So Obama's latest "peace" plan is to divide Jerusalem into two and make the holy city the capital of a Palestinian state. Now I am TOTALLY ignorant when it comes to world news, so I don't feel educated enough to comment on why this is a bad idea from a political perspective. But I do know what the Bible tells us about Israel. (btw Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and yes I had to look that up because I didn't know that because I only read news on finance.yahoo.com).
#1 Jerusalem is part of the land that God promised to Israel. God tells Abraham” To your descendants I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7), “For all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever” (Genesis 13:15), and “To your descendants I have given this land.” (Genesis 15:18). In fact, Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised. "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates — all the Hittite country — to the Great Sea on the west." (Joshua 1:4) and " On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- he land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."" (Genesis 15:18-22).
Translation: Based on today’s geography, land that is rightfully Jewish peoples is all of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
#2 God promised and gave the land originally to Jews (descendants of Isaac and Jacob) not to Arabs (descendants of Ishmael). In Genesis 17:18-22 Abraham asks if Ishmael can receive the blessing to inhereit the land, God specifically says "no" and that it will be Isaac instead. Also, in Genesis 35:10-12 God says to Jacob Isaac's son, "Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel." So he named him Israel. And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body. The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you."
Biblically speaking, Israel has a right to exist as a nation in its own land that God gave to the descendants of Jacob, grandson of Abraham. At the same time, Israel should seek peace and display respect for its Arab neighbors. Psalms 122:6 says“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May those who love you be secure.”
#3 Don’t mess with God’s chosen people!
God to Abraham: "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Genesis 12: 3.
Hopefully you have learned something new because I definitely did in researching this topic. For an interesting perspective on why Obama's plan will cause conflict and not peace go here.
Posts
Congratulations! What you have advocated is genocide! You have just advocated the systemic elimination of 5 million people (extend that to probably an extra 2 or 3 if you go for the full, Biblical Eretz Yisrael).
ReplyDeleteAs your post notes, the Bible promised land to descendants of Isaac, which is to say, if you are not a direct descendant, get the hell out.
You are advocate the sole ethnically pure country on the planet at the expense of people who have lived there for thousands of years.
Furthermore, Israel conquered East Jerusalem in 1967. Previously, Jordan took it in 1947, before that it was part of the British Mandate of Palestine, before that, part of the Ottoman Empire, before that it had changed hands across the various Caliphates, crusaders, the Roman Empire, Asyrians, etc. There has not been a "Jewish State" in that neck of the woods since Alexander the Great.
If you seriously believe over 5 million people should be systematically removed due to the Old Testament, I wonder how well YOU follow it? Do you keep kosher? Leave the camp during your period? Do you stone people for not recognizing the sabbath?
This is an incredibly RACIST, shorth-sighted, ignorant position. Try reading a news paper rather than a 4,000 year old cult's legal guide.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're reading into GG's post, but she does not advocate genocide or racial purity of any kind. She is simply proposing a land governance scheme (not a land redistribution scheme) and giving reasons for it.
Under Leviticus 19:33-34, people who are not Jewish (by race or belief) should be treated with respect and dignity. Essentially, anyone can live anywhere as long as the obey the laws of the country they are in (a profound thought from a "4,0000 year old cult's legal guide" that is the basis for international law today).
If you wanted to make an intellectually stimulating argument you could proffer that present-day Israel simply doesn't do that (particularly in the Gaza Strip) for reasons that fail to make biblical muster. That would be completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the post, but it would at least be engaging.
In order to have a democratic Jewish state in Israel beyond the 1967 borders would require the purging of the Arab population. Shockingly, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza are unlikely to vote for Jewish leadership.
ReplyDeleteAnnexing these two lands would either lead to the end of a Jewish State or create an apartheid system. I fail to see how you accomplish these goals without the systemic elimination of that population.
As for the basis of International Law, there really was no such thing until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. For an example of proper jurisprudence, I'd look first at the Greeks and Romans, with the Romans having one of the first examples of a constitution. Damn pagans!
I think you are assuming that there are not Arabs in Israel who fit in well with the current culture. The Druze and Bedouin, however, do, and they are not relagated to an apartheid status. The problem with a one-state solution is that there may be a culture shift that both the Palestinians and Israelis would not like, however, there could be equal rights.
ReplyDeleteBy international law, I mean the laws, treaties and traditions that bind nations (as oppose to individuals). With that broad definition there was a lot of international law before the Peace of Westphalia. For example, GG talks about the Hittites. They entered into a peace treaty with Egypt in 1283 BC.
I don't see what being pagan, Greek or Roman has to do with proper jurisprudence (if such a thing exists. Particulary because they came from a static world view and used civil law which isn't found in most of the United States. Contemporary thinkers are much more interesting and relevant. Take a look at Ronald Dworkin (liberal) or Robert George (conservative).
Even Ariel Sharon conceded Israel could not remain both Jewish and democratic. The non-Muslim Arab population is tiny and no one can be entirely certain where they would fall in a "one-state" solution. Regardless, with a 7 million population in Israel proper, of which 20% are non-Jewish, plus an addition 5-6 million Arabs with an expanding Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza, PLUS the possibility of an additional million plus refugees claiming the right to return, the demographics simply do not work out without a drastic population transfer.
ReplyDeleteAs for International Law, it's hard to argue that anything really constitutes International Law before Westphalia since the nation-state as we know it did not exist (Of course, given the 2007 SCOTUS decision against the Vienna Conventions, it becomes increasingly difficult to say it exists even today). Besides, the Hittites were a different tribe from the Israelis.
Regardless, the underlying argument that an ancient text claiming divine property rights completely ignores modern realities and principles I think few of us would argue should be given up to religious doctrine, such as self-determination and property rights.
Furthermore, if one is to cite the Old Testament to prove a point, one should be prepared to answer for the whole rest of the book. A modern reader has to be shocked by the laws put forth in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Why one portion of the work is valid to argue for the systematic displacement/disenfranchisement of minorities while the rest can be dismissed is intellectually invalid.
I think you argree with my analysis of the single-state solution. Pro - consistent government throughout the area, individual rights. Con - culture shift. The problem with the two state solution is that the Palestinians, sadly, have never had effective governance. Citizens enjoy few rights and minimal education opportunities. That is unlikely to change with a two-state solution.
ReplyDeleteSome International Law exists independent of nation-states such as crimes of universal jurisdiction that can be enforced independent of recognition of the defendant's host country.
The first inquiry in International Law is not "Who is a nation state" but rather "Who has jurisdiction?" That is, who's law ultimately applies. This is the issue with my example of the Hittites, the tribes had a border dispute and resolved it. Egyptian law applied in one location and Hittite law applied in another. I'm not sure why it matters that the Hittites and Israelis were from different tribes. To the extent it does, Genesis 23:1-20 seems to indicate they had the same source of law.
Your next point is a straw man since no one is arguing for a change in personal property rights. Similarly, no one is arguing for displacement or disenfranchisement.
Your last point is really important because I think a lot of people when reading the bible have the same challenge. GG could dedicate an entire series of posts to it. The really short answer is that the Bible has to be interpreted in its entirety. The laws which prescribed particular penalties and rituals were an instruction book for building a nation in an ancient world and achieving rightousness in God's eyes. The Bible later provides because of the death of Christ, those laws are no longer binding because there is a better way to engage in a relationship with God. GG talks about that all the time.
The section GG refers to in her post are promises of God. God keeps every promise that He makes, so by promising the "promised land" to Abraham God will accomplish the result he states. That said, it doesn't have to happen tomorrow, but it will happen eventually. To that end, the present difficulties we discussed above will eventually work themselves out in one way or another. No one is putting an artificial timetable on it.