TED Conversations

Roger Farinha

Founder, New American Spring

This conversation is closed.

Should Israel go all out?

Israel clearly exists as a nation on the basis of its claim to have been given its traditional land borders by the revelation of the one true God. Compromise therefore doesn't make sense. "In for a penny, in for a pound." Should Israel just chuck in its tiptoeing around the various international and Arab demands, take its original borders, and let its very existence rest on the promise of God? To me, this is the only rational option, given the very identity of the Jewish people. What say you?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 22 2012: War creates war. For as long as people want to fight, they will find something to fight about. In this case, it's whether or not God gave the land to some or all of Abraham's children. Tradition was always that the inheritance went to the oldest son. That would be Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. So the land really belongs to them if there is a god-given land-grant.

    Why not stand for peace rather than war? It's much safer and far more pleasant to watch.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2012: Truth is, I'm not asserting any option personally--I'm just having a rational exercise...
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2012: No, you're having a mental exercise. Your position is certainly not rational.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2012: By the way, Ishmael gave away his birthright for a bowl of soup. So I don't suppose the Arabs have any basis in their squabble with their Jewish family.

          But if you take, say, an alien from outer space, and present him with the Jewish history. As an objective outsider, he would agree about my ultimatum.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2012: Sorry, but Easu lost his birthright for a bowl of soup. Not Ishmael.

        But now all can see that you were not attempting to use logical argument. You have an agenda. That explains the lack of rationality in your argument.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: My mistake about the soup, but it is not integral to my basic premises.
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Nov 23 2012: If Easu could exchange his birthright for a bowl of soup, thus lose it, did not the Jews exchange their birthright for food provided as a result of their selling themselves into slavery in Egypt? When they pledged their lives to the Pharaoh, they actively rejected God's gift. Thus, by your logic, they lost their right to the land.

        Why are you fixated on one part of the text but refuse to read the rest?

        But this whole conversation is a digression. All archeologists, egyptologists, and Jewish sholars agree that the exodus could not have happened as recorded. It's just not possible. If the Jews were walking 10 abreast, the line would have been 150 miles long. People and their animals at the end of the line would have been dying of thirst as they awaited their turn at the next oasis, and there are no skeletal remains. There should be lots of them along the entire route - especially in the encampment area where the Ten Commandments were allegedly given. But remnants of Jewish campfires in the land of Canaan have been found, and they pre-date the exodus. Furthermore, Noah's flood is not mathematically possible. You can do the math yourself. There are many more impossibilities in the texts.

        There are so many problems with the Biblical texts that they cannot be used as a history. It's not rational to do so.

        Jewish scholars agree that the story of the exodus is a myth or a morality tale and not to be taken literally.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2012: Again, I'm just doing a playful logical exercise here-- not espousing anything (I have to say this in almost all my posts now).

          So let me give to you, whether true or not, that there is no really logical and rational ground behind Israel's occupation of its present nation. Why don't you therefore agree to have them dissolve their nation and melt into the Arab people for peace's sake?
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2012: Actually, who were the first inhabitants of the Levant. They were not Jews, before Jewish culture and tribes existed.

      Maybe the preJewish peoples had their own gods who gave them the land. Why not them.

      Why everything through a Judeo Christian lens?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.