Breaking the Brotherhood

The United States, the United Kingdom and Israel have shared a special relationship. The three nations share fundamental beliefs such as rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy. With these national values so closely aligned, it is no wonder that Israel has been America’s and Britain’s staunchest most reliable ally in the Middle East since its founding in 1948. However, recently the relationship has begun to unravel.

To understand how significant this forecast is, you have to understand the history of how the nation of Israel came to be.

U.S. and British Support

The creation of the nation of Israel was a long process that began in the 1800s.

“The proposition that the United States should actively assist the Jews in returning to Palestine was neither new nor, in the antebellum period, considered especially radical,” Michael B. Oren wrote in Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.

Neither was it seen as unusual across the Atlantic, in Britain, where the movement for Jewish statehood found its origin. In 1840, Britain’s foreign secretary strongly urged the Ottoman government to encourage European Jews to “return to Palestine.” In 1853, British politician and restorationist Lord Shaftesbury argued for a Jewish state in Palestine by coining the phrase, “A land without a people for a people without a land.”

The New York Times heartily endorsed the building of an independent state, even writing on Jan. 20, 1879, that the Jews “certainly deserve Jerusalem.”

Of course, there were those who opposed Jewish statehood for various reasons. But without question, the United States and Britain were the two most ardent supporters of a new homeland for the Jews.

Even with that support, the Jews may have still been without a homeland if not for the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Holocaust that horrified the world in the 1940’s.

Churchill and the Jews

During the First World War, Zionists wanted the British to conquer the Holy Land and then help establish a Jewish state. A brief letter, authored by Foreign Secretary A. J. Balfour in November 1917, proved to be one giant leap on the path to statehood. Later known as the Balfour Declaration, it asserted that the British government viewed “with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object.”

British forces entered Jerusalem one month after Balfour’s letter. A year later, on Nov. 11, 1918, World War I ended. Britain did not create the Jewish state because of promises it had also made to the Arabs during the war. Many Arabs viewed the Balfour Declaration as a betrayal of British trust. But the British government continued toward making it reality.

Winston Churchill wrote that because of Britain’s conquest of Palestine, the UK had “the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a center for national life.”

The following year, after British Prime Minister Lloyd George appointed Churchill as secretary of state for the colonies, one of his primary responsibilities was laying the foundation for a future Jewish state, a task that was often met with stiff opposition from members of Parliament. Between Churchill’s appointment and the beginning of World War II in 1939, more than 400,000 Jews legally immigrated to Palestine.

As World War II raged across Europe, Churchill wrote to Foreign Secretary Robert Anthony Eden in 1944. He wrote of the Holocaust, “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great state and one of the leading races of Europe.”

By the end of the war, two thirds of Europe’s Jewish population had been exterminated. Worldwide support for Jewish statehood increased immensely as the full force of the genocidal nightmare set in. World Zionist Organization President Chaim Weizmann wrote to Churchill in 1945, once again asking for a Jewish nation. But with its power and influence already in rapid decline after the war, Britain lacked the means and the will to follow through to the end of its commitment to Jewish statehood.

In response to Weizmann’s request, Churchill wrote, “It has occurred to me for some time … that it might be a solution of your difficulties if the mandate were transferred from Britain to the United States, who, with her great wealth and strength and strong Jewish elements, might be able to do more for the Zionist cause than Great Britain.”

Truman and the Jews

In 1947, surveys showed that Americans favored a Jewish state by a margin of 2 to 1. With British forces exhausted from maintaining “peace” in Palestine and drained from World War II, President Harry Truman picked up where Winston Churchill left off.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 181 by a 33-to-13 margin. It called for British forces to withdraw and for the formation of independent Palestinian and Jewish states—a two-state “solution” the Arabs rejected from the beginning.

On May 14, 1948, the day British forces withdrew, the State of Israel declared its independence and the United States immediately recognized its existence. Within hours of Israel’s declaration, five Arab armies declared war on the world’s youngest state.

Having yet to attain Herzl’s goal of being able to die peacefully in their own homes, the Jews have been fighting for their survival ever since. Until very recently, the United States and Britain have provided strong support and aid for the establishment of the Jewish state and its continuous right to exist. Like a band of brothers, these three nations have historically worked together to protect one another’s strategic interests.

As President John F. Kennedy once wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, “The United States has a special relationship with Israel in the Middle East really comparable only to what it has with Britain over a wide range of affairs.”

Breaking the Special Relationship

But now that special relationship is coming to an end, as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry forecast back in 2004. Here is what he wrote:

A survey taken in the Arab world said that the number one reason they hate America is because it supports Israel. Our will is deteriorating rapidly. Is it possible that America will begin to think, Why are we making ourselves such a target over that little country?

He went on to predict a rift in the relationship between America and Israel.

That forecast turned into reality quickly after America voted in Barack Obama as president, who is hostile toward Israel.

In 2009, President Obama compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to Germany’s extermination of Jews during the Holocaust. He also rejected the legitimacy of Jewish settlements, demanded that Jews stop building in all lands claimed by Palestinians, and insisted that Israel apologize to its attackers after the Turkish flotilla incident.

In March 2010, the president admitted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House—by herding him through a side door under cover of darkness and allowing no photos to be taken. The administration turned the visit into a diplomatic slap in the face.

In May  that year, the U.S. broke a long-standing U.S.-Israel agreement and endorsed a United Nations resolution calling on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In May 2011, President Obama publicly stated that Israel should return to the indefensible armistice borders from 1967, marking a significant shift in policy toward Israel.

If Israel has no greater friend than America, its situation is desperate.

U.S.-born Israeli journalist and writer Caroline Glick summarized the relationship this way: President Obama “wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisers and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them. … Obama wants to fundamentally transform the U.S. relationship with Israel” (Dec. 16, 2012). That was written several years ago, but things have only grown worse.

The major prophecy that discusses the breakdown in the Israel-America and Israel-Britain alliances is found in Zechariah 11:14: “Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.”

Most people are ignorant of these prophecies because the Bible uses different names to talk about these nations. The biblical names are not the modern names used today. When the Bible speaks of America and Britain, it uses the name Israel; and when it speaks of the nation of Israel, it uses the name Judah. Today’s nation of Israel is a misnomer. The citizens are primarily from one tribe, Judah, and are called Jews. (For proof, request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy.)

Here is what Mr. Flurry wrote back in 2004: “Look again at Zechariah 11:14, about breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. … I believe it may also apply on a physical level to America and the nation called Israel, or biblical Judah today. … This could be a prophecy of a rift between these two countries—one that would leave Judah very alone ….”

This rift in the relationship will cause Israel to look to another protector. Israel has many enemies in the Middle East. Iran, its most hostile enemy, is close to acquiring nuclear weapons, putting Israel in a dangerous situation. The Bible prophesies Israel will seek help from a different nation, not from its historical friends of America or Britain. This will lead to even bigger earthshaking events.