Bush calls Israelis "God's Chosen People" and no one blinks

Um...if you're a Christian or if you've read the Bible, you know that the entire Old Testament deals with the fact (term used loosely here) that the Israelites are God's chosen people. It's part of the story. He wasn't referring to the modern nation of Israel--he was talking about the ancient tribe of Hebrews that Moses led out of Egypt, that Abraham led and that David was the greatest King of. *shrug* It's a religious reference, appropriate for the occasion, and based upon Biblical (in Bush's POV) 'history.'

I don't see what the big deal is, Bravo. You have to be able to put references like this into the proper context. And American policy has been based on Biblical reference since pretty much the beginning, if you want to get particular about it.

I'm not very knowledgeable about Biblical things - but my first thought was that the Jews have always been considered the chosen people. I also don't see the big deal.

It was a totally inappropriate thing to say. Bush has been and continues to be a patently destructive force to the entire region.

Guess I'm in the "Biblically the Jews have been God's chosen people" camp and don't think anything of the statement.

Obama inferred that there were "fallen soldiers" in the audience where he was speaking yesterday and nobody blinked then either... so what's your point? Bush has made no bones that he is a religious guy (whether I believe that or not is moot). Christians believe that Jews are the chosen people... I don't think many people in this country aside from those looking to take a shot (at Bush or religion) really see anything wrong with him saying words to that end. Our very relationship with Israel is absolutely based in religion, where have you been for the last half century?



If you'd like me to find more I would be happy to... it's not just Dems or Republicans... it's politicians. They are believers at best and pandering opportunists at worst... but out agenda where it concerns Israel is deeply rooted in religion. This didn't just show up with Bush.

Sxty years ago isn't exactly ancient history. The promise may be ancient, but neither it, or its results are without disagreement.

Ever been there? It's interesting in the Chinese proverb kind of way.

And yeah, it is sad that recent administrations have made so many decisions that seem based upon religious beliefs.

I am the first to admit that I have strong Zionist leanings. However, I don't think it was wise for Bush to "insert Tab A" (the Biblical claim that the physical geographic region called Israel was promised to the Jewish people by God back in the days of Abraham) "into Slot B" (claiming that the events of the 1940's --where a 7-digit number of Palestinians were forced to vacate that same geographic region to allow the 1948 birth of the Nation of Israel-- is a fulfillment of divine decree) in a formal speech while standing on the very soil where endless bloodshed still takes place over who should rightfully inhabit that land.

It's one thing for Bush to compliment Israel for being such great stewards of that land (planting millions of trees in previously desert areas, building great universities that have led to brilliant medical breakthroughs, engineering state of the art road systems, etc). But it's another thing entirely for Bush to position himself squarely behind the politically loaded and utterly-unfounded-outside-of-mere-faith idea that there really is a God, he really did choose Abarham AND Isaac AND Jacob, and (by default) he "despised" Esau (and for anyone who doesn't know, Esau is the unfavored twin brother of Jacob who is the patriarch of Islam). The cherry on top wuold be to toss in any inferrence you want about that other unfreindly brotherly situation between Isaac and Ishmael (Ishmael was the Patriarch of the current day Arabs), and the end result is that Bush's alignment with that whole delightfully poetic reference to the roots of the nation of Israel is a huge slap in the face to every last branch of the entire Muslim world.

I'm not here to argue whether the Judeo-Christian bias toward Jacob being "the favored son" and the one "chosen by God" is true or not (Muslims say the Jewish rendering of the whole Abarham/Isaac/Jacob tale is incorrect and an outright lie--they say it was actually Esau who was the favored son and that the descendants of Esau are the ones who should be occupying that land). I'm simply trying to say it might have been a tad bit wiser for Bush to have not even gone there in his unfolding of the speech.

If Bush were the first, it would be news... but he isn't, he's the latest... and better he declare his commitment (to the point of stating the religious aspects, something muslims do all day long without criticism) then he appear nebulous in his support. After all his daddy was wishy washy on Iraq vs. Kuwait... Saddam invaded... and the rest is history.

Bush calls Israelis "God's Chosen People" and no one blinks

Click to expand...

I agree with him.

BTW, who was the first American president, post 1948, to call for an independent state of Palestine?

Norman D Gutter said:

I agree with him.

BTW, who was the first American president, post 1948, to call for an independent state of Palestine?

Click to expand...

That dog won't hunt... it doesn't serve to stoke the flames that feed the torches and temper the pitchforks. I'm still waiting to see if I get a reply to my post wherein I cite a couple of "religious" inferences made by Dems.

Oh man, heaven forbid our president mention the word "God"! Or have a personal religion with which he lives his life!

The horror! lol

(and I'm not even a christian anymore)

I ask you, if a president stood up and quoted the Tao or Buddha, would you equally attack him? But the Tao and Buddha had a lot of great stuff to say about how to live in harmony and peace with yourself and others around you.

Quit crucifying the man for his faith. If your faith doesn't extend into every single outlet of your life, INCLUDING your job, then I have to question just how strong your "faith" really is.

ColoradoGuy said:

the question is whether it was a wise, useful, prudent (insert adjective here) thing for our head of state to say while he was speaking as our head of state. I think it was an unfortunate remark. But, considering the tinderbox location he was speaking in and the occasion he was speaking at, I doubt it will change much of anything.

Click to expand...

Considering that Israel is our ally and has been for decades, and that they are one of the few democracies in that region, and that many past presidents, openly religious or not, have said effectively the same thing, again, I still don't have an issue with it.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Considering that Israel is our ally and has been for decades, and that they are one of the few democracies in that region, and that many past presidents, openly religious or not, have said effectively the same thing, again, I still don't have an issue with it.

Click to expand...

Wonderfully stated.

Norman D Gutter said:

I agree with him.

BTW, who was the first American president, post 1948, to call for an independent state of Palestine?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be ol' GW Bush himself?

And that has nothing to do with Israel being recognized as populated by God's chosen people. That has long been recognized.

johnnysannie said:

And that has nothing to do with Israel being recognized as populated by God's chosen people. That has long been recognized.

Click to expand...

Hallelujah!

Bravo said:

actually if you want to excuse the fact that our president is using a theological argument for the establishment of israel, then i suppose bush should also make that argument for the establishment of a great arab nation as the bible says of ismail:

genesis 2:18

in addition, the promise of the land of canaan was to the descendents of the israelites, which includes more than jews.

itll be funny if other semitic people and people like the pathans, all decide to claim a right to the land of canaan now.

Click to expand...

My point, Bravo, is that I think it was a rhetorical decision on Bush's part, based on the audience he was speaking to and the event that brought him there. It was a tailored statement--much like the ones from Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter cited in Takvah's post--and isn't some whacked-out religious conspiracy.

ColoradoGuy said:

Let's watch the rhetoric in this one, folks. The question is not crucifying him for his faith: the question is whether it was a wise, useful, prudent (insert adjective here) thing for our head of state to say while he was speaking as our head of state. I think it was an unfortunate remark. But, considering the tinderbox location he was speaking in and the occasion he was speaking at, I doubt it will change much of anything.

Click to expand...

I agree. As I stated above.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Considering that Israel is our ally and has been for decades, and that they are one of the few democracies in that region, and that many past presidents, openly religious or not, have said effectively the same thing, again, I still don't have an issue with it.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Thought I was going insane again for a minute there.

ColoradoGuy said:

I agree it won't change anything: America's strong political support for Israel is a given and has spanned all administrations since 1948.

Click to expand...

And another fact. The US support of Israel is a fully solidified facet of our foreign policy--perhaps even cemented--and I don't think anyone could deny the importance of the US-Israeli alliance in the Middle East.

JA:

Yes, it was George W. Bush who first proposed that. Reagan proposed something "in association with Jordan" which was ridiculous. Neither Bush the elder nor Clinton proposed that.

I don't mean to derail the thread; I wrote that because of this statement made in the thread:

Bush has been and continues to be a patently destructive force to the entire region.

Click to expand...

I don't believe any solution to the problem is possible that does not include an independent Palestine. You can't have an independent Palestine until someone proposes it as official policy. So for that recognition and action I give Bush kudos.

NDG

Takvah said:

That dog won't hunt... it doesn't serve to stoke the flames that feed the torches and temper the pitchforks. I'm still waiting to see if I get a reply to my post wherein I cite a couple of "religious" inferences made by Dems.

Click to expand...

Takvah:

I didn't reply because I think that is obvious. Well, it is to me and most people.

NDG

While I have no problem defending Israel (in cases where they are right, not when they're wrong.) I have always been adamantly opposed to the term "chosen people". The insinuate that God has "chosen" one group over another is the ultimate in stupidity. The Israelis of today are likely in no way related to those who were mentioned in the Bible. And even if they were there is no way to know for sure. So to say that they are his "chosen" is wrong.

I'm not the most religious person, I'll admit that, but I find it sickening that anyone can claim a cetain demographic is "chosen".I'm not blaming this all on Bush, as he's hardly the only one who makes this claim, but it's still an inflamatory thing for him to say.

Why is it inflammatory?

It was a rhetorical decision, not a claim of religious prominence for the nation of Israel. That's like saying "E pluribus unum" means that America considers itself to be part and parcel of the same religious base as the Roman Catholic church because it's written in Latin.

It's a non-issue, and certainly not inflammatory. He was making a speech in Israel on their 60th anniversary of their country's existence.

mscelina said:

Why is it inflammatory?

It was a rhetorical decision, not a claim of religious prominence for the nation of Israel. That's like saying "E pluribus unum" means that America considers itself to be part and parcel of the same religious base as the Roman Catholic church because it's written in Latin.

It's a non-issue, and certainly not inflammatory. He was making a speech in Israel on their 60th anniversary of their country's existence.

Click to expand...

You're right, it likely wasn't intended to be inflamatory and likely won't be perceived as such by most people. But that's only because we've all become used to hearing Israelis lauded as "the chosen".

I'm simply saying that the idea of a chosen people is ridiculous and we need to quit using that term.