5 Dwight Thompson hosts Pastor John Hagee, Bill Salus, Dr David Reagan, Irvin Baxter, Gary Stearman a Santiagojess75
Jan 20, 2014
The One State Solution
Posted 3/27/2016
Edited 4/15/2016
My comment:
After viewing this video, I found it was part religious, part political; before, I go political, let me comment on one thing John Hagee said, "We could be raptured off the stage tonight." That is non-biblical: go to Matthew 24:40, Jesus said, "two men will be in the field; the one will be taken, and the other left [behind]." What does that mean?
One is the inner self and the second is the outer self: the inner self [or soul] will be caught to meet the Lord in the air (i.e., the kingdom of heaven at his coming) and the outer self [or physical body] will remain on earth.
Dwight Thompson said, I am going up with the first load."
I believe, that was a joke, more than a sincere belief. It, obviously, violates the laws of physics: the instant disappearance of the physical body.
The rapture is, basically, when the soul agrees with Christ: that is the cause of Great Tribulation: before and after, His coming.
Now, to the solution of chronic Israel-Arab conflict, peace in the Middle East, and the restoration of the nation of Israel:
First, I want to correct Irvin Baxter: the agreement of peace in Daniel 9:27 is not the Abrahamic Covenant: it is a
religio-politico-human covenant. The Abrahamic occurred in Genesis 12 and 15; when, God gave the Land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants.
Bill Salus is right:
Obama's solution: return to the pre-1967 war boundaries: that is not the answer: it is going backwards, Since, it was a defensive war that extended boundaries and not aggressive: they have a right to keep it for their security and since it was part of their state in the first place, what was taken must be returned.
I agree with these men:
I don't think a land give away for peace is the right answer; because, that is just a short term [or illusory] solution. The establishment of the Palestine State with two separate land parcels with the State of Israel in between would be troublesome.
Two states [unhappy with the terms] means: conflicts would continue until there is a final settlement. The two states solution would not work long term; because of the high Arab TFR: the West Bank and Gaza Strip would overpopulate.
Furthermore, no peace agreement should be signed until the Palestinians and its different warring factions recognize Israel's right to exist. And, Israel will not be satisfied until it reclaims its rightful sovereignty and Homeland.
I am suggesting a One State Solution.
I would begin with the annexation of the West Bank based on vote on both sides to make this territory part of Israel--giving Palestinians and Jews equal rights and Palestinians semi-autonomous political power over their territory.
That is the first step: it might work. I don't see a big difference between what the Palestinians and Jews basically want. This incorporation of the West Bank by vote could be piecemeal--as there are different areas under different control: PT and OPT.
But, I believe, this should be done in a way to maintain Jewish majority control of Israel. The Arabs have many states or nations they control: the Jews have no other. To do that: birth limits would to be imposed on Arabs, because, they have a higher TFR than Jews. This would be done not only to prevent overpopulation in this region with limited natural resources, but to maintain Jewish majority control.
The second step: the annexation of the Gaza Strip to Israel on a vote on both sides: that would come later. The One State Solution in two steps cannot happen until the Arabs and Jews stop hating each other.
I am not sure Gaza is ready yet: after the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007 and its anti-Israel stance and rocket attacks.
It imposed sharia law on its people and continued the war with Israel that brought Gaza to its knees, after that ordeal, they might want to change. The Arabs living in Israel are better off, than the Arabs living under Hamas.
The second step: should be taken, only, if the first step is successful, then, the people of Gaza might want to join the one state solution for the benefits of security, human rights, better living conditions, jobs, etc.
I am not against a one step unification; if, it can be negotiated in a way that would end hostilities; nor opposed to annexing Gaza first.
Wars have left Arabs worst off.
Fatah was a failure, it let Jihadists creep in, which attempted to reestablish Arab rule in the land of Israel. That was misguided.
Israel has a right to defend itself in its homeland and the Arabs have no right to impose their control over it. That is an abomination.
Hamas was a failure; it imposed sharia law, violated human rights, carried out attacks on Israel, brought destruction to its cities, blockade, economic decline, corruption, and great suffering upon its people.
These things would not happen, if Arabs made peace with Israel and lived under a Jewish controlled state.
Any peace agreement must restore Jewish sovereignty over its territory including all of Jerusalem. That is their right, since it was their capital, prior to conquest. The City of Jerusalem, within the state of Israel has a Light-House mission in this dark and troubled part of the world.
The other solution: restoration of their homeland and sovereignty by war: that is their right, since, its land was taken by war.
War can be justified, if the Arabs continue to launch attacks on Israel and refuse to recognize its right to exist. That is inexorable.
Now, to the temple mount, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque build on the temple mount, a Jewish holy site, after the conquest of Jerusalem by Arabs in the 7th century, have been destroyed and rebuilt several times, since then. The question being debated, since, the Arabs have no right to the temple mount: Should they be destroyed? They stand for 1,300 years of Arab oppression and the supplanting of Judaism with Islam. It should be remembered, that the Arab Legion of Jordan attacked the Old City of Jerusalem in 1948 and demolished 34 synagogues. It was not liberated until the 6 day Jewish-Arab war in 1967. Now, in Jewish control, should these two Arab sacred sites, built during its Arab conquest, be destroyed?
The Kaaba in Mecca is the Arab's holy site.
Jerusalem is Jewish temple holy site.
Some think the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque should be destroyed and replaced with the Temple of Solomon, which originally was built there, destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, rebuilt by Herod, the Great, and destroyed again by the Romans in 70 AD. Since, the return of the Jews, they have been a flashpoint of Arab and Jewish discord. They have no legal bases in the OT; whereas, that is not true of the Temple of Solomon.
Its design is in the Hebrew Bible.
It was built under King Solomon.
Israel which has been conquered several times by foreign powers and its temple destroyed twice, has a right of restoration. I believe, it can be built elsewhere without the destruction of the two Arab holy sites, but that is a matter for the Jewish people to decide. If, they are used to incite Jihad, that is grounds for destruction.
It should be noted: the conquest of Israel by Arabs in 638 AD was a war crime. The Arabs built the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the temple mount during its occupation. That was the imposition of Islam by force on Judah.
That was followed by the Crusades.
Even though, the crusaders conquered Jerusalem and establish sovereignty there, it did not last long, the Arabs re-conquered Jerusalem and continued to control the land of Samaria-Judah, except for a short period, until the 20th century.
The Jews lost their homeland, because, it did not have an Army strong enough to defend itself or dislodge foreign conquerors. The dispersion of Jews to other countries was caused by exile and harsh treatment of their conquerors: Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, and Arabs. Those that resisted were killed. Arabs replaced dispersed and slaughtered Jews. That is a tactic of Daesh.
The Belfour Declaration stated that Britain favored and would facilitate a Jewish Homeland in Palestine in 1917.
The Arab reaction: negative.
The Ottoman Empire which conquered and controlled Palestine allied with Germany during World War I--and was defeated and broken up.
After the war, the League of Nations gave the Palestine Mandate to the British and under its auspices--the Jews began migrating back to its Homeland in 1923.
The Holocaust perpetrated by Germany in World War II--intensified the desire of Jews to return to their Homeland and reestablish a Jewish State.
In 1948, the Jews declared their independence after the United Nations mandated the partition of Palestine.
That was followed by Arab wars.
If, the Israeli-Jews reject the one state solution fearing an Arab majority takeover and both the Jews and Palestinians can agree on terms that would end hostilities in a Bi-Nation solution: that would be alright.
They are not there yet.
If, Hamas continues to deny Israel's right to exist: it has the right to remove dissidents from its land by war: it now, has the Army.
The two states solution could be an interim agreement leading to a One State Solution encompassing all its territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and all of Jerusalem and restores Jewish sovereignty over its Homeland and gives semi-autonomous political power to Palestinians and guarantee religious rights for Jews, Muslims, Christians, Baha'ists, etc. --along with a secular Bill of Rights and a Constitution of Democratic Governance.
That is an Ideal Model for peace.
What is ideal, however, may not be realistic.
If, either, Fatah-Hamas or Israel is unreasonable in reaching a peaceful settlement, the United Nations could impose one.
But, this enlightened view needs time to evolve and more wars may be part of the evolution: I wish not.
Jan 20, 2014
The One State Solution
Posted 3/27/2016
Edited 4/15/2016
My comment:
After viewing this video, I found it was part religious, part political; before, I go political, let me comment on one thing John Hagee said, "We could be raptured off the stage tonight." That is non-biblical: go to Matthew 24:40, Jesus said, "two men will be in the field; the one will be taken, and the other left [behind]." What does that mean?
One is the inner self and the second is the outer self: the inner self [or soul] will be caught to meet the Lord in the air (i.e., the kingdom of heaven at his coming) and the outer self [or physical body] will remain on earth.
Dwight Thompson said, I am going up with the first load."
I believe, that was a joke, more than a sincere belief. It, obviously, violates the laws of physics: the instant disappearance of the physical body.
The rapture is, basically, when the soul agrees with Christ: that is the cause of Great Tribulation: before and after, His coming.
Now, to the solution of chronic Israel-Arab conflict, peace in the Middle East, and the restoration of the nation of Israel:
First, I want to correct Irvin Baxter: the agreement of peace in Daniel 9:27 is not the Abrahamic Covenant: it is a
religio-politico-human covenant. The Abrahamic occurred in Genesis 12 and 15; when, God gave the Land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants.
Bill Salus is right:
Obama's solution: return to the pre-1967 war boundaries: that is not the answer: it is going backwards, Since, it was a defensive war that extended boundaries and not aggressive: they have a right to keep it for their security and since it was part of their state in the first place, what was taken must be returned.
I agree with these men:
I don't think a land give away for peace is the right answer; because, that is just a short term [or illusory] solution. The establishment of the Palestine State with two separate land parcels with the State of Israel in between would be troublesome.
Two states [unhappy with the terms] means: conflicts would continue until there is a final settlement. The two states solution would not work long term; because of the high Arab TFR: the West Bank and Gaza Strip would overpopulate.
Furthermore, no peace agreement should be signed until the Palestinians and its different warring factions recognize Israel's right to exist. And, Israel will not be satisfied until it reclaims its rightful sovereignty and Homeland.
I am suggesting a One State Solution.
I would begin with the annexation of the West Bank based on vote on both sides to make this territory part of Israel--giving Palestinians and Jews equal rights and Palestinians semi-autonomous political power over their territory.
That is the first step: it might work. I don't see a big difference between what the Palestinians and Jews basically want. This incorporation of the West Bank by vote could be piecemeal--as there are different areas under different control: PT and OPT.
But, I believe, this should be done in a way to maintain Jewish majority control of Israel. The Arabs have many states or nations they control: the Jews have no other. To do that: birth limits would to be imposed on Arabs, because, they have a higher TFR than Jews. This would be done not only to prevent overpopulation in this region with limited natural resources, but to maintain Jewish majority control.
The second step: the annexation of the Gaza Strip to Israel on a vote on both sides: that would come later. The One State Solution in two steps cannot happen until the Arabs and Jews stop hating each other.
I am not sure Gaza is ready yet: after the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007 and its anti-Israel stance and rocket attacks.
It imposed sharia law on its people and continued the war with Israel that brought Gaza to its knees, after that ordeal, they might want to change. The Arabs living in Israel are better off, than the Arabs living under Hamas.
The second step: should be taken, only, if the first step is successful, then, the people of Gaza might want to join the one state solution for the benefits of security, human rights, better living conditions, jobs, etc.
I am not against a one step unification; if, it can be negotiated in a way that would end hostilities; nor opposed to annexing Gaza first.
Wars have left Arabs worst off.
Fatah was a failure, it let Jihadists creep in, which attempted to reestablish Arab rule in the land of Israel. That was misguided.
Israel has a right to defend itself in its homeland and the Arabs have no right to impose their control over it. That is an abomination.
Hamas was a failure; it imposed sharia law, violated human rights, carried out attacks on Israel, brought destruction to its cities, blockade, economic decline, corruption, and great suffering upon its people.
These things would not happen, if Arabs made peace with Israel and lived under a Jewish controlled state.
Any peace agreement must restore Jewish sovereignty over its territory including all of Jerusalem. That is their right, since it was their capital, prior to conquest. The City of Jerusalem, within the state of Israel has a Light-House mission in this dark and troubled part of the world.
The other solution: restoration of their homeland and sovereignty by war: that is their right, since, its land was taken by war.
War can be justified, if the Arabs continue to launch attacks on Israel and refuse to recognize its right to exist. That is inexorable.
Now, to the temple mount, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque build on the temple mount, a Jewish holy site, after the conquest of Jerusalem by Arabs in the 7th century, have been destroyed and rebuilt several times, since then. The question being debated, since, the Arabs have no right to the temple mount: Should they be destroyed? They stand for 1,300 years of Arab oppression and the supplanting of Judaism with Islam. It should be remembered, that the Arab Legion of Jordan attacked the Old City of Jerusalem in 1948 and demolished 34 synagogues. It was not liberated until the 6 day Jewish-Arab war in 1967. Now, in Jewish control, should these two Arab sacred sites, built during its Arab conquest, be destroyed?
The Kaaba in Mecca is the Arab's holy site.
Jerusalem is Jewish temple holy site.
Some think the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque should be destroyed and replaced with the Temple of Solomon, which originally was built there, destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, rebuilt by Herod, the Great, and destroyed again by the Romans in 70 AD. Since, the return of the Jews, they have been a flashpoint of Arab and Jewish discord. They have no legal bases in the OT; whereas, that is not true of the Temple of Solomon.
Its design is in the Hebrew Bible.
It was built under King Solomon.
Israel which has been conquered several times by foreign powers and its temple destroyed twice, has a right of restoration. I believe, it can be built elsewhere without the destruction of the two Arab holy sites, but that is a matter for the Jewish people to decide. If, they are used to incite Jihad, that is grounds for destruction.
It should be noted: the conquest of Israel by Arabs in 638 AD was a war crime. The Arabs built the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the temple mount during its occupation. That was the imposition of Islam by force on Judah.
That was followed by the Crusades.
Even though, the crusaders conquered Jerusalem and establish sovereignty there, it did not last long, the Arabs re-conquered Jerusalem and continued to control the land of Samaria-Judah, except for a short period, until the 20th century.
The Jews lost their homeland, because, it did not have an Army strong enough to defend itself or dislodge foreign conquerors. The dispersion of Jews to other countries was caused by exile and harsh treatment of their conquerors: Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, and Arabs. Those that resisted were killed. Arabs replaced dispersed and slaughtered Jews. That is a tactic of Daesh.
The Belfour Declaration stated that Britain favored and would facilitate a Jewish Homeland in Palestine in 1917.
The Arab reaction: negative.
The Ottoman Empire which conquered and controlled Palestine allied with Germany during World War I--and was defeated and broken up.
After the war, the League of Nations gave the Palestine Mandate to the British and under its auspices--the Jews began migrating back to its Homeland in 1923.
The Holocaust perpetrated by Germany in World War II--intensified the desire of Jews to return to their Homeland and reestablish a Jewish State.
In 1948, the Jews declared their independence after the United Nations mandated the partition of Palestine.
That was followed by Arab wars.
If, the Israeli-Jews reject the one state solution fearing an Arab majority takeover and both the Jews and Palestinians can agree on terms that would end hostilities in a Bi-Nation solution: that would be alright.
They are not there yet.
If, Hamas continues to deny Israel's right to exist: it has the right to remove dissidents from its land by war: it now, has the Army.
The two states solution could be an interim agreement leading to a One State Solution encompassing all its territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and all of Jerusalem and restores Jewish sovereignty over its Homeland and gives semi-autonomous political power to Palestinians and guarantee religious rights for Jews, Muslims, Christians, Baha'ists, etc. --along with a secular Bill of Rights and a Constitution of Democratic Governance.
That is an Ideal Model for peace.
What is ideal, however, may not be realistic.
If, either, Fatah-Hamas or Israel is unreasonable in reaching a peaceful settlement, the United Nations could impose one.
But, this enlightened view needs time to evolve and more wars may be part of the evolution: I wish not.