Zionism: A heresy or a political ideology?

[Valke2]

I don’t really think it was choice that makes them different. If you look at the UN charter "It’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war"

-Maskill

quote that charter please and provide a citation, if possible. I’d like to see what the language says. And when it was instituted.

 

[estesbob]

quote that charter please and provide a citation, if possible. I’d like to see what the language says. And when it was instituted.

It is your usual out of context quote and its not from the UN Charter Its from UN Security Council resolution 242(1968) which does indeed use the above phrase BUT also call for all countreis in the region to recognize Israels right to exist. only Jordan and Egypt did so.

Its funny that the phrase **“It’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war” **is quoted over and over agan by palestnian apolgists but never mention the other stipualtion of the resolution.

 

[Valke2]

It is your usual out of context quote and its not from the UN Charter Its from UN Security Council resolution 242(1968) which does indeed use the above phrase BUT also call for all countreis in the region to recognize Israels right to exist. only Jordan and Egypt did so.

Its funny that the phrase **“It’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war” **is quoted over and over agan by palestnian apolgists but never mention the other stipualtion of the resolution.

Thanks for that clarification.

 

[pro_universal]

Thanks for that clarification.

That wasn’t quite the whole story-242 didn’t create the law, it proceeded from it.

The international consensus is that Israel’s settlements are prohibited by Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva conventions. Reading the provisions of the article makes it quite clear-no forcible transfer of a population away from an occupied territory, and no transfer of the occupying power’s population into the territory.

Interestingly, some of the top Israeli government legal opinions adopt the international legal principle that conquest of territory by war and forcible ejection of a population is illegal. Most of what goes on is justified in Israeli courts on grounds of the right to self defense, but in terms of applicable international law, the reasoning is so flimsy that there really isn’t a single international legal authority (of any kind-scholarly or the various organs of the international system) that takes it seriously.

 

[peary]

It is my understanding of the Bible that it predicts Israel shall be once again established in their unbelief, which, to me, means that the present nation of Israel is the one prophecied. ‘Unbelief’ means that it is established as a secular state, or atheist state in and of itself because those “called back” would not believe in God generally. And today’s Israel is incredibly secular. But this is indicated in Scripture. I believe that we are at the beginning of the “last days.” In my opinion, Zionism is neither a heresy nor political ideology, but a tremendous longing within world Jewry for thousands of years to have their own nation and land once again, and part of God’s great Plan for all of us.

They said that Israel became a nation on May 12, 1948. In solar time, that would have actually been May 13th - the anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima 31 years earlier. Somehow it all seems related.

 

[Lev23]

It is my understanding of the Bible that it predicts Israel shall be once again established in their unbelief, which, to me, means that the present nation of Israel is the one prophecied. ‘Unbelief’ means that it is established as a secular state, or atheist state in and of itself because those “called back” would not believe in God generally. And today’s Israel is incredibly secular. But this is indicated in Scripture. I believe that we are at the beginning of the “last days.” In my opinion, Zionism is neither a heresy nor political ideology, but a tremendous longing within world Jewry for thousands of years to have their own nation and land once again, and part of God’s great Plan for all of us.

They said that Israel became a nation on May 12, 1948. In solar time, that would have actually been May 13th - the anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima 31 years earlier. Somehow it all seems related.

Wonderfully said Peary! Ive been saying this all along, but most here cannot figure this out by simply reading what the prophecies say.

 

[estesbob]

That wasn’t quite the whole story-242 didn’t create the law, it proceeded from it.

The international consensus is that Israel’s settlements are prohibited by Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva conventions. Reading the provisions of the article makes it quite clear-no forcible transfer of a population away from an occupied territory, and no transfer of the occupying power’s population into the territory.

.

So it wasnt in the UN charter at all.

And the interpretation you give is not even close to being international consensus…It is a view put forth by Arab apologists but has NEVER been held to apply the Arab-Israeli situation In fact case law denies it applies to the Arab-Israeli Situation at all.
books.google.com/books?id=s3kaTLyAKo0C&pg=PA169&ots=RRu9NbvmI0&dq=Article+49+of+the+Fourth+Geneva&sig=JtPUuJjKIJnYIPIfCS716FNW6qQ

books.google.com/books?id=s3kaTLyAKo0C&pg=PA169&ots=RRu9NbvmI0&dq=Article+49+of+the+Fourth+Geneva&sig=JtPUuJjKIJnYIPIfCS716FNW6qQ

books.google.com/books?id=dd3c4CzKBlwC&pg=PA167&ots=CGTwdVzc4d&dq=Article+49+of+the+Fourth+Geneva&sig=IaQEtHnr_ZRUcwIzWRnlbRCAQBk

 

[pro_universal]

So it wasnt in the UN charter at all.

And the interpretation you give is not even close to being international consensus…It is a view put forth by Arab apologists but has NEVER been held to apply the Arab-Israeli situation In fact case law denies it applies to the Arab-Israeli Situation at all.
books.google.com/books?id=s3kaTLyAKo0C&pg=PA169&ots=RRu9NbvmI0&dq=Article+49+of+the+Fourth+Geneva&sig=JtPUuJjKIJnYIPIfCS716FNW6qQ

books.google.com/books?id=s3kaTLyAKo0C&pg=PA169&ots=RRu9NbvmI0&dq=Article+49+of+the+Fourth+Geneva&sig=JtPUuJjKIJnYIPIfCS716FNW6qQ

books.google.com/books?id=dd3c4CzKBlwC&pg=PA167&ots=CGTwdVzc4d&dq=Article+49+of+the+Fourth+Geneva&sig=IaQEtHnr_ZRUcwIzWRnlbRCAQBk

How does the material you cited support your claim???

I read the few pages, and they seem to represent the consensus view-that occupiers may not expel the inhabitants of occupied territory, and may not transfer their own populations onto the land.

You didn’t cite any “international case law.” I’d like to see what you think it is that constitutes your view. Can you maybe cite a case or a legal authority to support it?

The fact is, every single vote at the UN on this issue results in precisely two countries denying the principle-the USA and Israel. That is why I say that there is a broad international consensus against the Israeli position, and in support of applying the fourth geneva conventions to the land occupied by Israel after 1967.

Interestingly, when the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s lawyers took up the question of settlement after the 67 war, they too opined that it would be flatly illegal under international law.

That is not “Arab apologetics”, that is what the vast weight of authorities on international law (including the ones you yourself just cited) have concluded.

 

[estesbob]

How does the material you cited support your claim???

I read the few pages, and they seem to represent the consensus view-that occupiers may not expel the inhabitants of occupied territory, and may not transfer their own populations onto the land.

You didn’t cite any “international case law.” I’d like to see what you think it is that constitutes your view. Can you maybe cite a case or a legal authority to support it?

The fact is, every single vote at the UN on this issue results in precisely two countries denying the principle-the USA and Israel. That is why I say that there is a broad international consensus against the Israeli position, and in support of applying the fourth geneva conventions to the land occupied by Israel after 1967.

Interestingly, when the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s lawyers took up the question of settlement after the 67 war, they too opined that it would be flatly illegal under international law.

That is not “Arab apologetics”, that is what the vast weight of authorities on international law (including the ones you yourself just cited) have concluded.

I posted evidence of my assertions-you post your opinion. We’ll let everyione read the authorative sources i posted and come to their own conclusion.

 

[pro_universal]

I posted evidence of my assertions-you post your opinion. We’ll let everyione read the authorative sources i posted and come to their own conclusion.

I’m not sure how you are reasoning this-the evidence you posted says precisely the opposite of what you claim. If you will read on from book one, you will find that the piece is arguing that there is no exception to Article 49, and that there are no loopholes.

I quote from pg.171 of the first book you cited, Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice:

“5.3 Position of the International Community”

“Except for Israel, the entire International Community supports the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 49 thereof to the Occupied Territories…”

This link will allow you to scroll to pg.171:books.google.com/books?id=s3kaTLyAKo0C&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22affo+judgment%22&source=web&ots=RRu9O3wpI2&sig=G2hZ-kX86zJR-GsDG8zx7VmvGmk#PPA171,M1

If you could take a look at that, I’d be interested to see how you continue to believe that the evidence you posted actually supports your claim. Because reading it I see it asserting exactly the opposite.

 

[Valke2]

I apologize if the following points, regarding UN Resolution 242 and the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” have already been addressed.

The language in 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories it captured, as has been claimed by some. The reference in the resolution applies only to an offensive war. Otherwise, a nation could use 242 as an excuse for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, 242 would require the defender to return all the land it took. 242 was not meant to be an insurance policy for aggressor nations.

**“This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”

—Abba Eban5**

Paragraph 3 sets forth the true goal of 242: the achievement of a “peaceful and accepted settlement.” This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. (see also Resolution 338, calling for negotiations between the parties after the 1973 War).

 

[AbeOman]

I apologize if the following points, regarding UN Resolution 242 and the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” have already been addressed.

The language in 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories it captured, as has been claimed by some. The reference in the resolution applies only to an offensive war. Otherwise, a nation could use 242 as an excuse for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, 242 would require the defender to return all the land it took. 242 was not meant to be an insurance policy for aggressor nations.

**“This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”

—Abba Eban5**

Paragraph 3 sets forth the true goal of 242: the achievement of a “peaceful and accepted settlement.” This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. (see also Resolution 338, calling for negotiations between the parties after the 1973 War).

With all due respect, I think you are somewhat oversimplifying the facts to your own edge or point of advantage, I would not say out of respect that you are twisting the facts but you have not been "Just’ in your rebuttal.

let me share with you this link that will give you a reasonable Jewish point of view, considering that your point of view is unreasonable and I respectfully disagreeing with you on your analyses. here is the link cactus48.com/

Thanks,

 

[AbeOman]

I respect your opinion but totally disagree with you and here is why, first from religious point of view,
what is Zionism?, i will deal with it from it’s political ramifications later,

) The very concept of Zionism was a refutation of the traditional Torah belief in exile as punishment and redemption and as dependant on penitence and Divine intervention.

1. The Zionists were overwhelmingly irreligious. There claim to represent the Jewish people before the world was preposterous. How can those who reject Judaism be Jewish leaders? Their natural instincts were to uproot Torah and its observance.
2. Zionism was woefully unconcerned about non – Jews in general and the Palestinian people already living in the land. Its heavy - handed policies were sure to cause much pain and suffering and lead world Jewry into needless conflict with the nations of the world.
3. Zionism would cause Jews to be less than loyal to the governments under whose auspices they lived in exile. This might weaken Jewish patriotism and exacerbate Jewish – Gentile conflicts.

Now let me ask you to define what is Zionism…? What are it’s origins and when was propagated in recent history…?

I leave you to answer the above two questions and to help you out, here is a link jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

Now let’s debate the biblical claim of “The promise land and the Zionist Christians”,

Let me bring your kind attention to 3 verses from the Bible and i may kindly suggest that you study their meanings.

1- “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek…for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:27-29)

2- “Heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn the truth.” (Titus 1:14)

3- “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”( Mathew 21:40)

Now how is behind the Zionist Christians, well it starts with these four men, Tim LaHaye, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The inescapable question is WHY and that do they gain from their common bond…? I leave that to you to figure out on your own.

Finally, you ought to consider one simple answer to the question, “whose land is it anyway?” In a word: “God’s.” The first verse of Psalm 24 sums up one of the main themes of the Bible: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it; the world, and those who live in it.”

Thanks for your interesting post.

 

[Valke2]

With all due respect, I think you are somewhat oversimplifying the facts to your own edge or point of advantage, I would not say out of respect that you are twisting the facts but you have not been "Just’ in your rebuttal.

let me share with you this link that will give you a reasonable Jewish point of view, considering that your point of view is unreasonable and I respectfully disagreeing with you on your analyses. here is the link cactus48.com/

Thanks,

Your link brings me to a “Jews against Zionism” website. I have not read through it. But I think that, while it is a jewish point of view, anything having to do with Jews against Zionism can not accurately be referred to as representing normative Judaism.

I will try to read the link later.

 

[Lev23]

I
Now let’s debate the biblical claim of “The promise land and the Zionist Christians”,

Let me bring your kind attention to 3 verses from the Bible and i may kindly suggest that you study their meanings.

1- “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek…for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:27-29)

2- “Heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn the truth.” (Titus 1:14)

3- “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”( Mathew 21:40)

Now how is behind the Zionist Christians, well it starts with these four men, Tim LaHaye, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The inescapable question is WHY and that do they gain from their common bond…? I leave that to you to figure out on your own.

Finally, you ought to consider one simple answer to the question, “whose land is it anyway?” In a word: “God’s.” The first verse of Psalm 24 sums up one of the main themes of the Bible: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it; the world, and those who live in it.”

Thanks for your interesting post.

LETS DO.
Typical cherry-picking of scripture that people like you try to prove God will never place the people of Israel in his land again. What a shame!

First and foremost, #1. What is your point? Are you saying that outside Christ, Jews and Gentiles have no advantage over one another? Yes, God is the God of the Jews and Gentiles alike, and both are under sin. But what else does St.Paul say on this matter?
Romans3:1-2
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

Furthermore St.Paul describes humanity in 3 parts
1Cor.10:32
Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—

Now St.Paul concerning Israel, and remember there will be those that will be saved when the Jesus comes from Zion, when all Israel will be saved.(Zech14/Romans11)
Romans 9
I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Now here is what St.Paul states concerning unsaved Gentiles.
Eph2:11-12.
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

So we see through the Messiah, the Church is saved and Israel will be saved by him. The nations have no hope but to believe in the Messiah of ISRAEL, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Israel has promises no other nation has, they have not deserved it, like all other nations don’t, but God will do it for his name’s sake.

#2 and #3. You acknowledge all prophecies that the Messiah came as a Lamb to Israel but ignore ALL OT prophecies of the Messiah coming to save Israel as a Lion in the end days. By doing this, you use verses like Matt21:40 to prove that “God has gotten out of the real estate business” and will never bring the Jews back into the land again, even in their sin.

…continued…

 

[Lev23]

…continued…

The Kingdom was taken away from them, but Israel will be the head of the nations, when they turn from their ways and back to
God and accept their Messiah who they crucified. The nation of Israel will never have the Kingdom by doing things on their own, but they will when they turn back to God and realize who their Messiah is(Zech12). As prophesied.

When Jesus comes back, Israel will be in its land, ready to be totally defeated by the nations. He will put the stop to this, the nations will be punished for what they did to Israel(Joel 3, etc.) and israels hard heart will be broken, and they will all call on God for his mercy and protection. As prophesied.

So its sad to see people today who read and believe the scriptures as God’s word,
1-do not see Israel as of no biblical importance,

2-seek the help of the world to punish Israel in worldly ways,

3-convince Israel themselves that they are of no biblical importance by stressing to them their sins and crimes,

4-help and support the world in dividing the land and establish a nation whose descendants are from Ishmael.

ALL THIS FOR A “WORLDY” PEACE"

 

[Valke2]

Abe:

I think this is one issue that you and I will have to agree to disagree on. Among other things, we are tending to mix up zionism with the issue of the two state solution.

 

[AbeOman]

…continued…

The Kingdom was taken away from them, but Israel will be the head of the nations, when they turn from their ways and back to
God and accept their Messiah who they crucified. The nation of Israel will never have the Kingdom by doing things on their own, but they will when they turn back to God and realize who their Messiah is(Zech12). As prophesied.

So you mean to say all the Jews today will eventually believe in Messiah, if so why not do that and believe in him right now…?

I don’t understand the logic in this…? Please clarify…?
When Jesus comes back, Israel will be in its land, ready to be totally defeated by the nations. He will put the stop to this, the nations will be punished for what they did to Israel(Joel 3, etc.) and israels hard heart will be broken, and they will all call on God for his mercy and protection. As prophesied.

Simply that is not in the bible, I clearly quote verses from the bible and it’s not what the bible teaches in this regards, so you are either wrong or the bible is contradicting itself.

So its sad to see people today who read and believe the scriptures as God’s word,

1-do not see Israel as of no biblical importance,

No that is your assumption, however in whose Bible are you referring to…? since you Jews don’t believe in the Bible of Christ…?

2-seek the help of the world to punish Israel in worldly ways,

This is over statement, we are dealing with Zionism and Zionist Christians, so I have no clue as to where we get into this.

3-convince Israel themselves that they are of no biblical importance by stressing to them their sins and crimes,

4-help and support the world in dividing the land and establish a nation whose descendants are from Ishmael.

OK, fair enough what about the descendants of Isaac, again going back to the bible, is God selectively views people in terms of their race or ethnicity, hence, you are pointing clearly to wards the "Ethnicity of God’s religion, in other words, is Christianity a ethnic or race based religion of it’s universal, accepting that Judaism is.
ALL THIS FOR A “WORLDY” PEACE"

Second, it’s not personal opinion but from what I understood from the bible and hence I was not to make such claim and as matter of fact, that was not even the discussion, the thread was about Zionism and not :the promise land and returning of the Messiah

Just for an argument sake, how would the Jews will be welcoming the Messiah upon his return if they even don’t believe in him today…?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I am not against Jews or Judaism , i am against colonialisation and opression of the original people of the land. Meedo

Then I assume you want the Arabic Muslim invaders to leave the Sudan? You know, the Arabic Muslims who are killing the native Africans?

 

[AbeOman]

Abe:

I think this is one issue that you and I will have to agree to disagree on. Among other things, we are tending to mix up Zionism with the issue of the two state solution.
Put religion a side, I’m 100% for every Jew practising or secular to have his home in Palestine or Israel and live in their peacefully and prosperously till end of time.

I’m also for all Palestinians (Arabs, Bani Israelis “Jews” Armans, Muslims, Christians and other ethnic groups) to have a homeland of their own and a state of theirs under their control with full self determination.

I believe from the point of strength that is what King Abdullah Peace Plan is all about along with the the two state Solutions,

Said that, my earlier post was particularly dealing with Zionism as a political movement and Christian Zionism as faith based movement.

In a nutshell, I was not arguing to the effect Lev23 has interpreted.

I hope that clarifies my point.

Thanks for making such a valid and well put statement.