Thursday, March 31, 2011

Covenants and Dispensations (Part 6)

Thomas IceBy Dr. Thomas Ice
Pre-Trib Research Center

Contact Amazon

We have seen that the structure of the divine institutions function within the framework of the biblical covenants and dispensations to provide a social structure through which God provides governance to all mankind. I will continue to overview the biblical covenants and look at each one to see if they are still in force today and if they are, how they relate to the church age believer.

The Adamic Covenant

The Adamic Covenant, which is deduced from Genesis 3:14-19 (see also Hosea 6:7), was a conditional covenant between Adam and God. The basis for Adam's responsibility was spelled out in Genesis 2:7-9, 15-17 where the Lord told Adam, "'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die'" (Gen. 2:16b-17). We all know that Adam disobeyed God (Gen. 3:6) and cast the entire human race into a sinful and cursed condition (Gen. 3:8-18; 5:3). While this test was a one-time event, nevertheless, the effects of the Fall have continued down throughout history into our own day. The New Testament teaches that, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) and that Adam's rebellion brought sin and the curse upon all mankind (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). It is through this covenant that the sinful condition of mankind entered into the world and passed upon all mankind making necessary the work of Christ if individuals are to receive restoration of their relationship with God.

The Noahic Covenant

Since the Noahic Covenant (Gen. 8:20-9:17) is made between God and all mankind after the Flood, it is still in force today and provides the jurisdiction that makes all mankind responsible to God for their actions in concert with the Edenic Covenant. The sign of the covenant, the rainbow, is a universal sign that has appeared since the Flood and continues to this day, which reinforces God's claim that all mankind since the Flood are under its force. An important feature of this covenant is the establishment of civil government and capital punishment as the key feature (Gen. 9:5-7). Since God promised not to destroy the earth again by water (Gen. 9:15), it will be destroyed next time by fire (2 Pet. 3:10-12), the Lord installed civil government, and the sanction of capital punishment, as a way of restraining evil in the interim, because "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21).

Capital punishment is not just something that evolved over the years within human society and is now falling out of favor, instead it was clearly installed by God to restrain evil. That capital punishment continues throughout our current church age as a tool of civil government is clearly endorsed in the New Testament (Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 3:1; 1 Pet. 3:12-14). Clearly capital punishment can be and has been abused since its installation, but God, who knows all things, past or future, instituted it anyway knowing that it would enable the greatest injustice of all time - the crucifixion of His Son.

Human civil government will continue in its present form until the second coming of Christ. At the second advent Christ will personally judge all unbelievers and then set up His righteous dictatorship in which He will reign and rule on earth for 1,000 years. Christ, the God-Man will administer His rule through a hierarchy of human rulers who will function as vice-regents. For example, David will rule over Israel (Jer. 30:9; Ezk. 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5).

The Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3, 7-9; 13:14-18; 15:1-18; 17:1-27; 22:15-19; 26:2-6, 24-25; 27:28-29, 38-40; 28:1-4, 10-22; 31:3, 11-13; 32:22-32; 35:9-15; 48:3-4, 10-20; 49:1-28; 50:23-25) is an important covenant established by God with Abram through which He works to rebuild what mankind lost in the Fall. Therefore, it could be called a redemptive covenant. We saw that this covenant contains promises made specifically to Abraham, Israel, the seed (including Christ), and some promises are for Gentiles. This is why virtually all aspects of this covenant continue into the present church age and will also carry on into the millennium.

Church age believers are called the spiritual seed of Abraham (Rom. 9:7-8, 24; 15:27; Gal. 3:9, 16, 29) since our salvation is the fulfillment of some of the promises made to Abraham and his descendants, as fulfilled through Christ in Whom we have believed. Further, the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant to Israel have not been abandoned by God (Rom. 11:1-2, 29) and will be fulfilled to the Jewish nation during the millennium. Thus, many of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant continue into our day including the land promises for the Jews and God's promise to bless those who bless Israel (Gen. 12:1-3).

The Mosaic Covenant

The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 20-23; Deuteronomy) was given exclusively and only to the nation of Israel (Ex. 34:27; 20:2; Deut. 4:1, 6-8, 13, 20, 34, 37, 44; 7:6-8; 10:12-15; 26:16-19; 1 Kings 8:9; Psa. 147:19-20) and was fulfilled through the ministry of Jesus Christ during His first advent (Matt. 5:17; Eph. 2:13-16). This covenant was given to separate Israel from the rest of the nations and as a constitution to instruct them how to live holy lives unto the Lord. When Christ came He fulfilled the Law and thus, broke down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16). The Law was designed to govern every aspect of Israel's life: the spiritual, moral, social, religious and civil aspects. The commandments were a "ministry of condemnation" and "of death" (2 Cor. 3:7-9). The New Testament teaches that the Mosaic Law has been done away with by Christ (Rom. 6:14-15; 7:1-6; 1 Cor. 9:20-21; 2 Cor. 3:7-11; Gal. 4:1-7; 5:18; Eph. 2:13-16; Heb. 8:6-7, 13; 10:9). The Church Age believer is not in any way, shape, or form under the obligations of the Mosaic Law, but under the unconditional Law of Christ and the Spirit (Rom. 3:21-27; 6:14-15; Gal. 2:16; 3:10, 16-18, 24-26; 4:21-31; Heb. 10:11-17).

Practicing Jews since the time of their national rejection of Christ continue to live under the Mosaic Law as best they can since they obviously do not believe that Jesus has fulfilled the Law. However, continued Jewish observance of the Law is not sanctioned by God because Jesus is in reality the Messiah and one day the nation will accept His Messiahship. Nevertheless, this explains why a portion of Israel attempts to observe the Mosaic Law the best they can in our own day. Also, the prophecies woven throughout the Mosaic Law that have not yet been fulfilled are still valid for today and will be fulfilled either in the tribulation or the millennium.

The Davidic Covenant

The Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:4-17) is the foundation upon which the future millennial reign of Christ is grounded. It promises to David the following: 1) posterity in the Davidic house; 2) a throne symbolic of royal authority; 3) a kingdom, or rule on earth; and 4) certainty of fulfillment for the promises to David "shall be established forever." Even though most of these items will be fulfilled during the millennial reign of Christ, they do not have direct relevance to our current church age.

Some argue that when Christ ascended to heaven that He sat on David's throne in heaven. However, Jesus said, "'He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne'" (Rev. 3:21). This passage makes it clear that Jesus is not on David's throne but seated at the right-hand of the Father. The New Testament further teaches that during His present session He is making intercession for believers (Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1-2), which explains why He is seated at the Father's right-hand. It is true that the New Testament argues that Jesus became qualified to sit on David's throne at His first coming (Acts 2:22-36), nevertheless, Jesus remains in heaven (Acts 3:21) until Israel repents (Acts 3:19) and then will come the "times of refreshing" and the "period of restoration of all things," (Acts 3:19, 21) which we know as the millennial kingdom when Jesus will reign on David's throne from Jerusalem. There is no biblical evidence for a present spiritual fulfillment or inaugurated form of the Davidic covenant.

The Land of Israel Covenant

The Land of Israel Covenant [1] (Deut. 30:1-10) is an unconditional covenant and was made between the Lord and the nation of Israel. The Lord binds Himself to this ultimate destiny for Israel by establishing a covenant that promises the Land to Israel forever. Even though it is still in force for Israel it will not be fulfilled during our current church age. This covenant will be fulfilled for national Israel during the tribulation when the whole nation of Israel will be converted to their Messiah (Deut. 30:6 see also Hos. 2:14-16; Zech. 12:10-14; Rom. 11:26-27) and will experience national blessing and prosperity (Deut. 30:9 see also Amos 9:11-15; Zech. 14:9-21) during the millennium. Maranatha!


Endnotes


[1] The Land of Israel covenant has often been called the Palestinian covenant. I do not like that term since it is not a biblical term. The Bible has never called the land of Israel Palestine. The Bible refers to Israel as the land of Canaan (for example Gen. 11:31; Ex. 6:4; Lev. Lev. 14:34; Num. 13:2; Deut. 32:29; etc.) before Israel came and occupied the land at the Exodus in 1400 b.c. From that time on it is called the land of Israel. However, in a.d. 135 when the Roman emperor Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem he wanted to de-Judaize the land of Israel. Hadrian took the name Palestine that was used to refer to what we know today as the Gaza Strip (where the ancient Philistines once lived) and applied it to the entire land of Israel, west of the Jordan River. Yasser Arafat took the name in 1964 and applied it to the Arabs who were living in Israel. Since that time it has come to be closely aligned with Arab opposition to Israel's ownership of the land, thus, an inappropriate term for God's covenant promising the land of Israel to the Jews.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Year of Black Gold

Jerry RobinsonBy Jerry Robinson
Follow the Money Daily

RSS Contact YouTube Amazon

2011 is turning out to be a boom year for OPEC. If oil can stay consistently above $100 until December, the cartel is projected to reap $1 trillion in oil revenues by year’s end. This would be OPEC’s most profitable year on record. In 2008, OPEC fell short of the $1 trillion mark, reaching $990 billion in revenues. Analysts expect Russia to also have a record year in oil revenues – somewhere between $100 billion and $350 billion - if oil prices can manage to stay above $100.

And now ... A new report from the Interior Department, obtained by the AP and set to be released today, says that more than two-thirds of offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are currently sitting idle. According to experts, these inactive leases potentially hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In addition, the report indicates that 45 percent of all onshore oil and gas leases are inactive.

According to the White House, President Barack Obama will be outlining his new plans for America’s energy policy on Wednesday. He will put forward an overall goal of reducing oil imports by one third over the next decade and relying upon more on cleaner forms of energy. It’s the same old story that we have been hearing for years.

Here’s more of what to expect from the President’s speech.


Related Links


Obama's green-jobs fantasies - WorldNetDaily (John Stossel)
Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive - Associated Press
Obama: Let's Focus on "Clean Energy" - Townhall.com (Katie Pavlich)
Obama's Words Ring Hollow In His Energy Speech - FOX News
Obama Runs Out of Gas - Human Events (John Hayward)

UN to Israel: Surrender!

Ryan JonesBy Ryan Jones
Israel Today

Facebook RSS Contact

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday reiterated that the world body expects Israel to immediately surrender to internationally-backed Arab demands that it relinquish all claims to the Jews’ biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria and half of their ancient capital of Jerusalem.

The Jewish presence in the so-called “West Bank,” which includes the eastern half of Jerusalem, is “morally and politically unsustainable, and must end,” Ban insisted during a press conference in Uruguay.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are moving forward plans to unilaterally declare an independent state with the support of the UN, outside the framework of a land-for-peace deal with Israel.

Palestinian leaders indicated that they will make such a move later this year. The motion is almost certain to be shot down in the UN Security Council, where the US exercises veto power, but will be widely adopted by the UN General Assembly, which most will see as more than adequate for “Palestine” to be declared a state.

Israeli officials are busy lobbying various nations against supporting this move. But diplomats fear their efforts are bearing little fruit, since Israel is not presenting any kind of alternative plan or process.

Many within Israel are urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop playing the diplomatic game by the Arab world’s rules, and to instead begin insisting that the UN approach the peace process from the viewpoint that the West Bank and Jerusalem are disputed territories, where Jews have just as much, if not more, claim than local Palestinian Arabs.

But it is likely too late for that. And if it comes down to the UN General Assembly recognizing “Palestine,” Israel may be forced into desperate action.

An unnamed Israeli official told the Associated Press on Tuesday that if the Palestinians seek recognition of their sovereignty in the UN, Israel may annex the parts of the West Bank most populated by Jews - the much-maligned “settlement blocs.”

Israel already annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem decades ago, but that decision is all but ignored by the international community.


Related Links


U.N.’s Ban: Israel’s ‘occupation’ is ‘morally and politically unsustainable’ - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
US Senators ask Clinton to help end anti-Israel incitement - Jerusalem Post
Ban canvasses Latin American support for solution to Middle East conflict - Iloubnan.info
UN chief chastises Israel at 'crucial time' in peace process - Christian Science Monitor
Israel Through The Eyes Of Scripture - SpiritandTruth.org (Tony Garland)

Going Global from the Shores of Tripoli

Chuck MisslerBy Dr. Chuck Missler
Koinonia House

Twitter Facebook RSS Contact Amazon

When Doc Brown shouted, "It's the Libyans!" in the mall parking lot in Back To The Future (1985), he had good reason to fear. He'd taken the terrorists' plutonium and made them a fake bomb out of spare pinball machine parts. The Libyans used to be bad news - back before the bombing of Libya in 1986 and the UN imposed sanctions in 1993. After a double-decades hiatus, Libya is once again making top news, and the troubles in Tripoli are giving global government advocates a renewed energy.

Loving Libya

Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi never really loosened the iron fist from around the neck of his people, but for the most part, Libya hasn't pestered the rest of the world for awhile. In December 2003, Gaddafi announced that Libya was abandoning its WMD programs. The west claimed victory as Libya voluntarily gave up its chemical and nuclear weapons aspirations.

Gaddafi made friends. In 2008, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi paid Libya $5 billion as part of a deal to keep Libyan immigrants from illegally making the boat trip across the Mediterranean to Italian waters. Between 2004 and 2011, EU states sold Gaddafi $1.56 billion (1.1 billion euros) in arms. Libya has been good business for Europe.

Now because of the current crisis, Americans calculate how much the trouble in North Africa will thin the USA's wallet, and Europeans watch with growing trepidation as refugees pour onto their shores.

The results of the Middle East upheavals are of more than academic interest to Europeans. Wide-eyed Italy now has 16,000 refugees – six weeks worth – from Tunisia to deal with, and the boats of Libyans are bouncing across the Tunisian wakes. The population of Lampedusa, Italy's southernmost island, has doubled in the past six weeks. The island has acquired some 230 unaccompanied teenagers (children), now stuffed together with no showers and sharing just two toilets. These immigrants have nothing, and somebody needs to feed them and provide them with clean water and sanitation. The refugees will need homes and jobs, and Italy already struggles with one-third of its under-25 work force unemployed. The rest of Europe expects the flood of newly homeless humanity to migrate throughout the continent, putting fresh burdens on already strained social systems hit heavily by the global recession.

UNSCR 1973

If the North African problem remained a bit more contained, it wouldn't be the biggest story in the news. The Burmese and North Koreans have suffered for decades without serious global intervention on their behalf. Libya is a much squeakier wheel. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on March 17 with the purpose of protecting the civilians of Libya. UNSCR 1973 authorizes the international community to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilian areas from assault by Libyan forces, while "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

NATO has therefore taken charge of enforcing a no-fly zone in order to protect civilians from Gaddafi's planes. Americans already wonder how deep into the Libyan muck the US will wade.

Regardless of NATO involvement, several analysts want the United Nations to do far more. Globalists see Libya as an opportunity to move from using the UN as merely a "peacekeeping force" to a multinational "protection" military force. Don Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of Citizens for Global Solutions argues in The Huffington Post,

"But why not create a tough international force under UN command and control made of diverse nationalities with a clear mandate to go into shattered nations, protect civilians, and restore law and order?"
Writing for The Daily Telegraph, George Grant declares that UNSCR 1973 presents a shift toward a more interventionist UN role, saying,
"On a number of levels, this resolution is historic, but perhaps the most important is the fact that it has, for the first time, given concrete expression to the UN-recognised doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)… R2P holds that international intervention in the affairs of sovereign states is permissible if their rulers prove unable or unwilling to prevent humanitarian atrocities, or are complicit in causing them."

No Unity Among The Nations

Even Europe, however, is not necessarily ready to jump into every human rights fray out there. Germany abstained on UNSCR 1973, unwilling to get drawn into a lengthy war. Poland and other eastern EU states would rather NATO focus on protecting them from Russia's sphere of influence. British Prime Minister David Cameron might have said recently, "There is no decent future for Libya with Gaddafi in power," but Gaddafi has been in power for nearly 42 years, and he's not leaving without a struggle. Europe isn't in the mood for a long, drawn-out fight.

As much as the globalists want the United Nations to stride in and save the world, Europe doesn't know exactly what to do next. Some European countries – like Italy and France – have more to lose in the immediate future and need resolution to the Libya problem, yet France wants Gaddafi brought to trial for war crimes while Italy has taken a more cautious approach. Those less affected want to avoid the hassle if they can. There is no clear long-term plan set. There's no confidence in the character of the rebels. There is no consensus about what to do with Gaddafi.

If Europe itself cannot get unified on a plan, the globalists should not expect the whole world to bond together for peace and security.


Related Links
Libya rebels flee as Gaddafi retakes Brega - The Guardian
Berlusconi: Migrants to leave Lampedusa in 48 hours - BBC
London parley divided on Libya. More shocks in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Syria - DEBKAfile
Poll: Obama's approval hits new low - POLITICO
Another stunner behind Obama's Libya doctrine - WorldNetDaily (Aaron Klein)

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Best U.S. Move in Gaza: Oust Hamas

Bob MaginnisBy Bob Maginnis
BobMaginnis.com

Contact

Last week Secretary of Defense Robert Gates rushed to the Mideast to discourage Israel from retaliating for a surge in Islamic violence. But the best policy for Israel, America, and the region is the overthrow of the Hamas terrorist regime.

Hamas, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement,” is the Palestinian Islamist political party that governs the Gaza Strip. It is based on principles of Islamic fundamentalism and is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas’ Gaza government is a Taliban-like regime that is brutally repressive, seeks Israel’s destruction, and sponsors terrorism and an Iranian client regime.

Gates understands Hamas is supported by outside forces that want to bait Israel into launching a massive operation. He must also understand an Israeli offensive at this time would further inflame tensions in the troubled Arab world and become a rallying point for protest movements across the Middle East.

Provoking an Israeli offensive into Gaza appears to be the Islamists’ bizarre objective, however. Last week rockets from Gaza struck deeper into Israel than at any time since the January 2009 three-week Israeli Operation Cast Lead. Besides rockets, there was mortar fire into Israeli towns near Gaza, a bus stop bombing in Jerusalem, and two weeks ago, the brutal murder of a Jewish family — including three children — by Palestinian Islamists at a West Bank settlement.

The uptick in attacks comes amid a stalemate in peace talks that has left Palestinian statehood uncertain. Gates came to Israel hoping to restart those talks, which he hopes will then dampen Palestinian violence.

But Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu is doubtful about the peace talks-reduced violence nexus. He said Israel’s security challenges are “legion,” referring not just to the renewed Palestinian attacks but also to other threatening actors who want to leverage the Palestinian violence for nefarious reasons.

Hamas wants to provoke an Israeli attack because it is confident in its ability to shape the future. Specifically, it wants to create a situation that severs Israel’s 32-year alliance with Egypt to give Hamas freedom to expand its Islamist extremism. For now the peace agreement secures Israel’s southern coastal approaches to Tel Aviv, and Egypt helps enforce sanctions against extremist groups such as Hamas.

But Hamas intends to bait the Israelis into a military action, expecting that operation will inflame Muslim passions in Egypt. It hopes those passions will force Egypt’s military council to abrogate the treaty with Israel. If that doesn’t work, Hamas anticipates Egypt’s future government will include the Muslim Brotherhood, which views Hamas as its closest ally, and that once in power it will cast aside the treaty.

The Brotherhood’s rise to political prominence became a certainty as a result of Egypt’s just-completed constitutional referendum. Egyptian voters resoundingly (77%) approved changes that favor established political organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which favors the imposition of an Islamic government in the overwhelmingly Muslim country.

Iran, which supplies Hamas with arms and training, hopes to benefit from an Israeli attack on Gaza. It is in a regional tug-of-war for influence with Sunni-majority leader Saudi Arabia and would like nothing better than to upstage Riyadh as the primary sponsor of Palestinian rights, which would highlight the failed Arab foreign policy toward Israel.

Tehran also hopes to bloody Israel in a war of attrition using its proxies. It created the terrorist group Hezbollah in the early 1980s as a proxy against Israel and the West. That group survived a war with Israel in 2006 and is now larger and better-equipped, and has an official government role in Lebanon. An operation launched by Israel into Gaza would likely invite Hezbollah to open a second front to threaten Israel’s northern frontier. Syria could benefit from an Israeli assault on Gaza because it needs a distraction from its current unrest. It is struggling to clamp down on protests in Daraa near the Jordanian border and is wary of the precedent set in Libya, where Western forces are intervening on the side of the protesters under the auspices of protecting civilians.

Damascus has already aided Hamas by providing safe haven to its leadership. It also works closely with Hezbollah to arm and train Hamas. Recall that earlier this month, the Liberian-flagged ship Victoria loaded weapons in Latakia, Syria, and departed for Gaza, but was fortunately intercepted by Israeli commandos.

Jordan is not a military threat to Israel at this point, but the country’s Palestinian majority would use an Israeli assault on Gaza to galvanize its protesters. Palestinian demonstrators set up a tent camp in the center of Amman, in conscious imitation of Tahrir Square in Cairo.

The protesters, who named themselves the March 24 Movement after the date they began camping out, want economic equality and an end to corruption and autocracy. But their protests, which could become violent, might force King Abdullah to give more power to Palestinian Islamists. That might ultimately end the long peace pro-western Jordan has provided Israel, thus jeopardizing Israel’s eastern border.

So what should the U.S. do to help its ally Israel?

President Barack Obama should call for and support the overthrow of Hamas. Overthrowing the terrorist regime at this time might be risky for the reasons cited. But such a policy change, which is unlikely from Obama, would have several important long-term benefits.

It would remove a revolutionary Islamist regime that keeps the area unstable and serves as a trigger for an eventual regional war. It would also blunt Iran’s hegemonic actions in the region, which are already expansive, and send a message to rogues such Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and Egypt’s future Islamist-leaning government that Israel has a dependable partner in America. It might also kick-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which is off-track due in part to Palestinian extremism centered in Gaza.

Last week Gates called for “bold action” to address the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. That bold action should be an American policy change that supports the overthrow of Hamas so that meaningful negotiations can restart and outsider influence from the likes of Iran and Syria is nipped in the bud.


Related Links


Facebook Removes Page That Demanded 'Third Intifada' Against Israel - FOX News
Syrian Cabinet Resigns Amid Unrest - CNS News
Tensions Return to Israel-Gaza Border - Voice of America
Hamas, Cairo to restart dialogue on Palestinian reconciliation - Al-Masry Al-Youm
Psalm 83 or Ezekiel 38 - Which is the Next Middle East News Headline? - BPB (Bill Salus)
Netanyahu: The Things That Must Follow Present MidEast Turmoil - Arutz Sheva

Libya Bombing an Attempt to Create New World Order?

Aaron KleinBy Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily

Twitter Facebook RSS Contact Amazon

The author of a military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

The author, Ramesh Thakur, is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by philanthropist billionaire George Soros. Thakur is also closely tied with other Soros-funded initiatives.

WND was first to report last week that Soros is also a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine "Responsibility to Protect," cited by the White House as allowing the use of force to attack Gadhafi's forces.

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

Now WND has learned that Thakur, one of the principal authors of and original commissioners of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine," argued recently for a global realignment.

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued:

"Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."
Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

Soros Fingerprints on Libya Bombing

Thakur's International Governance Innovation Centre is in partnership with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or INET, for which Soros is a founding sponsor.

The philanthropist agreed to provide $25 million over five years to support INET activities.

Just last week, INET was in the news for its announcement of its annual four-day economic symposium to be held next month in the mountains of Bretton Woods, N.H.

The gathering of economic giants will take place at Mount Washington Hotel, famous for hosting the original Bretton Woods economic agreements drafted in 1944. That conference's goal was to rebuild a post-World War II international monetary system. The April gathering has a similar goal in mind – a global economic restructuring.

Reporting on last year's event, the Business Insider related, "George Soros has brought together a crack team of the world's top economists and financial thinkers."

"Its aim," continued the business newspaper, "to remake the world's economy as they see fit."

Thakur, meanwhile, serves on the advisory board of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.

Activist Gareth Evans, who sits on the global group's advisory board, is widely regarded as the other founder of the Responsibility to Protect principle along with Thakur.

Soros' Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated,
"State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."
During his tenure as Australia's foreign minister, Evans served as co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "responsibility to protect."

In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."

Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Soros: Right to 'Penetrate Nation-States' Borders'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

Power Pushes Doctrine

Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya. Power is the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the Responsibility to Protect principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.

In November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of Responsibility to Protect alongside Evans.


Related Links
Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy - Wall Street Journal
Obama’s Libyan strategy: Recipe for a deeper, lengthier US military role - DEBKAfile
Soros heavily involved in the 'Responsibility to Protect" movement - American Thinker (Ed Lasky)
Libya and the Soros Doctrine - FrontPage Magazine (Rick Moran)
Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times? - GotQuestions.org
Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising - Washington Times

 




Get Our Latest Posts Via Email - It's Free!


Delivered By FeedBurner