Command the Raven

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

Terror Attack Near Hebron: Not An Incident But a Revelation About What’s Happening

Posted: 01 Sep 2010 02:40 PM PDT

Please be subscriber 17,320. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

An isolated fragment of news, a tragic story, or just another act of terrorism? What’s necessary, however, is to fit events into a broader picture and so it is with the latest attack by Hamas, killing four Israelis driving near Hebron.

What does this mean? What’s it all about? It’s a signal, timed for the restart of direct negotiations, that Hamas will subvert by terror any progress toward Israel-Palestinian peace. Hamas said so explicitly, calling the attack as also being against those “led astray by the illusion of negotiations” and reminding the PA that its “natural choice…is jihad and resistance.”

President Barack Obama called the attack “senseless slaughter” against which the United States would “push back.”

But terrorism is hardly “senseless.” On the contrary, it is part of a very sensible strategy that often works in its shorter-term goals.

And how can Obama say the U.S. government is going to “push back” since only a few weeks ago he handed a huge victory to the organizer of this attack, Hamas, by pressuring Israel into reducing sanctions on the Gaza Strip while himself granting about $300 million to pay salaries (through the PA) to civil servants in Gaza who implement Hamas’s policies?

The U.S. government also forgot its former policy of making things tough in the Gaza Strip so that the “moderation” of the West Bank looked better and more beneficial. Now the idea is to promote prosperity in the Gaza Strip so that for some reason–I can’t imagine why–the populace will turn against Hamas.

But here are scenes of Hamas supporters celebrating the attack. They have nothing to worry about, since they know that Western governments and other international forces will block Israeli retaliation against the terrorist group, while now there are no restrictions on non-military goods coming into the Gaza Strip. And if Hamas stages ten more attacks or twenty? If it fires rockets and mortars into Israel or launches cross-border attacks, is there any likelihood that the United States will “push back?”

And if not, then how can America policy have any credibility or leverage?

As mediators and media talk about how peace is in everyone’s interest, this attack reminds us that it is not so clearly in the interest of the Palestinian Authority (PA) which faces massive public opposition (which it has so often fomented) against compromise, internal opposition to making any compromises (among a majority of Fatah leaders), and also the determined opposition of Hamas.

The attack signals to the Palestinian public that “resistance” is an alternative accorded much more honor and respectability even in PA propaganda and ideology. It is Hamas’s counter-campaign to show that violence is preferable. And why not? Murdering Israelis is right in the dominant Palestinian political culture, is made to seem heroic, and doesn’t carry heavy penalties either for the groups doing it or individual terrorists carrying it out.

Here’s one more proof. The PA has just honored a Palestinian mother as a great role model. What is her claim to fame? Four sons in Israeli jails for having tried or succeeded in killing Israeli civilians. How many hundred examples would you like from the last year or two of this positive reinforcement for such deeds?

This Hebron attack also reminds Israel that the PA is unable (and in part unwilling) to stop terrorism. Thus, the creation of a Palestinian state at this time and in these circumstances would not necessarily be a solution ending the conflict but merely a new stage of cross-border attacks, official anti-Israel incitement, and growing power for Hamas and its radical allies within the Fatah group that rules the West Bank.

The radical side, both in Fatah and Hamas, will be aided by Iran, Syria, Hizballah, and revolutionary Islamist forces which this U.S. government has more often engaged than confronted. If that side appears to be winning, why shouldn’t Palestinians join or at least cheer for it?

Moreover, nowadays such acts of terrorism don’t generate real international support for Israel but often suggestions that it should make more concessions faster in order to “end” the violence. Indeed, the New York Times’s opening paragraph on the attack actually succeeded in blaming Israel as the culprit after four of its own innocent civilians are murdered:

“The killing of four Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman, in the West Bank on Tuesday evening rattled Israeli and Palestinian leaders on the eve of peace talks in Washington and underscored the disruptive role that the issue of Jewish settlements could play in the already fragile negotiations.”

Not the disruptive role of Palestinian terrorism but of Jewish settlements! But guess what? there has been a freeze on building new settlements or geographically expanding existing ones now for 17 years. There has been a freeze on constructing new buildings on existing settlements for almost one year.

There is not now, nor apparently will there ever be, a freeze on Palestinian terrorism. Nor will the Western states demand one, by which I mean not stopping every attack but making a maximum effort to do so, truly punishing (not just for the sin of bad timing!) those involved in such attacks, and demeaning rather than extolling that behavior.

Instead, we are apparently going to see a repeat of the pattern that occurred during the 1993-2000 peace process era in which Hamas (and at times Fatah) terrorist attacks showed that negotiations heightened rather than reduced the level of violence. Peace is preferable but the idea of pressing for formal peace as a panacea is just flat wrong.

Does that mean talks, peace, or a two-state solution are bad? Not at all. But they must be conducted with eyes open, strategies clear, and policies suitably tough. Part of a proper approach would include a concerted effort to subvert Hamas and even overthrow the regime in the Gaza Strip. Instead, in recent months, Hamas has won a major victory: Western pressure on Israel to reduce sanctions to a level ensuring the long-term survival of a terrorist statelet in the Gaza Strip.

Equally, even if the PA cracks down and arrests Hamas activists on the West Bank, these people will soon be released and the organization knows that it suffers no huge or real costs for continued terrorism. The only recourse Israel has to ensuring the terrorists are punished or even properly interrogated is to launch a raid and capture them, an action impossible at present since it would be portrayed internationally as “endangering” the direct negotiations.

For its part, the PA has no interest in crushing the terrorists–who often come, after all, from its own ranks and payrolls–but in merely shutting them up for a short while to avoid blame for upsetting the talks. In the PA’s eyes, the terrorists are not guilty of a terrible crime but merely of bad timing. After all, when Fatah PA decides to launch a new intifada some day these men will be allies again.

It is revealing that the State Department’s background briefing on the direct negotiations by a senior administration official explained that Hamas will only be able to join the talks if it ceased terrorism and accepted Israel’s continued existence. There was not one word about pressures on Hamas for refusing to do so, nor on the PA for generating incitement to violence. All carrots, no sticks.

Regarding terrorism, we see the same thing. Some very nice words from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton about how terrible terrorism is and how, “The forces of terror and destruction cannot be allowed to continue.” But, in fact, U.S. policy is not doing much to stop them except arguing that diplomatic efforts toward peace will do so. And when she adds that the PA represents “those Palestinians who themselves have rejected a path of violence in favor of a path of peace.”

It is the fallacy of that statement that undermines her whole argument. The West Bank Palestinians and PA have not rejected the path of violence in principle, in fact the fact that they won’t walk down the path of peace is due both to their hopes of finding violence useful in the future and their fear that too much moderation will bring violence (from their own people whose anger and hatred they keep stoking, their more radical and rival colleagues, and Hamas) against themselves.

Again, I’m glad that the PA is far more negotiations-oriented than Hamas or the pre-1993 (Oslo agreement) PLO. Achieving a two-state outcome to the conflict is also clearly the diplomatic road to take. Yet the way this is being done and the ideas guiding the U.S. and European approach will ensure that the whole effort is a show, not a solution.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

Flash: U.S. Government Briefing: What Will Happen in Israel-PA Direct Talks Posted: 01 Sep 2010 02:40 AM PDT Note: This article appears on Pajamas Media. I have added here a couple of relevant links as well. Please be subscriber 17,320. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/ We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003. By Barry Rubin Prior to the start of the new round of Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) direct negotiations, a high-ranking administration official briefed the media today on what to expect. Having read the transcript prior to its official release, I will summarize here the most interesting points. The basic structure of the talks is as follows: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas plan to meet every two weeks, starting on September 2. There will be more frequent meetings at a lower level on various issues. The United States will watch closely but the talks will be bilateral and the U.S. side will make no formal proposals. In the words of the briefing: “It does not mean that the United States will simply stand aside and not participate actively. We will operate in a manner that is reasonable and sensible in the circumstances which exist, but the guiding principle will be an active and sustained United States presence.” The word “presence” is an alternative to the word “involvement,” signaling a role as observer at this point. Is the idea of solving this in a year realistic? The U.S. official insists it is a “window of opportunity” (heard that one before?), citing statements by both Netanyahu and Abbas (neither of whom believes this for a moment) to that effect. If they don’t make peace now, he added, they will face “”far greater difficulties and far greater problems in the future.” It is noteworthy that making a deal is always deemed never to pose any greater problems in the future. To set as the two choices: continuation of a long, bloody conflict or its solution bringing about total peace and happiness obviously signals which is the preferred option. In this case, both leaders would love to make a deal, right? Of course, this is not the real world. Netanyahu has to worry not so much about domestic reaction (a real but overstated factor) but about making such concessions that Israel would be in a worse, more dangerous situation, faced round two, escalated Arab demands, and a lack of Western support no matter how much he listened to Western advice. Netanyahu has to deal also with the details of borders, most notably pertaining to east Jerusalem, and retaining a limited number of settlements near the frontier. Abbas has an even worse problem. First, he himself doesn’t want to give up certain demands, including the “right” of return for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to live in Israel, which would consequently (as Abbas and Netanyahu both know) would not remain Israel for more than a few months. Second, Abbas lacks the political power to offer any solution that would conceivably be acceptable to any Israeli leader since his colleagues almost unanimously oppose such an outcome. Third, he has not prepared his own people for such a compromise deal. On the contrary, he and the PA have been telling them daily for 16 years that Israel is illegitimate and by waiting they will get everything. Fourth, he has no control over Hamas which will do everything possible to destroy any such agreement and overthrow the PA. Fifth, he cannot depend on real Arab support, even if the dying Egyptian president and weak Jordanian king are present. Sixth, he can depend on the violent opposition of Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Muslim Brotherhoods, and huge portions of the Arab world’s population. Seventh, he and his colleagues reject almost all the Israeli conditions: that a treaty end the conflict forever, that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, that the Palestinian state have limits on its military and cannot invite in foreign troops, and that all Palestinian refugees be resettled in Palestine. He might be able to agree to minor border changes but even that is in question. Finally, he has an alternative strategy: ensure the talks fail, blame Israel, and seek Western support for a unilateral declaration of independence without making any compromises or concessions to Israel. Virtually none of these eight points is ever addressed by the U.S. government or the mass media. Well, the briefing did mention one: claiming that a recent poll showed that over 80 percent of the Arabs in the six most moderate countries are “still in principle open to the two-state solution.” This argument, by the way, is expressed with the most appalling distortions of the facts. For example, the briefer bragged that 39 percent said that a two-state solution would happen through negotiations as if this was some amazing fact. Of course that’s what they say (it’s amazing more don’t say it) because they certainly don’t think this would be the outcome of any war they won! The briefer also said that the majority of those polled believe that if there is no two-state solution there will be conflict in the coming years. What this leaves out is: they probably believe that a two-state solution would also bring conflict and that they believe that if Israel doesn’t meet every Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim demand there can be no two-state (temporary) solution. Moreover, the briefer left out the fact that the poll showed an astonishingly high level of support or revolutionary Islamist leaders (including Iran’s regime) and groups in the most moderate states. Here’s my analysis of the same poll. But why go on? The ultimate argument, which really underlies all the others, is: Would you rather have us do nothing? Shouldn’t we try? Sure, I respond. You must, however, act with a realistic and honest assessment of the situation and with the proper preparations. To stage negotiations, for example: –Without ever pressuring the PA to stop the very incitement and radicalism that ensures there is no popular base for peace is to guarantee failure. –To show you are ready to accept a Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip and protect it from being overthrown is to ensure there is no basis for peace. –To fail to show strong backing for moderates—including the Lebanese independence forces—while coddling extremists is to ensure there is no strategic basis for peace. Many more points can be added here. No, this is not the best that the United States of America could do. Yes, the talks will fail. Certainly, much of the media will pretend otherwise. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Muslims Who Don’t Want to Live Under Islamist Dictatorships Urge: Help Us By Telling The Truth Posted: 31 Aug 2010 12:10 PM PDT Please be subscriber 17,320. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/ We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003. By Barry Rubin I constantly receive mail and contacts of various kinds from Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, and Turks–among others–about how much they like my writing. In fact, many of my ideas and inspiration comes from conversations with these people. You’d be surprised to hear some of the names, countries, and positions of those involved in these dialogues. It’s a complex issue but to put it simply: those in the West may romanticize or refuse to criticize radical Islamists and Middle East dictatorships but that doesn’t exactly thrill those who live under these regimes or who fear seeing their countries being taken over by extremists who repress and maybe will kill them. I wrote an entire book about this situation and these people, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, John Wiley Publishers (2005). That book, and other things I’ve written, explains both my tremendous sympathy for these liberals and reformers as well as why I didn’t advocate a policy based on the belief that the United States could democratize the region or solve the problems of these societies by overthrowing the ruling regimes. During my last speaking trip, which usually focused on the battle between Islamists and nationalists, there were Arabs or Iranians present at each event who enthusiastically endorsed what I said. In one case, a Palestinian wearing a very large kafiyah sat in the front row nodding at my main points. Afterward, he explained that he was a Palestinian Authority supporter who hated Hamas and thought that group was ruining his people’s chance for ever getting their own independent state. And don’t even get me started on Iran, where a large majority opposes the current regime, and Turkey, where an even larger majority opposes the current regime. These people, almost all of them Muslims, are anti-Islamist and prefer a democratic state. They may not be “moderate Muslims,” that is religious reformers, but they are Muslims who are moderates. They don’t respect Westerners smug in their “virtues” of being so Islamophilic, tolerant, and “pro-Arab” as to saddle the poor victimized Middle Easterners with horrible, repressive regimes and permanent violence. Most of the people who hate and oppose revolutionary Islamism can be most accurately called conservative traditionalists. They prefer Islam as it was practiced before the age of Iran’s revolution and Usama bin Ladin. They don’t like Israel and have plenty of complaints about the West (though there are also things they like about both) but they don’t want to go to war or spend the next century seeking revenge either. A minority of them are real democrats, courageous people who know what their countries need to do in order to get out of their current morass. The majority is just fed up with terrorism, ideology, dictatorship, economic impoverishment, social stagnation, and using Zionism or imperialism as excuses for all of the above. The Western “sympathizers” who endorse every reactionary cultural and political tendency as “authentic” do them no favors. For example, in response to this article I wrote pointing out that the amount of hatred and incitement coming from the Muslim majority world far exceeds that in the West or Israel, I received two letters from Middle Eastern Muslim readers. One, from an Iranian, noted: “Best article yet! keep it up!” And another reader–presumably Iranian–writes to me as follows: “I read your Rubin Reports with great pleasure and anticipation. I find you are among the very few Westerners who are not giving into political correctness vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism, the new fascism. The dance of appeasing Muslim radicals (or the rest) is most dangerous and will lead to diminished freedom and the end of the rule of rational law. “I fear so much that my grandchildren will be subject to a totalitarian theocratic rule that I search for a way out of [this situation to live] in the West. There are majorities in some places in the Middle East—Iran, the prime example—who are fed up with the ideology of hate and of death and of darkness, and long for peace and freedom and happiness. We are fed up with antisemitic people and governments and we want to rescue reason from theocratic dogma. “Thank you for what you do. I hope Westerners read your work and pay heed. The alternative is hatred, violence, and the rule of evil.” Note the implications of those last three points; Hatred by Islamists and radicals: Not only of the West and Israel, Christians, Jews, or Bahais, but also of Muslims who have a different interpretation of their religion or who are “too” secular, and also at times of various other groups who are Muslims (Berbers, Kurds, Shia, Sudanese Africans). Violence: Not only against Westerners and Israelis plus local Christians but also against all of the groups mentioned in the previous paragraph plus women who deviate from what the Islamists want, homosexuals, and others. The Rule of Evil: Not over Westerners but over those Middle Easterners (again, mostly Muslim) who live under such regimes or will be drowned in revolutions in the uture. So, if one supports Islamists like those who rule Iran and the Gaza Strip, pro-Islamist (abroad) dictatorships like that in Syria, those who are close to ruling Lebanon, and revolutionaries who want to impose Islamist totalitarian regimes, is this “pro-Muslim” or “pro-Arab?” Presumably, it is like saying that backing the Nazis made one a friend of the German people or supporting the Stalinists proved that one loved the Russian people and those in its satellite states. Or perhaps everyone who doesn’t want to be ruled by Iran, the Taliban, Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other assorted dictatorships are Islamophobic or racist? Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

Note for Israel-PA Talks: It Wasn’t The Luck of the Irish But Effective Counter-Terrorism That Brought Peace

Posted: 30 Aug 2010 06:29 PM PDT

Please be subscriber 17,320! Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

As direct Israeli-Palestinian direct talks restart it is useful to recall the use and misuse of an analogy to the case of Northern Ireland.

In October 2001, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw visited Washington and held a press conference with his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell bubbled over about how the Irish agreement supposedly showed:

“An example of what can be achieved when people of good will come together, recognize they have strong differences, differences that they have fought over for years, but it’s time to put those differences aside in order to move forward and to provide a better life for the children of Northern Ireland.”

This is the sort of naive optimism (let’s all just get along, peace is the natural order of things, everybody is really moderate at heart) that Americans so often evince. As the great French intellectual Raymond Aron once explained, “The Americans always have the tendency to believe that wars result from misunderstanding or accidents and suppose that no one could possibly want a war.”

In this case, though, Straw dumped cold water on Powell’s world view.” What he said is worth quoting fully:

“Could I just add one thing to that, if I may? Of course, negotiation is far, far better–infinitely better — than military action. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we welcome hugely the progress that has been made following the Good Friday Agreement. It also has to be said that before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism as the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiations. We would not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.”

In other words, the terrorists were defeated by tough action, saw they couldn’t win, and thus had to change their approach. Of course, in the Israel-Palestinian case, there has been no such attitude toward terrorism internationally. Hamas has been saved as the Gaza Strip’s ruler thanks to Western action; the Palestinian side has not been forced to pay the price for violence and intransigence (rejecting Camp David and the Clinton plan, launching a second intifadah, continuing incitement, etc.) and thus has been had to give up the hope of total victory and belief that violence and intransigence could bring that about.

That’s a key reason why the current talks will fail.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Proverbs 25:24 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:24 [24]It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.

24 It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.

This is the same with what he had said, ch. 21:9. Observe, 1. How those are to be pitied that are unequally yoked, especially with such as are brawling and contentious, whether husband or wife; for it is equally true of both. It is better to be alone than to be joined to one who, instead of being a meet-help, is a great hindrance to the comfort of life.

2. How those may sometimes be envied that live in solitude; as they want the comfort of society, so they are free from the vexation of it. And as there are cases which give occasion to say, “Blessed is the womb that has not borne,” so there are which give occasion to say, “Blessed is the man who was never married, but who lies like a servant in a corner of the house-top.”
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Proverbs 25:25 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:25 [25]Like cold water to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.

25 As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country.

See here, 1. How natural it is to us to desire to hear good news from our friends, and concerning our affairs at a distance. It is sometimes with impatience that we expect to hear from abroad; our souls thirst after it. But we should check the inordinateness of that desire; if it be bad news, it will come too soon, if good, it will be welcome at any time.

2. How acceptable such good news will be when it does come, as refreshing as cold water to one that is thirsty. Solomon himself had much trading abroad, as well as correspondence by his ambassadors with foreign courts; and how pleasant it was to hear of the good success of his negotiations abroad he well knew by experience. Heaven is a country afar off; how refreshing is it to hear good news thence, both in the everlasting gospel, which signified glad tidings, and in the witness of the Spirit with our spirits that we are God’s children.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

1 Peter 4:12 [show/hide]1 Peter 4:12 Suffering as a Christian [12]Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. (ESV)
[RSV]
Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you.

When I was a young Christian I got very puzzled by the fact that I seemed to be tempted in all kinds of ways, much more than other people appeared to be. They talked of the victorious Christian life, and I did not quite understand that they had the same kind of temptations as I had. I remember being for very long times of quiet on my knees, trying to seek out from God why it was that I was undergoing such terrible pressures.

And I learned ever so slowly that this was not a proof that I was a poor backslidden sinner, but that in fact I was one of the Lord’s own children, and that Satan was interested in me simply for that reason. Therefore instead of getting overwhelmed in a situation of constant temptation, I was to lift up my head and look to the Almighty God who claimed me as His own, and thank Him for the trials and testing’s through which I was being brought.

Temptation is not sin. The Lord Jesus was tempted in all points, just as we are, yet without sin. And, Christian brother or sister, if you are feeling in your life the appalling pressures of the world and the flesh and the devil, then look up to God your Saviour, and thank him.

Within you, Christians, there is the Lord, the life-giving Spirit. You are not on your own, but have the power of Almighty God at work in your life. And no matter how Satan may pull, if you live a Spirit-orientated life, then Satan cannot overcome you.

The pressures are still there; the attractions of the world are still there: but live your life Spirit-orientated, relying on the power of the Holy Spirit who posses and fills your life, and ‘sin shall not have dominion over you’.

And – may I say it? – The power of Almighty God makes the strongest power of Satan’s attractive seducing work look very trivial indeed. – K.A.A. Weston: The Spirit-Orientated Life, 1971.
- Daily Thoughts From Keswick.

Proverbs 25:26 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:26 [26]Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.

It is here represented as a very lamentable thing, and a public grievance, and of ill consequence to many, like the troubling of a fountain and the corrupting of a spring, for the righteous to fall down before the wicked, that is,

1. For the righteous to fall into sin in the sight of the wicked–for them to do any thing unbecoming their profession, which is told in Gath, and published in the streets of Ashkelon, and in which the daughters of the Philistines rejoice. For those that have been in reputation for wisdom and honour to fall from their excellency, this troubles the fountains by grieving some, and corrupts the springs by infecting others and emboldening them to do likewise.

2. For the righteous to be oppressed, and run down, and trampled upon, by the violence or subtlety of evil men, to be displaced and thrust into obscurity, this is the troubling of the fountains of justice and corrupting the very springs of government, ch. 28:12, 28; 29:2. 3. For the righteous to be cowardly, to truckle to the wicked, to be afraid of opposing his wickedness and basely to yield to him, this is a reflection upon religion, a discouragement to good men, and strengthens the hands of sinners in their sins, and so is like a troubled fountain and a corrupt spring.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Proverbs 25:27 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:27 [27]It is not good to eat much honey, nor is it glorious to seek one's own glory.

27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.

I. Two things we must be graciously dead to:–

1. To the pleasures of sense, for it is not good to eat much honey; though it pleases the taste, and, if eaten with moderation, is very wholesome, yet, if eaten to excess, it becomes nauseous, creates bile, and is the occasion of many diseases. It is true of all the delights of the children of men that they will surfeit, but never satisfy, and they are dangerous to those that allow themselves the liberal use of them.

2. To the praise of man. We must not be greedy of that any more than of pleasure, because, for men to search their own glory, to court applause and covet to make themselves popular, is not their glory, but their shame; every one will laugh at them for it; and the glory which is so courted is not glory when it is got, for it is really no true honour to a man.

II. Some give another sense of this verse: To eat much honey is not good, but to search into glorious and excellent things is a great commendation, it is true glory; we cannot therein offend by excess. Others thus: “As honey, though pleasant to the taste, if used immoderately, oppresses the stomach, so an over-curious search into things sublime and glorious, though pleasant to us, if we pry too far, will overwhelm our capacities with a greater glory and lustre than they can bear.” Or thus: “You may be surfeited with eating too much honey, but the last of glory, of their glory, the glory of the blessed, is glory; it will be ever fresh, and never pall the appetite.”
- Matthew Henry Commentary

2 Peter 2:4-6 [show/hide]2 Peter 2:4-6 [4]For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5]if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6]if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; (ESV)
[RSV]
If God did not spare the angels when they sinned….
If He did not spare the ancient world….
If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomarrah to ashes….

I am not going to look into the details of these verses as stories, except just to say that when Peter says that God did not spare the angels, and the ancient world, and the cities of the plain, because of their sin and the error and evil of their ways, he is not saying that God is a vengeful God.

Actually throughout this letter Peter emphasizes the amazing patience of God; His forbearance that waits [3:9]. In 1 Peter 3:20 [show/hide]1 Peter 3:20 [20]because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (ESV)
he talks of God’s patience in the days of Noah.

The mark of God in judgment is that He is patient and forbearing, and slow to anger. But in the end, if men will not turn from their ways of evil and error, God must judge. It is God’s strange work; but it is work that He will do.

Without that, of course, the moral foundations of the universe would collapse. In case you have been taught to see a division between the Old Testament and the New Testament in the picture of God, turn to Exodus 34 [show/hide]Exodus 34 Moses Makes New Tablets [34:1]The LORD said to Moses, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. [2]Be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to me on the top of the mountain. [3]No one shall come up with you, and let no one be seen throughout all the mountain. Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain." [4]So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the first. And he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand two tablets of stone. [5]The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. [6]The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, [7]keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." [8]And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped. [9]And he said, "If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance." The Covenant Renewed [10]And he said, "Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. [11]"Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. [12]Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. [13]You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim [14](for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), [15]lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, [16]and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods. [17]"You shall not make for yourself any gods of cast metal. [18]"You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib, for in the month Abib you came out from Egypt. [19]All that open the womb are mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep. [20]The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty-handed. [21]"Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest. [22]You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year's end. [23]Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. [24]For I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year. [25]"You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened, or let the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover remain until the morning. [26]The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk." [27]And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." [28]So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. The Shining Face of Moses [29]When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. [30]Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. [31]But Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses talked with them. [32]Afterward all the people of Israel came near, and he commanded them all that the LORD had spoken with him in Mount Sinai. [33]And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face. [34]Whenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he would remove the veil, until he came out. And when he came out and told the people of Israel what he was commanded, [35]the people of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face was shining. And Moses would put the veil over his face again, until he went in to speak with him. (ESV)
: 6, when God proclaimed His name to Moses; and this proclamation has never been abrogated, and is still as true today.

It is true that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is not complete, until Christ comes, but it is not incorrect; and I would ask you whether you know any description of God anywhere else, greater than this.

Moses asked God to reveal Himself to him, and ‘The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness… but who will by no means clear the guilty…’

And Moses made haste to bow his head towards the earth, and worshipped. So may we do. – R.C. Lucas: The Way to Christian Stability [iii], 1971.
- Daily Thoughts From Keswick

From KHouse.Org

**MEMORY VERSE OF THE WEEK**

---

Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.
Psalms 86:11 KJV