Serious question, not trolling, re Israel

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Based on his posts today, Mike is a reprehensible person.

I want peace. SU wants Netanyahu.

I think I have proven my point.

60 years of occupation, subjugation, violence. God's chosen people indeed.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I want peace. SU wants Netanyahu.

I think I have proven my point.

60 years of occupation, subjugation, violence. God's chosen people indeed.

A modern day miracle (query: who were the aggressors?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

On the right side of the article, see a picture of "Sons of Helaman"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

That makes the statement menaingless because wherever they are they are there and there is nothing to return to.

The whole earth is to be blessed through the seed of Abraham, and Abrahamic lands are to be the whole earth. Israel shall receive a portion of the land promised, i.e., the whole earth.

It's just a poetic term without specific meaning.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The whole earth is to be blessed through the seed of Abraham, and Abrahamic lands are to be the whole earth. Israel shall receive a portion of the land promised, i.e., the whole earth.

It's just a poetic term without specific meaning.

Cite? Is this doctrine?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Cite? Is this doctrine?

First book of Archaea.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

(query: who were the aggressors?):

Depends who you ask. The Palestinians and their allies would argue that they were responding to the initial aggression resulting from the formation of Israel and the forced expulsion of the Palestinians.

Technically, the Israelis attacked first. That is why it was over so quickly. It was a brilliant, unexpected tactical maneuver. One can make a good case that they were indeed under the threat of destruction. Others have argued that the threat was overstated and an invasion is not as likely as Israel claims. Ultimately, we will never know.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Others have argued that the threat was overstated and an invasion is not as likely as Israel claims.

Who says this? Egypt had an army lined up in the Sinai ready to go.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

First book of Archaea.

First Book of Archaea, Process I, verse 49.

Technically, Hebrews will interpret the gift of lands all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Gen. 15:18-21.

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.’

So if you want to be technical, it includes from Egypt to the Euphrates.

But I argue God may have been also stating, I'm giving you the known world.

Other references: Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15:4-21; 17:4-16; 22:15-18

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

Who says this? Egypt had an army lined up in the Sinai ready to go.

The threat was certainly real. No doubt about that. My point is, we will never know for sure that the Arabs would have attacked because Israel attacked first. Some have argued that Nassar was wavering and there is good evidence that Jordan and Syria were bluffing. Jordan was especially reluctant. The US was pressuring Israel not to attack first but to absorb the initial blow.

This book gives a pretty good account:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034...pr_product_top

Jewish author, but in spite of what some of the reviews would have you believe, it is a pretty well-balanced book. Boring as hell in parts, but a good thorough review of the war.