Some people just never give
up. Sometimes this is good, as when Winston Churchill made his inspirational
challenge to the British people during the dark days of WWII to
"never, never, never give up!" And then there is Bill Clinton in
his relentless quest for a legacy--no matter what the cost.
Clinton just won't give up
in his zeal for a peace legacy, even if it causes war. After being told he
is no longer welcome at the negotiating table of Israel and the
Palestinians, Clinton is once again attempting to force a peace agreement
between them--forcing both sides into seemingly suicidal positions.
After meeting with representatives from
both sides last week, Barak astonished everyone by conceding he would give
up sovereignty over the Temple Mount and much of Jerusalem for peace.
Barak is the first Israeli leader to ever take such a step. Just last
spring Barak said there could never be a concession on any part Jerusalem:
"Only
one who does not understand the depth of the total soul-connection
between the Jewish nation and Jerusalem, and only one who is totally
estranged from the legacy of Jewish history, and from the Jewish vision
and life-song, and to the faith and the hope of generations, could even
begin to consider an Israeli concession on any part of Jerusalem,"
he said at a memorial ceremony last May. "Only one who does not
understand that Jerusalem is intertwined in the souls of our ancestors
for 3,000 years, the focus of our national yearning, the secret of its
strength and existence, could demand that we turn our backs on it. It
will never come about! For it is a matter of our national existence, and
we only have one Jerusalem."
Well,
that was before Clinton called for the Camp David peace summit and forced
the two sides into war in the name of peace. It was before the world press
began to make a pariah out of Israel for shooting at unarmed, rock
throwing children. Never mind that the press ignored the staged rock
throwing events where Palestinian children faked injury to be hauled off
in ambulances for the benefit of the press. Never mind that WorldNetDaily
published convincing evidence on December
4 that twelve-year-old Mohammed al-Dura was shot in his father's arms,
not by Israeli soldiers as widely reported by the press, but by a
Palestinian seeking to create a martyr.
But
alas, I am diverging. The point is that Arafat and a willing press has
made Israel the bad guy and the Palestinians the underdog. It is not that
the Palestinians don't have legitimate claims. They do. But the press,
with help from Israeli political infighting, has skewed the violence to
make Israel look like the aggressor, when it is the Palestinians who are
keeping the pot of violence simmering.
Barak is
cornered. Newsmax
reported on December 26 that Barak was betting everything in accepting
Clinton's deal. Barak claimed Israel would pay "a heavy international
price" if Clinton and Arafat agreed to the proposal and Israel
refused. "All of Europe and the entire world would see [the] yes, and
Israel would be the one who rejects it," Barak lamented.
Neither side really wanted to
be at the talks and both sides balked at various times during the
negotiations, but Clinton was relentless in his drive to find a
settlement. Whether in an insane quest to leave a legacy or a deliberate
effort to lift the crises to a new high, the result is the same. A December
27 analysis by Stratfor Intelligence wrote a scathing indictment of
the president, "While
Clinton may feel he has pressured the parties to the brink of peace, it
seems more likely he has brought Israeli- Palestinian relations to the
edge of further violence under the guise of cementing his
legacy."
Indeed,
once again Clinton has escalated the stakes by placing both sides in a no
win dilemma. On one side Israel must give up sovereignty over much of
Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem, and all of the
Temple Mount, something that Barak has agreed to, but has precipitated
calls of treason by Israeli citizens. On the other side, Arafat would have
to acknowledge the legitimate existence of Israel and
give up the previously nonnegotiable idea of a Palestinian State and the
return of millions of exiled Palestinians to their homes.
Barak
knows Arafat cannot accept these terms. By accepting Clinton's terms Barak
is in reality forcing Arafat to make the decision, putting him in an
impossible situation. "Should
Arafat reject the agreement, the collapse of the Middle East peace process
falls on his shoulders," writes Stratfor. "On the other hand, if
Arafat accepts the proposal
– unleashing
a backlash of Palestinian violence
– the
Israeli prime minister can crack down harshly, strengthening his
credentials with hard-liners."
Luke
21:23 strongly suggests that once Jerusalem is captured by Israel, which
happened in the Six Day war of 1967, Jerusalem would remain in Israel's
possession until the time of Armageddon. Because of this, it is highly
likely Clinton's last-ditch peace effort will fail. In fact, that may have
happened on December 28 when Barak and Arafat were to meet once again at
the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik in a summit to finalize the Clinton
peace deal. After the Israeli Parliament voted to accept the US bridging
proposals early in the morning, according to the December
28 edition of Newsmax, the summit was cancelled at dawn when Arafat
said no to the deal. "The offer we have is not an opportunity but a
trap,'' Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian negotiator, said before
cancellation of the summit. "The Palestinians will pay an expensive
price for it in the future.''
Although
there continues to be sporadic announcements that a peace deal is imminent,
Clinton's
last-ditch peace initiative has apparently failed. By failing
there is no
place for Israel and the Arabs to go--except to war. Just like the Camp
David peace summit, Clinton could not have done more to precipitate war if
he had planned for it. So much so that it appears that he may have
deliberately brought Israel and the Arabs to the brink of war. Indeed, the Palestinian and Lebanese
militant factions are arming themselves for an all-out war. In
his blind zeal for peace, Clinton may
have just lit the fuse to another regional Israel-Arab war. Unlike anytime
in past history, however, this time the
international community will likely intervene, possibly fulfilling Daniel 9:27.
V mc
