When Silence Is Tarnished

Like you he seems to have a strange obsession with Zionism, Israel and the "suffering Palestinians"...

suffered. Pilger travels to see the suffering firsthand.

My point when I write my views is that both the IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians and the other terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians are immoral and criminal. Also, the IDF attacks on militants and the Palestinian attacks on the IDF are brutally futile.

In the end, since Israel has far greater power and capability, and that they are conducting an illegal and brutal occupation against the Palestinians, Israel bears the brunt of the responsibility. And as Jewish friend of mine has written, it seems that Israel has learned more from its Nazi oppressors than it has learned from the experience of being oppressed.

How is the "occupation" illegal, when the land was given them by God in the first place?

THe question becomes whether the literal interpretation of the giving of the land to the Jews forever is what was meant in the Bible? I believe such a literal interpretation leads us to a Biblical contradiction that adds what Paul spoke against to the Gospel.

For if we are going to say that the giving of the land to the Jews is forever because that is what is literally said in the Bible, then all of the other parts of the promise of the land are permanent as well One of those parts is circumcision. Thus for the Jews to keep their end of the bargain for inheriting the land, they must be circumcised. The problem here is that to make circumcision a requirement for receiving God's Blessing is to fall away from Christ according to Paul as he wrote in Galations. Paul continues by saying that the Blessings of Abraham are given through Christ and thus to fall away from Him means one is cut off from the Blessings of Abraham. Thus to be allowed to inherit the land, one must do what disqualifies one from inheriting the Blessings that includes the land.

Of course, that is if we follow the giving of the land forever literally and outside of the context of the then, in Abraham's time, coming Redeemer.

Genesis 3:1
... Yea, hath God said...?

I take it you don't believe the Word says what it means, literally. Satan convinced Eve to be in error also, questioning what God really meant.

Rather than attempting to solve the dilemma, you respond with an accusation.

As I have said before, a literal interpretation of Paul's interpretation of the blessing that comes through Abraham CONTRADICTS your literal interpretation of the promise made to Genesis. So here is the dilemma you have chosen: apply a literal interpretation to Paul's epistles or to the part in Genesis that talks about the land.