6
   

Obama steps away from Israel

 
 
Frugal1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 02:26 pm
@InfraBlue,
Reverse 0bama's meddling.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 03:21 pm
@InfraBlue,
Only anti-Israel zealots consider giving up illegitimate and impossible demands to be "concessions"
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 05:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Only anti-Israel zealots consider giving up illegitimate and impossible demands to be "concessions"

These demands based on international resolutions--those selfsame ones that Israel holds up as a basis of their legitimacy, ironically--and treaties are considered illegitimate by pro-Zionist fanatics.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 05:43 pm
@Frugal1,
Frugal1 wrote:

Reverse 0bama's meddling.

Like what, for example?
Frugal1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 05:46 pm
@InfraBlue,
Playing dumb doesn't become you.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 07:07 pm
@Frugal1,
Heh.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2017 09:36 pm
@InfraBlue,
International resolutions that aren't worth the paper they are written upon.

Stop the crap.

If you are such a defender of the downtrodden then you should be able to acknowledge that these resolutions have been engineered by autocratic violators of human rights.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2017 12:16 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
It's an international resolution that the Zionists point to when they speak of their legitimacy. You can't cherry pick the ones that suit your ends. That's crap.
Frugal1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2017 07:23 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0Brv52VIAALmu8.jpg
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2017 08:09 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C07tmqbXAAAaHPo.jpg
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 10:06 am
@trevorw2539,
trevorw2539 wrote:
Personally I believe the stories originate in the minds of the Babylonian Hebrew scribes.

The Elohist authors were writing of Jacob just after 800 BC. The Yahwist authors wrote of Abraham just after 720 BC.

Also, the description of the region in the stories of Jacob matches the landscape of Late Iron Age I (1050 BC to 950 BC), which indicates that the stories about Jacob were composed during this period.


trevorw2539 wrote:
Given Biblical Chronology Abraham is suggested to be circa 2100BCE - Moses circa 1400-1300 BCE.

We can't rely on Biblical chronology though because we don't have the original stories. The Yahwist authors rewrote the stories to make Abraham into Jacob's grandfather. Then the Priestly authors rewrote them again to make Abraham a citizen of a prestigious Babylonian city.

Given that Egyptian records only start recording the existence of the Hebrew Deity around 1400 BC, none of these stories would have happened before this date.


trevorw2539 wrote:
I don't believe that handed stories are a realistic answer at that distance in time.

Archaeology places King Saul's reign in Late Iron Age I (1050 BC to 950 BC).

We don't have a date for the composition of the escape from Egypt, but it was composed before any of the other stories.

The stories of Jacob, King Saul, and the escape from Egypt had to have been passed down verbally until 800 BC when the Ehohist authors started writing them down.


trevorw2539 wrote:
What was known were historic events and places around which these stories were woven.

When ancient authors tried to do such things, they invariably left out of their stories places and powers that existed in the time the story was set, but no longer existed at the time the story was composed.

And at the same time they included places and powers that didn't exist when the story was set, but did exist in the time the story was composed.

Because of that it is possible to separate the cases of late authorship from the genuinely ancient stories.


trevorw2539 wrote:
The character of the historic King figures in the Bible is down to religious bias. The dynasty of Omri is put to the background because he was an 'Idolator', sinning against 'god'. Emphasis is given to the faithful.

I'm sure the Omrides were not to the tastes of the religious hardliners, but the main reason they were put into the background was because the northern Israelite kingdom no longer existed and the Yahwist authors needed to concoct a fake history that would legitimize Judah as the rightful government over the former northerners.


trevorw2539 wrote:
Omri and Ahab were certainly prominent figures. Jehoash and Jeroboam not so. Jehoash had to give way to Hazael - king of Aram - and offer temple treasures. Hazael still killed all the 'princes of Judah'.
Jeroboam's conquest's were simply with the authority of Assyria. They would not have allowed it otherwise.

It was the kings before Jehoash who were menaced by Hazael.

Jehoash was the one who became vassal to Assyria and then reconquered what Hazael had taken from the previous kings.

I realize that it is better to be free and independent instead of being a vassal, but that does not mean that being a vassal is all bad. The fact that they were a vassal to Assyria still means that they got their former territory back.

And as vassal to Assyria they were able to participate in the Assyrian economic system. Under Jeroboam II, the northern Israelite kingdom prospered greatly from being the Assyrian Empire's primary source of olive oil.


trevorw2539 wrote:
Manasseh certainly improved things in Judah in many ways. But could that be because he was in Assyria's good books.
According to Assyrian records he helped Assyria against Egypt, provided an Assyrian builder with materials a seemed to be favoured. Judah also had and olive oil industry. All-in-all he had things made - provided he did not rebel.

Yes. Manasseh was Judah's version of Jeroboam II.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 10:28 am
@InfraBlue,
Throw them all out then.

Israel still comes out on top.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 11:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
That would be a human rights violation. Nations would intervene. It would merely produce more violence and strife and Israel would be further from the peace that it claims to seek.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 11:04 am
@InfraBlue,
Nonsense

You and your fellow anti-Israel leftists are quite adept at tossing around nonsense about "International Law" and "UN Resolutions"

Why on earth should Israel give real credence to UN resolutions when, on more than one occasion, its Arab neighbors launched war against it; in total disregard for the UN resolution(s) that gave birth to it?

If you want to find the core reason for the current problems, look to those wars.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 03:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

...Why on earth should Israel give real credence to UN resolutions when, on more than one occasion, its Arab neighbors launched war against it; in total disregard for the UN resolution(s) that gave birth to it?



I wouldn't think they do, especially after Daniel Patrick Moynihan made his voice heard at the UN, years ago.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 03:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Like I said, the Zoinists toss around international law and UN resolutions also, when it's convenient to their ends. They want to have their cake and eat it to, as it were.

Their neighbors have signed peace treaties with them, some issues are unresolved with others, but the crux of the conflict in Palestine is the Zionists' oppression of the Palestinian peoples. The wars were a reaction to that.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 04:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

... but the crux of the conflict in Palestine is the Zionists' oppression of the Palestinian peoples. The wars were a reaction to that.


Right. The Arab dictatorships of the time went to war with Israel to help the poor Palestinians. Rolling Eyes
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 05:11 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
That's the gist of it, your incredulity notwithstanding.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:20 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
That would be a human rights violation. Nations would intervene.

If an outside power were to attempt to use force against Israel, and if Israel could not handle the threat conventionally, Israel would use nuclear weapons, and rightly so.


InfraBlue wrote:
It would merely produce more violence and strife and Israel would be further from the peace that it claims to seek.

After Israel has destroyed all the people who attack them, they will have the peace that they desire.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 03:13 pm
@oralloy,
M'kay.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:35:55