The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

April 3, 2025
Introduction

We are in the Last Days when prophetic events are happening, and where prophetic events begin to happen, confusion automatically results. People were ask about the war in Iraq and what is happening in the Middle East and how to understand it biblically in light of biblical prophecy.

If we just watch the news we can get really confused as to what is going on, but when we look at these things in the light of the Bible, things become very clear.

As we see prophecy beginning to be fulfilled, and it is being fulfilled faster and faster, confusion emerges. We are in the Last Days; God did put these things in His Word for a reason, and the reason is He wants us to understand these things.

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city…

(That is Jerusalem.)

…to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah…

(…”an anointed one”…)

…the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” (Dan 9:24-27)

We have two princes in this passage. In verse 26 we obviously see the Messiah—Jesus, but there are people who teach (usually extreme Calvinists) that Jesus is also the second prince. Now the second prince is Antichrist. They are confusing Christ with the Antichrist. Let us begin at the beginning.

Understanding Eschatology

There are four ways to understand eschatology, four ways to understand Last Days prophecy in Western theological thought:

Preterism says these things already happened and have no future meaning, that they already happened in the Early Church or whatever and they have no future meaning. Revelation has no future meaning in this view at it has all happened already. This is the eschatology of the Kingdom-Now people who say there will be no Antichrist, no falling away, no Rapture, that the Church will go from strength to strength, and Satan is bound. (If Satan is bound I want to know who keeps letting him go.) Additionally they say that the church is going to conquer the whole world for Christ before He comes. Now it is not logical to believe such nonsense, but there is not much logic in the people who preach such nonsense. This is Preterism. 

There are two forms of Preterists. First are the liberals, the unsaved so-called theologians. What they say is, “Well, Isaiah could not have known a king named Cyrus would come along 200 years later and send the Jews back to Israel from the Captivity in Isaiah 44-45, so therefore Isaiah could not have written the book of Isaiah. It had to be somebody they call “Deutero-Isaiah” who came along after the fact and took something that already happened and made it look like a prediction called an “ex vatacina interpolation.” Their presupposition is, “We cannot be sure there is a God, if there is He does not know the future, and even if He did He would not tell Isaiah, so therefore Isaiah and Daniel could not have been so accurate in what was predicted. Somebody had to come along hundreds of years later and make believe.” That is what the liberals say.
Then we have Historicism. There are people who say they are born again, who are Evangelicals, who believe in a form of Preterism, and these are the ones who say that Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 A.D.

Historicism is what some of the Reformers believed. They would say, “Well, there are many antichrists; we should not look for these two people in the book of Revelation, that is simply literary illustration. The papacy is an ongoing institution – it is an antichrist institution; so every Pope is the Antichrist.” You go to Northern Ireland, the Presbyterians believe this. They go so far as to say “the restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 who restrains Antichrist from coming was pagan Rome and when the Visigoths conquered pagan Rome in the 5th Century, then the papacy came to power. That is how far they take it. The restrainer is the Holy Spirit, but they actually say it was imperial pagan Rome. This is Historicism.

Then there is Poemicism. Poemicism says, “Well, the book of Revelation is only poetry. It is given only to encourage the Church that Jesus will come back one day. It is given to encourage us at times of persecution. We should not take it as having any specific meaning, it is like poetry. It is just to cheer us up when things are tough.” Lutherans go with this. Luther basically rejected the book of Revelation and so Lutherans are stuck with the fact that the founder of their church did not like it. So what are they going to do with it? Well, it is poetry to them.

Then there is Futurism. Futurists are people like the late Barry Smith, my friend, and Hal Lindsay and these people say that there will be an Antichrist, there will be a mark of the beast, there will be a falling away.

True Eschatology - Multiple Fulfillments

These are the four ways people look at it in the Western world, but that is not the way Jesus and the Apostles looked at it. This passage talks about the “shiqutz ha meshomem” – the “abomination of desolation”. The abomination will come and one who makes desolate. Jesus spoke of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15…

“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

The Western world says one of these four are true. The Judeo-Christians of the 1st Century, the Apostles and those taught by the Apostles, did not say that. They said all four were true.

The abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel already happened by the time Jesus spoke of the abomination in Matthew 24. By the time the abomination of desolation was spoken of by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, it happened about 160 years earlier in the days of the Maccabees. This is the Jewish feast of Hanukkah which Jesus Himself celebrated in John 10. In English our Bible would call it “The Feast of Dedication”. So Jesus knew it already happened. He took something that already happened and made it a prophecy. Jesus used Preterism.

But unlike Preterists, He said it is going to happen again—multiple fulfillments. He used Historicism. He took something that happened and said it is going to happen again, and so it does. It happened in 70 A.D. If we read Josephus, when the prophecies of Jesus and Daniel were fulfilled for destroying the temple, the Romans set up pagan ensigns on the Temple Mount and began to worship them where the Holy of Holies had been. That was an abomination of desolation. The Emperor Hadrian came along and built a temple to Jupiter, the Roman version of the Greek god Zeus and that was an abomination of desolation. Today on the Temple Mount we have the Mosque of Omar with an inscription in Arabic from the Quran that says, “God has no son”. In 1 John, that which denies the Father-Son relationship is antichrist. (1 John 2:22) Jesus used Historicism.

Then there is Poemicism. Jesus appears to John on Patmos during the persecution by the Emperor Domitian. John is the last apostle left; the others had all been martyred, and people were wondering, “When is He coming?” They expected Him, by and large, to come in their lifetime. The church had to be encouraged that He was coming, that He was going to keep His Word, that it did have an eternal future. Jesus used Poemicism.

Yet going back to the abomination, He said it will happen again and again and again. Each time there was an abomination on the Temple Mount—it happened with Julian the Apostate, Constantine’s nephew, there have been many abominations—each one of them is a foreshadowing of the final one. In other words, the Western church says we can only be one of the four; however, Jesus and the Apostles were all four. It is not one of the four, it is all four.

Partially Right, But Not Entirely Right

Some of these people are right in what they say but wrong in what they omit. What they are saying is not always completely wrong, it is what they are not saying that makes it wrong in part.

The people with this Preterist view say, “Well it all happened in 70 A.D.” In the Olivet Discourse Jesus spoke of the Last Days on the Mt. of Olives in Matthew 24-25. It is not just chapter 24; it is chapter 24 and 25. Yes, it had a partial fulfillment in 70 A.D.—it partially happened. The believers fled from Jerusalem under Simeon and they thought that would be the Rapture. That happened. However, did Jesus separate the sheep from goats in 70 A.D.? (Mt. 25:31-46) Preterists would say, “Yeah, the Jews who believed were separated from the ones who did not.” But then did He give people their eternal reward based on what they did with their talents in 70 A.D.? That is Matthew 25. When did Jesus give people their eternal reward based on what they did with their gifts in 70 A.D.? It never happened in 70 A.D. When did the bridegroom come for the bride in 70 A.D.? The wise and foolish virgins is in Matthew 25 as part of the Olivet Discourse. Did Jesus come back for His bride in 70 A.D.? No, He did not.

It is a complete nonsense. They take the partial fulfillment and try to make it the total fulfillment. They take the Preterism, but they forget what it means for the future. That is not how Jesus handled Daniel 9. Jesus said, “Yes, it already happened, but it is going to happen again.” He did not say it was one fulfillment, it is multiple fulfillments with one final one when He comes back for the Bride.

Let Us Put This In Context

The first thing in this context we should realize is Daniel was told that this message applied not primarily to the Church but to the Jews.

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city…

I am not saying it does not apply to the Church, but it first of all applies to the Jews.

The people who go into this other error are usually people—not always, but usually—who are into Replacement Theology. They say the Church is “Israel” and God has no future purpose for the Jews. This is absurd. If God does not have to keep His promise to the Jews, He does not have to keep His promise to the Church. The New Covenant was not made with the Church; the New Covenant was made with the Jews.

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, (Jer. 31:31)

Jesus never made a covenant with the Church, He made it with the Jews. Non-Jews who accept Jesus are grafted in, Jews who reject Him are cut off from their own olive tree. But Jesus never made a covenant with the Church.

The second thing we need to understand about this context in addition to the fact it is for the Jews is that there is one Messiah, two comings. Daniel 9 tells us that the Messiah would come and die before the second temple would be destroyed.

“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. (Dan. 9:26)

The Messiah would come and be cut off.

The Talmudic literature refers to this and confirms the Christian interpretation in Yaqut, Volume 2, page 79d of the Nazir edition 32B, also the Midrash Bereshit. I got it from page 243 of the Warsaw Edition. The Messiah was to exit in 33 A.D. The Sanhedrin said the same thing. The Messiah was to come and die before the second temple was destroyed.

The Jews expected Him to bring in the everlasting kingdom. That was not His purpose in His first coming; that is His purpose in His second. His first coming was to be an atonement for sin. The Jews wanted somebody to get rid of the Romans the way the Maccabees did the Greeks. That is His purpose when He comes back, to bring in political dominion; it was not His purpose the first time. It was to be an atonement for sin. The Messiah was to come and die.

Jesus is in his native town Nazareth in the synagogue, and it says…

And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed, To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”

And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant… (Lk. 4:17-20a)

He was reading from what we call the “Parshat Hashavua”, the Synagogue Liturgical Lection. He was reading from Isaiah 61.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the Lord has anointed me To bring good news…

(…”gospel” – “bisorah” in Hebrew…)

…to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified. (Is. 61:1-3)

Jesus stops half-way through verse 2. He only reads the first half of verse 2 then He closes the book. He does not only stop half-way through the passage, He stops half-way through the verse and closes the book. Why? The rest He will fulfill in His second coming. He only reads up to that which He will fulfill in His first. This is “one Messiah, two comings”. He’s reading the Parshat Hashavua, the synagogue liturgical reading for that week from the Haftorah, and He stops right in the middle of the verse, closes the book and hands it to the synagogue attendant. He only reads as far as He was going to fulfill at that time: one Messiah, two comings.

What Preterists and Historicists are trying to say, in effect, is it all happened back then. No, it did not all happen back then; He does the rest when He returns. Of course there will be a Millennial Reign of Jesus! The original plan God had for this planet, what would have happened if Adam and Eve did not sin, is going to happen. The plans of God cannot be thwarted. Sin has merely interrupted it. The Messiah will restore what sin interrupted after He atones for sin. First He comes to atone for sin, then He restores what we made a mess of in the Garden of Eden. The original plan God had for the planet will happen. The idea, “That is it; forget it!”, no do not forget it. God had a plan and neither the devices of Satan nor the sin of man is going to thwart the original plan He had for us and for this planet. Then comes eternity. Nothing can thwart the plan of God.

So the second thing we have to understand is one Christ/one Messiah (that is what “Christ” means), two comings.

The Division of Years

The third thing we have to understand is Jeremiah predicted it would be a 70 year captivity.

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans— in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. (Dan. 9:1-2)

We know from archeology and from history the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede was 539 B.C. It was 539 B.C. when Daniel wrote this. Daniel had this explained to him by the Lord through angelic medium and so forth. He was reading the Scriptures and he saw and he understood the Captivity would be 70 years. But then he gets the message it would not be 70 years simply—that is only the Babylonian Captivity, but it would be seventy sevens. The word is “shavua”. “Shavua” comes from the Hebrew word “seven” – “sheba”. There will be seventy sevens. Sevens of what? We must go back to the beginning of the chapter to figure out that it is “weeks of years” or sets of 7 years. We must go back to what he was studying in Jeremiah. It is not only going to be 70years, it is going to be 70 sevens. That is what it says literally. It does not say “490 years”, it says “70 sets of 7 years” or “7 sets of 70 years”; a 490 year period. What Preterists and Historicists have tried to say is it all happened when Jesus came the first time.

Look at how it breaks it down. It says there will be a period of 7 weeks—that is 49 years, and three-score and two weeks—that is 434 years. So there is a period of 7 weeks, which is of course 49 years, and then another period of 62 weeks (which is 434 years) before the Messiah would come and be cut off. And then at the end it says there is one more week, one week of 7 years.

The text does not specifically tell us why it breaks the 69 weeks into 7 and 62. However, we know that they had three decrees. The first one was the decree of Artaxerxes in the book of Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem that Daniel refers back to, (Neh. 2) then there was the decree to rebuild the temple, (Ezra 1) and then there was the re-issuing of the first decree issued by a later king who searched the records of the archives of the kings. (Ezra 7) It is likely when the people came back, as we read in Haggai, Ezra, and Nehemiah, they were lackadaisical or reluctant. Many were reluctant even to rebuild Jerusalem, and most of them were reluctant to rebuild the temple. The 49 years relates to how long it actually took to get things reestablished as a city and as a place of worship. They did not just come back and do it right away; Haggai and Ezra were fighting with them to get them to do it. That is the main reason, as far as I can deduce, why it breaks it down into the 7 and the 62. There was a period of time before things really got organized the way it was supposed to because the people were too consumed with themselves to be consumed with the things of God.

Then the final week comes at the end, after the Messiah is cut off. Preterists and Historicists would have us believe this happened way back when. This decree to rebuild Jerusalem was 451 B.C., but we are talking about two things that complicate it:

 

So to make the adjustment is about 450 B.C. and when we add the 69 weeks of years, it comes to the fact that the Messiah would have had to die in approximately 32 A.D.

 

The 70th Week

There are those who would tell us that this 70th week also happened. Now what I believe, and what most of my friends believe, is that we have a break between the 69th and 70th week. Why? For the same reason Jesus read half the verse in the synagogue. That is the “Time of the Gentiles”.

It is like a rugby game. There is 5 minutes left in the game, the game is due to be over at 6, there is five minutes left in the game and a player is injured, so stop the clock, freeze the game. There isalways five minutes left in the game. If the paramedics get a doctor, get an ambulance, get him medevaced off the field, the clock starts again. Time freezes. That is what John means when saying, “Little children, it is the last hour”. (1 Jn. 2:18) Time freezes. It is always one minute to midnight. There is always five minutes left in the game. As soon as the injured player is removed the clock begins again. As soon as the “Time of the Gentiles” ends, God goes back to dealing with the Jews.

On what basis can we say this? On the basis of what Jesus said. “Lord is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6-8) “Oh, the kingdom will be restored to Israel, the Father has fixed that by His own authority—you worry about evangelism. Be My witnesses to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the ends of the earth.” Then He turns His grace back to the Jews and restores the kingdom.

These things could not possibly have been fulfilled in the Early Church in the time of Jesus. The 70th week could not have possibly happened.

Why Some Get It Wrong

The first reason this nonsense makes no sense is that Daniel tells us the same thing the book of Revelation does.

“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice…

Antiochus Epiphanes stopped temple sacrifice, but it could not be Antiochus because the years do not add up. That was 160 B.C. Therefore that leaves two possibilities: it is either the Antichrist who is prefigured by Antiochus, or it is Christ Himself as some people try to say.

When did Christ ever stop the sacrifice in the temple? They would say, “When He became the sacrifice we no longer needed a temple.” That is true, however the temple was not destroyed until 70 A.D. He gave the Jews 40 years to repent and accept Him as the Messiah before He put an end to temple worship. It just does not add up.

Additionally, look at the wording.

“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice… (Dan. 9:27)

Where does the ministry of Jesus break up into two halves of a week? Where do you see 7 years anywhere in the gospels, or anywhere in the Bible, of Jesus? The Bible only speaks of Jesus as 3-1/2 years. No place is the ministry of Jesus shown to be 7 years, broken into two halves. No place.

Secondly, while it is not about Christ, in Revelation it is certainly about Antichrist. Jesus had 3-1/2 years of public ministry. Satan, in the person of Antichrist, will demand equal time. They are taking verse 27 which is talking about Antichrist and saying that is speaking about Jesus? When did Jesus ever break a covenant? He is God; God cannot break a covenant. Paul says if God breaks a covenant He would deny Himself and He cannot do that. (2 Ti. 2:13) People can break covenants, but Jesus never abrogated a covenant.

The Bible never breaks His ministry into two halves of a 7 year period, and He never abrogated a covenant, and He never stopped sacrifice.

The Lengths Some Will Go To

Now in order to do what they do, they have to do two things: they have to engage, at least to a degree, in the error or Replacement Theology. “God is finished with the Jews.” Some of them are radically replaced, some of them partially, but more seriously what they must do is engage in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism: spiritualize a text out of context to mean something other than what it plainly states.

There is typology where one thing is a symbol of another thing. It is true Antiochus Epiphanes is a type of the Antichrist—that is typology. But that does not negate the fact there was a literal, historical Antiochus. There is midrash where you have a Pesher interpretation, but the Pesher interpretation, or deeper meaning, never negates the plain meaning called the “peshit”. Never. When we begin spiritualizing texts that way, that is Gnosticism.

Calvinistic people will claim to be grammatical-historical exegesis experts. They take the Bible literally, going back to the Reformation. They are superbly guilty of the very thing they claim to be most against. Every time they see “Israel”? Spiritualize it—that is “the church”. Not all Calvinists are Replacementists, but the ones who are classic Calvinists are Replacementists. When they see the Millennial Reign of Jesus that is only a symbol—spiritualize it. Where do they get a license to spiritualize something? That is what the Catholic church did, that is what Gnostics did. “It cannot literally be 1,000 years.” But do you believe it is literally 3-1/2 years? “Yes.” Then how come time is literal in one place in Revelation but it is only a symbol in another place? It is pick-and-choose.

There were these kind of old aptitude tests in the 1940’s and 50’s, logic tests where they would actually take the pegs and try to get them into the corresponding holes. There were square ones and round ones and triangular ones. Put this one in and if that one does not fit, get the pen knife out. Well that fits and that fits. We do not like that one. “Wait a minute, we should not have cut that one. We should have left that one intact; it would have fit perfectly in here.” Now they are stuck with one that does not go anywhere. Get the pen knife out. That is what it amounts to. It just does not add up.

The math does not add up, the historical record does not add up, and the biblical texts do not add up. Verse 26 is Christ, verse 27 is plainly Antichrist. The ministry of Jesus is never divided into two halves of a 7 year period. Jesus did not give people their eternal reward based on what they did with their talents in 70 A.D. Time cannot be literal in one passage and then figurative in another. It is either all figurative or all literal. It is a big nonsense. And it is a nonsense that essentially emerges from people’s desires to accommodate their own presuppositions, one of which is Replacement Theology.

Overall Influence

The same deceptions and errors that came around and plagued the Early Church have made a big comeback; and as we see prophecy fulfilled, as we draw closer to the return of Jesus, the very things books like Daniel were given to prevent us from being confused are only confusing people more because some kooks are coming in with their baggage—things that make no sense. 

 

 

How AI is transforming defensive capabilities against drones

October 12, 2026
Written by - Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM Examples abound in history of how the responses to innovations in technology that disrupted and transformed the nature of warfare have taken a delayed time to be adapted. Chain mail and armour had to be altered and bolstered to repel arrows from the English Longbow in Medieval Europe, but this didn't occur in time to the dismay of the French at Agincourt. It took the Spanish decades to redesign their cumbersome Galleons that lay prey to the swifter English ships. Napoleonic era field tactics were still being employed during the American Civil War, with mass charges mowed down by the Gatling barrel machine gun. Trench warfare was only later embraced during WWI. With the cheap manufacture of drones and the advances in AI a new chapter has opened in how war is waged in our own time. The conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have demonstrated how asymmetric warfare has become as much an economic calculation as a game of cat and mouse. Drones (and relatively cheaply manufactured ballistic missiles by Iran) are being shot down at great expense. AI which has been extensively deployed for target identification in Gaza is also proving to be a vital tool in hunting incoming drones. But as in the delayed development of military countermeasures historically, drones are ahead of AI in the battlefield. This is reflected in the enormity of Russian military casualties that have fallen victim to Ukrainian drones. AI is able to cut through the 'background noise' of distracting projectiles, birds and other debris to home in efforts to eliminate the actual drone target. The magic formula is speed and precision. Humans can detect and assess a threat, but AI can process radar, cameras and other sensors almost instantly, and with increasing accuracy predict where a drone intends to strike. When swamped with a wave drone attack, AI acts to identify and track the multiple threats. AI can also help decide how to respond. Depending on the system, the response could involve electronic warfare, an interceptor drone, a missile or a gun-based system. Ukraine has installed automated machine gun turrets instructed by AI to protect Kiev. In some cases, humans still make the final decision to engage, while AI handles the calculations and tracking required to make that decision quickly. More broadly, drone warfare is becoming a contest between autonomous systems. The challenge is no longer simply building a better missile or a better drone. It is building a system that can see the threat first, understand it quickly and respond before the drone reaches its target. In that sense, AI is becoming a critical part of air defence. The advantage may increasingly belong to whoever can make the fastest and most accurate decisions—not necessarily whoever manufactures the most expensive weapons. AI's pace of progress is exponential. It is beyond comprehension what capacity could be realized in even the next 2-3 years. The combination of drones, robotics and AI may render the traditional military hardware of tanks, frigates and fighter jets almost functionally obsolete. The development of AI's course of military application will be largely directed by the conflicts where it is deployed. In the pre-AI world of 1987, the black Friday market crash during the Reagan Administration saw a dangerous drop in the Dow, where computer analysis issued sell orders against a background of Reagan's massive budget deficits. Amidst Reagan's budget deficits this created an environment where social security was looted to fund defence spending. A supposed conservative President ran a fiscal policy with simultaneous increases in the Pentagon budget, coupled with tax cuts. The computer generated sell off was beyond the functional control of brokers and market makers, while the Soviets attempted to engineer market irregularities affecting the American economy which had further global ramifications due to massive American trade deficits with Japan under Reagan. The current Securities exchange environment is at best no less complex now. Given the spectre of what transpired in 1987 with computerised over control of stock exchange trading, and a shadow hanging over the bond market we are left to ponder could another such scenario be triggered in the age of AI? And even more illuminous prospect over shadows us now with the question can AI gain a decision-making operational capacity over command-and-control decisions. Certainly, for tactical weapons systems or even a doomsday scenario with Russia, China, India or Pakistan placing nuclear launch control in the hands of AI that could result in an exchange that either the US, Britain, France or Israel would be forced to react to. Without scaremongering it is necessary for strategic planners to prevent the nuclear powers that be from arriving at the precipice of such an abyss.

Interconnected Conflicts: The Risk of a New Thirty Years' War. By Rubin Rothler - LLB, MLB

September 21, 2026
The interlinked nature of third-party involvement in the ongoing conflicts in Iran and Ukraine has increasingly come to the fore in recent weeks. It emerged that China has not only been providing Iran with radar systems, navigation tools, and electronic warfare technology, but also high-resolution satellite imagery and geospatial data to direct its rockets. The same great-power relationships that are shaping the Middle East are affecting the conduct and constraints of the war in Ukraine. It is apparent that a reciprocation in kind is dictating Russia's conduct towards the US in Iran. Intelligence and targeting support mirror similar U.S. assistance to Ukraine. But this picture becomes murkier when considering the backroom accommodations Trump is willing to give Putin. Recently, Trump pressured Zelensky to stop targeting Russian diesel infrastructure, saying the attacks were causing a shortage of the fuel that is "hurting the world." The U.S. national average price for diesel, which is used by trucks, trains, ships, and farm equipment, rose above six dollars a gallon for the first time last Thursday. Such interventions demonstrate how developments on the battlefield in Ukraine can no longer be considered independently of wider economic and geopolitical calculations. China has been using tankers that are already at sea, when that runs out the American blockade will create shortage problems for the Chinese economy, as China no longer gets Venezuelan oil and is reliant on Iran and international spot market prices. The war with Iran is now spreading to Yemen, with the Houthis attempting to replicate the Iranian chokehold model perfected in the Strait of Hormuz. The strategic importance of controlling or threatening critical maritime chokepoints is central to the wider contest. What happens in the Gulf can therefore have consequences for shipping, energy markets, and military calculations far beyond the immediate theatre. So far, the US has declined Saudi requests to slow the Houthi advance. Neither Turkey nor Egypt seems inclined to come to Saudi Arabia's aid. This is despite the signing of a very recent mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. More developments can happen in these conflicts on an average day than can be afforded mention, but they should be increasingly understood as interconnected parts of a wider geopolitical confrontation. Assistance in one theatre triggers reciprocal action in another. Consequently, these cease to be discrete, containable conflicts and are extending into prolonged multinational conflicts. There is a distinct possibility that these may become frozen conflicts over time. A more terrifying eventuality is something more akin to the Thirty Years' War, which was fought in the first half of the 17th century in Europe. It is important to remember that this calamity, which ravaged Europe, began as a localized rebellion that gradually drew in more and more powers. The initial religious nature of the fighting gave way to political struggles. The mechanism by which a localized conflict becomes a multinational struggle offers a historical warning worth considering. The danger today is that a collection of individually distinct conflicts could become sufficiently interconnected that containing any one of them becomes increasingly difficult. Iran, Ukraine, Russia, China, the United States, and the conflict involving the Houthis are already linked by military assistance, intelligence, energy, trade, and strategic competition. The question, therefore, is no longer simply how any one of these conflicts ends. It is whether they can remain separate conflicts at all.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

Prayer Request

By David Passmore • September 12, 2026
Moriel & Jacob Prasch request prayer for our sister in Jesus - Wendy Blomkamp, widow of Brother Fred Blomkamp (now with The Lord), the founder of Moriel South Africa Branch (not to be confused with Moriel's Ebyown Aids Children's Mission in South Africa founded by David Royle). Wendy, (an equestrian rider of all things) is originally from West Yorkshire, England but has lived most of her life in South Africa and is currently in retirement in the USA. Unfortunately, Wendy is diagnosed with inoperable pre terminal cancer with cardio pullmonary complications. The Lord will either intervene supernaturally or call her home. We request prayer for Wendy and her beloved family and wisdom for her physicians. In Christ, All at Moriel

What would happen to Israel if the House is controlled by Democrats, and if the Republicans lose control of the Senate?

By David Passmore • September 7, 2026
The US midterm elections are around the corner and the results could have profound effects on US foreign policy concerning Israel. Much has been said about this vote being a referendum on Trump's unpopular war with Iran. But it can equally be said to be about Trump's other foreign policy engagements that are viewed rather more favourably like the overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela and his replacement with a pro-American regime. With Israel the picture is less clear. It used to be a given that Israel enjoyed bipartisan support on the Hill. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of politicians opposed to supporting Israel - the occasional fringe Democrat representing a singular Michigan constituency with a high Arab origin demographic, or a rare odd ball Republican preaching strict isolationism. This dynamic has shifted quickly in the last decade. The Democrats have all but abandoned any inclination of a pro-Israel position. Even establishment figures like Chuck Schumer have been pressured to side with the Party's radical left wing. With 60-80% of Democrats now anti-Israel, Israel can no longer rely on Jewish Democrats to oppose anti-Zionism or antisemitism. The most outspoken Democratic member of the Senate advocating a pro-Israel position, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania is being pressured to resign and leave the party even by Pennsylvania's Jewish Governor Shapiro and Soros sponsored Philadelphia Prosecutor Krasner. This is happening concurrently with mass endorsement from 170 leading Hollywood Jewish actors writing a letter of support for Mark Ruffallo - despite his antisemitic comments naming Jewish investors supporting a Hollywood studio mega merger as being associated with apartheid genocide. However most shocking, were the comments by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel who stood before an audience of Jewish Democrats last weekend telling them they may need to sacrifice the safety, and even the future, of their own people in exchange for saving the rest of humanity. Such rhetoric is contrary to basic human instincts of survival and self-preservation. If any other nation were suggested this course of action, I wonder what their response would be? On the Republican side the foreboding sense of an altering course towards Israel no longer seems so distant. The anti-Israel faction in the Republican party led by Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are now being supported by Vice President Vance. Jewish kingpins in the Trump Administration such as Witkoff and Kushner have been tied to business dealings in N.Y. with the Muslim Brotherhood controlled Qatari government through its business holdings. Should Republicans lose control of the Senate while Democrats take the House, Israel could find itself having to drastically re-access its relationship with Washington. We wouldn't see an immediate break in ties. American military, intelligence, technological and strategic cooperation with Israel is too integrated into the core of US institutions and corporations that would take a protracted period to dismantle. However, the power of Congress is in no way feeble. Congress controls funding, foreign-assistance legislation, sanctions, arms-related legislation and, perhaps most importantly, the political milieu in which an administration operates. A Democratic House combined with a Senate no longer controlled by Republicans could place enormous pressure on Trump to alter his attitude towards Israel. Practically this could entail demanding further accountability from Israel over military operations in Gaza, and the West Bank Settlers causing civilian casualties and property damage. Military aid could face more conditions or restrictions, but an immediate cutoff is unlikely. Israel has historically depended upon the presumption that regardless of who was President, there would be a robust enough bipartisan coalition in Congress to prevent a major deterioration in the relationship. Now the opposite appears true. Israel is taking the gamble of solely relying on a friendly President like Trump getting elected to maintain cordial relations. With the erosion of even much of Jewish American support for Israel and the hijacking of the Democratic party by a pro Islamist socialist left seen in Mamdani and others, Israel is forced to confront the inescapable reality that the last strong bastion of support for it is the Republican Party's evangelical base. But even younger voters in this key demographic are beginning to question support for Israel. The hostility displayed by the Haredim in Jerusalem and elsewhere against Christians including evangelicals, is to say the least counter-productive to the national interest. To attack the one friend Israel has left with a proven track record of loyalty and is vital to pro-Zionism internationally, is particularly detrimental to the national interest. It is Iran with its Mahdiist interpretations of jihad and sharia as a religious ideology that drives its hatred of Israel and the USA, and The West, to the detriment of the interests of the majority of the Iranian populace who want non hostile co-existence.  Such religious fanaticism and ideologically fuelled hatred ought not be given place in Israeli Judaism. It too, will generate adverse consequences for the majority of Israelis, including religious moderates, who desire an ongoing friendship with Evangelical Christians whose theology is not one of anti Semitism, but of proven Philo-Semitism and pro Zionism.

Don't bit ethe hand that feeds you - Irish hypocrisy towards Israel

By David Passmore • August 21, 2026
Don't bite the hand that feeds you - Irish hypocrisy towards Israel Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM Amongst European nations, Ireland in recent years has gained the reputation as being the leading anti-Zionist country. The Irish Republic has never been favourably inclined to Israel. It only established an Embassy in Tel Aviv in 1996. In poll after poll the vast majority of the Irish public have indicated hostility towards Zionism and strong support for Palestinian Statehood. The curious aberration to this is that in British Ruled Northern Ireland support is demarcated along sectarian lines. Catholic Republican areas predictably tend to ardently support the Palestinian cause, while Protestant Unionist communities are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Perhaps some credence can be given to sentiments of traditional Catholic antisemitism hardwired into the Irish psyche as contributing towards this disposition. It was certainly odd that the Irish government promptly sent a delegation to the Nazi German Ambassador in Dublin to convey condolences after news of Hitler's suicide broke at the end of WW2. But more concretely if you were to ask the average Irish protester on a pro-Palestine march the basis of their empathy for the Palestinian cause, they would point to the ostensible parallels between the Irish experience of fighting for independence from British colonial oppression to the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Further remonstrations on a diplomatic level concern the actions of the IDF interreacting with Irish Peace Keepers in Southern Lebanon that have caused the deaths of several Irish Peace Keepers over the decades in friendly fire incidents. Ireland has contributed the most peace keepers to this mission per capita and the government has condemned Israel for these deaths that they view as avoidable. This animosity towards Israel is unbalanced. There are reasons to consider that Ireland and Israel have a shared experience of national liberation. Both countries fought the British in the pursuit of independence. Both countries made great efforts to resurrect their ancient languages for modern wide scale use. Both the Irish and Jews form major diaspora communities in New York. Despite all this Ireland ranks as Israel's second largest export market after the US. The preponderance of Israeli exports to Ireland comprises electronic integrated circuits, micro-assemblies, and tech manufacturing components. American multinational colossal tech corporations like Intel are substantially engrossed in this trade through the chain of supply. Ireland and Israel are hubs for design and manufacture of high-tech hardware components for US corporations. So, due to the nature of the most prosperous and competitive sectors of their respective economies, Israel and Ireland are inextricably bound in bilateral trade ties. Resolutions from the Irish government to impose sanctions on West Bank originating produce is merely perfunctory rhetoric. Such actions amount to a drop in the bucket in terms of impact to overall trade. The stark reliance of Ireland on advanced Israeli aviation equipment recently caused a spectacle when Ireland's new government jet struggled to land in heavy fog due to it being ordered without an advanced Israeli made navigation system. This was directly due to a short-sighted government decision not to buy Israeli military technology. There is a marked disparity between the official position of the Irish government designed for domestic public consumption and the economic policies that it actually pursues towards Israel. The government is acutely aware that the US is massively invested in the Irish economy and they don't want to do anything to jeopardise this. Washington demands that their enterprises in Dublin are intertwined with operations in Israel. The Irish government dare not even prevent US military supply flights refuelling at Shannon Airport on their way to Tel Aviv. The Irish government knows that times change and now the gripping social issue is the anti-immigrant/anti-Islam popular street protests. Soon the anti-Israel protests could become a mere side show only really promoted by Sinn Fein given the pressing ramifications of mass migration. So, in the meantime certain politicians will rile against the occupation, purported genocide and pass paltry sanctions against insignificant produce from the West Bank. All the while making hand over fist in money with the Israelis where it really matters in tech.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

The tide has Changed

By David Passmore • July 31, 2026
The Tide Has Changed Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM The America that Netanyahu touched down on is a changed America. The death of Lindsey Graham represents a changing of the guard. Graham was a staunch Israeli ally who will most probably become an increasingly rare breed in Washington. Sixty percent of Americans now hold a unfavourable view of Israel which politicians are finding difficult to ignore. It was once unthinkable to believe that New York City with such a strong Jewish electoral base and influence on all sectors of economic and cultural life would have a mayor that is so hostile to Israel to such an extent that he is calling for the arrest of its Prime Minister. From all accounts Netanyahu was cordially welcomed at the White House. The official press release stated that the talks were constructive. What is more telling is what was left unsaid particularly concerning the proposed sale of F35's to Israel's new regional adversary -Turkey. Trump is keen to find a swift resolution to the Iran War, while Netanyahu is opposed to a premature departure. When the US and Israel initiated their attacks on Iran over five months ago, Trump and Netanyahu appeared united in the War's goals and purpose. But as the protracted conflict has staggered to topple the Iranian regime fractures have emerged. Much has been said about the imminent political realities both leaders face. The Republicans could take a big hit in the November midterm elections should the war continue and global energy markets be negatively impacted. Netanyahu is anxious to demonstrate a big win to the Israeli public with the upcoming October election. In Israel, the Iran War is not viewed in isolation, but rather as an extension of the response to the colossal disaster of the October 7th massacre. Netanyahu must rehabilitate his reputation as a competent steward of national security having had the greatest loss of civilian life in an attack happening under his watch. Aside from the Iran issue, Trump is being pressured by Erdogan to insist upon Israeli withdrawal from Syrian territory pre-emptively seized by Israel following the toppling of Assad. Trump has also indicated disapproval of the extent of continuing Israeli measures against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, questioning the proportionality employed. Netanyahu is not in an envious position. Throughout his tenure and political career, he lauded his ability to engage successfully with the American public by zealously advocating Israel's position. Yet under his government Israel's reputation has plummeted in the US. Trump may be the last US President to extend such overwhelming bilateral support to Israel. The days of politicians like Lindsey Graham are fast ending. While John Fetteman and Marco Rubio appear to be remaining more solid, even some of the most warmly inclined leading Republican and Democrat voices like Donald Trump and Rahm Emanuel have nuanced their support for Israel. The tide has shifted and will at best level off if not continuing to shift further.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

The Saudi Nuclear Deal: An attempt to alter the Regional Balance of Power

By David Passmore • July 24, 2026
The Saudi Nuclear Deal: An attempt to alter the Regional Balance of Power Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM The initiative to develop a civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia with US assistance isn't new. There were concrete plans discussed towards these ends during the first Trump Administration. The recent announcement to actualize this deal follows the geo-political regional tumult in the wake of the Iran War. Several dimensions of motivation underlie the US decision. An overarching US strategic agenda is to keep the Saudis firmly in the American sphere of influence. Washington knows all too well that the Chinese and Russians are eager to offer their nuclear technical assistance to the Saudis in order to draw them closer to their camp. On a personal note, the nuclear agreement is a significant achievement for Bin Salaman. The Saudis have long had designs to diversify their energy supplies. Having a civilian nuclear program also adds prestige to Saudi Arabia as an emerging market economy. For the US, a monopoly on contracting companies for the requisite construction offers lucrative economic opportunities. Although the Civilian Nuclear deal does not allow the enrichment of Uranium, the Saudis will be in a position to do so if Washington gives the green light. This will act as a counterbalanced threat hanging over the Iranians. After the recent flare up of renewed fighting with Iran due to their lack of adherence to the moratorium of understanding, something had to budge in Trump's estimation. A reconfiguration of the power balance in the Gulf by introducing the potential of Saudi Arabia to be able to acquire nuclear weapons shifts the dynamic and places further pressure on Iran to strictly abstain from nuclear proliferation. Despite Israeli concerns about the agreement, Trump sought to assuage their alarm by making it contingent upon Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with them. Given the inherently unstable nature of an autocratic Saudi regime Israel views a diplomatic relationship with the Saudis as being on precarious footing in the long term. Israel is already forced to contend with the implications of one nuclear armed Muslim state - Pakistan and it will further weaken its own deterrent capability if another similarly capable hostile neighbour were to emerge in the future. The roles of Turkey and Qatar in all this foray are a wild card. Officially Turkey is served under the NATO nuclear umbrella for defence that is subject to US control. However, its civilian nuclear program remains in its infancy. Now with the Saudi deal, Erdogan may be inclined to exert pressure on the US to help accelerate his own nuclear program. Just as Erdogan's efforts to acquire F35 fighter jets from the US greatly disturbed Israeli military planners, a heightened Turkish nuclear ability will intensify this fear. Qatar views itself as pursuing its own independent foreign policy that has managed to remain rather neutral during the current war, thereby escaping the ire of Iran's strikes on US regional assets. Overall, the Qatari government has grown closer to the Turkish vision for the region and so likely isn't particularly amiable to the Saudi agreement. Ultimately the Saudi deal is a gamble. Many will see it as throwing more fuel on the fire which will further imperil the tinder box region and heighten tensions. But Trump finds himself at a continuing impasse with a stubborn regime in Tehran that is leveraging their geographic hold on the straits of Hormuz to inflict damage on the global energy markets. Iranian strikes upon US Arab regional allies have underscored the de facto alliance between Israel and the Arabs against Iran and its Shia proxies. The US hopes to use the Saudi nuclear deal as a means of making this alliance official by having Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords as a pre-condition.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

Circling the Wagons

By David Passmore • July 14, 2026
Circling the wagons Ruben Rothler LLB, LLM Israel is a society riddled with tension and division. It is sociologically, if not politically miraculous that a country drawing Jews from all over the world is able to exist at all. The army affords a degree of integration as a melting pot. But this is only a marginal source of national unity in the overall scheme of things. More so are the myriads of external threats that face this small country. In the former generation the Ashkenazi (Jews of European descent) - Sephardic (Jews of Oriental descent) divide was far more pronounced. The dominant Ashkenazi establishment held the reins of political and economic power which was resented by the Sephardim. However, due to a combination of inter-marriage and political accommodation much of the chasm that separated these distinct groups was forged. Menachem Begin (an Ashkenazi politician) in 1970 successfully ran on the Likud Party ticket with a campaign that brought Sephardic Jews under his conservative political umbrella. Later the immigration of Russian Jews following the end of Communism would add a whole new dimension to the Israeli demographic milieu. The younger generation of these immigrants tended to adapt well to Israeli society and contributed much to the economy. The wider division in Israeli society that crosses ethnic lines concerns that between religious and secular Jews. This can be further bifurcated to the clash between the secular and specifically ultra-orthodox Jews (Haredim) as distinguished from the national religious Jews (Dati Leumi). The Secular and the Religious generally part on what they envisage a Jewish State to entail. Religious Jews desire the State to strictly adhere to the stipulations of Jewish Law (Halacha), while at present Halakhic influence is largely limited to certain areas of Family Law concerning Jewish citizens. Wider considerations of promoting a socially conservative political agenda would also be forefront amongst the religious mindset broadly. Secular Jews view the imposition of such proposed measures as a serious infringement of their civil rights. With regard to the Haredim, the bone of contention looms larger, in that this group is fundamentally opposed to participating in society at large. This is acutely manifested in diminished contribution to the work force and a refusal to be conscripted into the army. The 2023 judicial reform protests posed a significant threat to social civil order. The nation appeared to be bitterly divided into two opposing camps. This split reflected broader divisions concerning visions of how the country should be governed. The judicial reforms would have weakened the Supreme Court's ability to render the Executive branch accountable. However, the Supreme Court was also accused of using its considerable powers to promote a socially liberal agenda. Left wing secular Israelis tended to oppose the proposed reforms while those on the right (which included the majority of Religious Jews) supported the reforms. Every weekend droves of protesters were brought onto the streets causing major disturbances to traffic. The polarising nature of this impasse threatened the future of Israeli democracy. It was the October 7th attack that brought a swift end to this public debate and civil strife. The nation instinctually united in response to this common existential threat. The judicial reforms were shelved for a future point when the urgent security threats subsided. However, as the war dragged on the enduring issue of Haredi refusal to conscript into the army became more pronounced. Mounting casualties combined with ever increasing manpower demands to field troops on the multiple theatres of action on which the IDF is engaged has depleted the ranks, and the army is now in much need of fresh conscripts. Haredi belligerent refusal to participate in the pressing national defence has escalated from being a political debate to a matter of very practical vital importance. Overall we can observe that the challenges to national unity in successive generations since the establishment of Israel has recurrently been ameliorated by the common necessity of defence towards outside threats. Most recently we can see this happening with regard to the global anti Semitism and anti-Zionism that has been raging since the October 7th atrocities. These hostile attitudes have paradoxically acted as a force which promotes nationalism and a sense of national cohesion in Israel that otherwise might not functionally exist.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

A Divided Nation

By David Passmore • July 8, 2026
A Divided Nation Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM The Haredi community has had a complicated, paradoxical relationship with the State since its founding. Rooted in a Talmudic precept that the Jews are forbidden to resettle the land of Israel en masse by force before the coming of the Messiah, the secular democratic State of Israel presents itself as blasphemous by its mere existence. Yet due to practical considerations such as the need to obtain funding for its religious academies the Haredi leadership reached a settlement with the State's founders that exempted Haredi men from being conscripted for military service. This was at a time when the Haredi population in Israel was relatively small. Over the past decades this demographic ballooned until the point that soon the majority of Jewish children in Israel will be born into Haredi families. Such a situation is clearly unsustainable. Recently the Knesset's (Parliament's) Haredi parties have pressured their coalition partners in government to codify Torah Study as part of the Country's Basic Laws. This was purposefully done to elevate the status of their institutions to be on parity with service in the IDF. Israel is yet to promulgate a written Constitution, so legislation classed as a Basic Law holds Constitutional status for all intents and purposes. These moves by the religious parties represent a back door power grab to enshrine in law very significant hurdles to prevent the enlistment of Haredi men. The burden of Israel's defence is comparatively massive for a country its size and it is vastly disproportionately shouldered by the secular population. Until now there have been political initiatives to conscript the Haredim. But given the huge manpower shortages emerging in the wake of near continual conflict on multiple fronts since the events of October 7th this matter has become urgent and not merely a theoretical discussion of what is fair and equitable. It is important to draw a distinction between the Haredim and national religious Jews (Dati Leumi). The Haredim adhere to a lifestyle entirely committed to observance of Jewish Law and Talmudic study. This is embraced to the exclusion of gainful employment and participation in wider society. They are either outrightly opposed to Zionism or consider themselves non-Zionist. Conversely, followers of the national religious movement in Israel although being observant of Jewish law and learning would alongside this pursue secular professions. Furthermore, they are ardently Zionist and disproportionately serve in IDF combat units. This is often done within the framework of a program called Hesder Yeshiva that combines religious learning with military service. Efforts to cater a similar model for accommodating Haredi participation in the IDF have so far failed to make substantial gains. Such measures designed to override Haredi objections to service based upon modesty concerns by strict segregation of the sexes in these specially formed units have failed to appease the Haredi leadership. For them, any form of military service is considered a dereliction of their duty to fully devote themselves to a Torah lifestyle. They argue that their Talmudic learning and prayers are in itself a form of national service and act to protect the Jewish people spiritually from enemy attack. It is as if two parallel societies exist within Israel. And the trajectory of separation between the two is only growing. The Haredim are cloistered away in their Yeshivas, immersed in lives devoted to adhering to the stipulations of Jewish law. While the particulars of actually running the State is left to the Secular. The Haredim desire all the benefits of subsidizing their lifestyle without contributing to society. What we really have going on here at source is two profoundly different and opposing ideological visions of what is important in life and what is the purpose of a Jewish State. At the State's founding these divergent perspectives were more manageable. Ben Gurion only had to contend with one religious party –the National Religious Party. Later in 1970 Begin aligned with the NRP to form a coalition government that also brought Sephardic Jews under the Likud umbrella which had the effect of bringing unity to the country by bridging the Ashkenazi-Sephardi divide. However, over time Israeli politics has seen a proliferation of religious parties, gaining further leverage as king brokers in forming governments due to the proportionate representation voting system which secular Israelis not uncommonly view as political blackmail. (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

Why Is It Always Israel? | Zechariah 12 Is Happening Before Our Eyes

By David Passmore • June 29, 2026