Around €4 billion a week is leaving Greece, say financial experts, as people pull their money from Greek bank accounts. A caretaker government was appointed May 16 and a fresh round of elections scheduled for June 17 as all parties failed to form a coalition government.

The instability is causing “great fear” that could become panic, Greece’s President Karolos Papoulias warned on Monday. He told party leaders that people had withdrawn €700 million from banks on Monday alone. Reuters reported a similar level of withdrawals the next day.

Saxo Bank’s Steen Jakobsen warned that open plans for a Greek euro exit was adding to the problem.

“This has a self-fulfilling prophecy built into it, and I don’t think we can get to June,” he said. “The fuse is burning and the only two options now are a controlled explosion where Germany steps in to ensure an orderly exit, or an uncontrolled explosion.”

The Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard warned: “JP Morgan said Greek banks have already exhausted their collateral. A refusal by the ecb to ease [lending] rules would amount to expulsion, forcing Greece ‘to issue its own money.’”

Even if Greece does make it to fresh elections, they seem poised to make matters worse. During the coalition negotiations, the radical-left Syriza has risen to become Greece’s most popular political party. Seeing as the winner of the election gains 50 bonus seats, that puts it in a strong position.

Syriza is fiercely anti-bailout. Its leader, Alexis Tsipras, called it “barbaric.” A Tsipras-led government would be on a collision course with Europe. Greece’s troubles are putting pressure on Spain and Italy, too. A bailout for one of these countries would really cause trouble for Europe.

Watch events in Europe closely—they’re quickly building toward a crisis point that will revolutionize the Continent.

The world unknowingly awaits the fruits of its endorsed removal of Hosni Mubarak and support of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership as historic elections loom in Egypt. The result is bound to lead that nation toward a prophesied clash of civilizations with a rising European power dominated by Berlin and Rome on its march toward the accomplishment of its Holy Roman imperial ambitions.

Amid this tension it’s timely that we remember a message once delivered to Egypt’s elite, openly supported by its leaders at the time, revealing the way of peace.

On Oct. 30, 1974, by the banks of the Nile River, internationally recognized ambassador for peace without portfolio Herbert W. Armstrong attended a testimonial dinner hosted in his honor by over 100 dignitaries, including several government officials, gathered at Cairo’s Nile Hilton Hotel.

He was introduced by his friend Dr. Abdel Kader Hatem, whom Time Magazine reported some months later was “Egypt’s No. 2 man, second only to President Anwar Sadat.”

At the time of the testimonial dinner, Dr. Hatem was deputy to the president and chairman of the National Council for Science and Education.

Mr. Armstrong reminded the assembly of his history with Egypt’s leaders dating back to 1945, when at the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco, he met Sheik Hafiz Wabba prior to his first visit to Egypt in 1956 and visit with Prince Saud before his coronation as king. He told those in attendance it was his fourth visit to Egypt that year.

His speech ranged from explanations of his friendship with his Japanese sons and a recent visit together with them to Egypt, to the paradox of technological advancement contrasted with appalling world evils. He detailed his presentation by King Leopold of Belgium of a watch cast from a World War ii iron cannonball in context of citing the cause and effect of man’s insoluble problems. In addition, the guest of honor shared some of his business experiences and the challenge he received in 1926 regarding the theory of evolution and how it led him on a search of the way to true values.

“And this whole world is based on the get principle,” he told the elite audience. “Or in other words, you could call it the competitive principle. Everything is competition: man against man.”

He went on to say, “The give way is the way of outgoing concern. I was interested in finding a good definition of the word—l-o-v-e. The real definition is an outgoing concern toward the one loved, a concern for the welfare of the other equal to your self-concern. And not very many have that” (Worldwide News, Dec. 9, 1974).

Mr. Armstrong was speaking to the leaders of Egypt sharing with them the way of peace. His speech was replete with references to give, love and outgoing concern, which drew vivid word pictures of the law of God codified in His Ten commandments given atop Mount Sinai.

He recounted how he’d put this principle of give into action for over 40 years and recalled God’s blessings in his life and Ambassador College, citing various fruits including the worldwide reach of this message via the mass media of the day, print and broadcast.

“The main questions I am interested in are the basic questions of life,” he stated. He went on to ask: “What are we? Why are we? Is there purpose? Where are we going? What is the way? What is the way to have peace, to have happiness, to make life beautiful and worthwhile? What are the true values?” (ibid).

Concluding, Mr. Armstrong painted a sober picture of mankind reaching the point where it has the nuclear capability to erase all life. He warned of the potential of a “small country” gaining nuclear power and forcing the larger nations into a catastrophic conflict. Today, as often reported by Trumpet founder Gerald Flurry in its prophetic context, we see just that in the Mideast, with Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, threats to annihilate the state of Israel and radically expansionist Islamic ambitions.

Mr. Armstrong expressed his desire to return to Egypt and speak some more on these issues and the give way. Dr. Hatem thanked him and cited a well-known Egyptian proverb that stated that “he who drinks the water of the Nile will return.”

It would be Dr. Hatem who would later introduce Mr. Armstrong personally to President Anwar Sadat, the two thereafter forming a strong bond developed in seeking peace in the Middle East together in conjunction with another friend of Mr. Armstrong’s, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

These two world leaders invited their mutual unofficial ambassador friend to join them in the planning and establishment of a world peace center to be built at the base of Mount Sinai, territory given back to Egypt by Israel after its capture.

These three men worked tirelessly within their respective realms of influence to establish a symbol of peace for the world. Mr. Armstrong’s involvement would lead to the way of peace being momentarily restored.

Upon announcing this peace center project, President Sadat declared, “It will be a living symbol of the brotherhood of man, a lighthouse that will rekindle the spirit of coexistence and tolerance among nations.

“As we look at the world today, we realize the great need for a reminder of the oneness of human destiny and the continuation of the divine mission, which is in essence, a great act of mercy. This monument must light the path of the generations yet to come.”

With his sudden assassination by those he thought loyal partnering with the Muslim Brotherhood, the way of peace that was momentarily restored, along with Sinai peace center project, broke down under Hosni Mubarak’s leadership and failed to attain the avowed goals of Egypt’s fallen president.

For over two decades, our editor in chief, Gerald Flurry, has dedicated his life to continuing Mr. Armstrong’s message. He has visited and recorded television programs for the Key of David program at the base of mount Sinai, heralding the way of peace, prophesying of Egypt’s assimilation into the radical Islamic realm led by Iran, and recently releasing his newest booklet The Way of Peace Restored Momentarily, which recounts this historic Sinai peace Center’s planning and its hope-filled road toward its establishment as a monument to world peace so drastically interrupted with the assassination of its chief benefactor.

Yet, world peace will soon come, despite the prophesied trauma that will precede it.

Request your copy of The Way of Peace Restored Momentarily today to learn of how you individually can be at peace while working for the establishment of genuinely true, global peace. By doing so you will learn how to contribute to “light the path of generations yet to come” by supporting the message of peace heralding its soon-coming implementation worldwide—true world peace for all mankind soon to be imposed by our supreme benevolent Creator who won’t just offer water from the Nile, but rather give freely of the water of life forevermore.

War is always imminent in Israel. The challenge is not in forecasting the conflict, but in anticipating when exactly it will happen, and more importantly, making sure we never grow deaf to the bells of war.

Last Friday, Charles Krauthammer recalled the conditions that preceded the 1967 Six-Day War. “May ‘67 was Israel’s most fearful, desperate month,” he wrote. “The country was surrounded and alone. Previous great-power guarantees proved worthless. … Time was running out. Forced into mass mobilization in order to protect against invasion—and with a military consisting overwhelmingly of civilian reservists—life ground to a halt. The country was dying.”

Sound familiar?

But while everyone remembers the Six-Day War, Krauthammer wrote, “less remembered is that [on June 1, 1967] the nationalist opposition … was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national unity coalition” (emphasis added throughout). Four days later, the reason for Israel’s hasty political consolidation became evident when a united and stable government ordered a deadly preemptive strike on Egypt’s army.

The formation of a national unity coalition was a precursor to war.

On May 7, 2012, almost 45 years later to the day—with Israel once again “desperate and alone,” in a “fearful, desperate” state—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emerged from midnight talks to suddenly and unexpectedly announce that he had formed the largest national unity government ever in Israel’s short history. With the addition of Kadima, Bibi Netanyahu now controls 94 out of the 120 seats in the Knesset.

As in June 1967, Israel’s government is today more united and stable than ever.

Why now? Is it possible, as Krauthammer suggests, that war might soon erupt? “War is not four days away, but it looms,” he wrote. “Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence—nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation—since May ‘67.”

But it’s not just Iran’s nuclear weapons program that alarms Israel and makes war possible.

You wouldn’t know it, listening to all his tough talk and warmongering, but the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is weaker and more vulnerable than most realize. Ahmadinejad faces a growing list of potentially debilitating problems—domestically, within the region and from far abroad. And for Iran’s Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating, apocalypse-inducing president, the window of opportunity to act on his deadly ambitions is closing.

Over the past 18 months, Ahmadinejad has been increasingly at odds with Iran’s mullahs, and especially Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ultimate spiritual and political authority in Iran. In addition, Ahmadinejad’s grip on parliament has also slipped substantially. In the May 4 run-off parliamentary election, the president’s opponents won 41 of the 65 seats up for grabs. His opponents now have more seats in parliament. With his popularity slipping, his political power waning, and presidential elections slated for June 2013, Ahmadinejad is running out of time to act with force and decisiveness. Put differently, he has little to lose, which makes him more dangerous than ever.

Ahmadinejad is also facing enormous pressure throughout the region. Saudi Arabia, Iran’s primary counterweight in the region, is ramping up its opposition to Tehran’s regional hegemony. It is shoring up relations with “moderate” allies and developing closer relations with Europe, especially Germany. On Monday, an agreement by Gulf states to explore a Saudi-led plan to develop a political union (akin to the EU) sparked a furious response from Iran.

Meanwhile, evidence suggests Iran’s relations with Hamas and Hezbollah, its surrogates in Gaza and southern Lebanon, aren’t as rosy as many assume. In a public speech last February, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah announced, “Iran does not command us.” In Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated in a recent Reuters interview that “Hamas is a Palestinian movement that acts within the Palestinian arena and it carries out its political and field actions in a way that suits the interests of the Palestinian people. Iran did not ask anything from us and we think Iran is not in need of us.”

Reuters reported Hamas as saying that “it will not go to war for Iran.”

Then there’s Syria, where the violent revolution against strongman and Ahmadinejad-confidant Bashar al-Assad continues. Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters are being persecuted; thousands have been arrested, tortured or killed. But the anti-government movement refuses to capitulate. Despite the silence and inaction of the West, the consensus is that Assad will eventually be toppled and the regime replaced. The loss of Syria as a pro-Iran, terrorist-sponsoring, anti-Israel ally would be catastrophic for Ahmadinejad.

The more these pressures build and converge, the more likely it is that Ahmadinejad will have to choose. Will he abandon his dream of an Islamic caliphate headquartered in Jerusalem and slip into the night quietly? Or will he go down fighting?

Incidentally, think about what an opportunity this is for President Obama. America’s archenemy, the head of the terrorist snake, is facing a multitude of severe, potentially devastating problems, including political isolation at home, social unrest, and the potential loss of vital proxies throughout the region. Moreover, Iran’s regional enemies would likely support any strategy to undermine Iranian hegemony. Sure, Ahmadinejad is wounded, hence dangerous. But he’s also distracted, weakened and vulnerable. This is potentially a historic opportunity.

America will undoubtedly squander it.

But Bibi Netanyahu may not.

The bells of war aren’t just ringing in Tehran. They’re also clanging in Cairo, where later this month millions of Egyptians will elect a new president. No one knows who Egypt’s next leader will be. But he is certain to be hostile to Israel. It appears Mohammud Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, could be elected. What would Mursi mean for Israel?

Last week, the Middle East Media Research Institute (memri) posted chilling footage from a recent rally at which Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi encouraged voters to elect Mursi. With Mursi smiling supportively beside him, Sheikh Higazai declared that Mursi would help establish the dream of an Islamic caliphate. Within a few seconds, Higazai had gotten to the essence of why Egyptians, especially Muslim Brotherhood supporters, needed to get behind Mursi. “The capital of the Islamic caliphate—the capital of the United States of the Arabs—will be Jerusalem, Allah willing,” he yelled. “Our capital shall not be Cairo, Mecca or Medina. It shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing!”

He then led the throng in an ominous chant, “Millions of martyrs to march toward Jerusalem, millions of martyrs to march toward Jerusalem, millions of martyrs to march toward Jerusalem!” This was followed by a rousing invocation for war with Israel: “Banish the sleep from the eyes of all Jews. Come on, you lovers of martyrdom, you are all Hamas. Forget about the whole world, forget about all the conferences. Brandish your weapons … say your prayers ….”

For those still unclear about what a Mursi presidency would mean for Israel, Higazi spelled it out in his conclusion: “I say this from the podium … from the heart of Egypt, so that the whole world may hear. We say it loud and clear: Yes, Jerusalem is our goal! We shall pray in Jerusalem, or we shall die as martyrs on its threshold.”

Sadly, when it comes to Egypt’s transformation into a radical Islamist state, the world will go on ignoring reality. In fact, Muhammad Mursi is considered a moderate among the presidential candidates. And he was embraced by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, during his visit to Cairo earlier this month.

Even if Mursi isn’t elected, the other, more liberal candidates are no less worrying. In a marathon four-hour television debate last Thursday, the two leading presidential candidates, former Foreign Minister Amr Moussa and former MB member Abdel Moneim Abol Fotouh, spent the evening lobbing stinging insults at the other, distancing themselves from the Mubarak regime and cozying up to the Islamist vote. At one point, Fotouh said he would implement sharia law. These “moderate” candidates agreed on one issue, however: Both labeled Israel an enemy state. Both pledged support of Hamas in Gaza, and the Palestinian cause in general. And both promised, if elected, to revisit and rewrite the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

The common ground between Egypt’s three presidential candidates is a hatred for Israel.

You watch. The moment any of these candidates is elected, politics in Egypt will quickly catch up with the reality on the ground. The Sinai Peninsula is already lawless territory increasingly riddled with weapons smugglers and Islamist terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. Egypt is already increasing its support of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. In other words, the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty is already dead. No matter which candidate is elected, preventing Egypt’s Islamists from marching on Jerusalem is impossible.

No matter how you look at it, war is coming to Israel. Not because Israel is motivating Islamists by treating the Palestinians unfairly, as many like to believe. And not because Israel is starving Gazans, which it’s not. And not because Israel recently formed a national unity government, which could mean that it is preparing for conflict.

The reason war is inevitable, perhaps soon, is because millions of radical Islamists—in Iran and Egypt, in Gaza, in the Palestinian territories, and across the planet—live and breathe to conquer Israel and capture Jerusalem!

The bells of war are ringing in Jerusalem. Sadly, too few hear them.

The Luftwaffe broke the post-World War ii embargo on Germany’s involvement in military combat beyond its borders when nato sanctioned its engagement attacking Serbian targets during the 1990s Balkan wars.

That was the first indication of German elites’ intention to steadily ramp up the participation of both the EU’s generally, and Germany’s in particular, mounting of forces in combat zones within regions of their own imperial interests. This is most particularly the case, as inferred by a German president, with those regions involving access to raw materials and the flow of goods vital to German industry and commerce.

In the face of public criticism, Horst Köhler was pressured to resign the German presidency for simply telling the truth. “Mr. Köhler set off the criticism when he said in an interview with Deutschland Radio, the public broadcasting station, that German soldiers serving in Afghanistan or with other peacekeeping missions were deployed to protect German economic interests” (New York Times, May 31, 2010).

In the light of Köhler’s revelation, it ought not be surprising then to read of an EU force initiating aggression over land-based targets in the Horn of Africa this week.

Associated Press reported, “The European Union Naval Force patrolling the Indian Ocean on Tuesday carried out its first air strikes against pirate targets on shore, with a pirate reporting that the raid destroyed speed boats, fuel depots and an arms store. … Maritime aircraft and attack helicopters took part in the attacks early in the morning on the mainland, an EU spokesman said” (May 15).

A further report published in the Sydney Morning Herald stated, “The attack involved several European navies, including seven frigates patrolling off Somalia, from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Officials said it was ‘a European mission’ and would not specify from which warship the strike was launched.

“‘An unidentified helicopter destroyed five of our hunting boats early in the morning. There were no casualties,’ one pirate, who identified himself as Abdi, said” (May 17).

Referring to a story published in Spiegel Online’s March 27 edition, theTrumpet.com reported:

In consideration of this latest extension of Operation Atlanta’s mission, it is interesting to note that, of all nations contributing to the operation, Germany’s force structure is the most ideally suited to hitting land-based targets.

“Germany is one of the few contributing countries that has helicopters on board its ships which could be used to attack targets along the coast of Somalia from the air. Military experts argue that such attacks should ideally be carried out with cannons mounted on helicopters, to hit the targets as accurately as possible and avoid civilian casualties. The helicopter cannons are considered particularly accurate, and the gun operators also have the advantage of having the target directly in front of them” [Spiegel Online, March 27].

With the initiating of the first attack on Somali shores by the EU Naval Force, Operation Atlanta is set to escalate into a significant involvement by EU forces as EU elites steadily increase the European Union’s military presence in the region of the strategic Horn of Africa. These waters are the key to the security of shipping through the Gulf of Aden, with its access via the Red Sea to the crucial sea gate of Suez.

As we have previously reported, this is part of a prophesied move by the leading power of the rising 10-nation combine in Europe to consolidate its expansion south and east of Rome/Berlin.

“The superior intelligence that reveals Germany’s hand in moving toward a strengthened presence in the nexus between the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea comes from a Bible prophecy that predicts a northern power moving ‘south and east,’ ultimately into ‘the pleasant land,’ a term for the region that has generally been called Palestine (Daniel 8:9). This prophecy should be read in tandem with that of Luke 21:20, which speaks of a near future time when Jerusalem will be encompassed by an international military force. This, in fact, will be the final consummation of the ongoing (though presently stalled) Middle East peace process” (ibid).

Keep watching the Horn of Africa as the EU embeds its presence in one of the world’s most strategic of locations crucial to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy for our day.

German politicians and accounting bodies want more guarantees concerning the security of Germany’s gold reserves, with Germany’s federal audit office due to report to the finance committee of the German Parliament on the matter.

Germany has the world’s second-largest gold reserves, but keeps most of them overseas, mainly at the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the Banque de France. The federal audit office, or Bundesrechnungshof, is disappointed that while the gold stored in Germany is regularly checked by the Bundesbank, the gold overseas is not. The foreign banks merely give the Bundesbank an annual statement detailing the amount of gold.

The security of the gold is becoming a popular concern, with the Bild tabloid claiming the Bundesbank has not checked its gold reserves for five years. Spiegel Online writes, “In times of uncertainty about the future of Europe’s common currency, gold is a hot topic, and some Germans take a dim view of the fact that much of the country’s gold—which theoretically belongs to the people—is held abroad.”

A campaign called “Gold Action,” which calls for Germany’s gold to be brought home, is supported by several economists and journalists. A member of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (cdu), Philipp Missfelder, visited the Federal Reserve in New York to see the gold, but “staff were either unable or unwilling to show him exactly which bars belonged to Germany,” as Spiegel Online put it. A member of parliament from the cdu’s sister party, the Christian Social Union, regularly tables parliamentary questions on the subject.

But the Bundesbank insists no additional checks on the gold are needed. “The scope of the checks that the Bundesrechnungshof wants does not correspond to the usual practices among central banks,” read a bank statement, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “There are no doubts about the integrity and the reputation of these foreign depositories.”

It also pointed to the cost of bringing the gold home, and the effect it would have on already skittish financial markets.

It’s no coincidence that this is an issue right now. The euro and banking crises are threatening the stability of paper money everywhere. In earlier times of monetary collapse, central banks have simply seized other people’s gold.

Germany’s gold could be a key part of its recovery from the euro crisis. For more information on why you should watch Germany’s gold reserves, see our article “Germany’s Gold Hoard.”