Newly elected Iran President says Israel should be wiped out

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls nation (Israel) a 'blot': This is why the Islamic state must not get nukes, the White House saysTEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a ''disgraceful blot'' that should be ''wiped off the map'' - fiery words that Washington said underscores its concern over Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's speech to thousands of students at a ''World without Zionism'' conference set a hard-line foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor, echoing the sentiments of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution. The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks show that Washington's fears about Iran's nuclear program are accurate.Full articleArab nations remain silentIsrael steps up demands for UN to expel Iran

Do I dare step into these troubled waters? I am certainly not supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here but I think we need to listen to what is being said. Folks put together Iran's determiniation to be a nuclear power and this kind of rhetoric and make conclusions which are just as inflammatory as Ahmadinejad' speeches.Ahmadinejad is anti-zionist. That means he is opposed to what the United Nations did in establishing an Israeli sovereign state. Israel, as a nation state, was 'put on the map' by a political process. Is it conceivable, theoreticaly, that the 'nation state' could be 'wiped off the map' by a political process? It may be significant that Ahmadinejad spoke of 'wiping Israel off the map' rather than of 'wiping out Israel', as posted above. There are those who hold the view of a 'Greater Israel' which believes that the nation state of Israel should push out its borders to the limits established by King David. That would take it right into the heart of Syria. It is hardly surprising that her neighbours become nervous as such a possibility. It is also verses such as...“In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:” (Gen. 15:18, KJVS)...which fuel some of this fear. Have a look at the implications of this on a map. and then find the "Successive World Kingdoms: Persia, Babylon, Assyria 640-500 BC" map.Is Ahmadinejad dangerous? yes, of course and needs to be watched but it needs to be remembered too that it is 'Zionism', as a territorial expansion policy, that has been at the heart of the Middle East contoversy rather than 'anti-semitisim'. Traditionally, Islam and Judaism have been much more able to co-exist that Christendom and Judaism. (Please note that I said 'Christendom' NOT 'Christianity'; the two are quite different)

It may be significant that Ahmadinejad spoke of 'wiping Israel off the map' rather than of 'wiping out Israel', as posted above. I agree, it is well worth noting that my version of the headline unwittingly made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sound like he was wanting genocide rather then elimination of a state.Traditionally, Islam and Judaism have been much more able to co-exist that Christendom and Judaism.I'm reading a book called Constantines Sword (James Carrol) that takes a hard look at Christendoms sorry treatment of Jews...it's an unpleasant but informative read. Perhaps because the author is Catholic, he doesn't make as clean a distinction between Christendom and Christianity as I might. I don't know if you were angling this direction Ron, but for me the scariest part of this scenario isn't Ahmadinejad, but Western reaction to him...For me, his rhetoric doesn't make me concerned about what Iran might do in the region...but of what we might do the region. Although I've never considered Islam to be a "live and let live" kind of religion, (despite what political correctness insists) I feel a real need to pray for Iran. My prayers are not for them only...I need prayer as well so that I can see the mideast through the eyes of Jesus and not through the eerie green nightvision lens of American military policy.MC

I wouldn't be too sure.Psalm 83"O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! For behold, your enemies make an uproar; those who hate you have raised their heads. They lay crafty plans against your people; they consult together against your treasured ones. They say, "Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!" For they conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant-- the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites, Gebal and Ammon and Amalek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Asshur also has joined them; they are the strong arm of the children of Lot. Selah. Do to them as you did to Midian, as to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who were destroyed at En-dor, who became dung for the ground. Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna, who said, "Let us take possession for ourselves of the pastures of God." O my God, make them like whirling dust, like chaff before the wind. As fire consumes the forest, as the flame sets the mountains ablaze, so may you pursue them with your tempest and terrify them with your hurricane!Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O LORD. Let them be put to shame and dismayed forever; let them perish in disgrace, that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth."I recently spoke with a Canadian muslim and in the conversation he said, "I don't hate Jews... I hate Israelis. They should all be killed." And he was dead serious. Don't be deceived.In Christ,-Eli

I recently spoke with a Canadian muslim and in the conversation he said, "I don't hate Jews... I hate Israelis. They should all be killed." And he was dead serious. Don't be deceived.This was the point that I was making. In one sense Islam's quarrel is not with Judaism as a religion but with the Israeli nation state and its aspirations. The problem is that Isreali-ness and Islam are both nations which have 'territory' at their heart. The Muslim cannot technically concede territory. If an area which has been Muslim is conquered the whole Muslim world is under a debt to 'liberate it'. This is the dilema over Iraq. The current Iraq situation is the Palestine-Israel scenario all over again. I am not blaming the politicians in this, I am just trying to understand an entirely different mind-set. There are Israeli's of course who have the same problem that 'religiously; they cannot 'concede' territory. To do so is 'sin'. The dilema is that for the Muslim to leave the territory which was once Muslim under non-Muslim control is also 'sin'.Your Canadian Muslim was stating a doctrinal truism for Islam, as I understand it. The quarrel is not with Judaism but with Zionist-Israelis. I am not passing judgement here either, just trying to understand what is happening.As regards, MC's comment, I am often distressed at the way the media are constantly on the hunt for 'breaking news'; the more outrageous the better. The consequence is that inflammatory interpretations are put on statements because it is more interesting news when a confrontation is scented. I grow increasing suspicious of government 'spin'. Every new detail is scanned as another prospective missile in the conflict. MC, I do share an underlying anxiety that those who say 'something must be done' may decide that they are the ones to do it.

Verrrrrrrrry interesting.. Can anyone here document a single case when the islamic world petitioned the UN to "politically" wipe Isreal off the earth?????????Things are really getting wierd here. Greg :-(

Not getting weird- do you guys know the history of Islam? It's a religion founded in blood. A good example- you know the little red caps that shriners wear? They're called fezzes. Well, fezzes were created when muslims sacked the city of fez, slaughtering christians until the streets ran red with blood. The participating muslims dipped their hats in the blood to wear as a badge of honor, called a fez.The whole reason that we are at war right now is beacuse of the muslim "jihad", or battle against "evil", namely, those who aren't muslim, or who don't live, eat, and dress like middle eastern culture would warrant.I don't mean to sound bitter, but I guess I am. Frankly, it's a disgusting relition that detracts from the glory of the Lord. So many are deceived, and willing to die for a false hope.Something to pray about.Grace and Peace...

In the interests of historical accuracy all Arab states opposed the petition of Palestine in 1947. There is an interesting and informative article here. This is the record of the original voting.The 33 countries that voted in favor of UN Resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela.The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.The ten countries that abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

I was listening to the Brother Andrew sermons on this site (link) and this quote jumped out at me concerning the Russians rolling through Poland: "If we do not go to the heathen with the Gospel they will come to us, as occupation armies." I'm compelled to post it, but I don't fully understand the implications of saying such a thing in a thread about Islam. All I know is that many devoutly religious people are living under a large burden of legalistic guilt and they are craving a freedom only the Gospel can bring. At what lengths will God go to make sure that those who seek Him will find Him? Is the only way to prevent a physical war to do a preemptive spiritual stike?

I don't think that's right, Neil.Paul says that when the Jews rejected Christ, essentially rejected God, the message was given to the world. Those who accept Christ are the 'New Israel'. It's not about heredity, but about being 'Christ's family'.Grace and Peace...

I know what you are saying, Neil, and I agree with you.Hi Frog,Scripture nowhere does say that we are the new Israel. In fact, we are the grafted branches and in the end the Lord will restore Israel and we will all be one people under God.-Eli

Hey, Eli.I'll have to look around, and try to find the scripture that that may come from. The way I understood it, is that if you read on, it talks about how well the natural branches can be grafted back on. Basically, the root of Christianity is in the Old Covenant, and those who follow Christ are those branches. Now, Israel has the history, and would fit well with the roots, but they rejected Christ, which is why the message was given to "all men". Now God's "family" is not in family lineage, or a country, but those who follow him.Again, I'll look up some of the supporting scripture, but tell me what you think.Grace and Peace...

bro Groh_frogthis is from the Letter to the Romans which you mentioned in your last response. again this is using the KJV which which is well accepted by many. 1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias F40? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded F41 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, F42 eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing F43 of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, F44 and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness F45 in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as ye in times past have not believed F46 God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, F47 that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded F48 them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.Paul says in vs 5 that there is a remnant which will be saved according to grace which is among the Jews. and then he says that the salvation by grace is available to the Jews and some took hold of it while the rest were blinded. Paul preaches the gospel to the Gentiles that they may accept it and the glory of God may be made manifest so that the Jews may be "provoked to jealousy" so as to seek after this salvation by grace through Christ and not by works. Then Paul says that we gentiles are the branches which have been grafted into the tree because some of the original branches were cut off. We are grafted in because we believe in the saving work of Christ He also says that WE BE NOT HIGH-MINDED BUT BE AFRAID because if God didn't spare the natural branches, HE CERTAINLY WILL NOT spare us if we don't hold onto the belief of salvation through Christ.(vs 17-22)Also Paul says that if even the wild branches were grafted in, how much more then will the natural ones be grafted in? (vs 24) And in verse 25 Paul explains why the Jews have been blinded, so that the full number of gentiles may be saved. the He says that ALL Israel will be saved. So this means that we as gentiles are NOT the "new Israel" we are not Jews descended from Isaac who begat Jacob who then was named Israel. Now all Israel here doesn't mean every Jew, but rather every Jew who takes Jesus to be the messiah and accepts the offer of salvation by Christ for Christ said in John 14 vs 6: 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by meWhich means that whosoever doesn't believe in the salvation of Christ will not get to the father but will go to hell. Just as surely as there will be representatives of every tongue tribe and nation in heaven, so shall it be in hell also.Israel has always been God's chosen nation, His very bride, we as gentiles are the church, Christ's bride. we aren't Israel and this portin of the letter to the Romans proves that. let us listen to the word of God as given to Paul and not boast or be highminded because the rejection of Christ by the Jews is for our own sake that we may obtain salvation also keeping in mind that if God didn't spare the natural branches, He certainly will not spare a wild one...

don't know what to make of your writing except to say that anti-Zionism seems to be hereditary in the UK....."oh no, we're not against the Jewish people, we're just against Zionism".I had thought we might have a rational discussion on the matter, but it obviously isn't going to happen, so I'll leave you to carry on this particluar thread without me.

Neil, re-wrote this I don't know how many times. And all I could come up with was more of an almost similar smugness which out to tell us both something...No, you're probably correct in your assessment, rational discussion is not possible when a feller believes that his world view is rooted in Scripture. Would suggest you re-read your comments and Rons again, note that he does mention a couple of times what he is seeking to understand and what he is not saying, leave the presumptions behind. A rational discussion is possible if the slights and quips can be left out of it.

I guess I'm one of those who believes that reclaiming the Land is totally Scriptural, and that there is a divine mandate, edict to take the borders of Israel right up to the River.Neilgin1, which scriptures are these?Are you talking about the Mosiac covenant?i.e. the Old Covenant?i.e. the Covenant that had to be "taken away" (killed, put to death etc.) so that the New Covenant of Christ's blood could be established?