When are the 2 witnesses suppost to appear?

sojourner

"THE COVENANT WITH RABIN

On September 13, 1993, on the eve of Rosh HaShannah which begins the Civil New Year of Israel, exactly 3,000 witnesses gathered on the White House lawn to watch Yitzack Rabin and Yasser Arafat sign what would be called the Peace and Security agreement. The western news media would announce to the world, "Today, on the White House lawn, 3,000 witnesses gathered to observe the signing of the most historic peace treaty in the history of mankind, for today, after nearly 4,000 years of conflict, the descendents of Isaac and Ishamael have made peace." Notice the name of the man who signed the treaty. Rabin. The word for "many" in the Hebrew is "la rabim". Rabin's name is inferred within the prophecy! 3,000 is also the covenant number of GOD. When Moses received the law and came down from the mountain, and saw the children of Israel had made the golden calf, three thousand died in the ensuing judgment." - pg. 29.

Source: The Day of the Lord is at Hand, by Benjamin Baruch. Available at www.thedayofthelordisathand.com. (BTW, I have a few extra copies that I bought, and will send them out for free.)

The key word in Daniel 9 is "confirm." Confirm is not "make".

So, all we need is a confirmation of the above peace treaty with the provision that the sons of Ishmael get a piece of Jerusalem?

By the way, anyone seen what the average national temperature in the U.S. is right now? Add fires, floods, you name it. The blood of the unborn may already be causing our land to be sick and vomit out its inhabitants. Huge earthquakes have happened on the other side of the globe. Will they happen here?

Will Israel shortly be left without the U.S. as protector, when the U.S. begins suffering from enough trouble of its own?

One more thing...the U.S. population is expected to break the 300,000,000 barrier shortly. Remember the 3000, above? Do a word search for 30 (thirty), 300 (three hundred), 3000, etc. in scripture and it will definitely make you think.

Well, that's enough for now. If not already, let's put our trust in Jesus. He is the only "ark" in times of trouble.

In Him,

Mike

Dear Mike,....you stated that the word 'confirm' is not "Make"......would you please clarify a little more as to why you say this......................benny

Jul. 18, 2006 12:07
Iran parliament speaker: No part of Israel safe
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHERAN, Iran


Iran's parliament speaker warned Tuesday that no part of Israel is safe during Hizbullah's battle with Lebanon - a statement made despite Iran's claim that it is not aiding the guerrillas in their fight.

Speaking to thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators in Palestine Square, Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel told Israelis: "The towns you have built in northern Palestine (Israel) are within the range of the brave Lebanese children. No part of Israel will be safe."

Haddad Adel is not among the most influential officials in Iran. Nevertheless, his comments call into question the Teheran government's official position that it is not involved in the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon.

....................................................................................benny

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
Ex-CIA chief: Bomb Syria!
Woolsey says Damascus, Iran think U.S. 'nation of cowards'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 17, 2006
8:35 p.m. Eastern


By Joe Kovacs
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



Former CIA Director James Woolsey

As violence continues to escalate between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency says the U.S. should now take military action against Syria, which, along with Iran, is believed to be backing Hezbollah.

"I think we ought to execute some airstrikes against Syria, against the instruments of power of that state, against the airport, which is the place where weapons shuttle through from Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas," James Woolsey said. "I think both Syria and Iran think that we're cowards. They saw us leave Lebanon after the '83 Marine Corps bombing. They saw us leave Mogadishu in '93."

The former CIA chief, now a vice president for the global consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, said it is much too soon to talk about a realistic end to the fighting.

"I think the last thing we ought to do now is to start talking about cease-fires and a rest," he said.

"Iran has drawn a line in the sand. They've sent Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. They're pushing their nuclear weapons program. They're helping North Korea, working with them on a ballistic missile program. They're doing their best to take over southern Iraq with [radical Shiite cleric] Muqtada al-Sadr and some of their other proxies. This is a very serious challenge from Iran and we need to weaken them badly, and undermining the Syrian government with airstrikes would help weaken them badly."
....................................................................................benny

I believe that the two wittnesses are Enoch and Elijah,....because these two had never died ,but were caught up into heaven.....these two are old testament saints. but yet It is appointed for man to die once.........At the end of thier wittnessing for 1260 days, they do die and there is no contradition to Gods Word.........We know that these two wittnesses will wittness for 1260 days and then will die....and three and a half days later rise into heaven in the sight of men........So, this tells me that they will be in heaven 1263-1/2 days from the day they begin thier ministry....The day that the Abomination begins, we can count 1260, and on that last day, The world will wittness The Lord Jesus,the saints, the Bride,and the Angels decending towards the earth...............It would not make sense for the two wittnesses to go into heaven,to find out that the Lord and everyone eles is on earth.......So I believe that the beginning time for these two wittnesses will be when the 7 yr. confirmation begins................................benny

Iran's Hizbollah says ready to attack US, Israel 33 minutes ago



TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Hizbollah, which claims links to the Lebanese group of the same name, said on Tuesday it stood ready to attack Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We have 2,000 volunteers who have registered since last year," said Iranian Hizbollah's spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli, speaking by telephone from the central seminary city of Qom.

"They have been trained and they can become fully armed. We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardise Israel and America's interests. We are only waiting for the Supreme Leader's green light to take action. If America wants to ignite World War Three ... we welcome it," he said.

Iranian religious organisations have made great public show of recruiting volunteers for "martyrdom-seeking operations" in recent years, usually threatening U.S. interests in case of any attack against the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme.

But there is no record of an Iranian volunteer from these recruitment campaigns taking part in an attack.

Iran's Hizbollah (Party of God) says it is spiritually bound to Shi'ite Muslim guerrillas in Lebanon but its command structure and funding are unclear.

Despite Iranian Hizbollah's insistence that it takes orders from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, government ministries say Hizbollah does not implement official policy. Iran's government has said it hopes for a diplomatic solution to the Israeli offensive in Lebanon.

While Iran did fund and support Lebanese Hizbollah during the 1980s, Tehran says it has not contributed troops or weapons in the latest violence. Israel says Iranian armaments have been fired against it.
................................................................................benny

All of y'all armchair quarterbacks start drawing up the plans for the next play. Hand 'em off to the backseat driver . . . watch out for that wall ahead. They say that is the place where the bottom drops out.

Everybody knows what is going to happen. All of Israel will be saved. That includes you. We are all members of the body of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was crucified dead and buried. The third day, he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven where he sits on the right hand of God. And from there, he will come back and judge.
This judgement is happening now. Do y'all not realize that you are who you say Jesus Christ is, the judge of the living and the dead. That is what the bible means when it says, 'All judgement has been handed over to mankind.' Y'all keep saying the things that everybody else is saying and publishing abroad your ignorance. What I mean when I say ignorance is that the word of God tells you that if you call on Jesus you will be saved. None of the leaders anywhere at any time have called on the name of the only begotten son of God. But then in our government there is a separation of Church and State. If any one of the leaders would mention the name Jesus, that would bring the world to a violent end. But the violence would end. It would not be this protracted ending. You can blame Abraham for the violence in our world now. He gave us Ishmael by listening and heeding what his wife told him to do. Adam was cast from the garden because he listened to his wife and did what she told him to do. From Adam came Abraham. From Abraham came Isaac and Jacob and Moses. From Moses came the ten commandments. In the ten commandments we are told not to commit adutery.
What does that say about Adam? I don't know. But that says everything about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the twelve princes and tribes of Israel. They are ALL products of adultery. The bible tells you if you break one law you break them all. Before they were given they were broken. But that is why they were given and the bible tells you that. But then you could argue back and say that without the law there is no sin. I will answer and say because of sin there is the law. Right now the law says, 'Thou shalt not kill.' If you become a martyr you prove that law and cause killing to multiply. You read the bible and it tells you about all of the killing of people in God's name. In God's name they died because they killed.
Because Jesus Christ was a child of Abraham, he was crucified to end the line from Adam and to save the spirits of all.
When you repeat the sayings of all of these pundits from everywhere, you 'loose' their words. You know what the bible says, 'What you bind on earth is bound in heaven; and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.' So, now we have war and destruction and death. And we'll have that until we die.
By the way, Elijah has been here for awhile. He is the spirit that caused President Bush to say the phrase 'no child left behind.' That is the reason for the Amber Alert, the mail publications, the posters in the stores of missing children.
Y'all need to come to the present and get out of the past and stay away from the future and let it come to you. You don't need to draw up any plans because you become bound by them.
******
That includes Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, Hezbollahlians, and dictionaries.

Oh, Enoch gave us the knowledge of the seasons, the planetary movements, etc. Remember, 'Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore, Elijah and Enoch are not flesh and blood.

Dear Miki,....You are so funny, and know how to make me smile .....................................benny

Yeah, in other words, an existing peace plan or "covenant" is strengthened further, whereby this guy just puts his seal of approval on it. "Confirm" doesn't seem to mean "authorship". In Strong's concordance, the reference says "put to more strength, strengthen, be stronger, etc. It doesn't say the Hebrew word "gabar" means to make or author. Of course the NASB has it translated differently, as "make" instead of "confirm." The question is, "which is correct?"

The article about Rabin seems quite applicable to an already existing covenant.

In Christ,

Mike

"Yeah, in other words, an existing peace plan or "covenant" is strengthened further, whereby this guy just puts his seal of approval on it. "Confirm" doesn't seem to mean "authorship". In Strong's concordance, the reference says "put to more strength, strengthen, be stronger, etc. It doesn't say the Hebrew word "gabar" means to make or author. Of course the NASB has it translated differently, as "make" instead of "confirm." The question is, "which is correct?"

The prince that shall come will "confirm" the covenant. The covenant implied exists. It existed in Daniel's day and has for centuries.

O K....Just wanted to make sure where Mike is coming from....I already had my Dictionary out this morning,.just in case.....But Yeah...He's right...................................................benny

[quote=benny balerio,Jul 18 2006, 07:42 PM]
[quote=benny balerio,Jul 18 2006, 07:30 PM][quote=Stephen,Jul 18 2006, 04:14 PM]"Yeah, in other words, an existing peace plan or "covenant" is strengthened further, whereby this guy just puts his seal of approval on it. "Confirm" doesn't seem to mean "authorship". In Strong's concordance, the reference says "put to more strength, strengthen, be stronger, etc. It doesn't say the Hebrew word "gabar" means to make or author. Of course the NASB has it translated differently, as "make" instead of "confirm." The question is, "which is correct?"

The prince that shall come will "confirm" the covenant. The covenant implied exists. It existed in Daniel's day and has for centuries.
[right][snapback]73401[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]O K....Just wanted to make sure where Mike is coming from....I already had my Dictionary out this morning,.just in case.....But Yeah...He's right...................................................benny

[/quote]These guys are either bluffing, or they have a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping out most of the Middle East.

The opening salvo of a new war
In the Middle East, it's no longer Jew versus Arab. It's Iran versus everybody else
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...9-6a22942aa2b2
Douglas Davis
National Post

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

LONDON, England - The question is not why Hezbollah launched its attack on a routine Israeli military patrol along the Lebanese border last Wednesday, but why they chose that specific time.

One thing is certain: The attack was neither random nor impulsive. On the contrary, it appears to have been carefully calculated and intricately planned. Certainly, Hezbollah would not have mounted such an operation without the prior knowledge and approval of its patrons -- Iran, which arms, trains and funds Lebanon's Shiite radicals, and Syria, which serves as a conduit and provides essential logistical support.

In fact, the operation had probably been on the drawing board for several months. According to intelligence sources, a major weapons consignment destined for Hezbollah arrived at Damascus airport from Iran last March. That was just one month after Iran had ended its voluntary co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which included surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Iranian consignment was transported in a military convoy through Syria and along Lebanon's Bekaa Valley to Hezbollah bases in south Lebanon. The convoy had received an official transit permit from the Lebanese government, which knew not only the precise nature of the shipment but also its destination.

The sources say the consignment included some 12,000 Katyusha rockets, as well as various other types of missiles. Of particular concern to Israel's military strategists was that the range of the new rockets had been substantially extended. They were capable of reaching Israel's main port city of Haifa, and possibly well beyond.

At the same time as the missile consignment was heading to Lebanon, an unnamed senior Iranian official was quoted as saying his country would inflict "harm and pain" on the United States and its allies, vowing to "use any means" to "resist any pressure and threats" designed to curb Iran's nuclear program. The rhetoric was not empty.

One month later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," made the dramatic announcement that Iranian scientists had completed the nuclear fuel cycle and were enriching uranium. (Iran insists its uranium enrichment is for strictly peaceful purposes.)

So why did Hezbollah wait until last Wednesday before unwrapping those missiles? Largely lost in the heat and dust of the attack and Israeli counter-attack was a brief statement issued in Paris on the same day by the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy.

The statement, on behalf of the foreign ministers of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union, came five weeks after the group had asked Iran to resume negotiations with the IAEA over suspending its nuclear program. There had still been no response from Teheran. "In this context," declared M. Douste-Blazy, "we have no choice but to return to the United Nations Security Council and take forward the process that was suspended two months ago. We have agreed to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution which would make the IAEA-required suspension mandatory."

That announcement, which had been anticipated in Teheran, is the likeliest trigger for last Wednesday's attack. And the message that Teheran delivered in return, courtesy of its Lebanese proxy, was loud and clear: Iran would -- and could -- inflict "harm and pain" on U.S. interests. And not just in the Middle East. Hezbollah's playground extends far beyond the region. It has a formidable global reach.

That was underscored in a report to the U.S. Congress in January this year by the new American intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte. He noted that Iran was perfectly capable of sparking a wide conflict if it felt threatened. Hezbollah, he added, is "Iran's main terrorist ally, which has a worldwide support network and is capable of attacks against U.S. interests if it feels its Iranian patron is threatened."

Washington hardly needs reminding of Hezbollah's lethality. Those members of Congress will not have forgotten that one of the first acts of the newly formed Hezbollah in 1983 was to launch a truck-bomb attack against the Beirut barracks of the U.S. Marines, who'd been sent to the Lebanese capital on peace-keeping duties at the height of Lebanon's civil war. The attack cost the lives of 241 U.S. servicemen. But, as Mr. Negroponte indicated, Hezbollah can also operate on the international stage.

In March 1994, for example, Thai security officials arrested a Hezbollah terrorist as he was driving a truck laden with explosives near the Israeli embassy in Bangkok. If the truck had detonated, it would have destroyed the entire embassy and blown up several hundred people.

Three months later, in faraway Argentina, Hezbollah was luckier. Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a Lebanese citizen and member of Hezbollah, drove an explosives-packed van into the seven-storey building in Buenos Aires that served as the Jewish community centre. A total of 85 people were killed and more than 200 wounded.

Much is riding on the outcome of the current conflict, not only for Israel but also for much of the rest of the world. Three important sub-texts are currently being played out in the context of the Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas conflict. Each will have far-reaching international implications -- for U.S.-Russian relations, for Iran's nuclear ambitions and, not least, for the globalized Islamic challenges that confront a slew of states in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East itself.

It was no surprise that Russia's President Vladimir Putin played a distinctly different tune from that of his American guest at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg on the weekend. Over the past two years, Russia has quietly moved from a position of co-operation with the United States to one of rivalry. While Mr. Putin expressed himself in more nuanced terms than did his Soviet predecessors, the former KGB officer is staking a claim to superpower status -- bolstered by billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues -- and to an independent position on a variety of international issues, including the Middle East.

This was confirmed by Professor Stephen Blank in a major report published last month by the Conflict Studies Research Centre at the Defence Academy of the U.K. Russian policy in the Middle East, says the professor, is increasingly animated by a determination to check American power and influence in the region. This determination is driven in equal measure by a "fierce desire" for global-power status and recognition.

And while the Russians are using the language and grammar of multi-polarity, its policies are essentially no less unilateral than those of the United States.

Quite apart from the fate of Mr. Putin's grand ambitions, the outcome of the exchanges across the Israeli-Lebanese border will provide Mr. Ahmedinjad with a clear indicator of just how much (or, perhaps, how little) room he has for manoeuvre in his drive to become a full member of the "nuclear club."

And finally, if Hezbollah is able to emerge with even a shred of military credibility from its encounter with Israel when the Security Council calls time, the outcome will be perceived as a huge victory for Islamism. It is a "triumph" that is likely to carry the seeds of accelerated radicalization, with possibly devastating consequences -- not only for the West, but also for a clutch of Middle East states that are already facing a burgeoning Islamist threat: Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and, of course, Lebanon itself.

Concern rather than outrage was the dominant theme at the hastily convened Arab League summit in Cairo last weekend. Arab foreign ministers, many of whom have now concluded that Israel's enemies are theirs, too, railed helplessly at the international community for failing to fulfill their promise of bringing peace to their turbulent region.

The heady days of sterile Arab League rhetoric are coming to a close. The ritual denunciations of the Zionist entity are muted; the extravagant expressions of pan-Arab solidarity are barely whispered. A new reality is in the air. Hezbollah's attack last week represents the opening salvo in Iran's war against the West -- and anyone else who stands in its way.
_..........................................................................benny _________________

[quote=benny balerio,Jul 18 2006, 07:44 PM]
[quote=benny balerio,Jul 18 2006, 07:42 PM]
[quote=benny balerio,Jul 18 2006, 07:30 PM][quote=Stephen,Jul 18 2006, 04:14 PM]"Yeah, in other words, an existing peace plan or "covenant" is strengthened further, whereby this guy just puts his seal of approval on it. "Confirm" doesn't seem to mean "authorship". In Strong's concordance, the reference says "put to more strength, strengthen, be stronger, etc. It doesn't say the Hebrew word "gabar" means to make or author. Of course the NASB has it translated differently, as "make" instead of "confirm." The question is, "which is correct?"

The prince that shall come will "confirm" the covenant. The covenant implied exists. It existed in Daniel's day and has for centuries.
[right][snapback]73401[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]O K....Just wanted to make sure where Mike is coming from....I already had my Dictionary out this morning,.just in case.....But Yeah...He's right...................................................benny

[/quote]These guys are either bluffing, or they have a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping out most of the Middle East.

The opening salvo of a new war
In the Middle East, it's no longer Jew versus Arab. It's Iran versus everybody else
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...9-6a22942aa2b2
Douglas Davis
National Post

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

LONDON, England - The question is not why Hezbollah launched its attack on a routine Israeli military patrol along the Lebanese border last Wednesday, but why they chose that specific time.

One thing is certain: The attack was neither random nor impulsive. On the contrary, it appears to have been carefully calculated and intricately planned. Certainly, Hezbollah would not have mounted such an operation without the prior knowledge and approval of its patrons -- Iran, which arms, trains and funds Lebanon's Shiite radicals, and Syria, which serves as a conduit and provides essential logistical support.

In fact, the operation had probably been on the drawing board for several months. According to intelligence sources, a major weapons consignment destined for Hezbollah arrived at Damascus airport from Iran last March. That was just one month after Iran had ended its voluntary co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which included surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Iranian consignment was transported in a military convoy through Syria and along Lebanon's Bekaa Valley to Hezbollah bases in south Lebanon. The convoy had received an official transit permit from the Lebanese government, which knew not only the precise nature of the shipment but also its destination.

The sources say the consignment included some 12,000 Katyusha rockets, as well as various other types of missiles. Of particular concern to Israel's military strategists was that the range of the new rockets had been substantially extended. They were capable of reaching Israel's main port city of Haifa, and possibly well beyond.

At the same time as the missile consignment was heading to Lebanon, an unnamed senior Iranian official was quoted as saying his country would inflict "harm and pain" on the United States and its allies, vowing to "use any means" to "resist any pressure and threats" designed to curb Iran's nuclear program. The rhetoric was not empty.

One month later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," made the dramatic announcement that Iranian scientists had completed the nuclear fuel cycle and were enriching uranium. (Iran insists its uranium enrichment is for strictly peaceful purposes.)

So why did Hezbollah wait until last Wednesday before unwrapping those missiles? Largely lost in the heat and dust of the attack and Israeli counter-attack was a brief statement issued in Paris on the same day by the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy.

The statement, on behalf of the foreign ministers of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union, came five weeks after the group had asked Iran to resume negotiations with the IAEA over suspending its nuclear program. There had still been no response from Teheran. "In this context," declared M. Douste-Blazy, "we have no choice but to return to the United Nations Security Council and take forward the process that was suspended two months ago. We have agreed to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution which would make the IAEA-required suspension mandatory."

That announcement, which had been anticipated in Teheran, is the likeliest trigger for last Wednesday's attack. And the message that Teheran delivered in return, courtesy of its Lebanese proxy, was loud and clear: Iran would -- and could -- inflict "harm and pain" on U.S. interests. And not just in the Middle East. Hezbollah's playground extends far beyond the region. It has a formidable global reach.

That was underscored in a report to the U.S. Congress in January this year by the new American intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte. He noted that Iran was perfectly capable of sparking a wide conflict if it felt threatened. Hezbollah, he added, is "Iran's main terrorist ally, which has a worldwide support network and is capable of attacks against U.S. interests if it feels its Iranian patron is threatened."

Washington hardly needs reminding of Hezbollah's lethality. Those members of Congress will not have forgotten that one of the first acts of the newly formed Hezbollah in 1983 was to launch a truck-bomb attack against the Beirut barracks of the U.S. Marines, who'd been sent to the Lebanese capital on peace-keeping duties at the height of Lebanon's civil war. The attack cost the lives of 241 U.S. servicemen. But, as Mr. Negroponte indicated, Hezbollah can also operate on the international stage.

In March 1994, for example, Thai security officials arrested a Hezbollah terrorist as he was driving a truck laden with explosives near the Israeli embassy in Bangkok. If the truck had detonated, it would have destroyed the entire embassy and blown up several hundred people.

Three months later, in faraway Argentina, Hezbollah was luckier. Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a Lebanese citizen and member of Hezbollah, drove an explosives-packed van into the seven-storey building in Buenos Aires that served as the Jewish community centre. A total of 85 people were killed and more than 200 wounded.

Much is riding on the outcome of the current conflict, not only for Israel but also for much of the rest of the world. Three important sub-texts are currently being played out in the context of the Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas conflict. Each will have far-reaching international implications -- for U.S.-Russian relations, for Iran's nuclear ambitions and, not least, for the globalized Islamic challenges that confront a slew of states in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East itself.

It was no surprise that Russia's President Vladimir Putin played a distinctly different tune from that of his American guest at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg on the weekend. Over the past two years, Russia has quietly moved from a position of co-operation with the United States to one of rivalry. While Mr. Putin expressed himself in more nuanced terms than did his Soviet predecessors, the former KGB officer is staking a claim to superpower status -- bolstered by billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues -- and to an independent position on a variety of international issues, including the Middle East.

This was confirmed by Professor Stephen Blank in a major report published last month by the Conflict Studies Research Centre at the Defence Academy of the U.K. Russian policy in the Middle East, says the professor, is increasingly animated by a determination to check American power and influence in the region. This determination is driven in equal measure by a "fierce desire" for global-power status and recognition.

And while the Russians are using the language and grammar of multi-polarity, its policies are essentially no less unilateral than those of the United States.

Quite apart from the fate of Mr. Putin's grand ambitions, the outcome of the exchanges across the Israeli-Lebanese border will provide Mr. Ahmedinjad with a clear indicator of just how much (or, perhaps, how little) room he has for manoeuvre in his drive to become a full member of the "nuclear club."

And finally, if Hezbollah is able to emerge with even a shred of military credibility from its encounter with Israel when the Security Council calls time, the outcome will be perceived as a huge victory for Islamism. It is a "triumph" that is likely to carry the seeds of accelerated radicalization, with possibly devastating consequences -- not only for the West, but also for a clutch of Middle East states that are already facing a burgeoning Islamist threat: Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and, of course, Lebanon itself.

Concern rather than outrage was the dominant theme at the hastily convened Arab League summit in Cairo last weekend. Arab foreign ministers, many of whom have now concluded that Israel's enemies are theirs, too, railed helplessly at the international community for failing to fulfill their promise of bringing peace to their turbulent region.

The heady days of sterile Arab League rhetoric are coming to a close. The ritual denunciations of the Zionist entity are muted; the extravagant expressions of pan-Arab solidarity are barely whispered. A new reality is in the air. Hezbollah's attack last week represents the opening salvo in Iran's war against the West -- and anyone else who stands in its way.
_..........................................................................benny _________________
[right][snapback]73437[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Jul. 19, 2006 1:26 | Updated Jul. 19, 2006 3:48
Syria, Iran are comfortable watching from the sidelines as Lebanon burns
By PAULA MARGULIES


Iran may not want to get very involved in this round of fighting and may leave Hizbullah to fend for itself - willing to sacrifice some of its interests in Lebanon at this stage to make headway in its real objective of obtaining nuclear weapons, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland told Israel Radio on Tuesday.

Iran's parliament speaker warned Tuesday that no part of Israel is safe during Hizbullah's battle with Lebanon - a statement made despite Iran's claim that it is not aiding the guerrillas in their fight.

Speaking to thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators in Palestine Square, Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel told Israelis, "The towns you have built in northern Palestine [Israel] are within the range of the brave Lebanese children. No part of Israel will be safe."

Haddad Adel is not among the most influential officials in Iran. Nevertheless, his comments call into question the Teheran government's official position that it is not involved in the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Iran and its ally Syria are the principal backers of Hizbullah. On Monday, Israeli military officials said their planes had destroyed a long-range missile in Lebanon, named Zelzal, which Hizbullah had received from Iran.

This much is clear: Syria and Iran may have a hand in Hizbullah's attacks, but they are quite happy watching events unfold from the sidelines - together.

"Iran is the only ally Syria has right now," said Eyal Zisser, senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies. "They have a close and intimate relationship."

If Hizbullah attempts to draw Damascus into the fray, can we expect Teheran to jump in as well?
Not a chance, analysts say.

Syria has no interest in sharing Lebanon's fate, and Iran has too much to risk.

Ephraim Kam, senior researcher at Tel Aviv's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, said that "Up until now, Syria has been trying not to get involved - the two sides are playing a game."

However, according to Mark Heller, also of the Jaffee Center, "There may be some concern on Israel's part that Hizbullah is trying to drag Syria into the game - and Syria is definitely concerned."
"Syria could possibly be forced into it," says David Menashri, the head of Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, "whether they are willing or unwilling."

Assuming that Israel has no interest in opening up a third front, what other factors could influence whether or not the crisis expands? Is Iran pressing for escalation?

Experts agree that Teheran is gleeful over the conflict - which averts international attention from its nuclear aspirations.

"Iran has openly admitted to supporting Hizbullah - ideologically, politically, financially and possibly militarily," said Menashri.

Israel and the US have accused Iran of supplying Hizbullah with soldiers who assisted in the attack against the Israeli warship Hanit. The Iranian embassy has denied the charges.

On Monday, the commander-in-chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Israel could end its conflict with Hizbullah by agreeing to a prisoner exchange. The Revolutionary Guards - who fought Israel in south Lebanon in the 1980s - are among Hizbullah's closest allies.

According to Menashri, the timing of Hizbullah's July 12 attack on Israel leaves no room for doubt - Teheran was involved in the attacks.

July 12, he said, was the day that Iran was supposed to address its uranium enrichment program or face sanctions from the West.

"On July 11, Iran declined to address the West's demands, and the issue was returned to the UN Security Council." Iranian foreign policy chief Ali Larijani went home through Damascus, and the kidnapping happened the following day.
more-to -come......................................................benny

[right][snapback]73437[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Jul. 19, 2006 1:26 | Updated Jul. 19, 2006 3:48
Syria, Iran are comfortable watching from the sidelines as Lebanon burns
By PAULA MARGULIES


Iran may not want to get very involved in this round of fighting and may leave Hizbullah to fend for itself - willing to sacrifice some of its interests in Lebanon at this stage to make headway in its real objective of obtaining nuclear weapons, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland told Israel Radio on Tuesday.

Iran's parliament speaker warned Tuesday that no part of Israel is safe during Hizbullah's battle with Lebanon - a statement made despite Iran's claim that it is not aiding the guerrillas in their fight.

Speaking to thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators in Palestine Square, Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel told Israelis, "The towns you have built in northern Palestine [Israel] are within the range of the brave Lebanese children. No part of Israel will be safe."

Haddad Adel is not among the most influential officials in Iran. Nevertheless, his comments call into question the Teheran government's official position that it is not involved in the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Iran and its ally Syria are the principal backers of Hizbullah. On Monday, Israeli military officials said their planes had destroyed a long-range missile in Lebanon, named Zelzal, which Hizbullah had received from Iran.

This much is clear: Syria and Iran may have a hand in Hizbullah's attacks, but they are quite happy watching events unfold from the sidelines - together.

"Iran is the only ally Syria has right now," said Eyal Zisser, senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies. "They have a close and intimate relationship."

If Hizbullah attempts to draw Damascus into the fray, can we expect Teheran to jump in as well?
Not a chance, analysts say.

Syria has no interest in sharing Lebanon's fate, and Iran has too much to risk.

Ephraim Kam, senior researcher at Tel Aviv's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, said that "Up until now, Syria has been trying not to get involved - the two sides are playing a game."

However, according to Mark Heller, also of the Jaffee Center, "There may be some concern on Israel's part that Hizbullah is trying to drag Syria into the game - and Syria is definitely concerned."
"Syria could possibly be forced into it," says David Menashri, the head of Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, "whether they are willing or unwilling."

Assuming that Israel has no interest in opening up a third front, what other factors could influence whether or not the crisis expands? Is Iran pressing for escalation?

Experts agree that Teheran is gleeful over the conflict - which averts international attention from its nuclear aspirations.

"Iran has openly admitted to supporting Hizbullah - ideologically, politically, financially and possibly militarily," said Menashri.

Israel and the US have accused Iran of supplying Hizbullah with soldiers who assisted in the attack against the Israeli warship Hanit. The Iranian embassy has denied the charges.

On Monday, the commander-in-chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Israel could end its conflict with Hizbullah by agreeing to a prisoner exchange. The Revolutionary Guards - who fought Israel in south Lebanon in the 1980s - are among Hizbullah's closest allies.

According to Menashri, the timing of Hizbullah's July 12 attack on Israel leaves no room for doubt - Teheran was involved in the attacks.

July 12, he said, was the day that Iran was supposed to address its uranium enrichment program or face sanctions from the West.

"On July 11, Iran declined to address the West's demands, and the issue was returned to the UN Security Council." Iranian foreign policy chief Ali Larijani went home through Damascus, and the kidnapping happened the following day.
more-to -come......................................................benny
[right][snapback]73451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Jul. 19, 2006 1:26 | Updated Jul. 19, 2006 3:48
Syria, Iran are comfortable watching from the sidelines as Lebanon burns
By PAULA MARGULIES

(Continued from page 1 of 2)
However, Menashri believes that, like Damascus, Iran is not interested in entering the fray.

"They are interested in escalation," he said, "but to a degree. It is in their interest to sit in Teheran and have Hizbullah fight for them."

According to Heller, Iran has been encouraging Syria to get more involved, but Damascus has demurred.

"There are reports," he said, "that the Syrians said no to Iranian offers of help because they don't want to be attacked by Israel."

Heller added that Syria and Iran understand that "If they got into trouble, no one would come to their aid."

Bound together by unpopularity and hateful ideology, the two countries may continue to play remote-control warfare from the sidelines - but they are wary, analysts say, of entering the battlefield.

Also Monday, Iran's foreign minister said he thought a cease-fire was feasible - in another sign that Iran may have a behind-the-scenes role in the fighting.

In his speech, Haddad Adel praised Hizbullah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, calling him a "brave lion" and said the Palestinians and Lebanese had every right to fight Israel because Israel has hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinians in its prisons. He also warned that there would be no peace until the US stopped supporting Israel.

Addressing Washington, he said, "Either cut your support for Israel, or don't expect peace and compromise with the world.
"
The crowd responded with chants of "Death to Israel!"

AP contributed to this report
....................................................................................benny

"And finally, if Hezbollah is able to emerge with even a shred of military credibility from its encounter with Israel when the Security Council calls time, the outcome will be perceived as a huge victory for Islamism. It is a "triumph" that is likely to carry the seeds of accelerated radicalization, with possibly devastating consequences -- not only for the West, but also for a clutch of Middle East states that are already facing a burgeoning Islamist threat: Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and, of course, Lebanon itself"

This view may carry much realistic truth and I would suggest that the visions of the Bible prophets resemble this picture. The current status of the Middle East should be watched for the following developments:

Recent documents intercepted by western intelligence operatives reveal that radical Islamic extremists have plans to drive the western military presence from Iraq, create a caliphate (theocratic ruler) in part of Iraq, conquer most of the Middle East, destroy the USA with WMDs, conquer Israel, and ultimately rule the world.

What do the prophetic scriptures say ? At the time of the end a ruler (little horn) with fierce countenance will appear in the northern Middle East. His kingdom (dominion) will be small at first. He will rise among 10 other kings (rulers, heads of state) and will subdue 3 of them. These 3 will be replaced by those of his choosing. [Daniel 7:8, 7:19-25, 8:9, 8:23-25] [Revelation 17:12-14]

He will confirm the covenant with many that will last for 7 years. This covenant may be his plan of action and rational for world domination. He will ultimately rule the Middle East and Israel for 42 months, and cause much destruction on a worldwide scale. The covenant may turn out to be an Islamic perversion of the Abrahamic covenant that the Lord has with national Israel. Islam already lays claims to this same relationship. [Daniel 8:24-25, 9:26-27] [Revelation 11:2]

He will expand his Middle Eastern kingdom (dominion) to the east, the south, and toward Israel. He and the 10 other kings will also hate the "great city" hub of Mystery Babylon the Great and destroy it by fire in one hour on one day. These actions will be part of his strategy to rule the world and will take place during the first half of the 70th week. [Daniel 8:9] [Revelation 17:12-18]

At the time of the end the king (ruler) of the south (Egypt) will push at him and he (the king of the north) will rush upon him (the king of the south) like a whirlwind. He will come from his place out of the north, will overflow and pass over, and many countries in the Middle East will be overthrown. [Daniel 11:40-43]

He will also invade and rule over the Land of Israel. The followers of this prince that shall come will destroy Jerusalem and prohibit Jewish worship at the base of the Western Wall of the temple mount. This will be accomplished by the mid-point of the 70th week decreed for national Israel [Daniel 9:26-27, 11:41 12:1]

Jesus said that when Israel is encompassed with armies and the abomination of desolation stands in the holy place (temple mount area), those who are in Judea (primarily the west bank and Jerusalem) must flee into the wilderness (east, Jordanian territory). [Zechariah 12:2-3, 14:1-9] [Matthew 24:15-21] [Luke 21:20-26] [Revelation 12:13-17]

Those who acknowledge and follow him he will cause to rule over many and he will divide the land for a price. The price will be to worship him as a god. Tidings of opposing forces out of the far north and east (outside of the Middle East) will alarm him and he will go forth with great fury to utterly sweep away and destroy the opposition. [Daniel 11:36-44]

He will be challenged by the intervention of the Jesus at the end of his 42 month rule and he will be forced into confrontation at the battle of Armageddon. His defeat at the hands of the Lord will end his control.

Jesus will then establish His 1,000 year dominion over the earth and will rule the world from Jerusalem. [Daniel 2:34-35, 36:45] [Ezekiel 38:19-23, 39:3-29] [Zechariah 14:8-9] [Micah 4:1-3] [Revelation 16:2-16, 19:11-21, 20:4]

Students of Bible prophecy should watch current events related to this parallel and consider the similarities as a possibility of an exact match.

The time for the Biblical account of these things to take place is not revealed in Scripture and the accuracy of the parallel comparisons depends upon how close we are to the end of this present age.

We Soon Shall See
How many time have you heard it was wrong to let current events interpreter Bible prophecy? The next thing you know, the person making that statement does exactly that. How? By looking at the situation that they think they see in the world, instead of looking at the prophecies that may have been fulfilled.

In fact, that's one reason I believe so many of today's end-time ministries may be so far behind the curve as to what's actually going on both politically and prophetically. The current crisis in the Middle East is an example. If you only listen to the news reports and the statements coming from our world's leaders, you may think we still have a ways to go before the final prophecies can be fulfilled. However, it you look at the prophecies that may have already been fulfilled, the whole picture suddenly changes. The final events of history may already be in sight.

It's amazing how just a little piece of wrong information can have such a large blinding effect. Take for example our interpretation of who the little horn is in Daniel chapter eight. If we believe it's referring to the coming Antichrist, we may be expecting to see a 10 nation alliance appear in the Eastern leg of the old Roman Empire. If , however, we believe as I do -- that chapter eight of Daniel is referring to the Greek kingdom and the rise of Antiochus Epipanes, we may be open to the idea that the 10 nation alliance could appear in Western Europe. And, you will naturally take special notice of the 10-nation Western European Union.

Here's my point: No matter how we believe about Bible prophecy, we may have already been witness to seven possible fulfillments out of ten that were foretold. We have seen the rebirth of Israel (1), the revival of the old Roman Empire (2), the appearance of a 10 nation alliance (3), the appearance of a Mr. Europe (4), who's Office and authority is identified with 666 (5), who negotiated a covenant with many (6) that, beginning on January 1, 2007, he plans on confirming for a period of seven-years (7).

What are the three prophecies yet remaining? If we've seen the fulfillment of the first seven, we should expect to see three kings from out of the 10 nation alliance somehow subdued (8), and, sometime around 2010, we should see Mr. Europe stepping in and putting a stop to Israel's Temple scarifies and offerings (9). And, after Mr. Europe and the 10 nations wage a short campaign against God's people, we should expect to see our Lord stepping in and putting an end to the world's madness.

So, am I allowing current events to interpret the prophecies? Or, am I allowing the prophecies to interpret current events. We soon shall see .

Are you ready? ..............................................................benny

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Press Briefing: Situation in the Middle East


/noticias.info/ SECRETARY RICE: Dobriy dyen. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here principally to take your questions, but let me just begin by saying that after very fruitful discussions with President Putin yesterday, and with Prime Minister Prodi of Italy, the President resumed his bilateral schedule this morning with very constructive talks with Prime Minister Blair and with President Chirac of France. Those talks centered, of course, on a wide variety of issues, but as you might imagine, there were extensive discussions about the ongoing and unfolding situation in the Middle East.

I think it's fair to say that the President and President Chirac, the President and Prime Minister Blair see the situation similarly; they, of course, all very concerned about the ongoing violence there, and particularly the cost to civilians -- Israeli civilians, Palestinian civilians, and of course, Lebanese civilians. They are all working together and discussing how we might chart a way forward, because, after all, the real goal here is, of course, to bring an end to the violence, but to bring an end to the violence in a way that is going to be sustainable.

The Middle East has been subject to these violent episodes for a very long time, and yet there is an international framework that would give us a political way forward. In the case of Lebanon, that framework is Resolution 1559, which talks about the importance of the sovereignty of Lebanon, the importance of making certain that unauthorized armed groups cannot do what Hezbollah, in fact, did, which was to launch the attacks against Israel when the Lebanese government did not even know. In the case of the Palestinian Territories, there is a framework forward called the road map. But, of course, we've been doing a lot of work toward a two-state solution after the disengagement of Israel from Gaza.

So there are a lot of international agreements and framework -- and a framework out there for the resolution of these crises in a way that would be sustainable, so that when the violence ends, it ends. And then we are able to move forward to a two-state solution, in the case of the Palestinian Territories and Israel, and a sovereign and democratic Lebanese government in the case of Lebanon.

Let me, then, take your questions. Terry.

QUESTION: Iran said today that the incentives package that was presented is an acceptable basis for negotiations, and they suggested the G8 has two options, a path of logic, and a path of extremism. What is your reaction to Iran's statement?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Terry, I've only just seen the statement, and it comes from a foreign ministry official. Obviously, the G8 is not the negotiating -- potential negotiating partner here. It is the Group of Six that had the meeting in Paris just recently.

There is, indeed, a very good proposal on the table that could be a basis for negotiations. There is also a path ahead to the Security Council on which we are now launched, given the outcome of the meeting in Paris, because the Iranians had not responded positively in a timely fashion. If the Iranians want to respond positively, I would hope that they would do so through the channel that is established between the six and the government of Iran, and that is Mr. Solana. His interlocutor has been Mr. Larijani, but I would hope that someone would get in touch with Mr. Solana with a concrete and authoritative answer.

But I've only just recently seen the statement. Obviously, there is a path of negotiation. It's a good proposal; it could be a basis. We also have the other path on which we're currently launched if we can't come to agreement that that's the right basis.

QUESTION: In your conversations with Prime Minister Olmert, did you suggest, in describing a need for restraint, a tipping point at which civilian casualties or damage done in Lebanon would no longer be acceptable to the United States?

SECRETARY RICE: We're saying to the Israelis privately precisely what we're saying to them publicly. Of course, we have more extensive talks, but the message is the same, which is that we understand that -- and believe strongly that every state has a right to defend its sovereignty, every state has a right to defend its people from terrorist attacks and to take actions to prevent those attacks.

In the current circumstances, there is a strategic picture to keep in mind, because the ultimate security and safety of Israelis and Palestinians, Israelis and Lebanese, is going to come from the political framework that has been established by the international community; 1559 in the case of Lebanon, and the road map in the case of the Palestinian Territories.

We have said to Prime Minister Olmert and to other Israelis that we are deeply concerned about the effect on innocent civilians, and would hope that Israel would be mindful of, and restrained in, its operations so that the innocent civilians do not suffer -- innocent civilian casualties, civilian infrastructure -- and so that the Lebanese government, which is a good and democratic and, in fact, young democratic government, is not undermined by those actions. But that has been the message to the Israelis, just as we've been saying publicly, and I think as the President said yesterday.

QUESTION: There is no line, though, at which you would withdraw your support?

SECRETARY RICE: I think it's not useful to speculate about something that is -- would, indeed, be hypothetical, but rather to continue to ask all parties to act responsibly, and really to recognize that until we address the conditions that began this, which is that extremists launched attacks, had been launching -- we forget, there had been missile attacks that had been launched for an extended period of time. We also forget that we -- we should not forget that this took place despite -- perhaps, because of -- positive political developments that were taking place, particularly in the Palestinian Territories where President Abbas was engaging with elements of the elected government to try and move the entire Palestinian government toward theQUESTION: uartet conditions so that you could get back onto the road map.

That is really the appropriate course. But, obviously, extremists in Hamas, Hezbollah, and their supporters in Syria and Iran do not want to see a resolution of these situations on the basis of 1559 and the road map, because then they would have no reason for violence.

Yes.

QUESTION: You say that the leaders here are working together on coming together on a common position. How do you square that with President Putin's comments last night about Israel pursuing wider goals, and also President Chirac's comments about Israel using excessive force? There doesn't seem to be much of a common position.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me just -- you can cite specific statements by people, or you can look at, for instance, the meeting that President Chirac and President Bush had this morning where President Chirac said in no uncertain terms that the United States and France see similarly what needs to be done here.

There is a great concern on all sides about civilian casualties. There is a great concern about damage to civilian infrastructure. I don't think that there is anyone here who would say that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. And I think that everyone here would note that the extremists who are attacking not just Israel, but the very foundation for peace need to be stopped. After all, the United States and France are cosponsors of Resolution -- were cosponsors with Great Britain of Resolution 1559. Russia is a member of theQUESTION: uartet, which is a sponsor of the road map.

And so you can pick out a comment here or a comment there, but I would ask you to look at the strategic agreement between all of the parties here that the current situation is only going to be resolved by getting back on the road map, only going to be resolved by Resolution 1559, and that the largest impediment to that is those parties that are outside of that framework.

The Lebanese government of President Siniora is not outside of the framework of Resolution 1559. Hezbollah, apparently, believes that it is. And on the road map, President Abbas is clearly committed to it; Israel is clearly committed to it. But you do have extremist elements in Hamas, and perhaps all of Hamas -- we haven't heard from Hamas -- that do not want the road map to succeed, and don't recognize the very basis of it, which is the existence of two states.

Yes.

QUESTION: Is Israel currently showing restraint? Or would restraint be a change in behavior?

SECRETARY RICE: The Israelis are trying to defend themselves, but we continue to remind Israel that any operations that it undertakes will have consequences in addition to anything that they can do to improve their own security situation. And so the Israelis themselves have said that they want to spare innocent civilian life; they themselves have said that they are mindful of problems of civilian infrastructure -- they've said this to me -- and of the humanitarian situation.

And so I don't think that there is a quarrel here. I'm not going to try to judge each and every Israeli operation or each and every Israeli attack. But we are going to keep this framework in place with Israel, because, while we concentrate on trying to deal with the immediate consequences, what we really need to do is to concentrate on a way forward that is going to permit the cessation of violence to, first of all, be sustainable -- that means that we won't be back here three weeks from now talking about trying to get another cessation of violence -- and that means getting back on a political path in each of these distinct crises.

QUESTION: Why not call for a cease-fire until you can get back on that political path?

SECRETARY RICE: We want a sustainable cessation of violence. I --

QUESTION: -- you want the violence to end?

SECRETARY RICE: I can tell you that -- of course, we want violence to end. But I can tell you right now if violence ends on the basis of somehow Hezbollah or Hamas continuing to hold in their hands the capabilities anytime they wish to start launching rockets again into Israel, if violence ends on the basis of no change in the underlying political support for Resolution 1559 or for the work that President Abbas is doing, if violence ends on the basis of Syria and Iran being able to turn on the key again anytime, we will have achieved very, very little, indeed, and we will be right back here, perhaps in a worse circumstance because the terrorists will assume that nobody is willing to take on what has been a very clear assault now on the progress that is being made by moderate forces in the Middle East.

We're working also with the Arab states, with the Egyptians, with the Saudis, with the Jordanians, and of course, there's going to be a U.N. mission out there on behalf of Secretary General Annan -- I've talked to him several times. We have a number of diplomatic venues in which to pursue this. But we also need a program to pursue, and that program has got to address the underlying circumstances that caused this situation.

QUESTION: With regard to North Korea, how satisfied are you with the U.N. Security Council resolution without Chapter 7, which Japan strongly desired? And also, given the fact that the North Koreans rejected this immediately, how effective do you think this will be?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I am, -- frankly, I find it remarkable, the resolution that was passed unanimously in the Security Council. Let me just note first that it has been since 1993 since there has been a resolution on North Korea, and here we have an affirmative Chinese vote -- not an abstention, an affirmative Chinese vote -- on a resolution that demands that North Korea cease its activities that are jeopardizing international peace and security, that demands that North Korea find a way back to the negotiating table, that requires member states to work to prevent the North Koreans from receiving materials that might enhance their capabilities. It's a remarkable resolution. And with an affirmative Chinese vote.

I just want to say to China that the responsibility that has been shown here -- and I think the President will say this to President Hu later -- really shows that the efforts that we've been making over the last couple of years to have six-party talks -- not U.S.-North Korea talks, where it was the United States and North Korea -- but six-party talks, in which all of North Korea's neighbors have been working toward a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, that that's really paying off, because we really now have a coalition. And that is really the answer to your second question. That's why I think ultimately North Korea will have no choice but to return to the talks and pursue denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: You said that you want to get back on the diplomatic track, but is there any sense whatsoever that, given the effectiveness of the early attacks by Israel, that Hezbollah might, in fact, be rendered obsolete militarily? Is that on the table? And also, on a related point, some foreign governments have already started trying to get their people out of Lebanon. Is the U.S. government, other than the travel warnings that have been issued, is the U.S. government contemplating anything like that?

SECRETARY RICE: On the last point, Dick, we're assessing the situation practically hour-by-hour, in terms of our own people. We obviously have plans and contingency plans should we need to bring people out. I get reports on this every couple of hours as to how this is going. But our Ambassador who is on the ground will obviously do what we need to to protect Americans.

As to the basis for diplomatic action, obviously the most important issue is that we do have to find a way to isolate and disable extremists who are trying to frustrate the aspirations of moderate forces in the region, and the democratic aspirations of moderate forces in the region. They're also, by the way, not just trying to frustrate the aspirations of democratic forces, they're trying to destabilize the region at the same time.

Now, the Israelis are, I think, trying to defend themselves. It's obvious that when you have rockets being fired into your territory, I believe eight or nine people killed today in Haifa, that there is a responsibility of Israelis to defend their people. I don't think you can ask any less of any state.

But the broader context here is that moderate forces have to draw together, with the support of the international community, through international vehicles that are already available to us -- 1559 in Lebanon, the road map and the work that Mahmoud Abbas has been doing in the Palestinian Territories -- in order to lay a foundation where these extremists cannot do what they're trying to do.

And so this is a time of -- obviously, it's a complex time, it's a worrying time, it's a time of great concern about the toll on civilians. It is also a time when we have an opportunity to lay a foundation for a cessation of violence that this time will be a permanent cessation of violence, which would then allow us to really make a permanent peace.

QUESTION: Is there any role for the United States other than diplomacy?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think the United States' role is a diplomatic role. It's also a role to support our friends and allies in the region who are going -- who are now living under extremely difficult circumstances. So, for instance, the Siniora government -- which is a friend of the United States, and which I've been in touch with the Prime Minister, the President has been in touch with the Prime Minister; of course, we are talking to the Israelis; we are also talking to the Egyptians and the Saudis and to others -- so, in part, the United States needs to make clear that we're going to adhere to principle, we're going to stand strong with those who are moderate forces and who want this to come out the right way, and, of course, we are going to throw the full diplomatic influence and weight of the United States behind these efforts.

We are -- I've talked to Javier Solana, who I know will probably go to the region, and we are -- I've also been in constant contact with Kofi Annan, because we hope we can support this U.N. mission.

But, principally, this is really a time for diplomacy, but it's not just diplomacy of talking and talking and talking. It's diplomacy of moving toward a goal of using the diplomatic vehicles -- in fact, in the case of the road map, the international vehicle; in the case of the 1559, the Security Council vehicle -- that we have established over the last couple of years, and using that now. This is the time to use those vehicles to get results, because those vehicles are going to give us the best outcome for a permanent peace.

Yes, Steve?

QUESTION: You said that North Korea will have no choice but to rejoin the talks. They're already rejecting the resolution. What are you going to do now? Are the Chinese going to talk to them? What's the next step here?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Steve, I think it's fair to say I'm not surprised that the first reaction of the North Koreans is to reject the Security Council resolution. They tend to be rejectionist and pretty isolated in any case. My point is that if they want a different way ahead, if they don't want to be even more isolated than they are, if they do not want to face some of the additional pressures that can be brought to bear on them, then I think that they will eventually realize that they've got to come back to the six-party talks. That's really the only game in town.

And when we are in the six-party talks, we're able to engage North Koreans. That's not a problem. Chris Hill has done that on a number of accessions. But the six-party talks are the vehicle now that the international community is using to deal with North Korea, and I think eventually North Korea is going to recognize that.

Yes.

QUESTION: When you talk about consequences with Israel, how do you define those consequences? And are there consequences for U.S. Mideast policy if civilian casualties mount, this back-and-forth continues and the U.S. is seen as standing with Israel?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we're standing with all responsible parties in the region and with moderate parties in the region who want a Middle East that is different than the 30-plus years of -- really, 60-plus years of Middle East history.

And I want to say just a word about this notion that somehow this all arose in the last couple of years, because we've been calling for democracy and things have gotten stirred up in the Middle East. There was a false stability in the Middle East over the last several years that produced a set of circumstances and an atmosphere so malignant that you had the rise of extremist forces like alQUESTION: aeda. So the notion that somehow the Middle East -- which has, of course, been a violent place now for any -- for a lot of years -- that the Middle East was somehow undisturbed, and because now we are fighting extremism, because now we are pressing for a democratic voice for the people of the Middle East, that somehow that has now caused the current crisis I think is grotesque.

What you had in the Middle East before was American policies -- bipartisan, by the way, it had been pursued by Democratic Presidents and by Republican Presidents -- that engaged in so-called Middle East exceptionalism and was pursuing stability at the expense of democracy, and it turned out, as we learned on 9/11 or July 7th here, or in any -- in London or across the world, was getting neither.

And so we have a new day in the Middle East, and it is a day in which the people of the Middle East, the people of Lebanon without Syrian forces there, the people of the Palestinian Territories with a democratic leader in Mahmoud Abbas, are seeking to find a democratic future, and on that basis, to build a framework and a firm foundation for peace -- a two-state solution in the Palestinian Territories, and an independent, sovereign Lebanon as a result of 1559.

And so, yes, it's turbulent, and, yes, we are deeply concerned about mounting civilian casualties. But we need to also recognize that the only way that we're going to deal with the underlying problem in the Middle East is to deal with the extremists, isolate the extremists, and put in place moderate democratic states.

Yes.

QUESTION: If I may, has dissatisfaction in the region with progress in Iraq affected U.S. leverage in this crisis at all?

SECRETARY RICE: No. In fact, we have very good relations with all of the states of the region -- the responsible states of the region. But let's remember that Iraq is a piece of the puzzle of a different kind of Middle East. Can you really imagine a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein sitting in the middle of it? Of course not. That's why we went to war in 1991, because he had a vision of a different kind of Middle East. It was one in which Iraq dominated its neighbors. And so Iraq is a piece of this different kind of Middle East.

And it will be difficult, but we are at an important juncture right now, because extremists have showed their hand. They showed their hand as being fundamentally opposed to the democratic aspirations and to efforts to bring peace between Israel and its neighbors and efforts to have a democratic and sovereign Lebanon. That's what's really happened here. And they've showed that their sponsors are in Tehran and in Damascus. Things are clarified now. We know where the lines are drawn. And we now have to respond in a way that strengthens and emboldens in a more permanent way the more moderate forces in this region.

I think I can take one more.

QUESTION: Is there a specific infrastructure site in Lebanon, a bridge, a power plant, a road, that the U.S. has asked Israel not to target? And does the U.S. believe Israel has hit any infrastructure target wrongly at this point, that it wasn't a legitimate military target, they shouldn't have done it?

SECRETARY RICE: As I said, I am not going to try to judge step-by-step, target-by-target, Israeli military operations. We are continuing to press the case that restraint is necessary in the cause of self-defense, in this case, because as Israel defends itself, and we fully respect Israel's right to defend itself, it also needs to look ahead to the partners that it is trying to build, the moderate partners.

President Abbas is a moderate partner in the Palestinian Territories. Prime Minister Siniora is a moderate partner in Lebanon. In the case of President Abbas, Prime Minister Olmert was reaching out to President Abbas, as President Abbas was trying to bring the Palestinian political leadership toward theQUESTION: uartet conditions. The Israelis and the Palestinians were talking to each other and reaching out. That's what the extremists want to stop.

And so, yes, we are urging the Israelis to be restrained; we're talking to them about these things. We're talking about the need to minimize the effect on civilians. We're continuing to talk about alleviating humanitarian problems in the Palestinian Territories in any way that we can. But we are also cognizant of the fact that the Israelis, moderate Palestinians, the Lebanese, and Arab states like Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a common goal here, which is a Middle East that has a framework for a stable peace. And that is what we are trying to work toward.
...........................................................................benny