Jerusalem is at the center of Middle East controversy, the city placed on
the proverbial chopping block by the American president and the
international community for division in order to bring about a Palestinian
state. More than that, it is peace in our time the world leaders say they
seek. There is a new prince in this process, and he has, in effect, just
been anointed as such by the globalist organization that officially
pronounces such commendation.
President Barack Obama was named the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
October 8, 2009. His nomination was
actually made nine days into his presidency, then his selection as winner
was announced October 8. The decision, made from a record 205 candidates,
was unanimous.
Despite his brief time in the international spotlight, Mr. Obama received
much glowing praise, such as that from
Mohamed
ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
in Vienna, and a former Nobel Peace Prize winner: "In less than a year in
office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we
live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei
said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect
and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts" (Joel Rosenberg’s
Weblog, 10/9/09).
Obama's being vaulted into the position of chief peacemaker by those who
help serve as king-makers before the world's media, thus the eyes and ears
of the world, raises many questions—especially in the minds of those who
look beyond first-glance meaning. Questions
rise
to the surface of this anxiety-fraught time. Why has a man of only 48
years of age, who has no accomplishments of any distinction in matters of
international peace-making, and little experience
in anything else except community organizing in Chicago, and a few hours
spent actually working in the U.S. Senate before being elected president of
the United States, suddenly been declared the top man of peace by the Nobel
committee?
Despite Mohamed ElBaradei's acclamation of
Obama's peace-making, there is no such achievement to be found, only claims
of achievement.
For example, President Obama met in July with
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow on nuclear arms control. The
leaders agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery
vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed
that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200
to as low as 1,500.
Yet, despite the fact that the Obama
Administration has agreed to step back from installing a land-based
defensive missile shield in parts of Europe in order to placate them, the
Russians recently announced a step up in their strategic nuclear capability.
This announcement followed Obama's talking on his trips to Europe and beyond
about how America will begin downsizing its nuclear arsenal in the hope
others will follow suit for the sake of one day achieving total nuclear
disarmament.
One must ask: Is this true achievement in the matter of world peace—or is it
shades of "peace in our time" in 1939?
Such "peace-making"—applied
to Israel and the Mid-East peace process—is especially troubling, although
quite intriguing, in my view. Joel Rosenberg wrote about the possible
surreptitious things that might currently be plotted in that regard.
Rosenberg foresees a scenario where the United Nations Security Council
might, in an effort to take the spotlight off Iran's developing nuclear
weapons, instead shine it on Israel. The UN, observably an anti-Israel
organization in large part, would through Security Council resolution, in
Rosenberg's scenario, force Israel, which has never acknowledged
possessing nuclear weaponry, to join the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). Israel would then be forced to open itself to inspection. Any
refusal might lead to an international coalition against the Jewish state
in an effort to force it to comply. This could be attempted, either through
severe sanctions against Israel, isolating it from the world community of
nations, or even by attacking it, as happened against Saddam Hussein's Iraq
in both recent Gulf conflicts.
Secondly, Rosenberg ponders the possibility of the international community
creating, then recognizing, a Palestinian state through fiat, rather than
through a negotiating process. Such unilateral action would almost certainly
set up a confrontation of biblical proportions, he believes.
The world community has long wanted Israel to give in to demands, but has
shown no such impatience for the leaderships of Israel's antagonists.
Rosenberg correctly points out that President Obama has increasingly—in
recent speeches given while he travels the world—taken
the lead on this effort. He is demanding that Israel return to its pre-1967
borders, divide Jerusalem, and allow the
Palestinians to have a state with contiguous borders (thus cutting Israel
proper in two).
We
return to the questions Obama's winning the Nobel Peace Prize flushes into
the open. I am privileged to have friends and colleagues who think deeply in
these matters, especially on their possible prophetic implications. One such
confidant has proffered fascinating thoughts on recent developments
regarding the Nobel Prize for peace as they relate to eschatology as we near
the end of the age. I find his analysis particularly thought-provoking,
so, without giving the writer's name, upon his request that I not mention it
in his exclusively shared remarks, I'll give a few of these thoughts here.
"The Nobel Peace Prize [to Barrack Obama] was awarded purely for political
reasons, and perhaps for strategic reasons. Its timing is bizarre. He must
have been nominated within 10 days of being sworn in. He had not then, nor
has not since, achieved any tangible progress toward peace. He was not
rumored to be among the finalists. However, the vote was unanimous. The
announcement came weeks before expected.
It has interesting implications regarding several military issues currently
facing the US and Israel. Overtly, Obama has yet to decide whether to commit
further troops to Afghanistan. However, more subtly, Obama has to consider
military options with respect to Iran. Yesterday's papers reported the
possibility that the US was gearing up to take direct military action
against Iran. This was based on the accelerated development of the Massive
Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, bunker-busting bomb. While this story is
probably false, the US may have been planning to assist Israel in striking
Iran, either by providing arms, intelligence, over flight permission or
logistical support. The Nobel Peace prize renders an affirmative decision to
make war or assist Israel in making war significantly more difficult.
Finally, given the terrorist threat under which the US finds itself, and
given the serious risk of nuclear attack on US cities and the need to
retaliate as a matter of self-defense, the Nobel Peace Prize may result in a
conflict of interest wherein Obama's tacit peace pledge conflicts with his
sworn duty to defend the Constitution and the US. In my opinion, the
pressure of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is particularly acute in
this time period between it having been awarded and his accepting it.
I am convinced that the Antichrist will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
someday. I am not prepared yet to say that it was designed with the
Antichrist in mind, but I do think that the committee that now decides the
winners is spiritually compelled to award it to Antichrist types and
specifically for the benefit of those who advance the New World Order and
are enemies of Israel.
In short, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama has been
intentionally designed to frustrate any efforts on the part of the US to
help Israel defend itself against Iran.
Strange developments are afoot while the world looks
for the prince that shall come, and we who name the name of Christ look for
the true Prince of peace.
