May 2011 | Bible Prophecy Blog

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Unprecedented

By David Brog
DavidBrog.com

Last week, both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu staked out their positions on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Their speeches have launched a thousand commentaries about Israel’s pre-1967 borders and the best way to achieve peace in the Middle East. But missed in this torrent of talk were three significant departures from prior positions.

In his May 19th speech, President Obama declared that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” Not only did the President emphasize the ’67 lines, but he did so in the absence of any corresponding Palestinian concessions. Both in his original speech and in his clarification of that speech before AIPAC, President Obama failed to mention the key Palestinian concession – the rejection of the Palestinian “right of return” to Israel, i.e. the “right” of the millions of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the original 1948 refugees to “return” to Israel and turn it into another Arab state.

As a result, President Obama has taken Israel’s maximum concession – the lands Israel won in the defensive war of 1967 – and effectively turned it into a precondition for negotiations. This isn’t the first time President Obama has performed this bad magic. Early in his term, he insisted that Israel freeze all “settlement” construction, including in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem. This demand didn’t bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table – it forced them from it. Once President Obama had insisted on the construction freeze, the Palestinians had no choice but to do so as well — something they had not previously done. President Obama has now doubled down on this failed strategy.

Equally troubling, President Obama embraced this one-sided peace formulation after Fatah and Hamas had signed their unity agreement in Cairo. For all intents and purposes, Hamas is now a part of the Palestinian government. Yet Hamas is an unrepentant terrorist organization, and is recognized as such not only by the United States but also by the European Union. The Hamas Covenant not only calls for the violent destruction of Israel, but it also embraces the murder of all Jews no matter where they live.

And Hamas has not changed. While certain Hamas leaders have made some noises about supporting the creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza, no Hamas leader has recognized Israel’s right to exist or rejected terror. Now is not the time to pressure Israel to negotiate with a Hamas government. Now is a time to cut off United States support for that government.

Finally, most commentators have overlooked the crystallization of a significant shift in Israeli politics. For years, all Israeli governments rejected the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. In the early 1990’s, the Labor party and other parties on the Israeli left officially embraced this concession, while the parties on the right – including Netanyahu’s Likud – continued to oppose it. Last week, we saw Prime Minister Netanyahu stand before the American Congress and clearly and repeatedly state his support for the creation of such a Palestinian state.

In other words, even the leader of the Israeli right is prepared to make this historic, painful and risky concession if it would bring peace to Israel. Meanwhile, the key player on the Palestinian right – Hamas — still longs for the day when, to quote their covenant, “The stones and trees will say ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” Likud has moved towards the center. Fatah has moved toward Hamas.

Yet, somehow, Israel is seen as the obstacle to peace and Netanyahu is portrayed as the extremist. Blaming Israel like this isn’t simply a failed negotiation strategy. Singling out Israel is a moral failure of the highest order.

Related Links

Obama: The G8, uranium & arms to Saudi Arabia: Israel must say no! - The Washington Times

Ayalon to Latin America to work against Palestinian UN move - Jerusalem Post

Israeli military says will stop new Gaza flotilla - Reuters

Poll: US social media users favor Israel - YnetNews

Israelis Celebrate Jerusalem Day - Christian Broadcasting Network

Egypt Rushes Toward Sharia and War

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

How hopelessly at odds with America’s best interests is Barack Obama? Less than two weeks ago he declared his support for “political and economic reform in the Middle East,” warmly endorsing the “Arab Spring” uprisings there. Then Sunday, Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail announced his candidacy for the presidency of Egypt, promising to transform Egypt into an Islamic state and go to war with Israel. Reform that would indeed be, but not the kind any American president should be applauding.

Maybe Obama is still listening to his ruinously incompetent Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who at the height of the Egyptian uprising characterized the Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular.” Secular they’re not, but they’re certainly influential, and Obama knows it: he specifically requested that Muslim Brotherhood representatives attend his speech in Cairo in June 2009. Speaking in a mosque on Saturday, Abu Ismail said that he was confident of victory - precisely because, unlike the other candidates, he presented a clear call to institute Islamic law in Egypt. “Mohamed ElBaradei, Amr Moussa, and Hamdeen Sabahi, the liberal candidates, will be unable to present a clear vision.”

Abu Ismail was sure all Egyptians would love his pro-Sharia platform: “If I could apply sharia in Egypt, all people, including non-Muslims, would applaud me four years later.” He dismissed all who opposed him as perverts and libertines: “We seek to apply Islamic law, but those who don’t want it prefer cabarets, alcohol, dancers and prostitution, as the implementation of Islamic law will prohibit women to appear naked in movies and on beaches.”

He also promised to go to war with Israel: “The Camp David peace treaty is insulting to the Egyptian people, so it must be canceled, and I will do my best to convince people to cancel it.” Abu Ismail made this pledge as Egypt reopened the Rafah crossing - the only official point of entry into Gaza other than from inside Israel. Egypt had closed it in 2007 after Hamas took power in Gaza, as part of its uneasy observance of the Camp David Accords, since the Rafah crossing had been an easy route into Israel for jihadis and their weapons suppliers.

But now it appears that peace with Israel is no longer such a high priority. And it is no wonder that Abu Ismail thinks ripping up the Camp David accords is a winning issue. Last week the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood leader Rachid Ghannouchi predicted that the “Arab Spring” would lead to the destruction of Israel. Clearly he knows the direction of events in Egypt: man-on-the-street interviews conducted during the Egyptian uprisings found ordinary Egyptians explaining that what they hated about Mubarak was that he maintained peace with Israel. “He is supporting Israel. Israel is our enemy,” protestors explained. “If people are free in Egypt...they gonna destroy Israel.” Many demonstrators carried posters of Mubarak with a Star of David drawn on his forehead.

In January, Mohamed Ghanem, another Muslim Brotherhood leader, said in an interview on Iran’s Al-Alam television station that Egypt should prepare to go to war with Israel. That same month, Iran’s Press TV interviewed an Egyptian international lawyer Marwan al-Ashaal, who explained the popular discontent with Mubarak as a direct consequence of his keeping the peace with Israel: “The American-Egyptian relationships were based on Israeli security and I think Mubarak has been very dedicated to Israeli security more even than to his own people's security or the national interests.” Al-Ashaal claimed that “we see the deals with Israel that provoked people and took them to the edge.” He declared that Egypt is “never going to be a friend of Israel.”

Whether or not Abu Ismail is elected President of Egypt, the opening of the Rafah crossing indicates that Egypt has decided to adopt a belligerent stance toward Israel, and more is certain to come as Egypt marches toward Sharia. Obama in his recent Mideast policy speech proclaimed his ardent support for “free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law.” There is, however, no indication that the revolutions in the Middle East will lead to regimes that will have any interest in protecting any of those rights. Hazem Abu Ismail’s presidential campaign in Egypt is just the latest indication that when it comes to analyzing the “Arab Spring,” the Obama Administration is engaged yet again in fantasy-based policymaking.

Related Links

Good news: Brotherhood sheikh to run for president in Egypt - American Thinker

Muslim Brothers using mosques as party branches - Jerusalem Post

Ampal, Partners Start Arbitration Steps Against Egypt on Gas - Bloomberg

Egypt’s Christians Fear Violence as Changes Embolden Islamists - New York Times

Muslim Brotherhood television channel to be launched in days - Ahram Online

Myths of the Middle East

By Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama says he's got a new plan for peace in the Middle East.

All we have to do, he says, is give the "Palestinians" their own state – with contiguous borders, carved out of the territory Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War.

In fact, there's nothing "new" about this plan at all. The plan actually dates back to 1948 when Israel was re-created. At that time, so-called "Palestinian" Arabs got their own state – but they rejected it along with the rest of the Arab world.

But still the myth persists that the key to a Middle East peace is granting "Palestinians" a homeland and Muslims control over sites they consider holy.

Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony claims for an asymmetrical, genocidal campaign against the Jews of Israel.

Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a "Palestinian" homeland?

"Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem."

That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from the "Palestinian Authority" or Hamas. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

The truth is that "Palestine" is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in A.D. 70 when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as "Palestine." The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

"Palestine" has never existed – before or since – as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem.

Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct.

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third-most holy sites."

Not true. In fact, the Quran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Muhammad ever visited Jerusalem.

So how did Jerusalem become the third-holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Quran, the 17th Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Muhammad was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets – myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

So what's the solution to the Middle East mayhem? Well, frankly, I don't think there is a man-made solution to the violence. But, if there is one, it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Treating a 5,000-year-old birthright backed by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence equally with illegitimate claims, wishes and wants gives diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name.

Related Links

Hamas-Gaza's missile stock passes 10,000 - and going up - DEBKAfile

Jerusalem Arabs ask Israel to remain in control - Israel Today (Ryan Jones)

Where Obama is leading Israel - CarolineGlick.com

Egypt, PLO Meet Islamic Jihad, Want Obama's Lines for Starters - Arutz Sheva

Israel Through The Eyes Of Scripture - SpiritandTruth.org (Tony Garland)

Monday, May 30, 2011

Memorial Day

By L.A. Marzulli
LAMarzulli.net

My father who is about to turn 91 and is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, served in WWII where he was a captain in the infantry. He landed on the beaches of France in the D-day invasion and was wounded there, shipped back to England for 6 weeks and then rejoined his division. He fought from hedgerow to hedgerow, in soggy fields, dense forests, liberating villages, pushing back the Nazis and then marched into Paris.

He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, which was the Nazis last stand before they were thankfully defeated. He was awarded two purple hearts, the Bronze star, and other medals.

No one de-programmed him when he came back from the horrors that he had seen, “over there.” He married my mother dressed in his uniform. There is a picture that I have of him when he arrived back in the states, where Dad looks disturbed and troubled, and it’s not hard to imagine what images, that were forever burned in his memory, he was trying to process, to come to terms with, from the war. He never talked about the war when my brother and I were kids, however on the 60 year anniversary he opened up, for the first time about it. I talked to him for well over an hour and heard stories that I had never heard before. He told me how he won the Bronze star. There was a field in France and the Germans were hunkered down on the other side of it. My father was told to have his men attack the position. He led a charge across that field and from what I gathered the fighting was fierce and bloody, and there was hand to hand combat. It was the only time in my 60 years that he was able to talk about the war without breaking down.

When my daughter called him a few years ago, before the onset of Alzheimer’s, and interviewed him about the war for an assignment that she was working on for a high-school history class, he lasted less than two minutes before breaking down completely, handing the phone to my mother, collapsing in a chair and crying bitterly.

He has carried those memories all of his adult life. They have troubled him in his sleep in the form of recurring nightmares, stolen the joy and innocence of his youth, and perhaps, as some recent studies seem to indicate, brought on the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease. My father was/is a hero, and as each year passes and the numbers of those who fought on the beaches of France and liberated Europe grow less, what happened becomes a distant memory….

We are still fighting in Afghanistan, and this war has lasted longer than WWII. Our president has deployed our blood and treasure in Libya and defied his Constitutional obligation to bring the matter before Congress. Suicide rates are apparently rising in those who return form Iraq and Afghanistan. Last Christmas my wife and I were dining with a friend whose son is a marine and was on leave. He told us of a village that was shelled and of the accidental civilian casualties that had occurred. He broke down at the table and wept.

When the King returns, we are told that men will not learn war any more. That is one of the many promises that await us in the future. The return of the King is what we should hope for, as the ravages of war and the blood of untold millions, spilled on the ground, down through the centuries, cries out… Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus….

Related Links

After years of war, House holds votes to check military action - The Hill

Army Chief: Significant Number of GI Suicides - NewsMax.com

Memorial Day Tribute - Jerusalem Connection

As America Observes Memorial Day, U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan Top 1,500 - CNS News

Our Holiday - American Thinker

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 29)

By Dr. Thomas Ice
Pre-Trib Research Center

The final view concerning the time within God's end-time prophetic program when Gog's invasion of Israel will take place is at the end of the millennium. Having stated the view previously, I now will lay out a number of reasons why this view does not best explain the text in Ezekiel 38—39, especially since the end of the millennium results in the end of history and the beginning of eternity.

Differences

It is all too common in biblical studies to notice a similarity or two in a couple of passages and conclude that they are referring to the same event. Maybe they do refer to the same event or maybe they do not. When there are thought to be similarities between biblical passages, that is when the differences become even more important. When there are too many differences, then it is usually best to conclude that the various texts speak of differing events. I believe that to be the case in the comparison of Revelation 20 and Ezekiel 38 and 39. In order for these two passages to be taken as referring to the same event, the differences must be harmonized.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum finds two major objections to this view that he considers irreconcilable.

But there are two key objections to this view. First, the Ezekiel invasion comes from the north; the Revelation invasion comes from all over the world. Second, this view also fails to answer the problem of the seven months and the seven years. This earth is done away with soon after the invasion mentioned in Revelation, not allowing any time (or place!) for seven months of burial or seven years of burning. It would require the burying and burning to continue into the Eternal Order. [1]

Fruchtenbaum's first objection means that the Gog invasion of Ezekiel is clearly stated to be a handful of nations (a regional invasion) from the North, while the attack on Jerusalem is said to be many individuals from all of the nations of the world, thus meaning that the Revelation invasion comes from every direction. A human being, Gog, is said to lead the Ezekiel invasion, while Satan himself (an angelic being) is the leader of the Revelation event. John Walvoord agrees and says, "nothing in the context of Ezekiel 38-39 is similar to the battle in Revelation." [2] Walvoord asks the question: "Why then is the expression "Gog and Magog" used by John?" This is the strongest reason for this viewpoint. Walvoord answers his own question as follows:

The Scriptures do not explain the expression. In fact it can be dropped out of the sentence without changing the meaning. In Ezekiel 38 Gog was the ruler and Magog was the people, and both were in rebellion against God and were enemies of Israel. It may be that the terms have taken on a symbolic meaning much as one speaks of a person's "Waterloo," which historically refers to the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, Belgium, but has come to represent any great disaster. Certainly the armies here come in the same spirit of antagonism against God that is found in Ezekiel 38. [3]

Fruchtenbaum's second objection appears to me to be an insurmountable problem for this view. Even though advocate Paul Tanner states generally that, "time would surely be available for the burial of bodies and the burning of weapons" [4] he provides no specifics. Ralph Alexander makes a similar generalization when he says, "time would surely be available for the burial of bodies and the burning of weapons." [5] So I guess that Alexander would have to posit a seven-year period that will last beyond the thousand years of Revelation 20. However, Ezekiel 39:12 says the purpose for the burying of the dead is to "cleanse the land." Why would the land need to be cleansed if the end of the millennium results in the great conflagration of the heavens and the earth? The flow of the text in Revelation makes it clear that instant judgment is brought down on Satan and those who are part of the global rebellion against God. Then the next scene shifts in verses 11–15 to the Great White Throne judgment, followed by the New Heavens and the New Earth in chapters 21 and 22. Revelation 21:1 includes the phrase, "for the first heaven and the first earth passed away."

The Conflagration

There are a couple of Greek words that we should focus upon in Revelation. First, in 20:9 it says, "fire came down from heaven and devoured them" — that is the people who came from the nations and surrounded Jerusalem. The Greek word for "devoured" is katephagen and carries the general meaning of to "devour as if by eating." A Greek lexicon classifies the Revelation 20:9 use as "to destroy utterly" and "of fire: consume someone." [6] The clear implication of this word is that there will not be any bodies left to bury since they will be consumed and thus destroyed by the fire God sends down from heaven. Therefore, this word does not allow for a seven-year cleansing of the land as noted in Ezekiel.

The other Greek word is found in 21:1 that says, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away." "Pass away" translates the Greek word apelelutha, which has the basic meaning of "go away or depart." The Greek lexicon says that in this specific context it has the sense of "to discontinue as a condition or state, or pass away." [7] This passage, along with 20:9, supports the notion that when the thousand years come to an end then the present heavens and earth will be destroyed, which does not allow for the details of Ezekiel 39:9–16 to be fulfilled in history.

Further, 2 Peter 3:10–13 speaks of the destruction of this present heaven and earth in language that does coordinate with Revelation 20 and 21. "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." Much of the same vocabulary used in Revelation is also found in 2 Peter. Thus, it follows that this passage in 2 Peter 3 is an expansion of what John saw in Revelation. This means that after the thousand years this present earth is going to be burned up and totally destroyed. This perhaps explains why God sends fire down from heaven upon the rebels that surround Jerusalem, since it will be the first phase in the total destruction of planet earth. Therefore, there is no way that the details of Ezekiel's invasion are referring to the same event.

Additional Differences

The more I examine the details of the Ezekiel passage and compare it to Revelation 20:7–10, the more I realize that these are clearly two separate events. Another detail in Ezekiel that does not make sense in light of Revelation 20 is the fact that Gog and his invaders will be buried by the Israelis in a valley that is said to be east of the Mediterranean Sea. Charles Dyer adds the following:

The valley where Gog's army will be buried is "on the east side of" the Dead Sea in what is today Jordan. The phrase "those who travel east" could be taken as a proper name. It might refer to the "mountains of Abarim" east of the Dead Sea that Israel traversed on her way to the Promised Land (cf. Num. 33:48). If so, Gog's burial will be in the Valley of Abarim just across the Dead Sea from Israel proper in the land of Moab. Yet the burial will be in Israel because Israel controlled that area during some periods of her history (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2; Ps. 60:8). [8]

Such coordination between details of the two passages just do not measure up as the same event.

Why would the Lord have Israel memorialize Gog's burial place for future generations when He would also know that He is getting ready to burn up the entire the planet? It does not make sense! Mark Hitchcock notes that "these chapters are set in the context of restoration (Ezek. 33—39) followed by a description of the millennial temple and sacrifices (Ezek. 40—48). The invasion in chapters 38 and 39 is a part of Israel's restoration that will occur chronologically before the millennial kingdom is officially established." [9]

Endnotes

[1] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, Rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2003), p. 121.
[2] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), vol. 2, p. 981.
[3] Walvoord, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 981.
[4] J. Paul Tanner, "Rethinking Ezekiel's Invasion By Gog," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 1996, vol. 39, p. 45.
[5] Ralph H. Alexander, "Ezekiel" in Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 12 vol. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), vol. 6, p. 940.
[6] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 532.
[7] Arndt, Danker and Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 103.
[8] (emphasis original) Charles H. Dyer, "Ezekiel" in John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), p. 1302.
[9] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 134.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Egypt and Tunisia to Get Billions in Aid

By Dr. David Hocking
Hope for Today

Egypt, Tunisia to get Billions in Aid
by Maayana Miskin (Israel National News)

The United States, Qatar and the World Bank each pledged to give billions of dollars in aid to Egypt this week, in order to help the country boost its economy following the ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak.

U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to relieve Egypt of $1 billion in debt, and has offered an additional $1 billion in loans to improve infrastructure and create new jobs.

The World Bank pledged to provide $4.5 billion over the next 24 months, including at least $1 billion in budget support this year and $1 billion next year “dependent on progress.” The other $2.5 billion will be invested in development projects.

Saudi Arabia has pledged $4 billion in aid, and Qatar is considering projects worth more than $10 billion.

The International Monetary Fund sent a delegation to Cairo this week to discuss the possibility of a loan. Egypt is seeking up to $4 billion from the IMF. Once an IMF agreement is signed, the European Union will decide how much aid to give. EU officials are currently considering giving several hundred million euros.

The G8 is expected to approve a package including billions of dollars in aid and debt swaps.

Tunisia will get $1.5 billion from the World Bank, including budget support and money for investments.

The World Bank said in a statement, “Approximately 50-75 million jobs are needed over the next decade to absorb new labor market entrants and to bring down unemployment” in the Mideast and northern Africa. The World Bank warned, “Only 48 million jobs will be created if countries continue to grow as they did over the past decade.”

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said the goal is “to try to stabilize and then modernize the economies of the region.”

The World Bank lowered its economic growth forecast for northern Africa and the Middle East to 3.6% from 5% this week, but has expressed hope that the overthrow of long-term authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Tunisia will lead to economic integration similar to that in eastern Europe in the 1990s.

Related Links