Thread: Jerusalem as Israel's capital: what's the view where you live? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020389
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
On the Trump thread, I asked this about Trump's declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel:
quote:
Reading another board suggests that in the US a) this move is not simply being supported by con-evos b) outside these boards, support by Americans for this move appears to be the default opinion. Am I completely wrong about this?
Belatedly I realise this question is not about Trump.

It's not really about rehashing the Israel/Palestine question, either (although that inevitably comes into it). It's about how this question can be perceived differently in different countries.

Am I wrong that the default opinion in the US - not just along partisan or religious lines - is that Jerusalem should be recognised as Israel's capital?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
According to this poll, 56% of people in the USA who were asked don't know.

24% agreed, 20% disagreed.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Speaking as an American who grew up fundamentalist:

I doubt that most Americans know or care much. Fund/evos may want end-times things to move along, and figure that would help.

I'm not quite sure of Jerusalem's exact legal status. I see that Wikipedia says it's the capital, but "internationally unrecognized". But why rock the boat right now?

I've sometimes thought maybe it could be made into some sort of international and sacred capital, given that it's sacred to at least three religions. Make it a holy place where *everyone* is welcome.

Unlikely.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


I'm not quite sure of Jerusalem's exact legal status. I see that Wikipedia says it's the capital, but "internationally unrecognized". But why rock the boat right now?
The consensus at the UN is that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied land.

West Jerusalem is not normally mentioned in the same breath - the implication being that it is accepted by the international community as being part of Israel.

Of course, Israel believes that Jerusalem is an indivisible, unbreakable eternal city.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The majority of Israeli government buildings; the Knesset, many ministries, the supreme court; are in West Jerusalem. So, West Jerusalem functions as the capital of Israel.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks for the info.

I've known most of this stuff, at various times. But I wind up with compassion fatigue, and complicated situation fatigue, and "are they* crazy?" fatigue, and "THOSE guys--again???" fatigue.

*They = Palestinians, Israelis, and all the other usual suspects--but mostly the first two.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans didn't know that Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as Israel's capital. If they were told that it was not recognized as such, most of them probably also would probably not know the reasons why (the 1948 vs the 1967 borders, East vs West Jerusalem, Israel's capital being Tel Aviv before 1967, the unsettled status of the borders of a future Palestinian State or the location of its capital, etc.). They may know a little bit about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli Settlements and the Wall, but probably have assumed all this time that Jerusalem was always the capital of Israel since its founding and internationally recognized as such.

So most Americans polled would probably just say, "Huh, that's odd that the US doesn't officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I suppose we should."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


I'm not quite sure of Jerusalem's exact legal status. I see that Wikipedia says it's the capital, but "internationally unrecognized". But why rock the boat right now?
The consensus at the UN is that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied land.

West Jerusalem is not normally mentioned in the same breath - the implication being that it is accepted by the international community as being part of Israel.

Of course, Israel believes that Jerusalem is an indivisible, unbreakable eternal city.
As part of the creation of Israel in 1948 Jerusalem was partitioned. "East Jerusalem" was in what was supposed to be Palestine. Israel has controlled East Jerusalem since the 1967 war and, unlike other nominally Palestinian territories controlled by Israel, the Israelis consider East Jerusalem to be annexed rather than occupied. This is an important distinction in international law. So far most other nations don't officially recognize this annexation. The Palestinian Authority still considers East Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine, complicating matters further.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The general feeling is that trumpy is doing distracting things because of the Russian probe and needing to deflect from that. What is also discussed is that this surely will result in violence and probably trumpy wants a terror incident like Bush's people prayed for in their Project for a New American Century in 1997: praying for a Pearl Harbor attack to galvanize the public and garner support, which of course he got in the 11 Sept attacks.

Perhaps it is outlandish, but I will bet they are talking about wanting some Big Distracting Attack. It is either that, or trumpy goes the way of Nixon, right?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Per the OP, what do Canadians generally think about where the capital of Israel is, NP, and does the opinion divide along party and/or religious lines?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I do think that the fact that Trump is behind it is probably driving some of the negative reaction. My impression is that the pro-Jerusalem tent is a pretty broad and motley gathering, consisting of an odd collection of rapture-ready Christians, anti-Muslim or Iran hawks, and Orthodox and left-of-center Democrat voting Conservative Jews, many of whom voted for Clinton. (If you doubt that that last group exists, consider that Chuck Schumer has been backing this for years, and many Democrats have sponsored a bill to limit government association with groups and individuals who actively support boycott / divest.)

You also have a number of younger Reformed (and probably Conservative) Jewish folks who sympathize with Palestine and oppose this move- even folks who really value having the Law of Return as a back-up plan if things where they live ever get bad. So it's a muddled coalition on either side.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Per the OP, what do Canadians generally think about where the capital of Israel is, NP, and does the opinion divide along party and/or religious lines?
Interesting you ask that, because in the 1979 election, the Tory leader Joe Clark promised to move our embassy to Jerusalem, and made that the first promise he tried to keep after being elected.

But there was a bit of an outcry, and he ended up backing off. I was only about ten at the time, and I'm not sure how populist the outcry was, or if it was just confined to the kind of people who spend a lot of time pondering and discussing the Middle East.

In any case, I would think that, if a Canadian PM proposed the same thing again, you'd say a repeat of the same backlash as in '79, whatever that was. So by extension, people are probably against Trump doing it, if only because the opinion-makers generally seem to think it's a bad idea.

[ 06. December 2017, 15:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
^ As for "party and religious lines", I would think that most politicians in the major political parties take a pragmatic, realpolitik line, eg. Isreal has a right to exist, their de facto capital is Jerusalem, but we shouldn't go whole-hog and discount Palestinian claims by moving our embassy there.

On the far right of the Conservative Party you would have US-style Christian Zionists who think we should just dive right in to the Jerusalem Is Only For Israel thing, and on the far left of the NDP, people who think we should withdraw any recognition of Israel, at least until the Palestinian issue is solved.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Sorry about the error in my earlier post. Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since its founding, although government institutions were in Tel Aviv for a time in its very early history. But all main government institutions except for the Ministry of Defense have been based in Jerusalem since well before the 1967 war.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

In any case, I would think that, if a Canadian PM proposed the same thing again, you'd say a repeat of the same backlash as in '79, whatever that was. So by extension, people are probably against Trump doing it, if only because the opinion-makers generally seem to think it's a bad idea.
Absolutely nothing that has happened in the US in the last 11 months suggests that the populace as a whole is impressed by what opinion-makers generally seem to think is a bad idea.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
FWIW I wasn't aware that states recognising other states' cities as capital cities was even a thing. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Per the OP, what do Canadians generally think about where the capital of Israel is, NP, and does the opinion divide along party and/or religious lines?
If I recall correctly, a prior Prime Minister (Joe Clark I think, about 1979 or 80) floated the idea of moving the Cdn embassy to Jerusalem and rapidly backtracked - a really bad idea. Although that is a long time ago, I think Canadians as a whole have probably moved further toward a more equal understanding of the 2 parties (okay there are more than that), I mean Israelis and Palestinians, and that we should try to stay mostly neutral and not take a side.

While it isn't universal here, the multi-cultural perspective is pretty strong: try to not take sides, and leave as is. I have heard no-one say that moving the USA embassy is a good plan. I have some say that trumpy is trolling for another fish so he can focus on something good for him versus something bad for him, as noted above. I am personally in favour of not throwing gasoline on the fire. Leave things as they are.

[ 06. December 2017, 18:22: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The UK has not, as far as I have seen, commented formally, but then we don't really have a functioning government at the moment.

This is provocative. It is wrong, and it will trash peace in the middle east. People will die as a result of this, and it will set back progress in Israel by decades.

Impeach the incompetent shit.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
The various reactions to this decision make me think working in the US Embassy in Jerusalem may turn out to be more dangerous than in Tel Aviv. I don't claim to know much about the matter.

I don't see why the U.S. should have any position at all about which city is the capitol of another country. How are we involved? Certainly, Israel is regarded as a strategic partner of the U.S. in the region, but how does that involve us in their internal politics?

A side issue: As I understand it, in Old Testament times, the country was divided into the north and south kingdoms, and Jerusalem was the capitol of only one of the two. If Jerusalem is now regarded as the capitol of the entire country, does this represent a victory of south over north?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

In any case, I would think that, if a Canadian PM proposed the same thing again, you'd say a repeat of the same backlash as in '79, whatever that was. So by extension, people are probably against Trump doing it, if only because the opinion-makers generally seem to think it's a bad idea.
Absolutely nothing that has happened in the US in the last 11 months suggests that the populace as a whole is impressed by what opinion-makers generally seem to think is a bad idea.
Just to be clear, I was referring to the Canadian reaction to Trump's plan, not the American reaction.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
HCH:

quote:
I don't see why the U.S. should have any position at all about which city is the capitol of another country. How are we involved?
Well, at the very least, you have to have an embassy in the country. And if you recognize one particular city as the capital, the next logical step is to out your embassy there. Otherwise, the people who support that city being the capital will think that you're recogniztion isn't worth anything.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
No Prophet wrote:

quote:
If I recall correctly, a prior Prime Minister (Joe Clark I think, about 1979 or 80) floated the idea of moving the Cdn embassy to Jerusalem and rapidly backtracked - a really bad idea.
Well, he did a bit more than float the idea. It was an actual campaign promise, and like I said, the first one he attempted to fulfill. You're correct that the backtrack kicked in pretty quickly.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The location of an embassy shouldn't necessarily reflect views on the legitimacy of a claim to a particular city being the capital. It could simply be convenience. It's normal to want your ambassador to have easy access to members of the government of your host country, that usually means an embassy in the city where that government operates.

So, since the main Israeli government buildings are in West Jerusalem having an embassy in West Jerusalem has something going for it. Of course, these days security is also an issue and it may be safer to have the embassy somewhere else. Tel Aviv is probably as secure as anywhere.

A compromise could be a consulate in West Jerusalem, with the ambassador visiting regularly.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I don't see why the U.S. should have any position at all about which city is the capitol of another country. How are we involved? Certainly, Israel is regarded as a strategic partner of the U.S. in the region, but how does that involve us in their internal politics?
One of the key issues is that Trump is declaring Jerusalem the "undivided" capital of Israel- that's not just a statement of the fact that the Israeli government has all of its offices in the city, it is a declaration that all of Jerusalem, even parts that were not originally partitioned off to Israel and used to be part of Jordan, are now part of Israel. So it legitimizes territorial claims that are hotly disputed.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Misc. comments--

--From what I heard on NPR today (mostly just after T's speech), there's already a US consulate in Jerusalem. Don't know which part.

--Re why what the US says about Israel's internal politics matters:

Rightly or wrongly, and painting with a very broad brush, the US protects Israel. You might think of it as a picked-on kid keeping a big kid on hand to scare away the bullies. Though this particular picked-on kid is far from helpless, ISTM.

I *think* the US has sometimes held Israel back, a little, from some of the more catastrophic things it's talked about doing.

--A commentator on NPR today said that end-times stuff is a big factor in Evangelical support. Not just my opinion, then. [Biased]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The location of an embassy shouldn't necessarily reflect views on the legitimacy of a claim to a particular city being the capital. It could simply be convenience. It's normal to want your ambassador to have easy access to members of the government of your host country, that usually means an embassy in the city where that government operates.

So, since the main Israeli government buildings are in West Jerusalem having an embassy in West Jerusalem has something going for it. Of course, these days security is also an issue and it may be safer to have the embassy somewhere else. Tel Aviv is probably as secure as anywhere.

A compromise could be a consulate in West Jerusalem, with the ambassador visiting regularly.
Er, no. There is a whole bunch of protocol involved in this.

Charles de Gaulle made a tour of Québec in 1967, he arrived in Canada aboard a French Navy cruiser at Québec City. The Citdadelle provided the customary 21 gun salute, but the French ship did not respond with seven volleys, as protocol requires. It was a bad omen.

De Gaulle proceeded to Montréal where he utter his infamous "Vivre le QUébec libre" line on the balcony of Montréal's City Hall. He was promptly asked to leave the country.

Ever since Canada has insisted that all visiting heads of state set foot in Ottawa first before going anywhere else.

So yes, there are a myriad of insults that can be dreamt up with with capitals, embassies and heads of state.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ricardus--

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I wasn't aware that states recognising other states' cities as capital cities was even a thing. [Hot and Hormonal]
I don't think it happens often. Usually, the problem is recognizing a country, perhaps after a revolution. And what to call it--like Burma becoming Myanmar.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Technically, the US Congress passed a law that declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel and directed the president to move the embassy there in 1995. It did give the presidents an out, by allowing the president to sign a waiver allowing the embassy to stay in Tel Aviv.

This president just decided not to sign the waiver.

But the chances are it will take longer than four years for the embassy to actually move to Jerusalem. I think if the Democrats win in 2020 the move will be canceled.

Personally, I am against it. We will regret it if it goes through.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, I was surprised to hear about the waiver today. I didn't remember T's campaign promises, so I wondered if maybe he actually *looked* at the waiver when it was given to him to sign, and asked "What's this?"
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Jerusalem is a beautiful city, precious to three faiths, there is an ancient magic to East Jerusalem I had in the short period I was there.

The decision made by the current occupant in the White House will bring more pain, and hardship to the beloved City.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
From what I heard on NPR today (mostly just after T's speech), there's already a US consulate in Jerusalem. Don't know which part.
An old Reformed Jewish friend posted a handful of links this afternoon from Jewish authors and organizations against the move (apparently only 15% of American Jews are actually for it).

This one, from a Reformed rabbi living in Jerusalem, is an entertaining look at the dividing line between East and West Jerusalem, and why moving the embassy would be an explicit endorsement of controversial Israeli land claims.

Apparently the new consulate is actually located directly on the old green line that the Palestinians consider to be the last legal border. So it would actually be, in some eyes, a land grab on its own.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
SPK wrote:

quote:
Charles de Gaulle made a tour of Québec in 1967, he arrived in Canada aboard a French Navy cruiser at Québec City. The Citdadelle provided the customary 21 gun salute, but the French ship did not respond with seven volleys, as protocol requires. It was a bad omen.

De Gaulle proceeded to Montréal where he utter his infamous "Vivre le QUébec libre" line on the balcony of Montréal's City Hall. He was promptly asked to leave the country.

Ever since Canada has insisted that all visiting heads of state set foot in Ottawa first before going anywhere else.
Which might explain Mitterand's Vive Le Canada speech to Parliament in 1987.

(Well, that and he probably didn't want Quebec hitting him up for cash in the event of their declaring independence with neither Canada nor Wall Street having any interest in financing their national project.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


--From what I heard on NPR today (mostly just after T's speech), there's already a US consulate in Jerusalem. Don't know which part.
It's in East Jerusalem.

The British and the Americans have had consul-general in Jerusalem since the 1840s. I'm not sure about other countries.

As far as I could understand from the British C-G when I went there, the building is long established and British owned since long before the creation of the state of Israel. I don't know about the USA's C-G, but I suspect it might be a similar situation.

So basically there is a diplomatic zone in East Jerusalem with diplomatic missions to the Palestinans. They are there to promote British/US interests in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. If you have some issue or business interest within the area of that covered by the Palestinian Authority, or in East Jerusalem, you need to speak to the staff in East Jerusalem - it is more-or-less an embassy in all but name, and the chief is a diplomat of Ambassador level - even though the job is not given that designation.

Because, y'know, political sensitivities.

There is a paper-wall between the operations of the C-G in East Jerusalem and the Embassy in Tel Aviv. Up to now, the British C-G (for example) has had a direct line to London and not via the Embassy in Tel Aviv.

Were Trump to upgrade the East Jerusalem C-G to become an Embassy to Israel, there would be serious ramifications for everyone. I can't really imagine that this is on the agenda, so presumably there will be some nonsense of having two diplomatic missions on either side of the invisible line in Jerusalem.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Oh yeah - also, they're a visa issuing operation. So if you're Palestinian with a Palestinian passport (or a resident-of-Jerusalem without a nationality, of which there are a large number), you're supposed to apply for travel permission in East Jerusalem.

Which is interesting, given that large numbers of Palestinians in the West Bank, never mind Gaza, can't get to East Jerusalem.

It's easier for many West Bank Palestinians to get to Amman in Jordan than to get to E-J, so in practice most travel actually goes from there.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


I *think* the US has sometimes held Israel back, a little, from some of the more catastrophic things it's talked about doing.
I more than *think* this. The USA donates a lot of funds to Israel and has acted many times to prevent the most rabid actions of the Israeli hard-cases who have the ear of Bibi's government.

It is possible to lay some of the blame for the situation at the door of the USA, of course. But I think it is fairly obvious which direction the situation would have taken had the USA (and to a lesser extent the EU, UK and others) not stood in the way.

I also think the reverse is true. Had the USA not been able to force participants to the table (usually by threatening to withdraw funds and donations), the Israeli state would have been crushed.

It is an uncomfortable diplomatic position to be in. The presence is, to some extent, encouraging the Israeli sense of being an expanding settler state expanding into the wilds. And the US's lack of will to make statements about settlement building is taken as a tacit support of the project. At the same time, it is certainly able to more-or-less ensure that the status quo continues.

Upsetting that balance by obviously tilting the seesaw towards Israel is madness.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And what to call it--like Burma becoming Myanmar.
for a long time (all of my life until recently certainly) the British govt and indeed the BBC referred to it as Burma, because the change to Myanmar had been done by what was regarded as an illegitimate regime which therefore did not (and could not) have the legal competency to have changed the name of the country.

Recently, since limited "democratic" reforms, it's all been "Myanmar" without (AFAIK) any new legislation having gone through the Burmese parliament.

Tricky stuff, language.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
I have long known about the eschatological reasons why many Christian Zionists support actions like Trump's but after 9-11 and all the anti-Muslim fervor that has spread among some Christian Conservatives in the US, is it possible at all that some are happy to see implicit US support for Israeli claims to East Jerusalem and elsewhere because it make sure that more of the Holy Land is NOT controlled by Muslims?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I have long known about the eschatological reasons why many Christian Zionists support actions like Trump's but after 9-11 and all the anti-Muslim fervor that has spread among some Christian Conservatives in the US, is it possible at all that some are happy to see implicit US support for Israeli claims to East Jerusalem and elsewhere because it make sure that more of the Holy Land is NOT controlled by Muslims?
I think possibly the reverse is true: some seem intent on provoking Armageddon.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
East Jerusalem and elsewhere because it make sure that more of the Holy Land is NOT controlled by Muslims?
I think some are of the mindset that anything that pisses off the Muslims must be a good thing - certainly if I look on some of the comments on social media.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
OTOH, and to get back to national attitudes, the reason the French government is très unhappy is that a large plank of French foreign policy can be summed up as Don’t Piss Off the Arabs™.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I have long known about the eschatological reasons why many Christian Zionists support actions like Trump's but after 9-11 and all the anti-Muslim fervor that has spread among some Christian Conservatives in the US, is it possible at all that some are happy to see implicit US support for Israeli claims to East Jerusalem and elsewhere because it make sure that more of the Holy Land is NOT controlled by Muslims?
I think possibly the reverse is true: some seem intent on provoking Armageddon.
I think a flow-chart would probably go like this...

Muslims bad for opposing Israel...

Israel good because it fulfills biblical prophecies about Jews...

Jews good if they convert to Christianity before the Second Coming...

Jews bad, and I mean, REALLY bad, like burning-in hell-covered-with-maggots-forever bad, if they don't convert before the Second Coming.

So, basically, anti-Islamism, in service of philo-Israelism, which in turn sets the stage for cosmological anti-semitism(since the only saved Jews are the ones who essentially give up being Jewish).

Meanwhile, over in Israel, the Likudniks are laughing their heads off about it. "Hey, you see what they got those bible-thumpers believing about us NOW?! Ha ha! Oh well, whatever keeps the cheques coming in."
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Also, Muslims bad; Arabs bad. Peace bad, war good. Money good, pussy good.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Not sure about that; I see a lot of evangelicals having a sort of "Jews covered under old covenant so don't need to convert" "get out of jail free card" exemption from their otherwise "Accept Jesus or burn forever in Hell" theology.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I wondered last night if Israel earlier this century would have renounced the special privileges granted to its Jewish citizens (notably the Right of Return) and extended full Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank and Gaza, if this whole mess would have been averted and lives would have been saved.

One striking thing I learned when I was there was from a Palestinian who told me that it's really an issue of fairness and equal civil rights. If Israel granted his people that, he didn't care if the country was named 'Israel' or 'Palestine'.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not sure about that; I see a lot of evangelicals having a sort of "Jews covered under old covenant so don't need to convert" "get out of jail free card" exemption from their otherwise "Accept Jesus or burn forever in Hell" theology.
Yeah, I think there are some variations on that among evangelicals. When it comes to premillenial eschatology however, the version I usually hear has Jews who don't convert staying unsaved.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wondered last night if Israel earlier this century would have renounced the special privileges granted to its Jewish citizens (notably the Right of Return) and extended full Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank and Gaza, if this whole mess would have been averted and lives would have been saved.

One striking thing I learned when I was there was from a Palestinian who told me that it's really an issue of fairness and equal civil rights. If Israel granted his people that, he didn't care if the country was named 'Israel' or 'Palestine'.
No, Israel can't afford to empower Palestinians, treat them for equal outcomes; fairness. It's a crime for them even to have solar power. The cost in identity would be too high. As it is for all of us.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wondered last night if Israel earlier this century would have renounced the special privileges granted to its Jewish citizens (notably the Right of Return) and extended full Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank and Gaza, if this whole mess would have been averted and lives would have been saved.
We wouldn't be in this mess, but I strongly suspect we'd be in a mess. Albeit a different one.

quote:
One striking thing I learned when I was there was from a Palestinian who told me that it's really an issue of fairness and equal civil rights. If Israel granted his people that, he didn't care if the country was named 'Israel' or 'Palestine'.
Yes. I genuinely believe that the majority of Palestinians are now more interested in having-a-life-worth-living rather than asserting a political agenda about nationhood. The reason that they're now talking about the nation is because everything else has failed and they don't have anything else to play with.

But it wasn't always thus. The realisation that their only hope was to assert their rights as human beings has only come along quite late in the game.

[ 07. December 2017, 14:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No, Israel can't afford to empower Palestinians, treat them for equal outcomes; fairness. It's a crime for them even to have solar power. The cost in identity would be too high. As it is for all of us.
Quite a number of Israelis believe that allowing Palestinians anything is going to somehow have negative impacts on them, and that this is a price they're not prepared to pay.

There is too much invested in their militarised society, the only option that makes any sense for them is to keep going with the status quo.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O what a surprise....

[Disappointed]

Nice one, O Avatar of Satan.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wondered last night if Israel earlier this century would have renounced the special privileges granted to its Jewish citizens (notably the Right of Return) and extended full Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank and Gaza, if this whole mess would have been averted and lives would have been saved.
This has long been a non-starter for most Israeli governments, particularly right wing Israeli governments. The self-conception of Israel is as a Jewish homeland and Jewish state. They don't mind giving citizenship and rights to some Muslim Arab Palestinians, but they draw the line at anything that would make Israel anything other than a Jewish majority nation. Green Line Israel still has a Jewish majority. Green Line Israel plus the West Bank would also be majority Jewish, but barely. Green Line Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza is pretty close to 50/50 Jewish/non-Jewish, and population growth is going the "wrong" way from an Israeli perspective. The demographics were always against this idea.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, Muslims bad; Arabs bad. Peace bad, war good. Money good, pussy good.
You forgot 'oil good'
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Never mind.

If it all goes pear-shaped, we Uklanders can do as we usually do, and Send A Gunboat.

[Roll Eyes]

And the bloody thing only cost about three BILLION quid!

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Never mind.

If it all goes pear-shaped, we Uklanders can do as we usually do, and Send A Gunboat.

[Roll Eyes]

And the bloody thing only cost about three BILLION quid!

[Mad]

IJ
Still. We don't have much of a space programme, so at least we won't be looking for salvation on the moon. That's something.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Meanwhile, somewhere in the Middle East, in a dusty house down a quiet street, surviving cadres of IS are meeting to discuss recent defeats. The mood is sombre - recruitment has been falling, financial subventions also. But another member enters the room, and switches on the TV, where a giant orange moon is visible. It speaks - about Jerusalem.

The mood in the room begins to change. A way forward in terms of recruitment and financial donations becomes clearer; plans can be drawn up to invite new members in various countries. Trump has saved the day!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
FYI: The UN has called a Security Council meeting for today to discuss T's helpful (not) action.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I read an opinion piece in Haaretz (Israeli newspaper) that said that foreign embassies to Israel should move to West Jerusalem when foreign embassies to Palestine can move to East Jerusalem. I'm sorry I read the article on my phone and can't find a link.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting article in the Irish Times, basically saying that Trump has in one fell swoop, undermined the US place in any peace negotiations. 'It has moved the US to the foreign policy fringe.' I've no idea if this is correct, but it makes sense. Why would anyone trust the US, if they can throw over decades of agreement on Jerusalem?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/jerusalem-us-policy-moves-towards-the-fringe-1.3319161
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
I wonder if Trump can do a reversal on this, similar to the way he reversed himself on revisiting the One China policy. If he were to still pay lip service to the change, but find a way to delay it indefinitely like previous presidents have done, would his true-believers see through the charade?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting article in the Irish Times, basically saying that Trump has in one fell swoop, undermined the US place in any peace negotiations. 'It has moved the US to the foreign policy fringe.' I've no idea if this is correct, but it makes sense. Why would anyone trust the US, if they can throw over decades of agreement on Jerusalem?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/jerusalem-us-policy-moves-towards-the-fringe-1.3319161
I'm not sure that anyone trusts great powers; they will shift and change as they see fit. However, other countries are likely wondering why on earth President Trump gave away one of his best cards even before sitting down to play (forgive the gambling metaphor). He has just undercut his own ability to achieve anything on the Palestine/Israel question. I wonder what his son-in-law thinks of this....
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I wonder what his son-in-law thinks of this....
Both Jared and Ivanka have made it quite clear that they are more than willing to get into bed with antisemites and misogynists. They made their bargain with the devil, and have collected their huuuuge paychecks in return. It's a bit late for either of them to feign interest in how these policies affect the Middle East. If Jared-the-Silent choose to speak out, it will have that same golden* ring of truth as when Ivanka comes out against misogyny and cyber bullying.


*(as in "golden shower")
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
To be fair, many Arabs if not most, have long believed that the United States was never an honest broker in the Middle East, clearly preferring Israel over Palestine. Even the Democrats make no secret of their support for Israel.

Indeed some have argued that Oslo, Bill Clinton's foreign policy accomplishment, was simply cover for Israel to continue her settlement construction, and intrusion into the West Bank and Gaza, while giving limited authority to the PLO and rhetorically proclaiming that peace among two sides have advanced.

So, the only silver lining is that to the Arabs, at least the United States is not pretending any more. America is Israel's cheerleader, and doesn't give a flying toss about the Palestinians.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting article in the Irish Times, basically saying that Trump has in one fell swoop, undermined the US place in any peace negotiations. 'It has moved the US to the foreign policy fringe.' I've no idea if this is correct, but it makes sense. Why would anyone trust the US, if they can throw over decades of agreement on Jerusalem?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/jerusalem-us-policy-moves-towards-the-fringe-1.3319161
I'm not sure that anyone trusts great powers; they will shift and change as they see fit. However, other countries are likely wondering why on earth President Trump gave away one of his best cards even before sitting down to play (forgive the gambling metaphor). He has just undercut his own ability to achieve anything on the Palestine/Israel question. I wonder what his son-in-law thinks of this....
Because he knew he never could achieve anything worthwhile. It can't be achieved. So he achieved domestic political capital.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
To be fair, many Arabs if not most, have long believed that the United States was never an honest broker in the Middle East, clearly preferring Israel over Palestine. Even the Democrats make no secret of their support for Israel.

[snip]

So, the only silver lining is that to the Arabs, at least the United States is not pretending any more. America is Israel's cheerleader, and doesn't give a flying toss about the Palestinians.
As argued by Khouri in yesterday's Haaretz.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not sure about that; I see a lot of evangelicals having a sort of "Jews covered under old covenant so don't need to convert" "get out of jail free card" exemption from their otherwise "Accept Jesus or burn forever in Hell" theology.
Yeah, I think there are some variations on that among evangelicals. When it comes to premillenial eschatology however, the version I usually hear has Jews who don't convert staying unsaved.
In the interest of providing an example, the climax to this Jack Chick comic makes it clear that most Jews will be annihilated in the last days, and also(via the conversion of the cab driver), that Jews who remain without Christ will burn in hell.

I'd imagine the less-fringey sections of the pre-mil movement are reluctant about preaching the eternal damnation of their Jewish allies, and would try to square the circle with the old-covenant Get Out Of Jail Free card.

[ 09. December 2017, 06:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
To be fair, many Arabs if not most, have long believed that the United States was never an honest broker in the Middle East, clearly preferring Israel over Palestine. Even the Democrats make no secret of their support for Israel.

[snip]

So, the only silver lining is that to the Arabs, at least the United States is not pretending any more. America is Israel's cheerleader, and doesn't give a flying toss about the Palestinians.
As argued by Khouri in yesterday's Haaretz.
The more I read Ha'aretz the more I find it a sane voice in the madness.

The problem here, methinks, is that the more hotheaded elements on the Palestinian side can now say "there's no hope in Western powers for us, we have to take control of our own destiny and damn their eyes!" with even more credibility. More rockets, more over-reaction from Israel, more conflict, more death, more claim and counter claim. And we all know who'll be carrying theie dead children out of the wreckage, as ever.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Karl wrote:

quote:
The more I read Ha'aretz the more I find it a sane voice in the madness.
It's been noted by numerous observers that Ha'aretz, along with other mainstream Israeli media, gets away with saying stuff that would be denounced as slanderous anti-Israeli(or indeed, anti-semitic) propaganda if said in the US.

I've heard this attributed not so much to the Israeli media being pro-Palestinian, but rather that, in a country where everyone knows the history, there isn't much point in trying to censor or sugarcoat your reporting.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I read an opinion piece in Haaretz (Israeli newspaper) that said that foreign embassies to Israel should move to West Jerusalem when foreign embassies to Palestine can move to East Jerusalem. I'm sorry I read the article on my phone and can't find a link.
How about a single embassy compound on the boundary to save money - one gate to the west for dealing with Israel, another to the east for Palestine. With a big conference room in the middle for people to talk. A line of embassy buildings would be a better border than a wall.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Like that peace conference building straddling the N. Korean/S. Korean border?

[ 10. December 2017, 05:41: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I still find the "now armageddon can commence" stuff to assume that God was waiting for the crazed leader of a tin-pot, atheist, jonny-come-lately country to declare that he thought Jerusalem was the capital of Israel before he could act.

That is hubris-extreme. That is unbelievable arrogance. Especially as (as others have said) previous presidents have said the same. But he did it deliberately to promote strife and trouble.

Yes, there should be organisation in the Middle East. There should be clear boundaries, clear borders, clear capitals, no fighting. But that is a dream, and doesn't happen just because someone says it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I do indeed hope the Christian God has more sense than to wait for 'the crazed leader of a tin-pot, atheist, jonny-come-lately country'.....not to mention the said leader's egregious toadies and lickspittles.

If not, then I intend to transfer my allegiance.

Enlil seems a good bet.

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd imagine the less-fringey sections of the pre-mil movement are reluctant about preaching the eternal damnation of their Jewish allies, and would try to square the circle with the old-covenant Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Not Romans 11:26?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd imagine the less-fringey sections of the pre-mil movement are reluctant about preaching the eternal damnation of their Jewish allies, and would try to square the circle with the old-covenant Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Not Romans 11:26?
Only if it's interpreted as "you must accept Jesus or it's the rotisserie for you, unless you're Jewish, in which case you're in anyway" - which is the Get Out Of Jail Free card I was referring to.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I was confused by "old-covenant" GOoHF. Thinking it referred to something in the OT and not Paul.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think Cliffdweller is being disingenuous. An attack on Dispensationalism is hardly a blanket attack on evangelicalism as a whole.

Although one could argue that the fact that all Dispensationalists and whacky eschatological speculators tend to be fundamentalists of some form or other, is itself an indictment on the more conservative end of the evo spectrum.

That said, I have some sympathy with Kaplan's challenge on this thread insofar as I don't think Trump nor the majority of his supporters - Dispensationalist or otherwise - would see this as a means to hasten Armageddon.

It's simpler than that.

It's more a case of them supporting their biggest ally in the Middle East whilst sticking two fingers up at the UN and the rest of the world - and particularly at the Palestinians and the Arab nations.

It's also a way to bolster Trump's cachet with his particular constituency, of showing Putin who has the biggest balls and of distracting attention from internal problems.

In other words, it's about Real Politick.

The fact that hairy-arsed Red Necks in Alabama are getting off on it is incidental. In the same way as any deaths that result on either side if another Intifada breaks out will be dismissed or overlooked as eggs that have to be broken in order to make an omelette.

That omelette, of course, is the maintenance of US hegemony and influence in the Middle East.

'America First! America First! Fuck everybody else ...' (unless they are useful to the America First agenda of course, as Israel is.

I might be naive but I'd like to see a Two State solution but am aware of the intractable issues on both sides.

Kaplan keeps reminding us of barbarism and Islamo-fascism. Rightly so. That exists.

The issue though is how to address and tackle that whilst at the same time recognising the legitimate grievances of a people who have been disenfranchised since 1948 and let down by almost everyone including the Arab states as well as the West.

Of course,they don't matter.

What matters to Trump is Donald Trump. And yes, he's not the first POTUS to have pushed for this. Nor will he be the last.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Doncha know, Gamaliel? They're not "legitimate grievances" because Palestinians are evil murdering bastards who'd kill everyone if the IDF didn't hold them in check. Apparently.

Personally I think the two-state is second best, over a single democratic state where being a Jew, Palestinian or anything else is irrelevant. The idea of a "Palestinian state" or a "Jewish state" just fuels racism. You've only got to think of Britian First style loonies who talk about deporting Muslims because the UK is a "White" country or a "Christian" country.

[ 11. December 2017, 09:01: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Indeed some have argued that Oslo, Bill Clinton's foreign policy accomplishment, was simply cover for Israel to continue her settlement construction, and intrusion into the West Bank and Gaza, while giving limited authority to the PLO and rhetorically proclaiming that peace among two sides have advanced.
According to the play Oslo, which has programme notes from Mona Juul, one of the Norwegian diplomats involved, the USA was kept out of the Oslo talks until an agreement was reached, when the Accord was signed on the White House lawn with Clinton present.

The Oslo process, a series of talks, occurred in 1993, alongside the Washington peace talks, and was highly secret and deniable. Rod-Larsen suggested that the model of talks at the time were bound to fail because everything was put on the table, whereas a better model would be to start debating one area, agree that, then move on to another. Initially the Israelis sent academics, Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundack, professors of economics, to talk to the Palestinians, Ahmed Qurie, the Palestinian Finance Minister, and Hassan Asfour, official PLO liaison. When Uri Savir, the director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, started taking part, he would arrive via Paris, having set up a cover story there. The talks were facilitated by Mona Juul's husband,Terje Rod-Larsen, a sociologist. The last words from Mona Juul in the play are wondering about how much good they really did - along with the other characters describing their fate.

Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister involved in the Oslo Accords, was assassinated by an Israeli right-winger at a peace rally in 1995, because he was identified with this peace process.

Seeing the play on Saturday, I was struck by how often Jerusalem became a sticking point. It was left as a unresolved issue in the Accords, which were not a formal agreement, but an agreement to discuss further. Where the Oslo Accords broke ground was involving the PLO in talks with Israel and the PLO acknowledging the legitimacy of the State of Israel, which allowed Yasser Arafat and the PLO to move back to Gaza from Tunis. The use of Israeli academics allowed talks to take place without compromising either Peres or Rabin whose relationship had been confrontational, both fighting for the leadership role.

[ 11. December 2017, 09:08: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's more a case of them supporting their biggest ally in the Middle East whilst sticking two fingers up at the UN and the rest of the world - and particularly at the Palestinians and the Arab nations.
.. and above all, Muslims.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I think the Oslo Accords were the closest we got to peace in the Middle East. The creation of a Palestinian-controlled entity with even limited autonomy was a major achievement in a situation that had gone precisely nowhere since the six day war. That Israel withdrew from territory and destroyed settlements to comply with the Accords was amazing to me at the time. I still remember watching settlers being dragged away from a settlement in Gaza by soldiers on the TV.

I pray that the parties might grope their way towards peace again. The omens are not good, but I pray for a resolution anyway. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[ 11. December 2017, 13:14: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I also remember weeping when Rabin was assassinated.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, I'd like to see a single democratic state where it doesn't matter whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian or whatever else ... but we're far from that.

Sure, there's freedom of religion in Israel but it's certainly not a level playing field.

And yes, it's not as if the neighbouring countries are any better when it comes to that sort of thing - and in the case of some Arab States like Saudi Arabia ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, you're not alone, simontoad.

You've just reminded me, with your reference to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, that I was at university and a newly converted evangelical when Anwar Sadat.

A visiting speaker at a Christian Union meeting the following week alluded to it in almost gleeful terms as if it somehow showed some kind of outworking of God's eschatological plan for the Middle East - although he didn't explain how.

A number of CU stalwarts, including the executive, were somewhat put out by this and the guy back-pedalled a bit when subsequently asked to explain himself.

Kaplan Corday keeps wondering why some of us here react against various forms of conservative evangelicalism.

Because of tossers like that, that's why ...

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That should, of course, have read, 'when Anwar Sadat was assassinated.'
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And the corollary, of course, is that the reason why some of us stuck with evangelicalism was because there were voices (such as our CU's exec) that were prepared to challenge tossers like that from time to time.

No Christian tradition has a monopoly on tossers.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You've just reminded me, with your reference to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, that I was at university and a newly converted evangelical when Anwar Sadat.
I read a book "proving" that Sadat was the Antichrist. It somehow had lost force as he'd been dead for a year when I read it.

I've never been (much of a) one for "working out endtime prophecy" - eat your heart out, Hal Lindsey.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, my experience was that Baptists (in the UK at least) were a lot less hung up on all that malarkey than Pentecostals and Brethren were.

It's difficult to generalise though. My evangelical Anglican mother-in-law had all sorts of whacky ideas about Israel and the End Times and used to subscribe to all sorts of wierd and wonderful newsletters where revivalism and end-time speculation ran riot.

She's still with us but has Alzheimer's so we don't get so much of that these days.

In some ways she was quite Anglican but when it came to eschatology and so on she was almost a raving Pentie or ultra-literal Plymouth Brother (or Sister).

I suspect she must have picked all this stuff up from inter-church study groups and prayer groups where someone or other would inspire (and infect) the rest of the group with their wierd enthusiasms.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, I have some sympathy with Kaplan's challenge on this thread
I haven't posted on this thread.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Then it must have been on the eschatological thread.

My point remains though.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's difficult to generalise though. My evangelical Anglican mother-in-law had all sorts of whacky ideas about Israel and the End Times and used to subscribe to all sorts of wierd and wonderful newsletters where revivalism and end-time speculation ran riot.
I wonder if some of these beliefs are generational in some way and historically contingent around movements being present at the founding of the state of Israel.

To cross streams for a moment (with the eschatological thread), I've seen some support for this move from charismatics/evangelicals who believe that its necessary for the Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and see this as making things more likely.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I hate the mormons, even though I have a copy of their book. I think I hate them to the point of being prejudiced, which is why I think I'm reacting in a prejudiced way when my blood boils at the sight of their ugly institution on Mount Scopus. They should fuck off back to Utah.

I'm not yet at the point of wanting to get rid of this prejudice, but maybe I should get there. I have another self-improvement project on the go right now.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that's right, Chris Stiles. Also, in the 1960s when the charismatic thing gained traction in the CofE, early-adopters like my mother-in-law started rubbing shoulders with Pentecostalists and Brethren / independent evangelicals who were moving in a charismatic direction.

My guess would be that my mum-in-law imbibed it all from itinerant speakers and revivalist literature. I was only young at the time but I remember the effect the 1967 Israeli victory had at the time and a decade or so later I came across the detailed speculations it had helped to fuel among the Brethren band Penties.

The 'new churches', of course, reacted against this sort of thing and were very much against eschatological speculation involving Israel and the End-Times as they were against Dispensationalism etc.

I've ever seen it suggested by evangelicals with a penchant for Israel and Zionism that the reason the 'new churches' eventually plateaued was due to their erroneous stance on Israel ... The idea being that the more pro-Israel you are, the more the Lord will 'bless' your cause. Therefore, the reverse must also be the case.

I don't hear a great deal from independent charismatic and evangelical circles these days, but I do detect a swing towards the kind of eschatological schemas that we'd have rejected back in the day.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've ever seen it suggested by evangelicals with a penchant for Israel and Zionism that the reason the 'new churches' eventually plateaued was due to their erroneous stance on Israel ... The idea being that the more pro-Israel you are, the more the Lord will 'bless' your cause.
Yes, usually stemming from their interpretation of Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you .."). I've also run into a few people whose spirituality was formed in that era who will interpret every economic/political even through that prism even where it seems somewhat incongruous.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I've ever seen it suggested by evangelicals with a penchant for Israel and Zionism that the reason the 'new churches' eventually plateaued was due to their erroneous stance on Israel ... The idea being that the more pro-Israel you are, the more the Lord will 'bless' your cause.
Yes, usually stemming from their interpretation of Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you .."). I've also run into a few people whose spirituality was formed in that era who will interpret every economic/political even through that prism even where it seems somewhat incongruous.
Yes, I've also been told by this particular stripe that if I don't support Israel I "put myself under God's judgement". Apparently I must support them in everything they do because God's on their side. Justice seems to take a back seat to tribalism.

I find this "support" language difficult. What does it even mean? Israel does some good things and some bad things, like everyone. I support the good things; I oppose the bad things. It's not like a football team where their scoring goals is good or bad depending on your own team loyalties; bombing raids, check points, elections and policies stand or fall morally on their own terms regardless of whether I "support" one side or the other.

[ 13. December 2017, 14:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, indeed. Absolutely.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I guess Jeremiah encountered quite a bit of that.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
The lectionary reading at our church today (Christmas eve) was 2 Samuel 7 (Nathan prophesies to David). It includes verse 10 to the effect that "I [God] will appoint a place for my people Israel...and they will dwell in a place of their own and move no more; neither shall their enemies afflict them any more".

At short notice, I was the reader for the day, so I asked the minister did he really want this politically charged reading included. She said to read it anyway,but she had no idea why it was included, or what it had to do with the other reading for the day (the annunciation), about which she preached without mention of 2 Samuel.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The same for us.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The oddest bit is what isn't included in that reading. The lectionary give 1-11 and then 16, skipping 12-15 about raising a descendant of David to build the Temple - which, of course, is Solomon, but also foreshadows Jesus who will be given the throne of His father David (as in the Annunciation).

Of course, we still have all the stuff in Nathans prophecy about David being one of the greatest men on earth, about a Kingdom that will never end, a place where the people can live in safety ... all of which also applies to the Kingdom of Great Davids Greater Son, as announced to Mary.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Besides, what's wrong with politically charged readings - especially at a time of year when the Gospel readings are especially heavy on politics?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
The lectionary reading at our church today (Christmas eve) was 2 Samuel 7 (Nathan prophesies to David). It includes verse 10 to the effect that "I [God] will appoint a place for my people Israel...and they will dwell in a place of their own and move no more; neither shall their enemies afflict them any more".

At short notice, I was the reader for the day, so I asked the minister did he really want this politically charged reading included. She said to read it anyway,but she had no idea why it was included, or what it had to do with the other reading for the day (the annunciation), about which she preached without mention of 2 Samuel.
It's because Luke saw Mary as the Ark of the Covenant (she later stayed with her cousin the same number of days as the ark stayed at Shilohj).
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Where?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Uh! The Bible. References here.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0