blog.Tribulationperiod.com

What Will be the Fate of Moderate Middle East Arab States in WAR

?

Many Islam States will be Overthrown from Within and Without,

When the 10 Islamic HORNS of Antichrist drive Israel South!

Overthrown kings will try to escape to the United States,

Or Swear

their Loyalty to the Antichrist as Their KING.

The Middle East is Preparing for This Scene TODAY!

The glorious land of Israel will soon be Entered!

December 22, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Daniel 11:41a – He shall enter also into the glorious land, and MANY COUNTRIES SHALL BE OVERTHROWN:

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

‘Egypt should fear Iran more than we do’

December 22, 2009

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

At the end of an hour-long meeting Sunday evening with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that “Egypt has more to fear from Iran than we do.”

The foreign minister went on to stress that “The greatest danger in the Middle East today is Iran, which is a greater threat to moderate Arab nations than to Israel.”

Teheran, according to Lieberman, is “attempting to duplicate the model of Hizbullah in Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen.”

Earlier on Sunday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak welcomed Suleiman to Jerusalem, saying that Egypt is a “central player” in the Middle East.

“We’re always happy to see him,” Barak added. “I hope we have fruitful talks here.”

Ahead of a half-hour meeting at the capitol’s Crowne Plaza Hotel, the defense minister also expressed hope that Suleiman’s visit would help to restart peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The two ministers discussed four different regional issues, according to a statement from the Defense Ministry. Barak stressed the need to prevent Hamas from bolstering its arsenal, including rockets.

Also attending the meeting was Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, Acting Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Amos Gilad, OC IDF Planning Division Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, and aides to Barak

and Suleiman.

Suleiman also met with with Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer Sunday, who told the Egyptian official that Israel had made serious concessions in order to advance the peace process with the Palestinians.

Ben-Eliezer told Suleiman that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas should return to the negotiating table, stressing that “Egypt has a central role” in the Middle East peace process.

The Egyptian official’s visit to Israel was reportedly prompted by a boost in joint efforts by Jerusalem and Cairo to prevent arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip via tunnels. Reports surfaced last week that Egypt had begun to build a sturdy, impenetrable metal wall under the ground near its border with Gaza in order to block the tunnels.

Officials in Cairo on Saturday denied that Suleiman’s visit was related to negotiations to free captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, held by Hamas in Gaza. Suleiman, as the most prominent figure in Egyptian intelligence, h

as reportedly been heavily involved in the talks.

Suleiman met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and with President Shimon Peres later Sunday evening.

Begin Excerpts from MEMRI

Middle East Media Review Institute (MEMRI)

Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 570

Iranian Lobby in the Egyptian Press

By: L. Azuri *

In the past months, articles have appeared in the Egyptian press

contending that Iran has infiltrated the Egyptian media, and that in an attempt to influence public opinion in the country, it has enlisted certain Egyptian papers and journalists to promote the interests of Iran and its allies at the expense of those of Egypt. It was claimed that this is being done by providing biased coverage of events related to Iran and Iranian-Egyptian relations, and by publishing pro-Iranian articles that present Egypt and its policy in a negative light – as was the case, for example, when an active Hizbullah cell was exposed in Egypt or during Iran’s recent presidential elections.

The blame is usually placed on Egyptian non-government papers, primarily the daily Al-Dustour – thus, its columnist Faraj Isma’il asserts that the daily, which is famous for its scathing censure of the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, prohibits any criticism of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Rumors have even been circulated that Al-Dustour editor Ibrahim ‘Issa is a Shi’ite, since his articles and the television program which he hosts are clearly pro-Iranian. Yet ‘Issa is critical of the Egyptian regime, and was sentenced to prison for publishing a report on Mubarak’s health.[1]

Opinion articles in the Egyptian press have repeatedly warned that the Iranian lobby has managed to infiltrate the Egyptian parliament and gain influence over the Egyptian government, which endangers Egyptian society. Recently, some also suggested that the Iranian lobby had possibly instigated

the attacks on Egyptian nationals in Algeria and Sudan following the November 18, 2009 soccer match.

Following are excerpts from relevant articles in the Egyptian press:

Egyptian Columnist: Criticizing Mubarak Is Permitted, Criticizing Khamenei Is Not

In an article posted on the Al-Arabiya website, columnist for the Egyptian oppositionist paper Al-Dustour Faraj Isma’il contended that the paper’s editorial board did not let him publish an article criticizing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and that this is an indication that Iranian Shi’ites have managed to infiltrate the Egyptian press: “After working for Al-Dustour, an independent Egyptian paper that… [spearheaded] the struggle against inherited [power],[2] I realized that its headlines – [such as] ‘Enough!’ and ‘Mubarak Must Not Continue as President’ – are nothing but an attempt to convince the public that [Al-Dustour engages in] daring journalism, that it defies [the dangers of] arrest and imprisonment by publishing whatever it wants against the president and his family, and [is even] coldblooded enough to publish rumors about the president’s health, [presenting them] as an official medical report in violation of the most basic professional standards…

“[However,] this courage [manifests itself] only in criticizing the [Egyptian] president, while it is strictly forbidden to write anything at all against Iran. In fact, the editor of one of the papers belonging to the Iranian axis in Egypt regards this as a line that must not be crossed. And whenever [Hizbullah Secretary General Hassan] Nasrallah gives a speech, some editors call his office directly and ask for instructions…

“The Iranian axis has taken over some of the independent press in Cairo, and with its help, has managed to harm Egypt’s image – which it hitherto failed to do [through other means]… – by taking advantage of the freedom granted to some Egyptian journalists to write whatever they want against their president, which they sometimes do in an insulting and obnoxious [manner], unparalleled [even] in the Western and U.S. press…

“It is distressing that some Egyptian journalists sanctify Iran to such an extent.

[It is distressing] that, in their ignorance, they believe Iran to be heaven on earth, and that they implement on Iran’s behalf the mission of exporting Khomeini’s revolution to the Egyptian people. This is done, [for example, by Al-Dustour editor] Mr. Ibrahim ‘Issa in his extraordinary [television] program called ‘The Road to Karbala,’ which he hosts on one of the channels of the [Egyptian] satellite company Nilesat…

“These papers, including [the non-government papers] Al-‘Arabi, Al-Nasri, Al-Badil and others… are exploiting Obama’s inclination towards dialogue with Iran and require Egypt to follow suit and recognize Iran as a rising power that has hegemony over the Muslims… These newspapers are pouring fire and brimstone on

Egyptian-Saudi relations and accusing Egypt of losing its primacy in the Arab world and subordinating itself to Saudi Arabia…”[3]

Al-Dustour’s Editor: I Will Not Criticize the Shi’ites

The Iranian news agency IRNA responded to Ismail’s article by criticizing the author and defending Al-Dustour and its editor Ibrahim ‘Issa.[4] This created the impression that ‘Issa was acting on Iran’s behalf, and gave rise to the rumor that he is a Shi’ite. In an article he published in Al-Dustour, ‘Issa denied these allegations: “Even if all the Muslims in the world were to become Shi’ites, I would remain a Sunni of the school of Abu Hanifa Al-Nu’man. However, I do have great and sincere love and respect for our Shi’ite brothers. I will neither deny their rights, nor criticize or attack them, since there are entitled to respect. [A human being] – of any religion or school of thought, even an atheist [who does not belong to] any religion or school of thought – is a free man. God alone knows what is in his heart, and will judge him on the Day of Judgment… The love of Aal Al-Beit [i.e. the Prophet’s family] is neither the prerogative of the Shi’ites nor an allegation that we must deny; rather, it is a privilege…”[5]

Egyptian Columnist: The Iranian Lobby Is Ignoring the Elections in Iran

Gamal Sultan, a columnist for the independent Egyptian daily Al-Misriyoun and a leading proponent of the claim that Iran has infiltrated the Egyptian press, responded to ‘Issa’s article as follows: “Ibrahim ‘Issa fervently defended the agents of the American occupation in Iraq and the actions of [former Iraq] governor on behalf of the occupation [Paul] Bremer. He wrote a famous article titled ‘The Iraqi Constitution Preserves the Muslim Identity of Sunnis and Shi’ites Alike,” and another in defense of [prominent Shi’ite leader in Iraq ‘Ali] Sistani and the Iranian gang in Iraq, which are allied with the U.S. army, titled ‘The Media Are Trying to Deceive the Public regarding the Link between Shi’ites and Americans.’ At the same time, [‘Issa] has also been publishing articles attacking, deriding, and ridiculing the Sunnis in Iraq, such as his article titled ‘[The Claim that] the Sunnis Preserve Iraq’s Arab [Essence] Is a Lie Rooted in Saddam’s Heritage’…

“My brother [Ibrahim ‘Issa, you can] venerate them [i.e. the Shi’ites] as much as you please, and [even] join them – but why are you afraid to criticize them?… Are they angels, prophets or saints? How can a free writer and critic who respects himself, his vocation, his readers, the rights, and the truth say that he would never criticize Shi’ites or their ideas… and then [expect us to believe] that he is not a Shi’ite?…”[6]

In another article in response to ‘Issa, Sultan wrote: “The Iranian lobby in Egypt is trying [to convince] the Egyptians of its false claim that Twelver Shi’a is no different from the Sunna, and that it is all a misunderstanding on the part of the Sunnis, while disregarding the theological contradictions that have existed between these [two] schools of thought for over 1,000 years… [The Iranian lobby in Cairo] defends Iran, its religious and sectarian policy, and its expansion plan… under the pretext of a rapprochement between Sunnis and Shi’ites…”[7]

According to Sultan, the Iranian lobby also influenced the Egyptian media’s coverage of the demonstrations in Iran in the wake of the June 2009 presidential elections there. On June 20, 2009, he wrote: “While the whole world is talking about the riots in Iran, and while Arab and foreign satellite channels show live images of the demonstrations, the violence, and the fraud allegations, the [hired] pens of the Iranian lobby in Cairo are keeping silent… It is as if the map of Iran had been temporarily erased from the radar of their conscience…

“Frankly, I forgive them, since it is hard for them to comment on [the fact that] Ahmadinejad schemed to rig the vote and [then] threatened his opponents with slaughter should they continue [their attempts] to oust him or to hold a second round of elections. Indeed, until a few weeks ago, [the columnists of the pro-Iranian lobby] tried to market this man as a recluse and a Spartan who wears a jacket that cost four dollars – as part of their brainwashing [campaign for] Iran’s revolutionary leaders in the Egyptian press. What can we expect them to say now about this Spartan who is fighting tooth and nail to remain in power?…”[8]

Egyptian Commentator: Beware of Iranian Newspapers in Egyptian Guise

Egyptian commentator Al-Sayyid Al-Naggar warned that Iran is planning to launch an Iranian newspaper in Egyptian guise to defend its positions and boost its image in the eyes of the Egyptians: “Beware! Iran is planning to publish a newspaper in Egypt that will serve as its mouthpiece, promote its policy, defend its positions, and boost its image, which is in bad shape in Egypt and the [rest of the] Arab world. Naturally, this paper will not bear a [Persian name like] Ayatollah, Fars, or any other that might expose its affiliation and indicate who finances it and who is behind it.

“This Iranian paper will [appear to] champion purely Egyptian causes, [such as] upholding freedoms, [defending] the abused Egyptians, and promoting Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic causes vis-à-vis the Zionist enemy. [However,] once the reader has swallowed the bait, the poison will take effect…

“Iran conceived this diabolical idea when [it] managed to buy over several Egyptian and Arab columnists and have them carry out pro-Iranian propaganda… This new media cell, or [rather] this fifth column in the media, is more dangerous than the Hizbullah terrorist cell [that was recently uncovered in Egypt]…”[9]

Egyptian Intellectual: The Iranian Lobby Has Infiltrated Government Circles

Egyptian intellectual Dr. Mamoun Fandy repeatedly warned about the existence in Egypt of an Iranian lobby, and even contended that it has influence over the Egyptian government. In response to the speech by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, in which he admitted that a Hizbullah cell was operating in Egypt,[10] Fandy wrote: “Why hasn’t any senior Egyptian official come up with a clear response to Nasrallah’s speech? What is the meaning of this shameful [behavior]?… The answer lies in the power [wielded by] the Iranian lobby in Cairo, since it has precluded the government… from criticizing Hizbullah or its leader, on the grounds that any harm caused to this organization or its leader would play into the hands of Israel… Egypt’s Iranian lobby has managed to infiltrate society, and this has caused even the government to be wary of criticizing Hassan Nasrallah’s policy. It is not the Hizbullah leader’s plans that are disgraceful, but the lack of an appropriate official reaction on the part of Egypt…

“Egypt’s Iranian lobby has become so close to the government and parliament that the government and its apparatuses can no longer see it… When someone moves [too] close and stands right next to you, it is hard to see him – and this is what has transpired in Egypt. Years ago, the Egyptian press rallied the public in support of Nasrallah and Iran, and as a consequence, today, many Egyptian newspapers employ columnists who are in the service of [Iran’s Islamic] Revolutionary Guards Corps; [in fact], some of these newspapers are financed entirely by the Revolutionary Guards… If Egypt does not combat this dangerous infiltration of society by Iran, there will be a high price to pay…

“How can Egypt withstand the humiliating [blow] dealt to it by Nasrallah, when Al-Manar and newspapers affiliated with and financed by Tehran enjoy unlimited freedom? How can Egypt fight Tehran, when Iran has powerful supporters in the People’s Council and Shura Council, [the two houses of the] Egyptian [parliament]?… If Egypt does not dismantle all the Iranian networks [operating] in its [territory], including the Iranian lobby in the Egyptian media and in the People’s Council, we will have to say good bye to Egyptian security for ever…”[11]

In another article, Fandy further elaborated on the issue of Iran’s infiltration of the Egyptian parliament: “Some of our friends in the People’s Council have been bought over by Iran, Qatar, and Libya. If such a thing happened in any other country, its people would demand that they be brought to public trial… I believe that the reputation of Egyptian journalism, the long history of the Egyptian press, and the history of the Egyptian parliament should be placed above narrow interests. It is strange that, in our press, there are some who dare to revile the Egyptian president, but will say not a word against Hassan Nasrallah…”[12]

*L. Azuri is a Research Fellow at MEMRI

Endnotes:

[1]This is a reference to an August 30, 2007, article by Al-Dustour’s editor Ibrahim ‘Issa, in which he claimed that Mubarak was ill and that the Egyptian regime was hiding this fact from the public. As a consequence, ‘Issa was sentenced to a term in prison, but Mubarak pardoned him. See MEMRI Special Dispatch Series No. 1733, “Egyptian Opposition Paper Editor Stands Trial for Article on Mubarak’s Failing Health,”

[2] A reference to the fight against Mubarak’s bequeathing the presidency to his son Gamal.

[3] www.alarabiya.net, February 15, 2009.

[4] IRNA (Iran), February 17, 2009.

[5] Al-Dustour (Egypt), April 1, 2009.

[6] Al-Misriyoun (Egypt), April 15, 2009.

[7] Al-Misriyoun (Egypt), April 19, 2009.

[8] Al-Misriyoun (Egypt), June 20, 2009.

[9] Al-Akhbar (Egypt), May 7, 2009.

[10] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No.

512, “Egypt: The Hizbullah Cell in Egypt – A Joint Conspiracy by Iran, Syria, Qatar, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,” April 27, 2009,

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=egypt&ID=IA51209.

[11] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 13, 2009.

[12] Al-Gomhouriyya (Egypt), April 30, 2009.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

BIRTH STAR LIGHT OF THE CHRIST CHILD IN THE MANGER

Was the Star of Bethlehem a Star as we understand Stars Today?

December 21, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Old Blog from December 24, 2006

Now – No Wise Men Left in Persia – No Birth Star to See in its Western Sky!

Matthew 2:10 – When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Soon – The Glory of the Sun of Righteousness will be visible in Persia’s Western Sky coming to end a terrible time of Chaos!

Luke 21:25-28 – And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; [26] Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. [27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Malachi 4:1-3 – For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. [2] But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. [3] And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

December 24, 2006

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The Wise Men and the Star in the West!

Was it a Star as We Understand Stars in the Heavens?

Matthew 2:1-3 – Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, [2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. [3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

They were the Magi, the wise men, the descendents of their

Magi forefathers who, some 600 years before the King of the Jews was born, had known Daniel and his teachings in the Kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. They had seen a new light in the east glowing in the western sky, and believed it to be a star, but not just a star, the symbol of the birth of a King, which the ancients thought announced a new Kings birth, and not just any King, but a King of Israel. Was what they saw really a new star in the high heavens that was millions of light years away? I would say they saw it low on the western horizon to have headed so specifically toward Israel, and any new light, seen twinkling so far away on the horizon, would have been called a star. But was it a star they saw? And how did they know it was the King of Israel that was born? There were other countries to the west of their position that had kings when the Magi first saw the star.

We know the prophet Daniel was in Babylonian captivity from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to King Cyrus of Persia, and that he was personally acquainted with the astrologers and the magicians, who made up the magi, the wise men of the Babylon kingdom, and later the kingdom of Persia.

Daniel 1:19-21 – And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king. [20] And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. [21] And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

And we also know that Daniel was placed over the Magi in the kingdom after he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about a great statue.

Daniel 2:48 – Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

We also know that Daniel had the first five books of the Old Testament because he quoted from them. We know he had Jeremiah’s writings because he quoted from him, and it is very likely he had the

writings of the prophet Isaiah, who wrote some 100 years before his writings. And I seriously doubt that Daniel would not share with the descendants of Abraham these writings if they were willing to listen to them. I am confident that some of them did, and that they passed Daniel’s teachings on down through their descendants, who would also likely have been Magi through birth inheritance from their forefathers.

So I am confident the Magi were familiar with Numbers 24:17.

Numbers 24:17 – I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there sh all come

a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

Christ was the Star of David out of Jacob

They knew the Star from the loins of Jacob, who God gave the new name of Israel, had to be a King because the Sceptre was carried by a king as the symbol of his authority. And they knew this would be a very special King, probably from the writings of Isaiah, and what Daniel taught them concerning his coming and kingdom.

Isaiah 7:14 – Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6,7 – For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. [7] Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Daniel 7:13,14 – I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. [14] And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Once the wise men saw the star they had to prepare for their journey, which would be long and dangerous. To go from Babylon to Israel was not done by going west in a straight line, which is, of course, the shortest distance between two points.

One did not even think of passing across the barren wasteland directly between Babylon and Israel. They would have trekked northwest on the eastern side of the Euphrates for safety reasons and to have a constant water supply, and probably attached their army to a larger caravan to provide

safety from the many robber bands that plundered small parties of travelers. They would have followed the fertile crescent, going northwest up the Euphrates, then west through the Palmyra valleys, then south down the Jordan. Gathering up their people and possessions to accompany them, finding a caravan that was leaving for Israel, and the general preparations might have taken more than a month.

And the journey itself, if unforeseen acts of fate occurred along the way, which they usually did, might have caused their arrival before Herod more than a year after they first saw the star. Once they saw the star they knew to head for Israel, and they did. They did not need to see the star every night.

They simply told Herod “we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” It is probable they did not see the star after their first sighting, such that when they finally did reach Israel, where they knew the Israeli King would be born, they naturally went to the present King of Israel, who they thought would surely know where the new king was born. Although the Scriptures do not state it, it was only natural for them to assume Herod was his father, and that may have been the reason they came naturally to him.

We all know full well what happened after this, when the priests and scribes quoted Micah as to where Messiah was supposed to be born.

Micah 5:2 – But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

And we know that when the wise men departed from Herod, the star suddenly reappeared, probably for the first time since they had seen it more than a year before.

Matthew 2:9,10 – When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. [10] When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

If this star was high in the heavens they could not have known which house in the village it stood over. The star would have to have been low enough for them to be able to tell which house it stood over. It was a moving star, and “went before them.”

Now, please allow me to speculate, and I admit it may not be correct, but it is something to think about. Angels are, at times, in the Scriptures, referred to as stars, as in Revelation 12:4, where one-third of the angels rebelled against God with Satan, and the heavenly one who comes to earth in Revelation 9:1 is labeled as a star.

Revelation 12:4 – And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Revelation 9:1 – And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Jesus refers to himself as the one who has sent the angel of the Lord to testify unto the churches, and then names himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16, and calls himself the morning star in Revelation 2:28,29.

Revelation 22:16 – I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Revelation 2:28,29 – And I will give him the morning star. [29] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

When the ancients saw a new light appear in the heavens they referred to it as a star. Although I cannot say with certainty if what I am about to suggest is true, it is a very interesting possibility that does not violate the linguistics of the Bible. The Hebrew word for star is “kowkab,” which, according to Strong’s Dictionary of Words found in the Old Testament, means “a heap of blazing,” hence “a star (as round or as shinning).” The ancients would have identified a heap of blazing in the sky on a distant horizon as a star. They saw it on the night of the Kings birth, so what do I think they saw – They saw the light of the glory of his birth manifested in the heavens on the distant western horizon as a round ball of light, which they would have called a star – They saw the Glory of God manifested in the heavens around the multitude of angels proclaiming his Son’s birth.

Luke 2:7-14 – And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. [8] And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. [9] And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. [10] And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. [11] For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. [12] And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. [13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, [14] Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

The wise men would have studied the stars looking for the sign of the coming King of which Daniel had informed their forefathers, and they recognized the light from the many angels that announced his arrival as a distant star on the western horizon.

I speculate it disappeared soon after they saw it, but they knew it was time to head west to worship the new Jewish King from what Daniel had taught them. And I further speculate it did not reappear until an angel of light, appearing as a round, blazing ball of light, which looked like a small star, began to lead them to the exact place where the young child (who was then likely between one and two years of age) dwelled with Joseph and Mary.

Just as the blazing light of the Lord from the cloud of his glory guided Israel as they traveled by night across the Sinai, so did this blazing light, which appeared as a star, guide them directly to God’s Son. The star may have been the angel of the Lord, or one of the archangels. I confess that what I have just written is speculation on my part, and may not be correct, but I like it, and as long as the Lord does not bother me about writing it, I feel no obligation to keep it to myself.

Matthew 2:9-11 – When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. [10] When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. [11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

II Corinthians 9:15 – Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.

The subduing of the first of three Horns is almost Completed!

Syria and Lebanon Stand United as Daniel’s King of the North!

When the king of the South IDF are induced to attack Lebanon,

Arabs will unite in a vicious Islamic Counterattack against Israel!

Jews will be “left therein” Israel’s borders in a Negev Wilderness,

Until Their Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, Comes to Deliver Them!

December 20, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

I have for more than 35 years believed that the ten horns of Revelation and Daniel were Islamic horns.

For many years I have believed they were Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.

I see no reason to believe otherwise at this time.

In fact, I am more certain of it now that at any other time.

Daniel 7:24 – And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall SUBDUE three kings.

Daniel 11:40,41 – And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. [41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be LEFT THEREIN.

Revelation 12:6 – And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Daniel 7:25 – And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Zechariah 13:9 – And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Zechariah 14:8,9 – And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. [9] And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Begin Excerpt from THE JERUSALEM POST

Hariri: Lebanon and Syria share united stance against Israel

December 19, 2009

AP and JPost.com staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

The close relationship between Syria and Lebanon strengthens both countries and reinforces the united Arab stance against Israel, which continues to violate Arab rights, Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri said Saturday during a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

In the meeting, which lasted three hours, the two leaders reportedly discussed advancing strategic ties between the nations in a way that would benefit both their peoples.

Lebanon’s prime minister, who has blamed neighboring Syria for the assassination of his father, visited Damascus Saturday for the first time since the 2005 killing – a trip that a close associate said was extremely difficult for him to make.

The 39-year-old Hariri appealed for relations with Syria based on “clarity and honesty.” He was greeted warmly by Assad upon his arrival at the presidential palace at the start of his two-day visit, and Lebanese media said he would attend a dinner banquet hosted by Assad.

Assad adviser Buthaina Shaaban told reporters their talks were “frank” and “succeeded in overcoming difficulties that marred relations in the past five years.”

“The guarantee to that is the will of both President Assad and Hariri to build a positive and constructive relationship,” she said.

Syria directly dominated Lebanon for nearly 30 years and kept tens of thousands of troops on its soil.

After the killing of Hariri’s father, Rafik, Syria came under intense pressure from its opponents in Lebanon, who staged massive protests, and from the West, forcing it to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

Syria repeatedly denied involvement in the assassination and a series of other political slayings and bombings that followed, but Hariri and his supporters continued to implicate Syria in the killing. Anti-Syrian parties were swept to power in 2005 elections in Lebanon.

The visit by Hariri was “very difficult on the personal level” and involves “great sacrifice,” said Hariri loyalist and former lawmaker Mustafa Alloush.

“But as prime minister of Lebanon, it is quite normal to have such a visit… It is necessary and there is a need to settle all aspects of the relationship,” Alloush told The Associated Press.

He said the visit did not mean Lebanon had dropped its belief that Syria was responsible for the killing of Rafik Hariri, who also served as prime minister.

“But this matter is up to the international tribunal now; it is no longer a personal issue,” Alloush said.

A UN-backed tribunal has been set up to prosecute the assassins, but no suspects have been charged.

Syria has sought recently to improve its relations with the West, largely through its actions in Lebanon. Assad backed a peace deal between rival political factions in Lebanon that ended sectarian violence in May 2008.

Last year, Syria established formal diplomatic relations with Lebanon and set up an embassy in Lebanon for the first time since the countries’ independence from France in the 1940s.

Syria still maintains influence in Lebanon through its backing of the terrorist group Hizbullah.

Hariri and his pro-Western political allies are in an uneasy power-sharing government with a Hizbullah-led grouping.

Excerpt from Al Jazeera and agencies via World News

Hariri urges ‘real’ ties with Syria

December 20, 2009

Saad al-Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister, has called for a renewal of ties with Syria following a landmark visit to the country.

Speaking at a news conference in Damascus at the end of his two day visit on Sunday, al-Hariri said “we want privileged, sincere and honest relations … it is in the interest of both countries and both peoples”.

Regional commentators, including Hassan Nasrallah, Lebanon’s Hezbollah chief, have welcomed the visit as a significant ice-breaking development.

Relations had been tense between Syria and Lebanon following the 2005 assassination of al-Hariri’s father and former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon that followed.

In the past, al-Hariri has implicated Damascus in his father’s killing in a Beirut bombing in February 2005. He has never had any official contact with al-Assad’s government.

Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to al-Assad, said talks between the two leaders on Saturday were “frank” and “succeeded in overcoming difficulties that marred relations in the past five years”.

“The guarantee to that is the will of both President Assad and Hariri to build a positive and constructive relationship,” she said.

‘Personal beliefs aside’

Al Jazeera’s Rula Amin, reporting from Damascus, said the visit indicates that the political landscape in the region has changed.

“Syria has reasserted itself as a regional indispensible player. And as [al-Hariri] assumed power of Lebanon he said he feels that there is a need to improve relations with Syria and that is why he is here,” she said.

“His personal beliefs on who killed his father are put aside and he is here as a politician.

“For many Lebanese who are shocked by this, they feel that, on

this visit, Saad al-Hariri has been baptised as a politician.

“For many, it’s a disappointment. Other people feel that the stability and security of Lebanon requires and warrants such a visit and by doing so, he is proving to be a good politician.”

The international community has largely pinned the blame for the assassination of al-Hariri’s father on Syria.

Syria pulled its troops and security officials out of Lebanon in April 2005, after thousands of Lebanese held street protests to charge that Damascus had a hand in the killing.

But Damascus has consistently denied involvement in the assassination.

While a UN inquiry has said it has evidence that Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services were linked to the killing, no charges have ever been brought.

Investigation

Earlier this month, a Syrian court asked 25 prominent Lebanese figures, including individuals close to al-Hariri himself, to appear for questioning over the murder.

The Syrian court acted after Jamil Sayyed, the former Lebanese security services director, filed a lawsuit in October regarding his four-year detention without charge over Rafiq al-Hariri’s murder.

The list also included Ashraf Rifi, a former Lebanese police chief and the prosecutor general, Saeed Mirza, as well as several MPs and journalists.

The initiative to improve relations between Lebanon and Syria began in 2008 with an exchange of ambassadors.

Syria opened its first embassy in Lebanon just under a year ago, and Lebanon sent an ambassador to Damascus in March.

It was the two countries’ first diplomatic exchange since gaining independence from France more than 60 years ago.

The Syrian president also welcomed the Lebanese president, Michel Sleiman, to Syria on Friday.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107

of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

For Year s

I have said that Israel cannot count on the U.S.

To protect her from the vicious onslaught by Islamic Forces!

U.S., Russian, and Western fleets will sit in the Mediterranean,

Red Sea, and Persian Gulf glaring at one another for 3 & ½ Years

AFTER the Initial Islamic Jihad Attack War BEGINS in the Middle East.

Israel will accept a ceasefire declaration when it’s driven to Beersheba

That will Last until the final great Battle of Armageddon Finishes the Age!

Caroline Glick’s Analytical Assessments are CLASSICS of Middle East Reality!

December 20, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

In return for her cooperation with France in the 1956 Suez Campaign against Egypt, asked France for a nuclear reactor. The U.S. was opposed to the acquisition, but France, as she usually does, ignored U.S. protests. In 1957 the French, assisted by Israel, began to build an atomic reactor at Dimona in the Negev Wilderness. Israel assured both the U.S. and France she would only use the reactor for the peaceful commercial needs of her people. Of course, all three nations knew full well she would use it to produce an atomic bomb. By 1960 the French finished work on a 24-megawatt reactor at Dimona. In order to develop an atomic bomb, the power must be increased to 120 plus megawatts.

So, immediately after the French left, Israel began the process necessary to increase the reactor’s power. They eventually got it to produce 150 megawatts. By the time the very short June 1967 war began they had two or three nuclear bombs, but they did not use them.

Column One: Reconsidering the Suez Campaign

December 18, 2009

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

It is hard to seize the initiative. The consequences of acting are frightening. It is always better to let others go first. But sometimes that is impossible.

Today it is becoming clear that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has no choice but to lead.

The stakes have never been higher. Every day we are beset by an avalanche of evidence that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear armed state.

From the secret uranium enrichment facility in Qom, to Iran’s solid fuel missile test this week to the disclosure that Iran is developing a trigger device to detonate nuclear bombs, it is clear that Teheran is building a nuclear arsenal and that – at a minimum – it is determined to use it to force the nations of the Middle East to bend to its fanatical will.

Until now, as Israel faced this growing threat, it has tried to avoid leading by seeking to convince the US to act against Iran. Since US President Barack Obama took office 11 months ago, Israel’s desire to convince the US to act against Iran has driven Netanyahu to take drastic steps to appease the White House.

Netanyahu has bowed to American pressure and announced his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, even as the Palestinians themselves made clear that they reject Israel’s right to exist.

He bowed to US pressure and is implementing a draconian freeze on all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria, despite the fact that the Palestinians refuse to even discuss peace with Israel.

Netanyahu has allowed Defense Minister Ehud Barak to unravel national unity still further by picking fights with yeshiva heads who oppose the wholly theoretical possibility that IDF soldiers will be ordered to expel Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria in the framework of a peace treaty with the Palestinians.

As for Iran itself, the government and the IDF are loudly expressing Israel’s support for US-backed sanctions, despite their sure knowledge that those proposed measures will have no significant impact on Teheran’s will or capacity to build nuclear bombs.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu’s appeasement efforts have not brought a US payoff. The Obama administration continues to downplay the urgency of the Iranian nuclear threat and its calls for sanctions are half-hearted and will not prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Moreover, the Obama administration remains stridently opposed to using military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.

This was made clear during a high-level war game at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government earlier this month. At Harvard, former US undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns played Obama and former UN ambassador Dore Gold played Netanyahu. At the end of the game, the US had disavowed its strategic alliance with Israel because Jerusalem refused to give Washington veto power over its right to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. On the other hand, America had failed to get Russia and China to support sanctions and Iran was three months away from the bomb.

The Harvard game came just a few months after the real-world CIA Director Leon Panetta made what was supposed to be a secret visit to Israel and demanded that Israel not attack Iran without US permission.

All of this makes clear that Israel cannot depend on the US to defend it from Iran. Indeed, it makes clear that a breach of relations with the US is unavoidable.

IN LIGHT of this harsh reality, the time has come for Netanyahu to take the lead. While frightening, there may be a silver lining in this cloud.

If Israel moves boldly, others may support it.

This was the message of an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday authored by Olivier Debouzy, a former French diplomat specializing in intelligence and nuclear military affairs, titled, “How to Stop Iran.”

In 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Debouzy to France’s Defense and National Security White Paper Commission. A private attorney, Debouzy is well connected to Sarkozy and his national security team.

Debouzy opened with a recap of what is already known. Iran “is not serious about negotiating in good faith,” and in all likelihood, it has, “for more than a decade now, concealed a significant part of what appears to be a major nuclear military effort.”

He then explained what is at stake for the West. Western failure to stop Iran will convince the Persian Gulf states that they cannot trust Western security guarantees and are best served by developing their own nuclear arsenals. All semblance of a nuclear nonproliferation regime will be cast to the seven winds.

Given the stakes, Debouzy concludes that it is time for the US, France, Britain and Israel to “try to reach an agreement on how to terminate the Iranian nuclear program militarily.” He suggests first taking an example from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and imposing a quarantine on Iranian shipping in the Persian Gulf while compelling Iran’s neighbors to desist from all trade and financial transactions with it.

If this doesn’t work, Debouzy acknowledges, “It might be necessary to go beyond that and actually resort to force to prevent the Iranians from achieving nuclear military capabilities.” To this end, he proposes planning “for a massive air and missile attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

While Debouzy invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, given the Obama administration’s position on Iran, a more apt analogy is the 1956 Suez Cr

isis. Whereas in 1962 the US acted alone against the threatened Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba, in 1956, France, Israel and Britain acted against Egypt without US permission to limit the harm that then-Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser could cause to their separate strategic interests.

Today, the Obama administration’s treatment of US allies and enemies alike bears far more resemblance to the Eisenhower administration’s policies than to those of the Kennedy administration. And in turn, the administration’s behavior presents allied governments with options rem iniscent to those they faced

in 1956.

To the extent that Debouzy’s article represents a significant thought stream in France and perhaps in Britain, it tells us three important things. First, it tells us that a significant constituency in Europe believes the time has come to act militarily against Iran’s nuclear installations. Second it tells us that influential voices in France have lost patience with Obama. Sarkozy himself all but accused Obama of living in Fantasy Land at the UN Security Council meeting four months ago, in light of Obama’s support for global nuclear disarmament and his cavalier attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program.

Finally, by including Israel in a theoretical military alliance against Iran, Debouzy’s article suggests that in spite of its anti-Israel positions on issues related to the Palestinians, France may be willing to assist Israel if Netanyahu decides to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. That is, his article lends the impression that if Israel is willing to act boldly, it may not have to act alone.

THE LAST time that Israel acted militarily with others without US support was during the Suez Crisis. Debouzy’s suggestion of French support for an Israeli strike against Iran should provoke our leaders to reconsider the lessons of that campaign.

At the time, Britain and France joined forces with Israel because their national interests were harmed by Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal.

Nasser’s move imperiled the British-allied Hashemite regimes in Iraq and Jordan. It opened the door for Soviet influence in Egypt and throughout the Middle East. And it endangered the flow of oil to Europe through the Suez Canal.

Nasser’s move harmed Israel by threatening to permanently close the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. Israel also stood to benefit from a joint attack against Egypt because it afforded Israel the opportunity to severely weaken Nasser’s regular forces in the Sinai and his fedayeen terror cells in Gaza.

Despite Nasser’s escalating ties with the Soviet Union, the Eisenhower administration opposed ejecting him from the Suez Canal for a host of reasons. The US wished to please its Saudi ally which, like Egypt, sought to weaken the British-allied Hashemite regimes in Iraq and Jordan. The US wished to quash Britain and France’s residual post-war capacities to act without US support as Washington solidified its position as the unquestioned leader of the Western alliance against the Soviet Union. Washington was politically inconvenienced by the need to support the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt as it condemned the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Finally, the Eisenhower administration opposed a strong Israel.

Although all three countries achieved their military goals, the US’s decision to side with Egypt against them caused them all tremendous political damage. Washington forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai and it threatened Britain with economic devastation until then-prime minister Anthony Eden agreed to remove British forces from the area. France was similarly humiliated into withdrawing.

America’s brutal reaction caused many Israeli analysts to conclude that Israel must never again go to war without US permission. And from David Ben-Gurion on, all Israeli leaders have given the US a de facto veto over nearly all of Israel’s military moves.

While Israel’s fear of angering America is understandable, it is far from clear that its interests were ever served by this policy. The fact is, while Israel was forced to withdraw from Sinai, the benefit it gained from the Suez Campaign still far outweighed the cost. Through the war, Israel secured its maritime rights in the Suez Canal and weakened significantly Egypt’s regular and irregular forces in Sinai and Gaza.

What is clear is that 53 years ago it made no sense to get into an open conflict with Dwight Eisenhower. As the former Allied commander in Europe, Eisenhower’s strategic credentials were unassailable both at home and abroad. Then, too, in 1956 the US was enjoying unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Politically – at home and abroad – Eisenhower was immune to criticism.

Obama is no Eisenhower. The US is suffering its worst economic decline since the Great Depression. After just 11 months in office, Obama’s approval ratings have sunk to 50 percent. His lack of credibility in foreign affairs came though clearly this month when a mere 26% of Americans said they believe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time, Israel has never faced a threat as grave as that of a nuclear-armed Iran. There can be little doubt that if Ben-Gurion and Eisenhower were in charge today, Ben-Gurion wouldn’t hesitate to again defy Eisenhower and attack Iran – with or without France and Britain. Certainly, Netanyahu cannot justify placing Israel’s fate in Obama’s hands.

Fortunately, as Netanyahu’s moment of decision rapidly approaches, we see that if he seizes the reins, he is likely to be surprised to find many other leaders offering him a helping hand.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

When is a Door not a Door?

Answer – When it’ s a Jar.

When is a Dict

ator not a complete Dictato

r?

When he has to please his Base.

When can one know a Dictator is a cooked Goose

?

The year he loses his power base Sub-Dictators.

December 19, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

I have been asked by many if Bashar Assad is the Antichrist.

My answer is NO! I have long believed he would not be in power when the vicious counterattack against the king of the south is launched by the king of the north. I do expect Bashar Assad to be replaced by a stronger man before 2015.

Daniel 11:40,41 – And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries,

and shall overflow and pass over. [41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Begin excerpt from UK Guardian via World News

When is a dictator not a dictator?

By Brian Whitaker

Bashar al-Assad leads an authoritarian regime, but the workings of power in a country such as Syria are surprisingly complex

Decision-making in authoritarian regimes can be a lot more complicated than it looks. The idea that dictators simply dictate is often wide of the mark: they may not care much about public opinion but they do have to juggle with conflicting demands inside their own power base, and sometimes they can’t even be sure their instructions will

be implemented.

Syria is one country where the inner workings of the regime can seem baffling.

A diplomat in Damascus once told me that although Bashar al-Assad’s position as president seems secure, nobody knows how much power he really has.

A report published by the International Crisis Group (ICG) earlier this week – mainly about Syrian foreign policy – sheds some light on this intriguing puzzle. In Syria, it says:

Many decisions witness a contest between various lines of thought that coexist within the regime, each reflecting a slightly different worldview, diverging private interests or personal rivalries. Some decisions ultimately reflect a balance between diverse institutional power centres; others, a more decisive victory by a particular one … Further confusion arises from the fact that officials occasionally take initiatives or make pronouncements that are inconsistent with the authorized line – in an attempt to influence it; as a means of drawing attention to themselves; in order to express frustration; or, quite simply, out of ignorance.

In theory at least, the president’s decision is final but much of the time he sits back, waiting to see which way the wind will blow. One Syrian official told the ICG:

Overall objectives are set by the president with input from those around him. Then, it’s up to others to suggest how to achieve them. For instance, if the minister of foreign affairs makes an interesting proposal, the president will give him some leeway – but only up to a point, because he still has to contend with other tendencies.

Moreover, the leadership tends to maintain multiple, parallel channels on any given issue. But, in the end, the president always remains in a position to arbitrate and distribute roles. The balancing and real decision-making takes place at the top. No one else is even fully in the picture.

Even the most loyal official, familiar with the workings of the system, can find this confusing. But then there are others who think they know what the policy is – and try to subvert it. In an opaque, compartmentalized and heavily bureaucratized system such as Syria’s it’ s by no mean

s certain that decisions, once made, will stick. “Follow-through often is lacking, as the process creates considerable room for either active or passive obstructionism,” the ICG says. “Policies frequently are adjusted or rectified, even after apparently final decisions are made.”

One recent example was Syria’s association agreement with the EU, which both parties spent years negotiating. Then, just as it was about to be signed, Syria unexpectedly put it on hold – possibly because of objections from local business interests.

This chopping and changing happens at a national level too. A Damascus lawyer told the ICG: “There are several centres of power. Much-needed legislation can be enacted and then, within a few months, is amended and amended again. The reason is that the legislation interferes with the interests of people influential enough to step in and have their way”.

Clearly, Syria is not a one-man dictatorship and a senior official quoted in the report sees this as a positive development, a “sign of a dynamic debate”. Dynamic it may be, but it’s still a closed debate, conducted mainly in private, by those in the loop. The rest of the country is excluded.

On the domestic front, this opacity is likely to slow down the pace of reforms or limit their extent.

In order to succeed, such reforms will need buy-in from the public as well as the regime’s insiders and the only way to achieve that is through open debate that helps ordinary Syrians to understand the rationale behind them.

Internationally, the opacity makes Syria one of the most difficult countries for negotiators to deal with. Martin Indyk, an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, told a congressional committee last year:

Just about every leader that has attempted to deal with President Bashar al-Assad has come away frustrated.

The list includes Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, Hosni Mubarak and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.

The cause of their frustration is the disconnect between Assad’s reasonableness in personal meetings and his regime’s inability or unwillingness to follow through on understandings reached there. It is unclear whether this is because of a lack of will or a lack of ability to control the levers of power.

This was echoed by a foreign official who has worked closely with the regime and is quoted in the ICG report as saying: In dealing with Syria we always need to ask ourselves, ‘Are they reluctant to do this or simply can’t they do it?’ … We should not take any promise as a given, if only because many are beyond their capacity. This is a systemic problem. Syria is an authoritarian system of a particular kind, in which the ruler isn’t necessarily obeyed. Besides, the system is largely inefficient. People step on each other’s toes; institutions lack capacity; and things are disorganized.

And even when the president speaks, it’s difficult to know whether he’s telling people what he really thinks or what he thinks they want to hear.

A Turkish official interviewed by the ICG said: “Bashar has two lines of speech, one for the region and one for the west. He doesn’t say the same thing on BBC and al-Jazeera. It’s double-talk. Here [in the Middle East] it is acceptable. His interlocutors must understand this is not unusual in the region. Americans might think it devious. He sees it as being polite”.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.