Lessons from the Sudetenland by Benjamin Netanyahu

Deuteronomy 30? Here it is:

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

“turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” Even if you believe it’s the land that’s important, then clearly the secular state of Israel has not met that requirement.

Dispensationalism, which has been a belief since only the 19th Century, is unbiblical. There aren’t two covenants, just one. Read the Bible objectively and ask God for wisdom as to what it really says.

The L-RD your G-d will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you.

Notice that this is AFTER the return to the Land.

The promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were a SEED, a LAND, and a PEOPLE. If you want to claim Abraham as the father of faith (which he is), then you must accept that all three are a part of the redemptive picture.

If you will read Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 26-37 you will see that return to the LAND is a part of the "New Covenant" which Deutermonomy 30 and 31 also recursor.

Dispensationalism? Sorry. I am Messianic. We trace our routes to First Century Messianic Judaism and are followers of Yeshua. We read the whole Bible (and not just for nice analogies). We reject Dispensationalism and Supercessionism (Replacement Theology, Reformism) as nullifying the Word of G-d. Although both are founded upon antenicean anti-Semitism, the most noxious is Supercessionism. At least Dispensationalists do not cut pages out of their Bibles thus declaring the Almighty to be a liar. It appears that your brand of Christianity's view of Israel began in the Second Century and was the predominate view of the Roman Church from the Fourth Century onward. Luther and Calvin, both noteworthy anti-Semites, kept the Roman Church's view of Israel.

Not on the continent. After Italy signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, Spain's fall to the pro-Axis Nationalists, the German occupation of Czechoslovakia (a staunch French ally), and Germany's nonaggression pact with the USSR, France's sense of isolation and impending doom was complete. The French were well aware that Britain would have to abandon them to their fate if their combined forces could not hold back the Axis tide. (Remember too, the French government and military was shot through with pro-Nazis). To get a good inside handle on what was going on during the period leading up to the actual breakout of hostilities, a must read is Winterbotham's The Nazi Connection.

Just an aside, Chamberlain was not the naive and cowardly appeaser history has labled him. He was well aware that France was probably a lost cause anyway, and that in 1938 Britain had neither enough trained pilots or Spitfires to take on the Luftwaffe. The mostly Hurricanes and Bison fighters they had at the time would have been blasted out the air by Germay's ME109s. As insidious as the Munich Agreement was, it probably saved Britain from almost certain defeat had they gone to war in 1938.

I agree with some of your statements, but disagree with others. It is true that Britain and France needed time to build up their air forces. However, in 1938 The French Army was a large force, and could have stopped the Germans, had Czechoslovakia’s forces not been surrendered. The Germans were still building up their own forces and the Czechs could have held their own, especially with Allied assistance.
You are correct that France had many with Nazi leanings, after all Vichy cooperated way too much with Hitler. Also, pacificism had sapped into the fortitude of the French, even more than the Brits.
I disagree with you that Chamberlain was not naive. He thought that he could with the force of his personality gain peace. A problem that egotistical leaders especially on the left are still trying to do. Churchill had read Mein Kampf and had read into Hitler’s personality, and predicted accurately the mistake of not confronting Hitler early.
Your comments about Spain’s role is way overstated.

Oh, so now I see why you still think it’s all about the land.

You say you read the “whole Bible,” but have you ever noticed Jesus never mentioned a return to the land and that nowhere in all of the New Testament is there any prophecy of a return of the Jews to the land? One time (in Acts) the disciples asked Him about a return to the land, and He answered by telling them to spread the Gospel to “all nations.” Also in Acts Jewish believers sold their land permanently to nonbelievers in Israel to follow Christ. That’s because they were looking forward to the “true Promised Land.” The land they sold was a mere type and shadow of the covenant and they obviously knew that.

As for your point about Abraham, God made Abraham the father of many nations, not just one:

Genesis 17:4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.”

So, again, there are not two covenants, one for Israel and one for gentile believers. There’s only one (one olive tree in Romans 11), Jews and gentiles both, and it’s by faith.

Read Wintherbotham’s book. He was an insider in RAF intell circles and had access to the PM. He indicated Chamberlain’s “peace-in-our-time” was for public consumption only. Behind the scenes his government was preparing for war. Furthermore, the French army was no more capable of stopping the Germans in ‘38 than it would been 2 yrs later, since they wasted their superior armored units by spreading them thinly in order to support their infantry, whereas the Germans were already planning to properly use armored and mechanized infantry in large formations supported by Junkers dive-bombers. The Germans also had a large number of ME109s, superior to the British Hurricane and to every French fighter available at the time (MB151s and 152s, MS406s; the D520 was almost the equal of the ME109, but was not available until 1940). Chamberlain was not a leftist either, he was a member of the same party as Churchill, the Tories.

I am likely to read the book. Churchill’s books “The Second World War” affirm that the Brits were preparing for war. Chamberlain was not a leftist, but he did believe the “peace in our time.” To many in Britain, France and the USA, it was almost incomprehensible that they would have to fight another war after loosing a generation or more in “The Great War.” The French Army did not have to modern combined arms philosophy first written about by Charles De Gaulle. It relied too much on defense, and of course failed to plan for a German attack through the Ardennes. HOWEVER, the French Army along with the Czech Army vis-a-vis the German Army in 1938 could have held its own. The Germans were still building up their forces in 38. Even when they attacked Poland in 39, they didn’t attack France, since they knew that they would have been overextended, even in 39. Their strategy was to pick off countries one at a time. It basically worked until the Battle of Britain, and of course, Russia.

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.