A Confused World

So much is happening around the world that it is difficult to keep up, but I am glad that God is keeping up, in fact, He is in control.  For that fact, we should all be eternally grateful.

Well, yesterday, in Washington D.C., after a lapse of four years, negotiations were begun to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a conflict that has been waged since those days before Israeli Independence in 1948.  Chief negotiator for the Israeli's is Tzipi Livni, former Israeli Foreign Minister (the equivalent to our Secretary of State), while the PA is represented by Saeb Erekat, who was responsible for the Oslo Accords, signed during the Clinton years.  Initially, the meeting yesterday, called by Secretary of State John Kerry, was to talk about what needed to be talked about.  But, according to reports this morning, the participants agreed to negotiate a final settlement, hopefully reached within the next nine months. 

The questions asked by many, both in the United States and in Israel, are these: Will these negotiations accomplish what those since 1993 have not?  Will Israel relinquish East Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital?  How will the matter of the Israeli towns and villages within Samaria and Judea (known today as the West Bank) be resolved?  Will there be a disengagement in Samaria and Judea as there was in 2005 from Gaza?  How can Israel be guaranteed security and safety?  Will some type of permanent international force be needed to ensure Israel's viability from attacks from a Palestinian state?  The Israelis have fresh images of the thousands of rockets that have been launched from Gaza into Israeli communities and the trauma that many of its citizens have endured.  (Interesting to note, that as the peace-talks began yesterday, a rocket was fired from the Gaza into southern Israel.  Do you think that sent a message that Hamas is not particularly interested in a peace process?)  Will the Palestinian Authority be required to give up anything, or will the onus be entirely upon Israeli concessions?  That has been the history of past negotiations - it has been an "all or nothing" approach by the PA, and usually they leave with "nothing", then cast blame upon Israel.

This past Monday, while in Cairo, PA President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters, "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands."  President Abbas has made it abundantly clear that there will be no Jews in a Palestinian State...period, end of statement.  However, he still wants Israel to repatriate those Arabs who were dispelled during the 1948 War of Independence.  Israel cannot be a Jewish only state...but Palestine can be an Arab only state.  Presently many of those living in Samaria and Judea find their employment provided by Israeli businesses.  Israeli hospitals provide care for many Palestinian residents, with care being provided through Israeli taxes.  If the Israeli Prime Minister would say to reporters, "In a final solution, we would not see the presence of a single Arab on our lands," you know what the press would say, the riots that would ensue, the buildings that would be burned.  What a double standard in these negotiations. 

Now on to Egypt where the American government is caught in a rather embarrassing position.  In January 2011, it gave support to the "Arab Spring" and the overthrow of one of our strongest Arab allies in the Middle East, President Mubarak.  The end result of that "Arab Spring" was the ascension to power of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ascendance of radical Islam, resulting in the election of Mohammed Morsi as president.  Now the people have risen up against the Muslim Brotherhood and have allied themselves with the military leadership.  Now, who do we support?  In a report, written by Daniel Pipes, one of the leading authorities today on the Middle East, Pipes related that an anonymous Obama Administration official said, "Trying to break the Muslim Brotherhood is not going to be good for Egypt or for the region.  Pipes then says, "The thinking behind this view is that (1) it's better to have Islamists in the political process than violently rebelling and (2) participating in civil society has the potential to tame Islamists, making them see the benefits of democracy and turning them into just another interest group."  But Pipes strongly disagrees with these beliefs.  He writes, "No tolerance for the intolerant.  Just as fascists and communists are not legitimate players in a democracy, neither are Islamists.  No matter how smooth talking, they remain autocrats who disregard the popular will.  Better that they be excluded entirely from participatory politics."  (You can read the entire article at the Daniel Pipes Middle East Forum website: www.danielpipes.org). 

Finally, on Saturday, there will be change in leadership in Iran.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will step down as President of Iran (and just when I was beginning to learn how to pronounce his name).  The new Iranian President is Hassan Rouhani.  But we need to remember that Iran is still run by the council of clerics with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader", as head.  But what is interesting is that the first state visit to the new Iranian President will be Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Reuters news service reports, "Russian leader Vladimir Putin will meet Iran's newly elected president in Tehran next month to discuss restarting talks on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program."  Could this be a strengthening of that tie we know from Ezekiel 38?  It sure does seem to bring that passage into more clarity. 

Just a final thought.  Tonight, at the stroke of midnight, Minnesota becomes the 13th state to recognize same-sex marriage.  The mayor of Minneapolis is performing ceremonies for 42 couples at 12:01 tomorrow morning, and I have read reports that 10,000 licenses have been filed in Minnesota for gay-weddings.  There was a very interesting article in today's "Star-Tribune" where those who have opposed gay-marriage indicated that they were not bitter, but just experiencing sadness.  I know many of the readers of this blog will join me in such sadness.  Sadness that we have taken a concept that has biblical, cultural, and historic foundations that transcend all creeds, cultures, and even civilizations, and changed it to fit our own whims and wishes.  Just as the word "gay" has taken on a whole new meaning since the days of my boyhood, so we can add "marriage."  The term has forever changed.  A new definition will be found in the next edition of the Dictionary.  No longer will the definition be that of a committed relationship between a man and a woman, but it will say a relationship of those in a love-relationship. 

I was asked yesterday what I thought of Pope Francis' seeming toleration of gays within the Roman Church.  To be honest, I was stunned.  Still trying to make sense of those words.  Is this a new direction for the Roman Church who has stood as a bulwark in the sanctity of marriage fight?  I am sure that Pope Francis will give clarity in the coming weeks. 

The Lord reminds us that when we see these things happening, and they are happening at almost lightning speed these days, then we are to look up because our redemption draws nigh.  How grateful I am for the upward look and for the incredible hope we have in the return of Jesus.  With John I pray, "Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus."