UN Conference On Two-state Solution To Mideast Conflict Set For June

An international conference meant to resurrect the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will take place from June 17 to 20 at the UN headquarters in New York, a UN spokeswoman said Friday.

The conference stems from a resolution approved in December by the UN General Assembly and it will be co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia.
The dates of this meeting were confirmed by UN spokeswoman Sharon Birch.

A diplomat in Paris close to preparations for the conference said it should pave the way for more countries to recognize a full-blown Palestinian state.

Nearly 150 countries recognize the State of Palestine, which has observer status at the United Nations but is not a full member as the Security Council has not voted to admit it.

More

Diplomat Says Conference On Two-state Solution To Mideast Conflict Set For June

A French and Saudi-backed conference on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will take place from June 17 to 20 at UN headquarters in New York, a French diplomatic source told AFP.

www.barrons.com

 

[TCC]

They best not go against God on dividing Israel and so-called Palestine. There never has been a Palestine. They are the Philistines.

I think that is a good attitude and perspective. That we should not divide Israel of course. But in the evangelical world we have made not considering a two-state solution = to God blessing or cursing. And although I believe it is a danger to find out how true that might be, and the US and other nations should not test God, amen, I think evangelicalism in general has made this a rally point to bolster their own sense of certainty in uncertain days. Exegetically, Israel has "0" covenant with God right now. I don't believe God is protecting them under the OT clause of what they themselves violate all over the place. And this would not really be a judgement call of the church. But I do believe that God in His faithfulness is protecting Israel. And how He might extend grace to the US and others for helping not hurting Israel, amen. I believe that is why America is so powerful now. Amen.

But a two-state solution, the way I see it is more something providentially in the hands of God. If God uses a two-state solution as part and parcel of His chastising Israel as they approach their 70th week, I don't believe the church is a part of that relationship. All we know is what we know. And how God deals with Israel as a hardened unbeiving nation is completely at "His" discretion. But I think that is important to point out because a two-state solution might be something God Himself permits either prophetically or just in ways to nudge Israel more to Him to call to Him (even in their state of hardened unbelief). My recommendation would be to not consider a two-state solution beyond how God might use that providentially. The reason I say that is that what I have seen in the watcher movement is a tendency to armchair quarterback what is happening in the middle east from all kinds of template views. And that has just seemed to confuse what might actually be more easily discernable about the unfolding situation in the middle east.

Again, yeah I don't think it is wise to test God. Better a one state than two-state solution, amen. And better for the nation that upholds that. Amen. But if a two-state solution emerges as political protection from greater hostility in the middle east, I would see that more or less as a means of trying to preserve Israel in as much as it might be to appease the Arab world. And since this is in the context of Israel being in extreme unbelief, it would seem to be wholistically in the providential prophetic hands of the Lord. I believe that is likely the best way to look at it.

. . . . .

On a less serious note, maybe making it into a resort could work Blessings.

 

[1LoverofGod]

I think that is a good attitude and perspective. That we should not divide Israel of course. But in the evangelical world we have made not considering a two-state solution = to God blessing or cursing. And although I believe it is a danger to find out how true that might be, and the US and other nations should not test God, amen, I think evangelicalism in general has made this a rally point to bolster their own sense of certainty in uncertain days. Exegetically, Israel has "0" covenant with God right now. I don't believe God is protecting them under the OT clause of what they themselves violate all over the place. And this would not really be a judgement call of the church. But I do believe that God in His faithfulness is protecting Israel. And how He might extend grace to the US and others for helping not hurting Israel, amen. I believe that is why America is so powerful now. Amen.

But a two-state solution, the way I see it is more something providentially in the hands of God. If God uses a two-state solution as part and parcel of His chastising Israel as they approach their 70th week, I don't believe the church is a part of that relationship. All we know is what we know. And how God deals with Israel as a hardened unbeiving nation is completely at "His" discretion. But I think that is important to point out because a two-state solution might be something God Himself permits either prophetically or just in ways to nudge Israel more to Him to call to Him (even in their state of hardened unbelief). My recommendation would be to not consider a two-state solution beyond how God might use that providentially. The reason I say that is that what I have seen in the watcher movement is a tendency to armchair quarterback what is happening in the middle east from all kinds of template views. And that has just seemed to confuse what might actually be more easily discernable about the unfolding situation in the middle east.

Again, yeah I don't think it is wise to test God. Better a one state than two-state solution, amen. And better for the nation that upholds that. Amen. But if a two-state solution emerges as political protection from greater hostility in the middle east, I would see that more or less as a means of trying to preserve Israel in as much as it might be to appease the Arab world. And since this is in the context of Israel being in extreme unbelief, it would seem to be wholistically in the providential prophetic hands of the Lord. I believe that is likely the best way to look at it.

. . . . .

On a less serious note, maybe making it into a resort could work Blessings.

"Exegetically, Israel has "0" Covenant with God right now" ?

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you"
Genesis 17:7

 

[Margery]

I think that is a good attitude and perspective. That we should not divide Israel of course. But in the evangelical world we have made not considering a two-state solution = to God blessing or cursing. And although I believe it is a danger to find out how true that might be, and the US and other nations should not test God, amen, I think evangelicalism in general has made this a rally point to bolster their own sense of certainty in uncertain days. Exegetically, Israel has "0" covenant with God right now. I don't believe God is protecting them under the OT clause of what they themselves violate all over the place. And this would not really be a judgement call of the church. But I do believe that God in His faithfulness is protecting Israel. And how He might extend grace to the US and others for helping not hurting Israel, amen. I believe that is why America is so powerful now. Amen.

But a two-state solution, the way I see it is more something providentially in the hands of God. If God uses a two-state solution as part and parcel of His chastising Israel as they approach their 70th week, I don't believe the church is a part of that relationship. All we know is what we know. And how God deals with Israel as a hardened unbeiving nation is completely at "His" discretion. But I think that is important to point out because a two-state solution might be something God Himself permits either prophetically or just in ways to nudge Israel more to Him to call to Him (even in their state of hardened unbelief). My recommendation would be to not consider a two-state solution beyond how God might use that providentially. The reason I say that is that what I have seen in the watcher movement is a tendency to armchair quarterback what is happening in the middle east from all kinds of template views. And that has just seemed to confuse what might actually be more easily discernable about the unfolding situation in the middle east.

Again, yeah I don't think it is wise to test God. Better a one state than two-state solution, amen. And better for the nation that upholds that. Amen. But if a two-state solution emerges as political protection from greater hostility in the middle east, I would see that more or less as a means of trying to preserve Israel in as much as it might be to appease the Arab world. And since this is in the context of Israel being in extreme unbelief, it would seem to be wholistically in the providential prophetic hands of the Lord. I believe that is likely the best way to look at it.

. . . . .

On a less serious note, maybe making it into a resort could work Blessings.

with all due respect, no, the 2 state solution has been tried, and fails due to the fact that Israel is compliant, they do their part and then some but the Muslims follow their rules about Taqquiya where it's ok to like and make a peace deal then break it asap. They are quite open about that.

It's been tried on multiple occasions, and always fails leading to worse problems and more loss of life.

As for making it into a resort, that would involve the US owning Gaza according to Trump's plan and that too does NOT line up with Scripture.

 

[1LoverofGod]

with all due respect, no, the 2 state solution has been tried, and fails due to the fact that Israel is compliant, they do their part and then some but the Muslims follow their rules about Taqquiya where it's ok to like and make a peace deal then break it asap. They are quite open about that.

It's been tried on multiple occasions, and always fails leading to worse problems and more loss of life.

As for making it into a resort, that would involve the US owning Gaza according to Trump's plan and that too does NOT line up with Scripture.

Israel Gave Gaza to the Palestinians and also the "West Bank", Judea and Samaria in the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians wants all of the land and all Jews eliminated, and this has been why they chant "from the river to the sea"

 

[1LoverofGod]

Israel Gave Gaza to the Palestinians and also the "West Bank", Judea and Samaria in the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians wants all of the land and all Jews eliminated, and this has been why they chant "from the river to the sea"

Seems like the global leaders want a two state implemented badly but the Palestinians don't want two states. The Palestinians do want to be recognized as a State, but of the entire Land of Israel. Even if the two states are recognized by world leaders, it isn't going to solve the problem. Islam hates Israel and the ideology of "Israel cannot exist" will continue.
Certainly as bad as all of this is, God is allowing it to take place to get Israel where they have to be to call on Messiah Jesus.

 

[TCC]

"Exegetically, Israel has "0" Covenant with God right now" ?

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you"
Genesis 17:7

"Exegetically, Israel has "0" Covenant with God right now" ?

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you"
Genesis 17:7

I understand the sentiment Rose. I think we can safely say that God in the tribulation according to Joel 3, will judge the nations that try and disperse Israel from their land. What is happening now may be the intentions of other nations to squeeze Israel while in the land. But there are diplomatic measures that are trying to keep the peace in the middle east to protect Israel. At least they are thinking in that sense. That is different than trying to disperse Israel though. God is honoring His eternal covenant with Israel in bringing them back to their land. And preserving them. The fact that Israel is a nation is because of the eternal covenant God has sworn to. However,

17 Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him,

“I am [a]God Almighty;
Walk before Me, and be blameless.
2 I will [c]make My covenant between Me and you,
And I will multiply you exceedingly.”

Israel is to walk blamelessly as their part of the covenant. They are not doing that. So Israel themselves are not covenanting with God right now. When Moses disobeyed God, his punishment was not to enter the promised land. There are consequences. Israel did not return to the land because of their obedience. They are there solely by the mercy of God and His covenant to them. Which is eternal. Amen. But in their disobedience God can chastise them how He sees fit. Including the burden of having a Palestinian occupation. It's not for us, the church, to decide how God has to keep His part of the covenant, in my estimation. Or how God has to honor what the church thinks that should look like though. At least in how I am understanding it.

So when I say Israel is in 0 covenant with God, its because they are not honoring it. We are not God's council though according to Israel in how that all works. How that eternal covenant works is according to how God wants to orchestrate it. The voice of the church is not involved with how God deals with Israel in their disobedience. The very fact that God might chastise Israel is "because" of the eternal covenant He made. So it could be said that a two-state solution proves God is disciplining them from His existing eternal covenant with Israel. If that makes sense? Blessings.

 

[TCC]

with all due respect, no, the 2 state solution has been tried, and fails due to the fact that Israel is compliant, they do their part and then some but the Muslims follow their rules about Taqquiya where it's ok to like and make a peace deal then break it asap. They are quite open about that.

It's been tried on multiple occasions, and always fails leading to worse problems and more loss of life.

As for making it into a resort, that would involve the US owning Gaza according to Trump's plan and that too does NOT line up with Scripture.

Actually i was joking about the resort thing. I'm not saying their should be a two-state solution. But the only time Israel will gain all the land and rule in peace will be the 1,000 year reign. I believe Israel might stand a chance to have a one-state solution though. But if there results a two-state solution out of all this mess, to try and build peace in the middle east (even though it has failed), I believe that can lead to their abundance too. The reason I say that though dear sister is that with all that is going on in the way it is going, whether Israel has a one or two state solution, the one thing I believe we will see is a stronger radically prosperous Israel. That can work under a 1 or 2 state solution. They got this far with a two-state solution. They have advanced technological know how and have access to a lot of resources. Even with a two-state solution burdening them, they still rank 6th in world economics (surpassing many much larger nations). So it could still work like that though.

https://itrade.gov.il/south-africa/2025/03/06/israel-ranks-6th-in-2024-global-economic-strength-driven-by-innovation-and-growth/

But we might come to find that Israel gets a one state solution. We don't know that outcome to be yet though. But I am just saying that whatever occurs, it would seem that Israel would become even more powerful economically. 1 or 2 state solution. If that makes sense? Blessings.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Hopefully, the Restrainer is all that is preventing the 2-State "solution," and the world leaders and diplomats have their collective stuff together, because that would mean we're going home, oh, so soon!

If Israel rejects the partitioning of God's land, which He gave to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob/Israel (NOT Ishmael), that would be one very strong HOOK!

I surely hope that President Trump, Mike Huckabee, and Dorothy Shea work against the partitioning, or the U.S will come under judgment like all the other nations that hate and/or mistreat Israel.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Israel Gave Gaza to the Palestinians and also the "West Bank", Judea and Samaria in the Oslo Accords. The Palestinians wants all of the land and all Jews eliminated, and this has been why they chant "from the river to the sea"

Israel doesn't have the right to give away any part of God's land that was deeded to Abraham's descendants through Isaac and Jacob/Israel as an inheritance FOREVER.

From the River to the Sea to the River (River Nile to Mediterranean Sea to River Euphrates) ALL belongs to Israel

If Israel had followed instructions in the OT, the Philistines would not exist

The other descendants of Ishmael need to take in their kin-folk, the Philistines. And if those descendants of Ishmael are currently occupying land contained in God's deed to Abraham, they need to GET OUT NOW, as well I don't think this will happen until the MK, though.

 

[mattfivefour]

Israel is to walk blamelessly as their part of the covenant. They are not doing that. So Israel themselves are not covenanting with God right now. When Moses disobeyed God, his punishment was not to enter the promised land. There are consequences. Israel did not return to the land because of their obedience. They are there solely by the mercy of God and His covenant to them. Which is eternal. Amen. But in their disobedience God can chastise them how He sees fit. Including the burden of having a Palestinian occupation. It's not for us, the church, to decide how God has to keep His part of the covenant, in my estimation. Or how God has to honor what the church thinks that should look like though. At least in how I am understanding it.

So when I say Israel is in 0 covenant with God, its because they are not honoring it.

Respectfully, brother, I must disagree with your view of covenant. Even if the human party breaks covenant with God, God never breaks covenant with people. Yes, as you say, He chastises; but that is within covenant, not in its absence.

For example, we are in the New Covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. Are we all truly honoring it? For many Christians the answer is no, not always. Some may be in disobedience in some area. But even so, God will still keep His covenant with us. This is the security we have in Him through Christ.

The Abrahamic covenant is still very much in effect, my friend. And God will bring it to its perfect conclusion once the Gentiles have been dealt with.

 

[Andiamo]

Respectfully, brother, I must disagree with your view of covenant. Even if the human party breaks covenant with God, God never breaks covenant with people. Yes, as you say, He chastises; but that is within covenant, not in its absence.

For example, we are in the New Covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. Are we all truly honoring it? For many Christians the answer is no, not always. Some may be in disobedience in some area. But even so, God will still keep His covenant with us. This is the security we have in Him through Christ.

The Abrahamic covenant is still very much in effect, my friend. And God will bring it to its perfect conclusion once the Gentiles have been dealt with.

Yes, this is what I was going to say, in my own base way. I just did a little review, so thanks for sharpening my iron.

The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional and unbroken. It depends on God for its continuation and its fulfillment, and not on Israel. Israel does not reap all the benefits of the covenant until after the national repentance of Israel and we all go into the Millenium. But that does not mean the covenant is “zero” on Israel’s end right now.

When God shakes a hand He does not let go of it.

When the covenant was reconfirmed through Isaac in Genesis 26:2-5 and to Jacob in Genesis 28:23-15 God doubled down on His promise. There were no conditions given and that is because “be blameless” was not a condition but it was God’s heart and desire toward Israel, that they be “innocent”…wanting their whole heart and obedience and looking ahead to their being declared innocent in Christ.

I’m thankful that God’s promises and relationship to us do not depend on our whole heart and obedience but that God keeps his end of the deal and we will all enjoy our full benefits in the future.

@TCC I am surprised you are of this opinion that Israel is not in covenant with God right now. But I still love you brother. I exhort you to review Romans 11 brother.

 

[Margery]

Actually i was joking about the resort thing. I'm not saying their should be a two-state solution. But the only time Israel will gain all the land and rule in peace will be the 1,000 year reign. I believe Israel might stand a chance to have a one-state solution though. But if there results a two-state solution out of all this mess, to try and build peace in the middle east (even though it has failed), I believe that can lead to their abundance too. The reason I say that though dear sister is that with all that is going on in the way it is going, whether Israel has a one or two state solution, the one thing I believe we will see is a stronger radically prosperous Israel. That can work under a 1 or 2 state solution. They got this far with a two-state solution. They have advanced technological know how and have access to a lot of resources. Even with a two-state solution burdening them, they still rank 6th in world economics (surpassing many much larger nations). So it could still work like that though.

https://itrade.gov.il/south-africa/2025/03/06/israel-ranks-6th-in-2024-global-economic-strength-driven-by-innovation-and-growth/

But we might come to find that Israel gets a one state solution. We don't know that outcome to be yet though. But I am just saying that whatever occurs, it would seem that Israel would become even more powerful economically. 1 or 2 state solution. If that makes sense? Blessings.

It may be my fatigue- I have a hard time focusing right now but I didn't think you were joking. Even if you were, it helps to say so. I know it's easier to approach a difficult subject by making it a joke, but for those of us like me who are coping with brain fog- it helps to be clear and get to the point of what you actually mean.

One thing we CAN agree on is that Israel according to Ezek 38 does live in security- even though it's a false sense of security as Gog Magog invades. But the Bible doesn't say anywhere HOW that peaceful false security is achieved. Some say America, some say thru a false sense of security due to the IDF, others suggest it's a Psalm 83 scenario with Israel defeating their evil neighbours.

HOWEVER I hope that you really do look at what covenant means. And how that fits within God's plan for Israel. I think that might help bring you back to a more clear understanding of God's promises and plans for Israel as outlined in the Bible.

I know you've come out of Reform theology so that may still be part of how you see things.

I would love it if you'd take Andiamo's suggestion, and go thru Romans 11 prayerfully to see how this ties things together- God has a plan and purpose for the Church and for Israel.

Understanding that makes the promises to Israel make sense. The problem with Reform theology is that a lot of Reform teaching replaces Israel with the Church. They take the blessings of Israel for the church, and teach that God is done with Israel or has set them aside.

Sometimes Reform Theology expresses it as Covenantal Theology in which the Church replaces Israel in the covenants of the Bible or they see 2 main covenants- the Law and then the Church (Grace). This usually means the Church replaces Israel.

 

[Amethyst]

I know you've come out of Reform theology so that may still be part of how you see things.

Ah. Makes sense now.

 

[TCC]

Respectfully, brother, I must disagree with your view of covenant. Even if the human party breaks covenant with God, God never breaks covenant with people. Yes, as you say, He chastises; but that is within covenant, not in its absence.

For example, we are in the New Covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. Are we all truly honoring it? For many Christians the answer is no, not always. Some may be in disobedience in some area. But even so, God will still keep His covenant with us. This is the security we have in Him through Christ.

The Abrahamic covenant is still very much in effect, my friend. And God will bring it to its perfect conclusion once the Gentiles have been dealt with.

Thanks Pastor. I think the way I choose to express what I am saying can be confusing. Purposely I said it the way I did in a hyperbolic way for effect. So I kind of half apologize...lol. Why half is just because I believe the point I am trying to highlight is very real, significant, and something I believe super helpful to consider In the ways that we are looking at the middle east.

So if I were to express my thoughts most directly it would be this: One or Two State Salution is Up to God. Not How We Insist That Covenent Look Today.

That is my thesis. Not that there is no Abahamic Covenant. Just that we don't seem to be able to separate the Abrahamic Covenant from what effects of a one or two state solution for Israel translates prophetically like. As this forum is a prophecy watch forum, I believe it is very helpful not to size too many things up by our own understanding. I want to give an example. But before, just to clear this up:

. . . . .

While on JDF, I had an extensive two day back and forth with a very awesome and straghtforward sister. Her stance was that since there was an Abrahamic Covenant in place still (eternal) we cannot divide Israel with a two state solution. My position was: since the Abrahamic Covenant is in place (eternal) Israel can have a two state solution.

Pastor I made that very same argument you have well stated brother. Earlier I mentioned that if God is disciplining Israel now with a two-state solution that is proof of a covenant. The fiery language I used: "Israel has 0 covenant with God" was said by me to highlight Israel's lack of honoring being faithful per Gen 17. In that sense it is true. The Israel before us cannot "honor" the Abrahamic Covenant in their unbelief. It is in that sense I highlight "Israel" has 0 covenant with God. The Israel we have cannot do that in their unbelief. That is not the same as saying: "There is no Abrahamic Covenant in play or from God ongoing." I did not say that. The inverse of what I did say would be: But God has an eternal covenant with them. And I stated too that He does. But genuinely, brother, forum, Israel is in no wise right now covenanting with God. Are they? If they are not, then it is true they have 0 covenant with God right now. I am not saying this from a theological place. I am saying this from how they are living now. Would you say that is not true, though?

. . . . .

EXAMPLE
While at JDF Trump did his deal of the century. At first I sided with Jack Hibbs. That it was a good thing. Then after seeing JD's diligent research I changed my position to it being a bad thing to divide Israel. So I agreed with JD. That the deal of the century would have given Palestine parts of Jarusalem. And that would be dividing Israel. Out of that, JD mentioned that the reason America is so divided politically is because we tried to divide Jurasulame. This is where I had to do more homework. Because now, at that point, we are taking our understanding of what we percieve about the Abramic Covenant and building theological constructions on "our understanding." And that is when I began to study the Abrahamic Covenant more with that sister on JDF. So in this sense I have held my leaning toward JD's conviction most of my life. So I understand the concern, amen. I was right there with that same conviction. Amen. In fact, even though there were things Trump was doing that had me think a bit otherwise, I came back to form to my standard views, which is the one JD posed. Except for the dividing America part.

That JDF sister and me must have shared 10 posts going back and forth with all the verses. I admit at times I wanted to fold. Because at the heart of it, you guys, I also mentioned earlier in the thread that we don't know where God Himself would take offense toward Israel so let's not test Him. That was said because the covenant is His. And He is super faithful to it--proof being Israel is back.

Trumps negotiation style is "offer this to get that instead." And that was the deal of the century too. Yes, Trump wanted to divide Jarusalem. If that happened, would America suffer because of God's displeasure? Possibly yes. But Trump did that knowing Palestine would not agree. What resulted was the Abraham Accords. Approaching the problem from a different angle. What changed me on this was that study with that sister. Yes. For she did come to see that there might be room for what I am saying. And she would not just say that...lol. She was very solid. But what kind of pushed me over the edge on this view was the concern to say America is divided because of a Trump negatiating strategy. Even the thought of dividing Israel is punishable in that view. I don't agree with that. Especially if the Abraham Accords are fulfilling prophecy.

So at that point I realized I was out of my league with God. The other thing is this though I believe:

• Joel 3:2 talks about not dividing Israel for the purpose to disperse her. That is the context
• We have lived for decades with Israel having a two-state solution
• By all appearances, this is providential
• Some nations want to divide Jarusalem because they want to wipe Israel off the map, sure
• But there is a sober and real diplomatic effort in the middle east to keep peace for both Israel and the Arab world. I would say that is where the bulk of the two-state solution lies. And that is not dividing Israel to dsiperse her. That is doing what can be done to keep both Israel and the Arab world functionally without setting off world war three.
• Prior to Trump, to affirm Jarusalem for Israel was thought to be to start world war three. And it did not
• I don't blend Joel 3:2 any longer with a two-state solution. Because it is a diplomatic effort to keep peace, primarily. Not to disperse Israel. Therefore, if that kind of division occurs (as had been now for decades) I don't believe that is a sound and reasonable way to use Joel 3:2. But that does not stop us...lol.

In any event, I need to run. But I hope this overview at least articulates why I would use hyperbole to emphasize this: The church can have her views on how to look at the Abrahamic Covenant as it relates to the two-state solution and what that all means. But as long as we keep as an opinion and not canon, we can have our views. But the tendency is to not see that diference. That is why I expressed it the way I did. You may not agree with this position, but does it make sense why there might be a position like this though dear brother?

Blessings.

 

[1LoverofGod]

Here we go. Here comes the Israeli RESISTANCE to what's coming. The 2 State Solution.

Israel Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warns world powers that if they unilaterally RECOGNIZE a PALESTINIAN STATE, then Israel WILL RESPOND by applying sovereignty over JUDEA and SAMARIA.

Huge!!! Israel is threatening to ANNEX the ENTIRE West Bank, and TAKE IT OVER, so that there will be NO LAND for the "state of Palestine" to even exist.

“Unilateral moves AGAINST ISRAEL will be met with unilateral moves BY ISRAEL.”

BubbaNews

Here we go. Here comes the Israeli RESISTANCE to what's coming. The 2 State Solution. 🚨Israel Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warns world powers that if they unilaterally RECOGNIZE a PALESTINIAN 🇵🇸 STATE, then Israel 🇮🇱 WILL RESPOND by applying sovereignty over JUDEA and SAMARIA.🚨 Huge!!! 😳...

t.me

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

It's Israel, anyway, so annexation really isn't necessary. But if that's what they want to call it, OK.

HOOK!

 

[LightOfMyLife]

June should be an interesting month, and these people who want to divide Gods land are asking for a cursing. God blesses those who bless Israel, and curses those who curse israel. Prophecy is speeding up1

 

[TCC]

Yes, this is what I was going to say, in my own base way. I just did a little review, so thanks for sharpening my iron.

The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional and unbroken. It depends on God for its continuation and its fulfillment, and not on Israel. Israel does not reap all the benefits of the covenant until after the national repentance of Israel and we all go into the Millenium. But that does not mean the covenant is “zero” on Israel’s end right now.

When God shakes a hand He does not let go of it.

When the covenant was reconfirmed through Isaac in Genesis 26:2-5 and to Jacob in Genesis 28:23-15 God doubled down on His promise. There were no conditions given and that is because “be blameless” was not a condition but it was God’s heart and desire toward Israel, that they be “innocent”…wanting their whole heart and obedience and looking ahead to their being declared innocent in Christ.

I’m thankful that God’s promises and relationship to us do not depend on our whole heart and obedience but that God keeps his end of the deal and we will all enjoy our full benefits in the future.

@TCC I am surprised you are of this opinion that Israel is not in covenant with God right now. But I still love you brother. I exhort you to review Romans 11 brother.

I understand we may see this differently. The pastor makes a good point. He is and you are correct that Israel cannot undo the covenant God has made. In that sense, yes, I agree Israel is in 100% of the Abrahamic Covenant. Amen. This I don't disagree with. But I parce this with comment I made earlier "Exegetically Israel is in 0 covenant with God." Which is probably not the most fair way to say what I am. By exegesis we see this:

Matt 23:39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

Now, granted that does not mean Israel is no longer in the Abrahamic Covenant. So again, the distinction I am making is not just to come across with bad theology. Its to challenge a narrative. Not the narrative if Abraham went to sleep, and God passed through the animal pieces in Gen 15 representing His covenanting with Himself on Abraham behalf (usually it would be a both parties each together walking through the pieces together--but there, God swore to the tearing of Himself to pieces--as in the cross--which makes it doubly secure from all sides). That is not the reason I said and am saying it the way I am though.

Is Israel in a covenant with God any way right now exegetically? Yes. Exegetically are they covenanting with God? No.

So since the Abramaic covenant is in force therefore Israel should not be divided even if it is a two state solution because if it is a two-state solution then that is the same as dividing Israel to disperse them? No. If we think that way, I believe we are escalating our own understanding as though it were a part of the covenant itself. And I don't think we see that we are not making that distinction. If that makes sense?

Because what I believe is that God can have all of the Arab world weigh-in on ruling Gaza AND Israel is still in Abrahamic covenant with God, right? This is my point though. Is this something possible though to consider? This is my reason for bringing it up in the way I have. It's not to play mind games. lol. It's just to help us better take a look how easily evangelicalism can make things of God go by our playbooks. This was the whole of the reason I bring it up. So if it is possible to see Israel as a two-state solution and it still be in the Abrahamic Covenant (as it has been for almost 80 years in their own land now--and were even in His eternal covenant when they had 0 land for 2,000 years) then we don't see differently at all. But in general I don't think evangelicalism that is aware of the place of Israel in God's eschatologiy being able to separate what we feel about Israel and what is. If that makes sense? I am really trying to bring this to the surface because this kind of thing can become dangerous at certain levels I believe. Blurring our own understanding with something we think God is doing (and that totally includes me too), right? If that makes sense. I hope it makes sense...lol. I am so trying dear sister. Blessings.

 

[Andiamo]

Blurring our own understanding with something we think God is doing (and that totally includes me too), right?

I think I understand what you are saying and why that would be a concern.
We really need to stick with scripture and get our understanding of what it’s saying at its face value.
Now to me, it’s blatantly obvious reading the scripture at face value, that the covenant still stands whether Israel is in right relationship or not. And it sounds like you agree with this.
Outside of scripture I guess what is going on is subject to our own opinions and we will just wait and see what happens.

 

[Margery]

Here we go. Here comes the Israeli RESISTANCE to what's coming. The 2 State Solution.

Israel Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warns world powers that if they unilaterally RECOGNIZE a PALESTINIAN STATE, then Israel WILL RESPOND by applying sovereignty over JUDEA and SAMARIA.

Huge!!! Israel is threatening to ANNEX the ENTIRE West Bank, and TAKE IT OVER, so that there will be NO LAND for the "state of Palestine" to even exist.

“Unilateral moves AGAINST ISRAEL will be met with unilateral moves BY ISRAEL.”

BubbaNews

Here we go. Here comes the Israeli RESISTANCE to what's coming. The 2 State Solution. 🚨Israel Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warns world powers that if they unilaterally RECOGNIZE a PALESTINIAN 🇵🇸 STATE, then Israel 🇮🇱 WILL RESPOND by applying sovereignty over JUDEA and SAMARIA.🚨 Huge!!! 😳...

t.me

I hope they do.

Because if they do, then that is one step closer to Ezek 38 where it says that Israel is dwelling securely without bars or gates on the mountains of Israel.

Those Mountains are mostly in the so called West Bank area that is really the Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria. The invaders from Jordan took it in 1948 and renamed it the West Bank- referring to the fact it is west of the Jordan River which was supposed to be the dividing line. The invading Jordanians forcibly evicted Jews from their homes, lands and businesses, and took the lot.

Israel took it back in 67, only 19 years later. But instead of doing to the Jordanian invaders what they'd done to the Israelis in '48, they allowed them to stay in lands and homes that were stolen from Jewish families.

And we know how they repaid that kindness.

But over in Ezek 38 the verses specify The MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL referring to the mountainous range running north south above the banks of the Jordan. Jerusalem sits in the centre but most of those mountains are in the "west bank" area.

IF we see Israel take THAT land back permanently, and settle into that land (that belongs to them) then it sets up one of the amazing pre conditions mentioned in Ezek 38:8

8 After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety.

I always find it fascinating to see a few specifics here:

The land (Israel) has recovered from war-- what war???

The people were gathered from many nations to a specific spot--- The MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL-- and that isn't the country of Israel, that is the MOUNTAINS of Israel which is largely part of the so called West Bank.

These mountains had long been desolate (Mark Twain describes it perfectly in The Innocents Abroad circa 1867) desolate, without people, desert without any vegetation except the odd cactus and without inhabitants.

Once the Jews came back the land bloomed, and so did the desire of the Arabs to steal that land for themselves- they grabbed it in 48, hung onto it in 67 despite Israel winning it back and are still there.

And Israeli Jews do NOT live there in safety. But the Bible says at the time of Ezek 38 they will.

We could be about to see it happen!!!