I think folks just don't get it. Sure, maybe it was big enough, maybe they were offered a two state solution....but here's the deal....the UN was forcing this thing regardless of what the indigenous people thought and many did loose their land, homes, businesses, etc.
Again let's compare it to the UN forcing the US to surrender large swaths of land to the Native Americans. And then when we complain the UN argues that there was enough room for the two peoples, and that we should welcome a two state solution and just choose to live under their authority. I think most of us would have a problem with that too bro.
This is stupid. The analogy doesn't work.
You ignore the FACT that Jews never stopped living in the region called Palestine. Yes many were carted off to other lands after the Roman diaspora but many Jews still remained. So when the UN partitioned the land they partitioned the land based on where Jews were settled and where Arabs were settled. Palestine was partially Jewish to begin with. You act as if there wasn't a single Jew before 1948 then all of the sudden here they come with their bulldozers. Good grief!
Israel makes up 1% of the land mass that Arabs reside on---why do they have to have 100% of the land, what is so important about that 1% that their Arab brothers couldn't become a part of these Arab nations surrounding them? Their own brethren wont even hep them. They are oil rich and wealthy and they have to depend on Western handouts to help them.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
Are you saying it NEVER happened or are you saying it didn't happen during the initial partitioning of the land?
God dispersed them from the land and promised that the land would be trodden underfoot of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Are you a preterist?
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
He may or may not choose to answer the question, so I'll just give you your answer.
It's fair to assume Antipas is a preterist, based on his own words here.
__________________ http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.
are you suggesting the son and the father are worlds apart?
Ferd, they are absolutely different in a number of respects. I don't think that BO would ever have Jesse Jackson Sr. in any advisory or other role in his campaign. Sr. has a penchant for saying stupid things and assuming the right to represent people that he has no right to represent. He has done this to all the American people at times, taking it upon himself to go represent all of us in foreign disputes, etc...
But just in case you feel like father and son are infact some Siamese twin political body sharing one brain...take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzQFTBfxKss
I think that it is very disengenuous to take the words of a man that we call a nut 99% of the time, whom we all pretty much ignore, and try to use them in this one instance because his ramblings happen to help a your point (I'm not saying "you" as in Ferd, I'm just saying in general.)
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Ferd, they are absolutely different in a number of respects. I don't think that BO would ever have Jesse Jackson Sr. in any advisory or other role in his campaign. Sr. has a penchant for saying stupid things and assuming the right to represent people that he has no right to represent. He has done this to all the American people at times, taking it upon himself to go represent all of us in foreign disputes, etc...
But just in case you feel like father and son are infact some Siamese twin political body sharing one brain...take a look at this:
I think that it is very disengenuous to take the words of a man that we call a nut 99% of the time, whom we all pretty much ignore, and try to use them in this one instance because his ramblings happen to help a your point (I'm not saying "you" as in Ferd, I'm just saying in general.)
Ok lets go with your last statement.
does that apply when RevJJ says something in keeping with other evidence?
As I said in my first post here, I agree with you that RevJJ cant be taken at his own word in general. I certainly havent done that.
However, if he re-says something that has already been said by others, or if his comments are in keeping with a good bit of other evidence, then I think his words provide a spot to stop and reveiew.
That is what I have done here.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Ferd, they are absolutely different in a number of respects. I don't think that BO would ever have Jesse Jackson Sr. in any advisory or other role in his campaign. Sr. has a penchant for saying stupid things and assuming the right to represent people that he has no right to represent. He has done this to all the American people at times, taking it upon himself to go represent all of us in foreign disputes, etc...
But just in case you feel like father and son are infact some Siamese twin political body sharing one brain...take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzQFTBfxKss
I think that it is very disengenuous to take the words of a man that we call a nut 99% of the time, whom we all pretty much ignore, and try to use them in this one instance because his ramblings happen to help a your point (I'm not saying "you" as in Ferd, I'm just saying in general.)
I have never said or thought that JJ was a nut job. I think he's wrong most of the time, I think he's very liberal and I think he's very motivated by self preservation to downplay advances in race relations and overreact to controversies. But I have never said he's a nut job. Farrakhan? Nut Job. Maxine Waters? Nut Job. Michael Moore? Nut Job. JJ? Wrong, liberal, self-serving, but certainly not a whacko.
I think his speculation of an Obama presidency in relationship to Israel is consistent with the preaching of Jeremiah Wright, his relationship with a former Palestinian spokesperson, the views of many other liberal colleagues and his own words.
Like many other things, Obama has in the past year retreated from some of these people and some of his own words, but it causes one to question if the motivation for such is political convenience.
JJs words on their own don't carry too much sway with me, but when you add them to the mix, there seems to be a cake in the making.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
In an interview last week, Jesse Jackson shared his thoughts about an Obama presidency and Middle East relations. To be fair, Obama's campaign distanced themselves from these statements, but it makes one wonder: if people like JJ helped to launch BO's career, these were the people who were influential and they felt a kinship with him, is JJ revealing what the REAL Obama will do once he is in office? Cna we take a chance to vote for a man who is connected with people who have anti-Israel sentiments?
Who are the folks that helped launch Sen. Obama's political career?
How are they "like" Jesse Jackson.
It is pretty well established that Jesse Jackson and Sen. Obama ARE NOT on the same page politically.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Are you kidding? How much money do the Arab countries make off their oil and they can't raise the quality of life for their country and their brothers? The vast majority of the funds given to them goes to military aid. It would bankrupt their economy to have the defenses Israel must have in order to protect their 10 million people from the 250 million enemies that surround them.
Is it America's place to "raise the quality of life" for the Mexicans?
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Linear Mode
