USA TO REBUKE ISRAEL AT UN (Drudge Headline)

Foreign Policy.com via Drudge ^ | 16 Feb 2011 | Colum Lynch

[edpc]

The U.S. informed Arab governments Friday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinian's rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesdy of Arab representativs and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution Friday, according officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospects that the Obama adminstration may cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council.

[Quix]

It is plausible that most of the Edomites have been wiped off the earth.

I’m not yet convinced that the Obadiah prophecy has been totally fulfilled. If it hasn’t been totally fulfilled, it will be.

[Quix]

LOL.

What a trip of a song and video.

Thx.

[Cronos]

do note that Jesus being from the Middle-East would have worn a Keffiyeh-type headwear as well — would you call HIM a rag-head?

[Cronos]

Fair enough.

In one respect -- as a people, the Edomiates have been wiped off the earth, as they stopped existing as a separate people after the destruction of the temple in 69 AD. Obadiah's prophecy may have been fulfilled if you take it as that. The Modern arabs are pretty definitely not descended from the Edomites -- most of that Edomite blood is among modern day Jews.

But you haven't answered my question that Obadiah is not quoted at all in the NT, except perhaps an allusion in Revelation 11:15 and the allusion is very vague with the language substantially differing.

On what basis do you refer to Obadiah if it is not referred to at all in the NT? There is no direct quotation or reference at all in NT, forget about Jesus not quoting from it -- on what basis do you hold it to be canonical at all?

[domeika]

do note that Jesus being from the Middle-East would have worn a Keffiyeh-type headwear as well — would you call HIM a rag-head?

Well no. If I were alive back then I'd give him my own hat, then go back to calling the rest of them rag-heads. Maybe we can meet in the middle though. I'll still call all of them rag-heads with a special apology to Jesus IF you can point out exactly in the bible where it talks about his fashion choices regarding headwear, particularly in regards to a Keffiyeh.

[Cronos]

1. It wasn't a fashion choice
2. This was and is the common headgear in the Middle East to keep the heat of the sun off in the day and the chill away at night

[Cincinna]

*** NOBAMA 2012 ***

But until then what can be done to stop Obama & his stooge Hillary from working to destroy our greatest and most loyal ally, Israel?

Not to mention their attempts to destroy the Republic & the Free World.

[domeika]

1. It wasn't a fashion choice 2. This was and is the common headgear in the Middle East to keep the heat of the sun off in the day and the chill away at night

That is a generalization. Where in the bible can you point to where it says anything about Jesus wearing anything on his head other than a crown of thorns? Does the bible state that they removed his hat first?

Sorry, but you have bumped into an immovable object. I have no argument with you, and I'm more politics than religion anyway. I will not change my vernacular any more than I expect you to change yours. Your posts are very serious, and you are beyond a doubt an expert in your subject areas.....which means that your time is better spent on real subjects instead of quibbling with me.

Take it as detente, or take it as armistice, but either way...Go in peace my FRiend.

[Pride in the USA]

Not another day with this regime. We MUST have a tax revolt to stop this madness.

[Cronos]

Because it's logical for a man in a hot climate like Israel to have worn a cloth (or as you would call it a rag) on his head.

It's to keep off the sun during day and to warm him at night.

My objection is to the term raghead --> let me make a guess, and tell me if I'm wrong, you dislike Moslems. Well, so do I, but I don't use the term raghead because:

1. There are many Arab and Irani Christians too -- who do wear cloths on their head. This term is disparaging to them who are our allies
2. Hindus and Sikhs too wear cloths (turbans) on their heads
3. hence to points 1 & 2, using a term that seems to club Arab/Irani Christians and Hindus/Sikhs along with Moslems is alienating our allies
4. Finally, there are Moslems from Albania, the Caucasus, Africa, etc. who may be of multiple races etc. who do not wear any cloth on their head so the term "raghead" does not encompass these dangerous elements

I much prefer the term Moslem scum