jerusalem capital israel
Israel

The whole world should recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – simply because it is

There is no greater view in the world than that of Jerusalem from the top of the Mount of Olives. There isn’t a more wonderful picture of world history, of rhythm and harmony, of political breadth and religious magnificence. The Holy City is a labyrinth of streets and alleys surrounded by fortifications and battlements, all bowing toward the Temple at the obstinate heart. It is a rigidity and inflexibility which stood against invaders for a thousand years. Perhaps that same obstinacy was the cause of her destruction and the ejection of Israel from the land of her forefathers. Did Jesus have a premonition?

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it… (Lk 19:41).

And Jews have been weeping over it for two millennia – its destruction, desolation, and days of vengeance. There came the prophesied distress upon the land and wrath upon its hardhearted people. The Jerusalem which condemned and crucified Jesus was extinguished in a hail of stones and inferno in AD70.

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (21:24).

Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled?

The United States of America has decided to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Or, if you prefer, Donald Trump has decided to honour his campaign pledge to the Zionist Jewish lobby. Whether you agree or not with this decision largely determines which of these reasonings you favour. In a sense, it doesn’t really matter: Israel has always regarded Jerusalem as its capital city, whether or not the rest of the world recognises it. The Muslim world (in so far as it exists) never has and never will, not least because parts of that world do not even recognise the State of Israel. East Jerusalem, as far they are concerned, is the capital of the State of Palestine (in so far as it exists), and so an indivisible Jerusalem is not only a threat to Middle East peace; it is an ontological absurdity.

As the supersessionists now commence exegetical battle with the biblical literalists and the pre-tribulation rapturists over the eschatological significance (or otherwise) of the US decision (/Trump’s Zionist collusion), it is worth reflecting on the fact that the city walls of modern Jerusalem are patently not the same as those which existed in the time of Solomon or Herod, or even Jesus: Old Jerusalem, the City of David (Zion) is just a small corner of today’s sprawling metropolis, which has stretched over the centuries along the Road to Damascus and the Joffa Road, incorporating the hills of Gareb, Goah, the Valley of Dead Bodies and the Kidron brook. The growth of the city has been constant and incremental.

So when the US declares its intention to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city, it is not a dogmatic assertion of boundaries and borders: there is (or ought to be) no threat to any Middle East peace plan (in so far as it exists), for the modern enlargement of Jerusalem extends well beyond Zion, and Donald Trump isn’t about to insist that the new US embassy should be built right next to Temple Mount in the hope of basking in the shekinah glory of the Holy City.

And yet…

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.
And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever (Jer 31:38-40).

Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled?

There are those, of course, who will wonder why on earth fundamentalist obsessions with an ancient religious book should determine contemporary geo-politics. Yet one man’s fundamentalist obsession is another’s divine promise.

Perhaps the best way now would be for the whole world to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and they could construct their embassies in their preferred quarters. Let the Muslim world opt for the horse gate toward the east, as they wish, and the US could occupy somewhere between the Tower of Hananeel and the Road to Damascus. And for those nations which can’t make up their minds, there is always the Valley of Dead Bodies toward the north, well outside the ancient city walls, where neither Israelis nor Palestinians care very much at all about the cursed ash of ancient sacrifice.

  • Dolphinfish

    I wonder how many people have actually read Machiavelli’s COMPLETE answer to his famous question, is it better to be feared or loved. Things might become clearer if they did, and perhaps we could finally address the Israeli problem definitively, rather than starting from the proposition that, now that the people WE like have butchered their way to a patrimony, let’s just forget the past and treat them the same as we do other countries.

    • Ray Sunshine

      When you say “butchered their way to a patrimony” what you mean, I suppose, is that Israel successfully defended itself and its democratic institutions against repeated unprovoked invasions by neighbouring right-wing dictatorships, not least in the Six Day War in 1967, which returned Jerusalem to its rightful owners.

      • They butchered their way through the British mandate forces – terrorists later becoming rulers.

        • Busy Mum

          But did they perceive that the British were not really on their side?

          • We were not supposed to be on any side but peacekeepers.

          • Ray Sunshine

            The Foreign Office was on the side of Britain’s oil imports.

          • Anton

            And facilitators of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.

          • Busy Mum

            I thought we were meant to be on the Jews’ side?

          • ‘we’ – British mandate or Christians?

          • Busy Mum

            Both.

          • IMO neither but on the side of peace and justice.

          • Busy Mum

            Woolly words nowadays…

          • Not at all. Peace means secure borders and all live without conflict. Justice means the rule of law. I favour neither Palestinian nor Israeli.

          • Busy Mum

            Even though the Israelis, unlike the ‘Palestinians’, are doing their best to secure their borders and uphold the rule of law within their domain?

            Even though God favoured Israel above all the nations of the earth?

        • Anton

          Those actions were not sanctioned by the Jews’ main defence organisation, the Haganah, and they would never have happened anyway if Britain had kept its word over its League of Nations Mandate and facilitated rather than throttled Jewish immigration. The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League issued a report, following its meeting of 8-29th June 1939, which stated that “The policy set out in [Britain’s May 1939] White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

          • Akusia

            Britain behaved appallingly as steward of the Jewish national home. Jews were executed for non-capital offences and British officials sometimes stood aside while Arabs slaughtered Jews.

            All this while Hitler increasingly did his worst. Jews fought and died alongside the Allies while favoured Arabs deserted no matter how much they’d been indulged.

    • Anton

      The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight – Jamal Husseini, Palestinian Arab leader, to the UN Security Council, 16th April 1948.

    • Damaris Tighe

      “the Israeli problem” – is this an updated and sanitised version of “the Jewish problem”?

      • Dolphinfish

        No. It’s a realistic redefining of “the Palestinian problem”. This is not really a good forum for SJWs.

        • Damaris Tighe

          I’m a traditionalist conservative, not an SJW.

          • Dolphinfish

            All traditionalist conservatives become SJWs the moment the conversation switches to Israel.

    • carl jacobs

      So the world would have been better off if the Arabs had won the war they started in ’48? At least you would have seen what real butchery looks like.

      • Anton

        Indeed. In a newspaper interview weeks before the UN vote for partition, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, stated that he hoped the Jews would not force war, but said that any hostilities against them would be “a war of extermination, a momentous massacre” (Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, 11th October 1947).

  • Father David

    Oy Vey

  • why on earth fundamentalist obsessions with an ancient religious book should determine contemporary geo-politics

    Gilad Atzmon supplies the invaluable insider’s view in The Wandering Who?, pp139-140:

        In Palestine, the new Jews and later the Israelis were determined to recruit the Old Testament and transform it into the unifying code of the future Jewish people. The ’nationalisation’ of the Bible would plant in the minds of young Jews the idea that they were the direct descendants of their great, ancient ancestors. Bearing in mind the fact that nationalisation was largely a secular movement, the Bible was stripped of its spiritual and religious meaning. Instead, it was viewed as a historical text describing a ‘real’ chain of events in the past.

        Through their heroic ancestors, the new nationalist Jews learned to love themselves and hate others, except this time they would possess the military might to inflict real pain on their neighbours. More worrying was the fact that instead of a supernatural entity (namely, God) to command them to invade and commit genocide against the ‘Promised Land’s’ indigenous inhabitants, in the Jewish national revival project it was they themselves—Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, Sharon, Peres, Barak, Netanyahu, Lieberman, etc—who would decide to expel and kill. God no longer killed in the name of the Jewish people, the Jews did.

    • Anton

      You can’t “strip the Bible of its spiritual and religious meaning”. You can only misread it. I’m sorry that Atzmon and presumably you deny that it is “a historical text describing a ‘real’ chain of events in the past.”

      • @ Anton—The Atzmon quote contains neither denial nor endorsement. It merely states that secular Zionists used/abused the Old Testament verses which suited their purpose and chucked the rest. The need to bring me into it, I cannot fathom.

        • Anton

          I had taken Atzmon to be endorsing that view and you to be endorsing Atzmon. I’m sorry for my misunderstanding but I urge you to make it a bit clearer immediately before you reproduce the quote.

  • CliveM

    Well maybe. However in a frighteningly unstable world, with more then enough problems for our world leaders to get on with trying to sort, another source of instability is probably not needed.

    Timing is everything and I’m not convinced now is the time.

    • Anton

      1948 was the time, but better late than never…

      • CliveM

        I certainly agree with the first half of the sentence.

    • Busy Mum

      If God has decided now is the time, then it is – watching Jerusalem, the Holy Land and the Jews in general is a good source of stability….

      • CliveM

        “Watching Jerusalem, the Holy Land and the Jews in general is a good source of stability….”

        You’ll really need to explain what you mean by that.

        • Busy Mum

          Don’t you find that they are the living evidence of God and the truth of the Bible?

          • CliveM

            So you’re talking personal stability not world stability?

            The whole world is living evidence of a living God and his bible, as are holy lives lived in witness.

            I don’t see, from a Christian perspective, that Jerusalem is specially holy. Although I do see that Jews would see it differently.

          • Busy Mum

            As Jesus Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec, ancient king of Salem, then Jerusalem does have a distinctive analogous meaning for Christians.

            I agree that the whole world and creation are evidence of God
            as are the ‘cloud of witnesses’.

            If world instability leads to greater personal stability, is that necessarily a bad thing? ‘When these things begin to come to pass, look up, for your redemption draweth nigh’. I would almost dare to say that world instability is what we should be expecting, or alternatively that world stability is something to be feared – when they say peace and safety, sudden destruction cometh upon them.

    • There never was or will be a stable world and a perfect time. This one’s way overdue.

      • CliveM

        There are peaks and troughs. If you’re going to take on NK (which is also overdue), then don’t actively stoke the fire elsewhere.

        I’m not a fan of Trump, so personally I don’t believe he should be taking on more then his limited abilities are capable of.

        • I assumed the embassy move won’t happen until his second term, but he’s been on a roll, getting a lot accomplished while distracting the media and his increasingly demented opponents with tweets and irrelevant bullshit. On NK, if anything might get them (and the Chinese, who are Norks’ puppet masters) to blink and gulp, it’s seeing Trump barrel through like this. And parking a few aircraft carriers just over their horizon.

          • CliveM

            If you’re going to play nuclear chicken, make sure you’re not distracted elsewhere.

          • Quite the opposite; if you have the ability to multi-task with a solid cabinet and boosted-up forces, it’s you who’ll be doing the distracting.

          • CliveM

            Even with all those things in place (and I’m not convinced they are), the stakes are so high you want your full focus on the issue in hand.

            Moving the Embassy can wait a couple of years. Indeed if you have just succeeded with Kim Jung Fatboy, you’ll be in a stronger position to do so.

          • Who knows? One thing’s for sure, though; Trump’s getting far better intel and advice with his breakfast coffee than we’ll ever get in our lifetimes.

          • CliveM

            It’s not the quality of the intelligence he receives that concerns me.

          • Ray Sunshine

            I assumed the embassy move won’t happen until his second term, …

            Are you confident he’ll get a second term?

          • Anton

            More confident if he recognises Jerusalem as capital…

          • Fairly. Holding Congress and Senate in the mid-terms will be important, and all will hinge on the effects of the tax reforms. The economy and employment stats are humming right now, promises are being kept and the Dems are in confusion.

  • Anton

    What a magnficent president Donald Trump is turning out to be!

    • CliveM

      He is?

      • Anton

        For challenging the climate change myth which would otherwise bring the West to its knees economically, and for being the one Western leader to recognise the Islamic challenge to Western civilisation. Those are truly enormous things.

        • CliveM

          Well I don’t see climate change as a myth. Although there is a debate to be had about the causes and solutions.

          • Anton

            The myth is that the climate of the whole world is changing rapidly due to human activity.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Pollution of the sea ,rivers and air are serious contributing factors to the destruction of our environment and injurious to health.It is sinful to destroy the environment, greed being the motivating factor. We should only take what we need.The waste is obscene in the affluent countries.

          • Anton

            Agreed, although I do regard that as a different subject because CO2 is not a pollutant.

      • Yes, he is Clive. For many reasons, domestic and international. Without him to keep his foot on EU’s tail, Brexit wouldn’t have a chance.

  • Damaris Tighe

    The Jerusalem of ‘quarters’, the Temple Mount and the alleyways isn’t the Jerusalem to which the US will move its embassy. This is the Old City only, captured in 1967. West Jerusalem, which is within the pre-1967 borders of Israel, is almost wholly Jewish and where the Knesset and the President’s and PM’s residences are to be found. The move could only be controversial for those who believe Israel shouldn’t exist at all.

  • Inspector General

    I say! This is capital news, what!

    One in the eye for Islam in the area too. Just goes to show you can put one over on those nasties.

    Submission to them is not inevitable, so faint hearts look
    on in awe, why don’t you…and BE INSPIRED!!!

    Those thugs are saying it will put the mythical ‘Middle East Peace Process’ at risk. Well, we’ll just have to live with that, then.

    Well done, President Trump, sir!

  • There are no holy places. The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. The earthly Jerusalem is of no importance to me as a Christian. I have no dog in that fight. I look for the New Jerusalem.

    • magnolia

      Agreed, inasmuch as there are no necessary holy places. Destroy every last place of Christian pilgrimage and our faith stands completely intact. Canterbury, Oxford’s Martyrs’ Memorial; fantastic places of martyrdom remembrance, yet not strictly necessary, for the wind of the Spirit keeps blowing, and new places where miracles-and (half sadly) martyrdom- happened crop up everywhere..

      • Amen!

      • ardenjm

        Well indeed. Given that the martyr’s memorial is to men who supported tearing down the holy places that had been venerated for 1000 years in England I’m almost certain that they would join in the Isis-like destruction of their own memorial.
        The irony is those who – on the anniversary of their deaths – place candles on it like Papists…

        • Anton

          Isis certainly flows through Oxford.

        • Terry Mushroom

          The 16th century was ground zero. You really must stop insisting anything different.

        • Kennybhoy

          Bad man! lol 🙂

    • Anton

      One may live as a faithful Christian and take no interest in Middle Eastern politics, to be sure. But to which city will Christ one day return bodily in power?

      • IanCad

        At His Second Coming His feet will not touch the ground.
        Now, when Christ returns with the Holy City – the New Jerusalem – it should follow that there is no “Old” Jerusalem left.

        • Anton

          No: Acts 1:11.

        • Antony Mugford

          And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

          Zechariah 14 v 4

    • dannybhoy

      Then you should know that the new Jerusalem will be sited where the present Jerusalem is on a renewed earth, and each of the gates will have the names of the twelve tribes above the gates..
      (So no space for Welby et al…)

  • TropicalAnglican

    I didn’t want to jump the gun as the announcement has not been made officially yet, but since this new blog post has come up, I would like to repost what then candidate Trump had already said back in October 2016:

    Donald J. Trump
    Friday, October 14th 2016, 2:25:28 am
    “I have said on numerous occasions that in a Trump Administration, the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the one true capital of Israel. The United Nations’ attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the UN. Jerusalem is the enduring capital of the Jewish People and the overwhelming majority of Congress has voted to recognize Jerusalem as just that. Further, the decision by the Obama Administration to strike the word ‘Israel’ after the word ‘Jerusalem’ in the President’s prepared text was a capitulation to Israel’s enemies, and a posthumous embarrassment to Shimon Peres, whose memory the President was attempting to honor. In a Trump Administration, Israel will have a true, loyal and lasting friend in the United States of America.” Donald J. Trump

    This is just to update with a link, which was not in my 2016 post:

    https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10157885901260725

    That should satisfy the fact-checkers!

  • Chris Bell

    I love the Jewish people for without this magnificent, rather homeless people, we would not have been given Christ. But instead we would be left with a psychopathic muhammad of questionable birth and homeland, residing in a Mecca that nobody cares about anyway. God chose Jerusalem to stage the great war between ignorance and light………..not some remote dust-bowl. Of course it is the capital.

    • dannybhoy

      I met a lovely Jewish guy yesterday at a synagogue, -old like me. He had that sad smile I have seen so many times on Jewish faces in Israel, Something that touches your heart..

      • I’m lovely too and I also get that smile when I see a couple of bottles of single malt and plates of shmaltz herring at the kiddush table…even in the Diaspora.

        • dannybhoy

          It’s always about you, isn’t it..

          • Of course, and you’d be concerned and asking about my health if I got all altruistic on you and turned into a Care Bear.

          • dannybhoy

            Good to have you back Avi, we missed you.

        • David Harkness

          Any particular malt avi? Bit of a fan myself, though I have to say I wouldn’t immediate associate whisky with fish….

          • Glenfiddich gladdens my heart. In my youthful days I liked the insanely peaty Laphroaig, but I can’t tolerate even the smell nowadays. A while back, the Inspector here suggested Jameson’s, great value for its price, and I did like the pricier Power John’s Lane when a fellow brought it to the synagogue.

            Ah yes, the herring thing. Consider yourself trigger warned. Picture salty North Sea barrel herring sliced into bite-sized portions, steeped in light oil for about a week with thin rings of onion to be assembled (tipsiness permitting) on a cracker and devoured as a chaser after a quick shot. I know, the scotch should be sipped and tasted . You’d blanch in horror to witness me and my cronies in action, but I noticed that after about half a dozen shots in succession, it all tastes good. All. Even the Bombay gin someone manages to dig out from the caterer’s kitchens to mix with pink cream-soda.

          • Anton

            Octomore is the peaty one that remains glorious even after one grows tired of Laphroaig, but it’s not cheap. Hard to beat Highland Park and Auchentoshan if you ask me.

          • I’d have to hop on a plane to get those. In Toronto we can only buy alcohol in stores managed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

          • Anton

            Legally…

          • Damaris Tighe

            Did you know it’s impossible to get chopped herring in Israel?

          • You have to go to a Russian-owned delicatessen for that . They prefer the vinegar and wine marinated ones, and most people will pick up whole brined barrel herrings and make their own. I think it sells in some ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods as dag maluach, but I’ve never looked for it there.

            The real mecca for chopped herring of course, is Holland. The combination of herring kiosks and legal pot cafes have even encouraged some people returning home after a Europe trip to detour through Amsterdam. The resulting over-stimulation can even cause some to miss their flight back, and the accumulated scents make a memorable impression on the Customs sniffer dogs upon return.

          • Damaris Tighe

            I lived in Jerusalem for several years and couldn’t find any supplier (even Russian) of chopped herring – except one run-up to Rosh Hashonah when a British Jew sold it from his flat. It was like (I suppose) trying to find a pot dealer! I was very surprised.

          • David Harkness

            Ah, your journey into the wonderful world of whisky is the exact opposite of mine – we must have passed each other in the middle. I started with Speysiders, Glenfiddich was always a good one, but now my tastes run to Islays. Caol Isla the current fave.

            The Inspector is leading you into the error of Rome though, Jameson’s is a Catholic Whiskey. If you want Irish try and get a hold of a bottle of good Presbyterian Bushmills or Black Bush.

            The Herring recipe sounds worth a try, I may get the Leader of the Opposition to see what she can do in that respect.

            Thanks Avi

          • My pleasure. I see what you mean about the Inspector, though. There were times when an excess of Jameson’s produced an inexplicable urge to make a run to the nearest baptismal font. I never suspected him.

            I’ve had some excellent Islays which were gentler on the palette, btw. Perhaps because the distillery forgot to mix in the trash incinerator ash into the mash for that inimitable “peaty” taste. And I’m overjoyed that after years of hurtful mockery on this forum, someone finally appreciates the value of the humble schmaltz herring…even if only as an instrument of political assassination.

        • Damaris Tighe

          I get the same smile over a bowl of chicken soup with matzo balls 😉

      • Chris Bell

        I too am old but yet I see those same sad smiles upon the Jewish person as upon the Polish person and on all those peoples that have been laid waste by so-called nations. I may be wrong but the Jewish nation has never conducted any war except the 6 day defence and attack of an aggressive power. I fall into apoplexy over the hypocrisy of our news readers…………..the bias is overwhelming. These people have suffered, yet they have added mathematics, music, humour, business, literature and science to every society they have lived within. How dare they be so hated!!!!
        (reaching for the pills…….)

  • יישר כחך – Strength to you, and blessings, YG.

    • The Snail

      טוב מאוד

  • carl jacobs

    The “state of Palestine” is a bootstrapped non-historical entity about which other Arabs do not care a damn. It isn’t really a nation so much as it is the reified Arab rejection of Israel’s existence. Something had to be juxtaposed with Israel once Israel came into existence. So suddenly there was a “Palestine” with “Palestinians”. It’s just another part of the strategy to drive out the Crusader state.

    • “Reified”? Didn’t know it was an American word. I even had to look it up. I think the Brits here have finally civilized you.

      • carl jacobs

        I think the Brits here have finally civilized you.

        I grew up learning at the feet of Wm F Buckley, thank you very much.

        https://www.thoughtco.com/william-f-buckley-vocabulary-quiz-1692690

        Didn’t know it was an American word.

        Of course it’s an American word. All English words are American words. We have owned the English language for close to 200 years by Act of Congress. And you had better be careful. If you Canadians get snippy, we will withdraw your right to use English, and you will have to learn French.

        • Chefofsinners

          Any “act of congress” involving Americans and the English language occurred out of wedlock and its offspring are illegitimate.

        • Ah, good old Buckley, fate spared him from witnessing the progress of his National Review. He sounded somewhat English, though. Good English schools without ketchup and fries or just the endearing Bostonian shot at sounding Oxbridge?

    • Chris Bell

      Absolutely.

    • Jon Sorensen

      Palestinians have been there looong before Jews…. so much for “non-historical entity”

  • Yeah, I don’t understand the dynamics in the UK over this…painful to read about it even. If the US tax reform happens successfully, it will boost the US economy off the charts and this will undoubtedly put in the wind in UK’s sails, especially if Trump makes a special US-UK trade deal and delivers the second kick in the nuts to the EU.

    • CliveM

      Avi

      We have second rate politicians who couldn’t organise a hotel booking cancellation never mind anything as complex as Brexit.

      Trade deal with the US? They couldn’t spell it.

      And then we have Corbyn!

      How easy is it to get into Canada these days?

      • Doors are wide open right now, Clive. And if you flush your passport and IDs down the toilet on the flight over and claim to be a returning ISIS repentant, out cool and trendy PM, Just Justin, will personally greet you and set you up for the good life. Strength in diversity, eh, Dude?

        • CliveM

          I think I’ll give it serious consideration.

  • Manfarang

    West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?

    • Ray Sunshine

      You haven’t been keeping up with the news.

    • There is only one, undivided Jerusalem. Old armistice lines from Jordan’s illegal 19 year-old occupation, ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population and wanton looting and destruction of the Old City are irrelevant to Israel’s borders.

      • Manfarang

        No change to the 1967 borders is recognized by any other country.
        Annexation by a State of the territory or part thereof of another State by means of threats of force or the use of force is an act of aggression and is therefore forbidden by international law.

        • Anton

          There is no such thing as international law, only international treaties, to which only signatories are bound.

          • Manfarang

            International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations.

          • Anton

            Waffle. There are only international treaties, to which only signatories are bound. These may, of course, aim to harmonise laws among signatory countries.

          • Manfarang

            Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom.

          • Anton

            On your view, the great powers can get together and tell other nations what their laws should be whether they like it or not. In other circumstances you would call that colonialism, wouldn’t you?

          • Manfarang

            I would call it the International Court of Justice.

          • Anton

            There is no compulsion on any nation to be a member of the UN.

          • Manfarang

            Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”.

          • Anton

            It appears to be open to quite a few warmongers too. The UN is a democracy of dictatorships.

          • A democracy of dictatorships. Ooh, I do like that one very much; why can’t I ever come up anything short and memorable like that! I’m gonna have to rip it off.

          • Anton

            Make my day!

          • Manfarang

            Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”.

          • Which somehow explains why the UNIFIL allows Hamas to take over south Lebanon and install thousands of missiles in schools and mosques? Oh, yeah, and it feeds them, heals them and educates their children about the Jewish apes and monkeys across the border.

          • Manfarang

            A legacy of the Free Lebanon State failing to gain international recognition maybe.

          • Or a legacy of the West’s disregard for its allies, greed for oil and a paralyzing fear of militant Islam, more likely.

          • carl jacobs

            The UN is a military hegemony of five powers. It vests the authority to determine violations of the UN charter with the Security Council. So for all the intellectuals claiming “This or that violates international law” they have no authoritative finding of fact to back up the claim. The five permanent members are in fact above the law because they possess a veto and thus can never be found in violation. This is why Australia lead the revolt against the veto in 1945.

          • Anna

            Yes, but colonialism also involves the extortion of resources and exploitation of the native population for the benefit of the coloniser.

          • Great line to start a freshman poli-sci essay with; not so useful in the real world.

          • Manfarang

            The last century saw the slaughter of millions in the real world.

          • Anton

            And international lawyers have done SO much to stop it. Verily we should all go on our knees and thank them.

          • Manfarang

            The Kellogg–Briand Pact pact is associated with a marked decline in territorial conquest of one nation by another in the periods before and after its signing: the period from 1816 to 1928 saw on average one conquest every 10 months and 114,088 square miles of territory taken per year, while the period since World War Two has seen one conquest every four years and 5,772 square miles of territory taken per year. After WWII, territories that had been conquered between 1928 and WWII, with some exceptions, were mostly returned to the countries that had originally held them.

          • Interesting, but you can’t actually believe that this has anything to do with “international law,” the UN or Lennon’s “Imagine”? Maybe major political and strategic rearrangements, not to mention a technological revolution in weaponry…like, oh, I dunno, say, ICBMs and nuclear subs… have something to do with better behaviour among the civilized?

          • Manfarang

            There are some things which will not be resolved without a treaty.

          • dannybhoy

            I think it will be a Divine mandate..

          • Manfarang

            Or the “the ultimate deal” as someone said.

          • Anton

            Have you read “The Silk Roads” by Peter Frankopan? I think you’d enjoy it.

          • Manfarang

            I have that book.
            Now it is the One Belt and One Road Initiative (OBOR).

          • There are even more things which will never be resolved.

          • Manfarang

            I note that Trump indicated support for a two-state solution for the first time.

          • Not for the first time; it’s been his official line from the beginning.

            If I’m tired, hoping to avoid futile arguments, or making a beeline for the bar before the good stuff gets quaffed up, I’m all for it too.

          • Anton

            In one post you lament the slaughter of the 20th century and in the next post you say how much better it has been. Make your mind up!

          • Manfarang

            Obviously as a practical matter, the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not live up to all of its aims but aggressive war ceased to be regarded as legitimate.

          • Anton

            Your use of the passive, to avoid mentioning counter-parties (e.g., “aggressive war ceased to be regarded as legitimate”), is most entertaining in this exchange.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s like claiming that Stalin’s Constitution of 1936 guaranteed freedom of religion. Technically true but functionally irrelevant. A treaty doesn’t actually bind a nation if it doesn’t want to be bound. Countervailing power binds a nation.

            This BTW was GWBs unforgivable sin in Iraq. He demonstrated that power respects no international law. The entire Liberal Internationalist conceit was exposed in one single act. And so they gnash their teeth at him.

          • Manfarang

            Years of fighting and instability since the US led invasion. GWB didn’t bring peace.

          • carl jacobs

            True, but why? The US tried to establish democracy in Iraq on the (naive, foolish, typically American) assumption that all people everywhere are Western Jeffersonian democrats at heart. This inevitably created a Shi’a dominated state. So what happened to the Sunnis who were 1) the minority that 2) had been ruling Iraq for decades? The became fearful that they would be cast down to the bottom of society and made to suffer by those they had oppressed. So they rebelled. The civil war in Iraq (as well as the eventual emergence of ISIS) was a Sunni reaction to the rise of Shi’a power. The US could have avoided this problem by giving Iraq to a compliant Iraqi general. One can imagine the reaction however. Considering however that many people today think it would have been preferrablee to leave Iraq iin the hands of Saddamn Hussein, I must wonder why.

            But in any case, that wasn’t what the war was about. The problems that occurred because of the war (however terrible in the local sense) are manageable on an international scale. A nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would have been a geostrategic catastrophe. The possible solutions to the Hussein problem were few:

            1. Hans Blix and His Opera Buffa. There was no confidence that he could actually restrain Husein’s desire for nuclear weapons. The implications for US policy of a nuclear Iraq under Hussien were so disastrous, that it couldn’t be trusted anyways. That kind of security threat needs to be addressed directly and not indirectly. If Blix fails, the US picks up the pieces.

            2. Cross your fingers and hope. This was the preferred European solution – that Hussein just would not siucceed in his quest. The Europeans liked this solution because of item 3 below. The US hated it for the same reasons expressed in Item 1 above.

            3. Let the Americans deal with it This was the preferred European back-up plan. If Hussien got nukes, they would put the American Army in the Middle east for freaking ever as a fixed sitting target for Al Qaida in order to deter Iraq and secure European oil supplies. because that’s what the Americans are for – defending European interests so Europe doesn’t have to. It might be surprising, but the US didn’t like this plan.

            4. Tear Hussein out root and branch. This is what the Americans did, and as an act of unilateral sovereign power. We did it because the consequences for the US were too disastrous to risk. This is why the Internationalists raged. Their solution would have been for the US to assume the risk in service to “International Law.” Which would have meant either perpetual warfare in the Middle east against Al Qaida guerillas backed by a nuclear armed Saddam or surrendering the ME to Iraqi hegemony and risking a nuclear war between Israel and Iraq.

            The failure in Iraq was a failure of nation-building. The US has no business attempting it. We don’t know how to do it. We won’t work at it long enough to succeed anyways. The US military is the worst instrument possible to try to use to accomplish this task. I hope this lesson has been learned and we won’t ever again try to remake a nation in our own image for the sake of humanitarian do-goodism. And, oh btw, that’s a lesson that the likes of Gareth Evans and the R2P crowd does not want the US to draw. They want desparately to assocaite the failure in Iraq with the decision for war instead of the decisions for nation-building. That’s because what the US so spectacularly failed to do in Iraq is exactly what the Liberal Internationalists want the US to do in officalliy approved liberal interventions. “If only GWBs motives had been consistent with Liberal Internationalist ideals, doncha know he could have succeeded in Iraq.”

            He did succeed at the most important task. He just didn’t do what they wanted.

          • “Generally regarded” until specifically and repeatedly disregarded by the majority of members.

          • carl jacobs

            generally regarded and accepted as binding

            Except of course for those times when they aren’t. Is anyone going to reverse Russia’s re-occupation of Crimea? No. Why did Russia do it? Because no Russian Gov’t could let a hostile Navy port in Crimea. Does it matter whether this violates International law or not ? Not in the least. Will other nations recognize it? De facto if not de jure.

            The world runs on power and International law depends upon the possibility of mutual reciprocity. When it doesn’t exist, the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Has anyone ever given a satisfactory explanation of why Khrushchev handed the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954? I’ve heard that it was a bribe for the Ukrainian CP bosses to support him against certain (unnamed) rivals in the Kremlin, but I have no idea whether there’s any truth in that.

          • carl jacobs

            I’ve heard that as well. But really no one ever expected Ukraine to be separated from Russia. So did it really matter at the time?

        • Too bad about the lack of recognition, but it will come in time. What state did Israel take territory from?

          • dannybhoy

            Exactly.
            There never was a Palestinian State, a Palestinian Kingdom or like Switzerland a Confederation ..
            The Almighty decided it was time for the Jews to come home..

          • Manfarang

            The British Mandate territory.

          • carl jacobs

            And which nation had rightful sovereignty over the British Mandate Territory?

          • So, not a state.

        • carl jacobs

          Be sure to tell China it is violating International Law in Tibet. I am sure they will be mortified.

        • Inspector General

          1967 is a very long time ago, Manfarang.

          “To the victor, the land” don’t you think. It was always this way…

        • Akusia

          You’ve missed the part about High Contracting Parties. There is one of them only, it is Israel, it acquired the territories in a defensive war – the opposite of aggression – and there is no other High Contracting Party since Jordan had been an illegal occupier, as Avi said and Egypt relinquished any interest in Gaza. In Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel Jordan dropped any claim to the territory it had occupied illegally. Note the two peace treaties.

          It is Arabs who are occupying Israel’s land no matter what the fashionable unintelligence says.

          • Manfarang

            Neither Peace Treaty (Egypt or Jordan ) recognized Gaza or the West Bank as being part of Israel proper.
            An article of the Jordanian Peace Treaty (Article 9) links the Peace Treaty to the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Israel recognized the special role of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem and committed itself to give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines in negotiations on the permanent status. of the city.

  • Sybaseguru

    The Palestinians have had long enough to sort out a peace agreement, but won’t give up on the idea of wiping the Jews out who have been there for 3000+ years. Time to move on and ignore their protests. Well done Mr Trump.

    • Dreadnaught

      This is less about a Palestinian (whomever they may be) State, and more about maintaining the high-profile common cause of political Islam on the world stage.
      This will be Trumps defining legacy: if he doesn’t change his mind. I don’t know but has this recognition been backed by a UN Resolution?
      I don’t mind admitting it: I fear this is not going to end well and give extended life to violent jihad – just about anywhere in the West.

      • I don’t mind admitting it too; we’re about to turn our synagogue (which is politicaly pretty active) into a Fort Apache. I think a lot of us will be asking our wives and kids to take time off from services this coming Sabbath.

        I don’t think a UN resolution has any bearing on US policy and certainly not on Trump; he has the backing of most of Congress and the establishment of embassy in Jerusalem is stipulated in US law, although it has been repeatedly deferred. Trump is just the first prez with big brass ones and a New Yorker’s in-yer-face-buddy attitude.

        • Dreadnaught

          Stay safe you Guys.

          • You church fellows as well; seems you’re in cross-hairs too.

          • Dreadnaught

            We like millions of others are in the cross hairs through blind supplication of our politicians to political correctness. I do not hold to any faith apart from being a Cultural Christian; if anything I am a Humanist. Before I go I’m sending you a link that I hope you will watch and circulate. We have in the West more than the random jihadi to accommodate; our own politicians are aiding and abetting the process by criminalising freedom to speak in criticism of the New and Improved brand of Wahabbist Islam.
            http://www.patcondell.net/britains-hate-speech-police/

          • Maybe Wild Donnie will slap some sense into our respective governments before it’s really too late.

          • Dreadnaught

            Don’t laugh, but I also sent it to the Whitehouse. They did get it and said it would be sent on to the Oval Office. I’m not holding my breath, but the man is known to act in his own way on most things.

          • dannybhoy

            I sometimes send stuff to the White House too, and why not? As I never tire of saying, if you don’t use you freedoms now, you certainly can’t complain when decisions are made that threaten your wellbeing..

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            In Barchester, unlike many cathedral cities in England, we have declined the offer of concrete blocks aka ‘Merkel’s Lego’ in order to prevent car-terrorism…which I suppose puts us at risk, but with the Archdeacon prepared to lob the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch on Johnny Jehadist we might get away with it…

          • Greetings, Mrs P, I trust I’ve found you in good health and spirits. Seems like the Archdeacon’s bellicosity increases by the year in proportion to the lengthening of his chompers, but if I may suggest, rather the ghastly grey Teutonic monstrosities, could not the merry masons of Barchester put up delightful labyrinthine walls in the Gothic Revival fashion? Think di-chromatic brickwork with carved stone elements, a riot of decorative patterns like herring bone (my favourite), Dutch and Flemish bonds, diapering, corbelling, fancy quoins and dog-toothing?

        • dannybhoy

          :0)

      • dannybhoy

        In principle he is right, but in practice…?
        It will ensure outbreaks of violence and bloodshed across the Western world, and probably another war.
        I have been praying that God would miraculously intervene by a miracle, which noone could argue with.. buildings being razed to the ground by earthquake for instance.
        And He could do this, but then as the great God of the Universe, His plans are probably smarter than mine…

        • Dreadnaught

          This is where we will always disagree Dan.
          No one people, nation, tribe or clan hold the occupation of land on this planet by act of any god or action of such. There is no set point in the historical record where the national boundaries of today have always been so. To fight to maintain a grip on territory for the benefit of the ‘tribe’ is the same for all forms of life. The only inherited earth the Meek will acquire is that in which they are buried.
          Land ownership to my logic, is not ownership at all. Its always a temporary reflection of the ability of the strong over the weak. Look at the very situation we are discussing now; the reality is that one god will have been seen to intervene on behalf of the victor and the other seen to give succour to the runners-up, the vanquished.
          Putting all this down to ‘Original Sin’ is the cop-out that muddies the human mind, instead of motivating us to act decisively in pulling out all the stops to resolve the issue intelligently which won’t be possible, while there is so much emphasis on religion.

          • Agreed, with a qualification on the emphasis on religion. Religion need not be a world of mystical contemplation, fatalism and magical thinking. On this issue and from my perspective, our Torah makes it clear, over and over again, that loyalty to the Covenant, moral behaviour, good government, a sound economy and a strong defense are indispensable to holding a territory or surviving and succeeding as a people. Easier said than done, though….

          • Dreadnaught

            Now that in essence, makes logical sense. I believe that if a belief in the supernatural aids a person in getting on with life according to the Golden Rule and in the process is at ease with their own conscience then that’s good enough for me – the atheist.

          • dannybhoy

            Well in one sense you are quite correct.
            (He said, pompously!)

            Man never really owns anything in this life. We occupy as tenants accountable to Him who created all things.
            I think Christians and Jews would agree that we are stewards of all that we have.
            And I agree that lands and borders have been fought over since Cain killed Abel and became a marked man..
            The thing is that there IS something within man; a rebellion a desire to impose his own will on others, that stops us being able to realise our highest ideals.
            Even world peace today is determined not by mutual good will towards all men, but by mutual fear of what will happen if some one pushes the button..
            So it doesn’t matter what you call it (original sin is not in the Scriptures, but rebellion and wickedness of heart is)
            The only way we stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution is by being reconciled to God the Father through Christ Jesus the Son and empowered to live a life pleasing to God by the Holy Spirit.
            Halleluia!
            The day of my conversion 22nd March 1968 remains the most wonderful and significant day in my life. You need to know that God loves you and wants you to become one of His adopted sons..

          • Phil Young

            Well said :). So far as I can see the land of Israel was and is promised to the Jews by God (there may be some dispute as to exactly where those borders are). But ultimately, Israel, Jerusalem and all the lands and oceans of the earth, belong to God. And surely He can give to whom He wants, what He wants, and when.

            Interestingly, as an aside, someone I knew years ago, said that ‘Jerusalem’ is an anagram of Jesu realm (well, in English it is). There may or may not be something in that.

            In any case, I am certain that God wants peace..which would surely include Jews, Palestinians, Christians, etc etc…but that can only surely be achieved once everyone recognises Jesus and bows the knee (and if not presumably God will eventually deal with them how He chooses).

  • Eeyore C

    Wonderful, wonderful news if it happens but how can the UK government possibly be in disagreement?

    • Royinsouthwest

      Theresa May (or Maynot).

    • Akusia

      The Camel Corps in the FCO gives government its instructions.

  • dannybhoy

    Lovely rendering here of Jerusalem of Gold sung by a Jewish male voice choir out of Moscow..

    Then the experiences of a young blind and deaf British backpacker in Jerusalem..
    https://www.facebook.com/Ha

    Yesterday I heard Andrew White say that he believes that the 1967 Six Day War with the reunification of Jerusalem ushered in the Messianic Age…

    • dannybhoy

      Avi Barzel you old scoundrel!
      Welcome back and where have you been?!

      • Thanks, been around, but always watching…..

        • dannybhoy

          Big chuckles. Danny is pleased to hear from you again son of Israel.

    • Anton

      Remarkably, “Jerusalem the Golden” is from a satirical poem written in Latin in the 12th century by a monk about how dreadful a place the world is:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_contemptu_mundi

      • dannybhoy

        I mentioned Andrew White especially for you Anton. Did you hear him say that?

        • Anton

          I can’t remember. If so it wasn’t a big point of his. If so it was one of the few things he said that I didn’t agree with. The Messianic age begins when Jesus returns in glory.

          • dannybhoy

            I should have bought his books, because I left being quite unsure of what he actually believed, Very clever chap, studied in a Mea Sharim yeshiva
            under Rabbi Arkusch..
            Said he found out that his great great great grandfather was Jewish, but converted to Christianity so that he could join ythe East India Company..

  • Anton

    Timely enough, this arrived today…

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01HC26L4M/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    A major TV series investigating whether miracles took place during Israel’s wars of survival in the 20th century. I have (and will need) region-1 kit to watch these discs, but I think it is available from Amazon for download too. A subject I have wished to learn more about for a long time.

    • carl jacobs

      Miracles have a confirmatory purpose for revelation. What revelation would there be in this case?

      Miracles are also obvious – the purpose being to manifestly confirm the revelation. If there were miracles, you wouldn’t have to go looking for them. You would already know about them.

      • True, no need to look far and wide. After a couple of millennia and a few little “difficulties,” a Jewish state re-emerged, the Jewish people exist and the Covenant is manifestly confirmed.

    • Here’s another kind of a miracle, a barely heard-about Brit and his many “children,” one of whom now lives in Toronto and goes to my shul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFuJAF5F0&feature=youtu.be

      • dannybhoy

        A very modest man indeed. The wife and I are trying to steel ourselves to watch Schindlers List again this Christmas,,

      • Anton

        He appeared on one of our stamps last year.

  • Dominic Stockford

    1. The people of Israel built it.
    2. It has always been the spiritual/literal home of the Jews.
    3. Google says it is the capital.
    4. God says it is their city.
    5. Therefore it just is.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Actually it was the Jebusites who founded Jerusalem. It was not until David captured the city that it became Israel’s capital.

    • Martin

      Dominic

      God did lay conditions on their presence in the Promised Land.

      • Sir John Oldcastle

        Yes, but surely Google have overridden those?

        • Martin

          Almighty Google?

          • Sir John Oldcastle

            And omniscient Wikipedia

    • Jon Sorensen

      1. If was founded by non-Jews
      2. If was home of other people before Jews
      3. Google also says that the Palestinian National Authority views East Jerusalem as occupied territory.
      4. Allah denies your claim
      5 Non-logical Non Sequitur of yours

      • Anton

        The Jews are by far the most ancient people group ever to have lived there as a nation and retain their identity today.

        • Jon Sorensen

          except for other people who have lived there before Jews and Hebrews

          • Anton

            The Jews are by far the most ancient people group ever to have lived there as a nation and retain their identity today.

            Nobody calls themselves Canaanite today.

          • Jon Sorensen

            So what is your point?

            Palestinians have been in that land before Jews/Hebrews ever came there and Palestinians have their identity tied to that land. Just because Jews retained their identity it does not give them any more land right.

      • Anna

        Sorry, wrong on all counts
        1. It was once occupied by non-Israelites.
        2. It was built by Israelites.
        3. It was destroyed by non-Jews.
        4. It was rebuilt by Jews.
        5. The purposes of God for this city cannot be thwarted.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Wrong? LOL. Your ideological bias confuses you
          1. “occupied”?? they lived there. Are you occupying your country?
          2. After taking the non-Jewish built town from Cananites. Nice try to sell your fiction.
          3. So? Jews destroyed plenty of cities now in Israel
          4. With Cyrus’ money
          5. “The purposes of God”. Well that is your opinion. Muslims have other opinion.

    • donadrian

      Jerusalem was the capital of Judah, not Israel. That was Samaria.

      • Anton

        There is a part of the Bible in which the northern tribes call themselves “Israel” in contrast to Judah. but for most of the Bible the descendants of all 12 sons of Jacob/Israel call themselves Israel in view of their paternity. Please don’t conflate the two meanings. Jerusalem was the only place God wished sacrifice to be made to him at, and the place to which all able-bodies Israelite men were to make pilgrimage each year at Passover, Firstfruits and Tabernacles.

  • DenisV

    What does Israel have in common with 15 other nations around the world, such as Jordan, Syria, Cameroon, Western Samoa, and Nauru? They were all formed after WW1 by the League of Nation Mandate system, which assigned areas of the losing Turkish and German empires to local peoples. Israel’s existence stems from the 1920 San Remo Conference, which set up all the current nations of the Middle East, and the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, which gave the Jews full rights over all the land west of the Jordan River. These are binding international laws.

    But how does Israel differ from every other nation on earth? It is the only country with the same name, people (Jews), language (Hebrew), currency (shekel), and capital (Jerusalem) as it had 3000 years ago.

    So, yes, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a no-brainer.

    • carl jacobs

      Israel owes its existence to 1) the death of FDR and the timely ascension of Truman to the Presidency, 2) the post-war fallout from the Holocaust, and 3) a willingness by Jews to fight hard during the War of Independence. What was said in 1920 had no practical relevance in 1947.

      There were many powerful institutions lined up against the creation of Israel. Agreements made after WWI would not have altered their resistance.

      • Anton

        That Truman was US President had no effect on:

        * the decision to quit Palestine by the Brits, tired of being shot at by Jews for not letting enough Jews in and by Arabs for letting any Jews in

        * the resulting civil war between the Arabs and Jews of Mandatory Palestine

        * the victory of the Jews in that civil war

        * the consequent declaration by the Jews of the State of Israel on the night the Brits departed, and

        * the new State’s victory over the neighbouring Arab nations.

        Without doubt what happened after that was highly dependent on the superpowers – and on a Higher Power than any of them – but the State of Israel would have come into existence.

      • DenisV

        Those League of Nations statutes are the legal justification for the existence of Israel – and those other 15 nations.

        Britain was the “mandatory” that was assigned the task of creating the Jewish state. But the fact that they failed to do so does not invalidate the original statues, which are still binding.

        A similar case is Western Samoa, which had been a German colony prior to WW1. New Zealand was made its mandatory in 1920, but like the British, they failed in their task. However, it eventually became a nation in 1960.

        In both cases, the path to nationhood was not plain sailing. But legally, Western Samoa, Israel, and those other 14 nations, are all the result of the same Mandate system.

        • carl jacobs

          Britain had the legal authority. You are correct in that. But nothing bound Britain to use that authority to create a Jewish state. Mandate or no mandate, the creation of Israel was a very near thing. In many ways, it was an act against the national interests of the major players.

          In February ’45, FDR visited Saudi Arabia and told the king “No Israel”. If FDR was still alive in 1947 there would have been no UN. vote. There would have been no pressure on Britain over refugee camps in Europe and Jewish immigration quotas to Palestine. Britain would have had a much freer hand to act. And not one of the FCO, the Pentagon, or the US State Dept wanted there to be a Jewish state. It took Truman to overcome that resistance.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Yes, New Zealand gave its part of Samoa independence. In contrast the United States is hanging on to its part of Samoa just as it incorporated Hawaii instead of giving it independence. That is something to remember next time Americans criticise the British Empire.

      • dannybhoy

        So… those three things had nothing to do with God’s sovereignty?
        Just as Pharoah, Belteshazzar was used to achieve God’s purposes, as was Esther, and Daniel, God uses people to achieve his purposes in human history.

        • len

          Well said Danny

          • dannybhoy

            Why thank you Len.

        • carl jacobs

          The claim is not just that an event is under God’s sovereignty. A much stronger claim has been made – that the event fulfills a necessary eschatological purpose. The truth of the former does not establish the necessity of the latter.

          • dannybhoy

            So Carl, in simple terms, if you accept that God is in control of His creation and actually has a plan for mankind, how do you see Himachieving his revealed will for us?

          • carl jacobs

            He watches carefully to see that His word is fulfilled. Everything proceeds according to God’s decree. But that isn’t really the point. The undertone of this discussion is that God providentially restored Israel in order to fulfill His word about the End Times. The modern state of Israel has no more eschatological significance than the US. It has nothing to do with either the book of Daniel or the book of Revelation.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks for that. So you do accept that God intervenes in world affairs in order to achieve His purposes, that He uses men at critical moments in history.
            You just don’t attach any significance to the re-establishment of the nation of Israel?
            Do you think a future Israel will play any part in the return of Christ to usher in His kingdom?

          • carl jacobs

            Intervenes? I don’t like that word because it implies He observes and reacts when necessary. He has determined the end from the beginning. He isn’t a cosmic chess player. He decrees and things proceed according to His decree.

            But, no, I don’t see the modern state of Israel as significant to fulfillment of prophesy about the End Times.

          • Anton

            The people that the middle 2/3 of the Bible is about succeed in retaining their cultural identity in exile for 1800 years and get back to their land and you don’t think it has anything to do with the fulfilment of outstanding prophecies from that 2/3?

          • dannybhoy

            Hm,
            You’re saying that God at some point before He created anything, already had it planned out.
            Everything.
            It seems you’re saying that human history is the unfolding of a pre-planned boardgame, a celestial version of Risk! perhaps, except that there is only One Player who moves the pieces autonomously. Which then means that God becomes ultimately responsible for all that happens on the earth, because He could have intervened (or whatever word you prefer) but He didn’t.

            If you then assert that human beings are responsible for their actions, then you have to allow for them calling out to God for help, deliverance, food, health etc.
            And if you allow for that then you also have to allow for God responding to man’s cries for help and intervening to bring deliverance!
            Which I think is broadly in line with the Scriptural narrative..

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, everything proceeds according to God’s eternal decree. That’s what it means to say God is sovereign. Just think of the staggering implication of God saying He chose us before He laid the foundations of the Earth. The alternative is to make God subject to His own creation by having Him passively learn from it.

          • dannybhoy

            “He watches carefully to see that His word is fulfilled. Everything proceeds according to God’s decree”
            You’re not giving the slightest explanation of how that might work in practice Carl.
            “Just think of the staggering implication of God saying He chose us before He laid the foundations of the Earth.”
            Just think of the staggering implication of believing God was willing for so many millions and millions and millions of innocent human beings to suffer torture, rape, mutilation, slavery and starvation,
            because He didn’t choose to save them.
            ” The alternative is to make God subject to His own creation by having Him passively learn from it.”
            That’s pretty rubbish theology if you don’t mind me saying so.
            God is Sovereign, Creator, Omniescent and Compassionate.
            He did not create man for destruction, but for life. There are no select bunch of saved people, because God makes it clear that he would that “everyone should come to a knowledge of the truth”
            1 Timothy 2:4
            Not all are saved because not all want to be saved.

            Also,
            “7 “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

            10 “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?”’ 11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

          • dannybhoy

            ps
            I would say that if you believe that God has it all worked out from beginning to end, that would explain why so many Christians are content to be fatalistic commentators rather than active witnesses,,

          • dannybhoy

            You haven’t replied yet Carl, perhaps because of the time differencea, but it sounds like you believe in the God of the Eternal Now….
            Regardless of those who have upticked you, if you believe God knows the end from the beginning, it must have happened at some point in the past?
            So what were the dynamics in the original uncut version of human history?

      • Yes, but for whatever it’s worth, San Remo needs to be repeated whenever Israel’s question of legitimacy and made-up “international laws” which have not dabrogate the treaty are brought up. Just for the record, I would be for Israel regardless of San Remo or the UN vote.

        • carl jacobs

          Sure. The legality of Israel proceeds from the British mandate. They acquired sovereignty after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore they could act on that sovereignty and deliver the issue to the UN. That to me is the legitimacy behind the creation of Israel. It has exactly the same legitimacy as every other state carved out of the Ottoman Empire.

          • The legality of Israel proceeds from the Almighty, if I may opine, but in the temporal plane, it begins with San Remo. The British Mandate was a follow-up, a stewardship, and the pro-Zionist Brits in Parliament lost, while the “realists” with their eyes on the oil and the romantic Arabists won, hence the mess. Now oil is a bad thing and the dashing desert sheikh turns out to be a Hamas suicide bomber or an ISIS child rapist. So much for realpolitik..

          • The legality of Israel proceeds from the Almighty, if I may opine, but in the temporal plane, it begins with San Remo. The British Mandate was a follow-up, a stewardship, and the pro-Zionist Brits in Parliament lost, while the “realists” with their eyes on the oil and the romantic Arabists won, hence the mess. Now oil is a bad thing and the dashing desert sheikh turns out to be a Hamas suicide bomber or an ISIS child rapist. So much for realpolitik..

        • Anton

          Why San Remo? Surely the League of Nations Mandate is the one that matters (speaking in earthly terms)?

  • len

    It is rather ironic that Donald Trump( the man reviled by many) is taking the lead over Jerusalem taking its rightful place in the World (again)

  • Chefofsinners

    The Arabs can have half of Jerusalem when the Jews can have half of Mecca. Until then, the earthly Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel, the joy of the whole earth.
    This is just Donald Trump’s way of saying “Happy Christmas, Israel”, which I think is a sentiment we would all echo, even as we rejoice in a city which cannot be shaken, the Jerusalem that is above.

    • More likely Hanukkah presents for his Jewish grand-kids.

      “Latkes, jelly donuts, chocolate gold coins, dice and, heeeere comes the big one …be careful with it kids… iiiiit’s Jerusalem!”

      • Chefofsinners

        Of course this has nothing to do with borders or land. In fact, the Israeli government is thrilled at the prospect of a piece of Jerusalem becoming the sovereign territory of another nation. When the American embassy is built.

        • Everyone knows that this is a symbolic gesture. It’ll take years for the embassy to be moved, the Temple Mound remains under Jordanian supervision (Moshe Dayan’s big mistake) and the Israeli claim to Judah and Shomron are not affected. But few know the significance of such a gesture to Jews from the most powerful nation in the world, especially after Obama’s nasty betrayal.

  • Inspector General

    One of the problems with the UN is that its councils are populated with states whose people act as vermin towards other peoples. These states should have only a 1/2 vote, or even a 1/3 or down to a 1/4/ to reflect this unfortunate.

    It’s not as if we are all equal, us members of the human race. The very idea, what!

    Hope you all agree…

    • Ray Spring

      I demand 3 votes, please.

      • magnolia

        Oh, well, I will have the greatest number of votes ever used by a trade union leader….should dwarf yours then, sorry!

        P.S. Better hope you agree with me!

    • dannybhoy

      ‘Whose people regard other people as vermin’ would be more accurate imv.

  • carl jacobs

    Turkey states that declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel will start a “fire with no end in sight”. Turkey as we all know is a well-known champion of self-determination and justice for the oppressed. Meanwhile, in Kurdistan … You don’t need another example to understand what this conroversy is really all about.

    Let’s cut to the chase. This is similar to how China would react to a declaration of independence by Taiwan. It’s a symbolic declaration of irrevocable Israeli sovereignty over the land. It says “The land of Israel is removed from the House of Islam”. Islam was willing to tolerate an ambiguous relationship. But this decision says they have lost the conflict. It has nothing to do with Palestine or Palestinian rights. It has to do with Islam and its vision of itself.

    • Phil R

      Is this….Praise for Trump I hear?

      So Carl, the “14 year old boy” as you described him is doing something right it seems …..

      • carl jacobs

        You’re gonna love this answer.

        In 1973, after a month of hard fighting in the Yom Kippur War, the Israelis had the Egyptian 3rd Army trapped east of the Suez Canal. The rest of the Egyptian army was beaten and in full retreat. Ariel Sharon was west of the canal. The protective SAM umbrella was gone. The IAF was free and there was no credible Egyptian force capable of stopping Sharon from reaching Cairo. It was at this point that Kissinger said “Stop”.

        The Israelis wanted to punish the Egyptians for the existential fear they had created. Israel was never closer to destruction than in the first few days of that war. And so if the Israelis couldn’t occupy Cairo they would settle for the scalp of the #rd Army.
        They really wanted to destroy that 3rd Army. They wanted to humiliate Egypt worse than 1967, but Kissinger wouldn’t allow it. Truth be told, I wish to this day that the Israelis had gotten their wish. It’s a visceral reaction. Am I right? Kissinger said he was protecting the Israelis from themselves. He was also prioritizing American interests.

        That’s sort of how I view the embassy question. My heart has always been with the move. But it’s a prudential question. What does it cost the US in terms of foreign policy? You don’t do it just because the Israelis want it. You have to consider the impact on American interests – which is the foremost responsibility of the President in this matter. If the Presidency wasn’t currently occupied by the Buffoon, I would be more sanguine about it. After all, there is a reason, that no previous President ever did it.

        I don’t expect that this decision will survive his term of office, and I don’t think he gets a second term. So this is largely symbolic. Is it worth the damage? Depends on the damage. I’d be happier if it was Kissinger making the decision.

        • Ray Sunshine

          Although he is now 94, we still hear from Kissinger from time to time. Has he said anything about the Trump/Jerusalem business? I just did a quick google and didn’t find anything more recent than this:.

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-meets-with-kissinger-on-china-north-korea/

          • Anton

            Kissinger knows when to shut up. He survived Watergate!

        • The alternative possibility is that had the US allowed Israel to crush Egypt and thereby deflate pan-Arabism, emerging Islamism and and Soviet ambitions in a single stroke, the world might have been a different place, with the US and the West in a far stronger position. Ditto for the Jerusalem recognition.It should have happened in the 70s, when terrorism was feeling its wings. But the Free World ducked, tried to rationalize and accommodate it…and now, you can’t even bring toothpaste on a plane.

          Your president and America did the right thing on Jerusalem. And there is never a good substitute for doing the right thing. Not because of the thanks and blessings of authentic Jews for generations to come, but because here we have the first sign of an ideological return of America in this century. Because when the “realists” and the bean-counters choose the expedient, such as giving in to the terrorists in Ramallah and Gaza, throwing the Kurds under the bus, ignoring Ukraine, tolerating Tibet and Taiwan and so on, they weaken and change not just strangers overseas, or whole world, but their own people and nation.

        • Anton

          How was preventing Israel from trashing the Egyptian 3rd Army prioritizing US interests?

          • carl jacobs

            Kissinger was looking at the larger American position in the ME. He wanted to box out the Soviets and establish US ties to Egypt. He specifically wanted to save Egyptian face so that Sadat could credibly make peace with Israel. A humiliating Egyptian defeat would have prevented this. The Israelis wanted to force a visible surrender of the 3rd Army with all kinds of good visuals. Kissinger wanted Sadat to be able to say “We have restored Egyptian military honor”. That way Sadat would have the stature to go to Camp David.

            The Egyptians to this day look on the Yom Kippur War as a victory. That was Kissinger’s doing.

      • IanCad

        Let bygones be bygones; So many on this blog swallowed whole the collective narrative. They should remain nameless. They know who they are.

    • Royinsouthwest

      I feel tempted to suggest that we recognise Constantinople as part of Greece but that would obviously be illogical because the Turks control it and most of the Greeks were driven out of it and other parts of Turkey after the First World War. However, although I understand the geo-political reasons for Britain and France supporting the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War I sometimes think it would have been better for us to let the Russians advance as far as the Bosphorus thereby conquering – or liberating? – the major part of Istanbul / Constantinople including the historic part of the city on the European side of the straits.

      • Anton

        Even apart from the greater threat to British India by giving Russia a stronger hand in the Great Game, that would have been disastrous for Europe in the Cold War era.

  • bluedog

    Well done The Donald. Or should that be, well done Jared. It’s a high risk move that would have seen immediate calls for jihad in the Camel Corps wing of the FCO. One trusts that the decision was not made unilaterally without lengthy discussions involving the Israeli government, who will have to live with the consequences. But yes, it is the right thing to do.

  • IanCad

    Timid soul that I am; although fully onboard with President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s rightful capital, I did wonder whether the timing was right, or even – Shame, shame, shame – it was a necessary move.
    No More!!! Theresa May, who is on the wrong side of pretty much everything, has condemned the action. She has stiffened my spine, there is regrowth in my nether regions. I shall not disgrace myself again.
    God Bless America.

    • David

      “Theresa May, who is on the wrong side of pretty much everything”

      Yes, and yes again !

      As an ex-Tory voter, pretty much for a lifetime, before in frustration over the EU turning to Ukip, I find if very sad that the leadership of the party is so very poor. Jacob Rees-Mogg is my favourite.

      • James60498 .

        I could have written exactly that myself, except I would have said “frustration over everything”

    • dannybhoy

      My guess is that there is some deeper strategy at work here.

      • Merchantman

        For instance; the Pritti Patel mission that so upset the FCO Arabists and May. Who can lead May into truth?

        • Anton

          Perhaps May was upset only that Patel got found out?

      • IanCad

        Not so sure about that Danny. He’s making good on an election promise; A fulfilment of long-standing American policy, or at least – intent.

        • dannybhoy

          There still has to be a reason why he chose to fulfil it now, when none of his predecessors implemented it. Like I said, he is surrounded by advisors and analysts. He must have had to listen to them..

  • Anna

    Muslims oppose the Jewish return to Israel because it validates the biblical promises, and calls into question the high expectations that Islamic teaching and tradition have engendered in their minds. The conquest of Jerusalem was a moment of triumph for Islam, and losing that piece of land, a terrible humiliation. If Trump goes ahead with his plan, Muslim leaders will be forced to retaliate to avoid being seen as weak and cowardly by their people. If they do nothing, or respond mildly, the Islamic spiritual leadership, and various Jihadist factions, will gain strength, resulting in more random attacks on Western nations.

    Trump’s action will also expose divisions within the already fragmented Islamic Umma – any alliance or united war effort is bound to be short-lived. The soldiers will come from the poorer Muslim nations, and funds, from ‘the rich softies’ (Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries); and inevitably disagreements, grievances and failure to meet demands will cause the parties to turn against each other – much like Saddam and the Gulf states in 1991.

    Still, winning a war against the Arabs will prove far from easy. During the presidency of Bush Senior, fighting the Iraqis was a cakewalk; but the US failed to consolidate their gains, and the attempts by the next Bush to regain lost ground proved disastrous. Today, the West is visibly weakened – a dangerous proportion of its citizenship are Muslims, its media and political leadership have turned against Israel, and are only too willing to scream ‘Islamophobia’ at slightest criticism of Islam.

    To add to the confusion, the Trump and Netanyahu have now turned to the Saudis, ostensibly, to contain the (lesser) danger of Iran. This alliance (between Trump/Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia) seems like the coming together of the treacherous kings of the North and the South prophesied in Daniel. Selling arms to such a dangerous nation could potentially lead to a fatal third world war, unless something happens – more internal wars among Arabs, like the one in Yemen – to crush the resolve of Muslims to attack Jerusalem.

    • The Snail @/”

      Thank you for your well reasoned analysis of the situation. Though Trump may be right about Jerusalem, was it really wise to say it at this time? I don’t know, for I cannot predict the future. Often timing is everything.

      The conflation of the State of Israel with the ancient Hebrew peoples is problematical

      https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/2/2/469/826237

    • tiger

      islam is currently engaged in a Religious civil war. The whole of the Arab Middle East is engaged in a struggle between the 2 power players; Iran and Saudia Arabia. Yemen is direct. Syria and Iraq are proxy.
      Our elites were bought and paid for by the House of Saud decades ago. They are in the pay of Saud and must follow the script.
      Trump is not a politician. He is a blank piece of paper. Remember his trip to the ME a few months ago? He gave a speech in Saudia Arabia and told them directly this is your mess and you sought it out because if you don’t I will.

  • michaelkx

    please excuses the way I put this but, Donald Trump is a prat but for once he has done the right thing. for the reason way just read the rest of the comments below this.

    • Anton

      And for once he did the right thing over global warming, for once he did the right thing in trying to protect the West from Islam, for once he did the right thing in sending aid directly to Christian charities working in the Middle East rather than the UN, and for once he did the right thing in withholding US money from UNESCO after it repudiated Jewish history on Temple Mount.

      • Merchantman

        For once I’d like to see May and the British Government do the right thing; repent and adopt a biblically based Christian stance.

        • Anton

          Just 100 years since we last did !

          • Merchantman

            Yes and it should be of concern that presently we are so off track.

        • Me too!
          But that would have nothing to do with Jerusalem and Israel. That’s politics.

          • Merchantman

            Politics it may be but symbolism has meaning.
            When General Allenby took Jerusalem from the Turk, he decided to walk (in humility) with his staff into the city rather than ride on a horse or staff car so not to challenge Jesus status.

          • Anton

            The current view of Kelvin Crombie, who has spent a lifetime investigating the Balfour Declaration and the events leading up to it in London and the Holy Land, is that Allenby wished to make a contrast with the Kaiser, who 19 years earlier had ridden into Jerusalem through the same gate in great pomp and got up many noses. In fact Allenby had entered Jerusalem two days before his walk – I don’t know whether on foot, horse or motorised transport – but that was as a soldier taking the surrender, not formally as the representative of the new occupying power.

          • Anton

            The 100th anniversary of that walk of Allenby’s is next Monday!

    • James60498 .

      Do you not think that he also did the right thing for once by appointing pro-lifers as HHS Secretary and UN Ambassador and reinstating (and strengthening) the Mexico City Policy?

    • dannybhoy

      You don’t think he has advisors, experts in the field, analysts??
      However much he may want to, he can’t ignore those whose job it is to present all sides of the issue.

  • Royinsouthwest

    The next time there is a terrorist attack in Britain or in another European or Western country the terrorists, or someone claiming to speak for them, will probably use Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as one of the justifications for their actions. Then some sections of the media will probably blame Trump more than the terrorists.

  • Anton

    O Yes It Is!

  • Jon Sorensen

    In other news:
    Palestinians/Cananites want the whole world to recognise that the whole area belongs to them – simply because it does and it has always been
    People in Ireland want the whole world to recognise that North Ireland is part of Ireland – simply because it is
    China wants the whole world to recognise that Tibet belongs to them – simply because it does

    Now just because you want something it does not merit the use of hyperbole “the whole world”. Issue is more complex than that.

    • Dolphinfish

      Not for Israel firsters. I can kind of understand Jews taking that attitude, but only the most theologically illiterate of Christians can subscribe to this philosophy. It’s a doctrine verging on shamanism.

      • magnolia

        You are right there. Dead superstitious and a thoroughgoing misreading of Revelation.

        Jesus first – and last. Jewish, but universal, Crucified and Risen, the Living One, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek.

        Alpha and Omega,.

        Amen. Come Lord Jesus.

        • Anton

          If the book of Revelation depicts only spiritual battle between good and evil in the heavenly places (the ‘idealist’ view), then why does the action in its midpart alternate between heaven and earth? What does each detail mean?

          If the book looks ahead prophetically but is entirely spiritual, how could you know when these prophecies have been fulfilled?

          If the book is prophetic mainly about the early church era in which John lived (the preterist view), then to what in the history books does each detail of those prophecies correspond?

          • magnolia

            Jesus is Alpha and Omega…there BEFORE Judaism existed, there after it has ceased to exist, not just in its original form, but after all our -isms and -itys and -ologys.

            No Temple other than Jesus is necessary.
            No earthly plans, strategies, or racial preferences or favourtisms before Jesus.

            As for your other questions ” I saw Heaven Opened ” is a great commentary.

            I am Amillenialist, as is Christian Orthodoxy in the mainstream churches. I believe in reading Apocalyptic within its own genre, not as poor quality religious science fiction. None of this modern “Left Behind” nonsense, with its very modern and misguided dispensationalism, and off-puttingly “I’m alright, Jack|” self-righteous out-workings.

          • The Snail @/”

            It all started with Schofield in the USA

          • Anton

            No, it is the original belief of the church, with the long timing made clearer.

          • Chefofsinners

            Like sola fide started with the Reformation? All manner of doctrines are lost and rediscovered in different times and places.

          • dannybhoy

            “I am Amillenialist,”
            I’m sure you can get treatment for that Magnolia..

            “Amillennialism (Greek: a- “no” + millennialism), in Christian eschatology, involves the rejection of the belief that Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth. This rejection contrasts with premillennial and some postmillennial interpretations of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation.”
            I don’t think a belief in a thousand year rule of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth demands that anyone has to be left behind.
            I would recommend David Pawson’s book “When Jesus Returns” as a reasonable examination of the various views..

          • Anton

            I am neither a dispensationalist nor a pre-trib rapture man and my views owe nothing to Scofield. I think that you have not genuinely engaged with my questions, though.

          • Chefofsinners

            The main stream is looking somewhat dried up and polluted these days. Perhaps the river has altered course?

      • dannybhoy

        Explain more please.. Who are these ‘Israel Firsters’?

        • Dolphinfish

          From the context of my post, it should be apparent that I’m speaking of Christian Zionists.

          • dannybhoy

            “Not for Israel firsters. I can kind of understand Jews taking that attitude, but only the most theologically illiterate of Christians can subscribe to this philosophy. It’s a doctrine verging on shamanism.”
            Cryptic bro, cryptic.
            Explains nothing, except your disdain for those who don’t know as much as you do…

          • Anton

            You mean those who understand the Abrahamic covenant correctly, I presume. You owe them an apology for that comment.

          • Dolphinfish

            I refer you to the Goss brothers 1987 hit.

          • Anton

            Who?

      • Anton

        The people that the middle 2/3 of the Bible is about, against all odds retain their cultural identity in exile for 1800 years and get back to their land and you don’t think it has anything to do with the fulfilment of prophecies yet outstanding in that 2/3?

        • Dolphinfish

          No.

          • Anton

            Honest, anyway. But extraordinary.

          • Dolphinfish

            Think it through. Judaism died on the same cross as Jesus; it never got resurrected. What you THINK is Judaism is a creation of the post Temple era. No Temple, no priests, no sacrifice, no Judaism. It doesn’t matter what it calls itself, it has no more claim on “the middle 2/3 of the Bible” than Uncle Tom Cobley. That’s what I mean by “theological illiteracy”.

          • carl jacobs

            This is correct. Old Testament Judaism is gone and cannot be re-created. The priesthood is gone. Forever. The temple is gone. Forever. The Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled and its penalties imposed. They have all completed their divine purpose.

            But none of that means that Israel is illegitimate as a state and so shouldn’t be supported.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks to various independent human agencies…

          • dannybhoy

            If you said that Rabbinical Judaism had led the Jewish people astray from the source of Judaism i.e, the Tenach, I would agree with you.
            But the thing is that God made a covenant with the people of Israel and further back with the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
            God being God, He will always find a way forward without corrupting His holiness.
            He has not abandoned Israel, but He has allowed them to taste the bitter fruit of their wilfulness, They have suffered persecution at the hands of Christian Europe and the satanically inspired Final Solution.
            And now He has called them home..
            It’s not so much about us as humans, more about Him as Creator, Sustainer and Judge.

          • Anton

            I don’t mind people saying they disagree with me but because you told me to “think it through” when you have no idea whatsoever what thinking I have done, and call me theologically illiterate. I shall revert to the third person.

            Here is where Dolphinfish is mistaken: neither God nor I holds any brief for post-crucifixion *Judaism*. But, just like God, I uphold the Jews as a people. Dolphinfish would do well to reflect on the divine covenant with Abraham.

    • Inspector General

      It doesn’t matter if Martians were there before the Jews. It all comes down to strength and power. When you’re top dog in the area, you get to call the shots. All this “but it isn’t fair” whine is beloved by weepy schoolgirls, and they’re welcome to it. They rest of us see it as it is. The weak are denied their wants because they are weak.

      • Jon Sorensen

        You sound like you are justifying the actions of a German dictator. Sounds like Christian thinking…

        • Anton

          The Inspector doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ is divine, so it isn’t.

          • Inspector General

            It must upset you terribly nor did his 12, or 11 if amazed Thomas is not included…

          • carl jacobs

            So then, where are you getting this collection of mouse droppings? Did you examine the entrails of a sheep? Because you didn’t get it from Scripture – not that you give Scripture credence anyways.

          • Inspector General

            One will pass your question onto Calvin…

          • carl jacobs

            How could he help you? He would have no greater understanding than I about the identity of the orifice from which you pulled that statement.

            Well, check that. He would know which orifice…

          • Inspector General

            Mock the Higher Understanding if you will, but bible gives clues that Jesus is an angel and nothing about trinities. If you wish to hold by the Nicea agreement that’s up to you. Some of us have discerned the truth of it all without.

          • carl jacobs

            That would be the same Jesus who said this:

            When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

          • Inspector General

            Exactly. He has the keys of these places, so he gets to decide who goes where on death. He himself is immortal and he knew it. Assuming it wasn’t his next door neighbour who informed him, we must assume an invisible angelic companion did.

            By the way. An Inspector detects a certain discontentment with you being unable to prove or advance on your trinical trick. Or as Briton’s say “he’s ratty”…

          • carl jacobs

            Your problem, Inspector, is that you don’t understand what you are reading. This statement …

            I am the first and the last, and the living one.

            … is a direct claim of deity. It’s one of the strongest statements on the deity of Christ in the Scripture. And who said it?

          • Inspector General

            It’s nothing of the sort. It’s Christ proclaiming he’s top immortal as far as humanity is concerned…

          • Chefofsinners

            The Higher Understanding is found in scripture:
            “Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.”
            1 Tim 6:20

          • Anton

            But still attend a church that affirms the Nicene creed. Why?

          • The Snail @/”

            The Jews would never say the divine name YHWH. When they pointed the Hebrew text (i.e. put in the vowel sounds under the text) They pointed the YHWH with the vowels of Adonai (my Lord) . This was to remind the reader that when they came to the divine name they should say Adonai (אדוני). When Thomas meets Jesus after the resurrection hes “My Lord and my God”. To anyone of that time the implications of that were obvious.

            Please contemplate that.

          • Inspector General

            We know Jesus went off to the Rabbis at an early age. With them, he would have understood the order of creation. First, the immortals, or angels as we call them. Then, Heaven and Earth and much else. Perhaps what we consider as the physical creation needed immortals to do their bit. Jesus is an immortal, and when he said he was around when Abraham was born, he was right. It seems this immortal was picked for a job to instruct us earthly wretches, and being incarnated as man, was deprived of his origin and past as it were. Whether angels have memories as us is not known.

          • The Snail @/”

            Sounds as if you have been reading too much Greek mythology, my dear inspector.

            Only God is Everlasting and Immortal – all else if created.

          • Anton

            Laud and honor to the Father,
            Laud and honor to the Son,
            Laud and honor to the Spirit,
            Ever Three and ever One;
            Consubstantial, co-eternal,
            While unending ages run.

            not to mention

            Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
            In light inaccessible hid from our eyes

            We need more of that and *much* less “Jesus is my boyfriend”-type trash in worship today.

          • The Snail @/”

            Quite right – the old hymns taught theology and some of the Bible stories. They are full of praise for the Almighty and full of thanks for his Grace and Goodness.

            Many of the modern ‘songs’ are about me and are full I – just count the number of times these two words occur in the words. Of course they are very much in line with the Zeitgeist which is all about me me me. There are of course exceptions in modern hymns. Try some by Patrick Appleford

            e.g. http://www.oystermouthparish.com/hymns-we-love-living-lord

            Patrick is a little frail at the moment – I used to sit near him in church.

          • Inspector General

            As you must, snail. But if we are to marry the creation with science as we have it, we’ll need to overcome blind faith and errors in belief from two millennia, resulting from arrogant man’s refusal to admit he does not know and his forwarding of ridiculous concepts resulting….

          • Anton

            With the exception of miracles, science correctly understood and scripture correctly understood do not contradict each other, because God is behind both. He suspends the usual laws he ordained when he does miracles, in order to make a point to us.

          • The Snail @/”

            Perhaps He doesn’t so much suspend His Laws but writes a program ‘on the fly’

          • Anton

            How could we tell the difference? Jeremiah (33:25-26) referred to the “fixed laws of the earth and the heavens”, which would include the law of gravity. You don’t need a degree in physics to know that a miracle took place when Jesus and Peter walked on water, and Peter began to sink as his faith wavered (Matthew 14:25-31).

          • The Snail @/”

            Is it just a miracle because we don’t know how it was done? or when we know how He did it will it cease to be a miracle? In other words do we sometimes get so wound up with the supernatural, which may puzzle us, that we forget the purpose of the miracle which will still be relevant – even when we how it was done?

            For example, in the Middle ages many of the peasants suffered from St Anthony’s Fire. The symptoms were hallucinations, visions of a terrifying nature and loss of the extremities i.e. fingers and toes fell of because of restricted circulation.
            The convents and monasteries took the afflicted in and cared for them in great acts of compassion and sacrifice. The symptoms went away and the afflicted returned to health. For them this was a miracle.

            We now know that the affliction was caused by the ergot fungus which grows particularly on rye. Rye bread was the staple food of the peasant. When they were looked after by the religious institutions they were fed wheat and barley bread which did not often suffer from ergot infestation. They recovered.. LSD is derived from ergot. Hence the hallucinations, Ergot is used postpartum to constrict blood vessels to stop bleeding.- that explains the loss of fingers due to lack of circulation.

            Now we know the reason – is it any less a miracle?

            I am not saying that miracles do not occur, I believe wholeheartedly they do – but we also need to see their purpose. Just as in the middle ages, what was to be admired, was the compassion of those who helped the afflicted peasants – that will last – even though because we know ‘how it was done’.

            What do you think?

          • Anton

            I’m a physicist, not a biologist, so I’ll stick to physics in this reply. Also I take the Bible as accurate, whereas accounts of some mediaeval miracles strike me as highly embellished (although like you I believe they go on today). This is why I stuck to the account in Matthew of Peter walking on water and sinking as his faith wavered. Some miracles have natural causes which were not understood at the time, as you point out, but Peter’s sinking is never going to be understandable by improved knowledge of the physics of gravity. God ordained his laws, and he is not constrained by them.

            For the sake of completeness, I’d add that some miracles are in the timing of natural events. How did the Jordan river dry up to let the Israelites across in Joshua 3? In 1267 a bridge project was in difficulties until the flow stopped for several hours and workers took the opportunity to build proper foundations as quickly as they could. The local sheikh, intrigued, found that a landslide had taken place upriver. These are usually triggered by earthquakes. Obviously the same thing happened near Damiya (presumably the town called “Adam” in Joshua, for the location is consistent) when the Israelites reached the river. “When Israel came out of Egypt… the Jordan turned back, the mountains leaped like rams, the hills like lambs… tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord” – from Psalm 114. This was investigated by the geophysics professor Amos Nur.

          • The Snail @/”

            Hi Anton,
            I was a Chemist who worked on human hormones for 6 years – by a very circuitous route I got into computing. My speciality was modelling systems which taught me a lot about Theology as well. I have been reading the Bible myself for 70 years and before that the stories were read to me.

            The Bible cannot be treated like a scientific text book. All the Psalms 80-90% of the prophets are poetry. Anyone who takes poetry literally will ‘come a cropper’.
            ” My mistress eye is nothing like the sun” Shakespeare – take that literally and …..

            Hebrew Poetry has a number of conventions which can be confusing unless understood.
            e.g. ” The Sun shall not smite the by day, nor the moon by night” is an example.

            One could spend ages discussing how the moon might smite one by night. However this is a typical couplet which often gives, in the first line, a statement and an expansion afterwards or gives the opposite in the second line.

            My example above seems to mean that the Almighty will look after you all the time.

            The Psalms fall into two basic categories – The Hymn of Praise and the Lament.
            They have their own structures. The Hymn of Praise is A-B-C

            A is a Generalisation
            B is an example or examples of the Generalisation
            C is a conclusion based on A and B

            A- The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want.
            B- he makes me lie down in green pastures etc..
            C -Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

            Sometimes I find it a good idea to pray A The Lord is my Shepherd etc.
            Then put in my own experiences of what He has done for me.
            and then follow it with C. Surely goodness and mercy etc.

            Is that helpful?

          • Anton

            If I were a literalist then I’d have demanded that the mountains leapt like rams and the hills like lambs and left the ground while doing so; you needn’t worry that I’m insensitive to poetic license! Matthew’s account of Peter is clearly a description of what you’d have seen with your eyes, though.

          • The Snail @/”

            The trouble is Inspector, science only tells us what will happen when an event takes place. No more no less. If it tries to go beyond it is something other than science..

            In nutshell science tells how the universe is programmed. Just like my computer nothing will happen unless an event (click) happens. When an event happens on my computer e.g. an icon gets clicked the computer reacts in a predictable way., For example if I clicked on a Spreadsheet program Icon and sometimes it did what I expected. but other times did something else my computer would be next to useless, What is more my computer is agnostic to who or what caused the event – me, an errant cat who walked over the touch screen etc. All the events on my machine tell me is how it is programmed – nothing much about the programmer.

            The same is true of the universe we find out how it programmed by scientific investigation. Who or what programmed it comes not from science but from elsewhere.

        • Inspector General

          Such hyperbole! Might is Right, faint heart. Every time…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Such a Christian God attitude… 🙁

          • Inspector General

            What’s your gripe, Sorensen? Europe’s Christian heritage not to your liking? Perhaps moving to where the majority resent the Christian God as much as you do may improve your temperament…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Talking about temperament 🙂

    • carl jacobs

      Interesting you didn’t mention the Alawites or the Kurds. You will also notice the complete lack of Arab or even Muslim concern for their cause of self-determination.

      I wonder why that is?

      • Jon Sorensen

        “Interesting”? There are so many examples I could have picked but somehow you find one missing “interesting”

        “I wonder why [lack of Arab or even Muslim concern for the Kurdish] is?”
        Because religions and denomination divides people and creates hate?

        • carl jacobs

          The Alawites were a small oppressed minority in what is now Sryria until the French showed up. Then the Alawites joined the Colonial army in droves. After the French departed, the Alawites took power in a military coup. The Assad dynasty is an Alawite dynasty. And guess what? No one cared.

          This Alawite Syrian Govt (along with the Iraqis and the Turks and the Iranians) then proceeded to suppress the national aspirations of the Kurds in brutal fashion. And guess what? Nobody cared! Is Kurdistan getting ersatz representation at the UN? No. Are people bleating about the treatment of Kurds to the International Criminal Court? No. And here is the thing, Jon. The Kurds actually existed as a recognized people in 1945.

          So why are the Palestinians getting all this attention. Why is their desire for a homeland getting all this traction when the concept of “Palestinian” didn’t emerge until after the formation of Israel?

          Oh and one more thing. An Alawite is to a Muslim as a Mormon is to a Christian. So your religious answer kind of breaks down. Wel, except for the obvious answer to my question.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I pick couple of random examples and you get upset like a little snowflake that I didn’t select your favorite oppression. Which is of course a Christian oppression. Naturally. You would probably not know or care of any oppression that targets non-Christians.

          • carl jacobs

            You picked a couple of examples that implied this was a stereotypical conflict of Generic People A being Oppressed by Generic People B. You didn’t go to the Middle East for you’re examples becauxe they don’t fit that narrative. There are plenty of groups in the Middle East that don’t get any historic right to self-determination today simply because it didn’t fit European interests in 1920. And there examples of religous groups in the Middle East oppressing other groups without earning any Muslim ire. Heretical Alawite Syria used to be part of the United Arab Republic, remember? So what is so special about Israel and the Palestinians?

            Oh, I don’t know. Let’s think. Maybe it’s about the Jews. Do you think? Maybe it’s about those dirty, filthy, scheming, thieving pig Jews who don’t know their place in the House of Islam. Maybe it’s all about the fact that Islam is virtually synonymous with the Third world, and it has experienced nothing but shame and humiliation for hundreds of years. Maybe it’s because the Jews showed up in Palestine and proceeded to make prosperous what the Muslims had only turned into goat farms. Do you think? And maybe, just maybe, those Muslims might want to take revenge on someone for all that humiliation, and look! the Jews are right there to kill – if only they could get the advantage.

            That is what you are supporting if you support the Palestinian cause. Not statehood or a right to self-determination, but a desire to slaughter the Jews and drive the survivors into the sea. Like Nanking, only worse. They say it over and over, you know. But only when they think no Westerners are listening.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I picked couple of random examples and if you little snowflake can’t handle without getting offended that your pet oppression is not mentioned it is your problem. I will keep on selecting how I want regardless of your little temper tantrums.

            You try *know* what I thing claiming “You didn’t go to the Middle East for you’re examples because…” but you have no idea while blindly pushing your pet idea while missing my point. And on top that your unstable and biased mind claims “That is what you are supporting if you support the Palestinian cause” as if that has much to do with reality. So try to address my original claim, not to push your pet Christian problem.

  • Dreadnaught

    By misrepresenting the poster burning “ceremony” as a reflection of widespread Palestinian rage concerning Trump’s policy on Jerusalem, the international media is once again complicit in promoting the propaganda of Palestinian spin doctors. The journalists, including photographers and camera crews, have been handed detailed schedules of events that will take place in different parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    The “activists” waited patiently as the photojournalists and cameramen set up their equipment to get the “important event” on film. Shortly thereafter, the media was abuzz with reports about “angry Palestinian protesters taking to the streets to protest” Trump’s intention to move the embassy to Jerusalem and his recognition of the city as the capital of Israel. The handful of Palestinians who were filmed burning the Trump pictures were made to look as if they were part of a mass protest sweeping Palestinian communities.

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11508/trump-jerusalem-speech-palestinians

    • dannybhoy

      The Western media my dear Dreadders is both complicit and cooperative in the ultimate destruction of Western civilisation..
      They are not interested in now Western civilisation developed, influenced and even shaped the modern world.
      Only in Soundbites, Sensationalism, Sales and Salaries.
      If the world were facing nuclear Armageddon they would be scrambling to get ‘The inside story..’
      and then interview ‘the only survivor of ww3’…

      • Dreadnaught

        Less so when we have access to the internet. I haven’t bought a paper in years and balance what I do pick up on by what is being said and several outlets. I take nothing as ‘gospel’ as it were.

    • Ray Sunshine

      What about the promised next intifada then? Aren’t they going to have one, after all? Perhaps they’re waiting for their opinion poll results to be tabulated, to see what kind of response they might expect.

      Do you remember Ariel Sharon’s unscheduled visit to the Temple Mount during his election campaign in 2000? Rioting broke out immediately on a local scale, but there was a lapse of several days,as I recall, before Arafat solemnly proclaimed a new intifada.

      • Dreadnaught

        The promised intafada is swinging into action already – any excuse for a party. Islam and the Palestinian Cause machine are past masters at whipping up Muslims into a frenzy of victimhood and retribution. They don’t really need an excuse to go on the rampage. Cartoons, Books, Education – all legitimate causes to spark mayhem in their book.

  • Norman Yardy

    Whilst it might seem right to affirm Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, if the present Israel population have no significance in end times prophecy, why risk world war for something that will change nothing.

    • dannybhoy

      As I understand it God would bring back his chosen people fromn the four corners of the earth in unbelief..
      http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-regathering-of-the-jewish-people/

    • magnolia

      Seems all too many find Jesus’ words about not knowing the times, the season, or the place rather boring and unsatisfactory, so quarry the prophets and Daniel for oblique hints, thus preferring to play pin the tail on the donkey while blindfolded, which he explicitly told us not to do, but to remain ready and alert at all times…a real Advent theme,….!

      • Anton

        He also told us to watch for the signs.

  • len

    God is bringing His Purposes about regarding Israel not because of the ‘worthiness’ of the Jewish people but because God is upholding His Word.
    Now whether Trump has played any part in proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel only time will tell.
    One fact many people seem to has missed ( or ignored or just simply denied), is that the Land of Israel belongs to God. Israel is not anyone’s’ to divide, or partition off ,and all who do so will be held accountable.

    • The Snail @/”

      I think the whole Universe and everything in it belongs to Him @/”

      • len

        Of course, but Jerusalem is the point in question because of its Biblical significance. Jerusalem and the Temple Mount hold enormous significance to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

    • Dolphinfish

      Apparently, God has told Len His purposes and Len is passing it on to the rest of us. Let’s hear it for Len.

      • Anton

        Len simply knows how to read his Bible. Let him teach you.

  • The Snail @/”

    .There are considerable problems in conflating the Ancient Hebrew People with those living in the State of Israel today..There is also a problem with conflating the Ancient Hebrew Religion with Rabbinical Judaism as practised today.

    There is the definition of a Jew. The Hebrews for instance believed that the Hebrew line was passed through the male line. This is evidenced by the many genealogies in the Hebrew Bible which hardly ever feature women. e.g at the end of the Book of Ruth it says Boaz begat Obed, Obed begat Jesse, Jesse begat David. Unfortunately all the Genealogical records were destroyed with the temple in 70 AD

    From a Rabbinical Judaism point of view Jewishness is passed through the female line.

    The Jewish state is testing those who would immigrate genetically on the basis of the female line:

    https://academic.oup.com/jl

    The promise was made to Abraham and his seed (genes?) through Isaac and Jacob (Israel). He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not Sarah, Rebecca, Rachael, Leah, and all the others.
    I don’t want to offend the feminists but that is the case.

    “Matrilineality in Judaism is the view that people born of a Jewish mother are themselves Jewish. The conferring of Jewish status through matrilineality is not stated explicitly in the Torah, though Jewish Oral Tradition maintains this was always the law, and adduces indirect textual evidence”.Wikipedia

    This dependence on the female line is interesting in that it appears to contradict the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament, The fact that this has been going for many many centuries has completely redefined Jewishness compared to what would have been the Biblical norm.

    So who or where are the genetic Jews from a biblical point of view?

    Please discuss.

    • My understanding is that at the time of the First Crusade, the crusaders coming down through France to the Med slaughtered all the Jewish men they could find at raped all the women– well the Pope had given them an indulgence so they could do what they liked.. It is from that time that Jewishness has been determined through the female line.

      • The Snail @/”

        According to the following link that is not true.

        https://apholt.com/2015/01/06/medieval-warfare-and-rape-lessons-for-the-present/

        An extract follows from the website:

        “My paper was titled “Rape and the First Crusade.” It considers the oddity of the First Crusade as it related to the issue. While the wartime rape of captured women (and sometimes men) was common by all medieval armies, Christian or Islamic, the participants of the First Crusade generally seem to have avoided the practice. Indeed, the sources, whether friendly or hostile to the crusaders, seem to agree on the issue. This presentation pulls together some disconnected themes already considered by other historians into a broader and more comprehensive narrative to argue that the theoretical framework of the First Crusade contributed to a new mentality among warriors by which they sought to avoid sexual immorality, including rape, if they were to be successful on the battlefield.”

        • Dolphinfish

          I’m pretty sure he knew that Rome never gave indulgences for rape before he posted, Snail.

          • The Snail @/”

            The Rhineland massacres also known as the German Crusade of 1096,[1] the persecutions of 1096 or Gzerot Tatenu[2] (Hebrew: גזרות תתנ”ו‎ Hebrew for the edicts of 856), were a series of mass murders of Jews perpetrated by mobs of German Christians of the People’s Crusade in the year 1096, or 4856 according to the Jewish calendar.

            Yes that was absolutely terrible

            As you see the perpetrators called them The German Crusade – they were not actually going to the Holy Land to fight as an army but were local mobs attacking jews and calling it a ‘Crusade’.

            After all the “Daily Express” calls itself the Crusader.

            Anyone can use a word to mean rather different things.

            I think we are at cross purposes and talking about rather different things..

      • Cressida de Nova

        Wicked wicked lies.I bet you have horns sticking out of your head and a long tail.

        • dannybhoy
        • I’m pretty sure that matrilineal “Jewishness” predates the Crusades, but it’s indisputable that children born to Jewish women, even through rape, were always considered Jewish and were not stigmatized. This would not have come naturally to people and the local rabbis were undoubtedly compelled to reiterate this ruling and to make sure that it was observed in spirit as well as in law. The targeted devastation the Crusaders wreaked on Jewish communities of Europe and their lasting effect was real and is well documented by Jewish and Christian chroniclers, synagogue and kehila records, and Church documents.

          Church documents reveal both exhortations to “punish” Jews and attempts to protect them. There were incidents of local Christian communities turning against Jews on the exhortation of clergymen, and cases of Bishops attempting to protect Jews and even Christian communities fighting the Crusaders in defense of their Jewish population. In the aggregate though, Jewish life in Europe, especially in France and Germany, was irreparably damaged by the Crusades. So was Christian unity (one of the stated aims of the Crusades) as crusader armies looted and slaughtered Christian communities on their way to Constantinople. As always though, history doesn’t make it easy to generalize and stick halos or horns and tails on entire groups of people.

    • Rhoda

      Hitler was in no doubt, was he?

      • The Snail @/”

        Hitler also believed in the fiction of an Aryan Race. I wouldn’t take him as an authority on anything much – let alone anything to do with Judaism.

        Hitler was a monster

        • Anton

          Hardly a consolation to 6 million, er… please may I call them Jews?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Mothers must be Jewsih for the line to continue. I am not certain of the position of converts to Judaism e.g. Aryan wives of Jewish husbands. Were they considered to be Jewish in Germany’s WW2? I am not sure if orthodox Jews even recognise conversions. Avi would know.

          • Except for a few small Yemenite communities, Orthodox Jews recognize properly conducted (through a court of three observant male Jews, typically rabbis) Orthodox conversions (except in clear cases of deception) as total and binding. Offhand, I’m not sure of the Nazis complex laws and regulations on this, but the overriding principle was “racial purity.” I think that Gentile converts to Judaism would have been spared, but the marriage would be annulled and their social status compromised.

    • Chefofsinners

      Jesus was only a Jew in the sense that His Mother was a Jew. If it’s good enough for Him, it’s good enough for anyone.
      In a practical sense, anyone whose mother is Jewish must be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

  • What Israel and its citizens need, is exactly the same as the Arab and Moslem states need: they need Jesus Christ.
    This decision by Trump will just make finding peace a little bit harder, will encourage extremism and make suicide bombers a bit easier to recruit, especially in America.

    • carl jacobs

      There isn’t any peace to find. The conflict is intractable.

    • big bwana

      Is this the same Jesus Christ who is King of the Jews and who is going to return to ……Jerusalem.

      • dannybhoy

        If human beings happen to pass the right laws, then yes..

      • The Snail @/”

        I think it was Pontius Pilate who said “This is the King of the Jews” – which rather upset the Jews of his day.

        • Chefofsinners

          “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” asked the Magi. But “Away with Him, we will not have this man to reign over us.” was the response of the Jews.
          Jesus is often mis-assigned the title King in relation to the Church, but this is unscriptural. He is Lord of the Church. While the Church will ultimately be a part of His kingdom when He returns to reign, He is not presently our King. It just happens to rhyme with ‘sing’ so it gets into hymns a lot.

          • Anton

            It has a good ring.

    • Anton

      Yes of course they need Jesus Christ. And when enough Jews twig that fact and cry to him then he will return to save their nation in its moment of direct peril. That’s why it is not a vain action.

    • DP111

      Peace never existed as the Palestinian objective is the extinction of Israel.

  • dannybhoy

    Thoughtful people might be interested to read this article..
    http://honestreporting.com/trumps-embassy-move-behind-the-hysteria/
    Of course if you believe its all worked out anyway, don’t bother…

    • dannybhoy

      As Ian will know it shows that..
      Twenty two years ago Congress passed the “Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995” which essentially declared three things:

      1. That Jerusalem should remain an undivided city with respect for all ethnic and religious groups.
      2. That Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel.
      3. That the US Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem.

      Bill sponsored by Robert Dole..

  • Chefofsinners

    I wonder if Donald Trump could be persuaded to recognise Belfast as the capital of all Ireland? Mrs May would be awfully pleased.

    • DP111

      Only if Belfast was the capital of Ireland. Which it patently isn’t. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel in every way.

      • Chefofsinners

        Alright, Londonderry then.

  • Anton

    So, will anyone else follow Donald Trump’s lead and recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?

    The BBC has described “worldwide dismay” at his decision, thereby confirming that it considers itself to be the world.

    • prompteetsincere

      “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing”/Czechoslovakia, with Munich’s September 29,1938, betrayal by Britain and France to the Fuhrer’s hordes still sharp in their memory, has stood with the USA; and by extension, wifh Israel.
      Unlike Chamberlain, they see not the EU, UN, et al, as “a man that can be relied on”.

      • Dominic Stockford

        History showed them to be right, and I believe will show them to be right again.

    • Ray Sunshine

      Possibly the Philippines, possibly the Czech Republic, according to Israeli sources.
      I suspect they may be counting their chickens before they’re hatched.

      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.827208

      • Anton

        The Czechs armed the Israelis in 1948!

        • dannybhoy

          Cyber stutter?

          • Anton

            I was warned at my first attempt that the website was doing some temporary maintenance, so I tried again. And again. All three attempts have proved to be successful!

          • dannybhoy

            Perseverance brings its own rewards Anton!

          • Anton

            As Winston Churchill said (also three times): “Never give in. Never give in. Never give in!”

          • dannybhoy

            Or as they said in Galaxy Quest..

      • Anton

        The Czechs armed the Israelis in 1948!

      • Anton

        The Czechs armed the Israelis in 1948!

    • DP111

      Czech republic probably. Also Poland, Hungary, Slovakia will move their embassies to Jerusalem. Phillipines too. And S Korea.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Czech Republic has indeed now done so! Huzzah!

    • Father David

      Yes – Binyamin Netanyahu

  • CliveM
  • DP111

    The United States of America has decided to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Or, if you prefer, Donald Trump has decided to honour his campaign pledge to the Zionist Jewish lobby..

    It wasnt Pres Trump’s policy. Both houses of Congress had overwhelmingly voted in 1995, for the US embassy to be relocated to Jerusalem. Its just that successive US administrations thought they could get a peace agreement. That has been shown to be a goal that cannot be achieved, as Palestinians will settle for nothing less then the extinction of Israel, and the expulsion of all Jews.

    Pres Trump has taken a bold step to change the dynamic. He might just succeed and bring about a peace of sorts. And if not, he has done what is the norm- move the US embassy to the city that Israel considers its capitol.

    The time is right too. Most Arab states are fed up with Palestinian demands and terrorism. They are too, increasingly worried about Iran. As a consequence, they need Israel and America.

  • Father David

    Has the date been set yet for Trump’s “State Visit” to these shores? I need to know as I must have plenty of time, along with tens of thousands of others, in order to prepare my placard of protest.

    • Chefofsinners

      Why not do something useful instead? Maybe a placard with John 3:16 on it?

      • Father David

        Or even – EXIT BREXIT – perhaps?

        • Royinsouthwest

          Anything except respect democracy.

          • Father David

            Well Roy, if you are so keen on democracy – let’s have a referendum on the final deal. I fully expect Mrs. May wearing a winged collar shirt to land at Heston Aerodrome later today waving a piece of paper and declaring “Peace in our time” and we all know what happened thereafter when Neville Chamberlain did the same thing!

          • Anton

            Yes, let’s have a referendum on the final deal. Excellent idea. Since THE Referendum the people of Britain have seen what Brussels is really like in its arrogance and vindictiveness, forging ahead with its plans for a European army and superstate while not trimming its budget by the amount our leaving would necessitate, and doing its utmost to shaft us for our sensible decision. Second referendum? Bring it on!

          • Father David

            Psalm 133 verse 1

          • Royinsouthwest

            Only one referendum should be necessary. However, since the Appeaser currently occupying 10 Downing Street seems hell bent on selling us down the river a second referendum might be necessary to force the government to respect the wishes of the people.

            It would not surprise me if some of the remainers in the government and civil service are deliberately giving in to the EU in the hope that people will simply shrug their shoulders and say “we might as well stay in after all because leaving won’t make any difference.” Another pointer to this being intentional is that the imaginary “breakthrough” in the talks has come just before Christmas when most people won’t be paying much attention to the machinations of politicians.

          • Father David

            Yes, Christmas – A good time to bury bad news!

    • dannybhoy
      • Father David

        You aren’t by any chance Secretary General of the Donald Trump Appreciation Society? Reading your list – I can hardly contain my indifference. I expect, dannyboy, your own delight knows no bounds concerning the Irish Border agreement?

        • Anton

          I don’t know about Danny, but that would be me. The conflicting demands of the republic and the DUP are going to force Theresa the Crumbler into a hard Brexit regardless of her own views. Jolly Good Show, say I. The European Court of Justice shall have no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

          • CliveM

            Or the government will collapse, Corbyn gets in, pledges NI to Eire and his Brexit Chief Starmer goes for the softest Brexit possible.

            Or worse begs the EU to allow us to change our mind. Which they will, provided we embrace the Euro and give up our rebate.

          • dannybhoy

            I think you’re nearer the mark than Anton..

          • CliveM

            I hope I’m not! However I do think that Antons is overly optimistic.

          • Anton

            I believe that if push comes to shove then people would now take to the streets to attain Brexit. I am one of them, although I would act within the law. That is why I am optimistic. My concern is a series of concessions, each one too little to make a standpoint, but I think that the Brexiteers in Parliament would not stand for that.

          • CliveM

            Well time will tell. I think my scenario is more likely and I think the number of people willing to take to the streets for a hard Brexit is relatively few.

            I’m already hearing people who voted Brexit demoralised by the way things are going.

          • Father David

            Now that Treeza has her own version of the “Munich Agreement” and has well and truly caved into Brussels demands – the fun really starts with Part Two entitled “The Isolation and Further Humiliation of the United Kingdom” Wonderful article in yesterday’s Times by Iain Martin, underneath the Trump cartoon, entitled “We have the weakest PM in living memory”

          • Anton

            Don’t worry, this is going to end in chaos and a hard Brexit.

          • Father David

            Yes it will all end in tears thanks to the nation being led up the Primrose path by the likes of Johnson (why can’t he go and join his old Dad in the jungle?), Gove, Stuart, Patel, Bone and Rees-Mogg.

        • dannybhoy

          You aren’t by any chance Secretary General of the Donald Trump Appreciation Society?
          I’ve been trying to keep that quiet..
          As regards the Irish Border I am absolutely disgusted with the way this weak, weak government has handled the Brexit negotiations. I predict big trouble a brewin’.
          They should have decided on a list of aims and objectives and presented them to the British people, so that we all knew what we wanted to achieve from Brexit.
          As it is Treeesa has basically capitulated to the EU, and we will in effect continue for some years to be ruled by Brussels, but with none of the benefits of membership.
          The UK has become the naughty boy, made to sit in a corner of the classroom wearing a dunce’s hat..

          • Father David

            Precisely. Got it in one, old bean.

  • Ivan M

    When can look forward to the Rapture, when the world is rid of the Christian Zionists, as they are smoked away by their fantasy Jesus? It is worth it, just to see that happen.

    • Father David

      I’d pay good money to see that. Surely, not for us to know the day nor the hour, though!

      • Ivan M

        I tend to go with Trump on this one sir though only just. By what are the Iranians calling Jerusalem – al Quds instead? Or by the other Muslims as Baitulmakdis ? They do not recognize the Jewish claim why then should third parties recognise the Muslim claim. Ideally both the Israelis and Palestinians should share it. But the Muslims have a a habit of erasing past history. Not good – using one of Trump’s stock phrases. As a Catholic myself, Jerusalem is the Body of Christ. But I do wish those people can sort out their claims, actually settle for part of the loaf till the Messiah returns without bloodshed.

        • Father David

          Interesting cartoon in yesterday’s Times of Trump at the Western Wall in Jerusalem squashing the white dove of peace against the sacred stones with much bloodshed emanating from the squashed body of the symbolic bird.

          • Ivan M

            I don’t know if the dove ever had a chance. But there is no use pretending that the Israelis are the only obstacles. Why do the Palestinians not refer specifically to East Jerusalem when they speak in Arabic if they intend a compromise on the city? The truth is even if some Arabs allow for Israel, the mass do not since Israel is a matter of humiliation for them. The Iranians on the other hand have no bloody business in this. But they ( I mean the mullahs and their followers) have tried for some decades now to open a front with the Yahuds in order to stake their claim to a leadership role among the Muslims, by way of contribution from the Shias to the struggle against those who stand in the way of Allah.

          • andrew

            For Muslims any land conquered, then lost, is a cause of humiliation. Look at the debate surrounding (i forget its name) cathedral in Spain, probably Andalusia, in which Muslims who invaded Spain and illegally appropriated aforementioned cathedral from Catholics believe they ought to retain a claim in present day ownership. You see colonialism works only 1 way. We’re the aggressors, but the Muslims are forever the victim.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Cordoba.

          • Anton

            It’s the Grand Mosque at Cordoba, built by Muslims and turned into a cathedral after the Reconquista.

          • Royinsouthwest

            In other words, blame Trump not the terrorists.

          • Father David

            I don’t think the blame game will get us very far in soving this difficulty – but the cartoon says it all.

          • andrew

            Says what? That the establishment believes trump to be the persecutor and prosecutor combined? It’s in the paper, so we must accept it to be true!

    • dannybhoy

      If it happens that way, I think I’d rather be part of the smoke than the embers..

      • Ivan M

        It is a lot harder to try and live a sinless life, the criteria set by Jesus for faith and steadfastness in the end times, than it is to go on cucking for Israel in the expectation that Jesus gives a hoot about it. I expect that for many of these morons, advocacy for Israel function as an ersatz for the difficult road that Jesus demands. Hence my mild contempt.

        • Anton

          Mild enough to put you in danger of hell, my brother, according to Christ himself: Matthew 5:22.

          If, of course, you’d actually like to debate it from the scriptures and you pledge not to insult me, I’m on for it.

          • Ivan M

            No sir, not up to staying up all night these days.

          • Anton

            Then ponder Isaiah 11:11-12: God’s hand will a second time recover a remnant of his people… he will… gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. And remember that God’s covenant with Abraham gives Canaan specifically to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac, then Jacob, forever. I am not disputing that this covenant is widened at the Cross, but I do dispute that it is taken away from the physical descendants of Abraham who do not accept Christ, for Paul explicitly says that it is not at Romans 11:28-29. One should understand the default situation as the Jews running Canaan and their exiles as the exception. Duration of exile is secondary.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I am awaiting my ticket to Jerusalem. When it arrives, then I’ll know something’s afoot.

          • Anton

            If you watch for the signs as Christ told us to, you’ll know a bit sooner… except that the faithful will almost certainly have been martyred by then, and may you abide in faith!

          • Dominic Stockford

            I may know, but as someone with clear Jewish ancestry the ticket will be a give-away.

          • prompteetsincere

            V. Michael Freund, channeling Jabotinsky-Begin, and Melanie Phillips at ‘Jerusalem Post’, December 7, 2017-5778.
            This is one history that must not repeat itself.

        • andrew

          Have you ever considered that maybe we simply view Jews better custodians of the Holy Land than savage Muslims, who have a history of destruction, iconoclasm and subjugation?

          • Ivan M

            I am sorry but I do not care one way or another about so called holy lands. I admit to have had some feelings of possessiveness over the Holy Land, but that was because I was not thinking clearly. See there is a town called Ayodhya a Holy City for Hindus the cause for which has already led to much bloodshed and threaten to lead to much more. But just as important if not more so, is that the religious forces unleashed in that struggle now actively undermine the secular fabric of India, my country so that another say ten years of this and we will be little different from Pakistan.

    • Anton

      Why do you assume that Christian Zionists all believe in the pre-tribulation rapture? I am one and I don’t. I suppose the reason is that Dispensationalists believe in both, but not every CZ is a dispensationalist.

      • Ivan M

        Pence, the even crazier religious nut was one of those who pushed Trump to his announcement. I don’t know what manner of a CZ nut he is but he is definitely a nut. He went to the DMZ and brandished his sword – something about unsheathed swords or other. But the Korean weirdo went right ahead with two or three missile launches and a nuclear test to boot. My rambling point is no one knows the hour and certainly the last persons I would bet on knowing are the CZs. Morons of the first order.

        • Anton

          People resort to insult when they run out of argument. Can you rebut my explanation of why the Abrahamic covenant still entitles the Jews to Canaan, below?

          • Ivan M

            I don’t take the OT literally. The NT is binding on me. The OT is to be read in the light of the NT not the other way round.

          • Anton

            Then try Romans 11:28-9 which confirms that even anti-Christian Jews are still entitled to Canaan.

          • Ivan M

            Where have I suggested that Jews are not to claim Israel? I go by English law. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

          • Anton

            Romans 11:28-9 is confirmation that Christian Zionism is biblical, and the Bible outranks English law.

          • Ray Sunshine

            That passage is commonly (and rightly, I think) quoted to refute the so-called “supersessionist theology”. I don’t see any connection with English law or with any other country’s law. It’s about the Gospel and the Elect, not about Trump and Netanyahu.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Pence is far from a ‘crazy religious nut’, he merely left the Church of Rome, having seen through it (with the help of the Holy Spirit) and has embraced God’s Word (the Bible) as God’s Truth (which it has to be, or it can’t be God’s – and if it isn’t God’s then it tells us nothing we can rely upon whatsoever and the whole Christian faith is built on quicksand).

          • Ivan M

            And promptly fell for the peculiar American heresy that Jesus wants us to fight for Israel.

        • Anton

          Pence is why I wouldn’t mind if Trump failed to complete his term for some reason.

          • Ivan M

            And if he fails your expectations, you have another false prophet to add to your list.

          • Anton

            What prophecy has he made?

      • dannybhoy

        Absolutely. David Pawson does a good job or reviewing all the various views and comes to his own thoughtful conclusion on the matter. Personally my own thoughts are somewhat cloudy with no rigid views. The most important thing is to live every day as a Christian empowered by the Holy Spirit, ready for anything!

      • Dominic Stockford

        Ditto.

  • Anton

    One day Jerusalem will be the capital of the whole world.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The Czech Republic have also recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The ‘Huzzah’s!’ continue.

  • IanCad

    This thread has legs, and as they are tiring permit me to post a link to an article written in 2003.

    I am fully supportive of President Trump’s action; I do however have a concern that it may be interpreted as payback to the “Left Behind” brigade, in particular, a little treat for pastor Robert Jeffress:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/gary-north/immortals-for-war/

    • len

      Left behind?, You have a right cheek.

  • dannybhoy

    There’s been some weird stuff posted on this blog, on this particular thread.
    It started with Carl a Christian, saying there is nothing supranatural about the rebirth of the nation of Israel. and my questioning thereof.
    Then getting into “God doesn’t intervene in human history, but says Danny ‘He obviously at some point must have, for Him to know the beginning to the end of all things”.
    I’ve been waiting but Carl hasn’t yet come back on that one..
    And even if he blew my own theology apart, it would be worth it just to hear his explanation…

    Then we have Ian M suddenly wading in, attacking those ‘literalists’ amongst us who actually believe that the Gospels (Luke) faithfully record our Lord’s words regarding the end times. That just as the disciples witnessed our Lord ascending into heaven, so they would see Him come again in glory.. (Acts1)

    We cannot escape from the reality that earth and heaven (the universe) are somehow bound together, that the battle between good and evil is being waged in the Cosmos as well as on earth. Human beings are not only offered and beseeched even to accept forgiveness and salvation; they are given the right as sons of God to fight that good fight here on earth…
    Either He is the great Creator God who proves His love for fallen mankind by choosing to take on flesh and dwell amongst us, or we’re all deluded..

    • Anton

      Church liberals don’t believe that the gospels record our Lord’s words faithfully about any subject!

      • dannybhoy

        So how the Haitch can they have a valis opinion about any Christian doctrine??

        • Anton

          Exactly Danny!

    • Ivan M

      Boss the Gospels also record that the end of the world would occur in the lifetime of those who heard the words from either Jesus or the Apostles. A literalist has to accept that the world did not end 2000 years ago. So what are we to make of it? Jesus said two women would be at the threshing one taken one left behind. Same for those at the plough. In those events there were no smoke and clouds. He had made it clear that Jerusalem would come to an end as she did not recognize her Saviour, which in fact she suffered. The very early Christian communities all lived in the expectation that they were living in the last days. But it has been centuries since. I go with the interpretation that it is always Apocalypse Now. That is one has to be ready for death at anytime and give an account and we pray, avail of the Justification of Jesus Christ.and the Mercy of Almighty God.

      • dannybhoy

        “I go with the interpretation that it is always Apocalypse Now. That is one has to be ready for death at anytime and give an account and we pray, avail of the Justification of Jesus Christ.and the Mercy of Almighty God.”
        And so do I and so does (I suspect) Len, Chef, Anton and others. No position is water tight, just as no position on predestination -free will is water tight.
        In fact both testaments are littered with instances of the Almighty showing mercy, even when the sinner has obviously transgressed the Law..
        SO for me it boils down to., “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25
        If there is a God, if He is a moral being, just and wise and compassionate in all His ways, I trust Him as the very bedrock of truth and sustainer of all life.
        Yes the disciples believed Jesus was coming back in their life time, even Paul seems to believe this, but so what? To me the New Testament is the four Gospels and a collection of letters dealing with doctrine, life and witness. I don’t think everything that was written had to be endorsed by God, simply that these writers are recording what they saw, what they experienced and what they made of it, then (especially Paul the Rabbi) was laying down how congregations should be composed and how they should relate to each other and the world.
        There are so many prophecies and hints in the Old Testament that one day Messiah will come to Israel, that one day He will rule on earth from Jerusalem, and one day there will be a new heaven and a new earth. That the details of how that will work are difficult to make sense of does not to my mind detract from that reality, and the rebirth of Israel cannot be ascribed to an accident of history. God intervened and decided it was time his people came home.
        Meantime we get on with being salt and ligjht in the world, loving one another and being witnesses of His grace,
        whilst waiting for the next exciting episode of God’s plan..
        (Possibly an increase of persecution..)

        • Ivan M

          One has to settle on an interpretation at some point if the issue is important.

          • dannybhoy

            One can take a position that acknowledges the main arguments for this or that, chuck in a few anomalies and paradoxes that make holding that interpretation difficult, without feeling the need to have everything sewn up to your own satisfaction.
            Some things can remain unresolved and up for further discussion..

    • Christian denominations and Jewish ones (also highly atomized along denominational and philosophical lines), not to mention secular Humanists, all have their claims, Danny. This why I generally avoid disputes over such matters here…apart from an attempt to honour a still-standing, although arguably vague halakhic ruling to avoid theological disputations. The times I do wade into such discussions is when people try to define what Jewish beliefs are, when they make historical claims that annoy me, or when my self-discipline weakens and I’m in the mood for a good theological rumble.

      • dannybhoy

        I enjoy a good rumble Avi. It sharpens the brain (or what remains thereof) and forces you to re-examine your faith..
        I wouldn’t expect you to get involved with discussions about eschatology on what is essentially a Christian blog. But you know that you are held in affectionate respect here, and your views are welcome.
        My point is that if there is a God then He inhabits another realm or dimension, yet interacts with us humans in fulfilling his purposes. So to rule out the supernatural is to reduce and limit our faith (yours too), to what can only be experienced and explained by our human intelligence and physical senses.
        I don’t buy that.

    • carl jacobs

      Danny

      Fifteen years ago, I would have engaged you with a vengeance. I did so frequently. But I have become much more sanguine about people disagreeing with me on the Doctrines of Grace. I just don’t feel the same responsibility anymore to correct every challenge to Reformed Theology that I encounter. ☺

      • dannybhoy

        I’m not challenging your theology. I asked you very simply to explain your assertion that God knows/ordained the end from the beginning and doesn’t intervene (‘I don’t like that word’ you said) in the affairs of men..
        At some point He had to have done so for these Biblical events to have happened. Men prayed, men obeyed, men cried out to God, God answered, etc.
        So from what you said, all that God ever would do, He has already done, and anything and everything that man does was according to God’s eternal plan…

        • carl jacobs

          You called what I said “rubbish”. And you were well along the path to a detailed argument about Calvinism. You even quoted 1 Tim 2:4 which one of the “Big Three” Arminians verses. I didn’t want to go there.

          • dannybhoy

            So just focus in on “I asked you very simply to explain your assertion that God knows/ordained the end from the beginning and doesn’t intervene (‘I don’t like that word’ you said) in the affairs of men..”
            That’s what really interested me. I know the big arguments and I know the cases that can be built for each, but it was your assertion that Israel has no eschatological significance and that God doesn’t intervene in human affairs -even though He knows the end from the beginning.
            That was what caught my interest.
            I have absolutely no desire to upset you, only understand how you see God dealing with us humans and guiding events..

          • James M

            To say God “intervenes” is a regrettable choice of language, because it implies two things – that:

            1. God is not in unbroken control of all creatures in all ways;
            2. God is in some way alien to His own handiwork.

            God does not intervene in creation, because He is in no way absent from it. It is all of it totally subject to Him, whether it knows this or not. So His “mighty acts” of salvation do not make Him present where before He was absent: instead, the ever-present God is present in new ways. And three supreme examples of this are, the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection.

            Martians on Earth might be said to intervene, because Earth is not their home. Just as the Moon is not ours. But men and Martians alike are subject to Christ in all things.

          • dannybhoy

            “To say God “intervenes” is a regrettable choice of language, because it implies two things – that:
            1. God is not in unbroken control of all creatures in all ways;
            2. God is in some way alien to His own handiwork.”

            First off, thank you James for offering an explanation.

            intervene
            1Take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.
            ‘he acted outside his authority when he intervened in the dispute’
            with infinitive ‘their forces intervened to halt the attack.’
            It may not be an exact definition in the Biblical sense: (’caused’ might be another fit: but frankly what the heck are we pedanticizing about anyway – God did something to make something happen or prevent something happening; end of!)
            One could illustrate, Mum Dad and children are in a room together when the children begin arguing noisily. A parent intervenes to restore peace and harmony..
            God has a plan for this world revolving around salvation; the rescuing and renewing of as many fallen human beings as possible, within a time frame known only to Himself.
            Scripture is replete with many examples of His actions and interactions with human history in order to achieve His purposes.
            We add to this the understanding that God is omniscient, knowing the end from the beginning, yet without denying man his free will
            (which for the most part, man has used to cheat/rob/ covet/murder other human beings, sometimes on a grand scale).
            So by and large God only intervenes/interacts/prevents/whatever in order to achieve His purposes regarding the provision and promotion of salvation. Whether for His chosen people Israel, or the Church.
            There is no evidence to suggest that God does anything to control the growth of a civilisation, or prevent wars or disasters, save where such incidents impinge on His overall plan.
            So to say,
            “God does not intervene in creation, because He is in no way absent from it. It is all of it totally subject to Him, whether it knows this or not. So His “mighty acts” of salvation do not make Him present where before He was absent: instead, the ever-present God is present in new ways.”
            seems not only extremely vague, but ignores the many passages of Scripture which speak quite clearly of God’s acts in human history
            Deuteronomy 8
            Psalm 9
            Psalm 103
            In psalm 2 we have..

            “Why do the nations rage,
            And the people plot a vain thing?
            2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
            And the rulers take counsel together,
            Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
            3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
            And cast away Their cords from us.”
            4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
            The Lord shall hold them in derision.

            God is both present in the cosmos and is active in the affairs of men. He responds to earnest prayers and petitions, he delights in our worship, and He will achieve all that sets out to do. Whether man works with Him or against Him.

          • James M

            Does God act in history ? Of course. I thought it would be obvious that I was saying that. Apparently not 🙁

            The word “interact” is much less problematic than “intervene” – it does not imply that God is a previously absent “factor” in creation and its existence, as talk of “intervening” does. The “stranger god” of Gnosticism is, by contrast, an “intervening” god, because he is nothing to do with the creation he intervenes in. The God of the Bible, of revelation, and of Christian faith, does not intervene in creation either, but for the opposite reason: its being, creation, life, governance, and fulfilment are in all respects from, for, to, through, and in Him.

            It is not in the slightest other than Him – He, is “Wholly Other” than it. I take it that this “Wholly-Other-than-creation-ness” of God is an aspect of the Holiness of God; there is *nothing* like God (as is implied by the angelonym “mi-cha-El”, “Who is like God ?”; answer: “No-one”. The question is rhetorical.) This can also be a commentary on the aspiration of Helel-ben-Shachar in Isaiah 14, to “be like the Most High”.

            This is a delusion, because the only way to be like God is if God makes Himself “God-with-us”. In Jesus, that is what He does. He is not like us – He goes much further than that: He becomes “one of us”, and His Death on the Cross is the extreme instance of this. He becomes accursed, He becomes sin. He is actually the perfect Antichrist. The AC people fuss about so much is a stupid parody of Jesus, Who is God’s Antichrist. Jesus is not sinful – He is the Man Who is sin; the “man of sin” in 2 Thess 2 is a parody of Jesus, the Man of sin. Jesus is the deconstruction and demythologising of the old idea of holiness. He destroys the sacred, not to replace it with secularity, but to bring in His own Holiness. This is why the NT proclamation is blasphemous and wicked – because it “turns upside-down” the holiness of the Old Law. The Crucifixion is as near to the Damnation of God as we will ever have.

            If that’s not shocking, it should be. For that is how far God has gone, not for matured Saints, but for His enemies.

            How much clearer can one make it that one is not denying but affirming that God acts in creation ?

  • John Magee

    All Trump did was recognize what the US Congress passed in 1995 called “S. 1322 (104th): Jerusalem Embassy Act.” By moving the USA Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem he fulfilled another campaign promise. Over the last year he has probably fulfilled more camping promises that any president in American history and maybe any leader in recorded history. This is what happens when you have a leader who is not a professional politician and why he is hated by the political and media establishment including members of his own party.Today the USA’s Ambassador to the UN also made it clear the USA could recognize eastern Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state : https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/s1322

  • James M

    Trump did absolutely the right thing. The opposition this step has met is both monstruous and absurd. He has set an excellent example of political courage to politicians nearer home. Perhaps they will take the hint.

  • Anton

    Today is the 100th anniversary of the surrender of Jerusalem to Gen Allenby’s forces.

    Hallelujah!

  • carl jacobs

    I’ll say this for Trump’s decision. All the right people are upset about it.

    • Ray Sunshine

      At their joint news conference in Paris a few hours ago, Netanyahu and Macron showed every sign of being on the best of terms. They smilingly agreed to disagree about Trump/Jerusalem while enthusiastically agreeing about everything else. Let’s see how it goes tomorrow in Brussels, but the first leg of Netanyahu’s trip was hardly the “lions’ den” that Haaretz had been expecting.