If the Jewish people have not the right to possess the land of the modern state of Israel in the present day by divine promise, then who does? What is implied by the fact that the ancient covenants are still operative? My answer is in 2 Chronicles 13:5. The Lord has given eternal the eternal sovereignty of Israel to David and his sons by an inviolable covenant. See my website at www.crownofdavid.com

As per the Islamic tradition, which you don’t cover here, the Hebrews were indeed God’s ‘chosen people’.  It is quoted often in the Koran (held by Muslims to be the direct words of God). But that special bond was lost due to the continued transgressions of the Hebrews as Moses was trying to lead them to the promised land. I believe the status was revoked due to their creation and worship of the Golden Calf.  I am merely adding this to the general conversation in terms of the prophetic understanding of Jewish people and the Holy Land. So to the Palestinians, who are also Semites, children of Abraham, keepers of a monotheistic faith and believers in all of the prophets Adam through Mohomed (pbut).

(unfinished last sentence)...So to the Palestinians it helps to understand that not only is this a question of modern colonization, but from the religious standpoint, there is no sense of going against Gods will by usurping the Holy Land from their ancient inhabitants, the Israelites, as their ‘right’ was revoked both by God, (through blasphemy) and through modern historical presence.(yes, i know, the country was empty when the boats arrived from Germany. That’s what the English said when they landed on the Americas and proceeded to settle Native American lands).

p.s. Great article! keep it coming

On the contrary, Heno, when God makes a covenant with a people, He never revokes it for transgression, otherwide He would have revoked it from the Church long ago. When the Israelites worshipped the golden calf - so we read in Exodus 32 - Moses stood before God interceding for the people and invoking the covenant that He might not destroy them in His anger. God relented and did not visit upon them the disaster He had intended to inflict. If He had terminated the covenant, there would have been no House of David and no Messiah.

Think of it this way.  If I am not sure whether to back a Jewish state or not, I should back them in every way possible.  They are clearly God’s chosen.  They are the apple of his eye.  Also, God fearing protestants are more likely to support Isreal.  Damned liberal catholics are more likely to oppose Isreal.  Godless Muslims want to drive them into the sea.  God fearing Catholics tend to sit the fence a bit too long in our day.  I say if God hasn’t clearly shown that we shouldn’t then we better jump in and protect them with our lives. Obviously, we should condemn all crimes against humanity, but we should protect Isreal as a people in every way possible.

On purely secular grounds, Israel is a legitimate state, because its emergence did not violate the rights of any existing state under public international law. Consequently, it is the supreme international crime of aggression for other states to try to destroy her. In 2003 Emanuele Ottolenghi wrote the following in an article ‘Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism’:

“It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

“It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation.”

In terms of Catholic faith, once we accept that patriotism, rooted in piety, is a virtue, it is unthinkable that Christ should lack it in any measure. He exercises that virtue toward Israel, as it is His native land and people, and in a manner which conforms itself to God’s hesed - covenant faithfulness - toward His people.

Intriguing article, and I’m eager to read more.

I would also be interested in learning more about what the Palestinians, and especially the Muslims believe. 

For what it’s worth, I support the State of Israel, and believe that we as Americans should honor our commitment to them; however, from a Catholic perspective, I think that Jimmy did a good job of demonstrating that once, again, our faith is rarely as black and white as we would like to make it.

In the third chapter of Acts, St. Peter, quoting Moses in the book of Deuteronomy, says “A prophet like me the Lord your God will raise up…....everyone who does not lister to that prophet will be cut off from the people.”  St. Peter is applying this prophesy to Jesus.  St. Paul makes it clear that the Jews who did not accept Jesus lost the covenant.  In Galatians he specifically refers to that promise of the land toAbraham in Genesis 12:7.  Read the third chapter of Galatians.  Leaving Bible quotations aside, lets look at from the point of view of human decency.  Israel has treated the Palestinians cruelly with the blockade and many other ways.  The palestinians are not innocent but our support of Israel no matter what they do is a disgrace.

Dianne, your reasoning is incorrect. Paul’s position in Romans 9-11 is that God’s covenant with the Jews is not terminated in consequence of their unbelief, though he does say that some natural branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off and wild branches (believing Gentiles) grafted in. A Jew who becomes an apostate is in Jewish tradition excluded from the religious assembly (kehilla Israel) but he is not separated from the nation of Israel (‘am Israel). A marriage between any two Jews according to the Law of Moses is considered valid even if one or both of them are apostates (minim). Even in unbelief, the divine bond between the Jews, the Land of Israel and the Throne of David remains in being, as does the sovereign title of David and his sons to the Land in its entirety. As for the Palestinians, almost all of them are unbelieving Gentiles bearing false prophecy in a land which God has consecrated to Himself.

The bible should not be used as a “reference” for people supporting Zionism; it makes the argument too weak. The fact is that Jews represent a large group that should have the right to self-governing. The group has historically suffered disunity and still does despite the oppressive power of the current Israeli politics. The land doesn’t belong to them, it doesn’t “belong” to anyone and has switched hands many times when empires in that region were mainly nomadic; when Judaism was just mixed in with many other rsystems-of-belief in the area. Some settled in that area with the same kind of “manifest destiny” that empowered early Americans to move westward and are now claiming Israel, as formed around 1000BC, Judah, which opposed Isreal, and Gaza which wasn’t part of the settlement of Israel at Jerusalem. The Jewish “ownership” lasted less than 500 years and they were not the first there. Palestine was in place under the Ottoman Empire for 900 years. The area has always been Occupied, not always or first by jews, and never exclusively. It is disgusting for people to support their treatment of the Palestinian population in Gaza. Palestine, unlike Isreal was a country that existed in the common era before the zionist movement. The least that can be done is for the Jews to stop their nabbing of neighboring land and leave Gaza alone.

Kudos to a very good, balanced and honest article about a very complex question which is a very emotional issue as witnessed by at least one comment. Thank you, Mr. Akins, for avoiding the trap of a fundamentalist interpretation of God’s promises in the Old Covenant and sticking to a Catholic perspective as expressed by the Holy See and its official representatives. What a difference it makes from many of the articles we read in our secular newspapers! God bless you.

It’s helpful to speculate on what Father Gabriel means by a ‘fundamentalist’ interpretation of God’s promises in the OT. I suspect he is referring to the Christian Zionist position that holds that the Jewish people have a direct divine title to the Land of Israel which gives them a mandate topossess all of it. As opposed to my position, which diverts that title to the Throne of David which passed to Our Lord by dynastic right at His birth. The vocation of the Jews is not so much to possess the whole Land themselves as to give the witness God has given them concerning His faithfulness to the House of David. With due respect to William Sargent, there has never been a Palestinian state in history (though there is no reason why there should never be one). The Muslim Arabs owe their presence there to jihads of aggression waged to establish there a religion which isn’t Christianity. It is the present-day jihad of Hamas and Israel’s other neighbours which is the real villain of the piece.

How about we give it back to the British? I mean that’s who the Jews got it from. Or we could give it back to the Turks, since they held it before the British took it away from them by force of arms. We could go back even further, I guess. Hey, are there any remaining descendants of the Selucid kings? (You like that name drop? Yeah! That’s my hours of playing Rome Total War back in the day coming into play right there.)

“Godless Muslims want to drive them into the sea.”
Never heard of those. Are they perhaps related to those God fearing, monotheistic atheists I’ve been hearing about?

Could we please raise the quality of this discussion, Mike in KC? The State of Israel was created in 1948 on land which formed part of no other state, and in which civil order was breaking down and had to be reimposed. The Jews happened to be quicker about it than the Arabs. So much for politics. Now for theology. The existence of the Jews as a people, and their bond to their ancestral homeland, is a consequence of the actively exercised patriotism of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For if He did not exercise and sanctify it here and now, we ourselves could not exercise it towards our respective countries in a manner pleasing to God.

Israel’s claim to the Land of Israel is stronger than any other people’s claim to their country. The Torah begins, “Bereshit Bara Elokim Et Hashamayim Veet Haaretz - In the beginning, Hashem created heaven and earth.” Rashi begins his celebrated commentary, by quoting a question on this verse in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak. Rabbi Yitzchak asks, since the Torah is primarily a book of laws, why doesn’t it begin with the first commandment given to the Jewish People, the mitzvah of sanctifying the new moon (Shemot 12:2)? Rashi answers by quoting a midrash (Bereshit 1:3). The Torah begins with an account of Creation so that if the nations of the world ever accuse the Jewish people of being robbers who have unlawfully taken the Land of Israel, we can respond, “The entire world was created by and belongs to Hashem. He created it and He granted it to whomever He deemed fit. It was His desire to give it to the seven Canaanite nations and then it was His desire to take it from them and give it to us.”

One thing Ms.Helen Thomas forgot the majority of the Jews in Israel are refugees from Arabs states (Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen Turkey etc..)and most of the Palestinians are descendants of immigrates from Syria and Egypt from the 19 & 20 centuries

I recommend to all Christians who invoke the Old Testament and God’s promise to Abraham, to read Galatians 3, 26-29:” There is no longer Jew or Greek etc…..And if you belong to Christ, then you areAbraham<s offspring, heirs according to the promise.”

So much for Israel’s moral right in Palestine

Joseph

I do think of Israel’s right to exist in temporal terms.  I don’t see any need to make some theological determination of Israel as a Jewish state and end times predictions. 

David Horowitz, a Jewish man and former Leftist, just published an extended article today that discusses the war on Israel going on and Obama’s anti-Israeli about face in foreign policy.  He provides some historical basis for Jewish claims to Israel and Jerusalem. He also notes the lack of historical claims that Islam really has to Jerusalem in particular.  It is a political article, but perhaps with some information helpful to the topic here.

http://article.nationalreview.com/436460/obama-and-the-war-against-israel/david-horowitz-jacob-laksin

Also, I’ll note, Horowitz did spend time debating the Israel issue and has discussed some Jewish opposition to creation of Israel took at least a couple of forms: (1) those who seemed to want to deny their Jewish heritage and don’t want any more singling out of Jews, which creation of Israel would cause (such folks tended to be leftists who preferred a revolution in which all became the same, no more Jewish distinction); and (2) some religious Jews felt that creating a temporal state reduced the larger prophetic role of the Jewish faith in the world.  There may be other rationales.  Those were 2 I discerned from his writings (see, Left Illusions).

Interesting comment, Joseph Debanne, but incorrect. In the theology of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, there are three levels of charity: (1) the uncreated charity which is of the common essence of the three Divine Persons; (2) the supernatural charity infused into the Sacred Humanity of Jesus by the hypostatic union, and which expresses itself in the manifestation of the Divine Mercy without distinction to Jew and Greek, male and female, etc; and (3) the sensible charity - the love for created persons and things perceived by the senses - which is within the proper capacity of human nature, and to which Our Lord’s patriotism toward native land and people belongs. It’s not a matter of Israel’s moral right, it’s about her King’s.

I think there’s much to be learned about Israel in G.K. Chesterton’s fine book, “The New Jerusalem,” originally published in 1921.In it he devoted an entire chapter to “The Problem of Jerusalem,” which is very informative. The book was republished some years ago by Roman Catholic Books. Check out Books for Catholics.com.

Michael P. writes that “civil order was breaking down and had to be reimposed.” And just what part did the Zionist terrorist organizatios Irgun and Haganah play in that breakdown? How many policemen did they murder, and how many died when they blew up the King David Hoptel? Why am I not surprised that a nation founded upon terrorism produces terrorism as its fruit? No, Michael, this is not the work of those in a covenant relationship with God.

@ Michael Patek:
A covenant with God may indeed be broken…not by God, but by the human party.  I was explaining this vis a vis Muslim belief, not Christian understanding. I was simply adding this to the discussion in explaining why the notion that Israel is God’s gift to the Jewish people is at least for the sake of religious understanding, not a part of Islamic understanding of history.  In the case of the story of the Golden Calf, God forgave the transgression, due to Moses strong intercession warning those who had transgressed to pray for forgiveness, and so it was that God forgave and did not ‘smite’ them, but as a consequence, their status as ‘chosen’ was revoked. I am not offering you argument for who is right an who is wrong, just adding the Islamic perspective as many would speak on behalf of Muslims by quoting one or two out of context passages, or hate rhetoric, without having any kind of idea of what Muslims believe. and for the record, Jews and Christians hold a place in Islamic tradition as being “people of the book”, insured protection under Muslim Law (ask Iranian Jews how they are treated) and often intermarried within Muslim societies (permitted by the Koran), who are also promised entry to heaven. (just to clarify that it is not about anti-semitism, but geopolitics).

Recently I read two articles about what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians that made me see “red.” Both were in reputable Catholic publicaions. One detailed the difficulties this past spring when Catholics tried to celebrate Holy Week and Easter. Apparently the Israelis had all but shut down the holy sites, and whereas in the past, there were thousands of Christians, especially pilgrims, present for the feasts, this year there was a very minimal presence. The idea seems to be to make it so difficult for Christians to visit our sacred sites, and for Christian Palestinians, who have already left the region due to closure of businesses and bombing of their homes, that these areas will be taken over by Jews wanting to move to Israel. The second article spoke of a young Palestinian Christian who had difficulties in her pregnancy. The Jews would not let her leave their territory and as a result but she and her baby died. This is not being reported by the mainstream media, of course. Christian Palestinians are being turned out of THEIR land. A local priest who is a biblical scholar said that the Jewish Nation would always exist, but there is nothing in scripture that says they will always possess “the Holy Land.”

As a Catholic I am sickened by this article. The anti zionist Jews you mention are only fringe groups, and this group often meets with the leader of Iran who calls for a genocide of the Jews and claims the Holocaust was a lie. Will you be writing an article defending him next?

We Catholics do not believe that Israel doesn’t belong to the Jewish people, Pope John brought us away from the darkness of hate for our Jewish brothers and sisters. Let us not claim that anti semitism does not mean anything but what its historical meaning was hate for Jews. It is really scarey that you are attempting in a Catholic paper to change its definition. I can’t help but wonder what you will write about next!  I hope you will get some help for your hate.

Father Gabriel, I am shocked that a priest would so quickly forget the teachings of Pope John Paul about the Jews and Israel. He saw first hand what real anti semitism is. I love my Church but often wonder what priests and other leaders are thinking.

Annie I work at a Catholic College here in Rochester New York and have been a life long active member of St Mary’s in downtown Rochester.

The stories you read in the ‘official’ Catholic press are not true.  I read about them too and saw both debunked.  I am quite surprised to see blame on ‘the Jews’ printed in the Catholic press so freely.  Is it the 1930’s when the truth makes no difference as long as the one’s blamed are ‘Jews’?  It is indeed chilling.

Has hate for Jews become mainstream in the Catholic world? No. Have some articles been wrong headed? yes.

Muslim intolerance has caused Christians to flee. I teach ESL, I hear the truth first hand about Israel. Wake up.

“Muslim intolerance has caused Christians to flee. I teach ESL, I hear the truth first hand about Israel.”  I lived under Israeli occupation for two years and my brother for 35.  This is simply not true.  It it the brutal occupation that has caused so many Christian Palestinians to leave the Holy Land.  Ask Fr. Vasko or watch him on EWTN to see the truth about this.

I think the land is suppose to be shared by both people.  Whether a two state or a bi-national state.  There needs to be a solution that recognizes the dignity of both people.

As for Zionism, I have issues with it. Not because I don’t think the Jewish people should have a state of their own.  But I have issues with a Jewish state if it means disenfranchising millions of non Jewish people, in the land of their birth. Even making them 2nd class citzens, not acceptable. Lets get over 1948, and talk about the occupation in 1967, which essentially did just that.  Not right.

My feeling is that there will be no security for the Israels without justice for the Palestinians. And I"m worried for them because they seem to think that force is the way to go to get their security. 

This doesn’t mean the Palestinians are completely innocent because the suicide bombings and glorification of it is disturbing.  I’m glad more and more are recognizing the need for non violence.

We Westerners need to recognize our own culpability in this do you know how many Western nations refused to take in the Holocaust victims.  And then our country the US encouraging Israel in its actions towards the Palestinians. 

I feel we need to call for both sides to recognize the humanity of the other and call both sides to Christ.

Great little piece of … verbosity. We’ll even ignore the not-so-shielded political platform.
But take one thing into account:
If da jews don’t have it, neither will the Christians.
If you think for a moment the Vatican will be any less impotent regarding the Christians under Palestinian moslem rule than they are regarding Christians in any other Islamic regime, you make me laugh.
So look up your catchesims, your canon, you philosophical verbal auto-satisfaction as much as you like – the fact is that it is not catholics that jews are asking permission from; au immensely contraire: it is catholics who depend on jews to stay so that they can live in some semblance of respect in the “holy” land of Palestine -  at least to whatever extent the threat of their moslem brothers in exploding jackets allows them, for now

Willian I am aware of Fr Vasko and his agenda. Look at how the official Muslim nations treat Catholics and how Israel treats us.  Look at the Christians in Egypt and in Jordan and Lebanon.  When Jordan had Jeruselum it was all but closed to Christian and Jewish holy places I know this and my students have confirmed it.
Can it be that once again we Catholics are so blinded by bigotry that we ignore facts and scapegoat the Jewish people in such a repugnant manner?  Please open your eyes, many Muslims are good people but the intolerance and bigotry in the Middle East by their governments is the main issue, not the tiny state of Israel. There was no siege in 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza, do not support Hamas with articles like this.
After the Holocaust and other tragic parts of history, we Catholics have a duty to speak up. How many Catholics spoke against the events of the day during WW2? Many. But not enough. Lets learn from history and not go back to that.

I would also like to point out to the moderators that the above poster that refered to Israel’s government as ‘the Jews’ should be careful. Israel is made up of people of all faiths. It is very shocking the comment calling them ‘the Jews’ is allowed to stay up. Very telling indeed.

Mr. Akin, thank you very much for this article.  It’s been on my mind as I have been wrestling with this question for a long time.  I think I’ll still be sitting on the fence with our Catholic Church for awhile longer too.  Because as a convert to Catholicism from a Fundamentalist Protestant, Zionist, End times Pre-Tribulation, 12 Imam understanding, I can’t make those previous understandings fit with what the Church teaches and what I believe now as a Catholic.  You articulated well what’s been rolling around in my head in a way that helped me clarify my position so I know better where I now stand.  I most definitely do not believe that the state of Israel should have ever been recreated.  I think of all the Palestinian people who hold titles and deeds to that land, and it makes me think of what if Mexico sent millions of its people to the US to overtake us by use of mass immigration and the rest of the nations of the world supported the over throw of our government in such a way.  The status of those people’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant.  On the other hand, the baby has been born so to speak, and therefore where would all those people go who now live in and have been born in this created state of Israel?  Obviously they must have rights to their place of birth, just as those born, even to foreigners; in the US have a right to citizenship.  This is why it is hard to determine the right course of action.  What’s more, just as faith and reason do not conflict, nor should the temporal and theological positions of this dispute.  If they do, that’s a good indicator that something in our understanding is wrong.  I know I’m not smarter than the Holy Spirit.  I think I’ll wait until the Church is guided by that Spirit to make my decisions.  And if that’s too slow for some of you, I say take it up with God.  His will be done.  Thanks for sharing the stuff that no one’s comfortable talking about.

Maria, Fr. Vasko’s “agenda” is to help the Christians of the Holy Land not lose their homes to Israelis.  Do you think the treatment of Christians in Arab countries justifies Israel’s mistreatment of Christians of the Holy Land?  I love the Jewish people.  Please remember that this “tiny state of Israel” as you say is the most powerful country in the Middle East.  Do you know that when Israel was formed 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed and hence millions of refugees created?  Many of these villages were Christian.  They resist this sort of treatment and that proves they are savages!?  What would you do if you saw your home destroyed for settlements for American Jews?  I’m glad you love the Jews, but do you have no love for our brothers and sisters in Christ who suffer under the severe rule of the Israelis?  Why can’t you love both and call for the terrible mistreatment of the Palestinians which would end the cause of the Palestinian radicals.  The question is, “Will Israel end the occupation or will the occupation end Israel?”

It is odd that some people said that the Third Reich was Zionist (before the Final Solution, of course) and many propaganda speeches claimed that “only two flags are permitted to fly over Germany: the Swastika and the Star of David.”  But who would call them Zionists today but a fool.

Also, St. Maximilian Kolbe was fiercely anti-Semetic and it didn’t get in the way of his canonization.

An accurate analysis of the topics discussed.  But you’ve overlooked an entire element of the discussion: the proposition that ethnic Jews have a right to live in Palestine, independently of anyone’s right to maintain a particular political arrangement there.  This is not the same as arguing that the modern state of Israel has any claim to existence itself.  It would be helpful if Jimmy would engage this element of the discussion.

Dov,

St. Maximilian Kolbe sheltered an estimated 2,000 Jews from the Nazis and was arrested (and ultimately gave up his life) on the charges of abbeting Jews and the Polish underground.

We appreciate vigorous debate on these issues, but please refrain from slander and, if possible, cite your sources when making charges like this ...

St. Maximillian may have argued that Jesus was the Messiah, who died for Jews and Gentiles alike, but this is hardly “anti-semitism”.  In fact, it is the sort of “false” anti-semitism which was the theme of Jimmy’s first post in this series.

Peace!

Oops.  I meant to say he was anti-Zionists.  You are correct in saying that he was not anti-Semitic.  That would be racism and very un-Catholic.

I found this English language site which attests to St. Maximilian’s anti-Zionism (among other antis)

http://www.polishmission.org/kolbe_en.htm

For perspective on St. Maximillian Kolbe and the charge of “anti-zoinism” see http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.htm.

Kolbe, like many - even Polish Jews - was fooled into lending credence to the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a master plan for Jewish world domination later shown to be a Russian forgery. Kolbe mentioned the Protocols in two articles. Reflecting Protocol’s rhetoric, he referred to the founders of Zionism as “a cruel, crafty, little known Jewish clique,” a “small handful of Jews [who had let themselves] be seduced by Satan.”

Jedrzej Giertych, author of “Libel Against a Saint,” in defense emphasized that many in 1920s Poland, including Polish Jews, assumed the Protocols were authentic. Why would Kolbe be immune to such “common knowledge”? Says Giertych, Whatever the truth, there is nothing reprehensible in taking seriously, in 1924 and 1925, the views expressed in these Protocols….

After his experience at Auzwich, it is hard to imagine St. Maximillian wouldn’t have been amenable to the desire for a Jewish homeland - a return to the Biblical lands ...

May I state the theological points again? (1) The Jewish people, its bond with the Land of Israel and its potentiality to social and political organisation there, are indefectible. (2) The Throne of David (his regal office), its sovereign title and jurisdiction with respect to the Land of Israel, and its settlement to the end of time upon his legitimate heir and successor, are indefectible. (3) Jews and Gentiles alike settle in the Land of Israel not by their own right, but by the right of the King and by His Mercy. On a point of interest, Sister Faustyna died on the Feast of Yom Kippur.

I take the view, admittedly simplistic, that if they try to create Israel, and succeed, then G-d permitted it.  Often in the Bible, we are to trust and let G-d take everything in His mighty hand, but there are examples of when we are supposed to do our part too.  As a Saint of the Church once put it:  “PRAY like everything depends on God.  Then, WORK like everything depended on you!”

Looking at the history of modern-day Israel, I have to say there were times when I think it would HAVE to be ONLY with G-d’s protection that they have carved out a nation for themselves, and then, only by His grace and protection that they have kept it.  How else could a tiny little nation-state come into existence and then CONTINUE in existence when EVERYONE around them—including the entire Arabic world—wants them wiped off the face of the planet?

I respect other opinions on this subject.  However, that is my $ .02 (for whatever THAT may be worth!)

Sr. Faustina did not die on the “feast” of Yom Kippur. There is no feasting on Yom Kippur, but fasting.

It was Yom Kippur, anyway.

1. The modern-day nation of Israel was legitimately founded from land which comprised no other nation at the time. No nation has ever existed which called itself “Palestine” and there has been no people until modern times which has called itself “Palestinians.” In the past, there were many inhabitants of the region; both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews.
2. The land which became today’s nation of Israel had been inhabited for many generations by both Jews and non-Jews. All of these people were “Palestinian” because the region was called Palestine.
3. Despite its legitimate founding, it is also true that during the founding and establishing of the nation of Israel, it seems to be the case that many Palestinian Arabs were treated unjustly by both the Jews and their Arab neighbors who used them as proxies against Israel.
4. Once we accept that Israel was legitimately founded (at least as legitimately as the very young country today called “Jordan”), we must wonder how different the world and the Middle East would be today if the Arab world had accepted the creation of the nation of Palestine as it was supposed to have been founded at the same time as Israel. How different would the Palestinians be today if their nation was also celebrating its 62nd anniversary? But the Arab world refused the creation of a Palestinian nation, leading to over six decades of strife and murder.
5. It is possible to denounce many of the actions of Israel, as many of the citizens of that democratic nation do, while still supporting its right to exist and fight for its own safety.
6. I believe that many in the West use Israel as a slate upon which to project their own feelings of guilt for how some native populations were treated when some of today’s Western Nations were founded.

More to the point, MatteoW, Christian judgement must be brought to bear on the claim of the Palestinians - Hamas especially - to jus ad bellum. It is manifestly ill-founded because it is a jihad. This Arabic word comes from ‘mujahada’ which connotes war to establish the religious law and political rule of Islam and the Muslims. The jihad is a war of aggression, waged for the the ulterior purpose of genocide and the furtherance of false religion.

What framework do you want to use here, Jimmy, to decide your question?  Recognized international law?  Moral rights?  Historical claims?  Pick your poison.

If you correctly determine the controlling standard or the controlling legislator, your question should be pretty easy.  The question of who possesses the land will essentially entail the deeper question of who gets to call the shots regarding international temporal affairs?  Not the Church, as you point out.

It seems that the most recognized authority, rightly or wrongly, is the United Nations.  Therefore, whatever they (have) proclaim(ed) as a united body, would be your answer as to which nation should have possession of the land.  To argue otherwise would seem to call into question the authority exercised by the United Nations, which is a possible theoretical argument, but a whole other can of worms, and one that would entail a great burden of proof that they do not have legitimacy.

A good hypothetical parallel would be if a confederation of Native American nation-tribes considered all land in the United States that their ancestors had settled to be theirs.  How would they go about stating their claims?  To whom would they go to assert their claims?  The answer to the latter question is probably the ‘legitimate authority’ that should be the go-to authority that will have legitimately settled the Israeli question.

Finally, what does natural law say about land ownership on the micro and macro levels?  Assuming, for the sake of this argument, the U.N. is the competent authority, that is the vital question they should use (or perhaps, should have used in the past) to decide the matter.  Note, if they erred in the past, for many reasons, it may be too late to rectify that mistake in the present, since the resulting harm from its correction would be too great.

I don’t think that Christians, Jews, or Muslims can/should use historic private revelation, however true, to make a legitimate legal argument against another alien nation who do not recognize that revelation.  These groups would have to stick to natural law claims, if such exist in general and for their particular demands, to further their argument.

I’ll start making even bigger guesses now as to what natural law would answer.  It necessitates seeing the dignity of the human person, and that dignity is neither enhanced nor detracted from based on racial considerations.  Therefore on the macro-level, I’m not sure natural law can say that a disputed area “belongs” to a certain type of man.  In natural law terms, we are all equal and one.  Therefore, natural law probably suggests, if anything, that the territory should be shared by all interested claimants with reasonable historical claims inasmuch as it can be so shared practically.  Leave the exact details to the competent UN officials to maximize peace and minimize aggrieved parties.

William thank you for your thoughful reply. Had the local Arab population accepted the UN Partition plan and allowed the tiny state of Israel, on a sliver of land some eight miles wide exist in peace, there would have been no Arab refugees. And if Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and other nations would allow citizenship to those of Palestinian decent there would be no one displaced. Seven hundred thousand Arabs were displaced in the war when Israel was founded and remember about the same number of Jews ran for their lives with the shirts on their backs from Morroco, Syria and other Middle Eastern Nations who so tragically fought on the side of the Nazi’s in the war.
Yes, I have many friends who are Muslim, and I listen to what they say, and Bahai’s and Christians and Jews from over there and you are very mistaken to side with Hamas and say the Israeli’s are taking away Christian homes
We Catholics cannot stand with Hamas, I stand with Israel, I stand with the people trying to make peace, Hamas and Hizbollah seek genocide of the Jews and war.
And Israel is only some six million people with no oil. Saudi Arabia, Iran and all the petro dollars of these nations form a mighty opponent.
The Jews are a tiny people, only point two percent of the world. Muslims and Christians are thirty percent each.
They are at the knife edge of extinction once again.
I regret the Church didn’t do more in the last century, and as a young Catholic its our place to speak out against the stereotypes of powerful stealing, blood thirsty Jews.
I read a blog called Elder of Ziyon for some other opinons one doesn’t see in the Catholic Press. I also read the Muslim press as well.
Again, my thanks, and may all people live in peace.

William, also I wanted to note that I am a history major at a Catholic college where we learn to check original sources, and read different points of view in order to see things from the point of view of others.

The Jewish press can be hard to find so if you might be interested here it is:

a blog
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/06/un-watch-in-belly-of-beast.html

Islam online is a good original source from the other direction.

Thanks, take care.

William said, “Do you know that when Israel was formed 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed and hence millions of refugees created?”

This is sheer fiction. Where do you get your history, from comic books?!!

Maria nobody put a gun to Israel’s head and forced them to occupy the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.  In fact David Ben Gurion told them, to leave immediately.

It was the Israelis decision to take over an area with millions of Arabs, people they had no intention of ever given citizenship too.  During this time Hamas didn’t exist and the PLO was a marginal group.  The Palestinian territories were for the most part fairly peaceful, for 20 years.  Than the people for some strange reason got tired of military occupation, having no political rights etc.  And started protesting, and yes getting violent (but mainly stone throwing) and the Isrealis responded brutally) If you think they were nice to the Palestinian town that had the temerity to say “no taxation without representation.”  Have another thought, they were brutal.

Hamas is a horrible group.  But it was the Israelis who set the conditions for Hamas to get an inroads.  In fact reports are that in 1987 they encouraged Hamas development because they wanted to divide the Palestinians.  This doesn’t excuse suicide bombings etc.  But when you cage a group of people deny them basic rights, eventually the people get violent.  Happens all the time.

The fact is the Palestinians are human beings and so are Muslims. This whole thing for all of Islams history of at times agression didn’t start out with Muslims announcing they were going to create a state for Muslims in an area that was overwhelming Jewish.  It was the other way around.  And it was sure going to cause problems from the very beginning. Understandably so from the Arabs perspective because that land was home to Arabs. Both sides have done things that weren’t right.

The point is that without Justice there is no peace.  The Jewish people deserve security.  But I’m not sure how anyone thought that from the beginning forcibaly taking a piece of land from Arabs, and putting a Jewish land in the midst of Arabs, was somehow going to create a peaceful situation.  It doesn’t matter if it was a small part of land, the Arabs regarded it as theirs because they were occupying it.  And the majority of the Palestinians were peasants who couldn’t necessarily afford to go anywhere and were quite attached to their homes. 

The Jewish people’s survival is because God loves them and protects them, not because they had a land.  They managed to survive through great tribulations for 2,000 years without a homeland.  The idea though that tey are somehow going to have a security by doing an injustice to another group of people, and continuing to do an injustice to this group of people.  Isn’t going to happen.  The Palestinians are human beings too, and they shouldn’t just have “to take” the Israelis denying them of basic rights freedoms. And the Muslims cannot be expected to sit back and just let the Israelis abuse Muslims.  Both groups are human beings with certain rights.

There is no peace without justice, and I’m convinced unless the Palestinians get justice and a right to live in peace too, that this situation will spiral out of control. And the Israelis will have nobody but themselves to blame.  And we the West will also be of blame for not taking in Jewish people after the Holocaust and not calling the Isrealis to do right by the Palestinians.

But the idea that Isreali state surviving as a Jewish state is the only way for the Jewish people to survive is ridiculous.  There are millions of Jewish people living outside of the state of Israel, and in many ways they may be more safe than the people living in Israel.

My feeling is that Israel is meant to be a land of both Jews and Arabs because that is the group of people God put on that land.

I want to make it clear that I hope both sides can live in peace. And if the Israelis do give up the occupied territory in a fair and just solution, than I’d be all for arming Israel to protect it. 

But right now they are on a very dangerous path.  If the Palestinians are bad now imagine how bad they will be in 2030 when they are the majority, which many think they will be.  Imagine how angry the other Muslim world will be if the Palestinian situation still isn’t resolved.

I agree that I don’t like how the Muslims treat Christians, but that doesn’t mean we Christians should say that as a result its okay for the Palestinians to be treated poorly.

Someone eventually if justice doesn’t happen will unite the Muslims and then we will really have to all deal with it.  That’s why this idea that we should just Stand with Israel, I think is wrong.

As Catholics we should stand for PEACE. And we should be upset with ourselves that we didn’t argue for a more just solution in 1948 and didn’t tell Holocaust victims that they were welcome in our country. We should be upset with ourselves that if the other Arab nations didn’t welcome the refugees of Palestine, that we didn’t.  We as Christians need to be calling for justice for all people, Jew and Muslim because God created and loves both.  He loves the Palestinian just as much as he loves the Israeli.  In Christ after all we are one.

As Christians we should be screaming this message about the equality and dignity of all.

Jimmy –
I’m glad you defined “Zionism” because the term is misused in anti-Semitic circles.  The way you defined it is in line with common usage.  I’m looking forward to part 2.
. 
However, I have a couple of quick points:
1)  I don’t agree with the point you have been making about the term “anti-Semitic” and its usage. While you are of course correct that, strictly speaking, many non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel are “semites”, the term “anti-Semitic” is and always has been associated with the Jewish people, specifically.  It was first coined by Wilhelm Marr, and to my knowledge, has only very rarely been used in the broader sense of all peoples descending from “Shem”.  None of the dictionaries I have consulted use the term in this broader sense, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-Semitism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:anti+semitism&sa=X&ei=OaIhTKPBE4aglAf_nfVK&ved=0CBcQkAE
As you have expressed concern for cheapening the meaning of force of the term “anti-semitism” as one of your primary arguments in defense of Helen Thomas, I don’t think it helps your case to inject comments about who “semites” really are in this context.  Unfortunately, that (very weak, imo) argument is one made with regularity by genuine anti-Semites.
.

2)  While I agree that there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, in my experience, the two are tied together with a high degree of frequency.  Anti-Semites seem to frequently hide behind “mere anti-Zionism”  because it does not draw the kind of reaction that flat-out, open anti-Semitism draws.  It’s a bit like the white supremacists who have taken to calling themselves “Anglo nationalists” or “white nationalists”.  IMO, the more fierce the anti-Zionism, the more likely anti-Semitism lurks just beneath the surface as well (not to say it is certain, of course, as proved by a few small cases like Neturie Karta).

Becca - U has learned the facts!! After the six days war – Israel negotiated the possibility of a Peace treaty include going out from the territories that was conquer on June 1967 – the answer was …. The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of an Arab League summit in the wake of the Six-Day War. The resolution, which formed a basis of the policies of these governments toward Israel until the 1973 Yom Kippur War, called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the “Three ‘No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”
And to the people that like the Hamas – here is a partial list of
1. 18 May 2008 • Unknown powerful explosives exploded at a fast food restaurant located near the Al-Quds Open University in downtown Gaza.
• The explosion caused the complete destruction of the place. The owner says this is the second time in his damaged business (agency Maan, May 18 (not clear
2. May 16, 2008 • unknown explosive device explosion in a school of nuns Rosery (Arahabat Alvardia) in Tel Alhua Gaza.
A year earlier, with the Hamas takeover, this school was exposed to theft and arson. Condemnation of the act and calling Hamas police tried to bring the perpetrators
3. 3 April 2008 • Unknown unknowns monument was blown up (cross) the British military cemetery for fallen World War I-in the Gaza Strip. Hamas promised to investigate the incident.
4th. April 11, 2008 Hamas! Friday sermon, Sheikh Yunis Alastl, a member of the Legislative Council on behalf of Hamas, Al-Aqsa TV broadcast. Sermon said that Islam will soon take control of the Roma “capital of the Catholics or the crusaders” like at the time took over Constantinople and from there he will take over the two Americas and even the East Europe.
5. 15 February 2008 Rabat soil Army of Islam, headed by Mumtaz Durmush (terrorist organization affiliated with the global jihad, which constitutes an extension of Al-Qaeda in Gaza.) Hacking YMCA library building (Christian Youth Association) in Gaza city, running an explosive device to damage caused • Hamas police condemned the incident, calling it “a criminal action.” It also promised to investigate.
• Hamas security forces arrested several activists of the Islamic Army but they were subsequently released shortly, following the Islamic Army’s threat to release exerts a force.
• Created a meeting attended by senior Hamas officials and senior members of the Christian community to show solidarity with the community.
6. 10, January 12 2008 • army who believe Al-Qaeda Organization in Palestine.
• manifesto stated that the school is distributing Ahpolitiaizm stronghold (belief in gods) and hatred towards Islam (• two attacks against the International School in Beit Lahiya.
• These firmly burned cars and stolen equipment.
• The Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attacks.
• Al-Quds published article is published in London Alarevi directed reading Hamas reveal the identity of the attackers and prosecute them (17 February)
The Army of Al-Qaeda Organization in Palestine who believe in “claimed responsibility for two attacks against American International School in Gaza during President Bush’s visit to the region. The school was the target of attacks since its inception in 2000. Other targets in the Gaza Strip identified with Western culture U.S. data also harassment “(January 14, 2008).

7. December 31, 2007 Friends of Sunna House Almkedas • barker released on Palestine Today (affiliated with Islamic Jihad in Palestine) a threat to harm those who take part in celebrations for the opening of the new year. Unclear
8. 6 October 2007, Hamas-related factors Rami H. Charles R. Ayad, a Christian who worked for the Association BIBLE SOCIETY, was kidnapped from his home and shot to death • Hamas government condemned the murder opened an investigation, whose results are not clear so far.
• There were comments of the expression of solidarity with Muslim residents from the victim’s family.
9. June 19 Hamas activists in Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip and movement activists attacked and destroyed the monastery and church contents (similar event was on September 23, 2006.)
Abbas in a speech to the Legislative Council (June 20) to describe the sharpness of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, saying in part: “Even the Christian churches did not escape from their hands. They looted and burned a church in Gaza, which is the oldest church in Palestine” (the journal of the Palestinian Authority Al-Hayat Algerian Jadida published on June 20 an article written by Joseph Alkazaaz labeled “crimes came to churches.” In an article he describes how members of Hamas’s library burned down a church school in Gaza attacked the nuns.)

10. April 21, 2007 Factors related to global jihad attack against the American International School in Gaza.
11. 15 April 2007, Rabat soil swords truth explosion caused damage to two Internet cafes in Gaza Christian Books store sales in Gaza.

So let me get this straight, before Hamas existed you people were speaking up for the rights of the Palestinians?  Or could you be using Hamas as an excuse to condemn an entire people?

William,

I know you are not a big history buff, but the Arab war of annihilation against Israel and rejection of a two state solution predates Hamas by more than half a century.  Please, get that straight ...

And Mark why did the Arabs disagree with Israel-because they felt the land was theirs and the Israelis were “squatters.”  I doubt the Arabs would have cared if the Israelis had been given California instead.

Of course the Arabs were going to take issue with Israel being created on Arab land.  And I firmly believe since the Arabs were occupying that land, that it should have been up to the Arabs for the beginning if Israel would be there.  Surely there was other land that could have been used if the Arabs weren’t living.

Joe that stilldoesn’t mean that the Israelis had to keep the land whether or the Arabs wanted peace.  They could have realized occupation was an on starter.  Its not like the Palestinians who were not exactly given voices in the Arab league meeting had a choice, many would have probably been happy to have that piece of land in 1967.
But this idea that foreign powers could take the land from the Arabs against their war, and not get the Arabs to want to fight back is ridiculous.  If you take someone’s home, as the Arabs felt what happened, they just may want to take it back.

To argue that well Palestine wasn’t a state so its okay to divide the land and ignore the needs of the indigenous population.  Would be to say that if the United States broke up.  It would be perfectly acceptable for the Chinese (who took over) to decide that they were going to go into Ohio and make Ohio a state “for Kurds”  Who cares if the majority in Ohio were not Muslims and not Kurds.  These people need a homeland, and so Ohio is a good place to start.  The Ohioans after all can all go to other parts of the United States if they want.  Do you think the Ohioans would be ridiculous to wonder how this Kurdish state is going to affect their own lives, and how such a state could represent them when they are not Kurds-not Muslims.  Do you think it would be ridiculous for the Ohioans to think that rather the state should represent the local population whose been there for centuries.

What if the world said well these Kurds have been abused, they’ve been mistreated and so they just let it happen, and watched as Onioans lost their homes.  Do you think that maybe the Ohioans and members of the other parts of America, just might want to “eliminate this Kurdish state”  Do you think its because they have this irrational hatred of Kurds, or maybe its because they have this hatred for the idea of them losing their homes and lands to the Kurds. 

And how do you think these people would feel if the wolrd just ignored their pain and gave the Kurds just more and more weapons.

The point is from the perspective of the Palestinians and the Arabs this is how it all went down.  And the whole 2000 year claim is ridiculous.  If every group of people started claiming pieces of land because their ancestors owned it 2000 years ago we’d have chaos.

Don’t get me wrong I wish the Palestinians had taken the path of non violence.  And I definetly think the Baby Israel is here now and it would be wrong to take Israelis who were born in Israel and Israelis from Arab countries out of their homes… But seriously the Palestinians and the Arabs were acting like how any normal people would act. And in the mind of Muslims they see Israel persecuting Muslim.  Their dislike for Israel is understandable. 

Now if they ever make peace with Israel and Israel gives back all kinds of land and 40 years from now they attack Israel, than I’ll feel quite differently about the situation.  Heck with a Just peace, I’d be all for arming Israel.

Bottom line the Northern Ten tribes lost their covenant blessings in 720 BC and the remaining Southern Tribes lost their covenant blessings in 70 AD. So Judaism is a dead religion, made extinct by Jesus in 70 AD, and has been forsaken by God for almost 2000 years.

Once the temple was destroyed in 70AD, Judaism became dead as a dodo. Tell me when is the last time the High Priest offered atonement for the Nation? Did not Paul( or some other Apostle) say in Hebrews 8:13,“By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.(NIV)” So even Paul said the Old Covenant was soon to disappear. Yup, it disappeared in 70 AD. So my disagreement with Zionism, Christian Fundamentalists who are pro-Israel, and other Christian groups has nothing to do with anti-Semitism but with properly understanding the New Testament.

William – to put its straight!!!! – The Hamas is more than everyone in their ideology and practice Anti-Christian (as Anti Semitic +Anti Zionist +Anti Israel), Anti Christianity is blooming under the Hamas Authority I Gaza and in any other place that they have influence…

Ronald Mermin, you’re confusing the Covenant of Moses with the Covenants of Abraham (for nationhood) and of David (for kingship). The second and the third are still in force because Jesus is a son of both Abraham and David. He is not a son of Aaron and therefore cannot be a priest under the Old Law. That had to be repealed in order for Him to be one. There are two separate theological issues here. First, the fact that the Christian religion is true, therefore King David’s claim to royal sovereignty over the Land of Israel is just and must be recognised in the title of his legitimate successor. The second is that Islam is a false religion, therefore the ‘holy’ war which Hamas and other Arabs are waging against Israel is unjust out of hand.

Ronald -

True -  the Mosaic Covenant cannot save now.  It never could in the first place.  Christ opened Heaven for man.  Also true that the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New, Universal and Eternal Covenant in Christ.  But the call or “election” of Israel according to the flesh seems to have preceded the Mosaic Covenant (see Ex. 4:22, for instance).  I think this is why St. Paul can still talk about Israel according to the flesh being dearly loved by God for the sake of the Patriarchs (Rm 11) and why he still describes the Olive tree as “their own” (Rm 11).  Not everything is quite so black and white.
. 
And the Church doesn’t use language like “dead as a dodo” in reference to Judaism.  In the Vatican’s “Notes” on the implementation of Nostra Aetate, the Church writes of “the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church to Judaism.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html
.
John Paul II wrote, “the Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion” and “with Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion.” 
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/14/international/europe/14POPE.html
.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote about “the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people ‘at the level of their spiritual identity’”  He also condemned “the scourge of…anti-Judaism.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100117_sinagoga_en.html
.
And if Judaism is utterly and completely dead, then the Inspired and Inerrant Old Testament Scriptures – which Jews still possess and follow (even if imperfectly) – would likewise seem to be condemned as dead.

The covenant with King David is fulfilled via Jesus Christ.  The land covenant that the Fundamentalist like to bring up is in Genesis 13:15.

However, the Bible teaches that God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants was a conditional covenant, not unconditional. In Genesis 17:9-14 the Jews were warned that they must keep the covenant or be cut off from God’s people. Leviticus 26:40-45 teaches that the Jews must confess and forsake their sins in order to maintain the covenant.  Joshua 23:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22 not only teach that the covenant was conditional, but they also specify that the Jews would lose their land grant if they broke the covenant.

Also it is ludicrous to think the Old Testament scriptures would somehow come uninspired because the Jews rebelled against God. Judaism and all her conditional covenants were made obsolete in 70 AD at the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.  Zionism exists because people don’t read their Bible and fear being label anti-Semitic.

The Popes’ comments say nothing about the land grant. Furthermore these quotes are not relevant to our immediate discussion.

Becca- u can support the solution for 2 states in the Holy Land – as I am, but u can’t confuse with the facts – The PLO – under Arafat Leadership adopted the 3 No of Khartoum till the end of the eighties..

To those of you who care about peace,  I suggest we as a people pray for the safe return of this young man to his family. He was kidnapped by Hamas four years ago today.
He has not been allowed to see his family, the red cross or have any communication with the outside and he is held by terrorists from Hamas in the worst possible conditions!

Catholics, lets pray for him and his family!

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial_opinion/editorial/time_remember_shalit

The PLO did adopt the 3 Nos but did it fully represent the Palestinian people.  It was in someways a marginal group.  When Israel took over in 1967 Palestinian leaders just said give us our state.  If the Israelis had done this, maybe the people would have had some form of gratefulness becuase it was more than the other Arab countries allowed them to have.

Not to mention there was nothing stopping the Israelis from withdrawing in 1967 and then Jordan and Egypt might have taken it back, something they aren’t willing to do now.

The facts are that nobody forced Israel to occupy that land, a land filled with millions of people.  And certainly nobody forced them to build settlements.  The Israelis took the land because they wanted it.

Maria, I do feel for this Galit and his family, but there are 1,000s of Arab prisoners who also can’t see their families.

I remember hearing a story of a Palestinian Christian family whose teenage son, went out at the wrong time when some children were throwing stones at the First Infida this boy just wanted bread, and he never came home.  What about his family’s pain?  It goes both ways.

Israel was forced into war immediately upon its founding. In that war, it took land. What other nation on earth is not allowed to keep the land it takes during a war which was forced upon it? Why is international law no longer applicable when it comes to Israel?
Again: what would the Middle East look like today if the Arabs had accepted a nation for the Palestinians back in 1948 instead of turning it down? They turned it down. How does the world keep forgetting that it was offered and they turned it down?

Jimmy,

Your thoughts are correct, and nicely non-partisan. I will only add, for the folks who seem confused, Israel was established by outside parties, namely Britain and France, who were under political pressure by Zionist organizations after WWII to establish the state for the sake of Jews who wished to colonize the area. Prior to this, Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived in relative (to today) peace in the region. When Britain and France began to withdraw their financial and military support for the State, the U.S. stepped in. We’ve been supporting Israel economically, politically, and militarily ever since. Modern Israel holds Palestine in the state of a ghetto. It is immoral to prop up this state of affairs. A good first step towards peace in that region might be to withdraw military support from Israel so that it may not be allowed to act so belligerently.

You’ve got to see the bigger picture, Telemachus. Jews, Christians and Muslims didn’t live all that peacefully. Under Islamic law Christians and Jews lived in the humiliating and degrading condition of dhimmis,bereft of equal rights with Muslims. On no account must Islamic law be established anywhere within the jurisdiction of David, but that is precisely what would happen if a Palestinian state were to be created.

Ronald -

1) I agree that the Pope’s comments say nothing about the land grants and I never suggested otherwise.  But it was you who introduced other material while attempting to make broader (and dubious, imo) points about Judaism and the Old Covenant .  If you want to keep the conversation focused on the topic of the article and not go off on tangents now, that would be good.  There’s plenty to discuss that is directly relevant to the article.

2)  I agree that it’s ludicrous to believe that the Old Testament is no longer inerrant and inspired.  But that is a logical conclusion to reach based on your sweeping and absolute condemnation of Judaism -  a condemnation that does not echo the words the Church herself uses in regard.  That was why I provided the quotes from the Vatican and the last to Popes.

3) Your characterization of why Zionism it exists (“because people don’t read their Bible and fear being label anti-Semitic”) is facile.    The history and development of Zionism is much more complex than that.  There are many reasons ranging from the very secular (such as the Holocaust and other persecutions) to the religious. 

As reasonably defined in this article by Jimmy Akin (especially the second sense he listed), I see nothing inherently unacceptable or biblically erroneous about being “Zionist.”

It’s helpful to keep in mind, also, that Muslims in the region were killing Jews long before the modern-day nation of Israel was established, so it’s a little silly to blame Muslim violence on the existence of Israel or its policies.

A Zionist who appeals to the Old Testament as defense for his ‘land right’ for Israel is definitely in error.  Therefore I am completely on topic.  However most people are focus on the fruit instead of the root.  The root rests firmly in a persons understanding of the Bible.  To ignore this is to be ignorant and mentally flaccid. Most of the blog post try to appeal to emotion, injustice, and other things not relevant to the root. Read the Bible, study history and you will find Jews have been evicted from Israel multiple times. The Samaritans are basically displaced Babylonians, and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and replaced with the city called Aelia Capitolina.

Ronald,

Everyone can read your previous comments above.  You keep shifting your points somewhat and ignoring other arguments you’ve made that are not quite so “on topic” (like your points about Judaism), as though you’ve said the same thing all along.  You’ve said quite a bit more than what you wrote directly above.
.
While you have given us your personal, definitive pronouncement on Zionism (and nice use of “flaccid”, btw!) I am content to remain neutral on the issue -  along with the Church.  Additionally, your definition of Zionism is not the one given by Jimmy.  His definition comports well with the common, modern usage.  If you look at those definitions, you’ll find no mention of Old Testament land rights.  Of the Jews I know, not one who considers himself a Zionist has ever told me that the Old Testament gives Jews an absolute right to do whatever they like in order to obtain and keep the land.  Conversely, I know more than a few anti-Semites who insist on using that definition of Zionism, apparently because it’s more rhetorically useful to their agenda.
.

This is a quote from a previous comment I made on Jimmy’s article “See Ya, Helen!”
.
[start quote]
“Common, accepted definitions of Zionism:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Zionism_Is_Not_Racism.html?http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_definitions.htm?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism?http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=zionism
.
But there are different aspects of Zionism, historically speaking, that go beyond what most people seem to mean by the word today.  And some of it is unacceptable from a Catholic viewpoint (especially the secular, quasi-messianic aspects).  And that meaning is what those who hate Israel and/or Jews usually glom onto when ranting against “Zionism” – I assume, because it’s a more useful rhetorical target.” [end quote]

I think I’ve made this point clearly and more than once, so I’ll leave it at that.  No use in beating a dead horse.

Ronald says, “A Zionist who appeals to the Old Testament as defense for his ‘land right’ for Israel is definitely in error. “

That’s just silly.  At a minimum, the Jewish Scriptures are an historical testament to the presence of the Jews in Israel. It shows they were dispersed once, by the Babylonians and then made return to the Biblical lands. The Hebrew Scriptures show they have a far greater claim to Palestine than any European ever did to North America ...

Is there anyone who is a Bible scholar on this thread?  Mark clearly did not understand my previous point, so I will restate it.

The covenant with King David is fulfilled via Jesus Christ.  The land covenant that the Fundamentalist like to bring up is first mentioned in Genesis 13:15.

However, the Bible teaches that God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants was a conditional covenant, not unconditional. In Genesis 17:9-14 the Jews were warned that they must keep the covenant or be cut off from God’s people. Leviticus 26:40-45 teaches that the Jews must confess and forsake their sins in order to maintain the covenant.  Joshua 23:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22 not only teach that the covenant was conditional, but they also specify that the Jews would lose their land grant if they broke the covenant.

Judaism and all her conditional covenants were fulfilled via Jesus Christ.  The Old Covenant was made obsolete in 70 AD and all previous promises with the Jewish people were made NULL and void at this time.

Zionism has been redefined countless times, so I prefer to go to the original definition defined by Theodor Herzl.  Modern Zionists are mostly Atheists and have would have very little in common with Theodor Herzl.  Similarly, many modern Catholics have little in common with Aquinas, however we still use the word Catholic to describe both.

Ronald Mermin, the Covenants of God are never conditional. That is one particular reason why no one can be baptised more than once. The penalty of ‘cutting off’ is in relation to apostasy. The covenant is breached, but not terminated. Under contract law, the victim of a breach of a condition of a contract can either affirm the contract and sue for damages, or terminate and sue. The covenants of Abraham and David are unconditional. The last affirmation of God’s promises to Abraham before fulfilment was by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. The covenants of Abraham and David are still valid and operative, otherwise Jesus could not be in possession of the Throne of David forever. The covenant of Moses was made null at the death of Christ, not in AD70, but it was terminated because it had served its purpose, not as punishment of the Jews. As for their presence in the Land of Israel, this is a work of the Divine Mercy which remits the punishment of exile.

Michael P writes: “As for their presence in the Land of Israel, this is a work of the Divine Mercy which remits the punishment of exile.” And just what revelation do you have announcing that the punishment has been remitted? The fact of posession (some might say usurpation) hardly implies divine favor of that posession any more than the posession of that same land by the Ottoman empire implied divine favor. The assumption of an historical or geopolitical situation as evidence of divine favor is a foolhardy endeavor.

I answered my own question. There clearly is not a Bible scholar in the House.  Furthermore nobody bothered to look up my Bible references.  Well such is the nature of blogging.

@Ronald.  You’ve set yourself up a nice strawman - you’re arguing based upon Covenant theology; but no one else is.  I don’t think anyone at the UN or in International law is impressed by your references or your biblical theology…

The Scriptures as an historical artifact witness to a significant presence, in fact possession of the Biblical lands by the Jewish people - before they were unjustly dispersed by the Romans in 70AD.

If you do not find this a strong and compelling argument, then you (presuming you reside in the US and are not a Native American) ought to gather your family and hightail back to Poland or Germany or whereever you came from ...

Dan Buckley, there is a well-known private revelation, given to Sister Faustina, of the Divine Mercy for all of mankind. That includes the Jews. It would be at least rash to presume that the Divine Mercy does not remit temporal punishments due to sin, even for unbelievers, in order to give them more time to repent. What other explanation other than the Divine Mercy can you give for the fact that the Jews are living in their own state in their ancestral homeland?

Michael, would you suggest, Divine Mercy being extended to all, that the posession of much of Cyprus by the Turks is a manifestation of Divine Mercy to them? Your assumption of God’s favor toward the Jews in the land of Israel cannot be compared with the spiritual mercy extended by the Heart of Jesus. The Divine Mercy has but one aim: to draw all men into the merciful heart of Christ, not to restore earthly fortunes or to regain earthly kingdoms.

There’s an old Hebrew saying - “God writes straight with crooked lines.”  I see nothing contradictory about the possibility of God making use of secular (even if at times, misguided!) efforts toward accomplishing His greater, over-arching purposes.  This does not mean that God blesses absolutely everything Israel does. 
In the scope of things, it seems very odd to me that some people can vehemently insist that the restoration of the Jewish people - God’s chosen people (and yes, even the Pope still refers to them as “chosen”) - to their historical lands as completely and utterly meaningless after 2,000 years in exile.  Am I saying that I am certain that God is behind their restoration to the land?  No.  But I am saying that it seems very possible.
.

Maybe it’s just me, but the return of the Jews to Israel after a 2,000 year exile and after their worst earthly catastrophe ever suffered (the Holocaust) no less - strikes me as very possibly having prophetic significance, suggesting the Hand of God may be involved in some way.  At the very least, I can’t agree with those who absolutely insist to the contrary.
.

Dan -  I see no reason why this situation cannot be a “both/and” rather than an absolute “either/or”.  Perhaps the restoration of the Jews to their land is part of God’s plan to eventually restore them to “their own” olive tree – spiritually - as a people (Rm 11).  AGAIN -  this is not to say that God would necessarily bless everything Israel does.  Let’s remember – while the Bible speaks of God’s continuing and irrevocable love for His “first-born” (the Jews) “for the sake of the Patriarchs” (Rm 11) and that love continues even now,  there is also a belief found among some of the Church Fathers that the anti-Christ will arise from the Jewish people.
.
 
I suppose what I am suggesting, ultimately, is that the situation is not quite so black and white -  either on the positive side or the negative.  And, as such, we ought to proceed with a bit more caution and humility before making absolute pronouncements one way or the other.

Dan Buckley.

The answer is in the nagative, and the reason is as follows.

Jesus has, in the most excellent degree, the natural human virtue of patriotism rooted in the more fundamental virtue of piety. It belongs to the sinless perfection of His Sacred Humanity. He is a son of Israel as well as its King by dynastic right. Therefore, He exercises patriotism in particular toward that nation and to no other, and the effect of this is to draw them, at least tendentially, to their - and His - ancestral homeland. To Him in what concerns the exercise of that virtue, Turks and Cypriots are foreigners, though in what concerns His exercise of infused supernatural charity there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile before the Divine Mercy which is universal and which forgives sins and the eternal punishment due to them.

Posted by joe solan on Monday, Jun 21, 2010 3:34 PM (EST):
“One thing Ms.Helen Thomas forgot the majority of the Jews in Israel are refugees from Arabs states (Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen Turkey etc..)and most of the Palestinians are descendants of immigrates from Syria and Egypt from the 19 & 20 centuries”

here is something you might like to research….

This much is known: In the mid-eighth century, the ruling elite of the Khazars, a Turkic tribe in Eurasia, converted to Judaism. Their impetus was political, not spiritual. By embracing Judaism, the Khazars were able to maintain their independence from rival monotheistic states, the Muslim caliphate and the Christian Byzantine empire.

Governed by a version of rabbinical law, the Khazar Jewish kingdom flourished along the Volga basin until the beginning of the second millennium, at which point it dissolved, leaving behind a mystery: Did the Khazar converts to Judaism remain Jews, and, if so, what became of them?

Enter Shlomo Sand. In a new book, The Invention of the Jewish People, the Tel Aviv University professor of history argues that large numbers of Khazar Jews migrated westward into Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania, where they played a decisive role in the establishment of Eastern European Jewry.
The implications are far-reaching: If the bulk of Eastern European Jews are the descendents of Khazars—not the ancient Israelites.

the end of world two and all them “jews” from european countires returning to the homeland and kicking out the natives and corralling them in to places like Gaza and the west bank and all that has gone along with that, but we wont talk about that, we dont want to be called anti-s…. cant remember that word. anyway what was i saying. Khazars and jews, jews and Khazars. i can’t remember what i was saying. is there a law against that?

Maria said….
Posted by Maria on Wednesday, Jun 23, 2010 2:40 PM (EST):

To those of you who care about peace,  I suggest we as a people pray for the safe return of this young man to his family. He was kidnapped by Hamas four years ago today.
He has not been allowed to see his family, the red cross or have any communication with the outside and he is held by terrorists from Hamas in the worst possible conditions!

Catholics, lets pray for him and his family!

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial_opinion/editorial/time_remember_shalit

so you know for a fact that he is held by Hamas in the worse possible conditions. you must know where he is then. what about all thoes other so called “terrorists” held by the USofA in the worse possible conditions and what about all that money you all send to this poor IDF person and his Government that they used in Cast Lead opp on Gaza.

See the following on Wikipeda under ‘Khazars’: “A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that “Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level… The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”

If, and only if, Israel were to accept Christ as King would Christ exhibit the virtue if patriotism, else His “patriotism” would contradict His kingship. But the state of Israel manifestly denies such kingship and cannot thereby be favored beyond any people who accept Christ as king. Whenever we seek to assign meaning to history beyond that which God makes known we run the risk of arrogating to our human intellects the divine mentality. I do not assert that the existence of the state of Israel is contrary to God’s will, but I most certainly cannot assert that its creation is.

Not true, Dan. You suggest - verging on irreverence - that Christ doesn’t exercise the virtue of patriotism for as long as the Jews do not recognise Him. But if He did not, this would imply moral imperfection in Him. Patriotism is a virtue which He expects us to exercise in our own nations, and we could not do so in a manner pleasing to God unless Jesus exercises it first and so sanctifies it. Patriotism makes three practical demands: (1) Loyalty to one’s nation; (2) Participation in its political life; and (3) The will to seek the moral perfection of one’s people. All three are evidently present in Jesus - the second by way of His tenure of the Throne of David. It is from the Throne of David that Jesus exercises just judgement in divine and public justice with respect to unbelief on the part of Jews. This justice - which is a species of legal justice - is distinct from piety and patriotism, which are a special virtue which springs from justice as St Thomas tells us.

If participation in the political life of Israel were necessary to the human perfection of Christ, He would have shirked His responsibility in 130 A.D., as well as for all the intervening years. That verges on irreverence. You (we) cannot know the divine plan unless God Himself reveal it. When we attempt to, we write “Left Behind” books.

Dan Buckley, your reasoning is indeed flawed. The Jews were expelled from the Holy Land by the Romans because they had rebelled against Caesar, whom Jesus had ordered them to obey. Exile was the punishment which divine justice demanded for that rebellion, and on that occasion took precedence over other considerations. Christ always remained Sovereign over the Holy Land and over the Jewish people, whether in exile or not.

Again, Michael, you know the why and wherefor of the mind of God. Your assertion that patriotism is a moral virtue (as opposed to obedience to legitimate authority) is contradicted by the migrations of peoples (including Hebrews) who change patriotic allegiances, or who rebel against the injustice of the sovereign (like George III and Caesar) without incurring any guilt. I await with curiosity your (first?) book offering us more information on God’s design.

Dan, I’m fully confident that I do have the mind of God on this one, because we Catholics have the mind of Christ as St Paul said. I strongly recommend that you read Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q101 on the virtue of piety, which is the root of patriotism. As for migrations, I should know. I am a British citizen, born in the UK. My father and his father were Slovenians and my grandmother Hungarian. My mother was German and both her parents were Polish. All these nations gave me exactly what Israel gave Jesus, and what every nation gives its sons and daughters. Therefore each of us has a debt of honour which Jesus never fails to keep, though we sinners do.

Interesting to hear that you have the mind of Christ without defect. I thought that Paul urged the development of the mind of Christ (Phil, 2:5), not that he declared that Christians automatically posess it, but I defer to your superior knowledge. The mindset you evidence is precisely the same as any Protestant starting his own church: He knows without defect the mind of Christ. I suggest that you read Thomas a bit more carwefully and realize that the virtue of piety as applied to one’s country is that of a debtor. I really don’t think you wish to put Christ into that category, but perhaps you know more than we who have still to strive to attain the mind of Christ..

What in us is a debt is in Christ a moral perfection, because He is a divine Person. The only alternative is to aver that there is a virtue He lacks.

The virtue of piety(the root of patriotism) is that of a subordinate to a superior, just as the virtue of obedience is of subordinate to superior. Either you have failed to recognize this, or you have made the state of Israel superior to the Sovereign Lord. I wish you well.

Brian -  the Khazar line that you are bringing forth is nonsense often regurgitated by anti-Semites.  It’s pseudo-scientific bunk.  Google the recent genetic study done about this issue (which was done with an eye toward understanding genetic diseases peculiar to Jews, not with an eye toward debunking anti-Semitic theories).  I already posted other material on a previous article by Jimmy.  Reposting below:

Origins and Prehistory of the Khazars
(http://www.khazarsword.com/index.php?page=2&id=23)
“Some have speculated that Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars, but no genealogical records exist of Khazar ancestry to today’s Jews. Since Ashkenazi Jews make up the majority of world Jewry, such speculation is often held in conjunction with the belief that modern day Jews are not the true descendants of the Ancient Israelites, and that contemporary Jewry has no rightful claim to the land of the State of Israel. This thesis began to gain popularity among the Holocaust denial movement during the 20th century, especially after the establishment of Israel in 1948. It is also popular among groups such as the Black Hebrews, British Israelitists and others who claim Israelite descent and seek to downplay the connection between the Jewish people and their Israelite ancestors.”
“In the 1970s and 80s the Khazar theory was also advanced used by some Russian chauvinist antisemites, particularly the historian Lev Gumilyov, who portrayed “Judeo-Khazars” as having repeatedly sabotaged Russia’s development since the 7th century.

According to Bernard Lewis:  This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.”

Modern DNA studies on the Y chromosome of Jews worldwide have also discredited the Khazar origin theory for the vast majority of Jews, including the Ashkenazi.
A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that “The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.” . Researchers express surprise at the remarkable genetic uniformity they found among modern Jews, no matter where the diaspora has become dispersed around the world. Contradicting the “mongrel” theory, DNA demonstrated substantially less inter-marriage among Jews over the last 3000 years than found in other populations.
“The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism.”
Morever, “The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.” Id. And another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world’s Jewish communities are closely related to Syrians and Palestinians, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago. Id.
This study found that “The extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations observed ... supports the hypothesis of a common Middle Eastern origin.”, as does the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of at least 40% of the current Ashkenazi population. So although Khazars could possibly have been absorbed into the modern Jewish population as we know it today, it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Jews.
DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood tribe—or “Cohanim”—share a common ancestor in Israel dating back about 3000 years, 1700 years older than the Khazar conversion to Judaism. This result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.
“Using a combination of molecular genetics and mathematical analysis, the scientists arrived at an estimated date for the most recent common ancestor of contemporary Cohanim. According to this analysis, the common ancestor lived between the Exodus (approx. 1000 B.C.E) and the destruction of the first Temple (586 B.C.E.), consistent with the biblical account. Similar results were obtained based on analysis of either Sephardi or Ashkenzi communities, confirming the ancestral link of the two communities which had been separated for more than 500 years.” “To date the original high priest, the research team used a formula based on a commonly accepted mutation rate. This formula yieded some 106 generations for both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, or between 2,650 and 3,180 years, depending on whether a generation is counted as 25 or 30 years.”
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/k/Khazars.htm
In an age of genetic research and DNA we have conclusive knowledge and proof as to whether Jews, Ashkenazic or Sepharadic, born in North America or Russia or Ethiopia or Yemen, make up a distinctive people traceable back to their roots in the land of Israel.

‘Haplotypes
A haplotype is a set of closely linked genetic markers present on one chromosome, which tend to be inherited together.
Med is the most common haplotype among Jewish peoples. It is believed to have originated in the Middle East because the greatest concentrations of the Med haplotype are found among the people who live there today. It is shared by other people around the Mediterranean Basin (hence, the name). It may have been spread by farmers moving to new lands, by sea-going traders or both.
4s is the second most frequent haplotype in Jewish populations. It may have originated in East Africa and have been spread north along the Nile before entering Palestine.
Virtually all Jews came from the Middle East as evidenced by the clustering of their Y chromosomal haplotypes between Jewish groups and between Jews and non-Jewish Middle Easterners.
The existence of a priestly line of males (“Kohanim”) is shown as a distinctive set of genetic markers on the father-to-son transmitted Y chromosome. Limited variation of these markers among Kohanim males is compatible with a 3300-year-old origin in a single male or group of related males, possibly from the family of Aaron.’

source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070413074854/http://www.med.nyu.edu/pediatrics/genetics/research/jewish_origins.html as well as any and all scientific studies)  Also quoted from: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=209110&highlight=Israel

Incorrect, Dan. Patriotism in a subordinate includes obedience, so Jesus was obedient to Mary and Joseph and to his teachers when He was a boy. But patriotism is not restricted to obedience, not to subordinates. In a Sovereign it involves acting in conformity with his own laws, because the King must set a good example to his subjects and because his laws are made for his good as well as those of his subjects. The King exercises patriotism by ruling well for love of his country (for piety is a form of charity), in loyalty to it and with a view to procuring its moral perfection. Is there a theologian in the house who can butt into this discussion?

Jimmy Akin—i would like to refer to part of your letter and I quote

  ” One could thus hold the opinion that the Jewish people have a right to that land in our day, that they have a right to the land but not in our day (perhaps at the Second Coming or near it, if we are not now near it), or that they no longer have a special right to the land. Each view is permitted. ”
I understand Christians believe in Christ’s 2nd coming but the Jews do not as they do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. In that case how could the Jews ever hope to have a claim on the land? The Messiah has come already. The Jews who rejected Christ have dropped the apple so to speak.
      It really has nothing to do with land ownership in fact. It has everything to do with salvation of souls. Christians have it right.

Michael, the Church is the New Israel (CCC#877), the Kingdom over which Christ reigns. Just as the old covenant is subsumed into the new, so is the old Israel subsumed into the new. To limit Christ’s kingship (or piety)to some geopolitical entity is patently absurd. You have listened to too many infused with a dispensationalist mentality. Without denying the offspring of Abraham an exalted place in God’s plan, that place cannot be theirs until they repent their denial of Christ’s kingship.

Why must this be an either/or rather than a both/and?  The Church is spiritual Israel, but that does not of necessity completely negate the existence and relevance of Israel according to the flesh.
. 
I agree that the Old Covenant is subsumed into the new -  but part of the Old Covenant that has been subsumed into the New is God’s love for Israel according to the flesh.  That love extends to them “for the sake of the Patriarchs” - even to those who have not accepted Christ (not that this love is salvific by itself -  it must be fulfilled in and through Christ/the Church to be salvific).  See Lumen Gentium 16, below:
.

[begin quote] Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.  There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom: 9:4-5):  in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29)  [end quote]
.
Here, we see that the same people who “have not yet received the Gospel” (i.e., non-believing Jews) are nonetheless the very same Jews who are chosen by God and “most dear” to Him “for the sake of the fathers.”
It also strikes me that the imagery of “Old Israel” being subsumed into the New does not square with the imagery St. Paul uses in Romans 11.  St. Paul still calls the Olive Tree “their own” (in reference to Israel according to the flesh) and it is we (non-Jews – wild olives) who have been grafted onto “their” tree.  In this imagery, “Old Israel” has been **expanded** to include the Gentiles, rather than Old Israel being subsumed into the Church.  Perhaps it’s subtle, but there is a difference.
.
For whatever it’s worth.  Sorry, but I may not have time for more.

Dan, the Church is indeed the New Israel, but that does not cancel the election of the Old, any more than the Old Testament is no longer the word of God for the fact that we now have a new one. When did I ever limit Christ’s Kingship to a geographical area? “Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: ‘His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.’” (Pope Pius XII, Quas Primas). Jesus is given kingship, as man, in two ways. First, the kingship of David by dynastic right, which is limited to His native land and which gives Him the sovereign rights conferred by the Old Covenant. Second, the conferral of all authority in heaven and on earth. The two grants are in a certain way distinct, though inseparably united in the Person of the King.

You ask, “When did I ever limit Christ’s kingship to a geographical area?” On 24 June, 11:09 AM you wrote.” Therefore, He exercises patriotism in particular toward that nation and to no other,” You subsequently state in discussing that exclusive patriotism, ” In a Sovereign it involves acting in conformity with his own laws, because the King must set a good example to his subjects and because his laws are made for his good as well as those of his subjects. The King exercises patriotism by ruling well for love of his country (for piety is a form of charity), in loyalty to it and with a view to procuring its moral perfection.” You have clearly, by particularizing the “patriotism” of the Sovereign to “that nation and no other” limited the Kingship of Christ to a geographical area.

No, Dan, only Our Lord’s patriotism. This virtue is particular in its immediate primary object, namely the people from whom He took flesh and the land of His and His ancestors. It also extends to everyone (even if not Jewish) who is a national of the State of Israel, or of any State which might be politically organised within the Patrimony of David professing faith and allegiance to HM King David and his legitimate heirs and successors. It extends, secondarily, to everyone who is a friend or benefactor of Israel. The ultimate aim of patriotism is the exaltation of the nation under God, so that its unique gifts and genius can be put at the service of mankind as a whole. In the case of Israel, these include the supernatural good of eternal salvation.

“We have no king but Caesar.” This rejection of the Davidic kingship begets two sad ends: a)it rejects the rule of the Messianic king; b) it places the people outside the realm of David. Like the branches of the olive tree, the only recourse for being grafted back on is belief. Your separation of kingships in Christ, one for the people who reject Him, and one for those who have accepted the proclamation of the kingdom, is sadly contrived. The old covenant is subsumed into the new, not by being made void but by being completed by the new. The old kingship of David is subsumed into the full kingship of Christ, not by being made void, but in finding its fullness, a fullness that extends beyond any geopolital entity

I cannot think of any country other than Isreal where there is a discussion as to whether or not that country has a right to exist. Can you please tell me if I missed a country? Thank you.

Dan, you are correct on (a), but not on (b). Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. That means - as Cardinal Manning said - that the sourceod its authority, the fountain of its jurisdiction, the sanctions of its laws, the powers of its executive, are from His Eternal Father. They are not the grants or concessions of kings, princes, legislatures, nor do they come from the multitude by universal suffrage. They are supernatural, divine, intangible, by human control, imperishable and sovereign over all. It follows from this that the kingship of Christ, whether universal or dynastic, cannot be overthrown by rebellion or foreign invasion but will be vindicated at the Last Judgement. ‘We have no king but Caesar’ is an untruth and a treason which has no legal effect. The truth is that Israel has no King but David, and the protest that she has not is a sin which the King Himself can punish or pardon, at His sovereigh will. (PS: ‘David’ means, besides the King-Progenitor, his Throne or his successor).

Michael, it most certainly does not follow from Cardinal Manning’s assessment that His kingship applies to the dynastic, or those qualities would apply to the dynasty rather than to the person. Roboam certainly was a dynastic king, but can you say of him his reign that “the source of its authority, the fountain of its jurisdiction, the sanctions of its laws, the powers of its executive, are from His Eternal Father. They are not the grants or concessions of kings, princes, legislatures, nor do they come from the multitude by universal suffrage. They are supernatural, divine, intangible, by human control, imperishable and sovereign over all.” If you cannot apply the statement to the whole dynasty, then it is not a statement that pertains to the dynasty, but rather to the person. You are certainly correct in asserting that the statment, “We have no king but Caesar” is treasonous and unthinkable for any true Israelite. And so acceptance of the King is a necessary prerequisite for readmission to the kingdom by those who have acted traitorously. Until such time, they are left to the darkness outside where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The King forces his reign on none.

The statement does indeed pertain to the dynasty, but not necessarily for the same reason it pertains to Jesus. According to Quas Primas, Jesus has by His divine nature a necessarily absolute dominion over all things created. So it is only as man that He can be said to have been given power, authority and a kingdom. That kingship was conferred in a twofold manner. First, He was as David’s successor born King of the Jews and died as King of the Jews. Second, He announced after His Resurrection that He had been given all authority in heaven and on earth. The royal rights of His predecessors were of divine right, but could not always be vindicated and given effect because they did not always have the necessary political and military power and popular recognition. Jesus is God and therefore does not need them: His power is necessarily effecive any time He chooses to use it, which He can always do because nothing is impossible or difficult for Him. The Throne of David originally had in law a merely political foundation dependent on the existence of a state and the allegiance of the people. Shortly afterwards the prophet Nathan announced that God was fixing it on a foundation of divine disposition, confirming its sovereignty and jurisdiction and committing it to David and his sons after him. Irrespective of the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah the Crown continued to exist in law as an incorporeal hereditament until it settled on St Joseph and then on Jesus.

I should add to my previous posting that the Crown continues to exist as an incorporeal hereditament which is settled on Jesus for ever and will never pass from Him.

If you go far back enough in history, no nation is blameless concerning the oppression/relocation of others.  Irregardless of who owns the land, the Israelis control it now. How is it the Turks feel they have the right to condemn Israel after the atrocities they committed against the Armenians.  For that matter, what about the Native Americans?  Should America be forced to give them back their land?

An interesting (theological) discussion.  It should also include by what right the palestinians have a right to their land.  In any case, the legal(and thus moral) position is that Israel exists by virtue of its establishment by the international community.  The international community, thus, has an obligation to recognize, respect and treat on an equal footing the State of Israel.  Palestine, on the other hand, does not stand as a recognized state because its people would rather fight and try to destroy Israel.  They are not good stewarts of the land given to them.

One thing that the people that say that that land is the Jews in perpetuity always leave out is that there was a conditional clause on the covenant. That being “for as long as you keep the covenant”. They failed initially with the first golden calve and were exiled in the Sinai. They failed again with the second golden calve, not the best learners back then evidently.  At the end of the Babylonian exile, God added a proviso, see Zachariah Chapter 5,  that anyone that stole another’s property would be cut off from God, see the definition of sin. The Christian’s know well that Jesus was sent to warn the Jews that if they didn’t straighten up and fly right that they would be exiled again, the Roman exile.
There is another thing the “Jews in perpetuity” folks leave out is that the Jew’s were not and are not the only strong definition monotheists of that land. The first born of Abraham, Ismael , as the article points out was exiled out of malice but survived to found a separate branch of Semites. One can look in the Quran and find where God spoke of the final exile of the Jews.
This represents how peace can be obtained in the Middle East. God states in the Quran that this exile is perpetual until the Jews resume what they had been called on to do. Now taking the Palestinians’ land without their permission is stealing and therefore brings a curse on all that the modern day golem Israel. Further, under Jewish law, a state that requires Jews to break commandments invokes a condition known as “sandal straps”. In this condition, all Jewish Law becomes yehareg v’al ya’avor. This translates to “be killed but do not transgress”. In essence, Israelis should allow themselves to be killed rather than stealing the Palestinians’’ land. One brings a curse upon them, the other is mesirat nefesh.
On the other hand, if the Jews were to take up the commandment, to the satisfaction of the Muslims, then the Muslims would have to acknowledge a, shared, right to the land.  But, and this is very important, golem Israel would have to be dismantled and the land returned to the Palestinians’ by the Jews themselves for that condition to even have a beginning.  To heal the earth, justice, the ethical side of this story, must be satisfied.  Religion without heartfelt justice is a desecration of God’s name.
The Christians that support Zionism as it is practiced now need to study Mathew 18:18. You design your own afterlife in what you allow and what you prohibit. Accepting actions toward the Palestinians that you would not accept toward yourself, your children or your neighbors is to put yourself in the “not very bright” category.

Charles Jacks, there is a flaw in your argument. The death of Christ put an end to the law of Moses and to the regime of blessings and curses attached to it. Further, even if any part of it were still in force, the Divine mercy can dispense the punishment of exile. As for who owns the title to the land, it has always been publicly owned since Roman times. Provincial land belonged to the State and could be owned only on leasehold. When the Muslims conquered it, it became ‘fay’ - Arabic for ‘war booty’. This was a form of public ownership, and under Islamic law still is. This brings us to the subject of the spiritual condition of the people. Sovereignty over the Land of Israel belongs to the King, because He is the son of David. What is expected of the Jews is to bear witness concerning the Throne, that God has established it as an immovable fixture of divine right. What is expected of the Palestinians is that they discard their false religion, and with it their contempt of the Jews and the King, and become Christians.

Without questioning the right of Jesus to kingship over the land of Israel AND EVERY OTHER LAND, I submit that the proposition that the Zionist state is the expression of that kingship is a)unprovable, and b) spiritually dangerous. It is perhaps even more likely that a geopolitical entity founded upon murder and terrorism (see Irgun and Hagannah)would be in the plan of the anti-Christ, the fraud pretending to the kingship who must come before Christ establishes His triumphal kingdom.

Dan, it is evident from Scripture that - as Man - Jesus is by dynastic right the King of Israel, and that He is the King of all heaven and earth by simple conferral. The State of Israel is everlastingly subject to both Kingships whether its people and government know it or not, and whether they like it or not, and it has the objective duty to be faithful and bear allegiance to David accordingly. So must the Palestinian Authority and the rulers of Gaza, but in their case they must turn from their false religion and embrace Christianity. That Israel was founded upon murder and terrorism was debatable: the ancient Kingdom of Israel was itself founded upon war and genocide. It could equally be contended that the exigencies of human social nature demanded the establishment of a State in 1948, so that it was established by war in opposition to the illicit violence of the unbelievers who were trying to destroy her, and still do.

That it was founde upon murder and terrorism debatable? Hardly. In protest of immigration poolicies restricting Jewish immigration two ships
(the Ships were the SS Patria and the SS Struma)were sunk with the loss of more than 1000 lives. Lord LeMoyne was assasinated by the Stern gang. Additionally,14 Feb 1944. Two British policemen fatally wounded.
2 March 1944. British Police Constable shot.
23 March 1944. Chief clerk and two constables murdered at Tel Aviv district HQ. Threepolice constables murdered in the bombing of the police HQ at Haifa. One British policesuperintendent murdered in Jerusalem.
8 August 1944. During the attempted assassination of the British High Commissioner,Ten British policemen were murdered.
29 August 1944. Senior police official assassinated on his way to work.
29 Sept 1944. Assistant police superintendent murdered.
25 April 1946 Seven British soldiers murdered in their sleep in Tel Aviv.
22 July 1946 King David Hotel, housing the offices of the Secretariat of the PalestinianGovernment as well as British Army HQ was bombed, allegedly with the connivance ofDavid Ben-Gurion’s ‘Jewish Agency’. 91 Dead.
13 Nov 1946. Two British policemen murdered in bombing attacks.
18 Nov 1946. Five British soldiers murdered in bomb attacks.
21 Nov 1946. British government offices bombed. Nine casualties.
2 Dec 1946. Four British soldiers murdered in a mine blast.Christmas 1946. Police HQ bombed. Six dead.
26 Dec 1946. Four British citizens abducted and flogged.
29 Dec 1946. Three British soldiers abducted and flogged.
12 Jan. 1947. Two British policemen murdered in bomb attack.
I March 1947. Officers club in Jerusalem bombed, and other terrorist attacks resultingin 18 dead and 85 injured.
18 April 1947. British military hospital in Nathania attacked. One dead.
20 April 1947. A number of British soldiers injured in the bombing of a Red Crossdepot.
22 April 1947. Attack on a train bound for Haifa. Five Soldiers murdered, twenty-threeinjured.
26 April 1947. British policeman murdered in Haifa.
9 June 1947. Two British policemen abducted and flogged.
31 July 1947. British Sergeants Paice and Martin found hanged. Their bodies mutilatedand booby-trapped.
August 1947. Three British policemen murdered.
26 Sept 1947. Four British policemen murdered.
29 Sept 1947. Nine British policemen and four civilians murdered in Haifa.
Jan 1948. One soldier murdered and four injured.
Feb 1948. Twenty-seven British soldiers and airmen murdered, and thirty-fiveinjured in an attack on a train at Rehovath.
23 Feb 1948.Two British policemen shot in their sickbeds at Wallach hospital, and one policeman murdered in another attack in Jerusalem.
King David Hotel: 91 killed in terrorist outrage. [ Menachim Begin & his Irgun terror group admitted responsibility for the bombing.]
No, Michael, this campaing of murdern and terror is hardly debatable, far more likely the work of the anti-Christ than the design of the rightful King.

The unjust ‘support’ and condoning of the untold atrocities of Jew Israel against the Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Plaestinians, Arabs, Moslems and Easterner people by all part Jew US Presidents since 1900 has destroyed American power and Prestige throughout the world. The UIs must dump Israel or continue to screww the American people!

Dan, all of these terrorist attacks were effected before the foundation of the State of Israel, and virtually all the people who committed them have gone into the next world to answer to the King for them. British authority was collapsing. The Arabs were running around like disorganised hedless chickens. Only the Jews were in a position to establish a state of any kind. What would you have preferred? The anarchy of Somalia? John, have you been reading too much of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

And why was British authority collapsing? Because the authorities were being murdered by the terrorists.Gary Cartwright explains:“There is a common misconception that it was only after the Second World War that the Jewish population of Palestine surged, with the mass immigration of refugees from war torn Europe. And that this, coupled with attempts by the British to stem the tide, which lead to a campaign by Zionists for independence. This is not so, and to trace the roots of the Zionist campaign one has to look back to the early 20th century.
In 1918 there were some 50,000 Jews in Palestine, a figure that was steadily growing to the point that it had doubled by 1925. As early as 1921, the Palestinian Arabs lobbied Britain for a representative government in order to give them the power to veto any further immigration. Sensing growing unrest amongst the Arabs, and against a backdrop of street riots in 1921/22, British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel ordered the Suspension, Of Jewish immigration although immediately tensions cooled, it was quietly resumed. Prior to this unrest, in 1920, the ‘Haganah’, an illegal Jewish Para-military body was formed in the protectorate.
Immigration surged in 1933 with the rise to power in Germany of Adolf Hitler. Between 1933-36 the Jewish population rose from 230.000 to 400,000. On April 15th 1936 the Arabs declared a general strike, which quickly became a full-blown rebellion. It took the British authorities until October10 restore order, by which time 138 Arabs, 80 Jews, and 33 British soldiers had been killed. British attempts to resolve the problem became increasingly desperate. In 1937 a Royal Commission announced a plan to divide the mandate into two states: Galilee and the Coastal plain were to be Jewish, whilst Gaza, Sameria, South Judea and the Negev desert were to be run by the Arabs. Ever protective of their political power and commercial interests, the British would retain control of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jaffa, and Lod. The Jews agreed to this plan, seeing for themselves a foothold. But the Arabs did not. They realised that any concession to the Zionist lobby would quickly be followed by further demands and intimidation. The plan was never implemented. It was also in 1937 that Vladimir ‘Zeev’ Jabotinsky, a Zionist and a communist, formed the irgun Zvai Leumi’ (National Military Organisation). Jabotinsky and the Irgun.
Jabotinsky. Born in Odessa in 1880, and a journalist and writer of some merit, had contrived to join the British Army in the closing months of the First World War, (to what end is uncertain,) and fought alongside General Allenby’s troops. With Avraham Tehorni, Jabotinsky formed the lrgun from militant members of Haganah. lrgun’s stated aims were to force the British out of Palestine, to defeat the Arabs politically, to bring in I million Jewish settlers a year, and to colonise both banks of the River Jordan.
The Stern Gang
Following the death of Jabotinsky in 1940, (he suffered a heart attack whilst fund-raising amongst the Jewish community in New York) leadership of the Irgun fell to a recently arrived Polish immigrant, Menachim Begin. At the same time, the movement split, with a particularly vicious element breaking away under Abraham Stern and becoming known as the notorious ~Stern Gang’. The Stern Gang believed that there must be no restriction placed on Zionist expansion whatsoever, and immediately set about trying to force a change of policy by assassinating British officers. Such was Abraham Stern’s hatred of the British that he regarded Britain a greater enemy than Hitler, and opposed Jews joining in the fight against Nazism. A bizarre sentiment, but one, which gives an interesting and informative insight into Stern’s ideology. Indeed, in September 1940, the Stern gang entered into negotiations with Mussolini, through an emissary, and in January 1941 Stern personally dispatched an agent to Vichy controlled Beirut to deliver a letter to Reich officials. It was also in the Stern Gang that future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir rose to prominence, when he took control of the terror group on Stern’s death. Stern’s political extremism, attempted links with the Nazis, a string of armed robberies had earned him the contempt of most decent Jews. The British intensified their hunt for him, and tracked him down to a hideaway in Tel Aviv on Feb 12th, 1942, where he was immediately shot. There is a Hebrew word — MEKHABBEL — which describes someone who fights the state with political violence. In other words, a terrorist. Stern, Shamir and their comrades wore this badge with great pride.”
This, Michael is the background for the current state. I find it difficult to see this as the design of the King.

Just nuke the !@#$% land so no one has it! There problem solved!!!

British rule in Palestine was collapsing because the British government no longer had the will to hold on to the place. You find it difficult to see God’s providence in this? How about this: “Joshua then wrnt and wiped out the Anakimof the highlands, of Hebron, of Debir, of Anab, of all the highlands of Israel; he delivered them and their towns to the curse of destruction. No Anakim were left in the territory of the Israelites, except at Gaza, Gath and Ashdod.(Joshua 11:21-22). And how do you think the Arabs took the country in the 7th century? Peacefully?

Michael, anarchy could very easily be the will of the evil one who opposes the rule of law. Will you admit this as a possibility? Or are you so convinced that you have the mind of God without defect that you are not among those susceptible of deception? I earnestly recommend that you not defend with certainty that which may (and just as certainly may not) be a deception.

You definitely failto see God’s providence in this, Dan. Anarchy is an evil which God permits in order to draw a greater good out of it. The exigencies of man’s social nature - of which God is the Author - demand that men live in political society. So the establishment of the State of Israel - which suppressed the Stern Gang, asserted civilian control over the Haganah and forced the absorption into it of the Irgun - was the will of God. Give it up, Dan, I’ve got an answer to everything!

Of course you have, because you have the mind of Christ without defect. I suspect that those who will follow the Anti-Christ will be as convinced of the sanity of their choice as you are of your opinion. Sadly, I will just have to wait for God to inform me. I wish you well. Dialog is now impossible.

The Antichrist is he who would succeed to the Throne of David if Jesus were ever to vacate it. A characteristic of the Antichrist is that he denies that Jesus is the Messiah, or who asserts the termination of those covenants - of Abraham and David - on which the coming of the Messiah depended, and which must stand as long as He remains. I think I’ll continue this discussion with someone else now.

I feel who ever inhabited the land before, “Moses lead them to the promise land”, are the rightful owners.  If you tell me Jews were there before the left Egypt, then great let the Jews have it.  However, if there was another people there and their land was taken away, in a sad attempt to make amends to the Jews for what the Germans did to them.  Well that’s just wrong.

Not the best of arguments, Jojo. There is no rule of morality which would defeat the legitimacy of a particular state emerging on a particular territory at a particular time, though international law does deal with the exceptional occasion on which a state might be held to be illegal. See the relevant texts on this.

I am tired of reading all these angry self-righteous arguments and justifications. There has been sin on both sides. Yet you bloggers continue to focus on what is just, on who is right and who is wrong, on who has what legal or moral (by your definition) claims. What did Jesus do when confronted with a problem like this? What would Jesus do today? What is the compassionate thing to do? What would be best for the Israeli people and the non-Israeli Palestinian people? What would be best for the innocent children? I personally believe that the best thing would be for all of the other nations of the world to force the Israelis and the Palestinians into the two-state agreement that was once almost made involving splitting Jerusalem and the 1967 borders. Then place armed international troops between them and around the borders so that the agreement can be enforced. I would be willing as a Christian to give up any claim to Jerusalem in the interests of peace. What are you willing to do?

Cathy, what Jesus would do and say is the same thing He said when He walked on this earth, and what He continues tosay through His Church. Repent of your sins and believe the Good News. Believe in God, and believe also in the one He has sent.

IF IT BELONGED TO THE JEWS ONCE ITS STILL THEIRS,  IF AMERICA BELONGED TO THE INDIANS ONCE ITS STILL THEIR ..IF THE USA WAS ONCE A ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRY IS STILL SHOULD BE SO NOW THAT WE HAVW SAID IT THATS NOT THE WAY GOD WORKS AND HE SURE MUST BE LAUGHING AT OUR PLANS ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS

Simple. Back the Israelis. Don’t care what God said, the Koran, Allah or anything/anyone else. Let’s see, back the play of people who burn off the faces of their women with acid and stone them to death in the street because “well my brother raped her while I was away, therefore she disrespected me”? Not, my brother’s a slimebag rapist who deserves to be punished for raping my wife lol. Like anyone needs to look at anything else, leave them in the stone age where they clearly want/need to be. However in case you do, point 2. The only reason the stone age Arabs have any assets/currency, period, is due to oil money put in their pockets by the west.(also, as we know, it was westerners that showed them they even had oil, and what it could be used for….ya, you’re welcome! Thanks again for hating us and trying to blow us up! Yet buying luxury cars, and other western aspiritions, with your handed to you, wealth! Can you say hypocrites? lol ;0))Alternative energy is clearly the answer, then their worth drops back to zero, and they’re back to only being able to afford sling shots rather than nuclear technology. No more threat, problem solved. What surrounds Isreal you ask???= A Scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a Turtle to carry Him on his back across a river.“Are you crazy?” exclaimed the Turtle.“You’ll sting me while I’m swimming and I’ll drown.”“My dear Turtle,” laughed the Scorpion, “if I were to sting you, you would drown and I would go down with you. Now where is the logic in that?”“You’re right!” cried the Turtle. “Hop on!“The Scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the Turtle a mighty sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the Turtle resignedly said:“Do you mind if I ask you something? You said there’d be no logic in your stinging me. Then why did you do it?”“It has nothing to do with logic,” the drowning Scorpion sadly replied. “It’s just my character.“Moral of the Story: Children, be careful of whom you associate with. Regardless of who said what in which scripture, common sense should tell you who needs western support. Back Israel. Think of a world under Muslim/Arab rule??Nuff said? I thought so! ;0)

Something about this post made me make this comment. I have been reading this blog for a while now, thanks for the good times.

Anyone who doesn’t believe that Israel is entitled to their land and entitled to it today, has no understanding of prophecy.  The fact that Israel became a nation in 1948 is a super-sign that we are indeed living in the last days.  Israel is now, always has been and always be God’s chosen people. The Bible proclaims it all through the OT and the NT.  Become a student of prophecy, indeed a student of the Bible, and you will become enlightened of the role of Israel in history, and in the future.  To all who would force Israel to give up any of or all of their land for the sake of peace-this simply will not happen.  All nations who have come against Israel will one day be gathered into the valley of Jehoshaphat and there receive their judgment from God almighty and any individual who dares to speak or act against Israel risks the wrath of God.  It’s all right there in the Scriptures.