Nature of the conflict

[johnc]

The Middle East Peace Paradox

It seemed simple. The formula was "land for peace." Simply put, the formula was this: Israel gives up part of her homeland in exchange for a promise of non-aggression by the Palestinians.

In legal terms it would be extortion, but in this context, color it "statesmanship."

In exchange for limited autonomy, the Palestinian Authority agreed not to demand its own state.

Jerusalem's status as Israel's "eternal, undivided capital" was non-negotiable.

No more incitement to Israel's destruction by Arab leaders. Arafat promised full access to the holy places for adherents of all faiths.

Oslo's terms demanded a probationary period for the PA; first, limited autonomy for three years; then two years to review the PA's progress and expand PA autonomy accordingly, and finally, two years to discuss the final status of who would administer Jerusalem's holy places. Formal statehood was never on the table.

In the 1993 deal, it was specifically denied. The PA agreed not to conduct PA business inside Jerusalem's city limits as a concession to preempt PA hopes of a shared capital. Arafat and Rabin signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn, with the whole world as witnesses. Presumably, both had read it.

Before the ink had dried, Arafat was giving press conferences announcing a planned Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital!

Subsequent agreements coerced by Western leaders and fueled by the media's distortion of the original deal, resulted in Israel signing away all it had, a piece at a time. Ten years later, it still isn't enough for real peace, and there's nothing left to give up but Jerusalem.

It would appear, at this juncture, that the Middle East peace process is insoluble. Even President Clinton, desperate for a legacy that doesn't begin "first elected president to be impeached," has written it off as hopeless.

A lot of time and energy could have been saved by recognizing the reality of the Middle East conflict -- it was always insoluble.

Roots of conflict

The conflict didn't begin in 1948, it traces its roots all the way back to Abraham. His two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, fathered the two Semitic races today known as Arabs and Jews.

The Old Testament teaches that the Divine Promise flowed through the descendants of Abraham's second son, Isaac. The Jews are descended from Isaac.

The Koran teaches the Divine Promise flows through Abraham's first born son, Ishmael, and his descendants, the Arab peoples.

The Bible says Abraham was ordered to offer Isaac as a sacrifice to God on Mount Moriah, and that God stopped him at the last moment. The Koran substitutes Ishmael and claims the Jews altered the story.

The Jews claim Jerusalem as a Divine birthright and the seat of the Holy of Holies located on Temple Mount. The Koran promises land conquered for Allah would remain Islamic in perpetuity.

Modern Islamic thought teaches Mohammed ascended to Paradise from the site of the Dome of the Rock, on Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

In both cases, the stone on which Abraham prepared to offer the sacrifice of either Isaac or Ishmael, depending on your perspective, is located on Temple Mount, or Mount Moriah, located in Jerusalem.

A price too high

Herein lies the insoluble nature of the question. For the Arabs to recognize Israel's right to exist on land once conquered for Allah is tantamount to saying the Koran is wrong.

In essence, it would force an admission that the foundational document of the entire Islamic religious worldview is unreliable. To recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount would compound that blasphemy.

Which is why Arab leaders from King Abdullah of Jordan to Bashar Assad of Syria to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia speak with one voice when they said "no compromise on Jerusalem." To say otherwise is to tempt the fate of Anwar Sadat.

On the Israeli side, recognizing Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount is a tacit admission the Bible was somehow incorrect in its references to Jerusalem as both the City of God and the City of David.

Whichever side gives in doesn't just lose a city, a place of worship, or territory. Peace between Arab and Jew demands the sacrifice of the defining religious identity of an entire people!

A solution awaiting the problem

The Arab-Israeli conflict is spiritual in its breadth and scope, the political elements are secondary. The spiritual nature of the argument makes a political war in the immediate future virtually a foregone conclusion.

But the Bible says that a solution will be found. A leader will rise from obscurity who will seemingly hit on the perfect compromise balancing between the religious and political obstacles to peace.

The Hebrew Prophet Daniel identifies this genius as a leader of the revived Roman Empire. Brilliant and charismatic, he will captivate the watching world. The Bible's scenario was impossible for most of the past 2,000 years.

There was no Israel to make peace with. Today, Israel exists on the precise piece of real estate the Bible promised. The conflict is there, awaiting the predicted Roman peacemaker.

The revived Roman Empire, the European Union, is in place, at peace and operating as a unified government, for the first time since the days of Caesar. Everything is ready for the time appointed. One element remains -- the peacemaker!

Who is he? We don't know his name. But the Bible identifies him as the Antichrist.