SPAIN AND THE PEACE PROCESS

SPAIN #11 IN THE EU

DANIEL 7:23-24
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast(THE EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TR BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:(10 NATIONS) and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.(BE HEAD OF 3 KINGS OR NATIONS).

Spain and the Peace ProcessMohamed Ashab Al-Hayat - 29/10/06/

As it did when it hosted the Madrid Conference for peace in the Middle East after the second Gulf war, Madrid is seeking to extract a new peace initiative from the Alicante meeting, which brings together European and Arab countries, in addition to Turkey, in an attempt to revive the idea of peace.Should this initiative take up a European character that manages to secure Arab support, it may be the perfect opportunity to replace some pessimism with optimism, considering the fact that Spain is more historically suited to relate to the Arab mentality, in addition to its geographical proximity to the Arab World. This places it in a position that enables it to invest such advantages to morally and politically test the readiness of the sides involved in the crisis to return to the peace negotiations.

It is also possible that, this time, the Americans will start to realize that Spain's Prime Minister Luis Zapatero was more aware of the perils that awaited his troops in Iraq if he did not decide to pull them out at the right time, because, after all, the same situation seems to apply to the sentiments of the US voters at the polls.When Spain renounced the US cloak thrown upon it by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who went too far with his alliance with Washington, it became clear that Madrid's direction was going to be in line with the European perspective, more closely resembling that of France and Germany, rather than Britain and the US.

Most likely, the subtle manner of some of the aspects of the international consensus is trying to squeeze through a crack in the wall. It may, at first glance, appear confused, immature, or influenced by tendencies to return to the center of attention. However, it is unlikely to take shape at the throne of the world's leading power. For erroneous policies are their own natural and worse enemy, rendering extorting an admission of wrongdoing unnecessary.The world that used to say, No to the war in Iraq and Lebanon has never ceased to repeat the same call with different voices that are even emerging from within the US itself today. And what the US
used to refuse to hear on the dangers of renewed violence, extremism, and hatred, toward which it dedicated its military machine under the slogan of a never-ending war on terror, has now become a solid reality, tangible through the cascading outcomes that exacerbate an indiscriminate slaughter that mounts to a full fledged counter-ideology in its own right.

Nothing is more dangerous than ignoring the historical facts on the ground, and those who have drawn borders from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices during certain periods of history were only sowing minefields, waiting to blow up one generation after another. Therefore, it has become unacceptable to repeat the very same mistakes by demarking nations.Never, since the eruption of the Middle East crisis, has acceptance of the situation on the ground prevailed on the Arab side, as well as the numerous peace initiatives, the Road Map and the related agreements.
Nevertheless, capitalizing on this shift never reached the appropriate degree of appreciation, and when the Americans, in the midst of their ecstasy with their victory in Iraq, proclaimed their inclination to create two States capable of coexistence and neighborly relations, they gave the Israelis opposed to this option the keys to manage the file, and by that they became both the judge and the executioner.Hence, the desire to take back the Israeli-Arab file to square one might be the advantage of the exploratory Spanish initiative, which will most probably attempt to present the Europeans with a foothold to try their luck in the involvement. And the timing of the initiative with the major crisis is no coincidence. Whether or not it receives a US nod or full support, it will most importantly not be a reprint of US editions that proved a failure.

The European themselves entrusted the Spanish with this initiative, and should it run into US jeers of condemnations, these would not be of more impact on the Spanish-American relations than Madrid's decision to pull its forces out of Iraq.If, however, it turned into an acceptable political process, this initiative suggests a possible European comeback to the scene of events, in spite of the Americans, who dragged themselves and the nations of the region into chaos dominated by the din of cannons, deafening the voice of reason.

PA URGED TO NEW GOVERNMENT

EU's Solana Urges Palestinian Leaders To Form New Government

NABLUS (AP)--The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, urged Palestinian leaders Friday to move with urgency to form a new government amid warnings that the plight of the Palestinians is worsening.During a stop in a West Bank refugee camp, Solana said international sanctions against the Hamas-led government have taken a heavy toll on ordinary Palestinians. He expressed hope the Palestinians would soon a new government more acceptable to the international community.The problem is now that the political solution may arrive too late. Things may get too bad that it will be difficult to recuperate. We have to reverse the situation,he said during a visit to the Askar refugee camp.

The E.U., U.S. and other donors cut off hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinian Authority after the Hamas-led government took office in March. Despite growing hardship in the Palestinian areas, the Islamic militant group has refused international calls to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, seeking to get the sanctions lifted, has been pushing Hamas to form a coalition government with his Fatah party. But after weeks of unsuccessful negotiations, Abbas said Thursday there is no point in further dialogue.Saeb Erekat, an Abbas confidant, said the president is now hoping to end the deadlock by appointing a new government of apolitical technocrats. But he said Hamas would have to accept the compromise.Erekat said there are extensive discussions going on with Hamas, but no agreement.

Solana is on his six-day mission to the Middle East aimed at breathing new life into peace efforts. Solana met Wednesday with Olmert and Thursday with Abbas and other Israeli and Palestinian officials. Solana was leaving Friday for Lebanon, before moving on to Egypt Sunday.Solana wrapped up the Israel and Palestinian leg of his Middle East tour Friday at a U.N.-funded school near the Askar refugee camp.He and other E.U. officials met with the Filippo Grandi, deputy head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.Grandi said there was a sense of despair in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The international community must do something to ensure the community ( Palestinians) has a future, he said.

U.N. officials briefed Solana on their work, but told of problems they face in the West Bank and Gaza. They said there are too many Israeli checkpoints, house raids and curfews all put in place since the Hamas-led Palestinian government came to power in March.They said, however, the situation is not a humanitarian crisis, but more an economic crisis. The only solution is a political solution, Grandi said.They warned Solana that if the situation doesn't change soon, the militants could grow more popular.They will see the only way is through violence,said Anders Fange, director of UNRWA's West Bank operations.Solana told them he is hopeful there will be a new Palestinian government soon. (END) Dow Jones Newswires, 10-27-061110ET

SPAIN ROAD MAP STALLED

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 · Last updated 12:04 p.m. PT Spain says Mideast 'road map stalledBy PAUL HAVEN ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

MADRID, Spain - A leading European voice on the Middle East said Tuesday that the road map for peace in the long-suffering region had fatally stalled, but Israeli and Palestinian officials were quick to brand his comments as overly pessimistic.Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told a parliamentary panel in Madrid that Europe has a historic opportunity to take the lead in pushing for a fresh approach to the conflict, and that negotiations should include Syria and take into account the Iranian nuclear dispute.Moratinos said Europe must lead the effort to push both sides back to the table, working in conjunction with the United States.

It is necessary that this diplomatic initiative be led by the European Union, not with small, gradual steps, but with a major initiative that has great scope,said Moratinos.Everyone agrees that sooner or later there will be a peace conference.He hinted it was too late to revive the U.S.-backed blueprint for peace known as the road map.I don't think the road map is the best path to get out of the stagnation. I don't think it is in condition now to resurrect the Middle East peace process, nor do I think small confidence-building measures can work,said Moratinos, a one-time EU envoy to the Middle East with wide connections in the region.

Those comments succeeded in bringing Israeli and Palestinian officials together on at least one thing: Both sides rejected his take on the conflict and leapt to the defense of the Washington-backed peace blueprint, saying it still offered the best way forward.

I don't think we can term anything dead or alive. The road map is there, but if Miguel Moratinos will call for a mechanism to implement it, we will appreciate this, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a confidant of moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told The Associated Press. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we just need there to be a mechanism to implement it.

There will not be a solution without the road map.Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev agreed.The way forward is through the road map which is the international community's consensus document on how to move forward in the Middle East peace process, he said, blaming the Palestinian side for not embracing the plan.In Washington, the State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the idea has been bouncing around. The U.S. focus right
now, he said, is working with Abbas to build up security forces and with the Israeli government to keep open more crossings.

It would also help reassure the Israeli government regarding attacks on its territory emanating from Gaza, McCormack said.But most important, he said, is the Palestinian government must overcome its failure to meet the criteria for peacemaking set by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia.He referred to demands Hamas renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. That's a condition for any sort of engagement with the international community,the U.S. official said.Britain's Foreign Office said London still believes the road map is the best way forward.

The road map, launched in 2003, envisioned a Palestinian state alongside Israel but stalled almost from the outset because neither side met the initial commitments. Relations between the Israelis and Palestinians soured further following the election of a Hamas-led Palestinian government earlier this year. Hamas has refused to rescind its call for Israel's destruction.Moratinos has long offered to have Spain play a role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but has had little response from either side in recent years.Spain hosted a landmark Middle East peace conference in 1991, bringing together Israel and many of its Arab enemies for the first time. Those talks helped lay the foundation for the Oslo peace process, which resulted in the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.

The Spanish diplomat said that any talks should also involve Syria a longtime foe of Washington and that Iran's nuclear program would also need to be addressed at such a conference.The presence of Iran means new talks would have to be much more sophisticated than in the past, Moratinos said. He did not specify whether he felt Iran should be directly involved in the talks.Moratinos has long offered to have Spain play a role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but has had little response from either side in recent years.Spain hosted a landmark Middle East peace conference in 1991, bringing together Israel and many of its Arab enemies for the first time. Those talks helped lay the foundation for the Oslo peace process, which resulted in the establishment of the Palestinian Authority.

Moratinos said Middle East peace will top the agenda at a meeting Friday and Saturday in the Spanish resort city of Alicante that will bring together foreign ministers from southern European and African countries bordering the Mediterranean.EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will visit Israel, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon, and meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas next week. Solana is to assess efforts in trying to revive the peace process.

NEW MIDDLE EAST BY CFR PRESIDENT

The New Middle EastRichard N. HaassFrom Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006

Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

THE END OF AN ERA

Just over two centuries since Napoleon's arrival in Egypt heralded the advent of the modern Middle East some 80 years after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, 50 years after the end of colonialism, and less than 20 years after the end of the Cold War the American era in the Middle East, the fourth in the region's modern history, has ended. Visions of a new, Europe-like region peaceful, prosperous, democratic will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself, the United States, and the world.

All the eras have been defined by the interplay of contending forces, both internal and external to the region. What has varied is the balance between these influences. The Middle East's next era promises to be one in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand and in which the local actors gaining power are radicals committed to changing the status quo. Shaping the new Middle East from the outside will be exceedingly difficult, but it along with managing a dynamic Asia will be the primary challenge of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come.

The modern Middle East was born in the late eighteenth century. For some historians, the signal event was the 1774 signing of the treaty that ended the war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia; a stronger case can be made for the importance of Napoleon's relatively easy entry into Egypt in 1798, which showed Europeans that the region was ripe for conquest and prompted Arab and Muslim intellectuals to ask as many continue to do today why their civilization had fallen so far behind that of Christian Europe. Ottoman decline combined with European penetration into the region gave rise to the Eastern Question, regarding how to deal with the effects of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which various parties have tried to answer to their own advantage ever since.

The first era ended with World War I, the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of the Turkish republic, and the division of the spoils of war among the European victors. What ensued was an age of colonial rule, dominated by France and the United Kingdom. This second era ended some four decades later, after another world war had drained the Europeans of much of their strength, Arab nationalism had risen, and the two superpowers had begun to lock horns. [He] who rules the Near East rules the world; and he who has interests in the world is bound to concern himself with the Near East, wrote the historian Albert Hourani, who correctly saw the 1956 Suez crisis as marking the end of the colonial era and the beginning of the Cold War era in the region.

During the Cold War, as had been the case previously, outside forces played a dominant role in the Middle East. But the very nature of U.S.-Soviet competition gave local states considerable room to maneuver. The high-water mark of the era was the October 1973 war, which the United States and the Soviet Union essentially stopped at a stalemate, paving the way for ambitious diplomacy, including the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord.

Yet it would be a mistake to see this third era simply as a time of well-managed great-power competition. The June 1967 war forever changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The use of oil as an economic and political weapon in 1973 highlighted U.S. and international vulnerability to supply shortages and price hikes. And the Cold War's balancing act created a context in which local forces in the Middle East had significant autonomy to pursue their own agendas. The 1979 revolution in Iran, which brought down one of the pillars of U.S. policy in the region, showed that outsiders could not control local events. Arab states resisted U.S. attempts to persuade them to join anti-Soviet projects. Israel's 1982 occupation of Lebanon spawned Hezbollah. And the Iran-Iraq War consumed those two countries for a decade.

AMERICAN PASTORAL

The end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union brought about a fourth era in the region's history, during which the United States enjoyed unprecedented influence and freedom to act. Dominant features of this American era were the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait, the long-term stationing of U.S. ground and air forces on the Arabian Peninsula, and an active diplomatic interest in trying to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all (which culminated in the Clinton administration's intense but ultimately unsuccessful effort at Camp David). More than any other, this period exemplified what is now thought of as the old Middle East.The region was defined by an aggressive but frustrated Iraq, a radical but divided and relatively weak Iran, Israel as the region's most powerful state and sole nuclear power, fluctuating oil prices, top-heavy Arab regimes that repressed their peoples, uneasy coexistence between Israel and both the Palestinians and the Arabs, and, more generally, American primacy.

What has brought this era to an end after less than two decades is a number of factors, some structural, some self-created. The most significant has been the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq in 2003 and its conduct of the operation and resulting occupation. One casualty of the war has been a Sunni-dominated Iraq, which was strong enough and motivated enough to balance Shiite Iran. Sunni-Shiite tensions, dormant for a while, have come to the surface in Iraq and throughout the region. Terrorists have gained a base in Iraq and developed there a new set of techniques to export. Throughout much of the region, democracy has become associated with the loss of public order and the end of Sunni primacy. Anti-American sentiment, already considerable, has been reinforced. And by tying down a huge portion of the U.S. military, the war has reduced U.S. leverage worldwide. It is one of history's ironies that the first war in Iraq, a war of necessity, marked the beginning of the American era in the Middle East and the second Iraq war, a war of choice, has precipitated its end.

Other factors have also been relevant. One is the demise of the Middle East peace process. The United States had traditionally enjoyed a unique capacity to work with both the Arabs and the Israelis. But the limits of that capacity were exposed at Camp David in 2000. Since then, the weakness of Yasir Arafat's successors, the rise of Hamas, and the Israeli embrace of unilateralism have all helped sideline the United States, a shift reinforced by the disinclination of the current Bush administration to undertake active diplomacy.

Another factor that has helped bring about the end of the American era has been the failure of traditional Arab regimes to counter the appeal of radical Islamism. Faced with a choice between what they perceived as distant and corrupt political leaders and vibrant religious ones, many in the region have opted for the latter. It took 9/11 for U.S. leaders to draw the connection between closed societies and the incubation of radicals. But their response often a hasty push for elections regardless of the local political context - has provided terrorists and their supporters with more opportunities for advancement than they had before.

Finally, globalization has changed the region. It is now less difficult for radicals to acquire funding, arms, ideas, and recruits. The rise of new media, and above all of satellite television, has turned the Arab world into a regional village and politicized it. Much of the content shown scenes of violence and destruction in Iraq; images of mistreated Iraqi and Muslim prisoners; suffering in Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon has further alienated many people in the Middle East from the United States. As a result, governments in the Middle East now have a more difficult time working openly with the United States, and U.S. influence in the region has waned.

WHAT LIES AHEAD

The outlines of the Middle East's fifth era are still taking shape, but they follow naturally from the end of the American era. A dozen features will form the context for daily events.
First, the United States will continue to enjoy more influence in the region than any other outside power, but its influence will be reduced from what it once was. This reflects the growing impact of an array of internal and external forces, the inherent limits of U.S. power, and the results of U.S. policy choices.

Second, the United States will increasingly be challenged by the foreign policies of other outsiders. The European Union will offer little help in Iraq and is likely to push for a different approach to the Palestinian problem. China will resist pressuring Iran and will seek to guarantee the availability of energy supplies. Russia, too, will resist calls to sanction Iran and will look for opportunities to demonstrate its independence from the United States. Both China and Russia (as well as many European states) will distance themselves from U.S. efforts to promote political reform in nondemocratic states in the Middle East.

Third, Iran will be one of the two most powerful states in the region. Those who have seen Iran as being on the cusp of dramatic internal change have been wrong. Iran enjoys great wealth, is the most powerful external influence in Iraq, and holds considerable sway over both Hamas and Hezbollah. It is a classic imperial power, with ambitions to remake the region in its image and the potential to translate its objectives into reality.

Fourth, Israel will be the other powerful state in the region and the one country with a modern economy able to compete globally. The only state in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal, it also possesses the region's most capable conventional military force. But it still has to bear the costs of its occupation of the West Bank and deal with a multifront, multidimensional security challenge. Strategically speaking, Israel is in a weaker position today than it was before this summer's crisis in Lebanon. And its situation will further deteriorate as will that of the United States if Iran develops nuclear weapons.

Fifth, anything resembling a viable peace process is unlikely for the foreseeable future. In the aftermath of Israel's controversial operation in Lebanon, the Kadima-led government will almost certainly be too weak to command domestic support for any policy perceived as risky or as rewarding aggression. Unilateral disengagement has been discredited now that attacks have followed Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza. There is no obvious partner on the Palestinian side who is both able and willing to compromise, further hindering the chances of a negotiated approach. The United States has lost much of its standing as a credible and honest broker, at least for the time being. Meanwhile, Israel's settlement expansion and road building will continue apace, further complicating diplomacy.

Sixth, Iraq, traditionally a center of Arab power, will remain messy for years to come, with a weak central government, a divided society, and regular sectarian violence. At worst, it will become a failed state wracked by an all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors.
Seventh, the price of oil will stay high, the result of strong demand from China and India, limited success at curbing consumption in the United States, and the continued possibility of supply shortages. The price of a barrel of oil is far more likely to exceed $100 than it is to fall below $40. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other large producers will benefit disproportionately.

Eighth, militiazation will continue apace. Private armies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestinian areas are already growing more powerful. Militias, both a product and a cause of weak states, will emerge wherever there is a perceived or an actual deficit of state authority and capacity. The recent fighting in Lebanon will exacerbate this trend, since Hezbollah has gained by not suffering a total defeat, while Israel has lost by not realizing a total victory a result that will embolden Hezbollah and those who emulate it.

Ninth, terrorism, defined as the intentional use of force against civilians in the pursuit of political aims, will remain a feature of the region. It will occur in divided societies, such as Iraq, and in societies where radical groups seek to weaken and discredit the government, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Terrorism will grow in sophistication and remain a tool used against Israel and the presence of the United States and other nonindigenous powers.

Tenth, Islam will increasingly fill the political and intellectual vacuum in the Arab world and provide a foundation for the politics of a majority of the region's inhabitants. Arab nationalism and Arab socialism are things of the past, and democracy belongs in the distant future, at best. Arab unity is a slogan, not a reality. The influence of Iran and groups associated with it has been reinforced, and efforts to improve ties between Arab governments and Israel and the United States have been complicated. Meanwhile, tensions between Sunnis and Shiites will grow throughout the Middle East, causing problems in countries with divided societies, such as Bahrain, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.

Eleventh, Arab regimes are likely to remain authoritarian and become more religiously intolerant and anti-American. Two bellwethers will be Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt, which accounts for roughly one-third of the Arab world's population, has introduced some constructive economic reforms. But its politics have failed to keep up. On the contrary, the regime seems intent on repressing what few liberals the country has and presenting the Egyptian people with a choice between traditional authoritarians and the Muslim Brotherhood. The risk is that Egyptians will one day opt for the latter, less because they support it outright than because they have grown weary of the former. Alternatively, the regime might take on the colors of its Islamist opponents in an effort to co-opt their appeal, in the process distancing itself from the United States. In Saudi Arabia, the government and the royal elite rely on using large energy proceeds to placate domestic appeals for change. The problem is that most of the pressure they have responded to has come from the religious right rather than the liberal left, which has led them to embrace the agenda of religious authorities.

Finally, regional institutions will remain weak, lagging far behind those elsewhere. The Middle East's best-known organization, the Arab League, excludes the region's two most powerful states, Israel and Iran. The enduring Arab-Israeli rift will continue to preclude the participation of Israel in any sustained regional relationship. The tension between Iran and most Arab states will also frustrate the emergence of regionalism. Trade within the Middle East will remain modest because few countries offer goods and services that others want to buy on a large scale, and advanced manufactured goods will have to continue to come from elsewhere. Few of the advantages of global economic integration will come to this part of the world, despite the pressing need for them.

MISTAKES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Although the basic features of this fifth era of the modern Middle East are largely unattractive, this should not be a cause for fatalism. Much is a matter of degree. There is a fundamental difference between a Middle East lacking formal peace agreements and one defined by terrorism, interstate conflict, and civil war; between one housing a powerful Iran and one dominated by Iran; or between one that has an uneasy relationship with the United States and one filled with hatred of the country. Time also makes a difference. Eras in the Middle East can last for as long as a century or as little as a decade and a half. It is clearly in the interest of the United States and Europe that the emerging era be as brief as possible and that it be followed by a more benign one.

To ensure this, U.S. policymakers need to avoid two mistakes, while seizing two opportunities. The first mistake would be an overreliance on military force. As the United States has learned to its great cost in Iraq and Israel has in Lebanon military force is no panacea. It is not terribly useful against loosely organized militias and terrorists who are well armed, accepted by the local population, and prepared to die for their cause. Nor would carrying out a preventive strike on Iranian nuclear installations accomplish much good. Not only might an attack fail to destroy all facilities, but it might also lead Tehran to reconstitute its program even more covertly, cause Iranians to rally around the regime, and persuade Iran to retaliate (most likely through proxies) against U.S. interests in Afghanistan and Iraq and maybe even directly against the United States. It would further radicalize the Arab and Muslim worlds and generate more terrorism and anti-American activity. Military action against Iran would also drive the price of oil to new heights, increasing the chances of an international economic crisis and a global recession. For all these reasons, military force should be considered only as a last resort.

The second mistake would be to count on the emergence of democracy to pacify the region. It is true that mature democracies tend not to wage war on one another. Unfortunately, creating mature democracies is no easy task, and even if the effort ultimately succeeds, it takes decades. In the interim, the U.S. government must continue to work with many nondemocratic governments. Democracy is not the answer to terrorism, either. It is plausible that young men and women coming of age would be less likely to become terrorists if they belonged to societies that offered them political and economic opportunities. But recent events suggest that even those who grow up in mature democracies, such as the United Kingdom, are not immune to the pull of radicalism. The fact that both Hamas and Hezbollah fared well in elections and then carried out violent attacks reinforces the point that democratic reform does not guarantee quiet. And democratization is of little use when dealing with radicals whose platforms have no hope of receiving majority support. More useful initiatives would be actions designed to reform educational systems, promote economic liberalization and open markets, encourage Arab and Muslim authorities to speak out in ways that delegitimize terrorism and shame its supporters, and address the grievances that motivate young men and women to take it up.

As for the opportunities to be seized, the first is to intervene more in the Middle East's affairs with nonmilitary tools. Regarding Iraq, in addition to any redeployment of U.S. troops and training of local military and police, the United States should establish a regional forum for Iraq's neighbors (Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular) and other interested parties akin to that used to help manage events in Afghanistan following the intervention there in 2001. Doing so would necessarily require bringing in both Iran and Syria. Syria, which can affect the movement of fighters into Iraq and arms into Lebanon, should be persuaded to close its borders in exchange for economic benefits (from Arab governments, Europe, and the United States) and a commitment to restart talks on the status of the Golan Heights. In the new Middle East, there is a danger that Syria might be more interested in working with Tehran than with Washington. But it did join the U.S.-led coalition during the Persian Gulf War and attend the Madrid peace conference in 1991, two gestures that suggest it might be open to a deal with the United States in the future.

Iran is a more difficult case. But since regime change in Tehran is not a near-term prospect, military strikes against nuclear sites in Iran would be dangerous, and deterrence is uncertain, diplomacy is the best option available to Washington. The U.S. government should open, without preconditions, comprehensive talks that address Iran's nuclear program and its support of terrorism and foreign militias. Iran should be offered an array of economic, political, and security incentives. It could be allowed a highly limited uranium-enrichment pilot program so long as it accepted highly intrusive inspections. Such an offer would win broad international support, a prerequisite if the United States wants backing for imposing sanctions or escalating to other options should diplomacy fail. Making the terms of such an offer public would increase diplomacy's chances of success. The Iranian people should know the price they stand to pay for their government's radical foreign policy. With the government in Tehran concerned about an adverse public reaction, it would be more likely to accept the U.S. offer.

Diplomacy also needs to be revived in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is still the issue that most shapes (and radicalizes) public opinion in the region. The goal at this point would be not to bring the parties to Camp David or anywhere else but to begin to create the conditions under which diplomacy could usefully be restarted. The United States should articulate those principles it believes ought to constitute the elements of a final settlement, including the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines. (The lines would have to be adjusted to safeguard Israel's security and reflect demographic changes, and the Palestinians would have to be compensated for any losses resulting from the adjustments.) The more generous and detailed the plan, the harder it would be for Hamas to reject negotiation and favor confrontation. Consistent with this approach, U.S. officials ought to sit down with Hamas officials, much as they have with the leaders of Sinn Féin, some of whom also led the Irish Republican Army. Such exchanges should be viewed not as rewarding terrorist tactics but as instruments with the potential to bring behavior in line with U.S. policy.

The second opportunity involves the United States' insulating itself as much as possible from the region's instability. This would mean curbing U.S. oil consumption and U.S. dependence on the Middle East's energy resources, goals that could best be achieved by reducing demand (by, say, increasing taxes at the pump offset by tax reductions elsewhere and promoting policies that would accelerate the introduction of alternative sources of energy). Washington should also take additional steps to reduce its exposure to terrorism. Like vulnerability to disease, vulnerability to terrorism cannot be entirely eliminated. But more can and should be done to better protect the U.S. homeland and to better prepare for those inevitable occasions when terrorists will succeed.

Avoiding these mistakes and seizing these opportunities would help, but it is important to recognize that there are no quick or easy solutions to the problems the new era poses. The Middle East will remain a troubled and troubling part of the world for decades to come. It is all enough to make one nostalgic for the old Middle East.

NEW PEACE INITIATIVE

NEW PEACE INITIATIVE

LAND FOR PEACE (THE FUTURE 7 YEARS OF HELL ON EARTH)

JOEL 3:2
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

DANIEL 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks(62X7=434 YEARS+7X7=49 YEARS=TOTAL OF 69 WEEKS OR 483 YRS) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(ROMAN LEADERS DESTROYED THE 2ND TEMPLE) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.(THERE HAS TO BE 70 WEEKS OR 490 YRS TO FUFILL THE VISION AND PROPHECY OF DAN 9:24).(THE NEXT VERSE IS THAT 7 YR WEEK OR (70TH FINAL WEEK).
27 And he( THE ROMAN,EU PRESIDENT) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:(1X7=7 YEARS) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,(3 1/2 yrs in TEMPLE SACRIFICES STOPPED) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

DANIEL 8:23-25
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king (EU DICTATOR) of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,(FROM THE OCCULT) shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:(SATANS POWER) and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;(JESUS) but he shall be broken without hand.

DANIEL 11:36-40
36 And the king shall do according to his will;(EU PRESIDENT) and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,(THIS EU DICTATOR IS A EUROPEAN JEW) nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:(HES A MILITARY GINIUS) and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds (CONTROL HEZBOLLAH,AL-QUAIDA MURDERERS ETC) with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many,(HIS ARMY LEADERS) and shall divide the land for gain.
40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south(EGYPT) push at him:(EU DICTATOR PROTECTING ISRAELS SECURITY) and the king of the north(RUSSIA) 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.

ISAIAH 26:21
21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.(WW3,1/2 earths population die).

ISAIAH 13:6-13 KJV
6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:(FROM FRIGHT)
8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

ISAIAH 24:17-23 KJV
17 Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth.
18 And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.
19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.

New Initiative Aims to Restart Arab-Israeli Peace Process By Meredith Buel ,Washington,18 October 2006

The International Crisis Group, a public policy research organization, has launched an initiative to restart the Arab-Israeli peace process, following the recent month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Members of the Crisis Group say solving the intractable conflict is key to resolving other problems in the Middle East. In a report, the Crisis Group says, since the collapse of the Arab-Israeli peace process in 2000, none of the governments in the Middle East has shown willingness to compromise. It blames the international community for a lack of resolve in trying to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and calls on the United States, Europe and Arab countries to become more involved in trying to find a comprehensive settlement.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering, who is a co-chairman of the Crisis Group, says the timing of the new initiative to bring the parties back to the bargaining table is important.I think the Crisis Group is doing this, in part, because coming out of the really miserable conflict that we have been through over Lebanon, there was a very strong sense of thinking that there is now a time and an opportunity, as there has been after most of the conflicts in the Middle East, to direct new energy into the Arab-Israeli peace process, he said. The need is self-evident, given all of the turmoil and problems going on in the Middle East.

Joining in the call for urgent international action, 135 global leaders, including former presidents and prime ministers, have endorsed the Crisis Group's initiative.The plan calls for an international meeting on the issue, perhaps modeled along the lines of the Madrid Conference.

That conference, in 1991, brought together, for the first time, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians for talks after the first Gulf War.The proposal also calls for negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the immediate issues of mutual security and revival of the Palestinian economy.The senior vice president of the Crisis Group, Mark Schneider,
says unless attempts are made to resolve the conflict, the situation in the Middle East will only get worse.

That issue is fundamental to all of the other consequences that we have seen: the increasing radicalization within the Middle East, the increasing targeting of the United States in every possible way, and the loss of U.S. influence, he said. There is no issue in that part of the world that does not hinge in some degree, in some way, on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.The Crisis Group is also calling for an end to the international political and financial boycott of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, if the Palestinians form a national unity government.Talks to form such a government have stalled, and there have been deadly clashes between armed
members of Hamas and the once-dominant Fatah party.Mark Schneider of the Crisis Group says continued Palestinian infighting makes the new peace initiative even more urgent.

To some degree that very specter of increased violence and instability among the Palestinians, we hope, will be seen as a process that cannot be allowed to continue, he said. That is not going to produce a stable movement towards a two-state solution, which everybody agrees is still the only, successful and likely answer to peace in the Middle East.The United States and other countries have labeled Hamas, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings against Israelis, a terrorist organization.Western countries cut aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas came to power earlier this year.The international community has demanded that
Hamas recognize Israel and renounce violence, conditions the militant group is refusing to accept.Crisis Group co-chair Thomas Pickering says Hamas must agree to negotiations with the Jewish state.

The message that we need to send to Hamas is, no governance without acceptance of a negotiated solution to the problem, and that is the bridge they have to cross, he said. My
feeling is, they know the bankruptcy of militancy, and, now, they have to be taught the opportunities of diplomacy.

Condoleezza Rice (l) meeting with Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah

Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with leaders of moderate Arab states as part of a Middle East tour designed to explore ways to reinvigorate the peace process.Former U.S. Congressman and Crisis Group board member Stephen Solarz says many Arab governments are pressing the United States to help revive negotiations.First, they have publicly reaffirmed their interest in moving the peace process forward, he said. Secondly, because, I think, moderate Arab governments want to demonstrate that Arab objectives can be achieved through diplomacy, not just on the battlefield, I think, they recognize, with a
few more victories, like the one Hezbollah claims to have won in Lebanon, Lebanon will cease to exist. I do not think the Arab countries want another war with Israel. They are cognizant that, even under the best of circumstances, devastation is likely to be rained upon them.

George W. Bush

President George Bush says he is committed to a settlement that will result in two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living together in peace and security.Mr. Bush says reaching that goal is one of the highest priorities of his presidency.Crisis Group board member Stephen Solarz says, while there are no guarantees this latest initiative will succeed, there is general support from Israelis and Palestinians for negotiations that could end the conflict.What gives us some hope that this can be done is that public opinion on both sides appears to be receptive to these compromises, if, in fact, they can be achieved, he said.The Crisis Group says it will continue to produce a series of reports on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and analyze the possibility of additional agreements between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

FORMER ISRAELI GENERAL

Mideast a clash of civilizations, former top Israeli general says By Eric Swedlund ,arizona daily star 10.17.2006

The security threats facing Israel and the West are in the midst of a fundamental change as ideologies of Islamic radicals replace nationalist motives, said a former top commander ofIsrael's military. Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, who was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2002 to 2005, was in Tucson for a speaking engagement. He said his country's enemies have abandoned conventional warfare, instead attacking civilian populations to avoid confrontations with Israel's military forces.

They believe our society, our civilian population, is the weakest link in the national security chain,he said. The IDF chief of staff is the top job in Israel's military, similar to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the United States. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah share the goal of defeating Western culture, not just Israel, said Ya'alon in an interview before the Jewish Federation of Southern Arizona event. Israel, because of its geographic situation, is on the front line of this clash of civilizations, Ya'alon said. The problem with radical Islamists is they do not recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state at all.

Combating the challenges starts with an understanding of the new reality and improved analysis. More territorial concessions by Israel will not end the conflicts, but instead serve the interests of radical Islamists, he said. What we need is a clear understanding of the situation and of course a clear strategy,Ya'alon said. It's not just for the state of Israel, it's for the West. I feel like we lack this clear analysis and determination in the West. Ya'alon said even though extremists rule much of the Middle East, they're not serving the interests of many of the people, who are interested in peace but stifled by the ruling regimes.

We can find many partners in our region, even on the Palestinian side, he said.In many societies around us there is a clash of civilizations in their own society, not just between them and the West. Israeli society has always been known for its strong opinion and Gen. Ya'alon is really respected in the Israeli public because he's been a straight shooter,said Stuart Mellan, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Southern Arizona. Ya'alon retired from the military in 2005 and has been a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His speech was part of an Israel Solidarity Event Monday at Temple Emanu-El.

The fundraising effort has a goal of raising $1 million to support humanitarian services in Israel, Mellan said. Contact reporter Eric Swedlund at 573-4115 or at eswedlund@azstarnet.com.

OLMERT ABBAS SUMMIT

Olmert, Abbas deadlocked over summit: Israel aide By Corinne Heller Sun Oct 15, 9:49 AM

ET JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Efforts to arrange a long-awaited summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are deadlocked, a senior Israeli official said on Sunday. We offered Abu Mazen (Abbas) a meeting and he seemed uninterested,said the official, who asked not to be identified. We are still offering, but he (Abbas) said it was conditional on (Israel) releasing (Palestinian) prisoners, and we will not free prisoners until Gilad Shalit is released.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, an aide to Abbas, said preparations for a meeting between the leaders were continuing.Shalit, an Israeli soldier, was abducted by Palestinian militants in a cross-border raid from the Gaza Strip in June. They have demanded Israel release hundreds of Palestinians from its jails in return for the soldier.

Olmert's chief of staff, Yoram Turbowicz, met Erekat earlier this month to discuss the summit, but no date for a meeting was announced.The United States hopes talks between the two leaders could help bolster Abbas, a moderate caught up in a power struggle with the Islamic militant movement Hamas, which defeated his Fatah group in Palestinian elections in January.

A summit would be the first formal meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders since Olmert took over as prime minister in January after Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke.Abbas and Olmert last met, informally, in June, days before Israel began an offensive against militants in the Gaza Strip after the soldier was seized.

SPANISH FM IN DAMASCUS

Spanish FM arrives in Damascus for talks on bilateral ties, Mideast peace process

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos arrived in Damascus Saturday afternoon in a bid to strengthen bilateral relations and revive the Middle East peace process.

Moratinos, a former EU peace envoy to the Middle East region, told reporters upon his arrival that his trip here represented only the friendly Spain and not the EU, the independent Syria- Times reported on its website.

The Spanish top diplomat noted his visit was aimed at strengthening dialogue and friendly relations between Spain and Syria as well as exploring the possibility of reviving the Middle East peace process.

Moratinos is expected to held talks with President Bashar al- Assad and other senior Syrian officials during the stay.

In early August, the Spanish minister traveled to Damascus for talks on EU behalf over negotiations leading to the UN resolution that brought an end to a monthlong conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. Source: Xinhua

U.S GIVES WEAPONS TO ARABS

Well all I have to say about this is America is in big trouble for giving Arabs guns to murder innocent israelis. This definately will not go over well with The GOD (JESUS) OF ISRAEL. Wow blatant rebellion against GODS WORD.

GENESIS 12:1-3
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

America get ready for destruction, you can not go against Israel, like this and think you can get away with it. be like Stephen Harper our Canadian Leader, stick up for Israel like the Bible says, Its Isaacs (ISRAEL) Promised land, not Ishmaels (ARABS).

True the two will live side by side in the future when the MESSIAH (JESUS) is RULING, but Israel will own most of the MIDEAST like GOD promised them, they would.

And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.

Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.

ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.

US Supplies Fatah With Arms, Rice Decries OccupationBy Ezra HaLevi & Hana Levi Julian

The Fatah faction received a new shipment of arms Thursday as part of a Western aid package to bolster forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas.

Secretarty Rice promises a PLO state. United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday America could have no greater legacy than to have divided the Land of Israel and established a Palestinian state to end the humiliation of occupation.Rice made the statements at a dinner marking the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine.

The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation, Rice said.I promise you my personal commitment to that goal. I believe there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for people who have suffered too long, have been humiliated too long, Rice added.

I know that sometimes, a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream but I know too... that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that after they happened they simply seemed inevitable,she said. Rice praised Mahmoud Abbas, who is hanging onto his position as Palestinian Authority chairman, for his moderation. Arutz-7 reported Tuesday that Abbas dismissed demands that Fatah recognize Israel just one day before he told Rice that such recognition is a must.

Made-in-U.S. Arms Arrive in PA

Thousands of M-16 assault rifles, made in the U.S., were delivered to Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria as part of the effort to strengthen Abbas in his opposition to Hamas leader and PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Fatah is the political party headed by the late terrorist chieftain Yasser Arafat. The Al-Aksa Brigades terror group operates under its authority.According to PA security sources quoted by the Middle East Newsline (MENL),

The weapons are meant for PA forces but they end up with Fatah in the war against Hamas.The deal, meant to increase Abu Mazen's power in the struggle for control of the PA government, was approved by Israel.

The two factions have been fighting bitter clashes in Gaza, leading to speculation that a civil war may ultimately hit the streets. The Hamas terror organization is currently the majority faction in the PA after winning January 2006 elections in a landslide victory against Fatah.The victory at the polls, however, led to a loss at the bank; international funding dried up as a result of the new regime. Hamas has continued to resist international pressure to force the terror organization to officially acknowledge Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and uphold peace agreements signed by the previous Fatah-led PA government.

The latest efforts by Qatari officials to build a unity government of Hamas and Fatah failed after Hamas once again insisted on maintaining its refusal to officially recognize the Jewish State. In the wake of that failure, Abbas again threatened to disband the current PA government and call for early elections.

HAMAS MIGHT AGREE ON ACCORDS

Hamas Hints at Oslo Recognition - On its Own Terms
By Hillel Fendel and Nissan Ratzlav-Katz(INN)

Confusing diplomatic developments on the Fatah-Hamas front: Abu Mazen has about-faced by saying Israel need not be recognized, and Hamas is giving signs of recognizing the Oslo Acords.In order to win recognition by the West, Hamas is expected to recognize both Israel and previous agreements Fatah has signed with Israel, as well as renounce terrorism. Even Fatah leader Abu Mazen has said that he would not join a unity government with Hamas unless these conditions are fulfilled.It was reported today, in the name of Palestinian Authority sources, that Hamas had finally come around to fulfilling one of the three conditions demanded by the U.S.namely, that it would honor agreements signed by the PA.

However, what was under-reported was the Hamas stipulation that it would recognize these agreements only in such a way that would guarantee the ultimate rights and interests of the
Palestinians.

Hamas also continues to insist on its right to use legitimate means i.e., terrorism to free their land and end the occupation. No mention was made, in the newly-announced Hamas stance, of a Hamas recognition of Israel's right to exist.Meanwhile, Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) had been shown to be somewhat two-faced in his statements to the West. Though he has insisted repeatedly in recent weeks that Hamas must recognize Israel, he sang a different tune in a recent interview with the Arabic-language Al-Arabiya newspaper. In the interview, Abu Mazen said clearly that Hamas, Fatah and the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) need not formally recognize Israel.Abu Mazen thus directly contradicted his promises and statements to US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice during her visit last week to the region.

Abu Mazen has also stated that he would not sign any coalition with Hamas until such time as IDF soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit is released from captivity. Shalit was taken captive to PA-controlled Gaza on June 25. Fatah sources in Gaza continue to release messages that, while they favor Shalit’s release, the move is being vetoed by Hamas politburo leader Khaled Meshal, who is based in Damascus. Also today, King Abdullah of Jordan warned the rival Palestinian Authority factions, Hamas and Fatah which have clashed murderously with each other over the past several weeks that if they do not bridge over their differences, they may lose their chance of Palestinian statehood forever.Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin-Jassem Al-Thani also met with refusal on the part of the Hamas leadership in Gaza to compromise. He asked Hamas on Tuesday to consider a new PA unity initiative that would include recognition of Israel's right to exist. Hamas also rejected a similar proposal put forward previously by Egyptian officials. In reaction to the Hamas refusal to compromise, Abu Mazen has once again threatened to call early elections in the PA.

RICE NOT TO MUCH SUCCESS

Rice hits diplomatic wall on Mideast tripBy ROBIN WRIGHT,The Washington Post[oas:casperstartribune.net/news/world:Middle1]

LONDON -- It was a tough week for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East. On four issues pivotal to the future of the world's most volatile region, U.S. diplomatic efforts made no visible progress or came up against unexpected resistance during her five-day tour, according to Arab and Israeli officials and analysts.On Iraq, Arab-Israeli peace, democracy promotion and fostering a so-called moderate bloc of Arab states to stand together against militancy, Rice pressed at each of six stops for new energy or more decisive action. Many of the Arab leaders she met share U.S. fears about the region's future, but there is a growing divide even with Washington's closest allies over what needs to be done, at what pace, in what order, and by whom, according to Arab officials interviewed at each stop.Several Arab officials and analysts privately dismissed Rice's tour as a cheerleading trip without substance. Others questioned the viability of the Bush administration's Middle East policy.

It is obvious to anyone that U.S. policy built after 9/11 including Iraq and the you're with us or against us attitude has now come to a dead end, said Paul Salem, the U.S.educated director of the new Beirut center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and son of Lebanon's former pro-American foreign minister.The United States and the Arab world are now engaged in a chicken and-egg argument over what happens next. Arab governments including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and five oil-rich Persian Gulf sheikhdoms all appealed to Rice to revive U.S. leadership to break deadlocks on several fronts because they have so far been unable to do it alone, Arab officials said. But Rice basically told governments at each stop that they must first take difficult steps to create conditions more conducive to greater U.S. involvement, U.S. officials said.

Rice did make some progress on a fifth issue, Iran, on her last stop in London, where six major powers agreed Friday to impose sanctions for Tehran's failure to suspend nuclear enrichment, a process that can be used to develop a nuclear weapon. But the road ahead remains rocky in winning agreement at the U.N. Security Council on what punitive measures to take, U.S. officials concede.Rice insisted Friday that her exploratory trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the West Bank and two Iraqi cities was beneficial as the Bush administration moves toward intensive discussions about next steps after the month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel.

I'm very glad I came out at this time, she told reporters traveling with her.I've really enjoyed this trip to the Middle East, because I wanted to come out in the post-Lebanon period and get a real sense of what people were thinking. ... I have a much better sense of how the Lebanese events and this period are effecting people's calculations on what needs to be done.Rice acknowledged that the Arabs and Israel appealed for new momentum to break the escalating cycle of violence and political division in several strategic countries.This is an absolutely crucial time in the Middle East, and I heard in every single place that this isn't a time to stand still, Rice said Everyone understands that a lot is changing in the Middle East and that we need to have a positive agenda.

U.S. officials say their goal is to find ways to fill the political vacuum that has developed in the region -- before militants or Islamic radicals fill even more of it. Over the past year, Hamas won parliamentary elections and formed a government in the Palestinian territories, the Muslim Brotherhood became the largest legal opposition force in Egypt, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah emerged as a hero in the Muslim world for challenging Israel and surviving. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken some of the most defiant positions adopted by his country's leadership since the early days after the 1979 revolution.Rice's trip, U.S. officials said, was partly intended to signal that the Bush administration is still fully engaged and interested, despite the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war at home and election-eve questions about its broader Middle East policy. But Rice's talks with nine Arab governments and Israel contrasted starkly with her earlier visits for its lack of specific initiatives. A senior Egyptian official called U.S. policy increasingly unrealistic.

A wide range of senior Arab officials, who all spoke on background because of sensitive diplomacy with Washington, asserted the administration's brick-by-brick approach to transforming the Middle East is so minimalist that it is unlikely to make significant progress during President Bush's remaining time in office.They complained that Bush's personal role in the Middle East is nonexistent when compared with his early hands-on involvement in personally bringing Arabs and Israelis together or his public promises to ensure an end to more than six decades of war with a two-state solution.The greatest pressure was put on Rice at every stop to do something to jump-start the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process, which Arab leaders almost unanimously described as the key to solving other flashpoints. Yet Rice found herself negotiating some of the same issues she was engaged in last November, such as movement of people and trade in and out of the Gaza Strip. And withdrawal from parts of the West Bank, which had been promised by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is even further away after the Lebanon war undermined his leverage and popularity.

After Rice met with Iraqi officials in Baghdad, some privately expressed concern about new tensions with Washington over the pace and sequence of handling the major challenges facing the government there, such as reconciliation and disarming militias. They complained that the Bush administration was not taking into account the potential for backlash among Iraqis if their leaders precipitously take controversial steps.On two other issues, senior Arab officials and analysts said promotion of democracy and the push to foster an anti-militant bloc are totally contradictory, because the moderates the United States is trying to rally against radical Islamic groups are some of the region's most autocratic governments.

JORDAN DENIES SECRET TALKS

Jordan denies hosting secret Saudi-Israel talks(AFP) 7 October 2006

AMMAN - Jordan has strongly denied Israeli press reports that it secretly hosted talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and senior Saudi officials.These reports are sheer fantasy and completely wrong, government spokesman Nasser Jawdeh said in comments carried by Jordanian dailies Saturday.All the allegations carried by various media about secret meetings in Jordan between Israeli officials and Jordanian, Saudi, Egyptian or Palestinian officials, be they of a security or political nature, are totally false, Jawdeh said.

These sorts of reports are put about every time there are positive signs emerging in the peace process, probably with a view to damaging it and creating a climate of suspicion around it.
Israel’s top-selling daily Yediot Aharonot reported Thursday that Olmert had held a secret meeting lasting several hours with Saudi officials at the palace of Jordan’s King Abdullah II.According to the paper, Olmert flew to Amman by helicopter for the night-time meeting, accompanied by his chief of staff and a top military attache.The meeting was organized by the Jordanian monarch and the chief of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, Meir Dagan, the paper said, without identifying the Saudi officials involved.

Last month, Olmert left it understood during a radio interview that he had met a member of the Saudi royal family, as earlier reported by the media.

We have decided that on this subject I am going to deliver a denial but you don’t have to believe it,said Olmert when challenged about the press reports that such a meeting had taken place.On other matters, believe all my denials, he added.Following the earlier reports, Saudi Arabia said reports of contacts between Saudi and Israeli officials were fabricated.

ROADMAP TO NEVER NEVER LAND

Rice meets Abbas as the road map to peace lies in tatters 05 October 2006

On 24 June 2002, President George Bush strode into the White House Rose Garden and announced to the world his vision of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. The Bush speech, some 30 drafts in the making, put the onus on the Palestinians to enact democratic reforms in the vain hope that they would ditch their veteran president, Yasser Arafat. But, nevertheless, it gave rise to the road map for peace, which bound Israel and the Palestinians to a timetable that was meant to lead to a final and comprehensive settlement by 2005.

With that deadline long past, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was shuttling
between the Palestinian leadership and Israeli government yesterday in an attempt to put the peace process back on the rails.

The three-phase road map, guaranteed by the US, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, grouped together as the Quartet, never even fulfilled the promises in its first phase under which the Palestinians were to rein in the militants, and Israel to freeze settlement building. Israel took it upon itself to execute Palestinian militant leaders, and forged ahead with settlement building on the West Bank.Israel's unilateral steps consigned the Quartet to the role of bystander. In three and a half years, the road map has led nowhere. Despite Israel's pullout from Gaza, the territory's 1.4 million Palestinians remain hemmed inside a prison by
an Israeli blockade backed by tanks and warplanes. International sanctions have brought hardship to government employees whose wages have been unpaid for months.

But the shock waves from the Lebanon war and Iraq have brought a new push for Middle East peace. Tony Blair has pledged to make reviving the peace process a personal priority during his remaining months in office. The Prime Minister has discussed the Middle East conflict, Lebanon and the broader issue of terrorism with the leaders of Pakistan, Turkey and Spain in the past week.While Ms Rice was in the region, the International Crisis Group published a statement yesterday signed by 135 former world leaders, including John Major and Jimmy Carter, calling for fresh thinking and the injection of new political will to resolve the conflict.

As long as the conflict lasts, it will generate instability and violence in the region and beyond, it said.And more ominously, a group calling itself al-Qa'ida in Palestine posted a five-minute video on the internet attacking those who work in the service of the Jews. Israeli intelligence has said in the past that al-Qa'ida does not have a foothold in the Palestinian territories.Ms Rice, who was lectured on Tuesday by the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia about the link between the Palestinian conflict and others in the Middle East, acknowledged Palestinian hardship after talks with President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

I told the President we are very concerned, of course, about the humanitarian conditions, she said. I said we would redouble our efforts to improve conditions for the Palestinian people.
But she gave no sign of any softening in the administration's stance that could lead to the lifting of the international economic sanctions aimed at forcing the Islamic Hamas government to recognise Israel and renounce violence. Mr Blair made it clear last month that, if a unity government took such steps, do- nor countries would re-engage.Mr Abbas said yesterday that his attempts to form a coalition government with Hamas were at an end, amid factional fighting between Fatah and Hamas. He hinted that he might fire the government using his constitutional powers and call fresh elections, but that is an initiative that could backfire against Fatah,
still in denial about their election loss.Ms Rice is seeking to bolster the authority of the Palestinian President who, despite his marginalised role, remains the only possible interlocutor for Israel. Hamas is branded as a terrorist organisation by Israel.

The Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, was scathing about her visit, saying she cares only to rearrange this region and to rearrange the Palestinian scene in a way that serves the American and Israeli agenda.Yet the framework set down in the road map remains the only game in town. We've not shelved the road map. Everyone knows what we are aiming for, said a Downing Street source, who noted that Mr Blair intends to return to the region at an unspecified date. We need small steps, confidence-building, and a process of dialogue.Mr Blair's standing in the Middle East is at a low ebb, however, because of his association with US policy.Initiatives come and go. It's very difficult to see a way out at the moment, said a Western diplomat in Jerusalem.

THE ROAD MAP TO NOWHERE

Four years after George Bush unveiled his Middle East plan, Condoleezza Rice arrived to find peace as far away as everThe road-map promise,Palestinian terror infrastructure to be dismantled and visible efforts made to arrest attackers of Israelis.

What happened

Suicide bombings against Israelis continue despite publication of the road map, backed by George Bush. Israel begins building separation barrier, which is condemned as an illegal land grab. Palestinian government undermined by Israel, which targets militants.

The promise

Israel to freeze all settlement activity and dismantle illegal outposts.
What happened Some illegal outposts are dismantled although settlers return. Governments of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert forge ahead with settlement blocs on occupied land in the West Bank. Unilateral Israeli moves have created new facts on the ground which will complicate future final status negotiations on a two-state solution.

The promise

Free, fair and open elections to be held in Palestinian territories.
What happened Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is elected in January 2005. But rival Hamas wins 2006 elections. Abbas's authority is irreparably weakened, and talks with Hamas on coalition government break down.

The promise

Creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders in 2003.
What happened Unilateral pullout from Gaza and part of the West Bank is completed in September 2005. But Gaza subjected to economic blockade and military incursions continue. Ehud Olmert unveils unilateral separation plan, which threatens to leave the separation barrier as a new border.

The promise

Two-state solution for Israel and Palestinians, to be achieved by 2005, to lead to comprehensive peace.

What happened

Israel launches full-scale war in July after Hizbollah militia in Lebanon, allied to Syria and Iran, capture two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border incursion. © 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) a division of Independent News & media (UK) Ltd

RICE ABBAS REMARKS

Haniyeh accuses of US of trying to rearrange Mideast

Gaza City, Oct 05: Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas today accused the US of trying to rearrange the Middle East to suit American and Israeli interests. Haniyeh spoke as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in the region for talks with the moderate Palestinian President mahmoud abbas. While the US supports Abbas as a legitimate negotiating partner, it
considers Hamas a terrorist group, and Rice was not meeting with any of its members. She cares only to rearrange this region and to rearrange the Palestinian scene in a way that serves the American and Israeli agenda, Haniyeh said.

Since winning legislative elections early this year, Hamas has refused international calls to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, despite painful sanctions that have caused widespread hardship for the Palestinians. Abbas has been pushing Hamas to form a power-sharing agreement with his Fatah group. But he announced today that the talks have broken down in the wake of factional fighting that has killed 10 people in recent days.Haniyeh said Hamas considers dialogue the only way to solve international disagreements. I don't think turning the back on this dialogue can serve the higher interests of the Palestinian people, he said. Bureau Report


Remarks With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas After Their Meeting
Secretary Condoleezza RiceRamallah, West BankOctober 4, 2006,(11:00 a.m. EDT)

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Via interpreter) …including our relations with various countries in the world searching a peace process that will end the Arab-Israeli conflict. And so the Palestinian question by means of setting up an independent Palestinian state that would live peacefully alongside the state of Israel.

We discussed the issue of forming a national unity government, and we addressed the issue of how talks on the national unity government have been disrupted, and today we say that any government to be formed has to be fully committed to all the commitments of the Palestinian Authority towards the Arab world and to the international community and has to honor all kinds of agreements that were signed in the past between the PA and the Arab parties. Up to this moment, there are no indications that these conditions are going to be met.We also spoke about the prisoners. And we said that Egypt is making a big effort to release the Israeli soldier and in return it is a must to release Palestinian prisoners incarcerated in Israel. And finally we spoke about the crossing points and we raised the issue of the need for keeping (inaudible). In addition to this, we spoke of the security condition, the deteriorating security conditions especially the events of the last two days, the reasons of which are very well known and I don't want to go into details of what happened in those days.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you for a warm reception. May I begin by wishing Ramadan Karim to everyone. This is, of course, a time when Muslims around the world are celebrating this holy time of Ramadan, a time of family and a time of faith. I might note that many Americans of Muslim faith are these very days also observing Ramadan, and it is in part why the United States has such great respect for the great religion of Islam. It is a part of us as Americans as well.I want to thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership. I had a chance to brief the President on the fact that we met last night in the GCC+2 and that much of the conversation was about how to support the Palestinian people in this time of considerable difficulty, how to support President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and how to create the conditions in which the Palestinian people can be served by the kind of government that the President talked about in his United Nations speech, a government that is able to deliver for the needs of the Palestinian people, that observes the Quartet principles and that can form the basis then for movement forward on what we all desire, especially President Bush, and that is a two-state solution, a solution in which a democratic Palestine and a democratic Israel can live side by side in peace.

We discussed a number of specific issues. I told the President that we are very concerned, of course, about the humanitarian conditions in the Palestinian territories, about the economic situation. It is a great sadness during this time, of course, of Ramadan that Palestinians, many of them are deprived of basic needs. And I said to him that we would double our -- redouble our efforts to improve the conditions of the Palestinian people. The Quartet talked about this. We talked about this last night. And we want very much to work toward better conditions for the Palestinian people.We talked also about the security situation, the need to improve the security forces, the President's -- of the Palestinian Authority. And of course, as the President said, we understand that some of the economic hardships are of course caused by the lack of mobility, the lack of movement and access, and I will of course see what I can do to make sure that some of those crossings are indeed open longer and more frequently so that economic activity can
return.

Mr. President, I think that you know that we have great admiration for you and for your leadership, that President Bush when he met with you restated again his strong commitment to a process by which Palestinians and Israelis can move forward to the day when there are two states. We know we have a lot of work to do in between, but you have the strong commitment of the United States to that cause and the personal commitment of me and the personal commitment of the President.
Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (In Arabic.) QUESTION: (In Arabic.)
SECRETARY RICE: First of all, let me say that I think President Abbas has enormous respect from the international community and in the United States. And it is indeed because of that respect for the President that the United States, even after the election of the Hamas government, which we fully recognize the Palestinian people’s elections as legitimate -- but after the refusal of that government to accept the international norms, the agreements that the Palestinians have accepted, the United States found a way to get humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people by reprogramming some of our assistance for the Palestinians. That’s, in
large part, because of our respect for President Abbas and what he’s trying to do. There is an international mechanism for support to the Palestinian people and again, I think in recognition of what the President is trying to do.

But obviously, we would like to be able to do more. And I’ve been discussing with the President ways that we might be able to better address some of the great needs that are there with the Palestinian people, but more than that, how we can facilitate a dialogue, how we can facilitate discussions between Israel and the Palestinians about the key issues that really do relate to
economic development, to the ability of the Palestinian people to move within their territory, ways to end the violence, ways to make possible a life for the Palestinian people that is not subject to the kind of daily humiliations that we know have been associated with the occupation.
That is my program here with the President and because he is a leader that people respect, he is going to continue to have not just the attention of the international community, but its very intensive efforts to try to break through some of the deadlocks that have been there. And I think we will make progress.

QUESTION: President Abbas, do you think it's possible that the next step will include elections and what specifically are you doing to prevent a civil war?

And to Secretary Rice, first of all on Iran. MODERATOR: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Sorry. President Abbas, do you think it's possible that the next step will include elections? And secondly, what are you doing to prevent a civil war between Hamas and Fatah?And to Secretary Rice on Iran, how dead do you think negotiations are? Are they finished with Iran? And do you anticipate holding a meeting this week with your P-5+1 counterparts to discuss what specific sanctions to impose on Iran? And secondly, what specifically, tangibly, concretely do you expect to get out of this trip and are there ways that you anticipate restarting the peace process?

SECRETARY RICE: How many questions, Robin? (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (In Arabic.)

SECRETARY RICE: Let me take the second question first since it relates actually to the Palestinians. The first is that I do hope that we can come to some understanding about how to make the agreement on movement and access more functional. Clearly a lot has happened since that agreement was signed, but it's still important that Carni be able to operate. It's still important that there be at least some openings at Rafah. I'm glad to know that it was opened a couple of times during Ramadan, but I think we need to work on those issues. Those are the kinds of on-the-ground things that make it easier for the Palestinian people.

I think we will also discuss ways that we might make more resources available at least for some of the needs that have been identified by the international community for the Palestinian people. And finally, I am here to hear from the President what we can do to support him. I think that General Dayton is here. We are working very closely on some security plans. I think that we want to make sure those security plans are now really implemented and that we can move them forward. Because obviously security, the movement and access, economic development, well-being are all interlinked.

And sometimes, Robin, what is necessary is to go step-by-step and try on the ground to really improve conditions. And so I'm trying to facilitate that. I know there have been some good meetings between the Israelis and the Palestinians at the official level, and we hope that those will continue. General Dayton is working on some of those security issues, but it's my hope that it will not be very long before there can be a meeting between the President and Prime Minister Olmert. I know that they will choose the time, but we hope that it will take place in the near future.

As to Iran, I have read very briefly the statement that Javier Solana made to the European parliamentarians. I would share his assessment. Iran has not decided to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. There have been months of negotiations.

There has been patience beyond the August 31st deadline that was set by the UN Security Council resolution. There has been a lot of patience when you go all the way back to the fact that the Paris agreement is now more than two and a half years ago.

So I think we have come to a time when the Iranians have to make their choice and the international system has to act accordingly.

And it seems to me that acting accordingly is very much spelled out in Resolution 1696 that means action under Article 41 of Chapter 7. I will tell you whether or not we're actually going to have a meeting on Friday. I think we have left open that possibility.

But when we do, I have to say that I think the logic of the -- of bringing to a close the open-ended negotiations with the Iranians that that's become -- that it's become quite evident that that's what we're going to have to do.
Thank you.2006/T23-7

WORLD LEADERS WANT MIDEAST PEACE

WORLD LEADERS WANT MIDEAST PEACE

Former leaders call for settlement in Arab-Israeli conflictCall to end Israeli occupation, end boycott of Palestinian Authority, and recognise Israel.

LONDON - More than 100 former world leaders, foreign ministers, diplomats, and religious leaders have put their names to an open letter published in The Financial Times on Wednesday calling for progress towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Organised by the International Crisis Group and signed by former world leaders such as US president Jimmy Carter, British prime minister John Major and president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, the letter calls for urgent international action.Everyone has lost in this conflict except the extremists throughout the world who prosper on the rage that it continues to provoke. Every passing day undermines prospects for a peaceful, enduring solution,the letter, with a total of 135 signatories, reads.

As long as the conflict lasts, it will generate instability and violence in the region and beyond.Former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Dalai Lama and the Reverend Desmond Tutu also signed the letter, which includes eight Nobel Peace Prize winners (including Carter, Gorbachev and Tutu).The goal must be security and full recognition to the state of Israel within international recognized borders, an end to the occupation for the Palestinian people in a viable independent, sovereign state, and the return of lost land to Syria,the letter reads.

It calls for a new international conference, ideally held as soon as possible and attended by all relevant players, at which all the elements of a comprehensive peace agreement would be mapped, and momentum gathered for detailed negotiations.The letter also calls for an end to the financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority, talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, and parallel talks between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.Other notable signatories to the letter include: former German foreign minister and current EU foreign policy chief Joschka Fischer; former NATO supreme allied commander Wesley Clark; former Indian prime minister I K Gujral; former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung; former US secretary of defense Robert McNamara; former British foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind; and Shlomo Ben-Ami, the former Israeli foreign minister.

8 ARAB STATES MEET WITH RICE

LAND FOR PEACE

JOEL 3:22 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

DANIEL 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks(62X7=434 YEARS+7X7=49 YEARS=TOTAL OF 69 WEEKS OR 483 YRS) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(ROMAN LEADERS DESTROYED THE 2ND TEMPLE) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.(THERE HAS TO BE 70 WEEKS OR 490 YRS TO FUFILL THE VISION AND PROPHECY OF DAN 9:24).(THE NEXT VERSE IS THAT 7 YR WEEK OR (70TH FINAL WEEK).27 And he( THE ROMAN,EU PRESIDENT) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:(1X7=7 YEARS) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,(3 1/2 yrs in TEMPLE SACRIFICES STOPPED) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

DANIEL 8:23-25
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king (EU DICTATOR) of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,(FROM THE OCCULT) shall stand up.24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:(SATANS POWER) and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;(JESUS) but he shall be broken without hand.

DANIEL 11:36-40
36 And the king shall do according to his will;(EU PRESIDENT) and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,(THIS EU DICTATOR IS A EUROPEAN JEW) nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:(HES A MILITARY GINIUS) and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds (CONTROL HEZBOLLAH,AL-QUAIDA MURDERERS ETC) with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many,(HIS ARMY LEADERS) and shall divide the land for gain. 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south(EGYPT) push at him:(EU DICTATOR PROTECTING ISRAELS SECURITY) and the king of the north(RUSSIA) 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.

Published: 10/03/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)Eight Arab states join in peace process

Agencies Cairo: Eight Arab countries are banding together to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her trip here, in hopes of relaunching the deadlocked Arab-Israeli peace process and making headway on other regional issues.During their meeting with Rice today, the ministers of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt and Jordan are expected coordinate efforts to buttress the stature of the moderate Palestinian leader and stem Iran's growing influence.The trip comes as some Arab countries have in recent weeks halted dealings with the Palestinian group Hamas.

They want it to join a unity government that supports a 2002 Arab League plan that would offer peace to Israel in exchange for land and they have even started funnelling aid through Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Arab diplomats say.Yesterday Rice arrived in Saudi Arabia on the first leg of a Middle East tour, for talks with King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz and Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal.On the aircraft to Jeddah, Rice told journalists she intended to hold talks with King Abdullah about ways to help Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.