hizbullah stored ammunition and weapons in mosques, knowing that the IDF does not attack religious sites. Civilians were not allowed to leave so that Hizbullah could use them as cover. IDF officers said they ordered pilots not to strafe Bint Jbeil in order to spare civilian casualties.

A United Nations peace keeping officer from Canada told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that Hizbullah used the same tactic to draw fire on the UNIFIL post which resulted in the death of four U.N. observers. "This is their favorite trick," he said. "They use the U.N. as shields."

Morale of the Golani soldiers was extremely high after the bitter battle, the fiercest in many years. One of the soldiers injured in Bint Jbeil said from his hospital bed Wednesday night, "I want to go back and fight with my comrades. Morale is totally high. [The battle] was complex, and there is fear, but we have to take the fear and turn it around."

IDF officers are trying to cool down the soldiers' enthusiasm to take over Bint Jbeil. The troops marked the Hizbullah terrorists with an "x." "Tomorrow will see their death," they said. "Tomorrow they will pay the price."

The names of the fallen soldiers who fell at Bint Jbeil are:
Corporal Ohad Kleisner, 20, of Beit Horon
Lt. Alex Shwartzman, 24, of Acre (Akko)
Corporal Shimon Adega, 21, of Kiryat Gat
Sgt. Shimon Dahan, 20, of Ashdod
Corporal Asaf Namar, 27, of Kiryat Yam
Lt.-Col. Ro'i Klein, 31, of the Samarian community of Eli,
Lt. Amichai Merchavia, 24, also of Eli
Sgt. Idan Cohen, 21, of Jaffa.

Lt. Yiftah Shrier, 21, of Haifa, was killed in a separate incident when Hizbullah terrorists fired an anti-tank missile between Bint Jbeil and Marun A-Ras late Wednesday.

Three soldiers still are in serious condition, and 19 suffered light-to-moderate injuries in the ambush battle, which occurred around 5 a.m. (10 p.m. EDT).
when dozens of Hizbullah terrorist guerilla fighters ambushed their hilltop position.

The IDF had maintained that the army was in control of the village, which is considered the capital of Hizbullah in southern Lebanon. Hizbullah has been building tunnels and stockpiling weapons in the six years since the IDF withdrew from the area, which they know thoroughly. The Hizbullah terrorist guerillas were well-equipped with Iranian- and Syrian-made rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank and mortar shells, Lau missiles and rifles.

Several troops were injured while trying to rescue others, in an evacuation that took more than six hours. Helicopter rescue pilots endured enemy fire, and several soldiers carried stretchers more than one mile.

Northern Command Head Maj.-Gen. Udi Adam said that despite the heavy loss of soldiers, the army recovered valuable intelligence information, and that large amounts of communication equipment, weapons and ammunition also were taken by the IDF.

"The soldiers displayed sangfroid, bravery and professionalism after they came under fire," he said. "We estimate that at least 15 Hizbullah guerrillas were killed in the village. There are also assessments that put the number of casualties on the Lebanese side at 40 to 50 dead fighters," he added.

Official: Hezbollahused U.N. as 'shield'

Official: Hezbollahused U.N. as 'shield'
Observer killed in strike wrote e-mail
contradicting accusation against Israel

Posted: July 27, 2006
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006

United Nations flag flies with Hezbollah banner at U.N. post (photo: Canadian Jewish News)
The United Nations post in Lebanon at the center of controversy over a deadly Israeli attack likely was being used as a "shield" by Hezbollah to fire rockets into the Jewish state, according to a former U.N. commander in Bosnia.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has accused Israel of deliberately targeting the post where four officials of the world body were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam Tuesday night.

But retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie points to an e-mail by one of the observers killed in the attack that backs Israel's claim that it was targeting Hezbollah, reported the CanWest News Service of Canada.

The dead observer, Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, wrote an e-mail last week to the Canadian television network CTV that alluded to Hezbollah's tactics.

"What I can tell you is this, we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

MacKenzie said Hess-von Kruedener was indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, the Canadian news service reported.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

McKenzie said this indicates Hezbollah purposely set itself up near the U.N. post, a tactic he observed in previous international missions. McKenzie was the first U.N. commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, CanWest reported.

The U.N. has claimed there was no Hezbollah activity in the area of the strike.

From his U.N. post, however, Hess-von Kruedener wrote he had a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."

"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.

A senior U.N. official asked by CanWest about the e-mail denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.

"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."

1 dead, 5 wounded in Seattle terror

1 dead, 5 wounded in Seattle terror
Muslim angry 'about Israel,'shoots up Jewish Federation

Posted: July 28, 2006
10:57 p.m. Eastern
© 2006
A 31-year-old Pakistani man, announcing he was a Muslim and angry about Israel, pulled out a gun in the Seattle Jewish Federation today and shot six people, one dead.

The gunman, who has not been named, reportedly lives in Pasco, Washington and has a criminal background, though no details were available.

According to several witnesses, the man got through security and announced to staff members: "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel." He immediately began shooting.

FBI spokesman David Gomez said officials believe the suspect acted alone and is not affiliated with a foreign organization.

A hospital spokesman said five women were brought in, and three of them are in critical condition. Three are in their 20s, one is 19 and the other is 43. The 43-year-old was shot in the abdomen. One of the victims is in her 17th week of pregnancy.

A joint terrorism task force joined SWAT teams and a bomb disposal unit at the scene.

"Throughout the city, we have directed all our patrol officers to monitor closely all synagogues and other Jewish organizations, and we have also advised neighboring agencies in the Puget Sound area to do the same," said Nick Metz, Seattle Police Department.

The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle says on its Web site that its mission is to "ensure Jewish survival and enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide."

War Analysis Updated As Of 7-28-6

War Analysis Updated As Of 7-28-6

Overall Assessment

We've been trying to figure out what Israel is doing and it seems as thought it is becoming a full-time occupation for us, beyond normal news coverage. We'll begin our analsysis update by examining what Israel's goals are as stated by the Israeli government.

Israel's stated war goals are as follows:

#1. stopping the current rocket attacks
#2 .making sure that there will be no more rocket attacks will resume.
#3. accomplishing the first two points with a minimum of casualties.
#4. accomplishing the first 3 points without occupying more hostile territory or counter-insurgency operations.

All of these are understandably logical and commendable goals. We think the problem is that Israel cannot achieve all 4. We think they can achieve points one, two and four, but not without far more casualties than Israel seems willing to accept. Another aspect is that to accomplish victory will require a full invasion of ALL of Lebanon, including the northern regions of Lebanon.

Keep in mind, the larger and longer range, heavy rockets capable of destroying Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are located in the northern regions of Lebanon in the Bekaa Valley, also thought to contain Saddam Hussein's old WMD's transferred there before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. Those weapons could also be available to Hezbollah in the future, if Israel doesn't deal with them now.

In doing so, they cannot allow Hezbollah to escape to Syria or else the Hezbollah problem infects that nation and creates even more problems including the possibility of toppling the Asad government and replacing it with something far worse for larger headaches in the future.

It is now becoming clear that Hezbollah's military strategy is borrowing a page from the Japanese of World War 2 in the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The strategy is duplicated even down to the tactical elements of camouflaging Hezbollah positions from the prying eyes of the Israeli Air Force and spy satellites.

Israeli forces are now engaged in small-scale operations against entrenched Hezbollah positions. Hezbollah fortifications are well-stocked for fairly long-term operations and require little communication from the top command. Israel simply cannot safely pass by these fortifications and race forward to other locations for fear that the passing up of such positions will enable the defenders to engage in highly destructive guerilla, counter-insurgency operations against lengthening Israeli supply lines that advance deeper into Lebanon.

Israeli is counting on fulfilling out their trategic objectives by using air power, alone. Their thinking is to allow air power to eliminate the rocket threats, and destroy Hezbollah, and thereby avoid Israeli casualties and avoid occupation and counterinsurgency. Sounds good on paper as a theory. This conceptual strategy however, seems unlikely to work. If it doesn't work, Israel will have squandered its diplomatic time and still have the problem it began with. At some point, international pressure is going to become so great that Israel will be forced to stop no matter what.

Fearful Signs of Syrian Or Iranian Attacks

Israel has deployed U.S. Patriot and Israeli Arrow anti-missile defenses. These systems are not designed for defense against Hezbollah's non-ballistic rockets. They are designed for intercepting bigger missiles
like the Scuds of Syria or the Shehab missiles of Iran. The Shehab-3's can reach Israel directly from launch sites in Iran. The fact that Israel has now deployed such rockets strongly suggest that Israel now has reason to fear that Syria or Iran or both are going to widen the war directly.

Various sources in the Mideast are reporting that Syria's President has held a war council with Iran's National Security Advisor and Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrallah along with Hamas and Palestinian Jihad Islami chiefs. The war council was convened to discuss what moves should next be taken. It is thought by some analysts that this war council will likely conclude that the time is now ripe for widening the war
to a greater or lesser extent. One thing we can conclude is that Hezbollah has been given the green light to launch longer-range and heavier pay-lod rockets.

In conjunction with this development, Israel's largest circulation newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, features a big headline indicating that Syria has gone on an "Emergency Military Alert."

Our sources in Israel indicated yesterday that atmosphere in Syria has shifted dramatically in the past 48 hours to that of a "war-time" footing as it was in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It seems that Syria is expecting an outbreak of military hostilities between itself and Israel in the near future.

As we understand it from sources in the region, Syrian air crews are now sitting in their cockpits ready to taxi for takeoff on a moment's notice. This underscores Syria's readiness to fight and may well indicate that Syria and Iran are now ready to widen the war, despite public and diplomatic signals to the contrary.

Such a readiness by Syria and Iran for widening the conflict may be due to their sensing Israel's weaknesses and inability to win a war against a small non-conventional military force like Hezbollah.
Thus, they may be concluding that now is the time to strike Israel and destroy her. In other words they
may think that now is the time for Israel's destruction because Israel is to weak to be able to adequately defend herself and her leaders are too weak, to timid, and too reluctant to use nuclear weapons. We think this would be a fatal and false assumption on the part of these two nations, however, we should note that both nations are led by inexperienced but highly over-confident political leadership.

Battlefield Reports

The battle for Bint Jbeil continues. Hezbollah continues with its counter-attack efforts in and around the Lebanese village. News media reports are being distorted by IDF information suppression.. IDF maintains that more than 200 Hezbollah fighters have been killed in or near Bint Jbeil so far. Meanwhile, Israeli forces continue to stage their troops in northern Israel but only to rotate raiding troops in and out and not to engage in a wholesale invasion of the territotyr. The bulk of IDF units are in the northeastern corner of the country and the Golan Heights. Also a sizable IDF presence is being reported on along the western coastline of the Mediterranean Sea.

The rocket attacks continue, most notably of course is the introduction of what was probably an Zelzal longer-range missile or a Farjr 5 missile that struck the furthest point south in the war to date. A rocket strouck in an empty field near the town of Afoul, southeast of Haifa just before the start of the Sabbath.

Late word as we post - Israeli forces have reportedly engaged in a "tactical retreat" from Bint Jbeil and Masoud Hill and returned to Israel. Fierce fighting within southern Lebanon remains.


Friday, 28 July 2006

William Frederick, M.Div.

As the fighting in the Mid East increases and the sabers of war are brandished many are asking the question; is this the start of WWIII? In my analysis of the situation, taking into account Biblical passages and Illuminati plans, my answer is; I do not think so. However I do think that the present hostilities are prophetically significant and could result in the signing of the peace treaty, which we know will start the last 7 years on earth before the return of the Lord.

The reasons that I do not think that the present hostilities are part of WWIII is because I believe that WWIII will most likely start with the opening of the second seal/the red horse of the apocalypse. Also Illuminati who planned and orchestrated both WWI and WWII also have a plan for WWIII. According to their plan it will involve China taking over Taiwan, a “hair raising” nuclear confrontation with North Korea and an all out war in the Mid East. The purpose of WWIII is to turn the world over to the rule of the antichrist. The antichrist does not start his reign until the midpoint of the 70th week and will last for 3.5 years. Thus, if God allows the Illuminati to fulfill their plans then we would not see WWIII until sometime within the first half of the 70th week.

The present hostilities may however result in the signing of the peace treaty. With the ending of the “2 days” on September 5, 2004—the peace treaty could be signed any time after that. The roadmap initiated by the group of four and strongly supported by President Bush calls for “Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at a permanent status agreement in 2005,” which did not occur. Assuming that end-times prophetic events connected with the Second Coming will occur in alignment with the fall feasts—just as the spring feasts were fulfilled in alignment with events associated with the First Coming of Christ—we would expect to see the peace treaty signed in the fall seven years before Christ’s return to earth at Armageddon in alignment with the feast of trumpets. We can say the fall of that year because 7 years before a fall feast would be a date in the fall. For instance, let’s say, for sake of example, that the return of Christ and the beginning of the millennium will occur in 2013, then the peace treaty would be signed 2520 days before the Feast of Trumpets in that year, which occurs on September 5, 2013. (The Feast of Trumpets best aligns with Armageddon) Therefore, the peace treaty would be signed on October 13, 2006.

This “roadmap” peace treaty, whenever it occurs, will divide the land of Israel and meets the requirements of the long awaited prophetic peace treaty that will start the seventieth week of Daniel. We will have to wait and see when the Lord allows this treaty to come to pass. But realize this: Whenever the peace treaty of death that divides the land of Israel occurs, the seventieth week of Daniel will have begun!

In conclusion I admit that it is not out of the realm of possibility that this present conflict could escalate and that a nuclear confrontation with North Korea could develop, and that something could happen where China would take Taiwan and then the world be handed over to the authority of the New World Order. But I think it is too early for those things to happen—I can however envision those things occurring within the next 3 to 4 years. And I know it is too early for the antichrist to take over the world because the 70th week has not started yet. So if what illuminati have been telling us—WWIII is designed to turn the world over to the antichrist— then the present fighting is not part of WWIII. My thinking right now is that the present hostilities could result in the signing of the peace treaty. If it happens this year it would most likely happen on October 13th.

I cover these topics more fully and provide further explanations in The Coming Epiphany. Here is an excerpt from The Coming Epiphany about WWIII that may help you to better understand what the illuminati have planned for that conflict.

“The Third World War is supposed to be triggered by war between Judaism and Islam and will eventually spread to the whole world. Listen to what Albert Pike said about WWIII:

The third World War must be formented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the ‘agentur’ of the ‘Illuminati’ between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam and political Zionism mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on the issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity…will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in public view.

Another illuminati writer, H.G. Wells, has further detailed that WWIII will start from an event that occurs in Basra. He was given this information from a demonic Guiding Spirit in 1933 in which he wrote about in his book entitled, "The Shape of Things To Come."

"…the plan for the 'Modern World-State' (New World Order) would succeed in its third attempt (WWIII) and would come out of something that would occur in Basra, Iraq."

Cutting Edge Ministries has further documented other interesting facts that have been revealed by Illuminati concerning WWIII. WWIII will probably be triggered by the Middle East conflict, involve a nuclear confrontation with North Korea, and the takeover of Taiwan by China. All one has to do is watch the evening news to see how close we are to seeing part of this occur. Although there are too many details to go into here, what readers should take from this is that Satan has planned three world wars to establish the New World Order. WWIII has as its ultimate goal to usher in the New World Order, which will eventually have the antichrist as the head. According to former Illuminati Satanist, Doc Marquis, once World War III begins the Antichrist will arise on the world scene in 13 weeks. The book Atlas Shrugged is reported to be an illuminati fictional novel which portrays their plan to take over the world written in code. The timetable presented in the book ends with this; “When the lights of New York City go out for the last time, we will have the World!"

Tying It Back to the Seals

Some think that this Illuminati-planned WWIII will occur after the Abomination of Desolation and before the rapture at the sixth seal. There are several verses which lead me to a different conclusion. I believe that WWIII will occur before the Abomination of Desolation. Look at Matt. 24:4-9:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

Notice the timing of events in this passage: deception, wars, and rumors of wars with nation arising against nation and kingdom against kingdom, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes. These are all called “the beginning of sorrows.” Then, after these sorrows, the persecution of believers occurs. As we mentioned before, the chronological order of these events mirrors the events listed in the first five seals. This passage places the great wars of nation arising against nation and kingdom arising against kingdom before the persecution of believers (Seal 5) and the pestilences and famines (Seal 3). Thus, the great wars listed here would either have to occur during Seal 1 or 2. I feel that it is also possible that WWIII could occur during Seal 4. Thus, I conjecture that the nation arising against nation and kingdom arising against kingdom is the Illuminati planned WWIII and will occur during Seal 1 or 2 and possibly Seal 4 before the Abomination of Desolation.
This same scenario is also presented in Mark 13:4-9:

Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows. But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

And it is repeated again in Luke 21:8-11:

And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

Some have cited Luke 21:12-24 as evidence that WWIII occurs after the Abomination of Desolation. One reason that they surmise this is because verse 12 says; “But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.” Thus, they assert that the things mentioned above all happen after Seal 5. If you just take the Luke passage alone, that is a logical conclusion, but taking into account the Matthew and Mark passage, which places the “nation arising against nation” before the Abomination of Desolation, this creates a contradiction. Scripture cannot contradict scripture; thus there has to be another interpretation for the Luke passage. The other interpretation is that the persecution that would happen before all these sorrows is the persecution that the first century Christians endured.

Here is what Ryrie has to say about this in his Study Bible.

Luke 21-7 when …will these things happen? There is a dual perspective in Christ’s answer—the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the tribulation days just prior to his Second Coming.

So I believe that the persecution that will occur before the great wars mentioned in the Luke passage is in reference to the persecution that the first century Christians endured. Thus, we see that the gospels bring out the fact that there will be at least one great war before the Abomination of Desolation. Seals 1, 2, and 4 could all contain wars. As already discussed, Illuminati are calling this war WWIII and have specified that its purpose is to usher in the New World Order of which antichrist will—during the last half of the 70th Week of Daniel—be the head.

After the demise of WWIII, the antichrist will strengthen the treaty with Israel and then, in a surprise move, turn against her and ravish her. He will accomplish this by first tricking Israel into believing that she is now safe because of the newly strengthened peace treaty. Antichrist will then surround Jerusalem with armies, which is when Israel is to flee into the wilderness. Then, the antichrist will militarily take over Israel and rule the world from Jerusalem. This is also the time that he will perform the Abomination of Desolation, proclaim himself as God, and demand that the world worship him. These events are seen in the gospel account, where Israel is told to flee at the Abomination of Desolation or when Israel is surrounded by armies. The fact that they are told to flee at these two events infers that the events occur at the same time.

When ye therefore shall see the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: (Matt. 24:15,16)

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. (Luke 21:20,21)

This military takeover by the antichrist will leave Israel ravished, while those who have obeyed the Lord and fled into the wilderness will be sustained by God in the wilderness for 3.5 years: “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” (Rev. 12:14)

War of Gog-Magog

There is another end-times war we need to examine. This war, recorded in Ezekiel 38–39 and other parts of scripture, is often called the War of Gog-Magog…”