Is the Roadmap to Peace
the Covenant of the Anti-Christ?
The Roadmap was developed by an Arabist named George Mitchell during the Clinton administration. It is not a Bush administration plan.
The Quartet, mentioned in other posts, essentially put a rubber stamp on Mitchell’s plan. (By the way, Javier Solana, of the NATO wars and now EU fame, was the EU representative for the Quartet.)
Once endorsed by the Quartet, the Roadmap “became” President Clinton’s plan to bring “peace” to the Middle East. It nearly succeeded in a treaty being signed, except for Arafat’s balking at the very last moment.
What is an Arabist?
An Arabist is a person who is a half-Arab progeny of a marriage between a U.S. State Department official and Arab aristocracy (See Robert D. Kaplan’s book, The Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite).
Because of family ties, the Arabists are sympathetic to the Arab cause in the Middle East and exert a very powerful influence in the U.S. State Department. There is hardly a Middle East state department employee who is not an Arabist, or at least sympathetic to the Arabist’s position.
Arabists have no truck in representing pure U.S. interests in the Middle East and they rarely respond to public pressure. They are not friends of Israel.
The Arabists essentially shape U.S. Middle East policy, regardless of which political party is holding the White House.
Thus George Bush is continuing with the Arabist’s policy developed under Bill Clinton.
That being said, is the “Roadmap to Peace” to become the covenant, or treaty, of the Anti-Christ?
Due to the maturity of the struggle in the Promised Land it is very unlikely that there can be more than one treaty signed without it being the final prophesied treaty.
The next treaty signed will be the prophesied treaty if it is a seven-year treaty. This is the key: a seven-year timetable.
Right now the Mitchell treaty does not have a seven-year termination clause. In contrast, it is touted as a permanent solution to the Middle East problem.
If it is signed without the termination clause being added, it cannot be the treaty of the Anti-Christ.
In turn, if the clause is added, it has to be the treaty of the Anti-Christ.
There will not be two treaties for seven years because the world’s state of affairs, and in particular the Middle East, could not stand such a situation.
Also, if there is a pre seven-year treaty without a termination clause, the treaty will have to quickly collapse into violence—possibly another major Arab-Israeli war.
The treaty’s quick collapse will necessitate a quick new treaty to stop the escalation in terrorist violence. (I believe within three years.) This will be the optimal time for a seven-year treaty.
This treaty’s purpose will be very different than the Mitchell treaty. It will be to appease the Arabs for a relatively short time and to bring a pause in the violence. Its vision will be short term instead of long term.
In the eyes of the west, it will be a stop-gap treaty. In the eyes of the Muslims it will be the only treaty they can “justly” sign. In turn, in the eyes of the “spiritually discerning” it will be the prophesied treaty of the End Times.
The Arabs will have to be appeased or there will be no pause to the violence. Islamic law (the Sharia) stipulates that Muslims cannot make a treaty for longer than seven years with infidels (all non-Arabs). The seven-year clause will be the main appeasement from the West.
This seven-year limit is because of the requirement of Jihad placed on all Muslims. To be obedient to Allah, all Muslims must be at war, at all time, with non-Muslim governments, especially those within the realm of the Muslim world—and Israel is right smack in the middle of the Muslim world.
By Islamic law, no permanent peace treaties can be made. This is why Arafat backed out of the last treaty attempt at the last minute.
The only exception of the requirement of permanent Jihad allowed in Islamic law is a temporary seven-year treaty, in which time the Muslim is required to recoup and prepare for another offensive.
A special feature of this seven-year treaty is that it can be, and should be, if possible, “justly” broken by the Muslims after only three and a half years. Does this sound familiar to you?
The treaty is ‘justly” broken by the resumption of violence.
Even the seven-year respite in Jihad is to be canceled after only three and a half years if the Muslims can regroup quickly enough.
The Mitchell treaty is about permanently dividing the Promised Land and must ultimately fail. Spiritually, it is one of the most powerful attempts ever by Satan to break prophecy and, in turn, provide a means to impeach God.
It is in the Muslim’s (and especially Satan’s) best interest to accept the Mitchell plan and be at peace for an extended time with a divided Israel, because prophecy will then be broken.
But the very laws Satan created to overthrow prophecy will backfire on him and bring his own downfall.
I doubt the Mitchell treaty will be signed. Two things will prevent its signature. It violates Islamic law by being a permanent treaty, so the Muslims will not sign it. Secondly, it violates God’s prophetic promise by dividing the Promised Land.
Remember, the Promised Land is the Prophesied Land. Anytime God makes a promise it is by its very nature a prophecy. All prophecy is promise and all promise is prophecy. Not one of God’s promises will be broken.
So, in regard to the Mitchell plan, two things can happen. First, a major war, either Middle Eastern or world wide, can breakout, bringing an end to the plan before it is ever signed. Or, second, the plan is signed and a major war quickly breaks out putting a quick end to its terms before they can be implemented.
Either way, the Mitchell plan is going to fail.
Scriptures give a picture of a seven-year time period beginning with a treaty brokered by the Anti-Christ. There is peace for the first three and a half years, but then war breaks out, ending in Armageddon and the return of Christ, when Israel is rescued after great tribulation.
It is not the Church that is rescued at Armageddon, it is Israel.
That being said, the Mitchell treaty does not match the terms of the seven-year treaty.
This does not mean that the seven-year treaty is a long time off. I believe it will come on the heels (at most three years) of the failure of the Mitchell treaty. The failure can be either militarily or diplomatically.
Come Lord Jesus.
O Lord, holiness is what makes Your house beautiful for days without end. Psalm 93:5