I guess all I have to do is address this first sentence since you have null and voided my whole
post with it. Arafat represents the beast of Revelation 13. His cause is taken up by the rest of
the beast nations, all of whom hate Israel. This is the image of the beast with seven heads and
ten horns written of in Revelation 13. Arafat is the little horn. he is mentioned in the book of
Daniel. It stands to reason if the first beast has been replaced by another beast that he has
either died or been incapacitated to the point where he can no longer lead. Ephraim Hosea 9:8
This is a very interesting interpretation ephraim. One that I would have a hard time agreeing with I'm afraid though. A few points of contention would be as follows...
Where does it specifically say the first beast is replaced by a second? It sounds more like they are working together upon closer examination.
Another verse that is difficult to align with your view is....
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
So the beast is alive at the end, whereas Arafat is now not.
Regarding the first beast....
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over
all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. Rev 13:8 And
all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
When did Arafat make war with the saints and overcome them? When did Arafat have power over all kindreds and tongues and nations? When did ALL that dwell on this earth worship Arafat or any predecessor for that matter? Quite a list of problems to overcome.
Regarding the second beast.....
Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,
and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Two points here. The second beast is not the
result of the deadly wound healing, but causes the earth to worship the first beast BECAUSE the FIRST (WHOSE DEADLY WOUND) is healed. Proper interpretation starts with the word "whose" being the pronoun for the "first beast" which was just mentioned. The deadly wound is relevant to the first beast not the second.
Secondly, when has Mahmoud Abbas caused the
earth to worship anyone? If you read some recent news, Abbas is all but lost total control of the Palestinians. He is pretty much powerless to stop the lawlessness currently taking place in Gaza, much less is he speaking as a dragon or exercising any power Arafat may have had. That alone is pretty hard to overcome also.
still regarding the second beast.....
Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles
which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast,
which had the wound by a sword, and did live. Notice again here, the second beast is preforming these miracles IN SIGHT of the first beast which DID LIVE after his wound by the sword. These two are working together
alive together. Unless Arafat raises from the dead sometime in the near future, this verse can never happen in your scenario.
There is much much more but I wont go on. I certainly don't wish any of my comments to come across as condescending or argumentative ephriam. I just don't personally see how this scenario you have outlined agrees with simple scriptures. We can agree to disagree on these things with no loss at all!

I can however say we agree on the OSLO accords most likely being the covenant that will be made firm.

I am thankful that unison eschatology interpretation is not a requirement for the Grace of God. We would probably all be in trouble if it were

Love In Christ!