Israel - Is it time to stop US support of this country?

[Dave RP]

Re-read your history.

"Israel, whilst under threat from its neighbours launched a stunning pre-emptive strike against Egypts air force, destroying it on the ground" Israel launched the attack, albeit they were under imminent threat themselves.

 

[Dave RP]

Admittedly it's not my period of historic interest, so I'm not claiming to know better than you, but my understanding is that the '67 war is generally recognised as defensive in nature.

It was defensive but nonetheless Israel launched the first strikes, I'm not saying they were wrong to do so and Egypt and its allies were clearly ready to attack Israel. but they got their retaliation in first, as it were.

 

[Armoured]

"Israel, whilst under threat from its neighbours launched a stunning pre-emptive strike against Egypts air force, destroying it on the ground" Israel launched the attack, albeit they were under imminent threat themselves.

Well, Americans fired the first shots during the battle of Pearl Harbour, so, fair's fair. There are times when a preemptive strike is valid tactically, strategically, and ethically...

 

[expos4ever]

Why? Because in my opinion, Israel are still God's people, and we are blessed by supporting her.

I believe that the "theology" we see presented in the Bible is one whereby Israel's special status ceases at the Cross. I think that Paul is very clear about this. If this is so, then Israel should be treated like any other nation.

 

[Dave-W]

It was defensive but nonetheless Israel launched the first strikes, I'm not saying they were wrong to do so and Egypt and its allies were clearly ready to attack Israel. but they got their retaliation in first, as it were.

Not really. Egypt had already kicked out the UN peace keepers and set up a blockade of Israel; which is an act of war. Troops were massed on every border by Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The PLO chief said "We shall destroy Israel and prepare boats to deport the survivors, if there are any." Even Iraq, France and the Soviet Union publicly weighed in on the side of the Arabs.

 

[Dave-W]

I believe that the "theology" we see presented in the Bible is one whereby Israel's special status ceases at the Cross. I think that Paul is very clear about this.

Yes, Paul is VERY clear on this. Writing SPECIFICALLY about the calling and status of Israel:

Rom 11.29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

IOW, the "special status" cannot be terminated ever; not in time or eternity.

 

[Waterwerx]

They can't make Israel comply.
The world is practically ruled by zionists.
Ans so Jerusalem is already the woman that rides the beast.

Is that the "beast" you can come up with? The world is ruled by Zionists? If that were true, the Mid-East wouldn't have countries called Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Israel would clean them all out of there.

 

[timewerx]

Just in case US would stop support of Israel, they should stop support of Arab states in the Middle East also.

Just saying... Guess its time to leave that cauldron of trouble alone.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

I'm sorry but I can't quite believe you just posted that. This is not the wild west where you can just breeze in and take someones territory, what basis for International Law is that?

What is this "International Law" you speak of. Can you mention one instance where a country has, in the past, said "Oh really? It's against international law!? I'm sorry, let me repay you and say I'm sorry".

-- Extra bonus points if that country is also as small as Israel, and where it would be giving up more than 30% of its territory.

 

[Waterwerx]

They can't make Israel comply.
The world is practically ruled by zionists.
Ans so Jerusalem is already the woman that rides the beast.

If that were true, Israel would be a much bigger country and Mecca would be called "Wrecka'ed". I guess you believe Zionists are hiding under your bed and the poisonous little mushroom caps are growing in your yard.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, Paul is VERY clear on this. Writing SPECIFICALLY about the calling and status of Israel:

Rom 11.29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

IOW, the "special status" cannot be terminated ever; not in time or eternity.

I believe Paul is talking about a different Israel in Romans 11:29. There is precedent for this - at the end of Galatians, Paul uses the term "Israel" to refer to the church, not to "ethnic" Israel.

The author of Ephesians is clear: any "distinction" between Jew and Gentile is now dissolved:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [o]by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household,

I politely suggest there is no way to take this text seriously and maintain that ethnic Israel is, any sense, a distinct entity anymore.

 

[Dave-W]

believe Paul is talking about a different Israel in Romans 11:29.

Read the text of the chapter. In the verse that directly preceeds that he says this:

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

"Enemies" of the Gospel? He is NOT talking about the church here.

 

[Dave-W]

I politely suggest there is no way to take this text seriously and maintain that ethnic Israel is, any sense, a distinct entity anymore.

And you would be wrong. In order for the Lord to return, there needs to be a critical mass of identifiably JEWISH believers to welcome him. Read the last paragraph of Matt 23.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

Israel couldn't exist without US support but they continue to build illegally in occupied land and to brutally suppress the Palestinians. Is it time that the US used it's influence to get Israel to comply with UN resolutions, leave illegally occupied land and give up it's illegal nuclear weapons. Friends can still be friends even when one tells the other that their behaviour is unacceptable.

If a country conquers another country and annexes it, then it is part of that country. Israel conquered Palestine, it is not occupied land but owned.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, Paul is VERY clear on this. Writing SPECIFICALLY about the calling and status of Israel:

Rom 11.29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

IOW, the "special status" cannot be terminated ever; not in time or eternity.

Context. In Romans 11, Paul has just explained how some Jews have been "broken off" from the olive tree so that the Gentile can be grafted in. That is a startling claim whose meaning will no doubt be the source of disagreement. But setting this aside for the moment, in a context where Paul has just given us this lengthy discussion about how Jews have been "hardened / pruned from the tree" for the sake of the Gentile, he (Paul) wants to point out that Jews are still to be welcomed into the family of God. So it makes sense that Paul would appeal to the all the promises God has made to Israel to emphasize not that Jews are a "special distinct people", but instead that God is not abandoning them.

I realize that this text certainly could be read as suggesting that God still has outstanding promises on the table for ethnic Israel; however, there is such massive counter-evidence - such as the text from Ephesians in the last post - and statements like this:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise.

....that shows that Paul sees no distinction between Jew and Gentile going forward from the cross.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[expos4ever]

And you would be wrong. In order for the Lord to return, there needs to be a critical mass of identifiably JEWISH believers to welcome him. Read the last paragraph of Matt 23.

I am not wrong - the text from Ephesians clearly - and I mean absolutely clearly - shows that Paul sees the Gentile as fully integrated into God's covenant family.

You did not mount a counter-argument to my claim that this material from Ephesians 2 establishes this. And I don't wonder why - there is simply no way to read that text, take it seriously, and believe there are any "special promises" still on the table for Israel.

But if you want to, please explain to us - by addressing the details of the Ephesians text I posted - how that text can be read in a manner consisted with your claim that Israel still has special promises on the table for them.

I have no time to deal with Matthew 23 right now, but will return to that.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Dave-W]

such as the text from Ephesians in the last post - and statements like this:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise.

....that shows that Paul sees no distinction between Jew and Gentile going forward from the cross.

OK - if that is true then by the distributive property - you MUST apply the same "Jew Gentile" application that you just used to "male female."

Last time I checked homosexuality is still forbidden. So if there is "no distinction," that must apply equally to "male female" meaning that who you marry does not matter since there is "no distinction."

OTOH, if you see the fallacy in that argument, and distinctions still exist between male and female, by the same principle some distinctions must still exist between Jew and Gentile.

You cannot have it one way in one part of a sentence and another way 9 words later in the same sentence.

 

[expos4ever]

Read the text of the chapter. In the verse that directly preceeds that he says this:

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

"Enemies" of the Gospel? He is NOT talking about the church here.

I agree - I meant to say that the Israel in verse 26 is the church.