Zionism, A Threat to Stability in the Middle East or the Only Way to Create It

[mark kennedy]

Whatever you think of Zionism, one thing they believed was that they were entitled to the land Promised Abraham in Genesis:

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. (Gen. 15:18).
​

Here is what that would look like on a map:

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel Genesis 15:18, 17:8

The Wadis of Egypt is the area where the Nile branches out like a root system and it mixes with the salt water of the Mediterranean. If you notice Cairo, the capitol of Egypt sits at the mouth of the wadi. Of course the Euphrates runs through the middle of Iraq, ancient Babylon sat where the Tigris and the Euphrates came together. This promise would include all of Syria, Lebanon, Jordon and a significant portion of Saudi Arabia. So when someone mentions Zionism in passing, understand how close they were at the end of the 7 days war of potentially acquiring much, if not most of the territory promised Abraham. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an historical fact, there was nothing stopping Israel from taking Cairo and seizing control of the Suez Canal. In fact the preemptive strike of Israel on Egypt was over use of the Suez Canal.

The term 'Zionism', is often heard in connection with conspiracy theories, like the Illuminati. Understand, this is not some tin foil had conspiracy theory, Zionists believe they are entitled by divine right to Syria, Jordon, Lebanon and significant portions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq. Israel had demonstrated that it is capable of defeating Syria, Lebanon and Egypt in a phenomenally short space of time, 1 week.

Does anyone remember the claim of Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons? The Bush Administration, Tony Blair the British Prime Minister and Benjamin Netanyahu all told us Saddam was pursuing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruct, we invaded and found none:

There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons. No question whatsoever. (Benjamin Netanyahu)
​

This isn't just a history lesson and I'm certainly not trying to concoct a conspiracy theory. This is real, Trump said during his campaign that we should have kept the oil in Iraq:

This is not some pipe dream, this is something the US along with Israel is perfectly capable of doing, we have done it. Some would argue it's even Biblical, but is this a viable and active strategy to conquer and control the heart of the Middle East? The implications or positively Apocalyptic in their implications, of course the UN is not likely to sign off on such a thing. I could build a dynamite end time scenario based on this and still might. I'm just curious what kind of a reaction this gets in political context.

So what do you think, is the Zionist vision of expanding Israel from the Nile River to the Euphrates a threat to the stability of the Middle East, or an effective and viable way to achieve it?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Barney2.0]

Israel could have expanded to the Nile and Euphrates years ago if it truly wanted to. Didn’t israel return Sinai to Egypt, Gaza, and the West Bank to the Palestinians? Zionism means to believe Jews should have a state in their ancestral homeland, hardly a threat to world peace. However Islamism is the belief that the world should submit to Islam by any means possible, very much a threat to world peace.

 

[Ken Rank]

Whatever you think of Zionism, one thing they believed was that they were entitled to the land Promised Abraham in Genesis:

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates. (Gen. 15:18).
​

Here is what that would look like on a map:

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel Genesis 15:18, 17:8

The Wadis of Egypt is the area where the Nile branches out like a root system and it mixes with the salt water of the Mediterranean. If you notice Cairo, the capitol of Egypt sits at the mouth of the wadi. Of course the Euphrates runs through the middle of Iraq, ancient Babylon sat where the Tigris and the Euphrates came together. This promise would include all of Syria, Lebanon, Jordon and a significant portion of Saudi Arabia. So when someone mentions Zionism in passing, understand how close they were at the end of the 7 days war of potentially acquiring much, if not most of the territory promised Abraham. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an historical fact, there was nothing stopping Israel from taking Cairo and seizing control of the Suez Canal. In fact the preemptive strike of Israel on Egypt was over use of the Suez Canal.

The term 'Zionism', is often heard in connection with conspiracy theories, like the Illuminati. Understand, this is not some tin foil had conspiracy theory, Zionists believe they are entitled by divine right to Syria, Jordon, Lebanon and significant portions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq. Israel had demonstrated that it is capable of defeating Syria, Lebanon and Egypt in a phenomenally short space of time, 1 week.

Does anyone remember the claim of Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weapons? The Bush Administration, Tony Blair the British Prime Minister and Benjamin Netanyahu all told us Saddam was pursuing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruct, we invaded and found none:

There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons. No question whatsoever. (Benjamin Netanyahu)
​

This isn't just a history lesson and I'm certainly not trying to concoct a conspiracy theory. This is real, Trump said during his campaign that we should have kept the oil in Iraq:

This is not some pipe dream, this is something the US along with Israel is perfectly capable of doing, we have done it. Some would argue it's even Biblical, but is this a viable and active strategy to conquer and control the heart of the Middle East? The implications or positively Apocalyptic in their implications, of course the UN is not likely to sign off on such a thing. I could build a dynamite end time scenario based on this and still might. I'm just curious what kind of a reaction this gets in political context.

So what do you think, is the Zionist vision of expanding Israel from the Nile River to the Euphrates a threat to the stability of the Middle East, or an effective and viable way to achieve it?

Grace and peace,
Mark

It won't happen and it is not the Israeli governments view. It WILL happen when Yeshua returns, but for now they just want to be left alone in their little world about the size of NJ.

Incidentally... and this isn't to pick, this is just an issue I have had since the early 90's.... just before we went into Iraq, 18 or 20 (?) tractor trailers went into Syria from Iraq. It was said at the time that they were hiding their weapons but I always figured that since we couldn't go into Syria and prove that, that they had to just let it go. We do know he had WMD because he used chemical weapons on the Kurds a number of times. A few months ago, when Syria used chemical weapons on their people... I wondered to myself if they weren't from Saddam's lot?

 

[AlexDTX]

Whatever you think of Zionism, one thing they believed was that they were entitled to the land Promised Abraham in Genesis:

Paul makes clear that the promise to Abraham and his seed means, Christ, not Israel in Galatians.

As for Zionist expansion to the obtain all the "promised land" Israel Shahak, an Israeli activist who opposed that policy say this in his book, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3,000 Years of History."

My own early political conversion from admirer of Ben-Gurion to his dedicated
opponent began exactly with such an issue. In 1956 I eagerly swallowed all of Ben-
Gurion's political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he (in
spite of being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the commandments of Jewish
religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of that war, that the real reason for it is 'the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon' to its Biblical borders.

Let me give a more recent illustration of the essential difference which exists
between Israeli imperial planning of the most inflated but secular type, and the
principles of 'Jewish ideology'. The latter enjoins that land which was either ruled by any Jewish ruler in ancient times or was promised by God to the Jews, either in the Bible or - what is actually more important politically - according to a rabbinic
interpretation of the Bible and the Talmud, should belong to Israel since it is a Jewish state.

A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel, which
rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state, are in
circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the following areas within
these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of nothern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus.​

Shahak notes that not all Israelis hold this view, but the Zionists. Unfortunately it is the Zionists who make up the Israeli Parliament.

 

[mark kennedy]

Israel could have expanded to the Nile and Euphrates years ago if it truly wanted to. Didn’t israel return Sinai to Egypt, Gaza, and the West Bank to the Palestinians? Zionism means to believe Jews should have a state in their ancestral homeland, hardly a threat to world peace. However Islamism is the belief that the world should submit to Islam by any means possible, very much a threat to world peace.

I hadn't really thought of that aspect, certainly there are elements of Islam that want to force submission to Sharia law. Israel has been pretty moderate about keeping the boundaries as they are, not interested in expanding to the dimensions of the original proportions of the Promised Land. I thought the move to recognize Jerusalem was anticlimactic and the airstrike in Syria against Iran was provoked.

 

[Kevin Snow]

Scripture cannot be broken. The words which God promised will most certainly come to pass.

 

[Barney2.0]

I hadn't really thought of that aspect, certainly there are elements of Islam that want to force submission to Sharia law. Israel has been pretty moderate about keeping the boundaries as they are, not interested in expanding to the dimensions of the original proportions of the Promised Land. I thought the move to recognize Jerusalem was anticlimactic and the airstrike in Syria against Iran was provoked.

Well Iran has been threatening Israel and they’ve already have been bombing Israel through Hezbollah and threatened to launch rockets from Syria so Israel has every right to counter strike in defense. I think it was a stupid and un right time to recognize Jerusalem now among all these problems, but we all know this was bound to happen some day and we all knew what the Arabs would do in turn, but as I say better to have it over and done with now then in many years to come while waiting in fear over what the Arabs will do if Jerusalem is declared the capital of Israel.

 

[mark kennedy]

It won't happen and it is not the Israeli governments view. It WILL happen when Yeshua returns, but for now they just want to be left alone in their little world about the size of NJ.

Incidentally... and this isn't to pick, this is just an issue I have had since the early 90's.... just before we went into Iraq, 18 or 20 (?) tractor trailers went into Syria from Iraq. It was said at the time that they were hiding their weapons but I always figured that since we couldn't go into Syria and prove that, that they had to just let it go. We do know he had WMD because he used chemical weapons on the Kurds a number of times. A few months ago, when Syria used chemical weapons on their people... I wondered to myself if they weren't from Saddam's lot?

We were told repeatedly Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, after the invasion we found none. There had been years of UN inspections and the only reprocessing plant Saddam ever had for that was destroyed, not once but twice.

Before the Invasion Rumsfeld tells us before the invasion that Saddam was an immediate threat, then denies that the he ever said that. Then Thomas Friedman quotes him on national television saying exactly that.

Just as Tonkin Bay was used to provoke a declaration of war with Vietnam, weapons of mass destruction were the impetus for the invasion of Iraq. Both were exaggerated and/or false.

 

[AlexDTX]

I hadn't really thought of that aspect, certainly there are elements of Islam that want to force submission to Sharia law. Israel has been pretty moderate about keeping the boundaries as they are, not interested in expanding to the dimensions of the original proportions of the Promised Land. I thought the move to recognize Jerusalem was anticlimactic and the airstrike in Syria against Iran was provoked.

Political decisions do not reflect political ambition. Returning land is a matter of political expediency to placate world opinion. That does not mean their desire to obtain all of the promised land in their own strength is void.

 

[Barney2.0]

We were told repeatedly Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, after the invasion we found none. There had been years of UN inspections and the only reprocessing plant Saddam ever had for that was destroyed, not once but twice.

Before the Invasion Rumsfeld tells us before the invasion that Saddam was an immediate threat, then denies that the he ever said that. Then Thomas Friedman quotes him on national television saying exactly that.

Just as Tonkin Bay was used to provoke a declaration of war with Vietnam, weapons of mass destruction were the impetus for the invasion of Iraq. Both were exaggerated and/or false.

Actually Saddam Hussein was actively in the process of making nuclear weapons:
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

 

[RDKirk]

Incidentally... and this isn't to pick, this is just an issue I have had since the early 90's.... just before we went into Iraq, 18 or 20 (?) tractor trailers went into Syria from Iraq. It was said at the time that they were hiding their weapons but I always figured that since we couldn't go into Syria and prove that, that they had to just let it go. We do know he had WMD because he used chemical weapons on the Kurds a number of times. A few months ago, when Syria used chemical weapons on their people... I wondered to myself if they weren't from Saddam's lot?

No. Iraq had older chemical technology (courtesy of the US), but that program had been satisfactorily shuttered after the Persian Gulf War. They couldn't actually destroy the assembled warheads--there was no safe way to destroy them in the early 90s. The US itself had no technology to destroy weapons such as Sarin until 1995. They were stored and we knew where they were stored.

From that time through the invasion of Iraq in 2003--and I'd been working Iraq myself since the latter 80s--the US had complete ability to detect any new stockpiles of WMD. We had overhead imagery of all of Iraq several times every day. We could see them day and night. We could see through dust storms. We had the ability to look at a road in the morning and determine how much traffic had traveled that road through the course of the night. We could even see underground and into caves. If we though anyplace looked suspicious, we could send in a Special Forces team to take air, ground, and water samples.

This is the thing: Technology can always find technology. Advanced chemical weapon production creates synthetic by-products that cannot be hidden. They must be handled in ways that are unmistakable. When we have the kind of access we had to Iraq for an entire decade, a chemical weapon stockpile would be impossible to hide.

Now, that doesn't mean Iraq did not have a "program." Lots of nations have "programs." Obviously they had not executed all the old scientists and technicians, and clearly Saddam wanted WMD and was holding on to the capability to re-establish an operational program the first chance he got. That was for sure.

But they had no stockpiles of operational WMD. Admiral Lowell Jacoby (a brilliant man who I'd worked for in the early 90s), who was Director of Defense Intelligence testified before Congress in 2003 that we had no reliable evidence of operational stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, despite the fact that our surveillance of Iraq for a decade was certainly able to have turned up some reliable evidence if any existed.

The weapons Assad has are a common type found in many places around the world. North Korea sells it to anyone with the money to buy it. Russia probably does as well.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually Saddam Hussein was actively in the process of making nuclear weapons:
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

I don't think you actually read that entire link. It doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[football5680]

It wouldn't bring stability and Israel doesn't want the countries around them to be stable. Inciting instability in a country neutralizes any potential threats. Iraq was their biggest threat so the US went to war with them based on completely false accusations.

 

[mark kennedy]

Paul makes clear that the promise to Abraham and his seed means, Christ, not Israel in Galatians.

As for Zionist expansion to the obtain all the "promised land" Israel Shahak, an Israeli activist who opposed that policy say this in his book, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3,000 Years of History."

My own early political conversion from admirer of Ben-Gurion to his dedicated
opponent began exactly with such an issue. In 1956 I eagerly swallowed all of Ben-
Gurion's political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he (in
spite of being an atheist, proud of his disregard of the commandments of Jewish
religion) pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of that war, that the real reason for it is 'the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon' to its Biblical borders.

Let me give a more recent illustration of the essential difference which exists
between Israeli imperial planning of the most inflated but secular type, and the
principles of 'Jewish ideology'. The latter enjoins that land which was either ruled by any Jewish ruler in ancient times or was promised by God to the Jews, either in the Bible or - what is actually more important politically - according to a rabbinic
interpretation of the Bible and the Talmud, should belong to Israel since it is a Jewish state.

A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel, which
rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state, are in
circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the following areas within
these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of nothern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus.​

Shahak notes that not all Israelis hold this view, but the Zionists. Unfortunately it is the Zionists who make up the Israeli Parliament.

So your telling me that the majority of the Israeli Parliament are Zionists? I know historically they have been very influential but I know little of what their status is currently. I know recently the Israeli Parliament attempted to establish Jewish only settlements but I didn't really follow it. Occasionally a Jewish group will go into the West Bank or Gaza and try to start a settlement, that usually ends with them being sent back to Israel and anything they built getting bull dozed.

 

[Barney2.0]

I don't think you actually read that entire link. It doesn't say what you think it says.

It does if you keep reading.

 

[Barney2.0]

It wouldn't bring stability and Israel doesn't want the countries around them to be stable. Inciting instability in a country neutralizes any potential threats. Iraq was their biggest threat so the US went to war with them based on completely false accusations.

Not exactly, the US was going for Iraq way before Israel would enter the fray, Israel wants nothing more then stable countries beside itself, I think though that Israel’s mission to bring peace to the Middle East combined with that of Arab hate just turns into instability.

 

[football5680]

Not exactly the US was going for Iraq way before Israel would enter the fray, Israel wants nothing more then stable countries beside itself, I think though that Israel’s mission to bring peace to the Middle East combined with that of Arab hate just turns into instability.

Israel makes other people fight their wars, whether that be the US or the Jihadi's. They do not want stable countries next to them because the hatred for them is going nowhere since all the Arabs believe they stole the Palestinians land and they also carry out massacres against them pretty routinely. Stable countries can look outside their own borders and can wage an effective war. Unstable countries have to deal with internal problems so they can't even begin to think about Israel.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually Saddam Hussein was actively in the process of making nuclear weapons:
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

No, he was not:

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." (George W. Bush announcing the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 19, 2003)

"We said in the [ISG] report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard. (Charles Duelfer National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation)
​

He may have been making some kind of an attempt but the inspections following the invasion found nothing but the 20 year old remains of the Iran Iraq war.

​

 

[Barney2.0]

Israel makes other people fight their wars, whether that be the US or the Jihadi's. They do not want stable countries next to them because the hatred for them is going nowhere since all the Arabs believe they stole the Palestinians land and they also carry out massacres against them pretty routinely. Stable countries can look outside their own borders and can wage an effective war. Unstable countries have to deal with internal problems so they can't even begin to think about Israel.

There’s no massacre against Palestinians neither do Palestinians own any land, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were transferred to the Palestinians illegally as per international law. If there are massacres carried out routinely against Palestinians would you kind telling me why there population has doubled over the years and continues to grow? Stable countries are no threat to Israel, Israel has waged war by itself against the whole Arab league and won, so Israel is not afraid of stable Arab countries as it’s fought them before and won.

 

[Barney2.0]

No, he was not:

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." (George W. Bush announcing the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 19, 2003)

"We said in the [ISG] report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard. (Charles Duelfer National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation)
​

He may have been making some kind of an attempt but the inspections following the invasion found nothing but the 20 year old remains of the Iran Iraq war.

​

He was trying to, however since the US invasion happened just a few years jus after the Iran-Iraq war in which many of the nuclear reactors of the Iraqis were destroyed, so there wasn’t much time to rebuild his arsenal of lethal and potent weapons. However Saddam was using chemical weapons during the war against Iran and against any form of opposition within Iraq what’s so ever.