Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

posted at 8:01 am on May 5, 2014 by Jeff Dunetz

Sixty-six years ago tonight (by the Hebrew calendar) is the anniversary of Israel declaring her independence. That independence would have been very short lived were it not for the strong will of President Harry S Truman, who became the new State’s first international supporter. Truman recognized Israel not because of any political stance, but because he thought it was the right thing to do. When Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Isaac Herzog, visited the White House after Israel declared her independence he told Truman, “God put you in your mother’s womb so that you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years.” 

If Barack Obama was president 66 years ago, Israel may very well have been cast aside in deference to the King of Saudi Arabia and the Arab League. He most probably would have tried to negate the UN Partition Plan, as most in the State Department recommended in 1948, because President Obama believes the United States should lead from behind.  That wasn’t Harry Truman’s style.

“What I am trying to do is make the whole world safe for Jews,” Harry Truman wrote as he agonized over his decision to recognize a Jewish state in Palestine.

Secretary of State George Marshall (Time’s 1947 Man of the Year) was just as opposed to the creation of Israel as Truman was for it. Clark M. Clifford, Special Counsel to President Truman at the time, remembered the internal US fight regarding the recognition of the Jewish State — the final discussion in the Oval Office. The meeting turned out to be an angry battle with Clifford and the President on one side, Marshall and Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett on the other.

The argument used many of the same memes as used today. Lovett first argued that Truman was supporting Israel was solely for political gain and he warned the President  the move would lose more votes than it would gain. When that didn’t work, Lovett tried another approach the red scare (because you know all of those Jews are commies). As Clifford recalls:

Mr. President, to recognize the Jewish state prematurely would be buying a pig in a poke. How do we know what kind of Jewish state will be set up? We have many reports from British and American intelligence agents that Soviets are sending Jews and Communist agents into Palestine from the Black Sea area.

Lovett read some of these intelligence reports to the group. I found them ridiculous, and no evidence ever turned up to support them; in fact, Jews were fleeing communism throughout Eastern Europe at that very moment.” When Lovett was done speaking it was the “hero” Marshall’s turn:

With barely contained rage and more than a hint of self-righteousness, he made the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President: “If you follow Clifford’s advice and if I were to vote in the election, I would vote against you. Everyone in the room was stunned. Here was the indispensable symbol of continuity [from FDR] whom President Truman revered and needed, making a threat that, if it became public, could virtually seal the dissolution of the Truman Administration and send the Western Alliance, then in the process of creation, into disarray before it had been fully structured. Marshall’s statement fell short of an explicit threat to resign, but it came very close.” General Marshall’s position was grossly unfair. Just like to day opponents of the Jewish State believed the sole reason for the president’s support was politics.

But Truman’s mind was made up– he was going to do the right thing. At 4 p.m. Friday May 14, 1948 just before the start of the Jewish Sabbath, David Ben Gurion read a 979-word declaration of independence in front of a small audience at the Tel Aviv Art Museum. He finished in his usual terse manner. “The state of Israel is established! The meeting is ended.” At midnight, British rule over Palestine lapsed; 11 minutes later White House spokesman Charlie Ross announced U.S. recognition.

truisrael

In 1961 long after was out of office, Truman met with Israeli PM David Ben Gurion in NY. In writing about the meeting, Ben Gurion said:

At our last meeting, after a very interesting talk, just before [the President] left me – it was in a New York hotel suite – I told him that as a foreigner I could not judge what would be his place in American history; but his helpfulness to us, his constant sympathy with our aims in Israel, his courageous decision to recognize our new state so quickly and his steadfast support since then had given him an immortal place in Jewish history. As I said that, tears suddenly sprang to his eyes. And his eyes were still wet when he bade me goodbye. I had rarely seen anyone so moved. I tried to hold him for a few minutes until he had become more composed, for I recalled that the hotel corridors were full of waiting journalists and photographers. He left. A little while later, I too had to go out, and a correspondent came to me to ask, “Why was President Truman in tears when he left you?” I believe that I know. These were the tears of a man who had been subjected to calumny and vilification, who had persisted against powerful forces within his own Administration determined to defeat him. These were the tears of a man who had fought ably and honorably for a humanitarian goal to which he was deeply committed. These were tears of thanksgiving that his God had seen fit to bless his labors with success.

How times have changed. In 1948 our president used a moral compass to decide foreign policy. Truman was a president who judged not whether things would make us popular in Europe and the Arab world, but whether it was the right thing for the US. The man from Independence, Mo. knew the best thing for America’s future was for to grab the leadership position of the entire world.

Today our president today sees the US  not as the leader, but one of many countries on the planet. He has described his strategy as “leading from behind” Just look at what he has done for Ukraine, a nation being attacked by Russia because they want to be friends with the west.  Instead of strong sanctions on Russia and arming the Ukraine, he is imposing weak sanctions and supply the Ukraine with MREs (Meals ready to eat). He made an ill-advised line in the Syrian sand and when push came to shove was out maneuvered by the Russians, and now there are new reports of Assad using chemical weapons.

Like most of his agenda, Obama’s “lead from behind strategy” will only serve to drive this country towards mediocrity and put our children and grandchildren in danger. Would Barack Obama have had the moral courage to recognize the new Jewish State the way that Harry Truman did 66 years ago or would he have led from behind?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No, he would have then, as now, embraced the muzzie bros. The Obama family is heavily involved with the muslim brotherhood, including one of his (seemingly endless number of) half brothers who is their primary US fundraiser…

If Obama had been President in 1948 he would have used the US’s veto to prevent the recognition of Israel.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 8:04 AM

He would think with his behind.

Walter L. Newton on May 5, 2014 at 8:08 AM

He doesn’t recognize it now.

RickB on May 5, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

Mr. Dunetz, initially I was going to flippantly ask if that is a rhetorical question, but I’ve decided to simply give you the Captain Obvious prize for most un-needed question/statement of the week.

David Gregory quakes with envy.

M240H on May 5, 2014 at 8:09 AM

He doesn’t recognize it now.

RickB on May 5, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Winner!

Close it up.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Not only would Obuggerme not have recognized Israel, he would have demanded that what remained of western Europe assist in helping the Grand Mufti of Palestine re-form his SS brigade in Gaza after having been tossed out of the Bosnian region after the war.

Next question.

M240H on May 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

No. Next question?

No Truce With Kings on May 5, 2014 at 8:16 AM

He would never have gotten to that point. There were nut jobs around then, just like today (Henry Wallace, for example), but at least FDR and Truman were pro-American. If Obama had been FDR’s replacement, we never would have finished the job. Invading Japan? Too hard. Dropping the bomb? Unthinkable. Dithering around for years, killing soldiers for nothing and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? He can do that!

Fenris on May 5, 2014 at 8:16 AM

He would never have gotten to that point. There were nut jobs around then, just like today (Henry Wallace, for example), but at least FDR and Truman were pro-American. If Obama had been FDR’s replacement, we never would have finished the job. Invading Japan? Too hard. Dropping the bomb? Unthinkable. Dithering around for years, killing soldiers for nothing and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? He can do that!

Fenris on May 5, 2014 at 8:16 AM

True. Had Obama been President in 1945 he would have dithered ENDLESSLY over Japan, gotten hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed unnecessarily in the process. He might even have sabotaged the defeat of Germany.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 8:25 AM

The One would have given the Jews 72 hours to move back to the DP camps on Cyprus, and then bombed Tel Aviv.

Followed by giving a radio speech decrying the attempt by the evil, materialistic West to invade the mystical, enlightened East.

Oh, and forget asylum in the U.S. for any Jews, even those born in the Mandate (yes, there were some- in fact, a lot by ’48) fleeing the resulting Arab attacks and Einsatzgruppen-like mass executions.

He wouldn’t want to “offend” the delicate sensibilities of all those “mystically enlightened” fanatics in the Muslim Brotherhood and B’aath Party.

Keep in mind, The One is not a Muslim. He is a delusional mystic with a romance with anything he defines as “not Western”, encompassing primitivism, occult beliefs, Communism, and anything else he sees as opposed to anything he defines as “Western dogmas”.

His hatred of Israel has less to do with Judaism and Islam, than it does with his dreams of a Utopia run on indeterminate, “mystical” doctrines and “feelings”.

His “ideal state” would be run by philosopher-kings, operate at Bronze Age or lower tech levels, and be one in which (as the Doctor said in The Masque of Mandragora) “Man’s ambitions wouldn’t extend beyond his next meal”.

Israel just doesn’t fit in his Brave New World.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 5, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Nope he would not…the Israelis knew that he would stab them in the back long before he was placed in the imperial palace…they knew it but a lot of fools in this country couldn’t do any homework to find out what kind of character this empty suit is…
we are getting what we deserve…we have turned our back on God consistently letting the pagans push God out of everything. The church in America resembles the world more than the Word. As in the Old Testament God gave the people King Saul when they turned their back on Him. God has allowed king barrack since we have turned away from Him and as we continually allow the world to have the final say..

crosshugger on May 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM

True. Had Obama been President in 1945 he would have dithered ENDLESSLY over Japan, gotten hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed unnecessarily in the process. He might even have sabotaged the defeat of Germany.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Yes, it wouldn’t have been fair for the U.S. to win so often.

jmtham156 on May 5, 2014 at 8:30 AM

“What I am trying to do is make the whole world safe for Jews,” Harry Truman wrote as he agonized over his decision to recognize a Jewish state in Palestine.

Nonsense. There was never a “Palestine.” At the time, there was the “British Mandate of Palestine.” That’s not the same thing. That’s just what the British called that particular territory when it was a temporary area of their administration following World War 1 and the defeat of the Ottomans. Prior to that, the area was just part of the Ottoman Empire not called Palestine.

What the British called that area is irrelevant. There has never been in the history of the world a modern day nation state called “Palestine.”

The only time anything in that region was ever loosely called “Palestine” is by Western invaders — first the Romans, then, in this case, the British. That area has always been historically Israel. The only thing different that happened 66 years ago is that Israel became a modern day nation state for the first time. (It’s easy to forget that the concept of the nation state as a geopolitical organizing principle is a relatively recent practice, historically speaking.)

But to try to make it sound as if there was a nation called “Palestine” that was displaced by the inorganic “creation” of Israel is nonsense, and it plays right into the propagandic aims of our enemies.

WhatSlushfund on May 5, 2014 at 8:31 AM

If Obama had been FDR’s replacement, we never would have finished the job. Invading Japan?

Feh. We wouldn’t have finished the job in Europe. He would have declared that theater a mistake because it was Japan that attacked the US, not Germany, while blaming FDR for that effort. The post war Iron Curtain would have descended further west than the middle of Germany. That or large areas around Germany would have been poisoned from radioactivity left from Germany’s hastily fielded atom bombs. Don’t know this would be the post war scenario that would allow Jewish state, but I kind of doubt it…

apostic on May 5, 2014 at 8:32 AM

What is interesting is that pretty much everyone knows there is no chance at all that Obama would or does now recognize Jews as having the same right to self determination as other people do. This leads to more relevant question: Why would a Jew or anyone that supports human rights support Obama???

georgealbert on May 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM

Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

Follow the money. Magic eight ball says “definitely no.” The jewish left wouldn’t support the creating of Israel in this day and age, so Obama certainly wouldn’t.

FrankT on May 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM

Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

That’s too easy and obvious. The real question is “If Obama had been a German in 1941 would he have supported the final solution?”

tommyboy on May 5, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Of course not – and senior Jewish politicians like Schumer and Cardin would continue to remain silent out of fear that they would be called racist. Today is Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial day. What we should never forget is the silence – we will always remember what Hitler did.

iam7545 on May 5, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

That is an obvious rhetorical question. Of course not. The only question is if he would have given assistance to the Muslims trying to wipe out the Jews, and there is not much question about that, either.

The greatest shame lies with the American Voter. They elected this guy twice. Once, during a financial crisis and with McCain as the alternative, might have been chalked up to a momentary lapse of reason. “The First Black President.” Yeah, well, okay. Whatever.

The second time was completely inexcusable, and both we and the world are going to suffer horribly for it. On November 6, 2012, the American Voter crossed the Rubicon. There is no going back.

fadetogray on May 5, 2014 at 8:40 AM

If Obama had been President instead of Truman, we would have ended up losing World War II or finding ourselves in a stalemate with Japan. The decision on whether to recognize Israel would still be years in the future.

zoyclem on May 5, 2014 at 8:45 AM

No need to recognize… it would be the first state sanctioned abortion of a state.

SteveInRTP on May 5, 2014 at 8:47 AM

True. Had Obama been President in 1945 he would have dithered ENDLESSLY over Japan, gotten hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed unnecessarily in the process. He might even have sabotaged the defeat of Germany.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Can you imagine what Patton’s reaction to Obama would be? I’m not sure I can.

Fenris on May 5, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Great insight. Truman was the last good Democrat.

paul1149 on May 5, 2014 at 8:53 AM

If Obama had the mindset of the left in 1948, yes, he would have approved it — Remember, the Soviet Union supported the creation of Israel in 1948, because they thought they were creating a hard-line socialist anchor in the Middle East. It was only as evens unfolded over the next decade that the USSR moved over to the Arab side, backing Nasser and his United Arab Republic with Syria to try and surround Israel.

Many on the ‘soft’ left continued to support Israel even after the Soviets fell away, because the Labor government still believed in socialism, just not the dictatorial kind Stalin and others had been hoping for in ’48. It was only with the election of Begin and Likud in 1977 and the dominance of that party over the past 37 years that the ‘soft’ left lost their love of Israel, because now they simply see it as just another Red State. If Israel had that type of government when it was founded in 1948, Obama not only would have opposed it if he were in the White House, he probably would have sent U.S. military support in to maintain the previous status quo.

jon1979 on May 5, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Of course he wouldn’t have recognized Israel — Obama hates whites and Jews (and traditional-value Western nations and their allies) with the heat of the Sun. Western allied white Jews? Forget about it ….

Here’s Obama’s fundamental problem: Dude has major racial issues caused by serial abandonment by men of color when he was young. It really is that simple.

That’s why he’s such a thin-skinned, narcissistic, lying little little f^ck with a need for constant attention. Like all such types he got his confidence rocked when he was forming his worldview, and to this day he still doesn’t really think he’s good enough for daddy’s approval, so he seeks it from his willfully deceived sycophants every chance he gets.

This is also why he can’t deal with his own failures, which are many. He’s a lousy athlete so we have to pretend he’s Jesse Owens. His wife is a skank and a total b^tch but we have to pretend she too is a gorgeous genius. He’s reasonably bright though nowhere near the genius his worshipers say he his; he knows this better than anyone so he can never let his guard down or admit he sucked in school. And since he can’t fail it must be others’ racism when they criticize him, even though the reality is that he’s where he is today because of his race, not despite it.

Obama is a walking, breathing Psych 101 headcase. Unfortunately for us, he’s also the President.

Blacksheep on May 5, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Fat chance.

h a p f a t on May 5, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Can you imagine what Patton’s reaction to Obama would be? I’m not sure I can.

Fenris on May 5, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Patton’s reaction to Obama would have been to drive his Third Army to DC.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Great insight. Truman was the last good Democrat.

paul1149 on May 5, 2014 at 8:53 AM

John F. Kennedy probably gets that title (he cut taxes and was anti communist), but, yes, Truman was a good President.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM

No

rodeoclownmonkey on May 5, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Great insight. Truman was the last good Democrat.

paul1149 on May 5, 2014 at 8:53 AM

.
John F. Kennedy probably gets that title (he cut taxes and was anti communist), but, yes, Truman was a good President.

ConstantineXI on May 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM

.
Truman and Kennedy both put America first.

listens2glenn on May 5, 2014 at 9:19 AM

zzz

corona79 on May 5, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Nope.

NotCoach on May 5, 2014 at 9:23 AM

[W]e are getting what we deserve…we have turned our back on God consistently letting the pagans push God out of everything. The church in America resembles the world more than the Word. As in the Old Testament God gave the people King Saul when they turned their back on Him. God has allowed king barrack since we have turned away from Him and as we continually allow the world to have the final say..

crosshugger on May 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM

I had not thought of that. Interesting parallel. Thank you.

Kevin K. on May 5, 2014 at 9:23 AM

No for a number of reasons. First of all, we would have still been at war because Barack Obama isn’t a leader but an ideologue and would never have consummated the plans in place to end the war. Secondly, a fatwa would have been issued against Barack Obama by his fellow Muslims for recognizing Israel.

That being said, the question is moot since the formation of Israel was prophesied long before by God and a nobody like Obama wouldn’t have had a say in the matter. God’s will would have been done regardless.

iamsaved on May 5, 2014 at 9:31 AM

This was a nice history lesson.

One of Obama’s main problems is that he’s too stuck in his community organizer persona. I get the impression that most of his policies and decisions are the result of utilizing his “no drama” communication skills to try to form a compromise that satisfies all parties somewhat (until he thinks that one party can’t be reasonably satisfied, of course).

So I could easily imagine Obama pondering how he could defer to Marshall while merely throwing a bone to those in favor of the establishment of Israel. Although, I could also imagine the recent Holocaust weighing heavily on his mind like with Truman… Good thing we don’t have a time machine to find out.

unfinishedSymphony on May 5, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Honestly, I don’t think this is fair.

Perhaps I’m a bit disrespectful here, but the way I see it , President Obama is a creature of the Establishment. What he says is essentially an echo of what he learned in school from his teachers and professors.

So if he’d been President in 1949, I think he would echo the establishment then just as he does now. And since the establishment believed very different things then than now, I think he’d have recognized Israel.

We can’t expect that a President Obama who was President in 1949 — which meant he would have been born in 1914 at the earliest , going to college in the 1930s — to have the same attitudes and ideas that a man educated in the 1980s would.

And if he HAD developed into the second coming of Eugene V. Debs, there’s no way he’d have ascended to the Presidency of the United States in 1949 advocating those ideas. The United States was a different country in 1949 — someone proposing anything like collective health insurance would have had trouble being elected dogcatcher.

President Obama is not some uniquely evil figure — in fact, I have difficulty detecting anything remarkably original about the man. He is a product of his time and place. The fact that the US should produce such a man, and that a plurality of voters should elect him president — twice — over a war veteran and a state governor respectively, is a clear indication that President Obama is exactly the President the United States deserves.

pendell2 on May 5, 2014 at 9:38 AM

He doesn’t need the Jewish vote because he isn’t running for office again – so he would not.

DamnCat on May 5, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Would Obama have recognized Israel as Truman did 66 years ago today?

He would dither, he would delegate the study of the question, he would poll-test it (privately), he would make speeches, he would muse publickly whether the Koch brothers were behind the effort.

He would not decide: not in favor, not against. It’s too momentous of a decision for the “Present” President.

ss396 on May 5, 2014 at 9:47 AM

It is a valid point not to project current circumstances/social and political realities to a point almost 70 years ago. However, I’m going to fudge somewhat and presume O’s character to be, then, much as it is now, despite the overt racism of the day. He is weak, vacillating and subject to the Socialist voices in his head. He may have had the US recognize the new state of Israel, but, surely, would have stabbed them in the back at some point.

vnvet on May 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM

If Obama had been president in the late 1930′s, instead of FDR, Germany would be ruling Europe today and Israel would not ever have existed.

Techster64 on May 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM

It’s an interesting philosophical thought experiment with many permutations, not the least of which is that, even if he was fully Caucasian, with his résumé, a guy like Obama would have been laughed off the stage of even SENATORIAL asperations in 1966, but the bottom line is that NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING will thwart God’s ultimate plan for Israel and the world, as prophecied.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 10:19 AM

NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING will thwart God’s ultimate plan for Israel and the world, as prophecied. Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 10:19 AM

And what might that be?

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Obama has no use for the Jews, just like his fellow members of the MB.

n0doz on May 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM

If Harry Truman were president today, would the Supreme Court slap him down if he tried to nationalize the steel industry?

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Obama has no use for the Jews, just like his fellow members of the MB. n0doz on May 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Current Jewish Members of the 0b00ba Administration
Tony Blinken
Deputy National Security Advisor
Danielle Borrin
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Deputy Director of Public Engagement
Gary Gensler
Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Jonathan Greenblatt
Special Assistant to the President and Director, Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation (Domestic Policy Council)
Jack Lew
Secretary of the Treasury
Eric Lynn
Middle East Policy Adviser
Matt Nosanchuk
Associate Director, Office of Public Engagement for Jewish Outreach
David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President
Daniel Rubenstein
Ambassador to Syria
Dan Shapiro
Ambassador to Israel
Gene Sperling
Director, National Economic Council
Aviva Sufian
Special Envoy, U.S. Holocaust Survivor Services (Inaugural role)
Adam Szubin
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Treasury)
Janet Yellen
Chairwoman, Federal Reserve

Former Members
Ben Bernanke (2006-2013)
Chairman, Federal Reserve (not an 0b00ba appointee)
Mary Schapiro (2009-2012)
Chairwoman, Securities and Exchange Commission
Steven Simon (2009-2012)
Senior Director, Middle East/North Africa, National Security Council
Rahm Emanuel (2009-2010)
Chief of Staff to the President
David Axelrod (2009-2011)
Senior Advisor to the President
Elena Kagan (2009-2010)
Solicitor General of the United States
Peter Orszag (2009-2010)
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Lawrence Summers (’09-’11)
Director National Economic Council
Mona Sutphen (2009-2011)
Deputy White House Chief of Staff
James B. Steinberg (’09-’11 )
Deputy Secretary of State
Dennis Ross (2009-2011 )
Special Assistant to the President
Ronald Klain (2009-2011)
Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Jared Bernstein (2009-2011)
Chief Economist/Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President
Susan Sher (2009-2011)
Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Alice Rivlin
Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform
Lee Feinstein (2009)
Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor
Mara Rudman (2009)
Foreign Policy Advisor

I don’t know how many of these were not appointed by 0b00ba, like Bernanke, and there may be more who belong on this list, but one has to wonder how these members of the administration would answer this question.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM

And what might that be?
Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Well, it starts here ——–> “…and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Luke 21:24

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM

He’d have endorsed the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as Vizier of Palestine.

formwiz on May 5, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I don’t know how many of these were not appointed by 0b00ba, like Bernanke, and there may be more who belong on this list, but one has to wonder how these members of the administration would answer this question.
Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM

These people do not think in these terms. Of all the Jews I know, and I know many, the only ones who seem to care about Israel are the observant ones. And, they generally vote Conservative, no less.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:17 AM

If you have to ask, you know the answer.

WryTrvllr on May 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM

pendell2 on May 5, 2014 at 9:38 AM

That’s what I was thinking. We are, for the most part, products of our times, unless we take steps to be individuals.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Well, it starts here ——–> “…and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Luke 21:24 Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened,” -Luke 21:32.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Would Barack Obama have had the moral courage to recognize the new Jewish State the way that Harry Truman did 66 years ago

Not only “no”. but “Hell, no!.”

Reverend Jeremiah Wright must be so-o-o-o proud of his former congregant.

catsandbooks on May 5, 2014 at 12:15 PM

These people do not think in these terms. Of all the Jews I know, and I know many, the only ones who seem to care about Israel are the observant ones. And, they generally vote Conservative, no less.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:17 AM

I’m wondering if after a couple of generations the Jews in this country don’t feel any connection to Israel.

crankyoldlady on May 5, 2014 at 12:26 PM

crankyoldlady on May 5, 2014 at 12:26 PM

To Israel? Ha. To their own heritage.

The princes of Judah have become
like those who remove the landmark; Hosea 5:10

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM

“Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
Shall a land be born in one day?” Isaiah 66:8

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Would Obama have recognized Truman as a fellow Democrat? Same answer.

2ndMAW68 on May 5, 2014 at 1:09 PM

“Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
Shall a land be born in one day?” Isaiah 66:8
Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 12:45 PM

This refers to the repatriation of the exiles under Ezra and Nehemiah. It certainly doesn’t negate the timing evident in Luke 21:32 and Mt 23:36 & 24:34. Or Rev. 1:1.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM

This refers to the repatriation of the exiles under Ezra and Nehemiah. It certainly doesn’t negate the timing evident in Luke 21:32 and Mt 23:36 & 24:34. Or Rev. 1:1.
Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM

True. But keep in mind that in Hebraic eschatology, the pattern of prophecy is cyclical, with iterations finally culminating in an ultimate fulfillment.

It isn’t SOLELY about Ezra and Nehemiah. Also, prophecy isn’t set out in such a way that we can simply stumble into understanding it.
We have to CARE.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Short answer: No.
Democrats had more than a touch of American Patriotism in Truman’s day and given the retrospective afterthought after WWII Truman saw recognition of Israel as a worthy gesture. He took a lot of flak for it too.
The Gimmedats of today have absolutely no fidelity towards the State of Isreal. The last one who gave a shiite was Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson … decades ago.
Look, Obowmao helped stand up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, QED.

Missilengr on May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM

True. But keep in mind that in Hebraic eschatology, the pattern of prophecy is cyclical, with iterations finally culminating in an ultimate fulfillment.

I’ve never seen that espoused in any Christian theology of any era except for by disciples of John Nelson Darby, and he applied it selectively.

It isn’t SOLELY about Ezra and Nehemiah. Also, prophecy isn’t set out in such a way that we can simply stumble into understanding it. We have to CARE. Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 2:12 PM

It looks like a handy way of confusing an issue when the plain meaning of a text doesn’t meet a preconceived notion. After all, how does one prove that he really really cares? And if two people debate an issue, how does a participant win; by proving that he cares the most?

Jesus said more than once “All these things shall come upon this generation.” Between these statements in Matthew chapters 23 and
24, He prophesied the events surrounding the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70. They occurred. Now consult the epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 2:53 PM

….what is Israel?

KOOLAID2 on May 5, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Heh. Don’t take it personal. I wasn’t implying that you don’t care. Obviously you do. No, I meant they are ‘t OBVIOUSLY prophecies, that’s all. As an example, consider when Jesus drove out the money hangers and it says,”His disciples remembered that it had been written, ‘zeal for they house will consume me’ , referring to Ps. 69:9a. Now I defy anyone prior to 33AD being able to assert that that was a prophecy of Jesus in the temple.

But correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying that the prophecies of Luke 21 and Matthew 24 have had their fulfillments in 70 AD and are therefore now passé as far as we are concerned regarding end times prophecies?

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM

….what is Israel? KOOLAID2 on May 5, 2014 at 3:16 PM

As far as St Paul was concerned it’s the Church. “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” -Galatians 6:16.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM

I meant they are ‘t OBVIOUSLY prophecies, that’s all. As an example, consider when Jesus drove out the money hangers and it says,”His disciples remembered that it had been written, ‘zeal for they house will consume me’ , referring to Ps. 69:9a. Now I defy anyone prior to 33AD being able to assert that that was a prophecy of Jesus in the temple.

Certainly, like “I shall call my son our of Egypt,” Hosea 11:1 / Matthew 2:!5. But that’s not the same thing. The prophecies of Isaiah and others regarding the reestablishment of the nation of Israel refer to its rebirth as allowed and funded by King Cyrus, and as described in Ezra and Nehemiah. The Church never taught that Israel would be reborn. John Nelson Darby got that notion apparently from Mannasseh ben Israel’s book, The Hope of Israel.

There are no New Testament prophecies describing the reestablishment of national Israel, though there are NT prophecies regarding its destruction. Again, the epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews are your friends.

But correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying that the prophecies of Luke 21 and Matthew 24 have had their fulfillments in 70 AD and are therefore now passé as far as we are concerned regarding end times prophecies? Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Obviously.

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” –St. Luke 9:27

Compare Daniel 12:9, “He replied, ‘Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end’” with Rev. 22:10, “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Please, please, please, don’t tell me you’re a Preterist AND a Replacement Theologist.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Please, please, please, don’t tell me you’re a Preterist AND a Replacement Theologist. Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Theologist is not a word.

I believe that Christ “will come again to judge the quick and the dead,” so no, I’m not a Preterist.

When did the Church start teaching that there are two people of God?

Deal with the texts I showed you rather than change the subject.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Deal with the texts I showed you rather than change the subject.
Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I think it important to first establish where each of us is coming from, otherwise we’re just going to be talking PAST one another.

“Theologist” used here to distinguish between someone who holds to Replacement Theology, the idea that the Gentile Church replaces Israel as the people of God, and a Theologian.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM

A Preterist holds that all end times prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I think it important to first establish where each of us is coming from, otherwise we’re just going to be talking PAST one another.

AKA changing the topic.

“Theologist” used here to distinguish between someone who holds to Replacement Theology, the idea that the Gentile Church replaces Israel as the people of God, and a Theologian. Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Oh. I should agree to your nominal delegitimization of historic Christianity in order to continue this discussion? So there were no “theologians” prior to John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield?

Please name a few “theologians” who were premillenial dispensationalists prior to say, AD 1800. Actually don’t do that until after you tell me how the texts I cited don’t really mean what they clearly say.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 4:40 PM

A Preterist holds that all end times prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD. Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Yes, like I said, I believe that the Second Coming and Final Judgment are future to us so I’m not a Preterist.

People often surmise that a prophetic text’s prediction is future to them just because it was written in future tense – 2,000 years or more ago.

This makes them theologians, rather than theologists, in your view?

Deal with the texts I mentioned. Show me how they don’t mean what they say.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 4:46 PM

A Preterist holds that all end times prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD. Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 4:31 PM

When are the “end times”?

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” -1 John 2:18

Now tell me how this and the other texts I quoted should be interpreted by a real live theologian.

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 4:51 PM

First tell me why you’re being contentious? Have I insulted you? Do you see me as an adversary?

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 5:12 PM

First tell me why you’re being contentious? Have I insulted you? Do you see me as an adversary? Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Oh ok, first I have to humor you in the hope that we’ll stay off topic.

You intended to insult me by saying that I was a theologist rather than a theologian. But that’s not adversarial or contentious I guess.

Not that it bothers me. It’s funny. Predictability is funny to me.

Now deal with the texts I referenced, if you please. How do they support your view? Let’s start here.

Well, it starts here ——–> “…and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Luke 21:24 Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened,” -Luke 21:32. Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Akzed on May 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Um, no, I think I’ll pass. Akzed, if you don’t mind. I’m not really in the mood for a Theological argument at this time.

Now, if you’re interested in a journey of mutual discovery, that might be a different story.

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Thank you America from a very greatful Israeli.

AlexB on May 5, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Nonsense. There was never a “Palestine.” At the time, there was the “British Mandate of Palestine.” That’s not the same thing.

WhatSlushfund on May 5, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Whatever you might call it, there were people there and many of them.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/Imwas/

This city is appropriate for the Easter season.

unclesmrgol on May 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Not in a million years.

cimbri on May 5, 2014 at 10:15 PM

unclesmrgol on May 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM

I honestly have no clue what point you’re trying to make. Can you clarify?

WhatSlushfund on May 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM

Cleombrotus on May 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Actually, it starts and ends here:

וְעָלוּ מוֹשִׁעִים בְּהַר צִיּוֹן, לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הַר עֵשָׂו; וְהָיְתָה לַיהוָה, הַמְּלוּכָה.

And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’S. – Ovadya 1:21

And finally:

וְהָיָה יְהוָה לְמֶלֶךְ, עַל-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ; בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה יְהוָה אֶחָד–וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד.

And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one. – Zecharya 14:9

Regards from Jerusalem. Yom Ha’atzmaut Sameach to our overseas bro’s and sisters and a very Happy Nakba Day to everyone who can’t stand our existence.

Shy Guy on May 6, 2014 at 2:35 AM

Whatever you might call it, there were people there and many of them.

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/aiholocaust.html

unclesmrgol on May 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Fixed the link for you.

Shy Guy on May 6, 2014 at 2:37 AM

Whatever you might call it, there were people there and many of them.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/a-tour-and-census-of-palestine-year-1695-no-sign-of-arabian-names-or-palestinians

unclesmrgol on May 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Alternative fixed link.

Shy Guy on May 6, 2014 at 2:42 AM

And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one. – Zecharya 14:9
Regards from Jerusalem. Yom Ha’atzmaut Sameach to our overseas bro’s and sisters and a very Happy Nakba Day to everyone who can’t stand our existence.
Shy Guy on May 6, 2014 at 2:35 AM

Regards to you as well. Loved your city and found your country fascinating. Everyone should visit at least once in their lifetime.

Yes, you are correct. It does start AND end in what we call the Old Testament and what Saul of Taursus called “The Scriptures”. Nothing in the New Testament is not in the Old.

Cleombrotus on May 6, 2014 at 8:13 AM