FATHER OF MODERN PALESTINE
. . . . And also the Prince of the Covenant?
By
Doug Krieger
The
past week brought a most vivid reality – Israel’s guaranteed peace, even her
religious destiny, has riveted the attention of the nations. And, more,
Palestinian aspirations for their own independent state in the midst of Eretz
Israel loom on earth’s horizon. But far and beyond these terrestrial
tangibilities, comes a most odious and striking imagery: THE PRINCE OF THE
COVENANT is alive and well . . . and of whom do we speak? . . .of whom do we
purposefully and metaphorically allude?
Never before has the world witnessed a more salubrious opportunity for a lasting peace in the Middle East conflict—a war that has raged since 1948; since the founding of the Jewish State.
The setting of this most audacious effort at prime time peace making allowed the world to witness the world’s most formidable super power on display at: The Memorial Hall of the United States Naval Academy, in Annapolis, Maryland. What a superlative manifestation of magnanimous muscle—such a backdrop cannot be found anywhere upon terra firma or the seas that she rules; a perfect display of the colossus of freedom’s fury.
No, pomp and circumstance was not diminutive—it was in fullness and it was deliberate. The world had finally come to this singularity of manifested might—yes, that part of the world embroiled in centuries of habitual hostility to the seat of world power. Nigh 50 nations assembled their representatives to hear, to absorb the pageantry of the moment, the awesome sense of epiphany—the time has come to settle this conflict once and for all! And the man of peace, equity and justice for all becomes the FATHER OF MODERN PALESTINE (and he’s not Yasser Arafat) – Mr. Palestine himself: President George Walker Bush!
THE ONLY MAN WHO COULD MAKE IT HAPPEN
“Thank
you for coming. Prime Minister Olmert, President Abbas, Secretary General Ban,
former Prime Minister Blair, distinguished guests: Welcome to one of the
finest institutes we have in America, the United States Naval Academy. We
appreciate you joining us in what I believe is an historic opportunity to
encourage the expansion of freedom and peace in the Holy Land.
“We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation -- a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security. We meet to help bring an end to the violence that has been the true enemy of the aspirations of both the Israelis and Palestinians.”
Thus was the inevitability of Palestinian and world aspirations enunciated by the President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush.
The determination for this aggressive peace resolution was proclaimed by the President on behalf of Israel and the Palestinian Authority:
“We
express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades
of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on
freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to
propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and
incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of
the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and
security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in
order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including
all core issues, without exception, as specified in previous agreements.
“We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed. The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.
“President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.”
THE END OF THE “OCCUPATION” -
It is imperative to note, to realize, that “calling the shots” is not the Quartet (i.e., the UN, the EU, Russia and the USA) – but singularly, the United States of America, and specifically, the President of the USA. Also, be it duly noted, that the would-be (possible) figure of the Antichrist in the person of the European Union Council Secretary General and High Representative for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, though invited and so seated at the conference, is naught but a side-show in the drama, hardly visible and most definitely overshadowed by President George W. Bush. Now, President Bush:
“These are the reasons we've gathered here in Annapolis. And now we begin the difficult work of freedom and peace. The United States is proud to host this meeting -- and we reaffirm the path to peace set out in the road map. Yet in the end, the outcome of the negotiations they launch here depends on the Israelis and Palestinians themselves. America will do everything in our power to support their quest for peace, but we cannot achieve it for them. The success of these efforts will require that all parties show patience and flexibility -- and meet their responsibilities.
“For
these negotiations to succeed, the Palestinians must do their part. They must
show the world they understand that while the borders of a Palestinian state
are important, the nature of a Palestinian state is just as important. They
must demonstrate that a Palestinian state will create opportunity for all its
citizens, and govern justly, and dismantle the infrastructure of terror. They
must show that a Palestinian state will accept its responsibility, and have
the capability to be a source of stability and peace -- for its own citizens,
for the people of Israel, and for the whole region.
“The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security.” (HAARETZ and Council on Foreign Relations)
THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION
The language of the President evoked the spiritual dimension of the moment:
“President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert, I pledge to devote my effort during my time as President to do all I can to help you achieve this ambitious goal. I give you my personal commitment to support your work with the resources and resolve of the American government. I believe a day is coming when freedom will yield the peace we desire. And the land that is holy to so many will see the light of peace.
“The day is coming when Palestinians will enjoy the blessings that freedom brings -- and all Israelis will enjoy the security they deserve. That day is coming. The day is coming when the terrorists and extremists who threaten the Israeli and Palestinian people will be marginalized and eventually defeated. And when that day comes, future generations will look to the work we began here at Annapolis. They will give thanks to the leaders who gathered on the banks of the Chesapeake for their vision, their wisdom and courage to choose a future of freedom and peace.
“Thanks for coming. May God bless their work.” (The White House: President Bush Attends Annapolis Conference)
ABOUT FACE!
For one, and make no doubt about this, the USA and its President, are in full charge of these deliberations. The only one who can bring peace to the Middle East is the United States of America, and especially her President. Now, what in the world took place at the United Nations while all this fanfare and hyperbole was going down?
Scarcely noticed on the world or local news – the United States pulled off a pre-emptive coupe with cunning and even intrigue. Could this have been diplomatically orchestrated for effect—I believe so. Listen, here’s what happened and why:
“The United States has withdrawn a draft UN
resolution endorsing the agreements reached in a Mideast summit held in
Annapolis this week.
“The
US was withdrawing the resolution from the UN Security Council less than 24
hours after US Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad had introduced it and
welcomed what he called the ‘very positive’ response from the council’s
members.
“After a session, at which the draft was submitted, Khalilzad said Security
Council members intended to discuss the text with the parties involved.
“The move suggested that Tel Aviv and the Palestinians had not been consulted
before the text was drafted and there were even doubts whether the US State
Department had been informed that the draft resolution was to be presented
Thursday.
“The Mideast Conference, which started on November 27 in Annapolis, has been
considered as a failure as it did not address the core issues of the Middle
East conflict.” (Saturday, December 1 – US Withdraws UN Resolution on Middle
East – Press TV, Iran)
Aside from an Iranian propaganda comment – rather obvious at that – this article suggests that for whatever reason, such a proposal was not approved by either Israel or the Palestinians. If we are to assume that the USA was dumb enough to initiate such a resolution and to withdraw it so quickly to have egg all over their face is preposterous. Everyone seemed to be going along with the notion that such a resolution made “international sense.” France and China chimed in:
“France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert said ‘The international community must support the process and the dynamics of Annapolis.’ He said France will organize a donors conference in Paris on Dec. 17 to bring financial and political support to the Palestinian Authority.
“China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya called Annapolis ‘a positive step.’
“While he has to consult with Beijing, Wang said the council, ‘the primary organ for international peace and security, should also announce itself on this particular event ... and my feeling (is) that we will support a resolution on this.’” (US Withdraws Mideast Resolution at U.N., AP, Newsmax, Friday, November 30, 2007).
Now, I want you to notice two things going on here in the next news article: (1) The Israeli reaction to the failed US supported UN resolution—i.e., this is “not” the venue; and (2) The Palestinian reaction – which appears overly supportive:
“UN sources said that Israel expressed
dissatisfaction over the fact that Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to
the UN, did not give it advance notice of its intentions to pursue UN adoption
of decisions made at the Middle East peace conference held in Annapolis,
Maryland earlier this week.
“‘It’s not the proper venue,’ Israel’s deputy Ambassador Daniel Carmon told
reporters after Friday's council meeting. ‘We feel that the appreciation of
Annapolis has other means of being expressed than in a resolution.’
“‘We were not the only ones to object, Carmon added,’ saying the Americans had
told the Israelis that the Palestinians also objected. UN sources also said
that the Palestinian Authority said it wasn't interested in a resolution.
“Although Israel apparently had no problems with the uncontroversial text,
analysts suggested it was worried a formal resolution would get the United
Nations too involved in Middle East peace efforts. Israel and the United
States often complain of bias in the world body against Israel.” (U.S.
withdraws UN Annapolis resolution after Israel objects,
Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent and The Associated Press)
Several things are going on here. The Israelis got absolute confirmation that the United Nations – and I might hasten to add – the Quartet (although President Bush in his address tried to make a seamless tie-in of the Quartet’s “Roadmap to Peace” to the Annapolis effort) – along with Javier Solana’s EU – will NOT have any viable input into this process: This peace effort is the exclusive purview of the United States of America and her President. And, in so far as the Russians are concerned—who cares?
Furthermore,
the Palestinians, through this orchestrated effort which, I affirm, was
designed for failure, was able to express its enthusiasm toward the USA:
“However, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, on Friday, that while he didn’t know the details of the draft resolution, it was a sign of the seriousness of the United States, which he also perceived at this week’s U.S.-sponsored conference in Annapolis.” (Ibid.)
Rest assured, the USA is in FULL CONTROL of this process—there is no UN, no EU, no Russia and no QUARTET even close to these negotiations!
By first opening, and then closing the door on the UN, the USA endeared itself to both Israel and the Palestinians—while at the same time informing the world she was in charge, and no one else should interfere! It was a huge diplomatic coup. No one even knew what happened – and the media was virtually no where to be found and certainly gave no reason for what happened and why.
AND THE RULERS TAKE COUNSEL TOGETHER
The U.S. State Department released the following list of invitees to the one-day meeting:
|
1. United States 2. Israel 3. Palestinian Authority 4. Algeria 5. Arab League Secretary General 6. Bahrain 7. Brazil 8. Canada 9. China 10. Egypt 11. European Commission 12. European Union High Representative 13. European Union President - Portugal 14. France 15. Germany 16. Greece 17. India 18. Indonesia 19. Iraq 20. Italy 21. Japan 22. Jordan 23. Lebanon 24. Malaysia
|
25. Mauritania 26. Morocco 27. Norway 28. Oman 29. Pakistan 30. Poland 31. Qatar 32. Russia 33. Saudi Arabia 34. Senegal 35. Slovenia 36. South Africa 37. Spain 38. Sudan 39. Sweden 40. Syria 41. Quartet Special Envoy Tony Blair 42. Tunisia 43. Turkey 44. United Arab Emirates 45. United Kingdom 46. U.N. Secretary General 47. Yemen Observers: IMF World Bank
|
The list of nations, diplomats and international organizations, as well as their representatives, is extensive compared with previous such international forums attempting to bridge the chasm between Israel and her foes.
The nations involved in the Quartet are there; the Arab states are there, even Syria; the EU is there; and even Javier Solana is there.
But note: They are all under USA auspices. By announcing “low expectations” – while at the same time making a huge hullabaloo about these proceedings – the USA took both the high and low grounds in its international effort to produce a spectacular result from this conference.
The specific purpose of the effort is to create a TWO-STATE solution – an independent Jewish State, Israel; and an Independent Palestinian State. The carry through to implement such an altruistic duality is utterly impossible in the real world of Middle East politics; however, it would be mandatory on the part, once again, of the United States of America to wholly guarantee such a two-state solution—protecting both states and infusing enormous capital resources into both economies to guarantee the economic success of the venture. This no doubt would be equivalent to an international Marshall Plan.
EVANGELICAL SUPPORT FOR A TWO-STATE SOLUTION
It is of keen interest to observe that Evangelical support for the President was most vociferous from the “moderate to conservative” American Evangelical community leading up and immediately following the initial opening of the conference. Christianity Today magazine prefaced the on-going letter of Evangelical support for a two-state solution by stating:
“This week the Bush State Department is devoting its full diplomatic efforts toward bringing a two-state resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Over the past few months, they have put on a full-court press to gather a broad representation of Arab world leaders to join Israeli and Palestinian negotiators for a historic meeting in Annapolis, Maryland. Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to a program of sustained and focused negotiations throughout 2008.
“With these cautious but hopeful beginnings, over 80 evangelical leaders have signed a statement indicating their belief ‘that the way forward is for the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a fair, two-state solution.’
“These leaders—including Christian college and seminary presidents, denominational heads, and other ministry leaders—pledge their ‘ongoing support for the security of Israel,’ and state that ‘unless the situation between Israel and Palestine improves quickly, the consequences will be devastating’ for Israel. Palestinians with little economic opportunity ‘are increasingly sympathetic to radical solutions.’
“The full text of their statement and the list of signatories follow.” (Christianity Today – December 2, 2007 - Evangelical Leaders Reiterate Call for Two-State Solution for Israel and Palestine - Over 80 educators and ministry heads affirm efforts to negotiate lasting peace, and warn of consequences of failure. David Neff | posted 12/02/2007 01:23AM)
Now the immediate statement, which is in addition to the full-page add (seen further below and appearing in the New York Times in July, 2007) “strengthening the hand of the President” in providing a two-state solution for peace in the Middle East:
An Evangelical Statement on Israel/Palestine
As evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Scriptures,
we feel compelled to make a statement together at this historic moment in the
life of the Holy Land.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is near a momentous turning point. The strife has continued—sometimes simmering, sometimes exploding in terrible conflict—for decades.
In the context of our ongoing support for the security of Israel, we believe that unless the situation between Israel and Palestine improves quickly, the consequences will be devastating. Palestinians—especially the youth who have no economic opportunity—are increasingly sympathetic to radical solutions and terrorism. As a result, the threat to Israel's security is now greater.
Likewise, the threat to America's national security is greater. Because so many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims see America through the prism of Israel-Palestine, the longer the current situation continues, the more likely it is that anti-American attitudes, policies, and terrorist activities will increase dramatically among Muslims worldwide.
As evangelical Christians, we believe our faith compels us to speak a word together at this crucial moment.
The Bible clearly teaches that God longs for justice and peace for all people. We believe that the principles about justice taught so powerfully by the Hebrew prophets apply to all nations, including the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Therefore we are compelled to work for a fair, negotiated solution for both Israelis and Palestinians. We resolve to work diligently for a secure, enduring peace and a flourishing economy for the democratic State of Israel. We also resolve to work for a viable permanent, democratic Palestinian State with a flourishing economy that offers economic opportunity to all its people. We believe that the way forward is for the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a fair, two-state solution.
We are encouraged that the Israeli and Palestinian governments have officially endorsed a two-state solution and that polls demonstrate that solid majorities in both Israel and Palestine embrace this path.
We call on all evangelicals, all Christians, and everyone of good will to join us to work and pray faithfully in the coming months for a just, lasting two-state solution in the Holy Land. We call on all involved governments to work diligently toward this goal. And we covenant to pray for the leaders of all the nations engaged in this effort, hoping for them the blessing of our Lord, who said, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.’
As we work and pray, we are strengthened by the truth that Christ will return some day to complete his victory over sin and injustice, and we are empowered by the knowledge that until He comes again, He summons us to support the things that promote peace and justice for everyone in the Holy Land.
Signatories: An Evangelical Statement on Israel/Palestine
|
Thomas Armiger General Superintendent, The Wesleyan Church Gayle D. Beebe President, Westmont College David Black President, Eastern University Marilyn Borst Director of Global Ministry Peachtree Presbyterian Church Ed Boschman Executive
Director David C. Brown Chair, Evangelical Child & Family Agency George K. Brushaber President, Bethel University Gary M. Burge Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College Tony Campolo
President/Founder R. Judson Carlberg President, Gordon College Joseph Castleberry President, Northwest University Paul A. Cedar Chairman, Mission America Coalition Thomas A. Curry Senior Minister, Round Lake Community Church Craig C. Darling U.S. Director, India Rural Evangelical Fellowship Murray Dempster President, Vanguard University G. Blair Dowden President, Huntington University Robert P. Dugan, Jr.,
Retired Merrill Ewert President, Fresno Pacific University Leighton Ford President, Leighton Ford Ministries Arthur Evans Gay
Minister-at-Large Jules Glanzer President Elect, Tabor College Vernon Grounds Chancellor, Denver Seminary Ronald Habegger President, Fellowship of Evangelical Churches Jack Haberer Editor, The Presbyterian Outlook Mike Hagan President, Sioux Falls Seminary Stephen A. Hayner Professor, Columbia Theological Seminary Dennis Hollinger President, Evangelical Theological Seminary Jim Holm President, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary John Hubers, Former Director
of Reformed Church Mission Program, Reformed Church in America John A. Huffman, Jr. Pastor Ken Hunn Executive Director, The Brethren Church Joel Hunter Senior Pastor, Northland Church John K. Jenkins Senior Pastor President, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Leonard Rodgers Executive
Director Andrew Ryskamp Director Michael G. Scales President, Nyack College/ATS Chris Seiple President, Institute for Global Engagement Robert Seiple Former Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Ronald J. Sider President, Evangelicals for Social Action
|
James Skillen President, Center for Public Justice Wallace Smith President, Palmer Theological Seminary Glen H. Stassen, Lewis Smedes Professor(s) of
Christian Ethics Gary W. Streit President, Malone College Joseph Tkach President, Worldwide Church of God Paul Vicalvi Chaplains
Commission Executive Director Harold Vogelaar Professor
Emeritus Berten Waggoner National Director, Vineyard USA Don Wagner Professor, North Park University John Wagner Pastor, Andover Congregational Church Jon R. Wallace President, Azusa Pacific University Jim Wallis Editor, Sojourners Bob Wenz Luder G. Whitlock Executive Director, The Trinity Forum John P. Williams, Jr. Regional
Director Craig Williford President, Denver Seminary Earl L. Wilson General Superintendent, The Wesleyan Church Larry E. Yonker Vice-President, The Elevation Group First Baptist Church of Glenarden Bruce W. Jones, National Association of Evangelicals J. Ellsworth Kalas President, Asbury Theological Seminary John F. Kim Interim President, Northern Seminary Peter Kuzmic President Duane Litfin President, Wheaton College Jo Anne Lyon CEO, World Hope International V. James Mannoia President, Greensville College Molly T. Marshall President, Central Baptist Theological Seminary Kevin T. McBride Senior Pastor, Raymond Baptist Church Larry J. McKinney President, Simpson University Gregory A. Monaco Associate Field Director, Youth for Christ/USA Royce L. Money President, Abilene Christian University Richard Mouw President, Fuller Theological Seminary Shirley A. Mullen President, Houghton College Mike O'Neal President, Oklahoma Christian University David Neff Editor-in-Chief, Christianity Today Glenn R. Palmberg President, Evangelical Covenant Church Earl F. Palmer Minister, University Presbyterian Church Linda Pampeyan Consultant, Leadership Renewal Center Ted W. Pampeyan Director, Leadership Renewal Center David L. Parkyn President, North Park University Roger Parrot President, Belhaven College Jerry Pence General Superintendent, The Wesleyan Church Rita Rihani Professor of Arabic, North Park University Bob Roberts Pastor, Northwood Church Bill Robinson President, Whitworth University |
The initial full-page –
open-letter add which appeared in the New York Times on July 29, 2007
as: LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH FROM EVANGELICAL LEADERS – read as follows:
We write as evangelical Christian leaders in the United States (wish) to thank you for your efforts (including the major address on July 16) to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to achieve a lasting peace in the region. We affirm your clear call for a two-state solution. We urge that your administration not grow weary in the time it has left in office to utilize the vast influence of America to demonstrate creative, consistent and determined U.S. leadership to create a new future for Israelis and Palestinians. We pray to that end, Mr. President.
We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people including some U.S. policymakers that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution and creation of a new Palestinian state that includes the vast majority of the West Bank. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, who sign this letter, represent large numbers of evangelicals throughout the U.S. who support justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. We hope this support will embolden you and your administration to proceed confidently and forthrightly in negotiations with both sides in the region.
As evangelical Christians, we embrace the biblical promise to Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you." (Genesis 12:3). And precisely as evangelical Christians committed to the full teaching of the Scriptures, we know that blessing and loving people (including Jews and the present State of Israel) does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted. Genuine love and genuine blessing means acting in ways that promote the genuine and long-term well being of our neighbors. Perhaps the best way we can bless Israel is to encourage her to remember, as she deals with her neighbor Palestinians, the profound teaching on justice that the Hebrew prophets proclaimed so forcefully as an inestimably precious gift to the whole world.
Historical honesty compels us to recognize that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine. Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other. The only way to bring the tragic cycle of violence to an end is for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a just, lasting agreement that guarantees both sides viable, independent, secure states. To achieve that goal, both sides must give up some of their competing, incompatible claims. Israelis and Palestinians must both accept each other's right to exist. And to achieve that goal, the U.S. must provide robust leadership within the Quartet to reconstitute the Middle East roadmap, whose full implementation would guarantee the security of the State of Israel and the viability of a Palestinian State. We affirm the new role of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and pray that the conference you plan for this fall will be a success.
Mr. President, we renew our prayers and support for your leadership to help bring peace to Jerusalem, and justice and peace for all the people in the Holy Land.
Finally, we would request to meet with you to personally convey our support and discuss other ways in which we may help your administration on this crucial issue.
Be it duly noted that these Evangelical leaders demonstrate that the religio-political shift in America’s religious landscape has now, in the main, shifted from the main-line denominations and their Catholic-Orthodox affiliates within the National Council of Churches to the more “biblically-based” Evangelical wing of the American Church—i.e., to those with affiliation with organizations like the National Association of Evangelicals. This shift finds historic precedence even from Civil War days from whence the main body of abolitionist, social activism centered in such institutions as Gordon-Conwell, Wheaton College and Oberlin – and thence to the West Coast with Fuller Seminary. A careful examination of the above-referenced institutions demonstrates a propensity of thought and disposition which tends toward “social activism” as part and parcel of the evangelical mandate embedded in the gospel’s message—whereas, those leaders and institutions glaringly absent from the list would be adjudged more conservative and less “socially invasive” and far more “pro-Israel” (e.g., the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptist Convention).
PROFESSOR DONALD WAGNER AND HIS ANTI-ISRAEL (whoops “Peace & Justice”) CAMPAIGN
In
point of obvious fact, it appears that the original concoction of such
solidarity on behalf of a two-state solution in bringing peace to the Middle
East is the brain child of Donald (Don) Wagner, et al, of North Park
University (Chicago) – a man whose
pedigree includes a vast array of time, energy and effort to confound the
current Evangelical-Jewish Alliance on behalf of Israel. Wagner has sought to
undermine this coalition of the “Unholy Alliance” for nigh thirty years!
Wagner, who is Professor of Religion and Middle Eastern Studies, and Executive Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, North Park University (Chicago), as well as main backer of the infamous “Chicago Declaration” – a liberal religious alliance opposed to Zionism – continues his undying desire to dump the Jews into the Mediterranean. To uncover the nefarious pursuits of Donald Wagner and his Islamic funding in support of his Center for Middle Eastern Studies, one does not need to go too far—let his own interpretation of Evangelical-Jewish conspiracy confirm your suspicions of this “progressive evangelical in sheep’s clothing” …
“In May 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu became Israel’s prime minister, defeating Shimon Peres. Once again Likud ideology dominated Israeli policy. Netanyahu had long been a favorite of the Christian Zionists, a relationship that developed during his years as Israel’s representative to the UN, and he was a frequent speaker at important Christian Zionist functions, whether the Feast of Tabernacles hosted by the International Christian Embassy-Jerusalem or the annual National Prayer Breakfast for Israel held in Washington.
“Within a few months of his election,
Netanyahu convened the Israel Christian Advocacy Council, bringing 17 American
fundamentalist leaders to Israel for an update on the Mideast situation. The
tour concluded with a conference and statement that reflected Likud’s
political platform. The fundamentalist leaders signed a pledge stating,
‘America will never, never desert Israel.’ Among the other pledges were
statements of support for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and the
Golan Heights, and for a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Each
declaration was upheld by Biblical citations and a veneer of evangelical
Christian language.
“The Christian Zionist leaders returned to the United States and launched a
national campaign with full-page advertisements in major newspapers under the
banner ‘Christians call for a united Jerusalem.’ Of little concern to the
Christian Zionists was the fact that their positions were in conflict with
official US policy and could undermine the delicate negotiations of the Oslo
process. Signed onto by Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network,
Ralph Reed, then director of the conservative Christian Coalition, prominent
minister Jerry Falwell and Ed McAteer of the Religious Roundtable, the
campaign was one of Likud’s answers to the Clinton-Labor strategy. It was also
a direct challenge to the mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic campaign led
by Churches for Middle East Peace that called for a ‘shared Jerusalem.’
“Likud also turned to the Christian Zionists for help in offsetting the
dramatic decline in contributions to Israel from the American Jewish
establishment during the conflict between the Orthodox and Reform-Conservative
branches of Judaism. When the latter cut back on their contributions to the
Jewish National Fund in the late 1990s, several Christian Zionist-oriented
churches were asked to make up the difference. The International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews, led by a former Anti-Defamation League employee and
Orthodox rabbi, Yechiel Eckstein, claimed to have raised over $5 million,
mostly from fundamentalist Christian sources.
“For example, John Hagee, pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio,
Texas, announced in February 1997 that his church was donating over $1 million
to Israel. Hagee claimed the funds would be used to help resettle Jews from
the Soviet Union in the West Bank and Jerusalem. ‘We feel like the coming of
Soviet Jews to Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy,’ Hagee stated.
When asked if he realized that support of Likud’s policies and the increase in
Jewish settlements was at cross-purposes with US policy, Hagee answered: ‘I am
a Bible scholar and a theologian, and from my perspective the law of God
transcends the laws of the United States government and the US State
Department.’” (Donald Wagner,
The interregnum: Christian Zionism in the Clinton years, Information
Clearing House – The series of articles originally appears in The Daily Star –
a Lebanese publication started in 1952 and is currently a major English
publication throughout the Middle East presenting a decisively anti-Israeli
editorial.)
Wagner’s exploits are legendary:
“Rev.
Wagner has been director of
Mercy Corps International's Middle East Program (an organization notorious
for blaming Palestinian poverty and suffering wholly upon Israel), director of
Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU), and pastor of three
Presbyterian churches. For ten years he was National Director of the Palestine
Human Rights Campaign. He is currently Director of the Center for Middle East
Understanding at North Park University, Chicago, IL. Rev. Wagner has led over
twenty pilgrimages to the Middle East and has organized more than fifteen
national conferences. He is author of several political and Christian articles
on the Middle East and is the author of three books.” (The
Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation)
His outspoken, evangelical, one-man band – the only Center for Middle Eastern Studies at any evangelical institution in America – emphasizes support of a two-state solution and claims that only “peace and justice” can win in the Middle East; however, he nigh lost his tenure at North Park University (2005) because of his increasingly blatant activism and prolific writings against the burgeoning Evangelical-Jewish alliance.
Once wholly within the ecumenical circles of the mainline Churches, Temples and Mosques, Wagner has of late, decided that “working the evangelical camp” directly would provide a more aggressive platform to do his deeds of “peace and justice.” Indeed, without the Zenos Hawkinson Award, Wagner would have been out in the streets carrying his protestations—notwithstanding, the little “minority contingent” at North Parks’ Evangelical Covenant Church University is determined to rid themselves of his prattling. Most of these grants use the Sabeel Jerusalem motif in amassing funding for Wagner’s exploits. Sabeel Jerusalem is the Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Jerusalem—working for Justice, Peace and Reconciliation for Palestine and Israel. By the way, Sabeel Jerusalem is “an ecumenical grassroots liberation theology movement among Palestinian Christians, leading them to ‘social action’.” (their own description of themselves).
Indeed, no rocket scientist is needed to determine from whence the appeals of such “social activism” ascend when it comes to resolving the Middle East crisis – Donald Wagner has hoodwinked American evangelicalism – fair and square. Why American Evangelicalism is so predisposed to the persuasions of Prof. Wagner at this time in their circuitous path from separatist evangelical fundamentalism – stressing the power of the gospel only – to “social action and justice” as part and parcel of the gospel’s mandate – has everything to do with Fuller Seminary, and a host of other signatories, along with evangelical-pop star, Rick Warren, and their quest to seize the mantel of social activism (i.e., the “social gospel”) lost to the mainline churches back in the early Twentieth Century. Purpose-driven Warren makes no bones about it: The American Evangelical Church must intrude upon the sacred ground of “peace and justice” once held by the American Liberal Church – and waiting to welcome them in their fine efforts is Professor Donald Wagner and his group of left-leaning evangelicals.
The distinction set forth by this group of Evangelical activists clearly demarcates the evangelical community in America between those who favor a two-state solution juxtaposed to Christian Zionists who rigidly opposed a compromise that would appear to endanger Israel’s security. In particular, “southern institutions of evangelical leadership” were absent from this pronouncement, and those which did participate are of little substance. The somewhat brazen declaration purposefully distinguishes itself forthwith: “We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people including some U.S. policymakers that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution and creation of a new Palestinian state that includes the vast majority of the West Bank. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, who sign this letter, represent large numbers of evangelicals throughout the U.S. who support justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.”
BISHIP TUTO AND THE JEWISH APARTITE STATE
While
the American evangelical house has its disparities—disparities which now
pressure both the American Jewish community, as well as Israel directly – the
Jews of the world have this to live with as “the many” (i.e., the majority of
Israel’s leadership) are pressed to sign on to a “peace settlement” designed
to exterminate their distinctive:
“Be not opposed to the God whose Spirit, when it anoints you, makes you concerned for the poor. This is your calling. If you disobey that calling, if you do not heed it, then as sure as anything one day you will come a cropper. You will probably not succumb to an outside assault militarily. With the unquestioning support of the United States of America, you are probably impregnable. But you who are called are they who are called, asked to deal with the oppressed, the weak, the despised, compassionately, caringly, remembering what happened to you in Egypt and, much more recently, in Germany. Remember and act appropriately. If you reject your calling, you may survive for a long time, but you will find it is all corrosive inside, and one day, one day, you will implode.” (Bishop Tutu, The United States of Israel-Palestine (USIP))
Pressing Jews world-wide and suggesting that their witness to the world must be based upon “peace and justice” – no matter what this may mean to their “identity” – is driving the Jewish community within Israel and throughout the world into a crisis of interior circumspection that is about to rip the Jewish community (worldwide) apart! Compromise—extreme compromise is in the wind.
CHRISTIAN ZIONIST REACTION
A plethora of Christian Zionist apprehension confronts the likes of Donald Wagner and his new-found evangelical alliance – Mike Evans (Assemblies of God) encapsulates what Wagner has to face:
“I stand here now with this document in my hand – this ‘Agreement of Joint Understanding’ to which both parties have pledged acceptance. This document, if followed, will result in the division of Jerusalem. I've asked myself how the U.S. government could partner with a terror organization responsible for thousands of terror attacks worldwide. How could President Bush cavalierly shake hands with the man responsible for the Munich massacre?
“Is George W. Bush so consumed by his legacy that he would sacrifice Jerusalem and hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews to attain his goal? Israel would have to give up the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in East Jerusalem and evacuate most of the strategic West Bank, which would leave it vulnerable to rocket attacks in Tel Aviv and at its international airport.
“What does the future hold for Israel? President Bush has indicated that Israel had ‘painful compromises’ to make during the negotiations that were to begin immediately. I can tell you that Israel seemed very alone during the Annapolis summit. It greatly concerns me. Why? President Clinton attempted to divide Jerusalem in January 2001, before the end of his term of office. He almost succeeded. I believe those negotiations and Arafat's subsequent rejection of Clinton's offer led directly to the events of 9/11.
“Now, President Bush is attempting to follow in Clinton's footsteps. Bush's advisers are likely telling him that this agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will affect his legacy in a most positive way. How wrong can they possibly be? Only time will tell.” (Michael Evans, The Conspiracy to Divide Jerusalem, Sunday, December 2, 2007, World Net Daily)
No doubt there will be Christian Zionist counter-signatories, in so far as persuading the American public, and the President. Meanwhile, Jewish “Biblical Zionists” mount their counter-offensive . . .
JEWISH “BIBLICAL ZIONISTS” MOUNT COUNTER-ATTACK ON ANNAPOLIS
The
“radicals” of Israel, e.g., The
Center for Biblical Zionism,
fans out with its representatives in the USA to influence public opinion
against “Annapolis” – to wit:
“As the world unites in Annapolis to divide
Jerusalem, Ari Abramowitz embarks on an international speaking tour to spread
the truth about the situation in Israel and the disastrous implications this
summit will have on the Middle East and the entire world.
“Ari will be speaking at selected college campuses including Columbia
University, New York University and Stern College. He will also be addressing
Jewish and Christian communities across the United States, sharing critical
information and understandings during these times of lies, confusion, and
impending danger.
“Ari will be uniting people from all backgrounds that believe in the Biblical
and historical right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. You are
cordially invited to attend every open event and take part in what will be a
most memorable evening.”
(International Center for Biblical Zionism)
PALESTINIAN, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH AND IRAN COUNTER
As
expected – Israel’s antagonists are determined to dissuade participants that
these “follies” are pure folly –
“The Arabs have failed to use the political difficulties and setbacks that the US has been suffering from in the region. They also failed to use the Israeli military failure in Lebanon. Consequently, the US and Israel have been able to find a way out of most of their predicaments by preparing to hold the Annapolis meeting in the way it will be held. I think that the region is about to be hit by a storm and that the calm of Annapolis is deceptive.” (ALI JARADAT IN PALESTINIAN AL-AYYAM)
And from HAMAS:
GAZA (Reuters) –
“Vowing to go on fighting the ‘Zionist enemy’, Hamas called Mahmoud Abbas the worst leader in Palestinian history on Monday and said he had no right to make concessions to Israel at the Annapolis peace conference.
“Speaking at an ‘anti-Annapolis’ conference in Gaza, leaders of the Islamist group which seized the enclave from Abbas’s forces in June said the president did not represent the Palestinian people and vowed never to recognize Israel.
“‘Let the whole world hear us -- we will not cede an inch of Palestine and we will never recognize Israel,’ Hamas’s Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh told the meeting of about 1,000 people, including representatives from some other Palestinian factions.” (Hamas Slams Annapolis Peace Talks)
“Hamas and Hezbollah joined Iran in attacking the conference. Hamas actually warned that it will step up attacks against Israeli troops to register its opposition to the conference.”
“The period that will follow the Annapolis conference will witness an increase of the resistance against the Zionist occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,” said Mussa Abu Marzuq, top aide to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal (AFP, 24 November).
And from HEZBOLLAH:
“‘He who looks at the preparations for the Annapolis conference finds that it has no gains for the Palestinians. It is a media-political show in favor of Israel,’ Hezbollah deputy chief Shiekh Naim Kassem told a rally in Beirut.
“He said the conference aimed at propping up some Palestinian leaders, a clear reference to President Mahmoud Abbas.” (“Hezbollah Dismisses Annapolis as ‘Media Talk Show’” – Reuters, India)
And from IRAN—and keep in
mind, the new US effort to “isolate Iran” and her nuclear ambitions – along
with continuing its ever-
increasing
quest at new and more rigorous sanctions—sanctions which continuing to be more
difficult to implement; therefore, the Annapolis Conference has and will
continue to be used as a diplomatic battering ram against Iran, isolating her
all the more . . .
“President Ahmadinejad today angrily
criticized participants of Annapolis Conference.
“‘The people of Palestine are alive. The people of Palestine are awake. Who
among them is the representative of the people of Palestine? What gives them
the right to go there?’ Ahmadinejad said (IRIB, 25 November). ‘This is the
result of a lack of political acumen on behalf of those who profess to be
politicians… Nations in the region will not accept it. The Palestinian nation,
which is standing in the frontlines of the resistance movement, will not
accept it,’ Ahmadinejad continued. (Uskowi on Iran –
Iran and Annapolis Conference, November 25, 2007)
WHAT OF THE ARAB AND ISRAELI PRESS – WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON HERE?
Although the Arab and Israeli press remain guarded at best, and utterly skeptical at worst, regarding the Annapolis Conference – one thing is very clear . . .
“Now that all the invited have confirmed their arrival the Bush administration can take pride in the power display it has organized. In Washington they see in the conference a real achievement: Annapolis returned America to centre stage as a superpower with power that cannot be ignored. United States will declare here tomorrow the end of the conflict: the conflict between it and the Arab world that has lasted almost all the years of the Bush term. The other conflicts, as far as they are concerned, can wait.” (ORLY AZULAY IN ISRAEL'S YEDIOT AHARONOT—The BBC – please see multiple links to Middle Eastern press on impressions of the Annapolis Conference)
PROPHETIC IMPLICATIONS – THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
This
is where things get dicey! All the falderal going on “out there” proves but
one thing – things really haven’t changed that much, they’re only cascading to
their ultimate conclusion and Donald Wagner’s Armageddon nightmare. When
Peter and some of the disciples were apprehended by the Sadducees—having been
disturbed by the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (since
the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, did not affirm the resurrection)—they
were incarcerated then sent before the religious leaders of Israel (including
the rulers, elders and scribes, along with the High Priest, Annas, Caiaphas,
John, and Alexander—Acts
4:5-6), who told them “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus”
(Acts
4:18). After they had “further threatened them, they let them go, finding
no way of punishing them” (Acts
4:21).
After Peter and the disciples came back to their companions, they related their experience . . .
“They went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: ‘Lord, You are God, who made heavens and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Anointed (i.e., “His Christ”).
At issue is this: The religious leaders at the initial outburst of the Church found themselves fighting against God Himself! Peter’s quoting of Psalm 2 juxtaposed the “nations rage, and the people plot vain things” against the Lord’s Anointed One!
Today’s Evangelical leadership, along with the nations—spurred on by the efforts of the President of these United States of America—undoubtedly affirm that they are doing the “work of the Lord” by speaking out against Jerusalem’s intransigence and sectarian, even apartheid, practices. What appears reasonable, pragmatic, enshrouded in the verbiage of “peace and justice” and “the American way” – and prodded on by Israel’s majority, and a growing list of Evangelical social activists, are the nations of the earth who “have had it” with this age-old struggle between “these Middle Eastern cousins” – it’s simply time to settle this “thing” once and for all!
The Scriptures speak of a time – if you’re perspective is that of Premillennialism, not Amillennialism – when, in the end of days, Israel (i.e., the Jews of the Diaspora) would be regathered to their ancient homeland. Our time does not allow for an exhaustive consideration of this topic; however, presupposing this (Premillennialism) to be the case, Dr. Robert Gundry in his classic, The Church and the Tribulation, suggests the following:
“During the tribulation (i.e., the 70th Week of Daniel’s prophecy yet to be fulfilled) the Mosaic system will be reinstituted in the land of Israel and the presence of the temple, the offering of sacrifices, and the Sabbath law give evidence (Matt. 24:15, 20; II Thess. 2:4). But the reinstitution of the Mosaic system in Israel during the tribulation will not enjoy divine sanction. General unbelief will still characterize Israel. God will not approve of Judaistic practices then any more than He approved of them during the period from the crucifixion of Christ to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Worship in the temple will receive its sanction, not from God, but from the Antichrist, who ‘will make a firm covenant’ with the Jews only to break it by putting ‘a stop to sacrifice and grain offering’ (Dan. 9:27).”
Gundry, Scholar-in-Residence at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, CA, affirms that “the Antichrist” “will make a firm covenant” with the Jews only to break it by putting “a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” (Dan. 9:27). This presupposes that Antichrist approaches the Jews of latter-day Israel as one who “confirms the covenant” by establishment, in toto, of the sacerdotal rites of the Jews. We covered this in our past treatment of this topic in Israel’s Temple Sacrifice and the Abomination of Desolation.
Premillenarians are, in the main, committed to the entire future week of Daniel’s prophecy – although their appearance as the Church during this final week of human history, as we know it, is greatly contested (pre-mid-post tribulational Premillenarians).
“From this passage (Daniel 9:27) it can be seen that the future great world ruler of the West, the first beast, will succeed in making an international treaty with Israel for seven years guaranteeing some sort of Middle East peace settlement with the Arab nations and the western nations. This will occur after the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of temple sacrifices which will be interrupted only when the man of sin (the false prophet) steps into the Holy Place and declares to the world that he is God. Israel's participation in a mid-east peace treaty with the antichrist is called her covenant of death in Isaiah 28:15.” (Lambert Dolphin, The Antichrist: Coming Leader of the World, Lambert Dolphin Library)
Although
Dolphin places the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the restoration
of the temple sacrifices BEFORE the “Covenant with Death and Hell” (Isaiah
28:15), I find it virtually impossible for this to occur in this manner—i.e.,
without a significant international accord there could not possibly be such a
commencement of the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple, nor, most definitely, the
institution of the sacerdotal rites.
Notwithstanding, both Gundry and Dolphin make a clear connection between the “Treaty” and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, as well as the reinstitution of the sacrifices. We do not affirm Gundry’s total disregard for any “spiritual connotation” associated with the erection of the Temple and the reinstitution of the sacerdotal rites—i.e., there is most definitely a “spiritual dimension” set forth to the Gentile Nations regarding the covenantal promises made to Abraham in the commencement of these final demonstrations—that “viewpoint” is from the divine perspective and signals the end of the age and of the ultimate and final cleansing of the Jewish people for their messianic role in Messiah’s Kingdom:
“The Lord will purify Israel when He suddenly comes to His temple (Mal. 3:1-5). Judgment and tribulation for Israel precede cleansing and deliverance (Jer. 30:7-11). ‘And a Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob’ (Isa. 59:20). ‘All Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’ ‘And this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins’” (Rom. 11:26-27). Thus, the removal of ‘ungodliness from Jacob’ when ‘all Israel will be saved’ will occur at the inception of the Messiah’s earthly rule, immediately upon His second advent.” (Robert H Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, Zondervan, 1973).
THE PRINCE OF THE COVENANT
Embedded
within the international accord – i.e., “the covenant with the many for one
week” (NOTE: “the many” refers to the majority of the Israeli leadership,
both civil and religious—Daniel
9:27) there are these ominous “contextual” additions which shed more light
on the “nature” of the one who shall effect this accord with “the many.”
Within
Daniel 8, 9, 11-12 there are numerous
adumbrations wherein Antichrist pursues an integral relationship with an
end-days’ Israel through a host of appealing venues—to extract
Daniel 9:27 from these passages in isolation as the sum and substance of
Antichrist’s nefarious pursuits is a gross violation of hermeneutic and
delimits the extent of Antichrist’s involvement with “the many.”
Therefore, when one considers the cosmic transformation of one, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“God is Manifest” – although he was called by the Jews, Epimanes or “Madman”), through the adumbrative language used in his immediate incursions into the Beautiful Land (Palestine/Israel), his person and work in the latter days becomes altogether too clear:
“And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant. And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people. He shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: He shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the stronghold, but only for a time.
“And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed ti