Caiaphas, Kissinger and the CIA

This meeting described in the Gospel of John was called by the Sanhedrin to manage the ‘crisis situation’ of Messiah Yeshua’s growing popularity. The Chief Priests were the main diplomatic connection between the occupying Roman power and the Jewish people and, like most politicians, one of their primary interests was to preserve their own office and their hold on power. Yeshua was definitely not their choice to be Israel’s Messiah. Caiaphas’ counsel that evening was based on what is called ‘Realpolitik’ (a German term meaning ‘practical, actual or realistic politics’): better that Yeshua die than that the priestly power structure lose control and that, as a result, the Romans potentially crush the Jewish people.

Such Realpolitik political philosophy guides nearly every national strategic think-tank today. Here are some of its main points:

Realpolitik is the opposite of having strong moral or ideological foundations. It does not follow a biblical set of rules. Realpolitik is oriented toward achieving specific goals, limited only by ‘how to get things done.’ It usually involves compromising on ideological principles. 

Did the God of Jacob instruct Jewish kings to follow realpolitik?

Moses lays out clear guidelines to the Jewish people as to how Jewish kings are to rule, and what is to be the foundational basis for their diplomatic and political policies:

“When you enter the land which YHVH your God is giving you, and you take possession of it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will appoint a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ you shall in fact appoint a king over you whom YHVH your God chooses. One from among your countrymen you shall appoint as king over yourselves. You may not put a foreigner over yourselves, anyone who is not your countryman. In any case, he is not to acquire many horses for himself, nor shall he make the people return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since YHVH has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, so that his heart does not turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. Now it shall come about, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Teaching (Hebrew, Torah) on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he will learn to fear YHVH his God, by carefully following all the words of this Teaching (i.e., the Mosaic Covenant) and these statutes, so that his heart will not be haughty toward his countrymen, and that he will not turn away from the commandment to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may live long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

The ideal leader (in God’s sight) is a man who weighs matters, makes his decisions and implements them based on the word of God – the Scriptures. His heart must not be influenced by pursuit of power or wealth. Based on these guidelines, there are few godly leaders today across this planet.

Musical chairs in Gaza

The White House is clarifying the immediate U.S. endgame regarding the crowning of a new Arab leader to replace Hamas as the new potentate in Gaza: they are throwing their weight behind the Palestinian Authority:

Most thoughtful observers clearly understand that Hamas is no longer (and has never been) a suitable candidate. It’s a jihadi terrorist organization guilty of horrendous war crimes, responsible for the mass rape, torture, kidnapping and slaughter of over 1,400 babies, young children, teenagers, young adults, and pensioners on October 7, 2023. But since the Palestinian Authority is being pushed forward by the U.S. Administration, some helpful questions should be asked:

The PLO – founded in Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem

On May 28, 1964 King Hussein of Jordan convened a Palestinian National Council in Jordanian-controlled Jerusalem, telling the 400 delegates: “The hearts of millions of Arabs yearn for the recovery of the plundered fatherland…there is no value and no meaning in Arabs living without Palestine” (Jerusalem Post, May 29, 1964). Committees were established to draft military and political plans for the conquering of Israel. It was at that conference that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established. A PLO Charter was drawn up in 1964, and was later updated in July 1968. Here are some selected articles from the 1968 PLO Charter:

The PLO’s largest faction was led by Yasser Arafat, who joined in 1968, becoming PLO Executive Committee Chairman. The Arabic name for PLO is Fatḥ or al-Fatah, a word meaning victory, breakthrough, opening or conquest. Fatḥ is an acronym using the inverted letters (i.e., spelled backwards) letters (HTF instead of FTH) of the Arabic name for the organization ‘Palestinian National Liberation Movement’ (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī l-Filasṭīnī). In Islam, Fatḥ reminds Muslims of Fatḥ al-Shām – the ‘conquering of the Levant,’ including Jerusalem – the jihadi conquest of Syria, Jordan and Israel in the time immediately after Mohammed’s death.

The 48th sura (chapter) of the Quran is named Al-Fatḥ, and it describes in detail the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The Hudaybiyyah agreement (a ten-year pact established between Mohammad with the Arabian tribe of Quraysh) was broken by Mohammad after two years, when his jihadi forces – having re-armed during the peace pact – subjugated the Quraysh tribe and moved on to conquer Mecca. Arafat cited this Islamic precedent a number of times when he signed the Oslo Accords with the Jewish state, as justification for his supposed recognizing of Israel and renouncing of terrorist activities. The following quote from the newspaper al-Quds, May 10, 1998 illustrates Arafat’s strategy:

Question: “Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?”

Arafat: “No – no! Allah's messenger Mohammad accepted the al-Hudaybiyyah peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted”
(N.B.: Salah a-Din was the Muslim leader who, after a cease-fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and captured Jerusalem)

Can a leopard change his spots? (Jeremiah 13:23)

In 1993, following the Oslo Accords, the PLO/al Fatah assumed leadership of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), known today as the Palestinian Authority (PA). In other words, the PA is another term for the PLO.

The PLO/PA has publicly declared in two world forums that it has renounced terror:

Yet Arafat and the PLO and the Palestinian Authority continue to engage in terrorism, making them guilty of a basic breach of the Oslo Accords.

For a list and description of terror attacks carried out both by the PLO and also by Palestinian Authority forces (both before and after their signing of agreements to renounce terrorism), see the following articles:

Two especially brazen PLO/PA terror attacks which were foiled while in progress are:

On February 13, 2002 the U.S. 107th Congress passed Bill H.R. 3743, which stated, inter alia:

The Congress makes the following findings:

The Congress finds that the PLO is in violation of the Oslo Accords under which the organization made a commitment to abandon and renounce terrorism.

In a February 2015 civil case, a US federal court found both the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization liable for the death and injuries of US citizens in a number of terrorist attacks in Israel from 2001 to 2004. Unfortunately, on August 31, 2016, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan dismissed the lawsuit – but not because the PLO/PA had not overseen the terror acts – they had indeed been neck-deep involved in terror acts. The Court of Appeals threw out the decision on the grounds that US federal courts lacked overseas jurisdiction on civil cases.

A PLO/PA jihadi fighting under another name

The original members of the PLO have split into various groups and streams, though still remaining part of the PLO. These groups include the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command. These groups are openly involved in terrorism, but are still members in good standing of the PLO.  The Palestinian Authority also makes no secret of its own financing of Palestinian terrorism.

One terror group (which is officially part of the Palestinian Authority) is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. This organization remains actively involved in jihadi terror attacks. Here are links to their activities:

On December 18, 2003, al-Fatah asked the leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to join the Fatah Council, recognizing it officially as part of the Fatah organization. The Fatah organization, we remember, is the largest contingent of the Palestinian Authority.

In June 2004, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei said the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades gunmen are entitled to play a role in the Palestinian future: “We have clearly declared that the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are part of Fatah,” Qurei said in an interview with the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper. “We are committed to them and Fatah bears full responsibility for the group.” PM Qurei added that his top priority would be to safeguard the security of these gunmen who are wanted by Israel. He said they would be integrated into Fatah's institutions and would be paid salaries.

The following two articles show how the Palestinian Authority promotes, honors and glorifies Hamas and al-Aqsa terrorists, and how Hamas and Fatah compete in boasting who is murdering more Jewish Israelis:

In the days immediately after the October 7, 2023 Hamas jihadi terror pogrom which massacred, raped, tortured and kidnapped thousands of Israeli citizens, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades released declarations and videos trumpeting that Fatah/al-Aqsa also participated in those Hamas attacks:

In light of the abovementioned facts, the recent statements by President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken – when they speak of the ‘logic and viability’ of having the Palestinian Authority/PLO/al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades be put in charge of running Gaza (with US State Department approval) – are revealed to be dangerously duplicitous.

U.S. policy seems bent of replacing one terrorist government with another:

Dancing with the devil

Many are not aware that the U.S. intelligence community has had backdoor connections and a significant working relationship with the PLO since 1969, at the height of its involvement in Middle East and world terrorism.

 In November 1969, CIA case officer Robert Ames entered the Strand Café in Rue Hamra, West Beirut to meet Ali Hassan Salameh, a 27-year-old Palestinian confidant of Yasser Arafat. Salameh was a member of PLO/Fatah’s Revolutionary Council and Revolutionary Security Apparatus, which he developed into Force 17 (Arafat’s personal security force and counterintelligence unit).

Ali Hassan Salameh’s father was Ḥasan Salāmah, a commander in the Arab Revolt (1936-1939) against the British Mandate forces and the local Jewish population. Some interesting history here: In 1941 Salāmah fled with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and Fawzi al-Qawuqji to Nazi Germany where he served as the Mufti’s senior aide. In October 1944 he parachuted from a Nazi Luftwaffe Heinkel into Wadi Qelt in the Judean Desert along with three German Templar commandos. Their weaponry included explosives, submachine guns, dynamite, radio equipment and poison intended to destroy Tel Aviv’s drinking water. In January 1945 he commanded forty Waffen S.S. 13th Handžar (’Knife’) Bosnian Muslim Nazi troops, whose numbers eventually swelled to 500. In 1948 Salāmah commanded the Palestinian Holy War Army (Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas) along with Abdul Qadir al-Husseini. He was killed fighting Israeli Irgun forces at Rosh Ha’ayin in June 1948.

Ḥasan Salāmah’s son Ali Hassan Salameh was raised to champion his father’s cause – the annihilation of the Jewish state. In his youth he spent time in Germany and Lebanon, and in 1968 he received training from Egyptian military intelligence. After his 1969 Beirut meeting, Salameh was given the CIA operative crypt (cryptonym or codename) MJS/TRUST2. Ali Hassan was not a paid agent under CIA control, but was an intelligence asset – an all-important ‘back channel’ between the U.S. government and Arafat. Robert Ames told Salameh at their meeting, “Arafat has friends in high places and so does his cause.” He told Salameh that President Richard Nixon himself had authorized Ames to “explore the possibility of contact between the USA and the PLO.” Ames said he was acting on the authority of the American National Security Council. The message to Arafat was: “You Arabs claim your views are not heard in Washington. Here is your chance. The President of the United States is listening.”

By January 1970 the Head of the CIA (DCI) Richard Helms was encouraging Ames to pursue the Agency’s connections with the PLO, and within a few months he informed Kissinger and Nixon of these backdoor channels. The average perspective of CIA agents at that time can be summed up in two quotes from Salameh’s CIA connection, Robert Ames:

In September 1970 the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan’s King Hussein was nearly overthrown by the PLO. The king’s army waged pitched battles with the PLO, and in the end expelled them from Jordan to Lebanon. Arafat’s PLO created a new ‘anonymous’ terrorist wing called ‘Black September,’ headed up by Amin al-Hindi (later intelligence chief of the Palestinian Authority), Mohammad Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud) – one of the founders of al-Fatah and the mastermind of the 1972 Munich massacre, and Salah Mesbah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) – deputy chief and head of intelligence for the PLO and the second most senior official of Fatah after Yasser Arafat. Ali Hassan Salameh was a key operative in Black September. Here is an article presenting the CIA perspective during that period, written by 30-year veteran Bruce Riedel. Here is a video from Sam Wyman, former senior CIA Operations Officer, remembering Salameh’s relationship with the CIA.

In the 1970s, Salameh was the liaison with the German terrorist organization Baader-Meinhof Group (co-perpetrators of the Entebbe hijacking). As a backdoor channel between the U.S. and the P.L.O., Salameh furnished senior American diplomats, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, with tips about assassination plots planned by other radical Palestinian terrorist groups. He is also said to have supplied similar information to security organizations in West Germany, Italy and Japan ‘to demonstrate that Al Fatah was no longer a terrorist organization’ – though the documented truth shows the exact opposite.

Murder most foul

In late February 1973, the U.S. National Security Agency listening-post in Cyprus picked up radio traffic between PLO Chairman Arafat, al-Fatah’s co-founder Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) and others signaling that a PLO terror operation was about to be conducted in Khartoum, Sudan. A ‘flash’ message of warning was immediately sent out, but a State Department watch officer unaccountably downgraded the message for routine transmission.

In the early evening of March 1, eight Black September Organization terrorists seized the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum during a diplomatic reception. The terrorists took U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel, U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission George C. Moore, the Belgian and Jordanian Chargés d'affaires and the Saudi Ambassador hostage. The PLO terrorists demanded the release of a Black September leader held in Jordan, several members of the terrorist Baader-Meinhof Gang held in Germany, etc. When the terrorists’ demands were not be met, coded instructions were sent by Abu Iyad (Arafat’s closest Fatah associate in the PLO) and re-confirmed by PLO Chairman Arafat himself on a separate coded transmission, directing them to murder Noel, Moore, and Eid. At 9:00 P.M. that very night, the Black September operatives marched Noel, Moore, and Eid to the Embassy basement and murdered them with forty rounds from Kalashnikov weapons, fired from the feet to the head in order to inflict maximum suffering on the victims.

An intelligence brief co-prepared by the U.S. State department and the CIA states: “The Black September Organization (BSO) is a cover term for Fatah's terrorist operations executed by Fatah's intelligence organization . . . Fatah funds, facilities, and personnel are used in these operations . . . For all intents and purposes no significant distinction now can be made between the BSO and Fatah . . . Fatah leader Yasser Arafat has now been described in recent intelligence as having given approval to the Khartoum operation prior to its inception.”

“From the first moment of the deadly operation, which took place in Khartoum on March 1, 1973, the U.S. State Department possessed direct evidence of Arafat's responsibility, yet neither the State Department nor any other government agency made public its knowledge. Indeed, as recently as the summer of 2002, the State Department denied that such evidence existed.” Only in June 2006, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, did the State Department’s Office of the Historian post an official summary based on CIA and NSA signals intelligence intercepted communications. It clearly stated: “The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasser Arafat.”

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s memoirs observe a total news blackout regarding Arafat's responsibility for the Khartoum operation. No mention is made there of Arafat, Fatah, or the PLO. For 33 years, seven successive American administrations covered up Arafat’s murder of American diplomats while placing the PLO/PA at the center of U.S. Middle East policy. “In contravention of U.S. law, the State Department has been denying that Fatah, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are terrorist organizations, and has been actively funding them with U.S. taxpayer dollars.” 

Why the silence?

 

In September 1973, six months after Khartoum, CIA case officer Ames sent Salameh a message, using a simple code for the CIA, the PLO and Israel: “My company is still interested in getting together with Ali's company. The southern company [Israel] has investigated. I've seen a lot of their files, and they know about our contacts.” In the Fall of 1973 and early 1974, Kissinger authorized the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Vernon Walters to attend the first meetings between an American diplomat and the PLO. Walters reported in secret diplomatic cable to Kissinger: “I said I would ask him no questions about Khartoum.”

Kissinger obliquely refers to these goals in his memoir’s report of the U.S.–PLO encounter: “Walters’s meeting achieved its immediate purpose: to gain time and to prevent radical assaults on the early peace process. After it, attacks on Americans – at least by Arafat’s faction of the PLO – ceased.” A joke making the rounds at Beirut CIA Station was, “It pays to live in the same building as American diplomats because the PLO security is so good.” One CIA individual who was present at Walters’ meeting said this: “Arafat and his Fatah wing of the PLO would seek to halt international terrorist operations outside Israel, with the understanding that Arafat couldn't be held responsible for the actions of every Palestinian. In exchange, the United States said it was prepared to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.”

Given the fact that Arafat's right-hand man (Mahmoud Abbas/Abu Mazen) is the current President of the Palestinian Authority, these matters are essential to grasp what is happening behind the scenes. Former NSA analyst Jim Welsh (the man who had intercepted Arafat’s order to kill the U.S. Ambassador in Sudan) commented in a 2003 interview: “There are limits to which foreign policy issues should require a man to lower himself. Shaking the hand of a murderer of a U.S. Ambassador is such a case. Any peace based upon that hand is a delusion.”

During the Kissinger years, CIA cable traffic issuing out of the Beirut Embassy indicated that they thought that Arafat could help stabilize Lebanon: “There seems to me no, repeat, no way around the central role which Yasser Arafat can and will play in determining the future state of security here . . . Arafat is a major key to stability and security in Lebanon.”

In 1976, the CIA Director George H.W. Bush, sent an official invitation to Salameh, via Ames, to visit Langley – which visit took place in January 1977 – four years after PLO’s Black September had massacred 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.  CIA case officer Ames arranged for the Agency to bring Salameh and his mistress, a former Miss Universe, on an all-expense-paid honeymoon tour of Disneyland, New Orleans and Hawaii.

After Salameh’s death, the head of the CIA station in Beirut, Frank Anderson, wrote Salameh’s son a condolence letter, stating, “Today, I lost a friend whom I respected more than other men. I promise to honor your father’s memory – and to stand ready to be your friend.” Former CIA Beirut Station Chief William Buckley (who was later tortured to death by Lebanese Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards) stated that “Salameh played a large part in winning the hearts and minds of the U.S. for the PLO” (‘Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad;’ Gordon Thomas).

Investigative journalist Lee Smith comments: “The Americans weren’t stupid or naive. When Arafat sent Salameh to meet with them, he was telling them who he was, his methods, and his goals. When the Americans agreed to meet with Salameh, they essentially signed off on Arafat. Terrorism, from their perspective, wasn’t in itself an insurmountable obstacle. After all, Washington was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with another nuclear superpower. Compared to a nuclear exchange wiping out large American, Soviet, and European population centers, Arab terrorism was small potatoes.”

And how did the Jewish state view this covenant between America and the PLO? A WikiLeaks cable from January 15, 1976 quotes from a meeting between America’s Ambassador to Israel and then Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres: Peres “again confirmed Israel’s refusal to deal with PLO or accept a Palestinian state on the West Bank. He repeated [the] usual litany that bringing the PLO into the negotiations would relieve an immediate pain but would create longer range problems, and posed [a] rhetorical question, ‘Why introduce a tragedy just for good public relations?’”

Cutting a deal with the Palestinian Godfather

Two recent articles (2016 and 2018) reveal that the U.S.A. was not the only country that cut secret deals with the PLO/PA, saying “Leave our citizens alone and you will have our protection and immunity while you kill Jews!”

In March 2016, Carlos the Jackal, the Marxist guerrilla who became a symbol of Cold War anti-imperialism, stated that he was able to move freely through Switzerland in the 1970s because of a ‘non-aggression pact’ between the Swiss government and the PLO. He told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung that PLO terrorists knew that they would not be arrested in Switzerland as long as they refrained for terror activities in that country. He told the paper it had been common knowledge among PLO militants that they would not be arrested in Switzerland, on condition was that they refrained from making trouble. “Of course, we stuck to that,” he said.

A similar deal was exposed in 2008 by former Italian President Francesco Cossigo, who stated that PM Aldo Moro had concluded a PLO-Italy pact. Yasser Arafat noted in his own diaries (released by Israel in 2018) that a deal had been reached where the PLO would not carry out on attacks in Italy, and in exchange Palestinian terrorists from the PLO, PFLP and other factions could have free movement throughout the country. “Italy is a Palestinian shore of the Mediterranean,” Arafat wrote.

Learning nothing from history?

Realpolitik is the gasoline in the internal combustion engine of most Western democracies. As intelligence reporter David Ignatius concludes, “the collection of intelligence can't really be separated from America's larger role in the world. That doesn't mean sympathizing with the terrorists or endorsing their demands. But to win a war, you need allies.”

The German philosopher Georg Hegel once said: “The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”

How should we then pray?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your prayers and support hold up our arms and are the very practical enablement of God to us in the work He has called us to do.

In Messiah Yeshua,

Avner Boskey

Donations can be sent to:

FINAL FRONTIER MINISTRIES

BOX 121971 NASHVILLE TN 37212-1971 USA

Donations can also be made on-line (by PayPal) through: www.davidstent.org 

Bethlehem and Benjamin

A horrifying story in the Book of Judges chapters 19-20 has application to recent events on planet earth – the October 7, 2023 terrorist massacre from Gaza.

Sodom revisited

Judges 19-20 describes a Levite from the tribal allotment of Ephraim whose concubine (originally from Bethlehem) was brutally raped and murdered in Gibeah of Benjamin. There are striking parallels in this story to the attempted rape of the two angels and Lot in Sodom (Genesis 19).

The bestial violence of the rape-murder of this one Jewish woman shocked all of Israel, who declared, “Nothing like this has ever happened or been seen from the day when the sons of Israel came up from the land of Egypt to this day!” (Judges 19:30).

Shielding the murderers

The entire army of the Jewish people (400,000 strong) was mustered to deal decisively with the evildoers. The sentence was death.

The leaders of Israel inquired of God, “Who shall go up first for us to battle against the sons of Benjamin?” Then YHVH said, “Judah shall go up first” (Judges 20:18). The battle was severe, and many soldiers from the eleven tribes were killed fighting Benjamin. On the third day of combat, Israelite special forces laid an ambush and were able to crush Benjamin in battle. “And YHVH struck Benjamin before Israel, so that the sons of Israel destroyed 25,100 men of Benjamin that day, all who drew the sword . . .  The men of Israel then turned back against the sons of Benjamin and struck them with the edge of the sword, both the entire city with the cattle and all that  they found. They also set on fire all the cities which they found” (Judges 20:35, 48).

There are some very sobering principles here:

The armies of Israel treated the tribe of Benjamin in the same way that God treated the whole world in the Days of Noah; in the same way as God treated Sodom and Gomorrah in the time of Abraham; in the same way as God treated Jericho in the days of Joshua.

The Scriptures give us perspectives and principles as to how to respond to these atrocities.

Standing with Hamas has a cost

There are marches happening across the globe where participants are cheering Hamas on, calling for genocide against the Jewish people and for the destruction of the Jewish state. Anti-Semitic attacks have increased beyond belief over the past month. Today at 13:00 a 30-year-old Jewish woman in Lyon, France was stabbed repeatedly in her stomach at the door of her apartment, and a large black swastika was spray-painted on her door.

Those who stand with Hamas, who carry out the deeds of Hamas and refuse to condemn Hamas, will face the same divine judgment as Hamas will face. Judges 19-20 explains those biblical principles with painstaking clarity, Psalm 83:1-18 sums up YHVH’s thought and heart toward these enemies of God and of the Jewish people:

How should we then pray?

As IDF tanks are rolling in Gaza, here are some bullet points to be praying about:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your prayers and support hold up our arms and are the very practical enablement of God to us in the work He has called us to do.

In Messiah Yeshua,

Avner Boskey

Donations can be sent to:

FINAL FRONTIER MINISTRIES

BOX 121971 NASHVILLE TN 37212-1971 USA

Donations can also be made on-line (by PayPal) through: www.davidstent.org   

Sodom, Jericho and Babylon

There is no resurrection without crucifixion and death, and there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (see Hebrews 9:22 and Leviticus 17:11). God does not want anyone to perish, but He is also a God of justice – and He is deeply grieved in His heart by the sin and wickedness of mankind.

The Days of Noah were wicked days. God looked down and saw that evil had gone beyond the point of no return – “Every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.” God’s wonderful creation was indelibly marred, and had become wicked to the core. God regretted having made mankind. All of creation was now defiled by the sins of the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve. The Divine Judge issued His sober ruling: “I will wipe out mankind . . . and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky . . .  from the face of the earth.” God’s perspectives on sin and its pervasive and perverting effects are different and more intense than what most of humanity thinks. But, in the end, His perspectives are the ones that carry the day. 

Before Abraham came on the scene

Moses conveys to the Jewish people YHVH’s perspectives regarding the spiritual condition of nations of the Middle East – even before Abram was born:

The Hebrew root ‘tameh’ (טְמָא) refers to becoming unclean or defiled – either through sexual sin (like adultery), the worship of anything other than the God of Jacob (like idolatry), or contact with materials that are unclean (like bloodshed or murder). Here are three biblical examples of such defilement where the context is Jewish sin in the land. The sins of the Amorites is mentioned in passing above in Leviticus 18. The horrific sins of modern Hamas terrorists include sexual sin (rape of babies, children, teenagers, mothers), worship of an idol from the Saudi Peninsula (one of the 360 desert spirits found in Mecca), and the shedding of innocent blood through murdering and torturing innocent Israeli families.

At an early stage of his sojourn in the Promised Land, “Abram the Hebrew . . .  was residing by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshkol and brother of Aner. And they were allies with Abram” (Genesis 14:13). Initially, Abram had warm relationships with an Amorite family.

Yet, when YHVH cut the Abrahamic Covenant with Abram, He prophesied to him that the national defilement of the Amorites would cause them to be thrown out of the Land of Canaan. That land would be transformed into the eternal possession of the Jewish people – the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked

Sodom first appears in the Bible as a Canaanite town: “The territory of the Canaanite extended from Sidon going toward Gerar, as far as Gaza, and going toward Sodom and Gomorrah” (Genesis 10:19). Moses adds some background spiritual details – the people of Sodom had a reputation for being exceedingly evil: “Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the vicinity of the Jordan, and moved his tents as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked sinners against YHVH” (Genesis 13:12-13). 

God in His mercy sent two angels to warn Lot – he needed to flee from Sodom’s coming destruction:

When God’s judgment fell on the two evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was not only the people living there who were burned up by divine brimstone and fire. Even the surrounding plain was destroyed, and also the adjoining areas, as well as all that grew on the ground. The entire region was burned to the ground, and Moses tells us that the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace:

The iniquity of the Canaanites

The night before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, YHVH visited Abraham (along with two angels) where He had announced the glad tidings that Sarah, Abraham’s own true wife, would have a covenant son (who would be named Isaac) within the year. After the angels departed from Abraham’s tents, YHVH remained and continued the conversation with him:

Abraham’s immediate appeal to God was to exercise accuracy in judgment. In our modern world we might call this ‘Abraham’s appeal for a divine proportionate response:’

The angels then moved down in the direction of the Dead Sea to visit Sodom and to gather on-site intelligence for YHVH. What the angels discovered proved incontrovertibly that Sodom’s evil had gone beyond the point of no return. The angels encountered Sodomites – “all the people from every quarter, both young and old” – who attempted to gang-rape Lot’s visitors and to destroy his house and family:

God’s justice would fall on Sodom and Gomorrah. There were not even ten righteous Sodomites to be found in the city – all were evil accomplices in great wickedness. Sodom would end up being paved like a parking lot by the fiery hand of God. The only ones who escaped through a humanitarian corridor were Lot and his immediate family. That was God’s proportionate response. So here is a question for us all: how well do we know this God of the Bible whom we serve? Do we comprehend who He is and why He did what He did at Sodom or with Noah? Or do we shy away from considering these matter, and just say that those days were primitive days – whereas in our day no great evils are happening?

YHVH fit the battle of Jericho

Many Bible believers have some difficulty reading the Book of Joshua. They ask, how is it that the God of mercy and compassion, the Savior who leads us as a Shepherd, could command Joshua to raze Jericho to the ground? The Hebrew verb used in Joshua 6:18 is cherem (חֵ֫רֶם) and it means dedicating or appointing something to utter destruction.

The person who gave Joshua this command is called the ‘Commander of the army of YHVH.’ In Joshua 6:2 He is called ‘YHVH.’ These are one and the same Person – Messiah Yeshua. It is Messiah Himself who gives Joshua the exact order of battle, and prophesies that the Israelites’ shout would supernaturally bring down the walls of Jericho. It is Messiah who commands Israel to put this first-of-all-conquered cities ‘under the ban’ – it would be dedicated to total destruction (see Leviticus 27:28-29 and Deuteronomy 13:16-17). Dr. Gleason Archer notes in his A Survey of Old Testament Introduction: “In view of the corrupting influence of the Canaanite religion, especially with its religious prostitution . . .  and infant sacrifice, it was impossible for pure faith and worship to be maintained in Israel except by the complete elimination of the Canaanites themselves” (see Revelation 18:20-21).

A modern generation might suggest that YHVH’s decisions were politically incorrect, and should be subject to challenge or censure by the U.N.  Perhaps then the Commander of YHVH’s armies might buckle and recant, if He were subject to superpower pressure?  But truth be told, moral and biblical decisions of such magnitude stand their ground in the face of secular relativism, Islamic anti-biblicism or Replacement Theology allegorizing.

Who is the strong horse today – Muhammad or YHVH and His people Israel?

The Hebrew Scriptures declares that “YHVH is a warrior! YHVH is His name!” (see Exodus 15:3). His actual name is important to the whole story: in Exodus 3:15, the God of Jacob tells Moses: “This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is the name for all generations to use to call upon Me.’”

The Hebrew Scriptures proclaim that YHVH is the only God; there is no other Savior (see Isaiah 45:20-23).

The Psalmist declares that “YHVH is great, and greatly to be praised. He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but YHVH made the heavens” (Psalm 96:4-5).

Paul teaches that the worship of any so-called deity whose name is name is not YHVH or Messiah Yeshua, is actually the worship of a demon (1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 10:20). The Hebrew Bible clearly states that God’s name is a Hebrew one and not an Arabic one. It certainly is not the name of a tribal deity once worshipped by Mohammed’s family in Mecca in a public chapel along with 359 other spirits.

 

In the Middle East, history has proved time and again that Israel must respond with overwhelming force and destructive power to Sodom-like provocations.

Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar, senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, served for 25 years in IDF military intelligence specializing in Syria, Arab political discourse and mass media, Islamic groups and Israeli Arabs. An expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups, his take on these developments is worth reading: “Given Islam’s pervasive entrenchment in Palestinian society (and for that matter in all Middle Eastern societies) – even Yasser Arafat and most of the PLO’s founding generation were Muslim Brotherhood members in their young age – the acceptance of Israel’s existence by Muslims communities, both within Israel and abroad, will only be feasible upon their realization of the Jewish state’s overwhelming strength and invincibility. Only a powerful, well organized, highly determined and militarily invincible Israel can stand a chance of surviving in its violent and merciless neighborhood.”

This can be described as ‘the strong horse’ principle. In mid-November 2001, Osama Bin Laden spoke to a room of supporters, discussing the 9/11 terrorist attacks: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is [the] only goal . . . following the doctrine of Muhammad.” Bin Laden saw Islam as the strong horse, and Christian America as the weak horse.

Investigative reporter Lee Smith based the name of his book The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations on Osama bin Laden’s above-mentioned quote. In this work, Smith states that strength or “violence is central to the politics, society, and culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East, and that Arab politics is driven by the ‘strong horse’ principle.” “Bin Ladenism is not drawn from the extremist fringe but represents the political and social norm [of the Arabic-speaking Middle East].” 

Agreeing with Dr. Kedar’s appraisal, Daniel Pipes (Director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University) applies Bin Laden’s ‘strong horse’ principle to Israel’s role in the Middle East. Israel serves as “a proxy strong horse” for both the United States and the Saudi-Egyptian bloc in the latter’s Cold War rivalry with Iran’s bloc. Pipes outlines the policies of non-Arab actors in the Arab world – unless they are forceful and show true staying power, they lose. “Being nice – say, withdrawing unilaterally from southern Lebanon and Gaza – leads to inevitable failure.  More broadly, when the U.S. government flinches, others (e.g., the Iranian leadership) have an opportunity to ‘force their own order on the region.’ Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese Druze leader, has half-seriously suggested that Washington [should] ‘send car bombs to Damascus’ to get its message across and signal its understanding of Arab ways.” Pipes concludes that Lee Smith’s ‘strong horse’ paradigm helps us to comprehend the Arabs’ cult of death, honor killings, terrorist attacks, despotism and warfare. Pipes acknowledges that the strong-horse principle may strike Westerners as extremely crude, but he correctly insists on its being a cold reality that outsiders must recognize, take into account, and respond to.

The vengeance of YHVH

Some believers have been taught that vengeance is an ungodly thing. Believers are supposed to only turn the other cheek and suffer. There is no question that sometimes suffering is an integral part of faith, even as Yeshua suffered. At the same time, the Scriptures bring more balance to the equation, showing that YHVH takes vengeance on the enemies of Israel, and that the Jewish people are to call out to God, asking Him to take His vengeance on the Jewish people’s foes:

The battles going on in Gaza between the Israel Defense Forces and the jihadi terrorists known as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, pit the forces of darkness, terror, violence and deception against YHVH, the God of the armies of Israel, as King David declares: “But David said to the Philistine, ‘You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a saber, but I come to you in the name of YHVH of armies, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied!’” (1 Samuel 17:45).

How should we then pray?

As IDF tanks are rolling in Gaza, here are some bullet points to be praying about:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your prayers and support hold up our arms and are the very practical enablement of God to us in the work He has called us to do.

In Messiah Yeshua,

Avner Boskey

Donations can be sent to:

FINAL FRONTIER MINISTRIES

BOX 121971 NASHVILLE TN 37212-1971 USA

Donations can also be made on-line (by PayPal) through: www.davidstent.org   

“You don’t have too many friends here, buddy”

The history of the Jewish people is that of a small people living in a small land, surrounded by superpowers – juggernauts who were often less than friendly.

Our calling as a nation was (and remains) to love the God of Jacob with all our heart and soul, and to obey His word:

This national calling, if followed by the Jewish people and by all the superpowers of the world, would make for a healthier planet. But when neither Israel nor the nations love the God of Jacob with all our heart and soul, bad stuff happens.  The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah makes this graphically clear:

“Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone – Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon” (Bob Dylan, Neighborhood Bully)

Many people in the modern era have failed to draw biblical conclusions regarding how modern superpowers operate. Some feel that the messages preached by the Hebrew prophets only applied to ancient Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece – but surely modern France, Britain and America are a totally different ball game? These enlightened Christian superpowers would surely not make the same mistakes as Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar or Ahasuerus, would they! But that would be a faulty conclusion, one that brings with it earth-shaking negative consequences:

Many of those who believe what the Bible teaches, understand that the Hamas jihadis and their national backers in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran are only seconds away from the fires of judgment (see 2 Peter 2:4-9). We would base that conclusion on Hamas’ horrific demonized slaughter, torture, rape and kidnapping of innocent Israelis.

But what happens if YHVH (who is also the God of these slaughtered Jewish people) decides to cast His net farther out, and haul in a hell-bound catch made up of those who publicly cheer for Hamas, and who also call for Jewish genocide? What if the God of the Jews decides to throw His net out even wider, and fill His net of judgment with the superpower leaders and activist politicians whose geopolitical strategies in the past have allowed Hamas to survive the IDF’s attacks so that they can  rise from out of their jihadi tunnels once again, to continue the jihadi slaughter of the Jewish people?

Morphing the news

One of the most strategic issues facing Israel at this point in the war, is superpower pressure (which would include the UN, the EU, Russia, China, the U.S.A, and assorted Middle Eastern nations) attempting to force Israel into a ceasefire before Hamas is decisively crushed. Some of these bodies are attempting to get the superpowers to boycott and sanction Israel, to force an arms embargo against the IDF and thus prevent them from resupplying. Hamas is pulling all available strings to spin the world media narrative, morphing world perception into re-interpreting the war as an attack on ‘a victimized Palestinian people now being ruthlessly slaughtered by a cruel and bloodthirsty IDF.’ Those – even evangelicals – who post pictures in line with Hamas’ talking points are actually virtue-signaling, unwittingly pushing the Hamas narrative at the expense and survival of the Jewish people.

What follows is an unpacking of some superpower pressures on Israel in the not-so-distant past. These examples reveal that it is of vital importance to be praying for your country’s leaders as well as the leaders of the Jewish nation – that God’s heart and strategies will be held to and carried out.

Diplomatic and public pressure – starting in Gaza but ending in Jerusalem

On November 5, 1956 Soviet Premier Bulganin and President Khrushchev threatened Israel with nuclear attack if it did not withdraw from the Sinai. Not to be outdone, the Republican administration of President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that if Israel did not withdraw, all U.S. military and civilian aid to Israel would be cut off, the tax-exempt status of all American organizations that provided aid to Israel would be removed, and that the United States would not oppose the expulsion of Israel from the UN (see ‘The Iron Wall,’ Avi Shlaim, 2000, p.181).

According to a recent article “U.S. had emergency plan for attacking Israel in 1967” (Amir Oren, Ha’aretz), the Joint Chiefs of Staff had established a battle plan to stop Israel from expanding westward into Sinai or eastward into the West Bank (also not to allow Arab forces to cross the armistice lines of 1948-49). Strike Command (STRICOM – then headed by General Theodore John Conway; the Command was annulled in 1971) was asked in Cable No. 5886 (May 20, 1967) by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to refresh emergency plans for US military intervention in an Arab-Israeli war. The Six Day War began and ended so suddenly that U.S. contingency plans could not be carried out.

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh notes that when Secretary of State James A. Baker III was being sworn in (1989), one Republican White House aide joked that every Secretary of State left that office hating Israel. Baker reportedly replied, “What if one started that way?” Just before Baker became Secretary of State, he took a TIME magazine journalist on a turkey hunt.  There he said, “The trick is in getting (wild turkeys) where you want them, on your terms. Then you control the situation, not them. You have the options. Pull the trigger or don’t. It doesn’t matter once you’ve got them where you want them. The important thing is knowing that it’s in your hands, that you can do whatever you determine is in your interest to do.”  When asked if he was referring to turkeys, Baker said “No,” flashing a brief, fleeting smile. “I mean Israel . . . ”

In his recent autobiography Bibi: My Story, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu recounts how U.S. President Bill Clinton had called to congratulate him on his June 1996 election victory. “Bibi, I’ve got to hand it to you,” he chuckled. “We did everything we could to bring you down, but you beat us fair and square.” Netanyahu explains: “He wasn’t telling me something I didn’t know, but here was the president of the United States admitting without batting an eyelash to a brazen intervention in another country’s elections. Clinton’s frankness was refreshingly politically incorrect.”

Just before (and also during) the traumatic disengagement process of August 2005, Republican Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it crystal clear that Israel’s borders must shrink – beginning with Gaza. “Because the real point about Gaza is not to stop with Gaza. The President has been clear, we’ve been clear with the Israelis that it cannot be Gaza only” (Shannon, Ireland, June 17, 2005) “We must all focus on the disengagement as our best chance to reenergize the roadmap . . . Because we’ve said many times that this is not Gaza only; this is the first step on a process that is outlined.  The roadmap says how we get to final status, it says how we get to a Palestinian state” (Ramallah, West Bank, June 18, 2005).

Speaking in Ramallah on October 15 2007 Secretary of State Rice said: “Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state” . . .  “A two-state solution is “absolutely essential for the future, not just of Palestinians and Israelis but also for the Middle East and indeed for American interests.” One day before Rice’s statement, on October 14 2007 Israeli Industry and Trade Minister Eli Yishai had met with the Secretary of State in Jerusalem. He told her that the status of Jerusalem must be taken off the agenda of the Annapolis conference. According to Yishai’s office, Rice responded that “the time has come to deal with issues that we were afraid to touch for many years.” (JP Oct 15 2007 p.9 “As Rice arrives …”).

In this light, the latest comments by Pope Francis on Italian TV RAI line up with the U.S.A., the EU, and others: “The war in the Holy Land scares me . . . The only solution to the conflict is two states for two peoples” (see Joel 3:1-2).

During his 2008 primary, Barak Obama told Jewish leaders in Cleveland: “There is a strain within the pro-Israel community, that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.” Obama was pushing for an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank), and its replacement by Yasser Arafat’s PLO/PA pro-terror organization. His goals were the opposite of Israel’s ruling coalition led by Netanyahu. Obama was advocating for the platform of the Israeli political wing which had recently lost the elections.

He was advocating for Palestinian control over the West Bank, an area where, according to latest surveys, 66% of the Palestinian public does not believe that Israel as a Jewish state will survive to 2048; 66% are in favor of forming local armed terror groups opposed to the PA; 58% of its Arab inhabitants would vote Hamas into office, and where 58% support “armed confrontations and intifada” against Israel. Creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank (which is UN, EU, US, Egyptian and Saudi policy) would mean turning that region into another Iran-supported jihad base against the Jewish state – as Gaza is today. That would be the result of current Western pressure. The fruit of these pressures is manifestly visible in the events of October 7 – the Gaza Envelope jihadi pogroms of Hamas against Israeli kibbutzim and farms.

At the start of the Obama administration in 2009, as Netanyahu was facing pressure to endorse a two-state solution and resume negotiations with the Palestinians, Biden told Netanyahu he would serve as his backchannel ally. “You don’t have too many friends here, buddy. I’m the one friend you do have,” Biden told Netanyahu during a meeting at the official vice president’s residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory.

In private White House discussions between PM Netanyahu and POTUS in 2009, Obama told Bibi: “I expect you to immediately freeze all construction in the areas beyond the 1967 borders. Not one brick!” Bibi responded, “Barack, half of Jerusalem’s residents live beyond those lines. That alone includes almost two hundred thousand people. Do you expect us to stop building in neighborhoods like Gilo? These are integral parts of Jerusalem, like Georgetown is part of Washington.” “That’s exactly what I mean,” said Obama. “Not one brick, anywhere. Gilo, too.” As the two prepared to leave the Oval Office, Obama told him: “You know, people often underestimate me. But I come from Chicago, where I had to deal with tough opponents.” Netanyahu said that Obama’s words gave the clear message that Bibi was being treated “as a minor thug in the neighborhood.”

On October 28, 2014, noted journalist Jeffrey Goldberg quoted “a senior Obama administration official” as calling Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a ‘chickensh*t’ (slang for ‘worthless coward’): “The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars . The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states . . . The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon. He’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.” A second official leaked that it is now “too late” for Netanyahu to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that “a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic” meant that Netanyahu “ultimately . . . couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger” with regards to launching a possible preemptive strike to forestall Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Goldberg concluded his column with a series of threats from the Obama administration to Israel: first, that the administration will allow Palestinian actions at the UN that will “isolate Israel from the international community,” and second, the administration will  “make explicit” America’s vision of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement – a vision diametrically opposed from Netanyahu’s vision. Thoughtful critiques of these leaks are found here and here.

In May 2021, President Biden pressed the Israeli leader to swiftly agree to a ceasefire to end the May 2021 Gaza war: “Bibi, I gotta tell you, I’m coming under a lot of pressure back here . . . This is not Scoop Jackson’s Democratic Party . . .  I’m getting squeezed here to put an end to this as soon as possible.” Reference here is oblique, but nevertheless referring to Congresswomen Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley (known as ‘The Squad’) – the spearhead of an anti-Israel group among American Democrats. That year, eight Democrats voted against funding for the replenishment of Israel’s anti-missile Iron Dome defense system, and 16 Democrats opposed a Resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. A recent Pew Research survey showed that 53% of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats hold a negative view of Israel. 

Present pressures

The U.S. Administration is on record as opposing Israeli control of Gaza, yet has no clear endgame as to how Hamas can be removed from Gaza. The strategic ambivalence here is astounding. The pressure being brought to bear on Israel to bring forward its own endgame is breathtakingly hypocritical..

The U.S. has stated that now is not the time for negotiations between Hamas and Israel, but that can come later on.

But Israel has clearly stated that there will be no ceasefire with Hamas – either they unconditionally surrender or they are destroyed:

Netanyahu stated unequivocally, also on October 30, 2023:

Clinton revisited?

A new article in Politico reveals two senior U.S. administration officials discussed with POTUS Biden the likelihood that Bibi Netanyahu has limited time left in office. Whether or not this is true, a leak of this nature calls to mind Bill Clinton’s candid disclosure that the U.S. administration is quite comfortable exerting behind-the-scenes pressure to appoint and demote national leaders – whether in Iran in 1953 or in Israel of 1996 and 2023. POTUS Biden has conveyed that sentiment to Netanyahu in a recent conversation, according to anonymous administration sources, suggesting (perhaps in ‘Godfather’-like tones) that he should think about lessons he would share with his eventual successor. Politco notes that the POTUS and his foreign policy team are trying “to work with, and diplomatically steer, the Israeli leader.”

In Biden’s October 2023 trip to Israel, he urged Netanyahu not to widen the war (i.e., not to do a military incursion into Gaza’s Hamastan) and to prioritize a two-state solution (i.e., re-establish the pro-terror Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which would quickly collapse into a Hamas jumping-off point into Israel).  This last point was publicly stated on November 1, 2023 by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, during his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee: “At some point, what would make the most sense would be for an effective and revitalized Palestinian Authority to have governance and ultimately security responsibility for Gaza.” This statement marks the first time the Biden administration has publicly declared its desire for the PA to return to the Gaza Strip, after coyly hinting about this idea to regional partners since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war.

Politico states that “Biden aides already are engaging an array of other Israeli politicians — some in power, some not — on the war effort. According to the two senior administration officials as well as the current and former U.S. official, those talks have also provided a way to gauge the thinking of various Israelis who might take the helm of the country. While Biden administration officials have offered public declarations of solidarity with the Israeli government during the current crisis, aides are also trying to get ahead of what Netanyahu’s downfall could mean for the future Israeli-U.S. relationship . . . Netanyahu hasn’t been a favorite of the Biden team. His increasingly hardline positions over the years have upset Biden aides who still support creating a Palestinian state.  With an eye toward the future, U.S. officials are talking to Benny Gantz, a member of the current unity government; Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister; and Yair Lapid, an opposition leader and former prime minister, among other Israeli figures, the former official said.”

“Even the best-case scenario for Israel in this war would not likely keep Netanyahu in power,” said Hagar Chemali, a former National Security Council and Treasury Department official in the Obama administration. “I still believe Netanyahu is on his way out because Israelis are already publicly questioning whether he is really the right person, not just to win this specific battle against Hamas, but the broader war for a peaceful and secure Israel.” Bibi has been elected and re-elected as PM; he has served longer than any other Prime Minister, even longer than Ben-Gurion. Yet U.S. State Department officials, speaking anonymously, seem to have greater insight and discernment about what Israelis think, than do Israelis themselves.

The term ‘banana republic’ was first found in print in 1904, describing Central America social and political realities. This term can be a pejorative word used to describe a servile oligarchy that aids and supports a stronger power (or superpower) for various forms of kickback. America’s realpolitik toward Central American banana-producing countries has often been characterized with this term.

History shows us that, when Israel attempts to reclaim its God-promised land and its biblical borders, or when the Jewish state’s IDF attempts to decisively crush its enemies, it is then that various superpowers step in to reign in Israel from achieving those goals. It may have been Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons in 1956 and 1973, or American orders to Israel to stand down or retreat in 1991, 2006 and 2021. In 2021 POTUS Biden made many calls to PM Netanyahu during May’s Operation Guardian of the Walls. During their fourth phone call, on May 19, 2021, Biden was unhappy that Israel was insisting on completing the administering of a death-blow to Hamas. “Hey, man, we are out of runway here. It’s over!” said Biden. Times of Israel reports: “Netanyahu agreed to a ceasefire two days later. The longtime Likud leader was replaced one month later by a short-lived unity government headed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.”

How should we then pray?

As IDF tanks are rolling in Gaza, here are some bullet points to be praying about:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your prayers and support hold up our arms and are the very practical enablement of God to us in the work He has called us to do.

In Messiah Yeshua,

Avner Boskey

Donations can be sent to:

FINAL FRONTIER MINISTRIES

BOX 121971 NASHVILLE TN 37212-1971 USA

Donations can also be made on-line (by PayPal) through: www.davidstent.org   

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close