Let me ask one of the forbidden questions...

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That wasn't the only reason. Do you read my posts? It's right above yours.

This is hard to imagine but maybe he doesn't agree with you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That wasn't the only reason. Do you read my posts? It's right above yours.

I did, because I think Truman fundamentalism is a reach but his Jewish friendship was not. Still I favor the guilt trip approach, kinda ironically jewish, don't you think?

It was a mistake and folly. We reaped nothing but hardship, as well as the Jewish people, who would have flourished in South America. Fighting Latin American despots would have much easier than Islamic terrorists.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I did, because I think Truman fundamentalism is a reach but his Jewish friendship was not. Still I favor the guilt trip approach, kinda ironically jewish, don't you think?

It was a mistake and folly. We reaped nothing but hardship, as well as the Jewish people, who would have flourished in South America. Fighting Latin American despots would have much easier than Islamic terrorists.

South America is a rediculous notion ... it is all about the Holy Sites and nothing other than the creation of a Jewish state in their ancestral lands.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by tooblue

South America is a rediculous notion ... it is all about the Holy Sites and nothing other than the creation of a Jewish state in their ancestral lands.

I wonder how many Americans would be happy if they were forced from their homes by people claiming American Indian ancestry and the right to their "homeland."

When Pat Robertson say you are doing the right thing, that's usually a good indication you are doing the wrong thing. That's why I don't take too much comfort in Robertson's endorsement of the Israeli right wing.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

South America is a rediculous notion ... it is all about the Holy Sites and nothing other than the creation of a Jewish state in their ancestral lands.

No, it should have been about two things, creation of a homeland with natural resources, given the brain power that the Jewish nation was formulating. As it is, the state of Israel has a bunch of religious sites, loads of US aid, and no profitability due to a high expenditure of GNP on military. They're set in the midst of enemies galore, whereas they could have had a profitable and relatively safe nation in northern South America. It was a real notion at the time based upon my reading of history.

[MikeWaters]

Really they shouldn't have started a state in a place where the people did not consent. That's the bottom line. Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Really they shouldn't have started a state in a place where the people did not consent. That's the bottom line. Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Exactly. Imperial powers laying down the law was a dumb idea. If I recall, the invitation to Guinea was an invite and would have set them up nicely.

Let's see invade and create your own country by force, or be invited and be allowed to live peaceably. What a horrible concept.

The return of Israel could have been fulfilled in South America just as it was by invaded Palestine.

I could swear I remember a South American option as well. Here's a link to some other options I had forgotten about.

http://jewish-history.suite101.com/a...wish_homelands

[Colly Wolly]

In addition to the scriptures already cited:

1st Nephi 22:

6 Nevertheless, after they shall be nursed by the Gentiles, and the Lord has lifted up his hand upon the Gentiles and set them up for a standard, and their children have been carried in their arms, and their daughters have been carried upon their shoulders, behold these things of which are spoken are temporal; for thus are the covenants of the Lord with our fathers; and it meaneth us in the days to come, and also all our brethren who are of the house of Israel.
11 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel.
12 Wherefore, he will abring them again out of captivity, and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance; and they shall be brought out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is their Savior and their Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

In addition to the scriptures already cited:

1st Nephi 22:

6 Nevertheless, after they shall be nursed by the Gentiles, and the Lord has lifted up his hand upon the Gentiles and set them up for a standard, and their children have been carried in their arms, and their daughters have been carried upon their shoulders, behold these things of which are spoken are temporal; for thus are the covenants of the Lord with our fathers; and it meaneth us in the days to come, and also all our brethren who are of the house of Israel.
11 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel.
12 Wherefore, he will abring them again out of captivity, and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance; and they shall be brought out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is their Savior and their Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel.

Bad foreign policy is always justified by a narrow, literal interpretation of scripture.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Bad foreign policy is always justified by a narrow, literal interpretation of scripture.

Could be. What are other interpretations of the "lands of their inheritance"? I'm seriously interested.