What if Abbas succeeds and UN recognizes Palestine within pre1967 borders?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1) I think Obama takes a HUGE hit with Jewish voters since the Obama administration used the "pre-1967" tag in the flareup just a few months back.

2) And I think there would be a high chance of war before the Nov 2012 election.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You don't seem to know the first thing about the UN.

how so?  you think even a US veto is going to stop the recognition of Palestine?  and would the US even veto such a resolution?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

please explain how the US could veto recognition of a Palestinian state in the middle of the Arab Spring without having many US embassies attacked throughout the ME?

this is why I think Abbas has used Obama's Apology and Obama and placed the US in a lose-lose situation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@Lewis

Abbas just went on national TV today in the West Bank and declared he is going to ask for UN membership.

And who exactly loses if the US vetoes it?  Certainly not Abbas.  So, for Abbas, it is a logical step...else, even Abbas gets overthrown by the Arab Spring.

...so you need to wake up and smell the coffee - the Arab Spring has unleashed the power of the Muslim Street and forced the hands of all the Muslim governments in the ME, and the leaders of those countries are trying to protect their own jobs by either cracking down or trying to lead the parade.

What Abbas is doing is perfectly logical from his POV, especially with Jordan on the edge of a cliff.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, in short, you are saying than US is in trouble because Arab countries decide to listen to their population instead of listening the US?

And we should see a problem in that?

in that the Muslim population wants war

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Uh, you know that there are 1.6 billion of them, right? They're not a hive mind. They're humans, not ant swarms.

80% of 1.6 billion is still a lot considering that in Texas it only takes a one or two ants to justify frying the whole dang bed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You don't seem to know the first thing about the UN.

how so?  you think even a US veto is going to stop the recognition of Palestine?  and would the US even veto such a resolution?

because I can see how such a veto might, in light of Obama's Apology Tour and the Arab Spring, spur Muslim riots throughout the ME and cause a huge swing towards Islamist governments, with several US and Israeli embassies stormed and maybe even the toppling of the Jordanian government. 

I think it has the potential to be very bad, and the Obama admin seems to agree for they are attempting to pull out all the stops to prevent such a vote from taking place

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's good to see that your perfect record of being wrong on everything ever in regards to the Middle East hasn't deterred you from making more prophecies.

Keep it up Jm! You'll get one right eventually.

actually, I can't think of a single thing I've been way wrong about in the middle east.  I've said for years that Iran was trying to build nukes, which is correct.  I predicted Pakistan would be overthrown by the Taliban by Jan 2013, but I was only "wrong" because I didnt realize how many allies the Taliban already had in the Pakistan government and therefore there was little need to for the Taliban to overthrow it.  I predicted the Arab Spring would lead to Islamic states within 5 or so years that will impose Sharia and march to war with Israel.

What exactly have I been so wrong about regarding the ME?  In fact, things have unfolded in a far worse and much faster time frame than I ever imagined

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not an expert on Middle East policy and I indeed don't tend to be particularly optimistic about the present situation. I was just fed up with jmfcst's categorisation of all Muslims as one indiscrete mass.

dude, stop playing with yourself.  I have cited polls stating the MAJORITY of Muslims in Muslim nations want Sharia Law.  A "majority" is NOT "one indiscreet mass", but it is more than enough to set the region ablaze in war.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You've also used sentences like

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. It's not exactly a Herculean feat of semantic engineering to add a 'much of' or 'most of' to that sentence.

didnt know, in light of the fact that such idiotic arguments against me have been leveled and discredited for years on end, that I needed to be that explicit.  After all, when has any country been completed united?

not to mention that I would think any "reasonable" person would understand I am not talking in terms of some idealistic unanimity, for such a togetherness neither exists in the real world nor is it required to bring a plan to fruition.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, a big part of Americans want to use the Bible to do laws.
Should we bomb them, too?

Well, if you're so serious about comparing the two groungs, run a little experiment for us:  Go stand outside any American church on any given Sunday and speak about whatever you want...then fly to Cairo and stand in the middle Cairo's public Tahrir Square (much less outside of a mosque) and do the same.

And, provided you survive, you can give us your opinion as to which is the most dangerous group, an opinion I'm guessing will be much less idiotic than it is today. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Israel should just annex the lands and kick out all who aren't Jews.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Israel should just annex the lands and kick out all who aren't Jews.

...you're aware of how blatantly racist and criminal that would be, right?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Israel should just annex the lands and kick out all who aren't Jews.

...you're aware of how blatantly racist and criminal that would be, right?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html

Well, of course. That's asinine too. That doesn't make what you're suggesting any better.

but  the land does belong to the Jews

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

since when is it illegal to gain land by war?  isn't that how most land was gained in the past?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

since when is it illegal to gain land by war?  isn't that how most land was gained in the past?

Oh btw the land belongs to Israel only in your biblical wet dream. Most of the world doesn't agree with you. Deal with it!

Oh, I've already come to terms with it, but you're the one who is going to have to deal with it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Let it be known that jmfcst supports oppression of Christians and anti-Christian violence.

  dude, don't you have a whore to go bang?

if a Christian stole the car of a Jew, I would still want the car returned to the Jew, regardless if a Christian stole it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if a Christian stole the car of a Jew, I would still want the car returned to the Jew, regardless if a Christian stole it.

...how much land, exactly, do you think Israel would be justified in seizing...

they wont have to go looking for a fight, the fight has been coming to them (e.g. 1948, 1967, etc, etc)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There's so much stupidity in this thread.

This issue in general does seem to do that to people. You then add dearest Jmf to the mix. And there we are.

but, in the end, jmfcst is going to be right because jmfcst is reading from the Word of God - the Bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Read while watching bad films from the 1980s, no doubt.

I would think most of my quotes come from movies of the 70's, no?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There's nothing wrong with jmfcst's taste in reading material, it's just his excessively narrow interpretation that's problematic.

if Jesus said the "abomination of desolation" will be set up in Jerusalem and hereld the end of the age and the Second Coming, then that is exactly what is going to occur.

why does that even need an interpretation?  Are you confused exactly what the "abomination of desolation" will be?  So am I, but just because we don't current know what it is going to be, doesn't mean it aint gonna happen just as he said it would.

so, that is just it - I haven't "interpreted" anything, I've just been letting the word speak for itself

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Literal interpretation is still a form of interpretation...

Jesus:  Yo, Nathan, buddy, please pass me the salt.

Nathan:  Here you go, my Lord, here's pepper.

Jesus:  Nathan, remember how I promised to throw you in the lake of fire last?

Nathan:  Yes, my Lord, you did.

Jesus:  You misinterpreted, for the First shall be Last, and the Last shall be First!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...you really don't understand the point of what I was saying at all, do you?

Biblical prophecy is so frequently and flagrantly metaphorical that attempting to interpret it politically actively distracts one from salvation.

1) that's a very stupid and unfounded statement, not backed by anything in scripture

2) whose being politically active?  I'm an armchair observer.

3) blessing Israel is a stance for a person to take in ALL ages, regardless if you lived in 500BC or 2011 AD....as the multitude of examples throughout the bible, both OT and NT, demonstrate.

but, go ahead, if you want to curse Israel and wish her harm, more power to you.  God will straighten it out in the end

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why, no. Scripture DOESN'T say anything explicit about how its own prophecies are to be interpreted. Thanks for noticing. But consider that most of the prophecies that Christ fulfilled He fulfilled through things like synecdoche (Rachel weeping in Rama) or puns (nazirite/Nazarene). Always remember that the Bible was, contrary to popular belief among Christians and non-Christians alike, actually put together by very smart people.

Sure the bible sometimes uses allegories, but other times it speaks directly, example:

Luke 21:20 ““When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.”

There is NO ALLEGORY in the above sentence, therefore no interpretation is needed other than taking it for face value.  Duh!

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'actively' modifies 'distracts', not 'politically'.

You’re boring me.

---

The thing is, the current State of Israel was founded by mostly secular people on romantic nationalist, not religious, ideals, and many of the most devout Jews opposed and oppose it precisely on religious…

And why, exactly, does that make a hill of beans?!  Are they contending that Israel can’t be partially reconstructed before the whole thing is brought back together by God?  If they want to make a scriptural argument against its reformation, then I am willing to listen, though it’s a pretty safe bet they themselves are full of beans, because there is NOTHING in scripture that stands against a partial gathering before God completely regathers the Jews in the promised land

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sure the bible sometimes uses allegories, but other times it speaks directly, example:

Luke 21:20 ““When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.”

There is NO ALLEGORY in the above sentence, therefore no interpretation is needed other than taking it for face value.  Duh!

This did in fact happen. It happened, by my count, one thousand nine hundred and forty-one years ago.

never said it hadn't occurred before...I was simply making the point that Jesus and the rest of the bible don't always speak in allegories and therefore you can at times take it for face value....remember, it was you accusing me of not knowing how to read the scripture.

---

Stop pretending you know anything about Judaism or Jewish history. Now.

Judaism?  maybe not since so little of it resembles the OT.  But if you want to have a discussion about OT Judaism and/or OT Jewish history, then I'm game, but you might want to start a thread on the religion board.