19 Kasım 2015 Perşembe


Even under the powerful rule of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East has always been a place where there was no lack of scheming and internal upheaval. In fact, the correct definition of this area is the “east.” It is maritime and land trade routes that made the Middle East like this. These important seas divided the Middle East from the Far East and made it exceedingly important. The oil, natural gas and other wealth of the Middle East reached the West via these trade routes, and western goods and weaponry reached its ports in return. There was much conflict in this important territory. Ottoman governance reined that conflict in, but the collapse of the Ottoman Empire triggered it once again. Even before the end of Ottoman rule, the Middle East was carved up in secret agreements by the Western powers, and plans based on self-interest were set in motion: During the First World War, the Entente powers were able to draw lines dividing the Middle East up among themselves and to control those borders before the fighting had even ended. Newly emerging countries were established on the basis of compasses and rulers as the Middle East was being apportioned, and all the peoples of the Middle East had little choice but to recognize those artificially drawn borders.
Ever since, the Middle East has in fact been under the hegemony of the West. At first, the West wished to govern these countries directly; when it was unable to handle the difficulties, it resorted to dictators and various other players. Some of these dictatorships were overthrown in popular uprisings and others were invaded by the U.S. and coalition forces on a variety of pretexts, although none of these invasions, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people, were regarded as war. Western rule brought hatred with it. The radical forces that the West initially supported against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War split up, branched out and turned into an anti-Western terror movement involving the whole of the Middle East. Looking at the current picture, the once-lovely Middle East is now a battleground of conflict, rage and hatred. Nations angry with the West have fallen out with one another, and Muslims unable to be each other’s allies are slaughtering one another instead.

Syrian streets devastated by the civil war.
The surprising thing is that this picture is part of a plan drawn up many years ago. The bloodshed in the Middle East is not the result of entirely mistaken administrations and policies, but part of a specially designed scenario that is still operating today. The dead bodies in the Middle East, the hatred incited in people and the way they have become capable of devastating one another’s cities is an outcome that certain people and circles were already expecting. The plans drawn up for the Middle East were prepared and set in motion on that basis.
One of the main objectives in that plan is for countries to be broken up. While Syria and Iraq are currently being broken up in line with that plan, different schemes are being implemented for other countries using familiar methods. One of the countries, and perhaps the most important, one that has been targeted since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Treaty of Sèvres, is Turkey.
This article describes, using wide-ranging and important documentation, how and why the plans drawn up for Turkey were set in motion, why the PKK is part of the scenario and what needs to be done to neutralize it. First, however, we need to look at the source of the plans developed for the Middle East.

Chapter 1

Evangelicalism and the Middle Eastern Axis

A short history of Evangelicalism

Following the division of Christianity into a number of different churches, such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, a reformist movement grew up within it. This movement criticized the making of money through the sale of indulgences (a kind of document pertaining to the forgiveness of sins sold in Medieval Europe by the Pope to enable the holder to enter paradise), the Mass being performed in Latin and the doctrine of papal infallibility. This new movement, initiated by Martin Luther in Germany and by John Calvin in France and Switzerland, came to be known as “Protestantism.”
In Protestantism, repentance was between the individual and God. There was therefore no reason to give money to the Church for it. Papal infallibility was also done away with. The true source, according to this movement, was the Holy Book alone, and not commands issued by the Pope or Church sanctions.
Evangelicalism is one branch of Protestantism; the word means “good news.” In Evangelicalism, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, referred to as the disciples of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in the New Testament, are known as “evangelists.” It was Martin Luther who employed the term “evangelical” first.
Luther saw that the New Testament had been misinterpreted and corrupted by the Catholic Church, for which reason he attached greater importance to the Old Testament (the Torah and the Psalms). Protestantism was subsequently divided into scores of different denominations, but none of these denominations abandoned the central view about essential beliefs and the Holy Scripture that included the Old Testament.1
Evangelicalism is an important and necessary reform in turning Christians to the Gospels - and also the Torah - by lifting pressure on the faith from the Church. The supporters of Evangelicalism, a sincere form of belief, have always maintained loving and peaceable attributes and, as we shall be seeing in due course, made a great contribution to the spread of religion due to the importance they attached to “evangelizing.” Again as we shall be seeing, Evangelicals’ belief in the End Times and excitement at the prospect of seeing the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) indicate a great love and religious devotion. From that perspective, they have much in common with true Muslims who abide by the Qur’an.

An 18th century cathedral and people of the time.
As in all religions, however, there are various sections in Evangelicalism that interpret the teachings in question rather differently, that misunderstand the subjects related to the End Times and that seek to equate Christianity, a religion of peace, and the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), an envoy of peace, with war. These people invent what they regard as powerful evidence for scenarios of war on the basis of various passages in the Gospel. They imagine they are being perfectly honest, that they are basing themselves on the Gospel and doing what is right, but they fail to recognize the various metaphorical statements that occur in the depths of the Gospel. The second problem in this error of interpretation is that they find it difficult to turn to the Qur’an, sent down as a confirmation of the Gospel and the Torah: Yet the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is explicitly revealed in the Qur’an, as well as a climate of peace in which all people believe.
This book is based on the views of that segment of Evangelical Christians who interpret the End Times in a dangerous manner and one very different to that described in the Divine scriptures. These people – who are generally well-intentioned – are pioneers for a horrifying scenario, albeit most likely unwittingly. They are striving to accelerate the End Times scenarios in the Middle East but are actually preparing a bloody foundation there. This will all be clarified in due course.

The spread of Evangelicalism and the End Times

The various movements that emerged within Protestantism up until the 18th century later settled in different parts of the world under the influence of colonialism. The most important of these was the North American continent. Evangelical thinking is known to have spread more rapidly following journeys to America by the Anglican clergyman John Nelson Darby. Darby’s followers also described their movement as “dispensationalism.”
The primary distinguishing feature of these people is their belief in the return of the Messiah in the End Days and in Doomsday. The conditions under which they believe the Messiah will return are as follows:
  • The foundation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land;
  • Jerusalem being its capital;
  • The rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon;
  • The preaching of the Gospel to all mankind;
  • The oppression of Jews and believers (Christians);
  • The Battle of Armageddon;
  • The ascent of believers (Christians) into heaven.

Theodor Herzl speaking at the Second Zionist Congress in Basel in 1898.
As this list shows, Evangelicals are essentially Zionist Christians. They believe that the establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land is paramount for the coming of the Messiah. They have therefore always been in a state of alliance with Zionist Jews.
One of the most important pieces of evidence for this is the Zionist congresses. The first Zionist Congress was held by Theodor Herzl in 1897 and called for the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. In 1985, the Second Christian Zionist Congress was held in Basel, the same city and in the same building where the First Zionist Congress opened. A resolution at that congress urged Israel to annex the West Bank. Jan Willem van der Hoeven, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, said this in response to a Jew who objected to that idea; “We don’t care what the Israelis vote! We care what God says! And God gave that land to the Jews!"
That reaction is very important in terms of showing the bounds of the Evangelical Zionism that still persists today because this movement that appears to be aimed at protecting the Jews and Jewish lands, is in fact preparing the way for an end in which the Jews will be slaughtered. According to this belief, only 144,000 Jews who convert to Christianity will survive, while the other Jews, and “all Muslims,” will be slaughtered.
We shall be looking at this matter shortly.
The state of Israel was founded in 1948, and Jerusalem was declared its capital in 1967: One of the signs awaited by the Evangelicals thus came true. The more these portents, signs of the End Times, came about, the more the Evangelicals set about accelerating what they believe to be the final outcome. That is why efforts to reshape the Middle East in the name of the Battle of Armageddon have gained impetus in this century.


The influence of Evangelicalism

As in all faiths and schools, Christian denominations are based on being a fine and good servant of God and Evangelicalism was also founded on that basis. However, one of the main distinguishing features between Evangelicalism and other branches of Christianity is the question of “preaching the Word,” on which less emphasis is placed in the latter. As a requirement of their faith, the followers of this sect engaged in active missionary work, preaching the word to other people. As time passed, Evangelicalism thus became increasingly well known and widespread, particularly in America.

The number of members of the Evangelical Church in America was 4 million at the time of the Civil War, but is now said to have reached some 70 million. The rise in spirituality in America and other countries where Christianity is widespread is grounds for rejoicing.
We can see this from the figures. In Civil War America (1861-1865) the number of members of the Evangelical Church was 4 million, whereas today it is put at 70 million. According to the figures for 2014, 25.4% of Americans describe themselves as Evangelicals. Although Evangelicalism at first espoused different beliefs to those of Catholicism, Evangelical belief today is no longer in such great conflict with Catholic belief.
It needs to be made clear that, although Christianity has sometimes turned away from its essence as a result of conflicting interpretations and has split itself into different sects, we, as Muslims, still wish to see Christian belief and faith in God grow, especially at a time when the outright denial of God is spreading like wildfire. Of course Christians must be more devout, of course they must espouse the Holy Book more and spirituality must be strengthened in America and all other countries where Christianity is widespread. America and other countries have invariably prospered and grown happy in line with their religious devotion. Therefore, we always wish to see and fully encourage the growth and strengthening of Islam among Muslims, of Christianity among Christians and of Judaism among Jews.
In addition, the Evangelical belief in the coming of the Messiah is also an issue of faith to be praised in our eyes. Muslims also are in expectation of the appearance of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) and the return of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in the End Times, in which we are living now. It is therefore grounds for rejoicing that Christians hold a similar belief. It represents a point in common that will enhance our love and support for Christians and strengthen our alliance with them.


Muslims, Christians and Jews must all be more devout at this time when irreligion is on the rise.
There is nothing peculiar about the Evangelical expectation of a state of Israel in the Middle East. In the verses of the Qur’an, the Jews have the right to live in the Holy Land, and this is set out explicitly in several verses, as it also is in the Torah. Verses 20 and 21 of Surat al-Ma’ida read:
Remember when Moses said to his people, “My people! Remember God’s blessing to you when He appointed prophets among you and appointed kings for you, and gave you what He had not given to anyone else in all the worlds! My people! Enter the Holy Land which God has ordained for you. Do not turn back in your tracks and so become transformed into losers.” (Qur’an, 5:20-21)
Therefore, for Muslims, seeing Jews in the Holy Land even after 5.000 years means seeing God’s promise come to pass and this is a reason for rejoicing. One of our greatest hopes is to see Jews, Christians and Muslims living together in peace in those lands, as they did in the past.
What we shall be concentrating on, and the subject of our criticism, is the efforts on the part of some Evangelicals to shape the Middle East in line with their expectations of war in the region, which represents a manifestation of their desire to accelerate the coming of the Messiah in one sense, and the fact that some of their erroneous belief and hopes regarding the Holy Land have reached dangerous dimensions.
First of all, the time of the coming of Hazrat Mahdi (pbuh) and the Messiah is ordained in destiny by God. Therefore, nobody, no circumstances and no signs can accelerate or bring forward that coming. The battle of Armageddon awaited in the Middle East has in fact already happened. The 2003 Iraq War was a major battle and a sign of the End Times, referred to as Armageddon in the Bible and described with all the relevant portents in the hadiths and the Torah. (For more detail on this, see the chapter “Some Christians’ Error Regarding Armageddon” in the book Christians Must Heed Jesus by Harun Yahya.)
Therefore, no bloody battle of the kind expected by the Evangelicals will take place in the near future. It also needs to be made clear that the concept of the Holy Land as described by the Evangelicals is different to that found in Jewish belief, and it involves wider borders. As a result, the idea of preparing the Middle East for war and preparations along those lines are false in all respects. One of their main errors is the dream of building a Great Kurdistan by breaking up the four countries that represent the backbone of the Middle East. This book describes why this plan is wrong under current conditions and the kind of tragedy that the pursuit of such a dream would inflict on the Middle East, Europe and then the entire world.
1. Yasin Yaylar, İsrail Amerika ve Evanjelizm, Altınpost yayıncılık, 2012, s. 16
2. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Chapter 2

A century-old objective:

The desire to break up the Middle East

Plans concerning the weakening and the break-up of the Middle East before the Ottoman Empire collapsed based on such agreements as Sykes-Picot were probably one of the subjects that most preoccupied and were most discussed by intelligence agencies for many years. Heads of states determined their strategies, and countries their attitudes, on that basis. That is because, as we have seen above, according to Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist belief, the Battle of Armageddon, heralding the return of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), was expected to take place in those lands. The infrastructure had to be prepared and the climate made suitable for this important appearance.
Various neoconservatives, representing the political wing of Evangelicalism in America, are the main shapers of the plans for the Middle East. This policy they follow sometimes represents a guiding force, sometimes entirely disregards international law and sometimes is even at complete variance with basic U.S. foreign policy. The best example of this is perhaps the Iraq War.
President Ronald Reagan was a neoconservative representative and believed throughout his life that he would see Doomsday. He claimed that his interest in the anti-missile defense system was also to do with his belief in Doomsday. According to Ezekiel 38 and 39 in the Old Testament, a nuclear war would take place on the Plain of Megiddo on Doomsday: Burning sulfur would pour down with torrents of rain, mountains would be overturned and earthquakes would take place. Evangelicals believe that a nuclear explosion is necessary for this to happen. They therefore thought that the groundwork for this was needed to be prepared. Reagan therefore shaped his Middle Eastern policy accordingly and even quoted from the Old Testament to justify the bombing of Libya. According to that view, Libya was one of the major nations that would attack the People of Israel in the End Times. Reagan therefore punished it in advance.
Another neoconservative representative, the U.S. President George W. Bush, also believed that he had been appointed by God. He claimed to have received revelation from God during the Iraq War and frequently used terms such as “holy war,” “axis of evil,” “crusades” and “gut instinct.” Iraq was devastated on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. The Americans suffered severe losses as well and abandoned the country without finding any functional WMD's and the impression of the Iraq War across the world was one of failure. Yet the requirements of Evangelical belief had been implemented, and in their eyes the operation had been quite a success to that end. Iraq had been broken up, just as required, an autonomous Kurdish region had been established and a powerful country ruled by a dictator such as Saddam had turned into an unstable front wracked by terror.
Bush based the attack on Iraq from these words from the Old Testament:

Yasin Yaylar, İsrail Amerika ve Evanjelizm (Israel, America and Evangelism), Altınpost Yayıncılık, 2012, p. 60
This is what the Lord says: “See, I will stir up the spirit of a destroyer against Babylon and the people of Leb Kamai. I will send foreigners to Babylon to winnow her and to devastate her land; they will oppose her on every side in the day of her disaster. Let not the archer string his bow, nor let him put on his armor. Do not spare her young men; completely destroy her army. They will fall down slain in Babylon, fatally wounded in her streets.”(Jeremiah, 51:1-4)
Since these words from the Old Testament were taken as a prophecy they began being acted on by Bush, an Evangelical in command of a superpower, the USA. The picture that emerged during the war exactly matching Evangelical objectives meant another step toward Doomsday. Indeed, these words by late Mustafa al-Barzani in the Kurdish region of Iraq, that an autonomous Kurdish region was “ready to become the 51st state” of the USA have to a large extent become a reality now.
Ibid., p. 119

The factor behind this state of affairs, not only in Iraq, but also in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, and even Egypt is
without doubt the illegitimate Iraq War. The Middle East has suddenly been transformed into a sea of blood,
and violence has been constantly incited. 

In one sense these things were all manufactured as a kind of investment in the future; this instability in Iraq led the way to the emergence and strengthening of numerous radical groups. ISIL, to which the world has still failed to find a solution, emerged in Iraq while al-Qaeda was aiming its attacks mostly against Iraq. Therefore, the factor responsible for triggering the current state of affairs, not only of Iraq but also of Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya and even Egypt, was the unjustified war initiated in Iraq. Instability, terror and fragmentation came to the region exactly as planned.
The plan also requires that no strong and stable Muslim country should remain in the Middle East. The Middle East must be broken up into very small artificial units that are weak and devoid of will, purpose and character, and thus easy to control. They must be of such a kind that if they escape control or in the event of a disagreement they can easily be destroyed through a simple military operation. The countries of the Gulf are not part of this, since they are already largely under American control and are not part of the Holy Land in which Armageddon is expected to take place. To date, the plan has been successfully (in their eyes) implemented in Iraq, Syria and Egypt. Just two countries remain; Turkey and Iran. These can be broken up and destabilized through the establishment of a Great Kurdistan. Look carefully at the Middle East; all the plans are aimed in that direction.
The main reason for the frequent publication of maps in the US and European press showing Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Yemen all broken up in various ways is to prepare the subconscious foundations for this in global public opinion by depicting it as a political requirement. As wars without victors destabilize the region, the arms industry is kept alive and well, stocks of weapons that are not sold off are melted down and enormous capital is obtained for the manufacture of new weapons. The segment of the banking sector that earns revenue from sudden crises also benefits from the climate of uncertainty in the Middle East.

The drama of the people of the Middle East was not random. The map and the climate designed by secret forces
a hundred years ago are being actively applied today.
Looked at in the light of all these developments, the picture in the Middle East is by no means coincidental. The maps and plans drawn up a hundred years ago now seem to have been made a reality. There is no doubt that perhaps the major share of the blame lies with some Muslims, who produced the infrastructure for these plans - knowingly or otherwise - and permitted this disorder, who have failed to ally themselves with one another and who even regard disputes as a matter of honor. We shall be looking at this in due course.

The Jewish lobby as a tool

Some Evangelicals attach importance to the backing they receive
from the Jewish lobby. In fact, however, they believe that a great
many Jews will be slaughtered in the bloody war they expect to see
in the future
When they are in the administration in America and even when they are not, the neoconservatives still remain highly influential by way of various think-tanks and civil society organizations. Of course, the support they receive from some Jews and the Jewish lobby occupies an important place in this. However, a serious discrepancy emerges at this point. As we have already seen, some Evangelicals believe that with the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), only 144,000 Jews will be left alive by converting to Christianity, while the others will be slaughtered in that great war. Therefore, some Evangelicals regard the Jews as being on the wrong path and are preparing for a war in which they will be slaughtered. On that basis, we may say that these Evangelicals’ attitude toward the Jews is not one of a genuine alliance; it is simply a means to an end.
One can see that in various statements by widely-known Evangelicals themselves. Asked during an address about the identity of the antichrist, the famous 20th-century Evangelical Jerry Falwell gave a most interesting answer: “The Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male.” In an address given years before, Billy Graham said: “A lot of the Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.” Following the revelation of these words, Graham was forced to say, “Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made... some 30 years ago… They do not reflect my views and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks…. Throughout my ministry, I have sought to build bridges between Jews and Christians.”

Ibid., p. 73 (http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=8699)
Ibid., p. 74 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/03/us/billy-graham-apologizes-to-jews-for-his-remarks-on-nixon-tapes.html)
These quotes show that the way some Evangelicals appear to support the Jews is simply due to the fact that this represents one of their preconditions for Doomsday. In other words, in the eyes of some Evangelicals the Jews are simply a tool for achieving that end. While some Jews are unaware of that, others make no objection, despite being well aware of that aim. That is because while the supporters of Zionism are very few in number, the Jews in question are pleased that their own beliefs are being supported, albeit in a somewhat backhanded way.
Let us now reiterate an important point we made at the beginning of this book: of course not all Evangelicals or all neoconservatives share these views. Indeed, the great majority has no desire to see a war that will end in the devastation of the Middle East and harbor no hostility toward Jews and Muslims. Indeed, the majority of them are people of love who wish to build bridges between the faiths, who are striving hard to do so and who feel a genuine love for Muslims and Jews.

Of course, not all Evangelicals long to see a war that will devastate the Middle East. Those who do desire it
have clearly misinterpreted Evangelical belief. That error may result in terrible outcomes in the Middle East.
Our purpose here is to draw attention to it and indicate the true path.
It needs to be remembered that the Evangelicals described herein, and who harbor a deep expectation of war, hold this view due to misinterpretation. Since the purpose of this book is to set out this error, the logical flaws inherent in the scenario of war in which only 144,000 Jews will be left alive also need to be revealed. The fact is that so long as they adhere to such a belief system it will be next to impossible for these Evangelicals to establish genuine unity and friendship with the Jews. For the Jews meanwhile, the situation is perilous and uncertain. There is no probability of a Christian with such a perspective ever being able to regard a Jew as a true friend. At the same time, Jews aware of this will inevitably doubt the sincerity and friendship of Christians who believe in such a scenario of slaughter against themselves. Under those conditions, temporary alliances between representatives of the two faiths will be mere window dressing, and a true alliance will be impossible to forge, as is to be expected when one group expects the other group to serve as little more than kindling for their apocalyptic vision.

The expectation of war that makes unity among the different faiths,
peace and brotherhood impossible is a direct violation of the law of
God and the reason behind the sending of the prophets. There is
therefore a problem of perception behind some Evangelicals’
expectation of a terrible war.
Yet an alliance between the faiths is vitally important and necessary in the End Times. Even for that reason alone, there are clearly a number of problems in the expectations in question in Evangelical belief.
The situation is very much worse from the Muslim perspective; that is because in the opinion of some Evangelicals, the final battle will end in the slaughter of all Muslims. An Evangelical who believes that will inevitably live in the belief that all Muslims need to be killed, even someone whose goodness and honesty he is sure of, for whom he feels love and respect and whom he trusts with his whole heart. That is a terrifying state of affairs both for the Christian in question and for a Muslim who wishes to be in an alliance with and to love him. The inevitable conclusion is that there can never be any alliance or solidarity between Christians and Muslims, and that would mean the Earth becoming a place of horror where peace can never come; that erroneous worldview alone is enough to spark a comprehensive policy of enmity. It is impossible for an Evangelical Christian who thinks like that to establish a true interfaith friendship. Such a life is not the kind of life that God desires. A true religion can obviously never teach such a policy of enmity nor such a scenario of slaughter. That means there must be a gargantuan error in the interpretation of religion.
It is also a violation of reason and faith to imagine that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), sent to the world as a representative of peace and love, and also a prophet of Muslims, could bring about slaughter in the End Times, something which is totally at variance with the reason of his creation. A true Christian who is properly acquainted with the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) needs to be suspicious of any such idea. Such a terrifying plan, one that would make love and peace on earth impossible, is incompatible with both the law of God and the purpose behind the sending of the prophets. There is, therefore, a manifest misunderstanding here and a question of perception. (For further details on this subject see Christians Must Heed Jesus by Harun Yahya)

Plans to divide up the Holy Land

The Old Testament describes the promised land as follows: “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” (Genesis 15:18-21)

Some Evangelicals’ idea of the Holy Land differs from that of the Jews. The Jews regard the current land of Israel as
compatible with the Torah, while some Evangelicals refer to a much broader territory, even including part of Turkey.
For Evangelicals, this passage from the Old Testament describes the Holy Land, and these lands have to be taken by the Jews before the coming of the Prophet Jesus (pbuh). These lands between the Nile and the Euphrates include parts of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan and Turkey and all of Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait.
The taking over of these lands is thus of great importance for some Evangelicals and represents a significant portent of the Last Coming.
The thing about this map of concern to Turkey is that according to the Evangelicals, this Holy Land also includes Adana, Gaziantep, Hatay, Kahramanmaraş and Adıyaman; some sources actually include all of Southeast Turkey. A great deal of stability and democracy have been achieved during the 90 years of the Turkish Republic. The constant instability in the region in question, while the country has been making enormous progress in recent years, is thought-provoking. Turkey is obviously part of this plan, based on a series of misunderstood prophecies, to break up the Middle East, which explains the constant state of unease in the Southeast Turkey.
One very important point needs to be mentioned here. For the Jews, the Holy Land, that is described as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates in the Old Testament, extends (from east to west) from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan and (from south to north) from Sinai to the Hasbani River in northern Lebanon. That definition therefore includes the current state of Israel, but not Turkey. However, some Evangelicals interpret the passages of the Old Testament in question rather differently. One of the most important reasons for this difference is that some Christians have expanded the concept of the “Holy Land” to include not just those promised to the Prophet Moses (pbuh), but also those promised to the Prophet Abraham (pbuh). However, the Old Testament does not employ the term “Holy Land” in that context. Therefore, generally, the Jews do not regard this broad map described by the Evangelicals as accurate, for which reason they do not favor the desire to expand the Holy Land outside the current borders of Israel.