Do feel free to send us your observations. (Contact)

* * * * *

Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST      Aug. 13, 2006

There is a good reason that Hizbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which sets the terms for a cease-fire between his jihad army and the State of Israel.

The resolution represents a near-total victory for Hizbollah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria, and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States. This fact is evident both in the text of the resolution and in the very fact that the US decided to sponsor a cease-fire resolution before Israel had dismantled or seriously degraded Hezbollah's military capabilities.

While the resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and so does not have the authority of law, in practice it makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hizbollah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale.

This is the case first of all because the resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes. By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hizbollah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself.

The resolution makes absolutely no mention of either Syria or Iran, without whose support Hizbollah could neither exist nor wage an illegal war against Israel. In so ignoring Hizbollah's sponsors, it ignores the regional aspect of the current war and sends the message to these two states that they may continue to equip terrorist armies in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq with the latest weaponry without paying a price for their aggression.

The resolution presents Hizbullah with a clear diplomatic victory by placing their erroneous claim of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shaba Farms, or Mount Dov - a vast area on the Golan Heights that separates the Syrian Golan from the Upper Galilee and is disputed between Israel and Syria - on the negotiating table. In doing so, the resolution rewards Hizbullah's aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of aggression, in
contravention of the laws of nations.

Moreover, by allowing Lebanon to make territorial claims on Israel despite the fact that in 2000 the UN determined that Israel had withdrawn to the international border, the resolution sets a catastrophic precedent for the future. Because Lebanon is receiving international support for legally unsupportable territorial demands on Israel, in the future, the Palestinians, Syrians and indeed the Jordanians and Egyptians will feel empowered to employ aggression to gain territorial concessions from the Jewish state even if they previously signed treaties of peace with Israel. The message of the resolution's stand on Shaba Farms is that Israel can never expect for the world to recognize any of its borders as final.

By calling in the same paragraph for the "immediate cessation by Hizbullah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations," the resolution treats as equivalent Hizbullah's illegal aggression against Israel and Israel's legitimate military actions taken in defense of its sovereign territory.

Operational Paragraph 7, which "affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 [which calls for a cessation of hostilities] that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons," all but bars Israel from taking military action to defend itself in the future. Any steps Israel takes will open it to accusations - by Annan - of breaching this paragraph.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had let it be known that Israel's conditions for a cease-fire included the institution of an arms embargo against Hizbullah. The government also insisted that the international force it wished to have deployed along the border would work to dismantle Hizbullah.

However, paragraph 8 puts both the question of an arms embargo and Hizbullah's dismantlement off to some future date when Israel and Lebanon agree to the terms of a "permanent cease-fire." In addition, it places the power to oversee an arms embargo against Hizbullah in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member.

While the resolution bars Israel from taking measures necessary to defend its territory and citizens, by keeping UNIFIL in Lebanon it ensures that no other force will be empowered to take these necessary actions. Furthermore, paragraph 2 "calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment [of the Lebanese military and UNIFIL] begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel." This means that Israel is expected to withdraw before a full deployment of Lebanese and UNIFIL forces is carried out. As a result, a vacuum will be created that will allow Hizbullah to reinforce its positions in south

Finally, the resolution makes no operative call for the release of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev now being held hostage by Hizbullah. By relegating their fate to a paragraph in the preamble, which then immediately turns to Hizbullah's demand for the release of Lebanese terrorists held in Israeli jails, the resolution all but eliminates any possibility of their returning home.

Aside from the resolution's egregious language, the very fact that the US has sponsored a resolution that leaves Hizbullah intact as a fighting force constitutes a devastating blow to the national security of both Israel and the US, for the following reasons:

*       It grants the Lebanese government and military unwarranted legitimacy. The resolution treats the Lebanese government and military as credible bodies. However, the Lebanese government is currently under the de facto control of Hizbullah and Syria. Moreover, the Lebanese army is paying pensions to the families of Hizbullah fighters killed in battle, and its forces have actively assisted Hizbullah in attacking Israel and Israeli military targets.

Indeed, the seven-point declaration issued by the Lebanese government, which the UN resolution applauds, was dictated by Hizbullah, as admitted by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Nasrallah last week.

*       It incites Shi'ite violence in Iraq. From a US perspective, the resolution drastically increases the threat of a radical Shi'ite revolt in Iraq. Hizbullah is intimately tied to Iraqi Shi'ite terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr. In April 2003, Hizbullah opened offices in southern Iraq and was instrumental in training the Mahdi Army, which Sadr leads. During a demonstration in Baghdad last week, Sadr's
followers demanded that he consider them an extension of Hizbullah, and expressed a genuine desire to participate in Hizbullah's war against the US and Israel.

It should be assumed that Hizbullah's presumptive victory in its war against Israel will act as a catalyst for violence by Sadr and his followers against the Iraqi government and coalition forces in the weeks to come. Indeed, the Hizbullah victory will severely weaken moderate Shi'ites in the Maliki government and among the followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

*       It empowers Iran. Iran emerges as the main victor in the current war. Not only was it not condemned for its sponsorship of Hizbullah, it is being rewarded for that sponsorship because it is clear to all parties that Iran was the engine behind this war, and that its side has won.

The UN resolution does not strengthen the US hand in future Security Council deliberations regarding Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program because the states that object to any action against Iran - Russia and China - will continue with their refusal to sign on to any
substantive action.

Indeed, Russia's behavior regarding the situation in Lebanon, including the fact that a large percentage of Hizbullah's arsenal of advanced anti-tank missiles was sold by Russia to Syria and Iran, exposes that Moscow's role in the current conflict has been similar to the position taken by the Soviet Union in earlier Middle East wars.

Furthermore, because the resolution strengthens the UN as the arbiter of peace and security in the region, the diplomatic price the US will be forced to pay if it decides to go outside the UN to contend with the Iranian threat has been vastly increased.

Many sources in Washington told this writer over the weekend that the US decision to seek a cease-fire was the result of Israel's amateurish bungling of the first three weeks of the war. The Bush administration, they argued, was being blamed for the Olmert government's incompetence and so preferred to cut its losses and sue for a cease-fire.

There is no doubt much truth to this assertion. The government's prosecution of this war has been unforgivably inept. At the same time it should be noted that the short-term political gain accrued by the US by forging the cease-fire agreement will come back to haunt the US, Israel and all forces fighting the forces of global jihad in the coming weeks and months.

By handing a victory to Hizbullah, the resolution strengthens the belief of millions of supporters of jihad throughout the world that their side is winning and that they should redouble efforts to achieve their objectives of destroying Israel and running the US out of the Middle East.

International legal scholar Prof. Anne Bayefsky assisted the author in analyzing the text of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

* * * * *

A message from Peter Adams

The majority of feedback we have received in the past two weeks has been from people who have a special love for Israel, and a profound sense of its purpose in history.  Peter Adams, who works full time in reconciliation and peacemaking,” has long felt called to adopt a ‘two-eyed’ stance. He has sent us this important perspective, which can be found better displayed on his blog:

"On War - and Peacemaking"

Peter’s main point in the article, which he does not want to be lost, is not to defend Hizbollah, or their use of an occupied  house in Qana, or even to attack Israel for some form of response to the attacks of Hizbollah, but rather  to seek to break the cycle of vengeance, which he feels is about to revolve again.  He promises to write more on that soon. Look at his blog in the next few days before you respond to this piece.”

* * * * *

From the website

France seems to be taking the lead in the cease-fire agreement, and has volunteered to send troops as part of a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. France has been a leader in anti Israel sentiments in Europe and in compromising with Islamic extremists. On the positive side, France has had a long history of good relations with Lebanon and many Arab nations. Ironically this may give them a certain leverage to help negotiations. We
need to pray for France. This is a window of opportunity either to do something right or do something disastrous. This weekend could be a redeeming moment for them, or a condemning one. Our prayers could make a difference.

A key player in the negotiations is Lebanon Prime Minister Fouad Seniora. Seniora was against Hizballah. However he was unable to disarm them and take control of his country. Unfortunately the destruction of the war has made him move closer to Hizballah in a reaction against Israel. Perhaps his love for the people of Lebanon will cause him to rise at this moment and negotiate a realistic settlement with Israel. This weekend could also be a redeeming one for him also, or a condemning one. Again our prayers could make a difference.

The question here is not whether there should be a cease-fire; nor is it whether there should be an international force in southern Lebanon. Both of those items were part of Israel's goals from the beginning. Israel wants a peace agreement with Lebanon. The question is whether the agreement will include realistic security measures to disarm Hizballah, or at least reduce their ability to attack Israel.

I pray for Hizballah to be destroyed. However, the influence of Hizballah is not just on the terror against Israel, but on public opinion in Lebanon, and on public opinion around the world. Hizballah needs not only to be defeated militarily; the people of Lebanon need to gain control of their nation, and the influence of Jihad propaganda needs to be broken. The discussions this weekend at the U. N. are part of the confrontation of those "powers and principalities" (Ephesians 6:12), and of "strongholds of thoughts and arguments that have exalted themselves against God" (II Corinthians 10:5). The Israeli army cannot fight that part of the battle. That must be done by our prayers.

Part of our spiritual warfare is also us to repent of our own sins (Joel 2:17), to spread the gospel (I Corinthians 1:18-19), and to demonstrate an example of reconciliation (in this case, between Jews and Arabs – Ephesians 2:14). Let us continue to pray for the evangelical Christians in Lebanon. Here is a quote from one of the local pastors:

Sadly more people are becoming refugees everyday, even today new towns are being emptied because threatened. Where would these refugees end? The situation is very difficult. And for us we could say jokingly, "ministry is booming." We are overburdened with relief work to be done, relationships to maintain and people to reach with the gospel. I can testify that I have never seen the Muslim people so hungry for the gospel.  Many stories I can tell but now I believe God wants to multiply this work and touch more people. We are already touching 1000 people in our area alone but it seems that God wants to touch more.

Let us pray for their relief work, for their evangelism, and for the church of "N. K." in southern Lebanon, which has been particularly caught in the midst of the fighting. This is God's Kairos time for Lebanon. Out of all these tribulations and birth pangs, may there come a revival and restoration of the nation!

My friend Eddie Santoro describes the "60" factor: There are about 60 times the number of people in the United States than in Israel; 60 times the number in Europe than Israel; 60 times the number in the surrounding Arab nations than in Israel. For example, the number of casualties so far in this war (130) seems relatively small, but it becomes an equivalent of thousands (7,800) if compared to the super powers around it.

Another factor is the economic one. Tourism, agriculture, and small businesses in the northern part of Israel have been severely damaged. Every day that the war continues is a crushing weight to the economy of the nation. The strategy of Nasrallah is that he is willing to have the Lebanese economy decimated if he can also do the same to Israel. ("The devil comes to steal, kill and destroy" - John 10:10.) The worldview of Jihad is that mass destruction on all sides serves its purposes.

Israeli army figures estimate that over 10 billion (!) dollars have been invested by Iran in weapons and military infrastructure for Hizballah.

This worldview of mass destruction was also demonstrated in the arrests yesterday in Britain. A terrorist cell had planned to explode ten (10!) U.S. airplanes flying out of London. They came up with a new demonic strategy of liquid explosives, which could be carried on the plane in soft drink containers, and then detonated from a device within a cell phone or computer. May the world wake up to the danger of Islamic terrorism! It cannot be ignored. It must be fought.

Many Christians are confused as to whether it is right before God to fight in a war. Salim Munayer, a Palestinian Christian scholar, recently gave a summary of the position of fourth century Church father St. Augustine. There are four criteria that indicate whether a Christian should fight in a war. First, war is justified when it serves to protect innocent civilians from an invader. Second, the implementation of justice sometimes demands that we engage in war. Third, individuals do not have the right to carry out a war; this is the job of legitimate governments. Fourth, war must be carried out in the most just way, and not only with just cause.

For us as Jews, it seems a little simpler. When 300 million Muslims surrounding us desire to annihilate us, we have little choice but to defend ourselves. The history of Israel as recorded in the Bible is a long and detailed account of Israel's attempts to survive as a covenant nation - sometimes against our own sins and sometimes against the attacks of the Gentile nations.

Israeli reporter Eldad Beck in Berlin quotes German newspaper, "Bild," reporting on Nazi documents that had been hidden in archives and now recently made public. One series of documents reveals that in May 1939, Hitler gathered a group of "Protestant" theologians to found the "Institute for Purifying Christianity from Judaism." They wanted to rewrite the Bible and Church theology to remove all reference to Jesus being Jewish. Why was that so important to Hitler? If it is so important to the devil to destroy the connection between Jesus and the Jews, so is it important to God to restore the connection between Jesus and the Jews.

Both Nazism and Islamic Jihad have as a primary doctrine the annihilation of the Jewish people. That is because God has covenanted with the Jewish people to preserve them (Jeremiah 31:36-37). This promise in Jeremiah is part of the prophecy of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). In other words, the same covenant that gives eternal life and forgiveness of sins to all Christians also guarantees the survival of the Jewish people.

Spiritual warfare is connected to physical warfare. Both are connected to Israel. They are connected to Israel because Yeshua has promised to return here to set up His kingdom on earth, to rule on the throne of David. Behind the scenes of anti-Semitism, Nazism and Islamic Jihad is a demonic attempt to fight against the Second Coming of Yeshua.

The ancient Israelites would sometimes "fast until sundown" when facing a military challenge (Judges 20:26). Let us do the same until this conflict is resolved.

* * * * *

Ruth J. comments:

"How amazing that I gleaned the same information as you on Thursday, but there was one other gem from Chuck Pierce's website, "this is a spiritual war as well as physical one." And I am reminded of Moses lifting up holy hands as Joshua fought the battle in the valley as it went on to say the word rockets in Hebrew is "Teelim";  and Psalms are "T'heelim."  Apparently there is an Israeli saying, "We use t'heelim (psalms) against teelim (rockets)." I would say that Ps.83 probably had more power in it than any rocket aimed at Israel, or that could be aimed there.  Praise God." 

* * * * *

The fog of war has concentrated largely on propaganda in the Middle East. Very serious questioning of the extent of the tragedy at Qana has been rife, suggesting that the surprisingly media-savvy organisation operating a sophisticated ‘Hizbollywood’ propaganda machine that has consistently claimed a high level of victims – and then quietly reduced the number once the initial impact has achieved the effect it was intended to have. For a very small sample see the movie,

* * * * * PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania - It's rare for an Islamic terrorist to break free from the jihadist lifestyle. It's even rarer for that same terrorist to then speak out against Islamic terrorism and become a devout Christian.

But CBN News recently spoke to two-ex-terrorists who've done just that, and they have lived to tell about it.


* * * * *

Peter Walker, a long term 'friend of Israel' sent us these concerned observations about the air war.


I can't help sharing the widespread view that Israel is overdoing it in terms of response, and that they ought to be giving careful consideration to the PR battle as well as the military tactics. I don't feel that the current government there (Olmert, Peretz etc. ) have thought this through properly. Indeed, the whole way they have handled security issues since the Gaza withdrawal last summer seems very careless . . .  I gather there has been quite a lot of frustration among the military themselves about this mishandling of border issues prior to the current flare up.

The current government was elected on a platform of short-sighted territorial compromise by a public weary of the struggle, and they don't have the combat command experience which many of their predecessors have had. I get the feeling they have turned the whole thing over to the military to let them do what they want - without due consideration to the international PR and diplomacy aspects. Personally I am more dismayed about Israel's activities this time round than at any previous time during the 25 years that I have been following events there, bar the Sabra and  Shatilla fiasco in 1982, which outraged the whole of Israel.

However, having said all that there is a not a lot of point in a ceasefire leaving the job half finished and allowing Hezbollah to re-stock with arms and carry on. Clearly it was Hezbollah that started the current situation, but to me Israel seems only to have made it much worse, thus squandering any international sympathy that there might have been. If the Iranians were already claiming to have their nuclear weapon ready then I would feel that they are itching for the opportunity to use it on Israel. However, it may be that they are inflaming the current situation (or more likely have engineered it) as a test run for when they are ready to try out the nuclear weapon. Undoubtedly Iran is a significant and sinister player behind the scenes in this situation.

A comment on Tyre, the Hebrew name for it is Tzur, which is quite literally 'rock' - as the city is (I believe, never having been there) built on an offshore rock and the tombolo which links it to the mainland.'

I would add to his observations that the Israeli defence intelligence was chaired by an Air Force man; it was perhaps inevitable that the arguments would be used to a) try to win the war from the air and b) thereby reduce the casualty figures in the army.

The immediate political result of the bombing of Lebanon has been that there is now no practical difference between the outlook of the Lebanese government and that of Hezbollah itself.

 * * * * *

Back to Intercession for the Middle East