Before going into them, we need to acknowledge that the historic divisions of the region have survived this latest war.

Israel does not feel safe, in spite of the fact that the rocket attacks from the north have stopped. Hezbollah emerged stronger in the eyes of Lebanese and virtually heroic to their cousin terror group in Palestine, Hamas. There can be no doubt that Hezbollah's Iranian masters are also pleased with the group's performance, guaranteeing a continued river of money and war materiel.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said Israel's bombs set Lebanon back 20 years, and much of the world responded with gifts to rebuild its infrastructure. Yet, little publicity has been given to the fact that Israelis will be looking at the scars of this war for a generation to come. Or to the fact that the Israeli economy lost an estimated $100 million dollars in revenues per day throughout the war—not counting the cost of the military itself. Moreover, it will take 50 years and much work to restore the land Hezbollah's rockets destroyed in northern Israel.

The war only deepened the wounds between the people of the region, as well as highlighted the sad inability of the world community to think and to act with a single mind for the good of all concerned, in a way that encourages peace.

Comedian Jay Leno joked recently, "Germany has offered to send troops to the Lebanon border. You can bet Israel's breathing a sigh of relief there. Because nothing makes Jewish people feel safer and more secure than having the German army marching on their border."

In fact, there is no joke. As strange as it might seem, Israel urged Germany to join the peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon—and Germany refused. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a formal request to Germany that it contribute troops to the UN force patrolling southern Lebanon. Germany declined, saying it did not want its soldiers in a position of facing and perhaps having to shoot Israeli soldiers.

The first observation is that this is a much different world than the post-WWII era in which Israel would never have considered such a proposal from any authority, much less make the request itself. In the present climate, we might well see alliances that only a few years ago seemed impossible. Germany is sending 2400 members of its navy and air force (not ground troops), second only to Italy's commitment of 3000 military to UNIFIL.

The second observation comes from The Jerusalem Post report on the request for German troops. Shimon Stein, the Israeli ambassador to Germany, observed, "Based on a reading of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, it is clear that this peace-keeping force must be a strong force, not merely a UNIFIL force with no teeth and no will" (Eetta Prince-Gibson, "German Troops," Sept. 3, 2006, emphasis added).

UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) was created "…in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, restore international peace and security and assist the Lebanese Government in restoring its effective authority in the area" (UNIFIL, www.un.org). In fact, UNIFIL continues to operate, only under the new resolution, with an expanded mandate. Even so, Ambassador Stein's point about it needing to be much more than it was echoes the sentiment of many nations.

The EU historically shies away from a strong military. The French government's approach illustrates this. After seeming to take the lead, it limply promised only a few hundred advisors to the new UNIFIL. However, reality demanded that this approach would change. France eventually acquiesced and increased its commitment.

It is unlikely in this writer's opinion that the international force will use teeth in southern Lebanon just yet. Nonetheless, the winds of change are unmistakable. The world is tiring of political half-measures, which leave the Middle East perpetually explosive.

The third observation is that the strong forces cannot be from or sponsored directly by the United States or Great Britain. While these brothers stood shoulder-to-shoulder in liberating Iraq from tyranny, mistakes that they made, an effective counter-insurgency by Islamic radicals and strangely, a carnivorous press in America and Britain have combined to ensure that their forces are less welcome in the world's trouble spots than ever.

To understand where these significant shifts in international attitudes may lead—when one considers the unique perspective that only the Bible affords toward this pivotal region—just request or download our two free booklets: You Can Understand Bible Prophecy and The Middle East in Bible Prophecy.