Why is it that Jewish people - in telling us all about their claim to the "Promised Land" -?

Question

never - ever further explain that God also said that He would keep His promise, but
"ONLY if they avoided "WAR AND STRIFE"?..
..A UN resolution
'gave' them a parcel of land, not GOD. The UN was not a 'vehicle' ---
Surely God did not mean for them to fight to the end until they obtained this land. In fact, if God wants all of to get along with each other--if He wants us all to love each other, and if the Jews are his "chosen' (which they are not) then why would HE want people to fight each other, over land and riches, etc.? He is the Almighty. He knows all.
One must wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible....one must also wonder why the Bible glorifies death and destruction. One must wonder if the Bible was truly written by men of God,
or if God's words were profoundly misunderstood.
One is also caused to wonder if, the "Promised Land" was indeed a pregnant promise, born prematurely.

and so...I still do not have an answer to the question as it was posed. as of the first three below...I need an answer, not a thesis.

I see you refer to Ezekiel, a huge book in your Bible, but only briefly. Yet Ezekiel tells us much about Jewish people - more than you are willing to admit.
I am still looking for answers..the correct answers. I am familiar with the historical recapitulations as have been outlined below.
But.
perhaps I should re-phrase my question:

WHAT HAS ISRAEL DONE TO
AVOID WAR AND STRIFE?
she is undeserving of a land - promised - if she does not avoid war and strife.
If anything she is swimming in weaponry.Thus, we must ask ourselves. Is she preparing to further protect herself? or is it moreso that she will continue 'war and strife' because she will exert 'free will', and will continue to use her 'free will' to create WAR AND STRIFE?
Therein lies a more succinct explanation of the meaning of my original question. If you cannot answer it, please - no more historical recapitulations....

Answer 1

Religions are what makes people kill other people. Holocaust, 9/11, Iran/Iraq, Palestine/Isreal and the list goes on and on. Religion downright scares me and is one of the most evil forces known to man, made by man.

Answer 2

there are only two words neccesary to answer this question...

"free choice"

We can do whatever we want, but it is only when we (the Jews) do G-d's will, do we get truly rewarded. And no, the Torah does not "glorify death and destruction" When the Egyptians were lost in the Reed sea, the Angels began to sing, and suddenly, G-d ordered them to stop, telling them that it is wrong to glorify the death of any of G-d's creations!
Humans create war - not G-d - and while G-d is almighty, if he were to rule the world entirely to his will, He would be defeating the purpose that he created the world (For people to praise him on their own free will)

Answer 3

i'm surprised to work out you write this, Desiree, and extremely extremely joyful which you have understood the factor, that the theory of messiah is a Jewish theory and hence won't be in a position to be rewritten to make it consult with somebody thoroughly in assessment to the Jewish messiah. the only element i'm undecided you're authentic approximately is that Jesus grow to be killed on the request of the Jews. all the stuff contained in the gospels is so thoroughly at odds with what all of us comprehend with regard to the way the Romans and the Jews behaved on the time, the capability relationship etc, the Jewish notions of justice etc, that that's totally tricky to settle for that the Jews as a team (quite than a pair of rogue human beings that had by some skill ingratiated themselves with the Romans) might have had any effect in any appreciate on the Romans and whether they did, might have asked this variety of element, so completely going against Jewish regulation and custom. yet i might desire to consider your final question - Christianity DOES look a strange concept equipment........ EDIT: I in basic terms have the opt to make sparkling that even although I DO discover Christianity unusual, I even have absolute appreciate for those Christians, a lot of whom I even have met right here as properly as in actual life, who discover splendor, meaning and purpose of their faith. a number of them are particularly sturdy human beings, and if Christianity can motivate that, that's positive by using me.

Answer 4

Ok then the UN gave the Jews the state of Israel, and then the Jews fought to keep it.

Whats your point?

edit

I would have answered a question if I had seen one. All I have seen is a rant.

So if you can limit your question to one sentence I will try to answer it.


edit


Its kind of hard to avoid war and strife when the nations around you declare war the very day you are created and to this day will not recognize your existence.

When all the Arab nations are willing to talk to Israel face to face then their will be a chance at peace.

Answer 5

Well, you have one thing right, that is, is God's Word being misunderstood. Is it being misunderstood by you right now?

The UN, btw, has no authority over God. If Israel has the land it is because of God, not the UN. The UN IS a vehicle.

Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Son of man, your brothers, your relatives, your fellow exiles, and the whole house of Israel, all of them, are those to whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, 'Go far from the Lord; this land has been given us as a possession.' Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord God, though I had removed them far away among the nations, and though I had scattered them among the countries, yet I was a sanctuary for them a little while in the countries where they had gone.'" Therefore say, "Thus says the Lord God, 'I shall gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I shall give you the land of Israel. When they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations from it. (Ezekiel 11:14-18)


The Lord called Abram out of Ur of the Chaldeans and made an unconditional covenant, or contract, with him. This contract, known as the Abrahamic covenant, contained three major provisions: 1) a land to Abram and his descendants Israel, 2) a seed or physical descendants of Abraham, and 3) a worldwide blessing (Gen. 12:1-3). In order to make His point clear, the Lord put Abram to sleep and made Himself the only signatory of the contract (Gen. 15:1-21). God told Abram, "To your descendants I have given this land" (verse 18). Even though the Lord was the only active signatory to the cutting of the covenant, as demonstrated in Genesis 15, nevertheless it is clear that Abraham obeyed the Lord during his lifetime: "Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws" (Gen. 26:5). "It is significant that the promise is related to Abraham's obedience, not to Isaac's, as the promise now becomes immutable and certain of fulfillment". This covenant is repeated to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants a little over twenty times in the book of Genesis. God's promise to the patriarchs is said to be an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7, 13, 19).

Deuteronomy 28-30 lays out the conditions for Israel to experience blessing within the land. We must remember that while the land was given unconditionally to the people of Israel, the Mosaic Law provides subconditions for the nation to enjoy God's blessings in the land. The tribulation period will be a time of divine discipline on the nation, bringing about Israel's repentance obedience. And then, during those grand and golden days of the millennial kingdom, she will experience full occupation of her land, reaping the many blessings promised in the Old Testament.

Throughout the Old Testament the prophets convict Israel of her disobedience, but always with a view toward a future restoration, when ultimately Israel will dwell in peace and prosperity. Throughout the Old Testament the prophets provide promise after promise of this time of future restoration to the land (Isa. 11:1-9; 12:1-3; 27:12-13; 35:1-10; 43:1-8; 60:18-21; 66:20-22; Jer. 16:14-16; 30:10-18; 31:31-37; 32:37-40; Ezek. 11:17-21; 28:25-26; 34:11-16; 37:21-25; 39:25-29; Hosea 1:10-11; 3:4-5; Joel 3:17-21; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:4-7; Zeph. 3: 14-20; Zech. 8:4-8; 10:11-15). A specific example of a restoration passage can be found at the end of Amos: "'Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them, they will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them,' Says the Lord your God" (Amos 9:14-15).

It is important to note that Zechariah, following the return from the Babylonian captivity, speaks of a future restoration to the land, thus suggesting that Israel's past restorations did not ultimately fulfill the land promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Zechariah 9-14 lays out an end time plan of restoration of the nation to Jerusalem and the land of Israel. Kaiser notes: "Repeatedly, the prophets of the Old Testament had depicted an Israelite remnant returning to the land (e.g., Isa. 10:20-30) and becoming prominent among the nations (Mic. 4:1) in the end day. In fact, Zechariah 10:8-12 is still repeating this same promise in 518 b.c., well after the days when many in Israel had returned from their last and final exile, the Babylonian Exile. Further, Israel has a future in their land since nowhere in the Bible has the Lord revoked any of His promises to His people Israel: "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).

A review of Jeremiah 31:31-34; Zechariah 13:1; Isaiah 59:20, 21 and Ezekiel 39:25-29 depicts the final coming of the Messiah to earth to set up His kingdom in the Promised Land with His chosen people Israel. Although today’s “replacement theology” would deny Jews as God’s chosen people, to be substituted by Christians, the New Testament does not support this position. The New Testament recognizes three classes—Jews, Gentiles and Christians (Jewish and Gentile). The day is coming when the nation Israel will repent by recognizing Jesus Christ as its Messiah (Romans 12:25-27). In that day God’s covenant blessings and promises to Abraham will be totally fulfilled.

God does not glorify death and destruction. If you recall, Satan brought both to humankind. God dislikes it so much, that he sent his son Jesus to the earth to diea horrible horrible death so that we could once again be right with the Father. Jesus rose from death and defeated death. Those who make the choice to follow Jesus will be given the same at end times. We have free will, so satan still pushes our buttons and there is still sin.

Answer 6

Barbra
You're reported for your blatent racism. I will follow you and do it everytime you condem Jews.

Answer 7

By Lawrence Auster
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:
·As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.
·If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.
·If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.
So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:
·The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:·The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
·The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
·The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
·The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
·The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:
·The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
·The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
·The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
·The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
·The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
·The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
·The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
·The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
·The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.

As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up.
Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The territories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence.

There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine;
the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.

In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, eons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair- skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.

The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?

Back to the Arabs: I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?

To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.

Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted.

The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).

The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation.