A christian blog with a decidedly biblical perspective on the world and events around us. Look around, read, enjoy and feel free to comment. Interesting story, send us the info via our contact page. Subscribe by clicking here.
Subscribe to RSS
Zechariah 1:18-21
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns.
And I said unto the angel that talked with me, What be these? And he answered me, These are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.
And the Lord shewed me four carpenters.
The said I, What come these to do? And he spake, saying, These are the horns which have scattered Judah, so that no man did lift up his head: but these are come to fray them, to cast out the horns of the Gentiles, which lifted up their horn over the land of Judah to scatter it.
The second prophecy in Zechariah, [1:18-19, partly fulfilled].
Next v 20: this prophecy of the scattering of Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem was fulfilled 749 B.C. by Assyria [2 Ki. 1:17], 616 B.C. by Babylon [2 Ki. 24:25], and 70 A.D. by Rome; and the Jews will be driven out of Palestine once more in the future days of Anti-Christ [Dan. 11:41-45; Rev. 12:6, 14].
4 Horns: Horns are symbolic of kings and kingdoms [v 18-19; Dan. 7:8, 23-24; Rev. 17:12-17; this refers to 4 kings or Gentile powers that would be permitted to scatter Judah, Israel and Jerusalem [v 17].
Since v16-17 predict a future restoration under the Messiah, it is only logical to think that the four horns which did this before Zechariah’s day are not the only powers referred to; others must be included who would scatter them after the prophet’s day up to the time of the future fulfillment of the regathering under Christ.
This line of thought better fits the exact facts of history and prophecy.
Of the 8 world powers who oppressed Israel, in the whole length of the times of the Gentiles, only 4 empires have scattered and will yet scatter Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem. [See the Times of the Gentiles – Dake Page 873].
The idea here is that the restoration of Judah, Israel and Jerusalem, under the Messiah, the powers that scattered them will be defeated by the carpenters, and full restoration will be accomplished.
They are to undo all that the 4 horns of the Gentiles have done; these, the carpenters, smiths, or whatever they are, will fray [Heb. Charad, terrify; cause to fear; make afraid; discomfit; drive away] the horns of the Gentiles [the 4 Gentile world powers who scattered all of Israel]. This could only refer to:
- 1 – Christ [Mat. 24:29-31; Rev. 19:11-21].
- 2 – The heavenly angels [Mat. 24:31; 2 Th. 1:7-10]
- 3 – Resurrected saints [Zech. 14:5; Jude 14-15; Rev. 19:14].
- 4 – Revived earthly Israel [Zech. 14:14].
Haggai 1:9
Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? Saith the Lord of Hosts. Because of Mine House that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.
Haggai 2:19
Is the seed yet in the barn? Yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you.
Prophetic Word by the Spirit of Grace:
On entering My House, you initially laid a solid foundation, by seeking to acquire knowledge at the lips of the Priest, actively participating, doing good works, establishing your gifts and calling; confessing and praising My Name in the midst of the congregation.
You walked in holiness and had reverential fear and awe of Me; yet the first opposition you encountered [for in much tribulation you enter the Kingdom]; you not only yielded to the opposing forces, but drew back and became a mere spectator, hovering undecidedly upon the borders of the movement of My Spirit; like a frightened bird, ready for flight at the least offence or imagined slight, to another church, enacting the same procedure over and over and over.
Yet, you set your heart upon your own house, your own business, your own ways, and deem it more important than My House? You consider the things of the world of more value than the things of above?
Consider your ways: you have sown much and you bring in little; you eat, but you have not enough; you drink, but you are not filled; you clothe yourself, but there is none warm; you earn wages, and it wastes away and you are powerless to prevent it. You looked for much and it came to little; why? When you brought it home I blew upon it; why? Because of Mine House that lies waste.
That the punishment might answer the sin, by My providence I held back the dew, for the poverty which you thought to prevent has come, because you did not build My house.
Indeed, you need to understand the judgments of My Hand, then you may understand the meaning of My mind with the rod, as well as with My Word.
I am the Holder of the key of the clouds, and I shut up the heavens, withholding the rain, to make you sensible to your constant dependence upon Me, lest you should say that you have no further occasion for Me and My providence.
Consider your ways and the result thereof, if I cross you in your temporal affairs and you meet with trouble and disappointment, you will find that this is the cause of it; the work you have to do for Me is left undone, you seek your own end rather than Mine.
Think then, what you have done to incur My displeasure and the subsequent withholding of your blessings, and repent speedily with courage, whatever the cost, and resume My Work, taking up where you have left off. For if you return with all of your heart, you will not need to despair of My favor.
Surely you could not BUT perceive that your own sin was the cause of the judgment that has befallen you?
Yet, My Spirit is with you, and I will enlarge your heart and stir up your spirit that you may apply yourself to work with zeal for the advancement of the interest of My Kingdom among men.
Then you will not fear, for My Presence is with you, the Lord of Hosts, to silence all your dread; and though you have a multitude ranged against you, I, the Lord of Hosts am with you.
For there shall be a shaking in order to remove all the dross, and that which remains shall be established; for it is My prerogative to bless whom I will bless, for My Glory which rests upon you is not vain-glory.
You are My living temple, and where My son dwells in glory and splendor, a greater than Solomon is, from Eternity to Eternity.
Therefore consider your ways, if your heart is right and your eye single, I will take away the judgments of famine and poverty; for as long as you neglect My House and Work, your affairs will speedily degrade. But, when you begin to change your ways and acknowledge your iniquity, then I WILL CHANGE MY WAYS AND THOUGHTS TOWARDS YOU.
If you diligently hearken to My words, from this day I will bless you, for that which I bless, will be blessed forever, says the Lord. – Sage
Jonah 3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Jonah 4:1
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
As usual God saw the works of repentance and turning from sin on the part of the people as a whole, so He repented [changed His mind] about destroying the City. He spared it. [v10; Jonah 4:11].
It displeased Jonah exceedingly when Nineveh repented and God spared its 120,000 inhabitants [v1]. In fact, he became angry instead of appreciating the fruitful ministry the Lord had given him.
What good was his prayer? A man who is angry at the mercy and pleasure of God does not need to expect his prayers to be answered. Think of it! A man who had caused 120,000 people to become converted to God and His will became angry because his ministry was fruitful! This shows only one thing – that Jonah was deeply patriotic and put this above the souls of men and the will of God.
This shows that he had settled it in his mind not to go to Nineveh when God called him in his own country [v2]. The reasons Jonah fled to Tarshish:
God is a gracious God; He is merciful; He is slow to anger; He repents or changes His mind not to destroy men when they turn from sin to righteousness. Applying this to Nineveh Jonah concluded that it would not benefit Israel for the Ninevehites to repent and turn to God, for God was going to use them to punish Israel.
Think of a man becoming so angry at the saving of 120,000 people from death and destruction-his own converts- and so angry at the goodness of God that he would pray to die!
He was still hoping that God would destroy the city and his own converts of 120,000 people. He could only wait and see what God would do. In the meantime his anger continued unabated; and the story ends with him still being angry. [v6-11].
The only bright spot in Jonah’s upset world was the gourd vine to give him shade [v6]. Then God sent a worm to remove it in a night so it withered [v7]. Afterward the east wind blowing vehemently and the sun beating down upon the prophet’s head became a trial to him. He fainted and again wished to die [v8].
God came to him while in his fainting state and asked him again if he thought he was justified in being angry for the gourd. Jonah answered that it was well for him to be angry, even to death [v9]. THEN Jehovah drove the point home to him, reasoning that if he had been merciful and pitied the gourd for which he had not labored, neither made it to grow-something which came up in one night and perished in another-that he should at least be satisfied with God having compassion and mercy on a great city, to spare the many inhabitants and their stock [v10-11].
The final end of the story is not recorded. It is not known how long he remained angry, whether he ever overcame this feeling, or how long Nineveh remained in a state of faith to God. The answer to these and other questions wait for eternity to make clear.
Many good lessons are possible by a careful application of the facts of this book to our lives. We can all profit by the mistakes of Jonah and learn to be patient and merciful to our fellowmen, to do God’s work without being forced to do it, and to appreciate life and all it holds without living in anger until death, as Jonah contended was well to do in his case [[v9-11].
Proverbs 20:15
15 There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.
The lips of knowledge (a good understanding to guide the lips and a good elocution to diffuse the knowledge) are to be preferred far before gold, and pearl, and rubies; for,
1. They are more rare in themselves, more scarce and hard to be got. There is gold in many a man’s pocket that has no grace in his heart. In Solomon’s time there was plenty of gold (1 Kings 10:21) and abundance of rubies; every body wore them; they were to be bought in every town. But wisdom is a rare thing, a precious jewel; few have it so as to do good with it, nor is it to be purchased of the merchants.
2. They are more enriching to us and more adorning. They make us rich towards God, rich in good works, 1 Tim. 2:9, 10. Most people are fond of gold, and a ruby or two will not serve, they must have a multitude of them, a cabinet of jewels; but he that has the lips of knowledge despises these, because he knows and possesses better things.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Proverbs 20:16
16 Take his garment that is surety for a stranger: and take a pledge of him for a strange woman.
Two sorts of persons are here spoken of that are ruining their own estates, and will be beggars shortly, and therefore are not to be trusted with any good security:–
1. Those that will be bound for any body that will ask them, that entangle themselves in rash suretiship to oblige their idle companions; they will break at last, nay, they cannot hold out long; these waste by wholesale.
2. Those that are in league with abandoned women, that treat them, and court them, and keep company with them. They will be beggars in a little time; never give them credit without good pledge. Strange women have strange ways of impoverishing men to enrich themselves.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Galatians 5:16
Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. [RSV]
Paul is writing to Christian believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They have the Spirit, but they are also human. They are indwelt by the Spirit, for they are believers; but they have a fallen nature with which they were born, capable of sin and bent over towards it. Paul calls that fallen nature ‘the flesh’, and he goes on to add that ‘the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh’. There is an inner conflict in the life of every converted man and woman.
Just as the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, so the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh. And the Spirit is more than enough for the flesh. The indwelling Spirit is at work in you so that you need not do the things which the flesh would want you to do, and would make you do.
Canon Guy King used to say, ‘The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and you cannot therefore do the things that you would; but – and here we turn the corner, out of the slum into the orchard – the Spirit strives against the flesh, so that you need not do the things you otherwise would.’
If the flesh strives to produce its worst works, the Holy Spirit dwells within to produce the finest fruit, the nine fold fruit of the Spirit, the carefully collected and gathered cluster. Love, joy, peace, in relation to God; or as I sometimes call it, the far reach of Christian expression.
In relation to ourselves, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; or as I sometimes call it, the stronghold of Christian character. He indwells to produce in God’s child the fruits of the Spirit. – H.W. Cragg: The Flesh and the Spirit, 1975
- Daily Thoughts From Keswick.
• Bibi Freezes Construction? (Written Exclusively for PajamasMedia)
• GENERAL JONES TELLS A JOKE
• How Foreign Subsidies are all that’s Keeping Two Palestinian Governments from Collapse
• The Direction of Europe: Netherlands: Opposition to Holocaust Education; UK: Voting Trends
Bibi Freezes Construction? (Written Exclusively for PajamasMedia)
Posted: 27 Apr 2010 03:40 PM PDT
My article on the latest developments regarding U.S.-Israel relations and the reported Israeli decision to freeze construction in Jerusalem is HERE written for PajamasMedia. For your convenience, I’ve put the text below BUT if you are going to reprint or send to people please respect my request and provide their url
Bibi Freezes Construction?
By Barry Rubin, for PajamasMedia
Here’s a mystery: Why has the recent crisis in U.S.-Israel relations suddenly seemed to clear up?
Here’s an answer: A secret understanding between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama to stop construction in Jerusalem outside its 1967 borders for a while.
There hasn’t been — and won’t be — any public confirmation of such an understanding, yet it seems quite likely that this has happened. In effect, Netanyahu is saying: We are cooperating in every way possible, so how can you complain about us?
Behind this argument is an Israeli belief that Obama will now be able to see the difference between a cooperative Israel and an intransigent Palestinian Authority, which will block any progress on peace. Indeed, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has already provided an example of that paradigm — he publicly stated that he wants a solution imposed from outside, not one negotiated with Israel and requiring any compromises or concessions on his part.
Netanyahu has taken another step which was more public. At times in the past, he has defined the next stage of talks as being more limited — not including, for example, a discussion on the future status of Jerusalem in any comprehensive peace agreement. The Israeli prime minister now says he is willing to discuss all issues.
But any freeze on Jerusalem won’t be made too explicit for a number of reasons. First, ever since the Oslo agreement was originally made in 1993, Israeli leaders have maintained that they interpret it as permitting construction on existing settlements and Jerusalem. For 17 years, the PA accepted this position. It never refused to talk on the basis that such construction was happening. Only when President Barack Obama raised the issue in 2009, it became apparent that the PA couldn’t be less militant than the American president.
Last October, the United States accepted a deal, with lavish praise for Obama, that construction would cease for nine months in the West Bank but would continue in Jerusalem. When the equivalent of a zoning commission announced during Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Jerusalem that a housing project had passed the fourth of seven steps and might be built in several years, this was blown up by the White House into a major insult.
In fact, the United States was going back on its own deal. Moreover, the PA decision to name a square in Ramallah after a PLO terrorist who had murdered two dozen Israeli civilians and an American citizen sparked no such outrage.
Netanyahu and his government wanted to defuse the conflict, but the prime minister is constrained politically. While his government is in fact — contrary to frequent Western media reports — a national unity coalition between his Likud Party and the main left party, Labour, he is also dependent on the parliamentary votes of smaller right-wing parties. They would be extremely angry about a freeze on Jerusalem construction and might withdraw their support.
It is interesting to note, by the way, that Netanyahu could not have made such an understanding with the United States without the support of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who leads the coalition’s third largest party.
Netanyahu still maintains Israel’s right to build anywhere in Jerusalem, but is stopping actual construction now in order to facilitate negotiations with the PA.
The apparent move leaves three key players to decide their response.
First, will the PA in fact now go to indirect negotiations, having lost all excuses for refusing to do so?
Second, how will Israeli right-wingers react to the decision, both in terms of demonstrations and pulling out of support for the coalition? Since Netanyahu will insist that there is no formal freeze, this could undermine their efforts, while a desire for good relations with the United States and knowledge that any freeze is temporary will build Israeli popular support for Netanyahu.
And third, will the United States show reciprocal appreciation for Netanyahu’s concessions, or will Washington soon be back with more complaints and demands? The freeze has about five months left to run. If there is no real movement on negotiations — and this is unlikely — Netanyahu will want to end it. Would this lead to another conflict or would an Obama administration, perhaps better educated in PA behavior and worried about the erosion of electoral support at home, accept it?
Even given all this, no progress on peace negotiations is likely given all the problems involved. One of these is the fact that almost half the territory the PA purports to represent is the Gaza Strip, ruled by the PA’s rival, Hamas, which is totally against any peace with Israel.
Indeed, it is somewhat ironic that any return to indirect negotiations would be celebrated, since this is a step backward. After all, the PA (and its original parent body the PLO) and Israel have been holding direct talks since 1993.
PS: Additional new information for my blog readers. Secretary of Defense Gates met Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and held a press conference afterward. A reporter asked, good question, whether this wasn’t designed to show the relationship was back to normal since such a press conference had never been held before. Obviously that was the intention.
To help the relationship, Gates added that no U.S. officer had said that Israel endangers American lives but merely that the lack of progress in the peace process was used as ammunition by U.S. enemies to mobilize support. Well, that’s better but do you really think that Hamas, Hizballah, al-Qaida, the Taliban, etc., etc., win over people who are saying: “Wow, if only there was progress in the peace process toward a two-state solution I wouldn’t be strapping on this suicide bomber’s belt? As I’ve said before, progress toward peace–as desirable as it is–will increase attacks by terrorists determined to sabotage it and who are angry at the United States for “betraying” their chance of wiping out Israel.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition, Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth about Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
PLEASE NOTE, This article was written for PajamasMedia and is available HERE
GENERAL JONES TELLS A JOKE
Posted: 28 Apr 2010 08:20 AM PDT
Please be subscriber 10,119. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
GENERAL JONES TELLS A JOKE
By Barry Rubin
Today’s public culture focuses a lot more on categorization than thought processes. The immediate question that arises after various incidents is whether or not they meet the criterion of being objectionable rather than considering what they actually tell us about the assumptions and thought processes of those involved. So it is with the joke General Jones, national security advisor to President Barack Obama told at a recent speech.
Should General Jones be fired or resign because of the joke? Of course not. He should be fired or resign because he hasn’t been doing a very good job as national security advisor.
Actually, the speech itself was a good one. The goal was to mark the end of the U.S.-Israel rift after a secret understanding by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop construction in Jerusalem for a while. It is also meant to mark a need to shore up growing criticism about the administration’s policy on Israel and ineptness at getting sanctions on Iran. The joke should not be allowed to block an understanding of the administration’s regional policy and political maneuvers.
But it does show why the administration is in so much trouble at home and abroad in the first place and may soon be again.
Here is a brief summary of Jones’s version of the joke. The scene: southern Afghanistan. Hungry Taliban militant, raving hatred against Israel, asks Jewish merchant for water. Jew counters on Israel issue and refuses to sell it to him. Tells him instead he will sell him a tie. Taliban guy confused. Eventually goes onward, then returns. Now I see why you wanted to sell me a tie, he explains, they won’t let me into the restaurant over the hill without one.
Ha! Presumably the merchant sold him at a tie at an exorbitant price or, to use the old term for such things, the merchant “Jewed” him, a word in many dictionaries until recently.
It is no secret that Jones is one of the administration officials most hostile to Israel. Thus, the joke is put into the context: is it or is it not antisemitic? That is the least interesting issue. What is fascinating and more important points is what it reveals about Jones’s world view.
The incident also reminds us of something many people would find shocking but is true: Many members of the Western political and cultural elite know far less about Jews than about the “exotic” minorities that they deal with abroad or as immigrants to their countries nowadays. The ignorance about Jews springs, of course, from the assumption that they know so much. It is also augmented by assimilationist Jewish intellectuals, including those in the elite, who have never known, forgotten, or prefer not to disclose much about their own people.
Of course, one shouldn’t read too much into a joke. But as another joke puts it, the issue is not just that Jones told the joke but the way he told it.
Let’s first run through the introductory points:
–Jones decided to tell the joke. The issue is not whether the joke is objectively objectionable, that’s a matter for debate. What’s really impressive is that neither he nor his staff considered it risky. Here’s a man considered to be hostile to Israel, and perhaps to Jews, involved in very delicate issues, showing poor judgment in walking along the edge of the precipice in an era where people are obsessively—I’d say insanely—sensitive to any nuance of prejudice.
Even if one concludes that the joke is not truly objectionable, it shows poor judgment in a man whose job requires dealing with the fate of millions of people, including millions of Israelis. If he doesn’t understand how Jews might find it objectionable perhaps he can’t understand how Israel finds certain demands objectionable because of the level of risk they require it to take?
It makes me wonder how smart and able to understand situations Jones could possibly be. And if you respond that if he weren’t exceptional he wouldn’t hold his current job you’ve spent considerably less time around Washington than I have.
–How does one evaluate the joke? The basic joke exists in both Jewish and non-Jewish forms. In some ways it is a typical kind of Litvak Jewish joke designed to show cleverness. But in its origins the joke was dealing with sensitive material. After all, the implication is that these wily merchants were taking advantage of Eastern European peasants or others in their business dealings. It was for stereotypes like this that pogroms took place, including ultimately the biggest pogrom of them all. Thus, the basic structure of this joke has both typical Jewish and antisemitic features.
This is not atypical of “ethnic” humor and what makes it different when spoken by a member of the group and someone who isn’t. If you don’t believe that, listen to African-Americans or others telling jokes about their own people and try repeating one yourself in front of an audience. In the current climate, you will soon be looking for a new job. For some reason, this doesn’t seem to apply to dealings with Jewish sensitivities.
One sophisticated Jewish audience member later said that Jones was trying to flatter Jews by showing them as outsmarting the opposition. Others have pointed to the speaker’s gruff military culture. Again and again, though, I want to stress that the question of whether the joke was antisemitic is something that cannot be resolved, isn’t that important, and is the least interesting aspect of the situation.
What is revealing are two key issues which relate to changes Jones made in the way the joke has been told by Jews.
First, he sets the story in Afghanistan. Why there of all places in the world, somewhere there have never been any Jews and are certainly none today? When it has appeared on Jewish sites, the joke was set in the Sahara Desert. Note also Jones insisted–part of the joke but also revealing–that it was based on a “true” story.
Well, Afghanistan is the main theatre of operations for the U.S. military, especially if one takes into account future plans. So the joke shows that even in Afghanistan, there are people obsessed with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. (That’s not true by the way.) The idea that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the central issue in the world determining everything has become a theme of Obama Administration foreign policy and of Jones in particular.
The truth is that Taliban guys don’t spend a lot of time worrying about Israel. In fact, after years of research on Afghanistan I have never once heard anyone in the Taliban mention the words “Palestinians” or Israel. So what Jones is doing is an extension of the claim that Islamist radicals in Afghanistan are killing Americans because of Israel. And the Taliban was the host for al-Qaida which launched the September 11 attacks. So it is a short step to saying that hatred of Israel was responsible for the September 11 attacks which is a staple among antisemites and extreme Israel-haters.
Second, instead of an individual Jew, the focus of the story is switched by putting in references to Israel, and making an Afghan Jew describe Israel as “my country.”
The Jew, now made into a representative of Israel–in effect–rather than a generic Jew, seeks to charge (presumably overcharge) for letting the Taliban guy get what he needs. Indeed, Israel does demand an admissions’ fee for revolutionary Islamists, that is Hamas, to earn engagement withthe West.
The tendency of the current U.S. government and of Europe is—and I don’t want to overstate this—to say that such a barrier is unnecessary. End the sanctions on the Gaza Strip, they say, let Hamas into the talks (I’m not saying the Obama administration endorses this idea), give the PA a state. Then everything will be okay and peace will prevail.
The adaptation of this into the joke is a reminder that much of the West wants to let the radical Islamist (Hamas, Hizballah, and even the Taliban) in without a tie and trust him to pay at the end of the meal. Indeed, that if you do so he will stop cursing Israel (or America) and want to be friends. After all, most restaurants today have given up their tie and jacket requirement.
Now here’s the joke I’ll tell when they ask me to speak at the National Security Council:
An Israeli is walking through a dangerous desert, beset by enemies on every side. He comes upon an American general who is national security advisor. “Please help me,” says the Israeli, “I’m out of ammunition.”
“I’d love to help you,” says the general, “but I can only sell you a tie. It’s because I’m helping you that they are all out to get me!”
“No thanks on the tie,” says the Israeli, “I’d rather have your support as an ally against those antisemitic, anti-American totalitarian forces which are out to destroy you any way.”
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
How Foreign Subsidies are all that’s Keeping Two Palestinian Governments from Collapse
Posted: 27 Apr 2010 09:47 AM PDT
In a new article, “A Tale of Two Palestinian Authorities,” my colleague, Jonathan Spyer, points out–in an article well worth reading–the fragility of the Palestinian Authority (PA), an entity that is hardly able, if it were willing which is also a problem, to make a comprehensive peace with Israel.
But here’s the most stunning point:
“Veteran Palestinian political analyst Yezid Sayigh recently noted that both the Gaza and Ramallah governments are dependent for their economic survival on foreign assistance. The Fayyad government has an annual $2.8 billion budget, of which one half consists of direct foreign aid. The Hamas authorities, meanwhile, announced a budget of $540 million, of which $480 million is to come from outside (Iran).”
In addition, remember that, as I have noted, the Hamas regime also depends on Western aid provided through the Palestinian Authority.
Tale of Two Palestinian Authorities
By Jonathan Spyer*
April 27, 2010
The Direction of Europe: Netherlands: Opposition to Holocaust Education; UK: Voting Trends
Posted: 27 Apr 2010 09:46 AM PDT
The Dutch magazine Elsevier has published on its website its findings on the current teaching about the Holocaust in the Netherlands. Of the 339 high school history teachers surveyed, twenty percent say they have encountered hostility, mainly from Muslim students, which made conducting the lesson difficult or even impossible.
In the run-up to the United Kingdom parliamentary elections, Islamic organizations have been trying to organize a bloc vote to support anti-Israel candidates, with a strategy of gaining influence in the small Liberal Democratic party which may hold the balance of power in forming a government.
How Do Officials, Journalists, Academics, Analysts React to Critiques of Conventional Wisdom on the Middle East? Answer: They Don’t!
Posted: 26 Apr 2010 02:38 PM PDT
Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
A reader asks:
I have found your most recent articles hugely helpful in debunking so much of the international myth that the Israeli Palestinian conflict dominates and is the root cause of every problem facing the entire Middle East.
But then I largely agree with everything you and Jonathan Spyer have to say.
Apart from hate mail and frivolous objections from doubtful sources, which I am sure you get your fair share, do you ever get reasoned and logical analysis from other serious Middle Eastern experts or professors who find fault with your ideas or reject your premises entirely?
Response:
Thanks. You have asked a very good question. And the answer is simple: No, literally never. In fact, never. Why is this?
Rather than the historic ideas that governed serious analysis and scholarly work for centuries, there seems to be a pattern now that viewpoints other than the dominant one—U.S. and West largely at fault, Islamism is not the central problem, Arab-Israeli conflict at core of region, radical groups can be moderated, Syria can be won over, Palestinians eager for peace, etc.–need not be taken into account. The style seems to be that one begins with a thesis, gathers whatever talking points or documentation needed to promote or prove it, and then that is sufficient without dealing with the best arguments to the contrary.
What is missing is the need to engage and respond to other arguments. Many of my articles consist of taking up a text or speech or article by someone, honestly trying to understand fully the ideas presented, analyzing them, and then responding where I think they are wrong as well as right.
Of course, I’m presenting a perspective but I have to prove it, with evidence and persuasive logic. I probably spend almost as much time quoting people I disagree with–and linking to what they’ve said–as I do saying what I think. You can see both sides and judge for yourself.
The whole greatness of democracy, logic, professional ethics, and Enlightenment values is that a fair hearing is given to all sides and the strongest argument wins—though of course the “winning” argument should be open to modifications by taking elements from other perspectives that are proven correct. This is not happening, however, given the dominant ideas today, which use Political Correctness (not factual correctness), multi-culturalism, Edward Said thought, and other such mechanisms as determining their conclusions. This is what can be called a triumphalist perspective: we’re in control and can do anything we want; we represent absolute right against racism, imperialism, etc., so there is really only one side to any proper debate.
For example, take the question of whether Syria can be pulled away from Iran, one of the centerpieces of current Western policy. I can take each argument used to say this would work, explain why it isn’t so, and then give about ten reasons why Syria will stick with Iran. I have almost never–and I don’t use the word “never” lightly here–seen anyone take up these arguments (Syria gets more money from Iran than it would from the West, their interests are parallel, Iran provides religious cover, it thinks Iran is winning, etc.) even to say why they might be wrong.
Another example is that for a variety of reasons—belief in ultimate victory, ideology, intimidation by radicals, hope for an imposed settlement, etc—the Palestinian leadership isn’t really interested in a negotiated peace and that this is the central question in the conflict. Even a very simple and obvious point—you can’t make peace while Hamas rules the Gaza Strip; a PA-Hamas coalition government would be a disaster—is pretty much ignored.
The record on discussing the Iranian threat is better but there is still remarkably little talk on how Iran would change the strategic balance in the region once it has nuclear weapons. For example, I’ve never seen anyone take up the discussion that Iran’s possession of weapons would set off a revolutionary Islamist avalanche the way that Gamal Abdel Nasser’s seizure of the Suez Canal company did for Arab nationalism in the mid-1950s or the Bolshevik revolution did for Communist movements.
It would be fascinating to see their responses. Is there some point I’ve missed? Please educate me and I promise to revise my thinking.
But in my opinion we face something different today than there has been in the past. That is, a relative monopoly on media and academia by one viewpoint which tends to suppress the other. I don’t want to overstate that, but let’s for the sake of argument say it is 75 percent in the media and 90 percent in academia. Therefore, it is not necessary to engage opposition views but they can merely be ignored and kept out of the debate. To a surprising extent, even the U.S. military–to pick an example where one wouldn’t expect to find it–seems to listen overwhelmingly to the current conventional wisdom.
Again, I don’t want to overstate this point. Obviously there are mechanisms for expressing such ideas and there are a few people who are licensed, in a sense, to speak them. There are “air holes” through which fresh air comes into the mainstream debate. Yet compared to the past–having been involved in this for over 30 years–I find the contrast astonishing.
Finally, though, it would be possible to do a history of the debate over the Middle East and see how it has gone through different periods. For example, the defeat of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait in 1991 set off almost a decade of what I’d call more accurate assessments. The same thing happened for about two years after September 11.
Sometimes mere time or failure to make the dominant paradigm work sets of a rethinking. What do you do when the radicals fail to moderate and throw a pie in your face? The last big game-changing pie, in the other direction, was the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 which was perceived as a failure and whose motives were questioned, helping to bring on the current era. (Of course, there are also wider social, intellectual, and political trends in the West—having little or nothing to do with the Middle East—that bring change on thinking about this particular region.
My best guess about the next wave is that when Iran gets nuclear weapons it will send a shock to many in the West that will make it hard to maintain the kind of thinking that dominates now. This will be supplemented by such developments as: Palestinian refusal to take up even good Western offers for peace and a state; increasingly obvious Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah domination of Lebanon; growing revolutionary Islamist threats in Arab states; a clear failure to stabilize Afghanistan; the conclusion that Syria will not moderate or move away from Iran; and other things.
History doesn’t stand still.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Joshua Named as Moses’s Successor. B. C. 1451.
________________________________________
Deuteronomy 3:21-29
21 And I commanded Joshua at that time, saying, Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings: so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou passest. 22 Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you. 23 And I besought the LORD at that time, saying, 24 O Lord GOD, thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might? 25 I pray thee, let me go over, and see the good land that is beyond Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon. 26 But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and the LORD said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter. 27 Get thee up into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt not go over this Jordan. 28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him: for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see. 29 So we abode in the valley over against Beth-peor.
Here is I. The encouragement which Moses gave to Joshua, who was to succeed him in the government, v. 21, 22. He commanded him not to fear. This those that are aged and experienced in the service of God should do all they can to strengthen the hands of those that are young, and setting out in religion. Two things he would have him consider for his encouragement:–
1. What God has done. Joshua had seen what a total defeat God had given by the forces of Israel to these two kings, and thence he might easily infer, so shall the Lord do to all the rest of the kingdoms upon which we are to make war. He must not only infer thence that thus the Lord can do with them all, for his arm is not shortened, but thus he will do, for his purpose is not changed; he that has begun will finish; as for God, his work is perfect. Joshua had seen it with his own eyes. And the more we have seen of the instances of divine wisdom, power, and goodness, the more inexcusable we are if we fear what flesh can do unto us.
2. What God had promised. The Lord your God he shall fight for you; and that cause cannot but be victorious which the Lord of hosts fights for. If God be for us, who can be against us so as to prevail? We reproach our leader if we follow him trembling.
II. The prayer which Moses made for himself, and the answer which God gave to that prayer.
1. His prayer was that, if it were God’s will, he might go before Israel over Jordan into Canaan. At that time, when he had been encouraging Joshua to fight Israel’s battles, taking it for granted that he must be their leader, he was touched with an earnest desire to go over himself, which expresses itself not in any passionate and impatient complaints, or reflections upon the sentence he was under, but in humble prayers to God for a gracious reversing of it. I besought the Lord. Note, We should never allow any desires in our hearts which we cannot in faith offer up to God by prayer; and what desires are innocent, let them be presented to God. We have not because we ask not. Observe,
(1.) What he pleads here. Two things:–
[1.] The great experience which he had had of God’s goodness to him in what he had done for Israel: “Thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness. Lord, perfect what thou hast begun. Thou hast given me to see thy glory in the conquest of these two kings, and the sight has affected me with wonder and thankfulness. O let me see more of the outgoings of my God, my King! This great work, no doubt, will be carried on and completed; let me have the satisfaction of seeing it.” Note, the more we see of God’s glory in his works the more we shall desire to see. The works of the Lord are great, and therefore are sought out more and more of all those that have pleasure therein.
[2.] The good impressions that had been made upon his heart by what he had seen: For what God is there in heaven or earth that can do according to thy works? The more we are affected with what we have seen of God, of his wisdom, power, and goodness, the better we are prepared for further discoveries. Those shall see the works of God that admire him in them. Moses had thus expressed himself concerning God and his works long before (Exod. 15:11), and he still continues of the same mind, that there are no works worthy to be compared with God’s works, Ps. 86:8.
(2.) What he begs: I pray thee let me go over, v. 25. God had said he should not go over; yet he prays that he might, not knowing but that the threatening was conditional, for it was not ratified with an oath, as that concerning the people was, that they should not enter. Thus Hezekiah prayed for his own life, and David for the life of his child, after both had ben expressly threatened; and the former prevailed, though the latter did not. Moses remembered the time when he had by prayer prevailed with God to recede from the declarations which he had made of his wrath against Israel, Exod. 32:14. And why might he not hope in like manner to prevail for himself? Let me go over and see the good land. Not, “Let me go over and be a prince and a ruler there;” he seeks not his own honour, is content to resign the government to Joshua; but, “Let me go to be a spectator of thy kindness to Israel, to see what I believe concerning the goodness of the land of promise.” How pathetically does he speak of Canaan, that good land, that goodly mountain! Note, Those may hope to obtain and enjoy God’s favours that know how to value them. What he means by that goodly mountain we may learn from Ps. 78:54, where it is said of God’s Israel that he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain which his right hand had purchased, where it is plainly to be understood of the whole land of Canaan, yet with an eye to the sanctuary, the glory of it.
2. God’s answer to this prayer had in it a mixture of mercy and judgment, that he might sing unto God of both.
(1.) There was judgment in the denial of his request, and that in something of anger too: The Lord was wroth with me for your sakes, v. 26. God not only sees sin in his people, but is much displeased with it; and even those that are delivered from the wrath to come may yet lie under the tokens of God’s wrath in this world, and may be denied some particular favour which their hearts are much set upon. God is a gracious, tender, loving Father; but he is angry with his children when they do amiss, and denies them many a thing that they desire and are ready to cry for. But how was he wroth with Moses for the sake of Israel? Either,
[1.] For that sin which they provoked him to; see Ps. cvi. 32, 33. Or,
[2.] The removal of Moses at that time, when he could so ill be spared, was a rebuke to all Israel, and a punishment of their sin. Or,
[3.] It was for their sakes, that it might be a warning to them to take heed of offending God by passionate and unbelieving speeches at any time, after the similitude of his transgression; for, if this were done to such a green tree, what should be done to the dry? He acknowledges that God would not hear him. God had often heard him for Israel, yet he would not hear him for himself. It was the prerogative of Christ, the great Intercessor, to be heard always; yet of him his enemies said, He saved others, himself he could not save, which the Jews would not have upbraided him with had they considered that Moses, their great prophet, prevailed for others, but for himself he could not prevail. Though Moses, being one of the wrestling seed of Jacob, did not seek in vain, yet he had not the thing itself which he sought for. God may accept our prayers, and yet not grant us the very thing we pray for.
(2.) Here is mercy mixed with this wrath in several things:–
[1.] God quieted the spirit of Moses under the decree that had gone forth by that word (v. 26), Let it suffice thee. With this word, no doubt, a divine power went to reconcile Moses to the will of God, and to bring him to acquiesce in it. If God does not by his providence give us what we desire, yet, if by his grace he makes us content without it, it comes much to one. “Let it suffice thee to have God for they father, and heaven for thy portion, though thou hast not every thing thou wouldest have in this world. Be satisfied with this, God is all-sufficient.”
[2.] He put an honour upon his prayer in directing him not to insist upon this request: Speak no more to me of this matter. It intimates that what God does not think fit to grant we should not think fit to ask, and that God takes such a pleasure in the prayer of the upright that it is no pleasure to him, no, not in any particular instance, to give a denial to it.
[3.] He promised him a sight of Canaan from the top of Pisgah, v. 27. Though he should not have the possession of it, he should have the prospect of it; not to tantalize him, but such a sight of it as would yield him true satisfaction, and would enable him to form a very clear and pleasing idea of that promised land. Probably Moses had not only his sight preserved for other purposes, but greatly enlarged for this purpose; for, if he had not had such a sight of it as others could not have from the same place, it would have been no particular favour to Moses, nor the matter of a promise. Even great believers, in this present state, see heaven but at a distance.
[4.] He provided him a successor, one who should support the honour of Moses and carry on and complete that glorious work which the heart of Moses was so much upon, the bringing of Israel to Canaan, and settling them there (v. 28): Charge Joshua and encourage him in this work. Those to whom God gives a charge, he will be sure to give encouragement to. And it is a comfort to the church’s friends (when they are dying and going off) to see God’s work likely to be carried on by other hands, when they are silent in the dust.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Allotment of the Conquered Lands. B. C. 1451.
________________________________________
Deuteronomy 3:12-20
12 And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. 13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. 14 Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day. 15 And I gave Gilead unto Machir. 16 And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon; 17 The plain also, and Jordan, and the coast thereof, from Chinnereth even unto the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, under Ashdoth-pisgah eastward. 18 And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. 19 But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; 20 Until the LORD have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which the LORD your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you.
Having shown how this country which they were now in was conquered, in these verses he shows how it was settled upon the Reubenites, Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh, which we had the story of before, Num. xxxii. Here is the rehearsal.
1. Moses specifies the particular parts of the country that were allotted to each tribe, especially the distribution of the lot to the half tribe of Manasseh, the subdividing of which tribe is observable. Joseph was divided into Ephraim and Manasseh; Manasseh was divided into one half on the one side Jordan and the other half on the other side: that on the east side Jordan was again divided into two great families, which had their several allotments: Jair, v. 14, Machir, v. 15. And perhaps Jacob’s prediction of the smallness of that tribe was now accomplished in these divisions and subdivisions. Observe that Bashan is here called the land of the giants, because it had been in their possession, but Og was the last of them. These giants, it seems, had lost their country, and were rooted out of it sooner than any of their neighbours; for those who, presuming upon their strength and stature, had their hand against every man, had every man’s hand against them, and went down slain to the pit, though they were the terror of the mighty in the land of the living.
2. He repeats the condition of the grant which they had already agreed to, v. 18-20. That they should send a strong detachment over Jordan to lead the van in the conquest of Canaan, who should not return to their families, at least not to settle (though for a time they might retire thither into winter quarters, at the end of a campaign), till they had seen their brethren in as full possession of their respective allotments as they themselves were now in of theirs. They must hereby be taught not to look at their own things only, but at the things of others, Phil. 2:4. It ill becomes an Israelite to be selfish, and to prefer any private interest before the public welfare. When we are rest we should desire to see our brethren at rest too, and should be ready to do what we can towards it; for we are not born for ourselves, but are members one of another. A good man cannot rejoice much in the comforts of his family unless withal he sees peace upon Israel, Ps. 128:6.
- Matthew Henry Com mentary
viagra and hearing loss Ed Treatment Natural Female use of viagra female version of viagra 761.
erectile dysfunction vacuums Cialis Dysfunction Erectile Levitra how to get viagra
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction; Erectile Dysfunction Psychological Zocor erectile dysfunction zoloft erectile dysfunction 147.
robin williams viagra Viagra Spray "explore advances in male impotence treatments"
viagra perscription online Natural Remedy Erectile Dysfunction male hormone dhea impotence levels
will ferrell erectile dysfunction Viagra Perscription Online ed treatment with ginko
erectile dysfunction pills evaluated; On Viagra "non prescription viagra"
cialis viagra How To Buy Viagramale impotence age
Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction cigarette smoking causing male impotence 395. Impotence Viagra The latest treatment for ed topical ed treatment 237.
most effective ed treatment! Viagra 50 Mg actos erectile dysfunction
l dopa for male impotence! Buy Cheap Viagra erectile dysfunction and pravastatin;
male impotence pumps vacu Holistic Ed Treatment cost of viagra
female forcing male sexual impotence; Male Impotence Brochure actos erectile dysfunction
accounting treatment for sr ed Water Ed Treatment Male impotence due to surgery male impotence enema 629.
lamictal erectile dysfunction! Accounting Treatment Sr Ed Ias "buy viagra online"
problems with viagra, Viagra Cheap erectile dysfunction link suggest
"non prescription viagra" Viagra Uk viagra times;
viagra soft tabs? Ed Treatments erectile dysfunction ed treatment
u 3312 viagra cialis Male Impotence Advice yohimbie bark and male impotence
facts male impotence psychological effects
lexapro erectile dysfunction,
erectile dysfunction paypal, Zetia And Erectile Dysfunction straighttalk net erectile dysfunction review
male impotence and solutions? Make Your Own Viagra newest transdermal treatment for ed
tricor erectile dysfunction Hebal Ed Treatmenterectile dysfunction exercise
Viagra and alternatives viagra and blood pressure 767. How To Make Viagra how to take viagra
cialis medication erectile dysfunction Erectile Dysfunction Pills accupril and erectile dysfunction
Subscribe to RSS
