Last month the world watched the scenes of Israeli Defense Forces evacuating fellow Israelis from their homes in what is called the Gaza Strip, a narrow piece of land in southwest Israel bordering the Mediterranean Sea. In February the Israeli government voted to implement Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip. The plan required the dismantling of all Israeli settlements there, and the removal of all Israeli settlers and military bases from the Strip. What is even more remarkable is the fact that this pullout was engineered by Ariel Sharon, the former general who chased the Palestinians out of Lebanon in 1982 and who has been an adamant advocate of holding on to territory annexed through the years of war. But time has changed his perspective. Sharon has made a calculated decision to withdraw from territory he knows is not defensible. There is no expectation of concessions from the Palestinians. The current Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has nothing to offer in return for Gaza. What Israel hopes to gain is a more manageable border, one with walls and security that will keep the terrorists out. They are prepared for a long wait, either for a Palestinian leader who sincerely wants peace to step forward, or for other nations to put pressure on the Arab world to accept Israel and decide to wage peace instead of war. It could be a long wait indeed. Wars and peace Since 1948 Israel has battled Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinians in four major wars. To the credit of President Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, peace treaties were concluded with Egypt and Jordan that at least have brought some breathing space. Syria has signed no treaty or set of accords with Israel. The Palestinians have met Israel at the peace table (in 1993), but it has not brought about a lasting settlement. In 2000 at Camp David, Yasser Arafat was offered more concessions than any previous Israeli government dared make, yet rejected all and took up arms in an intifadah that continues to this day. Now Israel has given back land at great cost to its citizens. Already there are calls in the Western press for Israel to give up land on the West Bank, and even Jerusalem. But can Israel afford to give up any more land? Can Israel be expected to make further withdrawals if the message from the international community is that they are never enough? Can Palestine have any hope of becoming a functional and civilized state if no serious demands are made of it to reform its institutions and eliminate its culture of terrorism? The problem with Palestine today isn't the absence of land, but the poverty of expectations as to what it ought to be and might become. Poor leadership has hindered the Arab cause. Gaza profited from the presence of Israeli settlement. Small factory jobs and agricultural farms provided better incomes and a possibility for the future, something no Palestinian government has done. When Yasser Arafat returned to Palestine in 1994, he radicalized the base, and hopes for a peaceful future were set back. Now there is the problem of terrorist attacks from Gaza. There will be no Israeli forces present to stop the gathering and deployment of terrorist operations. The Arabs have rockets and will launch them against Israel. No wall built by Israel will stop these rockets. Israel will have to determine how they will meet this challenge. The record of recent history shows the Palestinians will likely not honor the treaty commitments they have made before the world. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, no serious attempt to curb terrorist attacks has been made by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Columnist Charles Krauthammer tells what the last 12 years have wrought: "Under Oslo, Israel made massive, near-suicidal concessions: bringing the PLO back to life, installing Yassir Arafat in power in the West Bank and Gaza, permitting him to arm militia after militia, and ultimately offering him (at Camp David 2000) the first Palestinian state in history, with a shared Jerusalem and total Israeli withdrawal from 95 percent of the formerly occupied territories (with Israel giving up some of its own territory to make the Palestinians whole). How were these concessions met? With a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more" ("Israeli Withdrawal Is Correct and Necessary," Aug. 19, 2005). A test of U.S. leadership The Palestinian leadership is on record as saying "we will not rest until they leave from all our land." What they mean is all the land once governed by the British prior to 1948 when the formation of the State of Israel was declared. Leaders of this type usually say what they mean and mean what they say. It is a strange quirk of human nature that wants to ignore such statements and blissfully hope they forget or don't really mean what they say. Who will promise the security of the Jews in Israel? America has been Israel's biggest supporter in matters economic, political and diplomatic. This support has not been without cost. Much of the enmity in the Arab world toward the United States is due to its support of Israel. Other nations, China and Russia in particular, have been major supporters of Arab nations as a counterweight to American supremacy in the post World War II years. The question is, will America continue to support Israel in the face of growing international pressure from Europe, Russia and China to provide a state for Palestine at all costs? America's role in the Middle East will come under increasing scrutiny in the coming months as the war in Iraq evolves to the next phase. The fledgling Iraqi government has been trying to put together a constitution while it battles a growing insurgency. Things are far from settled in that nation. Iran has said it will restart its nuclear enrichment program against the objections of France, Germany and the United Kingdom. This is a key step in the development of nuclear weapons, something the United States has said is not acceptable for the region. Last month French President Jacques Chirac called on Iran to "suspend activities related to the production of fissile materials." A nuclear-armed Iran would radically change the balance of power in the Middle East. And then there is oil. The price continues to climb as the world's energy needs accelerate. China is the world's second largest consumer of oil, behind the United States. Its daily intake is 3 million barrels and growing. Within 10 years its automobile population will be the second largest in the world. China is making overtures in the Middle East to establish exclusive oil supply deals with such nations as Sudan and Iran. China is also seeking to expand its political influence within the region. This combination of national energy needs coupled with a desire of some Middle Eastern states to curb the American influence in the region could embolden China to assert itself on issues important to the region. America cannot rely on its influence on the Arab states to cut off China from energy supplies or a role in political matters. The region is going through significant internal changes, and it is possible that America may see its role in the region altered. Any number of other unexpected turns could arise in this volatile and critical region to create a new set of events. America can no longer take for granted its historic role as a key arbiter of relations between Israel and the Arab states. America and Israel could find themselves isolated, facing an alliance of states that seek a new balance of power. It's doubtful that Israel will have the luxury of waiting behind its fortress for peace to break out. Israel has done things in recent weeks that no one could have imagined just a few years ago. In the strange and twisting arena of Middle East politics, sometimes the unimaginable becomes the reality. If you have not read our booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy, we encourage you to do so. It is available online at www.ucg.org/booklets. It gives more of the background to this subject—background you need to have a complete grasp of this complex issue. WNP