THOSE WHO FORSAKE THE COVENANT
by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director
International Christian Zionist Center - Email Address: 
iczc@iczc.org.il
"And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and
seize the kingdom by intrigue.  And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully" he shall show regard for those who
forsake the holy covenant.  Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know
their G-D shall be strong, and carry out great exploits."
(See Daniel 11).

The influence of the above quoted words is clear:
In the end time Israel's greatest danger will come from within those who forsake the holy covenant will be the chosen tools for the enemy of Israel to lead Israel astray.

Those who have no inner regard to the uniqueness of G-D's holy calling and covenant of Israel will be most vulnerable to the
deceitful flatteries of peace from the enemies of Israel.

The covenant G-D made with Israel is again and again alluded to in the scriptures and has a direct link to the land He promised
them (not half of it!) as an everlasting possession.  Let us listen to how G-D Himself describes this covenant in Genesis 17:7,8:

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting
covenant, to be G-D to you and your descendants after you.  Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which
you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their G-D."

In my book Babylon or Jerusalem I call attention to the fact that there are essentially two systems of philosophy, which vie for
world supremacy:   One is Babylon the other Jerusalem.  One is earthly bound, the other is heavenly bound.  One is initiated by
man's endeavors, the other is initiated by G-D.  One belittles nationality and sovereignty in favor of new global and international
approach to solve mankind's problems, the other stresses very much sovereignty and nationhood even to the point of singling out
one nation and people as G-D's chosen channel for a new world where nations shall fight no longer but turn their swords into
ploughshares and joyfully come up to Jerusalem to live in peace and justice together.

Thus, those among the Jews who in their hearts have forsaken this aspect of their unique calling and destiny become open to the
flatteries and deceit of those who are bent on their destruction as a uniquely called Jewish nation.  That is the implication of the
verses just quoted from the prophet Daniel.

Since G-D confused the Babel like effort to unite mankind in rebellion to Him by giving each nation his own particular language -
the barrier to a global world body or government has become nationhood and sovereignty.

As "Robert W. Lee writes in his book on the U.N.,
"for thirty years we have been asked to believe that an international union
under the economic, political, cultural, geographic and linguistic Tower of Babel on New York's East River can save us from the scourge of war and protect our personal liberties!  It is an incredibly unrealistic and dangerous assumption.
(35)

On United Nations Day in 1975, the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia unveiled the notorious '
Declaration of INTERdependence' authored by internationalist historian Henry Steele Commager.  The document called for "all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United Nations," and claimed that "To establish a new world order" it "is essential that mankind free itself from the limitations of national prejudices" (See Babylon and Jerusalem page 20).

Therefore, those Israeli politicians who in essence have come around to this Babylonian outlook and philosophy are the most
dangerous in regards to the ultimate safety and destiny of the people of Israel.

In Yoram Hazony's book
The Jewish State, he has the following insightful passages:

"Nowhere within the Israeli government was the influence of post-Zionist ideals more in evidence in the years after 1992 than
in the Foreign Ministry, which appeared to change course from a foreign policy aimed at securing the interests of the Jewish
People and the independent Jewish state, to one aimed at the construction of a 'new Middle East' wherein the sovereign character
of the present Jewish and Arab states would be attenuated, possibly to the point of erasure.  This policy revolution was executed
with unparalleled speed and gusto thanks to the leadership of Shimon Peres, one of Ben-Gurion's most devoted disciples, who
has over the last decade become the most important advocate of backing away from the idea of an independent Jewish State."

(Page 62)

"It is unclear what the forces were that drove Peres, during the Labor party's long years in opposition after 1977, to change course after a lifetime of devotion  to classic Jewish nationalism." (Page 63)

"In contrast, everywhere the supernational trend predominates, there is a  sensitivity to human needs, opportunities, and desires, leading to a more lasting international order that strives for prosperity, development, and human rights.  Western Europe is a
shining example of this."
(Page 64)

"At the threshold of the twenty-first century, we do not need to reinforce sovereignty, but rather to strengthen the position of humankind." (Page 65)

*  As Yoel Marcus wrote,
"Our people has long since tired of bearing Zionism on its shoulders generation after generation." While the Arabs have remained
faithful to their ideology of the holiness of the land, preferring to forgo peace rather concede anything of their demands
'Israel is
'ready lightly to withdraw from the lands that were the cradle of Judaism'
in exchange for personal safety and a 'normal' life.
(Page 71)

*  David Grossman described,
"The Jews living in Israel are now being asked not only to give up on geographical territories.  We must also implement a 'redeployment' or even a complete withdrawal from entire regions in our soul, such as 'the purity of arms.'  Such as being a 'precious people' (am segula) or a 'chosen people.'  Slowly, over long years, we will discover that we are beginning to give them
up:  - Giving up on power as a value.  On the army itself as a value; on:  'It is good to die for one's country; on:  'The best to the air force' and on:  'After me.'  We will discover how we are refining a new existence for ourselves.  One which is no longer
drenched to the point of suffocation with the myth of our exile from the land, or with the myth of Masada, or with a one-dimensional lesson of the Holocaust."  (
Page 72)

That this process and ideology of globalization was not the exclusive or original domain of Israeli educators and politicians but in
fact taken over from others in the world who had long since advocated such thoughts and policies can be seen from the following
quotes.

Years ago Zbigniew Brzeziinski already wrote in Foreign Affairs:

"The world is not likely to unite (willingly) behind a common ideology or a super-government.  The only hope is that it will now
respond to a common concern for its own survival.  Today the Atlantic framework is too narrow to encompass the multitude of challenges and opportunities that confront the international community.  It is a recognition of this reality to propose that the
active promotion of such trilateral cooperation must now become the central priorty of U.S. policy."


Professor Richard Gardner, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission wrote in the same
Foreign Affairs:
"Attempts to achieve instant world government must be changed.  An end-run around national sovereignty eroding it piece-by
piece will accomplish more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

These influenes and philosophies therefore are only able to penetrate Israeli society when there are enough men and women in
Israel who are willing to trade off their own unique calling and nationality for such a global and more international structure.

This then is meant by the words quoted from Daniel that
'the enemy wanting to undermine Israel in the end will do so through
those who have forsaken the Holy Coventant.'


Therefore, the alarm sounded by Yoram Hazony in his book,
The Jewish State, is right on target when he writes:

"The answer seems to be that Peres was not really that interested in questions of 'national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and
political independence' as indeed Peres himself wrote in his book, The New Middle East:  'At the threshold of the twenty-first
century, we do not need to reinforce sovereignty, but rather to strengthen the position of humankind."

Return to Archives Page