Mike Pompeo and Bibi's Bible
Mike Pompeo's claim that Israel has a 'Biblical' right to Palestine, is not a very good development, to put it mildly. And here are reasons why
first of, Biblically speaking, a nation has a right to a territory when it's given it by G-d, and G-d just as well can--and often has--taken it away from that nation, his presumed 'Chosen' one included. Jewish ownership of Eretz Israel is conditional and dependent on Jewish conduct as a model and light onto other nations, and sadly that has not always been best. hence, G-d giveth and G-d taketh, and a presumed faithful man like MP ought to realize it.
second, strictly speaking, Palestine is land of Philistines, and that is basically modern day Gaza strip. while some Jewish heroes lived ruled and were buried there, generally it's a territory of a different people, not meant for Jews. that people may have long gone extinct, but that don't necessarily mean it's for us Jews to take their place. Philistines of old have been replaced by a population of Arab or Arabized origin, and that is that.
thirdly, today's Israel itself includes territories that definitely were not meant for Jewish residence and sovereignty, such as Negev, Eilat etc. Some ultra orthodox Jews don't even go to Eilat seeing it as an utterly non-Jewish place in spirit, culture etc. Talmudic sages were critical, even bashful of Maccabees for conquering Edomite-populated Negev and forcibly Judaizing its populace, even though it was dome to secure Judea itself from their raids and presumably, being of priestly stock themselves, Maccabee rulers ought to know how to interpret Torah and its precepts. so if we lay Biblical claim to some territories, how about in all fairness considering giving away some others that Biblical claim is not really applicable to? Sure it'll be sad to lose a wonderful places like say Eilat, a great international resort and perhaps even more importantly, a strategic navy base, and Israel's presence in Red Sea and Persian gulf is very useful--but truly faithful are supposed to be capable of tough decisions including not only advances but concessions, King Solomon gave King Hiram of Tyre '70 Jewish cities' in payment for help building Temple; and we're here talking about things not originally Jewish. and the recent conflict with Bedouins, once most loyal Israel Arab segment, is another indicator of brewing troubles. Perhaps Talmud sages were right, not much good can come in the end from forcibly taking what's not meant for you. Yes it'll be sad to give up another nice big city like Be'er Sheba, but Israel gave up Yamit on Sinai years ago, so it's tough but doable, Toughest would be to relocate nuclear facilities of Dimona, but i assume even that is doable especially since in a hostile surrounding, the place is not in the most secure position anyway. As for Eilat, if a foreign firm has essentially bought Haifa port, they could do it with Eilat as well.
furthermore, it's religion versus religion. the modern day self-proclaimed conservatives in America are trying to trojan and even openly legislate their visions of religious heritage into official laws and policies of the country. that is a questionable enough tendency as is, but it also makes us look and sound not much better than our sworn enemies from Tehran, Tikrit and other such places, who lay similar but opposite claims to territories, holy sites and against presence of people they don't like(our people, that is Jews, mostly). based on their own religion, that is Islam(and sometimes also appealing to some minor Christian groups and views)--and who's to say Bible as by Pompeo or Torah in a Bibi interpretation are any more authoritative, than Quranic or Druze teachings? as i already said, from religious point, G-d giveth and G-d taketh; He's already given and taken the land to Jews, Arabs, Christians, Turks, Persians, Romans, Greeks etc several times. Sadly, in this case religious foundation doesn't provide stability, exactly opposite: it's word versus word. While fact is, some 150 years ago there were 20000 Jews living in the land in question, while 50000 Christians and 200000 Muslims, and Jewish presence in the Holy land, while presumably never completely gone, for ages was miniscule and numbered a few thousand at best. So for all Zionist romanticism, an element of colonialism and displacement of a previous population, and quite sizeable at that(more so that with aborigines of Americas or Australia, in some European colonialism's cases) lingers over modern Jewish statehood. Israel is a paradox in that it's like an electron state, an entity that is two different phenoms at once: a nation returning to its land, which makes it relatable to many once oppressed and colonized peoples, and at same time, intentionally or due to cruel circumstances beyond its control, encroaching upon other populations. In short, Israelis are both colonizers and colonized at the same time. A dilemma that needs answering but virtually nobody is even trying to do it.
Mike Pompeo was unquestionably good sport when he, nearly alone in the world, raised closer to the end of his term as US state secretary, the issue of Chinese christians' rights. But Christianity in China is a relative 'newcomer' religion that doesn't lay territorial claims there, and the issues of Christian, as well as Muslim, Buddhist etc rights in China is political and human rights one, but not territorial or ethnical(there are several Muslim and several Christian ethnic groups in that country). But laying a 'Biblical' foundation under US support of Israel in its struggles with Arab counterparts(and now it's not so much its legit neighboring Arab and other Muslim states, as independence-aspiring(and UN and EU-supported in that aspiration) Palestinians as well as Israeli Arabs proper, is a very dubious and dangerous step. It blurs the lines between democratic Israel and America, and our supposed total antipodes in Iran, Syria, Qatar, Algeria etc. It makes us look and sound the same and only marginally better, just cause we're a bit more free, a bit more developed and so on. But those bits are also sometimes subject to change, today you lead tomorrow, trail. There should be a better, more convincing and clearly difference setting basis for US and Israel doing what they do and opposing who they oppose.
first of, Biblically speaking, a nation has a right to a territory when it's given it by G-d, and G-d just as well can--and often has--taken it away from that nation, his presumed 'Chosen' one included. Jewish ownership of Eretz Israel is conditional and dependent on Jewish conduct as a model and light onto other nations, and sadly that has not always been best. hence, G-d giveth and G-d taketh, and a presumed faithful man like MP ought to realize it.
second, strictly speaking, Palestine is land of Philistines, and that is basically modern day Gaza strip. while some Jewish heroes lived ruled and were buried there, generally it's a territory of a different people, not meant for Jews. that people may have long gone extinct, but that don't necessarily mean it's for us Jews to take their place. Philistines of old have been replaced by a population of Arab or Arabized origin, and that is that.
thirdly, today's Israel itself includes territories that definitely were not meant for Jewish residence and sovereignty, such as Negev, Eilat etc. Some ultra orthodox Jews don't even go to Eilat seeing it as an utterly non-Jewish place in spirit, culture etc. Talmudic sages were critical, even bashful of Maccabees for conquering Edomite-populated Negev and forcibly Judaizing its populace, even though it was dome to secure Judea itself from their raids and presumably, being of priestly stock themselves, Maccabee rulers ought to know how to interpret Torah and its precepts. so if we lay Biblical claim to some territories, how about in all fairness considering giving away some others that Biblical claim is not really applicable to? Sure it'll be sad to lose a wonderful places like say Eilat, a great international resort and perhaps even more importantly, a strategic navy base, and Israel's presence in Red Sea and Persian gulf is very useful--but truly faithful are supposed to be capable of tough decisions including not only advances but concessions, King Solomon gave King Hiram of Tyre '70 Jewish cities' in payment for help building Temple; and we're here talking about things not originally Jewish. and the recent conflict with Bedouins, once most loyal Israel Arab segment, is another indicator of brewing troubles. Perhaps Talmud sages were right, not much good can come in the end from forcibly taking what's not meant for you. Yes it'll be sad to give up another nice big city like Be'er Sheba, but Israel gave up Yamit on Sinai years ago, so it's tough but doable, Toughest would be to relocate nuclear facilities of Dimona, but i assume even that is doable especially since in a hostile surrounding, the place is not in the most secure position anyway. As for Eilat, if a foreign firm has essentially bought Haifa port, they could do it with Eilat as well.
furthermore, it's religion versus religion. the modern day self-proclaimed conservatives in America are trying to trojan and even openly legislate their visions of religious heritage into official laws and policies of the country. that is a questionable enough tendency as is, but it also makes us look and sound not much better than our sworn enemies from Tehran, Tikrit and other such places, who lay similar but opposite claims to territories, holy sites and against presence of people they don't like(our people, that is Jews, mostly). based on their own religion, that is Islam(and sometimes also appealing to some minor Christian groups and views)--and who's to say Bible as by Pompeo or Torah in a Bibi interpretation are any more authoritative, than Quranic or Druze teachings? as i already said, from religious point, G-d giveth and G-d taketh; He's already given and taken the land to Jews, Arabs, Christians, Turks, Persians, Romans, Greeks etc several times. Sadly, in this case religious foundation doesn't provide stability, exactly opposite: it's word versus word. While fact is, some 150 years ago there were 20000 Jews living in the land in question, while 50000 Christians and 200000 Muslims, and Jewish presence in the Holy land, while presumably never completely gone, for ages was miniscule and numbered a few thousand at best. So for all Zionist romanticism, an element of colonialism and displacement of a previous population, and quite sizeable at that(more so that with aborigines of Americas or Australia, in some European colonialism's cases) lingers over modern Jewish statehood. Israel is a paradox in that it's like an electron state, an entity that is two different phenoms at once: a nation returning to its land, which makes it relatable to many once oppressed and colonized peoples, and at same time, intentionally or due to cruel circumstances beyond its control, encroaching upon other populations. In short, Israelis are both colonizers and colonized at the same time. A dilemma that needs answering but virtually nobody is even trying to do it.
Mike Pompeo was unquestionably good sport when he, nearly alone in the world, raised closer to the end of his term as US state secretary, the issue of Chinese christians' rights. But Christianity in China is a relative 'newcomer' religion that doesn't lay territorial claims there, and the issues of Christian, as well as Muslim, Buddhist etc rights in China is political and human rights one, but not territorial or ethnical(there are several Muslim and several Christian ethnic groups in that country). But laying a 'Biblical' foundation under US support of Israel in its struggles with Arab counterparts(and now it's not so much its legit neighboring Arab and other Muslim states, as independence-aspiring(and UN and EU-supported in that aspiration) Palestinians as well as Israeli Arabs proper, is a very dubious and dangerous step. It blurs the lines between democratic Israel and America, and our supposed total antipodes in Iran, Syria, Qatar, Algeria etc. It makes us look and sound the same and only marginally better, just cause we're a bit more free, a bit more developed and so on. But those bits are also sometimes subject to change, today you lead tomorrow, trail. There should be a better, more convincing and clearly difference setting basis for US and Israel doing what they do and opposing who they oppose.