Peres does it again; Russian involvement in the Middle East – TWTW … ending 25 May, 2013

Shalom all,

An economic conference in Jordan turned into a diplomatic push for peace talks by President Shimon Peres, whose intended speech drew criticism in Jerusalem. Iran keeps its nuclear program moving, despite cyber attacks from the West. Russia stepped up its involvement in Middle East affairs, while Syrian President Assad is feeling more confident after some military victories, with help from Iran and the Hizb’allah and encouragement from Russia. After 12 years, Israel finally brings truth to the Muhammad al-Dura lie that spawned hatred and attacks against Israel. These are some of the events of the past week.

Peres plays diplomatic spokesman, again, and draws fire from home.
It seems that wherever he goes, Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, tries to push his personal agenda to get Israel and those who call themselves “Palestinians” to sit down and negotiate to establish a “Palestinian” state in the heart of Israel. He did it again while attending the World Economic Forum in Jordan.

While speaking to reporters, Peres iterated that the two sides should restart “serious negotiations”, adding that it is possible to overcome differences and skepticism over peacemaking: “We shouldn’t lose the opportunity because it will be replaced by great disappointment…From my experience, I believe it’s possible to overcome it. It doesn’t require too much time. Our aim is to not waste time and resume negotiations as soon as possible so we can complete the full peace process with the “Palestinians” on the basis of two states for two peoples living side by side as neighbors, with full economic cooperation, for the sake of future generations.” (Underline emphasis, mine)

As noted in prior updates of TWTW, Peres is not an appointed diplomatic spokesman and is not authorized to speak on behalf of the government when it comes to policy, foreign or domestic. Expressing his opinion on the Israeli-“Palestinian” situation can embarrass the country and its leadership when they do not fall in line with Peres’ proclamations. He cannot say “our aim is…” this or that, as if he is the official spokesman.

It was reported here that Peres was going to address the Forum and say to the participants, which includes “Palestinian” President, Mahmoud Abbas, that the majority of the Israeli people support a return to 1967 borders, with mutually acceptable changes. It was further reported that he was going to address Abbas directly and tell him that all of the gaps between the parties are able to be overcome and that he wants to be partners with Abbas for peace.Before the speech was made, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz expressed harsh criticism of Peres, stating: “I wasn’t aware that Peres purports to be the government’s spokesman. I believe that the government already has its own spokespeople…The president is very highly respected in Israel, but diplomatic decisions should be left up to the government and I think that every remark, certainly on the eve of resumption of this type of negotiation, does not contribute to Israel’s position.”

Knesset Member and Minister of Tourism, Uzi Landau (Likud Beytenu) added to the comments of MK Steinitz, saying: “I don’t want to address political proposals made by this or that public figure … The legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said (in 1969) that 1967 borders are Auschwitz borders. What country would want to define borders that make it impossible to defend itself? … If the Palestinian Authority, with whom we have already signed agreements, fell apart, who wants to sign an agreement with a state whose ability to sustain itself is in doubt? Let us not forget what we got when we withdrew from Gaza. We got Hamas and terror. We need to be realistic. (Underline emphasis, mine) But, the perspective and position of Shimon Peres is quite the opposite. I refer to it as the “Peres push”, which is anything but realistic. The “Peres push” doesn’t say “Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead”. It advocates “Ignore the torpedoes, they are not harmful; full speed ahead.” That type of perspective ignores reality. It ignores history. And, it turns a willing, deaf ear and blind eye to the intentions of those with whom Peres wants to become neighbors, while they, on the other hand, want to kick us out of the neighborhood!

Capping off his comments, Landau encouraged the government not to “build policies on dreams that may never come true” and added: “Whoever wants something serious [to come out of peace discussions] should stay away from the idea of a “Palestinian” state”.

Naftali Bennett, Chairman of the Habayit Hayehudi party and strong opponent of establishing a “Palestinian” state in the heart of Israel, also condemned Peres’ push in that direction, saying that Peres’ vision goes beyond being faulty, adding: “Now is the time to make it clear that this is our country and it is not for sale.” May it be that this clarification would be grasped by our national leadership, from the Prime Minister on down.

Obviously, not everyone disagrees with the “Peres push”. He has his leftist backing. And, to add insult to injury, U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, is back in our neck of the woods, again, and will also participate in the Forum. And, like his predecessor before him, Hilary Clinton, he gives encouragement to the “Peres push” by saying that both parties need to “make hard decisions to move toward direct negotiations.” We’ve heard this before, many times, even from our Prime Ministers, beginning with Ariel Sharon. The only difference is the actual wording. Now, it’s “hard decisions”. Before that, it was “painful concessions” – that we would have to make. The “Palestinians” would concede nothing. Woe to any country, and particularly this country, that has blind leaders who seek to lead the people into a deep pit.

As it turned out, when Peres gave his speech, he deviated from his prepared text and left out reference to returning to the 1967 borders, which were not “borders”, but cease-fire lines. At least in this regard, the early condemnation of what Peres had intended to say paid off. Despite that, he called upon the “Palestinians” to return to negotiations without preconditions. But, the gestures and the push were lost of “Palestinian” President Mahmoud Abbas, who made it clear that without the preconditions, there would be no resumption of talks. What are their preconditions?  A return to 1967 pre-Six Day War borders,  cessation of all settlement construction, release of prisoners, the right of “Palestinian” refugees to return and no “interim” deals. In other words, he wants everything now.

The intransigence on the part of Abbas should make it clear to all concerned that he really is not interested in resuming peace negotiations, but is more than satisfied with the status quo. Why not? It is actually to his advantage. He continues to belly ache and to assert that Israel is the stumbling block to peace and he has received the ears and attention of countries around the world, who have been, and continue to be, only too happy to condemn Israel for almost anything. He was able to attain diplomatic advancement for the P.A. with Observer status through the U.N. General Assembly and has convinced governments that they should pour tons of money into the “Palestinian” Authority. In this regard, Secretary of State Kerry announced an economic plan that would put $4 billion of private investment into the P.A., although he didn’t specify where the money was going to come from.

Kerry appeared to get a handle on the fact that there have been no negotiations between the parties for two years and that there is skepticism and cynicism that come from years of bitter disappointment. Notwithstanding that, he said: “Indeed right now the strategic case for peace, based on the two-state solution, a secure state of Israel, and a viable independent state of “Palestine”, the case for that has never been stronger. (Underline, my emphasis) I really wonder whether politicians ever listen to themselves. It’s obvious that they’re not listening to each other.

So, even with statements like “the case for [peace] has never been stronger”, realities on the ground prove otherwise, as there is still no agreement on the basis for discussions.

Iran’s nuclear program continues to move forward.
The West claims that technological warfare has been successful to halt, or at least severely delay, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That argument then is used by those opposing military action against Tehran, adding that there is still time for a diplomatic solution to the increasing concern over Iran’s acquisition of a weapon of mass destruction.

But, the best laid plans of mice and men have failed to prevent the ayatollahs from laughing their way through negotiation after negotiation, in order to buy time for their nuclear program to advance. If anything, it appears that the best “worms” and “viruses” that purportedly infiltrated Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the much-touted Stuxnet, only served to challenge those who provide technical support to Tehran to double their efforts to contain the problem. This is evidenced by the fact that the installation and operation of new centrifuges were not impeded.

According to a study entitled “Are Cyberweapons Effective?”, published by Ivanka Barzashka in the Royal United Services Institute Journal, “uranium-enrichment capacity grew during the time that Stuxnet was said to have been destroying Iranian centrifuges…An increase in enrichment capacity or centrifuge performance shortens the time Iran needs to manufacture the nuclear material for a bomb…If anything, the malware, if it did in fact infiltrate Natanz, has made the Iranians more cautious about protecting their nuclear facilities, making the future use of cyber weapons against Iranian nuclear targets more difficult.” The conclusion to be drawn from Barzashka’s study is that cyber warfare is not the way to stop Iran. We can try to worm our way out of it, but the bottom line is that only concentrated military action will stop Iran in its nuclear tracks.

And while we wait for the next round “negotiations” with Iran, Tehran continues on its maddening, merry way, unabated. It is now reported to have undertaken “massive” deployment of missile launchers to unspecified areas within Iran. These are surface-to-surface launchers with a range of about 1,200 miles. In other words, these missiles can reach Israel, as well as U.S. bases in the area of the Middle East. The deployment of such missile launchers at this time is undoubtedly strategically timed as a show of strength intended to have an impact on the national elections in Iran scheduled for next week. But, the outcome of the elections should have no bearing on the continuance of Iran’s nuclear agenda. Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said that a nuclear Iran would be equal to 30 North Koreas. While the exact number of equivalent North Koreas is open for discussion, the understanding is clear –  a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world.

The U.S. continues to play games with Iran, holding military exercises intended as a flexing of muscles through Air Force carriers. But, if the U.S. doesn’t play the game to win, it will end up losing. So will the rest of the world, who will wake up one morning to a nuclear Iran. And then it will ask itself how that could have happened. The West continues to make the mistake of misunderstanding the mentality of this region and, particularly, the mullahs in Iran. Their hearts and minds are set on war. If the rest of the world gets in the way of establishing their unholy caliphate, which is intended to usher in their Islamic Messiah, then the rest of the world needs to be done away with. This is not a rational mentality and that is exactly the point that the West fails to grasp. There is no “reasoning” with fanaticism and particularly Islamist fanaticism. They understand only power. When “the enemy” is perceived as weak, the power of Islam tends to spread. When “the enemy” is strong, Moslem supremacy wanes and waits for the tide to change.

The present waiting game, filled with planned negotiations and offers to placate and appease, is dangerous to the extreme. Talk is cheap, action is costly. But inaction would be disastrous and deadly. Never without apt phrase, Winston Churchill’s definition of appeaser would be applicable here: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Russia steps up its involvement in Middle East affairs.
A report in last week’s The Wall Street Journal included a statement by U.S. officials that future Israeli air strikes against targets in Syria could be directed against Russian Yakhont, advanced anti-ship missiles which were sold and delivered to Syria, but which could be transferred to the Hizb’allah. This, coupled with the unsuccessful attempt by Israeli P.M. Netanyahu to persuade Putin not to complete the transfer to Syria of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, poses a formidable threat to Israel’s ability to maneuver on the sea and in the air. Israel has repeatedly said that while it is not seeking a confrontation with the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, it will, nevertheless, act to prevent the transfer of “game-changing” weaponry to the Hizb’allah.

But, what is even worse is that the S-300 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system could pose a genuine threat to both civilian and military aircraft flying in Israeli airspace, as well. Similarly, the Yakhont anti-ship system could seriously threaten Israel’s navy, as well as our underwater gas reserves in the Mediterranean.

Russia began increasing its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean about three months ago and its continued presence here, with a dozen or more warships patrolling waters near its naval base in Syria, represents one of Russia’s largest and sustained naval deployments since the end of the Cold War. This deployment, which might be reinforced with nuclear submarines, could lead to the setting up of a permanent Russian fleet in the region. Its presence here at this time is also seen as an intended warning to Israel and the West not to get involved in Syria’s bloody civil war that has claimed more than 80,000 lives over the past slightly more than two years.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s intentions to go through with the supply of the S-300 systems to Syria is officially said to be a matter of completing its contractual arrangements. But, he added: “Those that aren’t planning on acting aggressively against sovereign nations should not have any reason to fear this.” This could clearly be understood as a message, or threat, to Israel. Israel’s “unofficial” response to Lavrov’s statement was to the effect that the deciding factor for Israel would be what actually takes place, not what is said to take place. In other words, actions will speak louder than words and will determine how Israel will respond.

So, what do we have? Russia entering the picture and establishing a strategic presence in the waters of the Mediterranean not far from Israel. Russian “game-changing” weapons will be delivered to Syria before too long and Israel promising not to allow those weapons to reach the Hizb’allah, which may necessitate their destruction in Syria shortly after their arrival to prevent Syria from using them against us, as well.

It’s been suggested that Syria is being used by Russia as a means to another end, namely: the capture and control of the natural gas reserves discovered by Israel off of its northern coast, near Lebanon, as “spoils” of war. This is a genuine possibility, particularly given Russia’s sizable naval presence in the region. But, there are a number of things that need to occur before this potentiality becomes a reality. The region is definitely heating up. For the moment, a watchful eye and prayer for discernment are essential.

Assad feels confident, with a little help from his friends.
No matter how we want to look at it, Assad should have been removed a long time ago. The atrocities committed against his own citizenry make him morally unfit to rule. But, then again, we have seen dictators in this region and in Europe, who committed atrocities against humanity and specific people groups, who thrived because the world community essentially adopted a hands-off approach. As a result, hundreds, thousands and millions have fallen victim to evil regimes, which were eventually overturned. The same is true now in the countries of the Middle East, which have experienced the so-called “Arab Spring”, including Syria. If we’ve learned anything from these uprisings, it is that even the most vile, corrupt regime, like that of Assad, can survive for an extended period, if it is strongly supported by the military and by some outside help from the likes of Tehran, the Hizb’allah and now, Moscow.

Apparently, in discussions between the U.S. and Russia, which are designed to bring about an end to the fighting in Syria, there is purportedly an agreement that Assad will remain in power in one way or another. That means that the Iran-Syria-Hizb’allah axis of evil would remain as well, all with the blessing of Mother Russia. This is a likely scenario unless, of course, the rebels succeed in getting rid of Assad, while his friends take a coffee break.

Non-conventional warfare protection kits are in short supply.
According to the recently released, annual report of the Home Front Defense Ministry (H.D.F.): “As of 2012, the readiness level of government office and state authorities for an unconventional weapon attack stands at low-medium”. The essence of the report in layman’s terms is that we are at high risk of a terrorist chemical attack and a medium risk of a radiological attack.

A combination of government ministries and local authorities combined to carry out a drill on dealing with a chemical attack, which included two sirens that were sounded throughout the country, one at 12:30 p.m. and the other at 7:05 p.m. Numerous news reports reports indicated that chemical weapons were used in the fighting in Syria, but the real concern in Israel is that such weapons would fall into the hands of the Hizb’allah or other jihadist or radical groups.

The H.D.F. report reflects the current fears, saying that there are numerous indicators of terrorist organizations trying to get their hands on nonconventional weapons. But, the report also pointed out that only about 60 percent of Israeli citizens have nonconventional warfare protection kits that are supposed to contain, among other things, age-appropriate gas masks, and that there are not enough kits in storage – another victim of budget shortfalls.

H.D.F. Minister Gilad Erdan stated on Army Radio that, in his opinion, the Syrian government would not risk using chemical weapons on Israel: “Syria would not dare turn its chemical weapons on Israel…The Syrian regime and other groups in the area understand all too well the difference between using conventional weapons against Israel and using chemical weapons. The IDF’s power to retaliate is immense, and if we are talking about the possibility of such weapons being used against Israel, well, then the chances are not high.” We can hope and should definitely pray that his assessment is correct. Extremist behavior is not at all limited to Iran.

More tension along the border with Syria
Could Assad emerge the victor in the civil war? The thought is chilling, but the possibility exists. This possibility stems from recent military victories, with the help of Hizb’allah fighters, allowing him to regain the offensive and successfully repel the rebel attacks on the capital of Damascus and the major city of Aleppo. All of the initial expectations that pointed to Assad’s anticipated, “immediate” downfall did not take into account the massive military assistance that he received from Iran, the Hizb’allah and Russia.

Looking at the big picture, we would have to conclude that Assad is treading lightly when it comes to Israel. His focus has been, and if necessity must be, to keep the rebels from toppling his regime. Placing too much emphasis on a military engagement with Israel could prove very costly and could even prove fatal at this juncture. However, we should not conclude that Assad’s hesitation for a full face-off with Israel is a sign of weakness on his part. He has the military means to confront Israel through unconventional weaponry. This concern lies at the heart of Israel’s present dealings with Damascus.

Over the last few months, Israel has introduced new rules in its relationship with Syria. Paramount among them is its determination to prevent any arms shipment to the Hizb’allah that includes advanced weapon systems. However, Assad understands the mentality of the region, particularly the perception that extended restraint is a sign if weakness, which could harm him more in the long run than if he were to enter into a military fray with Israel. While Israel has threatened to topple his regime, if Assad should retaliate against Israel’s self-defense measures, it is clear that as he goes down, he may release his considerable weapons stockpile, including unconventional weapons, which would target major Israeli cities to create as much havoc and confusion as possible. While Israel prepares for every reasonably conceivable eventuality, a scenario like the one just described could cause the entire region to explode.

Israel really needs wisdom to know how to proceed. Cross-border missile and mortar attacks from Syria are becoming more and more frequent. The last thing that Israel needs right now is a northern duplication of the on-again, off-again missile attacks that Sderot (in the south) had to deal with. At some point, when the fighting is over, a new military reality will govern Israel-Syria relations. Until then, we continue to ask whether the devil we know is better than the one we don’t know. We need to resist both.

Turkish Prime Minister, in the U.S., condemns Israel.
While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made his 4th visit to the Middle East, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (pronounced “Erdwan”) was in Washington, D.C. During a speech that he gave at D.C.’s Brookings Institution, he criticized Israel again, saying: “As long as Israel does not accept a “Palestinian” state, there is not much to talk about in terms of trying to achieve peace.” He also referred to the rulers of Hamas as “brothers” (he should have said “birds of a feather”) and, during a question and answer period after his speech, added: “[Those] who agree to an Israeli state, cannot agree to a “Palestinian” state.” Well, I guess he must be talking about the leaders of the “Palestinian” Authority, who say they are willing (on their terms, of course) to accept an Israeli state. That being the case, what is all the fuss about trying to set up a “Palestinian” state, when even those who claim to want it, according to Erdoğan, cannot agree to it. Don’t you just love it when they trip over their own words?

A peace agreement that includes Hamas is “impossible”.
It will be recalled that during Netanyahu’s coalition negotiations, the first to join was left-wing Tzippi Livni. Being the first to help him out, she was rewarded with the post of Justice Minister. He also agreed to allow her to head up Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, along with Yitzhak Molcho, who represents Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although she takes every opportunity to agree with the “Peres push”, even she acknowledged the impossibility of concluding a peace deal between Israel and a Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Responding to Turkish P.M. Erdoğan’s comment that peace negotiations must include Hamas, Livni stated:“Erdogan perceives Hamas as a positive element — he has for years. But there is no chance of striking a [peace] deal with Hamas…Hamas represents an Islamist ideology that does not recognize Israel’s existence. Hamas would rather be isolated than abandon violence or say Israel has the right to exist.” So, who does she want us to negotiate with? Mahmoud Abbas, who denies the Holocaust happened and wants us to return to 1967 cease-fire lines? That would not be in Israel’s best interest, but a denial of international justice.

“A lie told well is immortal.” – Mark Twain
“There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth.” So said P.M. Netanyahu with regard to the alleged shooting death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura during the early days if the Al-Aqsa Intifada on September 30, 2000. After 12 long years, the Prime Minister was presented with a 36-page report, which officially negates and the French television report that suggested that the boy was killed by direct fire from the IDF. Not only does the report debunk the incident, it also concluded that there was no evidence that the boy and his father were injured at all, let alone severely, by IDF fire and further, that the French television station edited the footage to support its biased reporting.

The al-Dura affair has been one of the cornerstones of a lengthy delegitimization campaign against Israel, whose sole purpose is to portray Israel as a nation that kills children and perpetrates genocide. It should be clear that if the premise is wrong, the conclusions flowing from the faulty premise must also be wrong. One such faulty conclusion is that every act of violence against Israel is legitimate, because it is a country that knowingly and intentionally kills defenseless children. The lie, and hence the conclusion flowing from it, stem from a culture that views lying as one of many legitimate measures in its fight against the Yahud — the Jew.

The deceased terrorist, Yasser Arafat, demonstrated how it could be. He said: “We will abide by the Oslo Accords just like the Prophet Muhammad kept the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.” That treaty actually related to a defeat of the Muslims, yet Muhammad presented it to his followers as a victory.

P.M. Netanyahu related to the findings of the report, saying: “It is important to focus on this incident, which has slandered Israel’s reputation…This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies.” If Netanyahu only knew how true his statements are and how much God desires that we speak truth, it might affect the future policies of the State of Israel.

Many government officials lauded the findings of the report. Among them was Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud), who stated: “The truth always has a way of coming out…This is the end of this vicious blood libel. The Palestinians will no longer be able to use the boy’s death to incite against Israel, as they have the past 13 years.” MK Eitan Cabel (Labor) added his praise to the findings, saying: “I had no doubt that an Israeli soldier never opened fire on a Palestinian child deliberately.”

The Muhammad al-Dura story is a carefully-orchestrated, well-edited media event. Avenging his alleged death became a national, indeed an international, cry. His photo was on posters, billboards, postage stamps and in the media all over the world, media who were and are willing to believe the lie and become party to the conspiracy to condemn and delegitimize Israel, rather than probe the facts to elicit truth, before reporting the story. His story is a lie that has taken on flesh that was nourished by the flesh of others. Maybe I should have captioned this comment: “The face that launched a thousand attacks”.

There is an excellent article that presents the history of this “Palestinian” media sham. It is well worth the few minutes it will take to read it and I heartily recommend that you do so:

The Hizb’allah was attacked and Israel didn’t do it.
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the terrorist Hizb’allah organization, vowed this past Saturday to help push the present Assad-controlled, Syrian regime to victory. He warned that Assad’s forced removal would be a benefit for Israel and the West, that it would allow the emergence of extremists and spell the beginning of a “dark period” for the Middle East.

It wasn’t very long ago when Nasrallah was “the man” in Arab circles – the symbol of Arab pride. That was immediately following the Second Lebanon War in 2006. His Shiite militia stood up to Israel’s military and he became the instant hero of Shiite and Sunni Moslems alike. Even though he remained in seclusion to avoid the possibility of bring targeted by Israel, he was, nevertheless, revered and touted among the Arab states as the only who who could eventually restore the pride of the broader, Arab community.

That was until the Arab Spring turned to Winter and the glow of Nasrallah’s pan-Arab prestige began to fade. His true colors came out particularly during the Syrian civil war, when he sent members of the Shiite Hizb’allah gunmen to fight alongside Bashar al-Assad and kill Sunni Arabs, who make up the majority of the population in Syria. And so, he came under harsh criticism from within his own organization, from the Lebanese population and leaders of other Arab countries, who question where his true loyalties lie.

In a certain sense, Nasrallah’s speech last Saturday had much to do with self-preservation. His commitment to “not let [Assad] fail” is an expression of recognition that if the present Syrian regime goes under, his own organization will follow suit. Syria has been one of the strongest backers of the Hizb’allah and supplier, directly or indirectly, of much of its weaponry.

Referring to the Hizb’allah as “the resistance”, Nasrallah stated, in his televised address commemorating Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000: “Syria is the backbone of the resistance, and the resistance cannot stand, arms folded, while its back is broken…If Syria falls into the hand of America, Israel and takfiris [Muslims accused by other Muslims of apostasy], the resistance [Hezbollah] will be besieged and Israel will enter Lebanon and impose its will.” More than that, he said that the downfall of the regime in Syria would mean that “Palestine will be lost”. As a result, Nasrallah said that his organization would fight until the end and that the Hizb’allah would turn the tide of the fighting in Assad’s favor.

His speech was a clear acknowledgment of the role of the Hizb’allah in Syria’s civil war, which Nasrallah tried to play down, but was no longer able to do so,  given the heavy Hizb’allah losses in the fighting for the strategic town of Qusair, located near the Lebanese border. The speech also hinted at the fact that there would be more Hizb’allah losses before the fighting is over.

A few hours later, a Hizb’allah-controlled district in Beirut was hit by two rockets. Although there was no one that claimed responsibility, three rocket launchers were sound in an area to the southeast of Beirut, two of which had been fired. Nasrallah has “lost face” with the Lebanese people. In this area, that means he has to go. Even if Assad remains in power and even if the Hizb’allah will have a lot to do with that, neither Assad nor Nasrallah will be the same.

“The times, they are a changin’.”

And THAT was The Week That Was.

Sometimes in the face of what appears to be a giant, we often see ourselves as grasshoppers (Numbers 13:27-29; 32-33). At those times, we need to remember: “Trust in The LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding” (Prov. 3:5)
“Do not fear, for I am with you; do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand. Behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonor end; those who contend with you will be as nothing and will perish…Those who war with you will be as nothing and non-existent.” (Isaiah 41:10-12)

Be a blessing and be blessed,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s