Karl`s PC Help Forums

Israel plans more than 700 new homes in occupied territories
marymary100 - 23-12-2007 at 20:32

Roadmap lost?


Do you think Israel will ever give back the occupied territories?


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 21:47

I don't think Israel will give up all the land in the foreseeable future. I don't think the possible benefits outweigh the risks. As the most recent military exchanges have demonstrated, there are still plenty of people who are willing to fire rockets at Israel's people and property.

Israel is quite willing to resist outside pressure in looking out for its own interests. I do think the pro-Israel political forces in the U.S. are given a lot of weight among politicians. (These would include many Dispensationalists who believe present Israel is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and that it has a specific role in end-time prophecies.)


marymary100 - 23-12-2007 at 22:13

Where do you stand on this point?


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 22:49

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Where do you stand on this point?
On Bible prophecy and Israel? I believe the identification of modern Israel with Biblical Israel is in error.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the LORD promises that the royal line of Israel will always remain in David's house. It would reach fulfillment when a King would be born of David's line who would rule in righteousness forever. This final Ruler was Jesus Christ, who was of David's blood-line (from His mother), and legally of David's lineage through the heritage of His mother's husband, Joseph.

The state of Israel in Palestine is not ruled by David's line. Paul argues in the New Testament that the real sons of Abraham, who benefit from the promises to Israel, are those who are like him in believing God's promises. In the Old Testament, those who disbelieved among Israel did not get blessed with Israel, and those who put their faith in Israel's God got blessed on the same footing as believers of Israel did (e.g. Ruth).

[Edit adds: This "literal Israel" idea, which I consider to be an error, was established by Britain's Darby. It took root deeply in the U.S. by means of the Schofield Study Bible and the Niagara Bible Conferences. If a better study Bible had become widely established before Schofield's, things might be very different today.]


janet - 23-12-2007 at 22:56

I should probably state at the outset that I have no real opinion on this matter, one way or another (don't have enough of the historical background). But from the POV of Isreal, is it actually "occupied territory"? Would Isreal not regard it simply as part of its own territory?

/just wondering about the semantics...


marymary100 - 24-12-2007 at 00:43

"Israel annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Middle East War, a move not recognised internationally."

It isn't part of the land that was given to them. It isn't their land to take.


LSemmens - 24-12-2007 at 12:33

No land is anyone's to take, but, isn't that how countries have been created. Australia was Aboriginal before the invasion of the English, America was the same. Most of the countries in this world have been established by an invading force. Israel was the home of the Jews until they were invaded and taken over by various forces over the millenia. In Jesus time, it was a Roman Territory. In 1948 Israel became a state and, in 1967, managed to invade other territories after aggression from their neighbours. This is not new, nor is it likely to cease in the near future.


marymary100 - 24-12-2007 at 12:37

I wouldn't have any problem with America being returned to the Native Americans or Australia being returned to the Aborigines. Hell will freeze over before either will happen though I suspect.