News-Record.com

It seems to me that the manner in which one does something inevitable affects long-term consequences. Zionists were determined to have a State of Israel, no matter what, in any way necessary. When you displace an indiginous population for your own purposes, you can't expect them to be happy about it - or not take all measures needed to regain their land. This has been the on-going dilemma, and does not show signs of abating any time soon.

Perhaps the anti-zionists were correct and Turman was wrong. There is still a segment of the Jewish community that opposes the Zionist MO. They argue that only the future Messiah can re-acquire the land in the correct prophetic time and manner; that the current State is out of God's sequence - hence the violence and turmoil.

Christian dispensationalists are committed to the State of Israel simply because it fits their escahtology (rapture/7-year tribulation/ return of Christ) - which, unfortunately for them, is a gross misinterpretation of the texts. This has not only led to MANY false dates being set for the rapture, but a blanket support for anything Israel does.

Those, however, who believe that Israel lost its claim to OT covenant privilege, and the land, when they rejected Yeshua as Messiah and reaped the judgment of God in 70 A.D., feel otherwise, and are more in sync with the anti-zionist Jews than the current Israeli State.

I am more inclined toward the latter view, but DO wonder if perhaps God was in the establishment of the modern State for purposes of redemption through Yeshua and the Gospel, but NOT as an affirmation of Yeshua-rejecting Judaism. He obviously has preserved them so far, and perhaps will into the future. Time will reveal His ultimate plan.