Posted on 11/19/2009 8:49:49 PM PST by Nachum
I presume that you are a follower of Replacement Theology. How is it that your belief is legitimate for foreign policy and theirs not? Also, what makes you think that Christians can only support Israel based on some eschatological belief. Isn’t that the hight of hubris, which puts you in bed with Abe Foxman?
“Replacement” would indicate a belief that the thing being “replaced” had any measure of validity in the first place.
I don’t believe that, so “replacement theology” would not be an accurate characterization.
If Judaism was completely false and of no value, you have just called the Gospels a lie.
You keep making things up and then replying to the things that you made up.
Very kooky of you.
That statement is from the perspective of considering the new to be a continuation of the old.
I don’t share that perspective at all.
I would say that the new is what it is on its own.
No references to the old were ever needed.
If John Bolton is advising her, she’s getting very good advice.
Mods took out the anti-Zionist troll.
This account has been banned or suspended.
Well I’m no expert on end times philosophy, but doesn’t it have something to do with the destruction of Israel after the gathering? In which case, what good are the settlements? Or, does she mean the settlements are needed in order that they can be destroyed?
I don’t mean to poke fun at her, but this statement about days and weeks and months is just plain dumb. It has so much less to do with need (if need was the issue Israel could build in the Negev) but of politics and diplomacy and conviction. There are many ways to go with this but I’d go with something like: First, Israel shouldn’t be asked to unilaterally surrender any settlement development without a final peace agreement. To do so is to concede the bargaining chip before achieving the goal of peace. More to the point, from a negotiating stance, Israel SHOULD make a big show and make a big effort to constantly build because this construction irritates their enemies and, if their enemies truly want peace and a state for Arabs, they have to come to terms with Israel or else eventually make their optimum deal improbable to achieve. Israel won’t move 400,000 people from Jerusalem - they did move 40,000 from Gaza.
As for conviction, there is the greater question of whether America should participate in any negotiation which involves a Judenrein Arab state next to Israel. Imagine the outcry if Israel said “ok, we will make peace with the Palestinian if all the Arabs living in Jaffa will leave Israel.” But somehow, the Administration thinks its OK for the Arabs to say “we can’t make peace if Jews live on this land”. Such racist double standard! The American position should be mainly that only the parties themselves can ultimately maintain the peace between them, but it is irrelevant which race/religion/”nation in the old sense of the word” lives on which side of the so-called green line since the two sides will decide where to draw the border if and when they come to peace. Some Jews can and should live in an Arab state just like some Arabs can and do live in a Jewish state. Construction in and of itself preempts nothing.
But like sycophants our Administration kowtows to the Arab line and criticizes Israel for maintaining a race-neutral conviction while retaining its negotiating leverage. It’s asinine.
But Sarah Palin isn’t doing Israel many favors here. She seems oblivious to basic history of the conflict and makes it worse by these bizarre remarks. Not just the weeks and months part, but it is rather condescending for her to say “Jews need a place to live”. WTHeck does that even mean? Why can’t Jews live anywhere they want, just like everyone else? What if she said “Blacks need a place to live”? It would be met with outrage.
Looks like a reasonable statement, what with the Muslim in the White House and all.
Dan 12:1-2 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who has charge of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be saved, every one whose name shall be found written in the book: And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt:
katuv basefer = 770
Darn. The mods got goat lover already.
G-d bless her and keep her safe (preferably in the White House after 2012).
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Common sense stated in easily understood language.
Sarah knows what the world is beginning to recognize. Jews are now being actively persecuted all over the world by the Muslim Jihad. Because of their unique position, Israel is at the top of the "despised"!
The fact that Christians believe in a "Jew" is significant!
“It was a little puzzling. I think she was pretty much referencing the evanfelical mindset about Israel and Jews gathering there, the coming of the Messiah, etc...”
While it is true that Evangelicals believe this, it is also a vital part of Israel’s own Constitution. It is called the “Law Of Return”. The massive influx of Soviet Jews caused a huge strain on Israel’s housing and employment, and when The USSR collapsed, there was another large group of Russian Jews entering the country. Israel has also airlifted large people-groups who claim Jewish ancestry and have some religious practices that are similar, such as the Falashas(sic) and pseudo-Jewish groups from India and China. Not only THAT, Israel opened her arms to Vietnamese Boat People after the Vietnam War ended. So, Sarah is correct on many levels, even if one is NOT an Evangelical (even though THIS particular Irish Indian IS! LOL!!!!)
Another thought....
After reading this entire thread, and seeing how anti-semitism is STILL very much alive, even in my own beloved USA, I am CONVINCED that Sarah is 100% correct.
“Jews need a place to live” (I may add, in safety, where they can be themselves!)
In fact that is why Israel was founded in the first place!
Well maybe it’s because she didn’t SAY
“Jews need a place to live”.
She SAID
“because all the Jews moving to Israel need a place to live.”
Moving to ISRAEL makes the whole premise of your statement sound flimsy and nitpicky.
Other than that, I agree with you that we HAVE places to live. And the criticism from the white tent and the world at large seems to be we don’t have the RIGHT to live anywhere.
More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.
What does this mean? And what does this have to do with settlements?
It’s an apocalyptic statement that arises from unfortunate “end times” fanaticism.
Sheesh, does everything have to be "end times" when it comes to Israel? FCOL, it's a mitzvah for all Jews to live in 'Eretz Yisra'el and they will do so when Mashiach HaMelekh arrives (may this be soon, in our days). That isn't so much an end as a beginning.
There's no more a purely secular rationale for Jews living in Israel than there is a purely secular rationale for Lo' tirtzach.
“It’s an apocalyptic statement that arises from unfortunate “end times” fanaticism.”
Funny, it sounds just like my very Jewish, very Zionist father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.