BUSH IS BEST FOR ISRAEL

President Bush is leading with moral clarity in the fight against terror around the world. His leadership is exhibted by concrete actions, often making bold changes to U.S. policy in favor of Israel. President Bush, like no U.S. president before, has acknowledged Israel's right to certain West Bank settlements, completely changed U.S. treatment of Yasser Arafat, and no longer uses the moral equivalency language, "cycle of violence."

In contrast, Senator Kerry, while voting safely with the pro-Israel majority, shows no leadership and poor judgment.

He makes troubling and often conflicting statements about the security fence (a "barrier to peace"), Yassir Arafat ("a statesman"), potential envoys (Baker, Carter) and terrorism (a law enforcement, rather than a military issue as Israel properly views it.)

While President Bush seeks a diminished role of the vehemently anti-Israel U.N., Senator Kerry calls for greater U.S. deference to this Israel-bashing body.

Now more than ever, Israel needs the U.S. to have a president who is not just "also good" for Israel, but one who has demonstrated that he is best for Israel. VISIT THE EXCITING NEW WEBSITE FOR ARTICLES! http://www.bestforisrael.org/

True, in the short run Bush is a far better choice when it comes to Israel's security. But he never should have endorsed a Palestinian state in Israel. God promised Eretz Israel to the Jews. Besides, it is only a matter of time before Israel's enemies find a way to use this new precedent as a political weapon against Israel.

God promised Eretz Israel to the Jews.

Eretz? I'm not familiar with that term. And why would this site lean toward interpreting "Eretz Israel" as that moreso spiritual than physical Zion other, (to my knowledge) practicing Jews have described to me in the past on this forum?

Next Year in Jerusalem
Why do we, the Jews celebrating Pesach (Passover) in Jerusalem, still say: "Next year in Jerusalem!" Aren't we already here? The rebuilt Jerusalem we pray for is not this modern city, and the redeemed Eretz Israel is not the political state of the Jews we see today. As the influence of the Torah extends, so will the boundaries of Eretz Israel expand accordingly. "

Anyone familiar with Christianity's splintering as various individuals edited or reinterpreted the Scripture as they saw fit understands well how folks could end up with two totally different takes on the same Word.

But where do I find the source (or basic definition) of "eretz" from which you and that site end up with such different interpretations?

An initial scan is only turning up articles like this one on "neo-orthodoxy" which aren't terribly helpful to one like me who prefers Primary Sources as a rule.

Eretz is a Hebrew word, and it simply means "the land of." Of course, "the land of" means different things to different people. Some think of it in terms of Israel's present boundaries. Religious Jews and and Evangelical Christians think of it as meaning the original land that God promised the Jews.

"Eretz?"

Had to do some searching to find this. I'm amazed how little there is on the origin of "Eretz Israel" on the Internet. I see you're going to bed, so I guess this conversation will have to wait. I'll keep searching for more Eretz stuff in the meantime. Goodnight.

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/eretz/index.asp

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.