Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God’s blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God’s program during these past 2000 years of dispersion.

After the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth, at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God’s plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says six times that Christ’s kingdom will last 1000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).

Joint US-Israel drill called off by Netanyahu, to Washington’s surprise

Debkafile’s sources disclose exclusively that, contrary to recent reports published in Washington, Jerusalem – and this site too – it was Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, not the Obama administration, who decided to call off the biggest ever joint US-Israeli military exercise Austere Challenge 12 scheduled for April 2012.

Washington was taken aback by the decision. It was perceived as a mark of Israel’s disapproval for the administration’s apparent hesitancy in going through with the only tough sanctions with any chance of working against Iran’s nuclear weapon program: penalizing its central bank and blocking payments for its petroleum exports.

This was the first time Israel had ever postponed a joint military exercise; it generated a seismic moment in relations between the US and Israel at a time when Iran has never been so close to producing a nuclear weapon.

This week, Netanyahu further orchestrated a series of uncharacteristically critical statements by senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon called the Obama administration “hesitant” (Jan. 15), after which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged the Americans to “move from words to deeds” (Jan 16). The underlying message was that the Israeli government felt free to attack Iran’s nuclear sites on its own if necessary and at a time of its choosing. Debkafile’s sources report that Netanyahu decided on this extreme course after careful consideration when he judged the Obama administration’s resolve to preempt a nuclear Iran to be flagging, as indicated by four omissions:

1. Washington has taken no action against Iran’s capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone on Dec. 4 more than a month after the event, and not even pressed President Obama’s demand of Dec. 12 for the drone’s return. Tehran, for its part, continues to make hay from the event: This week, our Iranian sources report, the Islamic Republic circulated a new computer game called “Down the RQ-170.” Players assemble the drone from the components shown on their screens and then launch it for attacks on America.

2. Silence from Washington also greeted the start of 20-percent grade uranium enrichment at the underground Fordo facility near Qom when it was announced Jan. 9. Last November, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned in two US TV interviews (Nov. 17 and 22) that as soon as the Fordo facility went on stream, Iran would start whisking the rest of its nuclear facilities into underground bunkers, out of reach and sight of US and Israeli surveillance.

Barak made it clear at the time that Israel could not live with this development; therefore, the Netanyahu government believes Israel’s credibility is now at stake.

3. Exactly three weeks ago, on Jan. 3 Lt. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Iran’s Army chief, announced that the aircraft carrier USS Stennis and other “enemy ships” would henceforth be barred from entering the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz . Yet since then, no US carrier has put this threat to the test by attempting a crossing. Tehran has been left to crow.

4. Even after approving sanctions on Iran’s central bank and energy industry, the White House announced they would be introduced in stages in the course of the year. According to Israeli’s calculus, another six months free of stiff penalties will give Iran respite for bringing its nuclear weapon program to a dangerous and irreversible level. source – DEBKA

What we see in this article is the  U.S.& European led NATO organization, originally a trans Atlantic military organization meant to protect Western Europe from a Russian and Warsaw Pact invasion expanding its activities and influence into other areas of the world.

In this instance into Israel, where it will have prophetic implications.

from ynet news:

NATO forces are scheduled to participate, for the first time, in a home front drill that will be held in Israel next October.

In recent years, the IDF took part in several exercises held by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization abroad, but has never hosted its members in Israel.

The drill, dubbed “Turning Point 6,” will simulate a massive earthquake leading to wide-scale destruction and large amounts of casualties.

NATO Search and rescue units, as well as supporting units will arrive in Israel to take part in the drill, which will also include Israel’s emergency services, the Police, Magen David Adom, fire services, as well as local authorities, governmental ministries, and representatives from the political echelon.

Two weeks ago, Minister for Home Front Defense Matan Vilnai met with NATO Deputy Secretary General Claudio Bisogniero in Brussels to discuss the details of the joint exercise.

During his visit, Vilnai also met with other senior members of the organization and officials from the European Union in order to discuss future cooperation between Israel and Europe on emergency and crisis management issues.

“We have a big interest in deepening and widening our ties with the Union and with NATO,” said Vilnai, adding that “both Europe and Israel can benefit from steady cooperation on preparedness and response to emergencies and crises.”

I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords.  Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you.  

from abc news:

Russia is facing a heightened risk of being drawn into conflicts at its borders that have the potential of turning nuclear, the nation’s top military officer said Thursday.

Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, cautioned over NATO’s expansion eastward and warned that the risks of Russia being pulled into local conflicts have “risen sharply.” 

Makarov added, according to Russian news agencies, that “under certain conditions local and regional conflicts may develop into a full-scale war involving nuclear weapons.”

A steady decline in Russia’s conventional forces has prompted the Kremlin to rely increasingly on its nuclear deterrent.

The nation’s military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia’s existence.

Russia sees NATO’s expansion to include former Soviet republics and ex-members of the Soviet bloc in eastern and central Europe as a key threat to Russia’s security.

Makarov specifically referred to NATO’s plans to offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine as potentially threatening Russia’s security. Russia routed Georgian forces in a brief August 2008 war over a separatist province of South Ossetia. Moscow later recognized South Ossettia and another breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia as independent states and increased its military presence there.

Makarov warned that the planned pullout of NATO forces from Afghanistan could trigger conflicts in neighboring ex-Soviet Central Asian nations that could “grow into a large-scale war.”

In its military doctrine, Russia has also described U.S. missile defense plans as another major security challenge, saying it could threaten its nuclear forces and undermine their deterrence potential.

Moscow has agreed to consider NATO’s proposal last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should operate. Russia has insisted that the system should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.

Makarov also said Russia is struggling to get enough recruits for the 1-million military, as the number of draftees has shrunk dramatically because of demographical changes.

He said that the military is aiming to gradually increase the number of contract soldiers and eventually form an all-volunteer army. He didn’t mention a specific time frame.

The statement marked a sharp change of course for the top military brass who previously insisted that Russia needs to maintain the highly unpopular draft because an all-volunteer military would be too costly.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech justifying Obama Administration Middle East policy changes everything. True, it isn’t surprising. I’ve been writing for almost three years about how the current U.S. government thinks this way.

Do not underestimate this speech’s importance. It isn’t a reluctant acceptance that Islamists might win elections and take over countries. It is an enthusiastic endorsement of that idea.

But now there can be no doubt that Obama’s Middle East policy is engaged in what might be the biggest blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Millions of people will bemoan it as delivering their countries into the grip of repressive dictatorships.

The speech can be summarized as follows:

Islamist regimes—at least those whose “behavior” is proper–are good. If Islamists exercise political power they will be moderate. Thus, the United States will not merely tolerate but will actually support Islamists taking power.

The Obama Administration is now on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and the Taliban (“moderate” wing). It is the equivalent of an American government telling you that Communism and fascism are no threat because they can be tamed by participating in elections and being in power.

Thus, the Obama Administration has openly sided with Israel’s enemies. I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Saudi Arabia. That would be tolerable. We’re talking here about openly genocidal, anti-Semitic groups.

It has also sided with the enemies of the PA, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. It has sided with the enemies of democratic forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon. Indeed, the U.S. government is working to empower the most dangerous enemies of democracy in the Middle East.

What’s especially remarkable is that this strategy is based on no evidence. All Clinton can cite is a single case—Turkey—that proves the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration claims.

Here are five examples on the other side:

–The Oslo peace process was based on the belief that the radical nationalist PLO would be moderated by being given power, guns, and money. Has the result been peace and moderation?

–The U.S. government favored the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian election. It won and then staged a coup. Today Gaza is ruled by a radical regime that foments war on Israel and openly proclaims its intention to commit genocide on Jews.

–Hezbollah participated in the Lebanese elections, won, and while it cannot institute a Shia Islamist regime in a country where 70 percent aren’t Shia Muslims and its opponents are armed, it is doing all it can to make that country a dictatorship that will attack Israel when it thinks the timing is right.

–In Egypt, we have seen the descent into anarchy and violence; the persecution of Christians, the unleashing of fanaticism. Where is the debate in the Muslim Brotherhood to indicate moderation? Where is the renunciation of past extremism? Where is the reinterpretation of Islamic texts to justify a totally different worldview? These things don’t exist.

–Turkey, the great role model, is seeing democracy wane as the Islamists arrest their enemies, take over the media, and adopt an anti-Western foreign policy that backs radical Islamists elsewhere.

March of folly indeed. This is a sprint.

Clinton claims:

“Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.”

Let’s review

–True, Not all Muslims are alike but all Islamists are alike.

–By the same token, not all Russians are alike but all Communists under Lenin and Stalin were alike.

-And, not all Germans were alike but all Nazis were alike.

–Not all organizations composed of Caucasians are alike but all members of the Ku Klux Klan are alike.

–The fact that European Christian Democratic and Israeli religious parties respect the rules of democratic politics has no connection with whether the Muslim Brotherhood will do so.

Is that clear?

What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?

And what is a moderate Muslim? He might be a conservative traditionalist; liberal reformer; Kurdish or Berber nationalist; tribal loyalist; etc. But that doesn’t apply to an Islamist, someone who wants to fundamentally transform the existing society into one governed by Sharia law under a hardline interpretation, wiping of Israel off the map, subordinating Christians and women; and driving Western influence out of the region.

Winning an election and forming a government is only the first step. What does that government do? It passes laws that enforce an Islamist conception of society; puts its people into the bureaucracy, rewards imams who are radical and fires those who are moderate; rewrites textbooks and what appears on the media, chooses judges and the commanders of the armed forces; and sponsors terrorism against other states.

It would be something else completely for the U.S. government to say: We will accept the Muslim Brotherhood in government if it takes power in an election, but we will do everything possible to stop that from happening. That would be a proper U.S. interests’ policy.

Clinton did set some conditions but in no way hinted that any Islamist party might violate them:

“Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do.”

Where to begin?

–The Islamists do not reject violence. The Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism against Israel, Americans, and Iraqi Shia. It will soon be backing violence, at least covertly, against Christians, secularists, and others. That is their doctrine.

–Abide by the rule of law. Well, they will democratically change the law into a repressive dictatorship. The Communists and fascist regimes also had laws that they enforced

–Freedom of speech. No speech that criticizes Islam, their interpretation of Islam, or themselves, as we already see in Turkey where a former general was just sentenced to prison on the charge of having criticized the judgment in conversation with a villager.

–Freedom of religion. No building or repair of churches, no equality of treatment for Christians. In Turkey a great historic church is now being converted into a mosque.

–Association and assembly. Even now, look what happens if Christians try to demonstrate in Cairo.

–Respect the rights of women and minorities. Laws will be changed to take away women’s rights because Sharia will govern.

–And what will the U.S. government do if these democratic practices don’t happen? Might it to be too late?

–“The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.” Can you really be that dangerously stupid? There is a difference between non-Islamists and Islamists; a difference between a group that is a tiny minority in the United States and that is—in Egypt—90 percent of the population. Clinton is suggesting that to say Islamists are not moderate democrats is to be an Islamophobe and a racist.

That paragraph is thus full of careless and ignorant rhetoric. The U.S. government seems to be defining a “faithful Muslim” as someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Who do you think is going to be filling the prisons of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Gaza, and Lebanon? Faithful Muslims, that’s who.

She continues, “In Tunisia, an Islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. Its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. To write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. And as they do, America will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a Tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because America respects the right of the Tunisian people to choose their own leaders.”

Notice that she says “as they do” and not “if they do.” She assumes moderation. A proper approach would be to say: If they do we will work with them and if they don’t we will work against them. Moreover, she assumes that the Islamists “share” America’s desire for Tunisian democracy. They don’t have to prove anything or pass any tests.

Who is writing these speeches?

The premise Clinton employs toward the Islamists is the exact equivalent of Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before making any peace. They are certified as moderate democrats without doing anything democratic except for participating in elections.

There are so many problems with this speech that I will continue this discussion in a second article discussing Clinton’s answer to her question, “Why does America promote democracy one way in some countries and another way in others?”

Note: This article is from my current bi-monthly print newsletter, Understanding the Times. I try to keep print newsletter and e-newsletter separate but I have had so many e-mails requesting this be published electronically that I am doing so here.  I have also borrowed thoughts from ministry friend Bill Salus, whose eye on the Middle East is one of the best. His Web site is www.prophecydepot.net. If you would like to sign up for my print newsletter, do so here. It is free for one year and only available in the U.S. due to printing and postage costs.  

As Salus and I both note, the whole of the Arab world uprising, euphemistically called the “Arab Spring” by the media, is in a torment of revolt, rage, terror, and chaos. Peace is not on the horizon and democracy is even further away. The supposed democracy-lovers overthrowing evil rulers are thugs and terrorists themselves. When it comes to Islamic-rooted revolutions, there really aren’t any “good guys.” 

The only organized groups in the Arab world are the rabid Muslim groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. They will unite even with perceived enemies if it can lead to the overthrow of Israel.  They are at least honest brokers of death, whereas the ‘moderates’ hide their real intentions with duplicity and ‘diplomatic’ lies. 

At the outset of this “Arab Spring,” many inside the liberal media applauded the widespread Arab protests. They hypothesized that the protesters were merely the by-product of a regional youth bulge tired of tyrannical rule. They credited Internet social network sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter for giving the activists a glimpse of freedom. 

Bill Salus writes, “Barely digesting the unsettling events of the ‘Arab Spring,’ the media’s attention has now been drawn back to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the genuine possibility of a Mideast winter war. Presently, Israeli borders are fortified rather than redrawn, Arab arsenals are replenished rather than dismantled, and the prospect for the ‘Mother of all Mideast Wars’ is extremely high.” 

Salus continues, “Interestingly, there is evidence that the majority of Middle East and North African countries plagued by the current Muslim unrest are involved in end-time Israeli war prophecies. You can read about these forthcoming battles in Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38-39. Psalm 83 identifies an inner circle confederacy of Arab populations sharing common borders with Israel. Their mandate is to wipe Israel off the map, and their motive is the reclamation of Palestine. Ezekiel 38-39 describes an outer ring confederacy destined to invade Israel in the last days. Ezekiel presents a separate set of invaders than those described in Psalm 83. Additionally, they are driven by a different motive, which is the promise of plunder and great spoil (Ezekiel 38:1-13).” 

White House correspondent Bill Koenig writes in his weekly e-newsletter, Koenig’s Eye-View from the White House, “There is great concern that Israel’s enemies in the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran are cooperating and will rapidly close in on Israel. The United States’ involvement in the Middle East has been the backing of the lesser of two evils in country after country. The United States’ backing of dictators in the Middle East has led many in the Middle East to not trust the U.S.” 

As for our actions in Libya, Koenig writes, “The evidence is overwhelming that the U.S. President is downplaying or maybe even misrepresenting his use of American military and diplomatic support ofLibyan rebels who are terrorists, supporters of terrorists, and radical Islamists.”   

As I implied above, there are no “righteous freedom fighters” involved anywhere. There are only agenda-driven radicals on both sides of the region’s many conflicts. Evil is maneuvering for power, throwing out both brutal and benign regimes. While most uprisings are contained at present, you still need to see this as a concerted, orchestrated effort to eventually turn all guns on Israel. Enemies will become friends, for in the Middle East, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” That sentiment has never gone out of style. 

Strings are being pulled in places of power such as Europe and Washington. Money, greed, and power are potent forces with which to contend. Men like George Soros play a role but even he is but a puppet of more powerful men.  The most visible puppet is U.S. President Barack Obama who set America at odds with Israel last May. He also set America at odds with God by revealing himself to be the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history. His demand that Israel retreat to indefensible 1967 borders revealed both his ignorance and arrogance. 

But the world’s strongest delusion is that if just the tiny nation of Israel could be eradicated, this pulsating world would break into global peace and prosperity. Global debt could be contained. The stormy waters would instantly become calm. The rioting of disgruntled societies would cease. The world could become one.   

That is also driving the chaos. Be it a perceived environmental crisis or an actual economic crisis, globalism is the answer. Thus all these Middle East nations must overthrow leaders, kings, dictators, premiers, and generals, and then focus like a laser on Israel as the single enemy. They do not want Israel in the one-world system. She is the mouse that roars and the nation that embarrasses them in war after war. 

That a nation the size of New Jersey could have such a global impact is actually known to Christians, but it is interpreted entirely differently by the unbelieving world. Even the religious Left aligns with the Israel-haters. True believers are being called to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6) more than ever. 

Spring is a season of new beginnings. Unfortunately, until the Lord returns to the heart of Jerusalem for His reign on Earth, there are no good beginnings ahead for that region of the world. Only conflict lies ahead and likely a war so horrendous that the stability of the entire world will be affected. Yet try to tell this to people you care about and you will be met with a glazed-eye stare. They have no clue nor do they want one. Be glad that you do.  

You read about it first not here, but in the Bible. The writing is on the wall and it doesn’t take the Prophet Daniel to interpret it. You simply cannot understand the times without a Bible. 

To better understand these issues, visit our Web site categories of Islam & the Arabs, Israel, and “Palestine?”  

The State Department, which has never been particularly friendly to Jews, is getting a little cover for its unrelenting deference to the enemies of Israel. The Jews eager to cover for the diplomats are the weak, the naive and, alas, the familiar.

They’re the liberal, mostly Democratic, Jews offended by the “aggressive” Israelis who understand what’s at stake in the Middle East. They’re embarrassed by and resentful of the “righteous Gentiles” eager to help Israel prevent a second Holocaust, this one in the Middle East, rather than to contribute to building another Holocaust museum later. Israel once united the contentious factions of American Jews, but now the mere existence of Israel exacerbates tension between the realists and the deaf, blind dreamers.

Nevertheless, a “come-to-Moses” moment is approaching. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, fresh from his kiss-and-make-up session with the terrorists of Hamas, is coming to New York City in September to press the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in Washington next week to address a joint session of Congress and to meet with President Obama. Maybe they’ll talk about that. The occasion will give Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in diplo-speak, “an opportunity for the United States and Israel to review the full range of issues, from Iran to the regional change to the peace process.”

If the past is the usual reliable guide, the White House and the State Department will actually see this as an opportunity to pressure Israel to submit to further accommodation to those who want to “wipe Israel off the map,” in the vow of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran and the chief enabler of Hamas. Mr. Obama himself is all aquiver working on his speech, probably to be delivered next week, eager to speak softly and carry small convictions made of strawberry Jell-O. The Wall Street Journal reports that he will urge Muslims to “reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and embrace a new era of relations with the United States.” Ah, if only.

But it’s not just the Jews who get the back of his hand. There hasn’t been a peep out of the White House since a dozen Egyptian Christians were killed and scores injured by violent Muslims last weekend. Christian homes and businesses were trashed and burned. The pope condemned it; Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper condemned it. Nothing from the president, though there’s White House precedent for condemning burning churches. (Bill Clinton once condemned the burning of black churches in Arkansas even when nobody had burned any churches in Arkansas.)

Some American Jews who are fed up with the passivity, or worse, of well-established advocacy groups are splitting to establish new organizations with an appetite for the red meat that is the diet of everyone else in the Middle East. One particular target is the confederation of local Jewish Federations that, no doubt well-meaning, offer aid and comfort to those who mean Israel nothing but ill. In New York City, writes Jonathan Rosenblum, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and the Hebrew daily Maariv, a Jewish Federation affiliate on the Upper West Side supports organizations promoting boycott, divestment and sanction of Israel. In Washington, the Federation funds an anti-Jewish theater troupe called Theater J, whose recent offerings include a play about Israelis as modern Nazis. A Southern California chapter contributes money to send students to Israel to be treated to scolding lectures by Hamas speakers.

This Jewish cover for anti-Israel initiatives is no doubt welcomed by Arabists in Foggy Bottom, where skepticism of Jews is part of the established old order. In his biography of Harry S Truman, David McCullough tells of the fierce and bitter State Department resistance to recognizing the state of Israel at its founding in 1948. “The striped-pants conspirators,” Mr. Truman called the men just below George C. Marshall, the secretary whom the president regarded as something of a saint. “Some White House men … believe that a number of positions taken by career men on this matter were based on anti-Semitism, not diplomacy,” wrote one prominent pundit. Men at the State Department accused the president’s men of being more concerned about Israel than American security.

Six decades later, some things have changed, but not all. One thing that has changed is that there’s no one remotely like Harry S Truman, a president fully at ease with the true character of the country he leads, in charge at the White House.

You can read more about Youssef al-Qaradawi here.

also read this in regards to Isaiah 19:5-10: What does the Arab world do when its water runs out?

from The Jerusalem Post:

Up until now, the Egyptian revolution generally, and the Brotherhood in particular, has lacked a charismatic thinker, someone who could really mobilize the masses. Qaradawi is that man.

Friday, February 18 may be a turning point in Egyptian history. On that day Yusuf al-Qaradawi spoke to a giant cheering crowd in Tahrir Square.

He praised the army – to ward off it’s repression and to encourage it to support a transformation of the country.

He preached caution and patience, working with the army.

And he also lavished praise on the pro-Islamist chairman of the committee to write the new constitution, which may not be a good sign at all.

There is one easily missed word in his speech that is the most significant. That word is “hypocrites.” In the Islamist lexicon, hypocrites means Muslims who do not practice “true” Islam according to the radicals. To take Egypt out of the hands of “hypocrites” is to put it onto the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood – or at least similarly minded people – which, contrary to the best and the brightest policy makers, intelligence analysts, experts and journalists, is not a moderate organization.

History may show that while president Jimmy Carter may have “lost” Iran, one of his successors may have helped give away Egypt. Is that alarmist? I hope so.

Watch and see.

As so often happens, Israel will be left to pay the bill.

Qaradawi said he looked forward to a similar ceremony in Jerusalem, and he did not mean after a two-state negotiated solution.

IT WAS 32 years ago almost to the day when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned in triumph to Tehran to take over the leadership of that country. Qaradawi has a tougher job, but he’s up to the challenge if his health holds up.

Up until now, the Egyptian revolution generally, and the Brotherhood in particular, has lacked a charismatic thinker, someone who could really mobilize the masses. Qaradawi is that man. Long resident in the Gulf, he is returning to his homeland in triumph.

Through Internet, radio, his 100 books and his weekly satellite television program, he has been an articulate voice for revolutionary Islamism. He is literally a living legend.

Under the old regime, Qaradawi had been banned from the country. He is now 84 – two years older than the fallen president Hosni Mubarak – but tremendously energetic and clear-minded.

It was Qaradawi who, in critiquing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, argued that Islamists should always participate in elections because they would invariably win them. Hamas and Hezbollah have shown that he was right.

Symbolically, he gave the Friday prayer/sermon in Tahrir Square, the center of the revolutionary movement.

The massing of hundreds of thousands in the square to hear a sermon by a radical Islamist is not the kind of thing that’s been going on under the 60-year-old military regime that was recently overthrown.

The context is also the thanking of Qaradawi for his support of the revolution – an implication that he is somehow its spiritual father.

Though some in the West view him as a moderate, Qaradawi supports the straight Islamist line: anti-American, anti-Western, wipe Israel off the map, foment jihad, stone homosexuals….in short, the works.

One of his initiatives has been urging Muslims to settle in the West, of which he said, “that powerful West, which has come to rule the world, should not be left to the influence of the Jews alone.”

He contends that the three major threats Muslims face are Zionism, internal integration and globalization. To survive, he argues, Muslims must fight the Zionists, Crusaders, idolators and communists.

Make no mistake, Qaradawi is not some fossilized Islamic ideologue. He is brilliant and innovative, tactically flexible and strategically sophisticated. He is subtle enough to sell himself as a moderate to those who don’t understand the implications of his words or able to look beneath the surface of his presentation.

What is his view of both the Mubarak regime and the young, Facebook-flourishing liberals who made the revolution? As he said in 2004: “Some Arab and Muslim secularists are following the US government by advocating the kind of reform that will disarm the nation from the elements of strength that are holding our people together.”

There is no doubt. Qaradawi, not bin Laden, is the most dangerous revolutionary Islamist in the world, and he is about to unleash the full force of his persuasion on Egypt.

Gunshots heard in capital amid reports of army units defecting in Benghazi and tribal leaders criticising government.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi will fight a popular revolt to “the last man standing,” one of his sons said on Monday as people in the capital joined protests for the first time after days of violent unrest in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Anti-government protesters rallied in Tripoli’s streets, tribal leaders spoke out against Gaddafi, and army units defected to the opposition as oil exporter Libya endured one of the bloodiest revolts to convulse the Arab world.

Speaking on state television on Monday, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said: “Our spirits are high and the leader Muammar Gaddafi is leading the battle in Tripoli, and we are behind him as is the Libyan army.

“We will keep fighting until the last man standing, even to the last woman standing … we will not leave Libya to the Italians or the Turks.”

In the coastal city of Benghazi protesters appeared to be largely in control after forcing troops and police to retreat to a compound. Government buildings were set ablaze and ransacked.

Soldiers defect

In the first sign of serious unrest in the capital, thousands of protesters clashed with Gaddafi supporters.

Gunfire rang out in the night and police used tear gas to disperse demonstrators, some of whom threw stones at Gaddafi posters.

Human Rights Watch said at least 223 people have been killed in five days of violence.

A political leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Thursday called on any government that replaces Hosni Mubarak’s regime to withdraw from the 32-year-old peace treaty with Israel.

“After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel,” Rashad al-Bayoumi, a deputy leader of the outlawed movement, said on Japan’s NHTV.

The interview contrasted with earlier signals from the group. On Feb. 1, Mahmoud Ezzat, a spokesman for the brothers, told CBS News that his organization “will respect the peace treaty with Israel as long as Israel shows real progress on improving the lot of the Palestinians.”

In the past, Muslim Brotherhood leaders have supported the Palestinian branch of the brotherhood, Hamas, that rejects any negotiations with Israel and pledges to destroy the Jewish state.

This week, senior Obama administration officials urged Mr. Mubarak to step down from power. On a conference call this week between National Security Council staff and leaders of the U.S. Jewish community, the White House said there has been no change to the U.S. policy of not talking officially to the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the Clinton administration, however, there have been informal contacts with political leaders affiliated with the group, said former senior Democratic and Republican national security officials.

Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, said in response to the interview with Mr. al-Bayoumi, “If they do it, it will be a very unfortunate development for Egypt and Israel. Both countries have enjoyed a peace for thirty years, admittedly not a very warm peace, but a cold peace is better than a hot war.”

Mr. Gillerman added that if the government that comes after Mr. Mubarak cancels the peace treaty, “Israel will have to totally reconsider its whole attitude towards Egypt and its position on our southern border, which has been very quiet for many years.”

The Egypt-Israel peace treaty has been a cornerstone of stability for the Middle East. It committed Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt that it won in the 1967 Six-Day War. In exchange, Egypt, the most populous Arab country, became the first Arab state to recognize Israel.

During the 1990s, when Israeli governments were negotiating under the Oslo Accords, the Egyptian security services trained and supplied their Palestinian counterparts that were created in the peace negotiations to fight Hamas.

“I do not think a government following elections would withdraw from the peace treaty with Israel. Nobody in Egypt wants war with Israel and there is every sign right now that the military will still play a strong role in the government that comes next,” said Michele Dunne, an Egypt expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. . . .

read the full article here.