The Crisis in Israel - Background Briefing.

If you rely on the TV news and the press for your information about Israel what you will understand from the current situation (November 2000) is something like this: The present crisis was caused by the visit of Likud leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount which was seen as a violation of Islamic sensibilities. Israel's heavy handed response to Palestinian unrest is responsible for all the deaths and injuries that have resulted, with defenceless children also being victims.

The reality is a bit different.

The background to the present crisis is the failed peace talks at Camp David in July. At these talks Barak offered Arafat far more than anyone, including Clinton, expected. There was agreement on most of the territorial issues and even on the contentious issue of refugees. The sticking point was Jerusalem. Even on Jerusalem Barak offered Arafat much of the Old City of Jerusalem and control of the Arab neighbourhoods both in the city and surrounding it. Then the day before the rioting Barak offered them a two capital solution with eastern Jerusalem being called Al Quds and the Palestinians having sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

Arafat rejected Barak's offer at Camp David to the dismay of Clinton, refusing to compromise over the Palestinian demand for sovereignty over the whole of the Old City of Jerusalem. As this includes the Jewish Quarter and Jewish holy places, there is no way Israel could accept this demand. At the meeting of the Islamic Conference Organisation in Morocco in August, Arafat declared, 'Our struggle will continue and we won't concede even an inch of the city.'

Arafat's stand lost him the sympathy of the US administration and when he made his tour of world capitals after the Camp David meeting he found even countries strongly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause opposed to his planned declaration of the Palestinian state on September 13th. This left him on the diplomatic defensive with the world community and in a bind with his own people who were disappointed at the lack of progress towards the Palestinian state being established.

Barak also had problems because most Israelis were opposed to the re-division of Jerusalem and the idea of a Palestinian state with any sovereignty over the Old City. With his coalition partners deserting him he needed to make progress on pushing through a settlement before the Knesset reconvenes at the end of October.

Sharon, as leader of the opposition and a hawk in regard to Israel's defence, opposed the idea of Jerusalem being capital of two states. His visit to the Temple Mount was a statement of this opposition. What has not come out in the media is the fact that before Sharon made his visit, Israeli Public Security Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, spoke with his Palestinian opposite number, Jibril Rajoub, about it. Rajoub told him that if Sharon did not enter the mosques there was no reason for concern. Sharon said it never entered his mind to go into the mosques. Israeli Deputy Chief of Staff, Ya'alon rejected the idea that Sharon's visit sparked the riots that followed. 'The Palestinians made cynical use of Sharon's visit. It was a move initiated by the Palestinians. Someone on the Palestinian side was looking for a pretext to launch a wave of violence.'

What is also clear is that this violence was planned by the Palestinian side. In fact it had begun the day before Sharon went to the Mount. On September 27th two explosive devices were electronically detonated by Palestinian terrorists near Netzarim in Gaza, mortally wounding David Biri, an Israeli army medic. Armed Arabs then attacked the Israeli soldiers present with submachine guns. Israeli army officials were concerned that Palestinian Authority officials were behind the attack.

The day after Sharon's visit, stones were pre-positioned ready to be thrown down on the Jewish worshippers 120 feet below at the Western Wall. At the service in the Al Aqsa mosque the message went out to 'eradicate the Jews from Palestine.' With 22,000 Muslims on the Temple Mount the situation was explosive. When they began to rush the Mugrabi Gate in order to attack Jewish worshippers below, Israeli security entered the Mount to disperse the rioters, resulting in more than 100 injuries and four Palestinians killed. During the riot Muslim religious leaders called from the loudspeakers of the mosque for a jihad against Israel.

Official Palestinian television began playing over and over archival footage of the Palestinian Intifada of 1987-1993 showing young people out in the streets throwing stones. Voice of Palestine radio played patriotic war songs. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a general strike causing everyone to go out into the street. His Fatah movement has distributed leaflets calling on the people and the security forces to join in the 'Al Quds Intifada', to end negotiations and security cooperation with Israelis and for Arab solidarity in a popular war for 'the liberation of the homeland from its chains.' While some in the Palestinian leadership are trying to distance themselves from the leaflet, saying it is the response of local leadership not the Palestinian Authority itself, it is hard to believe it does not have their blessing. Guarded reference has been made in the Israeli media to interception of signit (signal intelligence) in which Arafat has been urging on riot leaders to attack Israeli forces.

This would seem to confirm the view that all along the Palestinians have been treating the Oslo process as a 'foot in the door' by which they gain access to the territory Israel vacates and then use it as a springboard to attack Israel, aiming at the original goal of the PLO, the elimination of Israel and the establishment of a Muslim Arab state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. There are abundant quotations from Palestinian leaders, including Arafat, revealing that this is their true intention. With this in mind the conflict is not a one sided affair of the Israeli Goliath with tanks and helicopter gunships against the Palestinian David armed only with stones. Israel faces an enemy whose ultimate goal is their destruction and who is looking for the surrounding Arab countries to join in and eliminate the Jewish state, which is seen as an offence to Islam. They know that any sign of weakness will be interpreted as surrender and will lead only to more demands and violence, aiming ultimately at driving the Jews out of Tel Aviv and Haifa, not just out of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

The western media completely ignores this aspect of the conflict and appears determined to do what they can to help bring about the demise of Israel. Israeli officials questioned by BBC reporters are often subjected to extreme hostility in which they are blamed for all the violence taking place. Film and photographs of children suffering, particularly the shooting of 12 year old Mohammed Aldura in Gaza, is shown over and over in the media to provoke world wide outrage against the Israelis. Very rarely is there any comment on the fact that the Palestinians are actively encouraging young people to take part in riots where they can be used for propaganda purposes. The bias in the media suggests that our leaders no longer want to give us facts, but propaganda, in this case in order to criminalise, isolate and ultimately eliminate Israel.

The crisis continues with frantic efforts of the world community to prevent it spiralling out of control into a war involving not just Israel and the Palestinians but also the surrounding countries. From Arafat's point of view it has enabled him to get back the world's sympathy, which he lost when he turned down Barak's peace offer at Camp David. It is likely that he will use this now to make more extreme demands on Israel and that the world community will put greater pressure on Israel to submit to these demands. Those who support the peace process in Israel hope that Arafat will make a signed statement that 'the conflict with Israel is over', which is Barak's stated goal. On the other side are those in Israel who believe that even if Arafat makes such a statement it will be worthless, for religious as well as political reasons. According to Islam, Israel is a foreign presence in the midst of sacred Islamic territory. As such it is forbidden to make a real peace with such an entity. It is possible for the Muslims to make a temporary truce, but only until their forces are stronger than their enemy's. Then they will be free to rip up the treaty and make war with Israel with the intention of finally destroying her.

In the light of all this Christians who see the prophetic significance of the restoration of Israel should pray much for this land and her people and ask God to intervene in the midst of the troubles which the Bible says are coming at the end of this age (see Jeremiah 30, Ezekiel 38-39, Daniel 11-12, Zechariah 12-14, Matthew 24). We should also speak out on Israel's behalf when we see distortion in the media. You are welcome to use any of the information in this paper.

Home - Library- Shop - Links - Search