|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 350 of 604:
| 
May 7 00:02 UTC 2002 |
"I wonder what % of Germans were in favor of eradicating the Jews from
Germany"
I wonder if Jews were attacking innocent Germans.
|
jp2
|
|
response 351 of 604:
|
May 7 00:23 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
aaron
|
|
response 352 of 604:
|
May 7 04:54 UTC 2002 |
Did anybody else notice that Leeron has failed to produce a source for
his lie about a ten-year-old suicide bomber?
|
gull
|
|
response 353 of 604:
|
May 7 12:52 UTC 2002 |
Give it up, you're not going to get one.
|
lk
|
|
response 354 of 604:
|
May 7 17:18 UTC 2002 |
Marcus, do you understand that Jews were living where many of those
"settlements" are prior to the Arab ethnic cleansing of 1948? Why are
you trying to enshrine this ethnic cleansing as a fait accompli, even
if it only held for 19 years -- and was undone 35 years ago?
Aaron still flaunting his red herrings (glad David is entertained).
I've already quoted Arab sources describing children in Jenin filling
up their school packs with explosives.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 355 of 604:
|
May 7 17:24 UTC 2002 |
The point is, to give the Palestinians a contiguous, secure, state, to
the extent possible, which is exactly what Israel desires also. Most if
not all of those settlements have to be abandoned in order to do that.
I suspect that Muslims were once living in many parts of what is
now Israel, at some time. I don't think the arguments about who was
living where when have much pentinence now, when the object is to
establish two, independent, secure nations without inholdings within
each other (apart from the problem of the separation between Palestine
proper and the Gaza Strip).
|
lk
|
|
response 356 of 604:
|
May 7 19:18 UTC 2002 |
Rane, you are partially right. Iif you look at item 125, you'll find that
Israel agreed to the Clinton plan to withdraw from a net of 97% of the
"West Bank". Those 3 "settlement" blocs include the majority of the
"settlers" and such a withdrawal would have enabled the creation of a
contiguous and secure Arab state.
But do the "settlements" need to be abandoned or should they be transferred
to the control of the new State? What you are basically advocating is the
two state solution, but why should the Arab state be Judenrein?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 357 of 604:
|
May 7 19:34 UTC 2002 |
It shouldn't be, any more than Israel is Arabrein. But those settlements
were imposed upon the territory that will be Palestine. Nothing smiliar
was imposed upon Israel. It is necessary to clear the air so that choices
are freely and democratically made. This requires compromising on the
major "sore points". Would Arabs be free to move into the former Jewish
settlements if any remained, freely and without resistance? If not,
they don't belong.
|
mdw
|
|
response 358 of 604:
|
May 7 21:04 UTC 2002 |
I'm almost certain those Muslims *DID NOT EXIST* -- most of them were
born since then, and indeed they've had a rather large population
increase. The Israelis, for their part, have not had such a large
population increase, but they have still increased quite a bit. I
suspect most of the Israelis today are descendents of "boat people" from
Europe and don't actually have any fair claim to "thousands of years of
residency". Arguing historic roots for either side just does not make
sense.
|
lk
|
|
response 359 of 604:
|
May 8 02:05 UTC 2002 |
Rane, the "settlements" are no more an imposition than the creation of
Arab villages in Israel bewteen the world wars. (Consider so-called
"Arab east Jerusalem" -- prior to Jewish pioneers going outside the
city walls in the late 19th century, no one was living there. Jewish
neighborhoods and Arab neighborhoods grew, but in 1948 the Jews were
expelled (58 synagogues were destroyed in "Arab east Jerusalem" alone).
So for 19 years eastern Jerusalem was Judenrein, but this has not been
the case for the past 35 years. Why should we go back in time to 1967
but not 1968? To 1949 but not 1948?
Marcus:
> I suspect most of the Israelis today are descendents of "boat people"
> from Europe
Guess again. The majority of Israeli Jews are not from Europe/Russia/USA.
|
mdw
|
|
response 360 of 604:
|
May 8 06:24 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps "boat people" isn't precise enough. But I haven't any idea what
Leeron means. So I'll be more precise: in 1948: israel had a population
of 800,000: this was 80% ashkenazim, which means they originated in
franco-germany, and came to israel in late 18th and early 19th
centuries. In 1949, the largest # of immigrants came: 240,000, pushing
the population count over 1 million. In 1948: only 35.4% could claim to
be "native born". That rose to just 37.8% in mid 1961, and recently
(2000?) was just under 61%. At end of 1997: going by birthplace of
father: 40% were of european-american origin, 15% asian origin, 18%
african origin, and 27% born in israel to israel born fathers. "Boat"
people is a slight exaguration; I presume most recent immigrants flew
in, and in any case, they tend to be very well educated. All these
statistics come from Israeli web pages.
Basically, the majority of Israel is 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants;
and of that, over 50% are of american/european origin. The number of
Israeli jews who can truely claim that all their ancestors have "always"
lived in "Israel" since antiquity must be very small. Israel *is* an
immigrant society, and I think few in Israel would dispute that.
|
keesan
|
|
response 361 of 604:
|
May 8 16:07 UTC 2002 |
These 'boat people' are, or at least some of them are, descendants of refugees
from the Roman persecutions. When Western Europe started expelling its Jews
a few hundred years before Spain did, they became refugees in German speaking
areas (and picked up Yiddish) and then when they had to leave Germany they
went farther east to Poland/Latvia/Russia but continued speaking Yiddish (I
think it is based on South German or High German dialects). So their
descendants have roughly the same status as the 10 million or so descendants
of the original 1 million or so Palestinian refugees. You can argue past
history in support of either side. What is needed is some way to make things
work in the present, without leading to more warfare later.
It is not clear to me what route the Jews followed from the eastern
Mediterranean to England and France.
|
lk
|
|
response 362 of 604:
|
May 8 22:12 UTC 2002 |
Sindi, the original estimate of Arab refugees (by the UN Mediator) was
under 500,000. Also recall that many of these Arabs were recent arrivals
(the definition of a refugee was an Arab who had lived in Mandate Palestine
for a mere 2 years. I believe the threshhold was initially going to be 5
or 10 years but the Arab states -- wanting as many people as possible to
qualify for international assistance -- insisted on the lower figure).
Those who had lived in Mandate Palestine for less than 2 years went back
to their country of origin and lived normal lives. The refugees, on the
other hand, were gathered into camps by the Arab governments. They have
been and continue to be denied the basic rights of all other refugees,
the right to education, work, relocaton and resettlement/naturalization.
My point is that Jews never stopped living in "Palestine". It has been
the one and only Jewish homeland for 3000+ years. Yes, over much of the
past 2000 years it has been under foreign occupation: Roman, Byzantine,
Persian, Arab, Seljuk, Crusader, Mamluk, Mongol, Ottoman Turks and British
(among others). When each of these foreign occupiers came, Jews were
present. When each of these foreign occupiers left, Jews remained present.
Marcus, shortly after the 1948 war, 800,000 Jews from Arab countries were
expelled and came to Israel. Since that time Sephardic (eastern) Jews have
been the majority and Ashkenazim (European) Jews have been the minority.
According to the 2001 CIA World Factbook, the net migration rate is 2.85
migrants per 1000 people -- 0.285%. (For comparison, the US migration
rate is 3.5 or 0.35%.)
|
klg
|
|
response 363 of 604:
|
May 9 00:26 UTC 2002 |
re: "this was 80% ashkenazim, which means they originated in
franco-germany," It was my understanding that the Jews of
France are Sephardim.
|
keesan
|
|
response 364 of 604:
|
May 9 01:04 UTC 2002 |
The obvious solution would be to send all the Israeli Jews back to live in
the Arab countries from which they were expelled, in concentration camps
(refugee camps), and to let all the Arabs in the refugee camps move to Israel,
and everyone would get along just dandy.
|
mdw
|
|
response 365 of 604:
|
May 9 01:46 UTC 2002 |
My point is the # of those "Jews living in Palestine" is a very tiny
fraction of those living in Israel today, and the rest of those jews
have no more "historic" right than many of the Arabs you speak of.
There *are* arabs living in the area with very ancient roots as well,
perhaps just as ancient as the jews. If you are arguing historic roots,
you should certainly be in favor of giving those ancient arabs rights
over immigrant jews -- are you willing to make that argument?
Even arguing that jews have been in "continuous" residence in
"Palestine" is somewhat stretching the point. There have been
innumerable wars in the areas, and equally innumerable floods of
refugees, slaves, & what not. The bible records the removal of "all"
jews to Egypt--perhaps a few were left behind that weren't recorded.
Then there is the Babylonian captivity, during which Jerusalem was
apparently evacuated, and from that time continuously forward, there are
jews living elsewhere. After that we have the Roman occupation and
Titus Flavius, during which again Jerusalem was evacuated. Even in
other periods, when Jews were nominally "in residence", they certainly
weren't "in charge" of things -- in the medieval period, Jerusalem was
mostly under Moslem control, with periodic interruptions caused by the
crusades. The center of the jewish world in the medieval period was
definitely europe.
The destruction of the temple by the romans ca. 70 ad marked the
beginning of the end for classical judaism, by 400 ad, palestine seems
to have become very much a back water. In fact, what happened then is
very much more complicated: judaism split into two branches or sects.
One branch became Christianity. The other branch became "Rabbinic
Judaism". *Both* branches dropped animal sacrifice, so if you want to
go by purely historic standards, there *are* no Jews left today,
*everyone* is a heretic. If you want to argue historic evolution, then
you should grant christianity equal rights to palestine.
Rabbinic judaism went on to split into 2 more branches: sephardic and
ashkenazic. The sephardic branch started out in spain. Both branches,
incidently, have their own separate chief rabbi in Jeursalem today.
When Spain managed to push the moors out, they also took the opportunity
to get rid of those nasty inconvenient jews, in 1492 as it happens.
Sephardic jews today are mainly those from arab lands -- so it is not a
contradiction in terms to talk of jewish arabs.
The ashkenazic jews were at first a small branch in france/germany. As
a result of improved living conditions, decreased mortality, etc., they
eventually became the majority of jews, and despite the effects of WW2,
are still the majority. In the 18th and 19th centuries, 2 important
movements happened in Judaims. In the 18th century, it was the Haskala,
or jewish enlignment: this was a move away from messianic beliefs,
towards personal and national fulfillment. One phrase from this
movement, "Russian by nationality, Jews by religion". This became the
jewish religious reform movement. Conservative judaism had its start in
germany 1845+. It came to traditional conclusions about observance.
I haven't found any good information about Jews in palestine during the
middle ages. I found one map that had a small square marked out for
them, but it's not clear to me if this really meant anything. As a
practical matter, Palestine was certainly under Moslem control over much
of this period. From 1517 to 1918, Palestine was definitely under the
control of the Ottoman turks. Local control was pretty much in the
hands of "Palestinian arabs", who supposedly granted considerable local
autonomy to other groups, presuambly such as the druze, christians, and
jews. In 1880, at basically the close of this era, Arab Palestinians
constituted about 95% of a total population of around 450,000. Here is
a map which claims to show arab, "mixed", and one pure jewish
settlement, from 1878:
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/first_zionist_colony.htm
Here are some web sites with timelines and maps:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/maps/palestine.htm
http://www.palestinehistory.com/palst.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/durham/224/bcad.html
http://members.tripod.com/~khaleelee/timeline.html
|
mdw
|
|
response 366 of 604:
|
May 9 01:50 UTC 2002 |
(France had both kinds of jews: sephardic in provence, and ashkenazic in
the northern part. They might have started fighting each other if the
french hadn't started to pick on both groups first.)
|
lk
|
|
response 367 of 604:
|
May 9 06:42 UTC 2002 |
Sindi:
I'm not sure I understand your solution. Would you also suggest that Israeli
Jews be sent back to nazi concentration camps, too?
Marcus:
> There *are* arabs living in the area with very ancient roots as well,
> perhaps just as ancient as the jews.
I guess that depends on how you define "ancient". If you mean a few hundred
years, then yes. If you mean a few THOUSAND years, then no.
> If you are arguing historic roots, you should certainly be in
> favor of giving those ancient arabs rights over immigrant jews
Where have I argued for the denial of rights to Arabs? 20% of Israel's
population is Arab. They have been full citizens, with all the rights afforded
therein, since 1952 (3 years after the end of the first Arab war intended to
destroy Israel).
When Jews "settle" on Jewish land in Judea, how does this disenfranchise Arabs?
> I haven't found any good information about Jews in palestine during the
> middle ages.
As for you historic expose, I'll note that 5 out of 5 sites you reference are
Palestinian Arab sites. If you can corroborate those myths with neutral
sources, I'll spend the time to refute them in greater detail. But for a few
pointers:
> The center of the jewish world in the medieval period was definitely europe.
1) No, the center of the Jewish world was Jerusalem. There were certainly
large Jewish communities in various parts of Europe, but where? Spain in the
Andalusian period? Poland in the 18th century? Germany in the 19th? What kind
of "center" is that? Would you similarly argue that the center of Catholicism
is in South America? Yes, there was much Jewish scholarship in Europe, but
there was also Jewish scholarship in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel).
The Jerusalem Talmud was redacted in the 6th century CE and the very
compendium of Jewish law followed by Ashkenazim (European Jewry) was written
by Rabbi Yosef Karo in Safed in the 16th century (see "Shulchan Aruch").
No, the sites you referenced wouldn't have mentioned that.
2) When I say Jews have inhabited the region CONTINUOUSLY for 3300-4000 years,
that is an historic fact. Every potential exception you point out is
incorrect: there's no scientific record of the Egyptian captivity, but even
if there were, Exodus would have been around 3300 years ago and thus defines
my lower limit. If the Hebrews instead are the Habiru/Apiru, then 4000 might
be a low estimate. During the Babylonian captivity, Jews continued to live
in Judea. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, MILLIONS of Jews
continued to live in Judea (Roman records record half a million [soldiers?]
killed in the Bar Kochva rebellion of the 2nd century). Yes, there were a few
short periods were Jews were not allowed in Jerusalem, but Jews lived
elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael.
3) Yes, it was a backwater ruled by FOREIGN empires, including Muslims. So
what? When Saladin (A non-Arab, Kurdish, Muslim) repelled the Crusaders, did
he build a new state? No. His purpose was to drive out the other foreigners.
(Consider that Arafat likes to think of himself as a modern-day Saladin,
intent on destroying Israel rather than building a state!)
4) Perhaps if you researched non-Arab sites, you'd learn about the 50 Jewish
communities known to historians and archeologists in the 11th century, or the
printing press in Safed in the 16th century (Safed's population neared 30,000
in this period -- roughly half of the entire population of mid-19th century
"Palestine").
If you look at your argument, it is self-defeating. You have basically
chronicled how for 2000 years Jews have been at the whims of
Pagan/Christian/Muslim masters of their land. One foreign invader after
another. Not once did any other nation lay claim to the land other than as
part of their dominion. Not once was the area ruled locally (even into the
mid-20th century, Arabs identified themselves as "Syrian", not "Palestinian").
Quite frankly, it is surprising that any Jews at all managed to survive this
ordeal. (In fact, around 1900 conditions became so severe that roughly 1/3rd
of all Jews emigrated. Research the concept of Jews appealing to European
powers for "protection" in the mid-to-late 19th century). Yet the Jews did
survive, precisely because Zion was central to their beliefs and lives.
|
mdw
|
|
response 368 of 604:
|
May 9 09:47 UTC 2002 |
The "palestinian arabs" claim roots going back to the canaanites.
The moslems originally "invaded" in 517 ad; if they displaced
the previous residents, that still puts them at 1500 years, over
5 times Leeron's timeline. They probably actually intermarried
and may never have been a majority; relying on conversion rather
than displacement -- which would seem to give their modern descendents
every bit as much of a claim on the land as anyone else.
If you're willing to argue that "a few hundred years" does not count--
are you arguing all US residents should give up our land in favor
of the american indians? It's the same argument.
Interesting that you should use that word Judea and "Jewish" land.
That land has been claimed by the egyptians, the phillistines, the romans,
the greeks, the persians, the turks, the british, and probably the french.
Why not call it "Egyptian" land? Or "Christian" land? In the 19th century,
most of the people in what you claim to be "Jewish" judea were not "jewish".
Or are you arguing they don't exist? Here are some "christian"
sites arguing about that word Palestinian, & more maps/history:
http://www.ifa-usapray.org/Understanding_Palestinian_Terrorism/What
%20is%20the%20Origin%20of%20the%20Name%20Palestine.html
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN600NTWORLD.htm
Personally, I think these sites to be less "scholarly" and more
obviously biased than the "palestinian" sites.
I found *no* israel sites talking about medieval palestine and
population composition. Modern israel history goes back to 1948, and
stops there. So far as I can tell, the Israelis have no interest
documenting the existance of Palestinian Arabs in Israel, except as a
distinct minority in modern Israel--token diversity. If you want to
argue with my palestian sources, show how their numbers, dates, and
places are wrong. Besides, how can you call these "Palestinian"? You've
already argued they have no national existance, and I think you've taken
issue with the use of the label.
One of the sites I visited (but didn't bother to mention because I thought
it irrelevant detail) actually mentioned the Jerusalem Talmud. It also
mentioned the Babylonian Talmud, and claimed that this *other* work is
what actually became the center of much of jewish work. Babylon would
appear to be the center of Jewish culture going by your talmud
evidence. Both these works were originated early -- mainly before the
medieval period and moslems. [redact is the edit process, in this
case, reducing orally transmitted material to a standard written form.
Most of the material is creditted to people 200-450 ad.]
original site: http://www.comcen.com.au/~arain/Jew.htm
another site: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudMap/Gemara.html
I probably should have referenced the original site; it has a Very
nice timeline of jews, where they were, and what they were doing
through medieval times. The timeline makes it pretty clear that
between about 400 ad & 1850, jerusalem was of mainly historic importance
in jewish culture -- all the interesting people and events happened
elsewhere.
You claim in point 4 that the "entire" population of Palestine in mid 19th
century was "roughly" 60,000. My (admittedly palestinian source)
claims Palestine in 1880 had 450,000, 95% "Palestinian". There's a
real difference in numbers there between your numbers and mine. If you
want to play the scholarship game, you need to provide some reference,
define what you mean by "Palestine" in your population claim, and if
you want me to respect you in the morning, your area had better not
turn out to look like raisin bread, or include something less
than the "total" population.
I'll provide two additional supporting references for mine.
Neither mention 1880, but both years not long after, counts,
describe what the numbers mean, and from where the data came,
the former also mentions years before,
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story559.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/mandate.html
The numbers are consistent enough with 450,000 that I don't see
a reason to disbelieve them. Your 60K count might be consistent
with a count of *just* jews, but that's not the entire population,
now is it?
|
keesan
|
|
response 369 of 604:
|
May 9 13:04 UTC 2002 |
Spanish Jews moved to Italy, Greece, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria,
and Turkey. Most of these (not Italy or Croatia) were under Turkish rule
starting around the time the Christians captured Spain. The Turks tolerated
other religions - they just taxed them higher as incentive to convert.
The Nazis changed this picture significantly (esp. Salonica).
I was not seriously suggesting putting everyone in refugee camps, just
pointing out that you cannot decide to 'restore' a country to its ethnic
composition at any one time in history. This makes as much sense as restoring
a house to its historical appearance, when it has been altered over the
centuries. Do you remove the 90% of it added since it was built? Maybe for
museum, but in real life it is adapted to fit the people expected to live in
it NOW. So we have a bunch of people who need a place to live, in what was
at one time Jewish land, and at another time Turkish land, etc. Where do you
put them all and how do you make the house work? What if there is only one
kitchen, which is built on holy land, and they all believe that they can only
cook on holy land, therefore need to share it?
|
lk
|
|
response 370 of 604:
|
May 10 09:35 UTC 2002 |
Sindi, the people living in Israel "NOW" are the Jews. 98% of the Arabs in
the disputed territories live on 42% of that land. Nearly 200,000 Jews NOW
live in villages in the other 58%, most of them on as little as 5%.
So should a compromise be reached based on current demographics? Should we
retain the status quo since 1969 or return to 1967? Should we restore the
status quo of 1949 (after the Jews were ethnically cleansed of all areas
conquered by foreign Arab armies) or go back to 1947 (when Jews lived in Gaza
and in Judea & Samaria -- before it became Jordan's "West Bank")?
Marcus, perhaps you should pick up a serious book rather than
parrot Palestinian propaganda sites:
> The "palestinian arabs" claim roots going back to the canaanites.
> The moslems originally "invaded" in 517 ad; if they displaced
Islam didn't even exist in 517 AD (CE). The Muslim/Arab invasion
was in 638 AD. By this time the Canaanites had long ago been
assimilated into the Hebrew population. The very suggestion that
the Canaanites waited 1500 years for the Arab invasion and then
assimilated in a matter of a few centuries is humorous.
Most of the Arabs in Israel today date from the Ottoman era. On the Nightline
forum there is a Palestinian Arab who claims he can trace his ancestry back
to Ramallah in the 16th century. That's when Ramallah was founded by Arabs
who came there from what is today Jordan or Iraq.
As recounted by the 1911 Britannica, different Arab communities were
discernable in "Palestine". Druze, Egyptian, Bedouin, Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi
-- as well as non Arabs such as Afghanis and Armenians.
> If you're willing to argue that "a few hundred years" does not count
I haven't. It's you who can't seem to decide if current ownership trumps
historic ownership. It's you who wishes to go back in time to 1949 but not
1948. Why? If Jews should relinquish territory (which was legally PURCHASED)
because it was previously owned by Arabs, why shouldn't those Arabs (who did
not purchase the land) in turn relinquish it to the Jews who have a prior
claim?
> Interesting that you should use that word Judea and "Jewish" land.
> That land has been claimed by the egyptians, the phillistines, the romans,
> the greeks, the persians, the turks, the british, and probably the french.
So does that make Paris "German land" because it was conquered by the nazis?
Each of the conquerors you list were FOREIGN invaders.
ONLY the Jews constituted a local government.
(As one of the sites you reference says, the name "Philistine" may derive from
the Semitic root "PLSh", meaning "invader".)
More specifically, we were talking about specific Jewish villages
("settlements") in what for 3000 years has been known as Judea and Samaria
(but for a brief 19 years, was known as the "West Bank" -- of
Transjordanian/eastern Palestine. The west bank of the east bank). These
villages are situated on lands that have NEVER been owned by Arabs or which
were legally purchased. Why do you have such a problem with JEWS living in
JUDEA?
> I think these sites to be less "scholarly" and more obviously
> biased than the "palestinian" sites.
Can you share with us what you found to be "biased" on these sites?
Is it really the case that the most "scholarly" and least biased sites
you have found are those by Arab groups?
> If you want to argue with my palestian sources, show how their numbers,
> dates, and places are wrong.
> Neither [sites] mention 1880, but both years not long after
Sorry, but the 1922 census you cite is long after 1880.
There's a good reason you won't find Arab sources talking about the size of
the population prior to 1880. But I've already hinted at that in this item
and discussed it at much greater length in Winter item 20 (resp. 344-347).
(Hint: consider that in 1922 Transjordan was still part of Palestine and
its population was exclusively Arab. As for any claims to a prior census,
recall that there was no such geographic entity as "Palestine" under the
Ottoman empire and that the fertile and populous regions of southern Lebanon
were included in Turkish "Sanjaks" that were part of "historic Palestine".
Would you include the population of Chicago in an 1800 "census" of
(not-yet-defined) Wisconsin because both were part of the Northwest territory
at the time?
> One of the sites I visited (but didn't bother to mention because I thought
> it irrelevant detail) actually mentioned the Jerusalem Talmud. It also
> mentioned the Babylonian Talmud, and claimed that this *other* work is
> what actually became the center of much of jewish work. Babylon would
> appear to be the center of Jewish culture going by your talmud evidence.
Hardly. But let me phrase this as a question. By what "evidence" did you
claim that Europe was the center of Jewish culture in the middle ages?
Isn't "Europe" rather nebulous for a "center"? Perhaps there was no center
because the Jews were frequently forced to migrate from one host country
to another? Yet what united them, both in east and west (throughout Europe),
was that they considered their center to be Zion.
Perhaps you've forgotten that the reason I raised these major accomplishments
in Palestine was because not only did you neglect to mention them, you stated
that:
> I haven't found any good information about Jews in palestine during the
> middle ages.
So the information you did find you suppressed?
> I found *no* israel sites talking about medieval palestine
I find it hard to believe that your are challenged by search engines.
Perhaps then you should visit a library?
> Israelis have no interest documenting the existance of Palestinian Arabs
> in Israel, except as a distinct minority in modern Israel--token diversity.
Marcus, Israel is one of the most diverse places on this earth. How dare you
speak of "token diversity"? Yes, Arabs are a minority. So what? (For the
record, Israel's Arab population was granted full citizenship in 1952, 3 years
after the war and a decade before the start of the Civil Rights movement in
the US.)
> how can you call these "Palestinian"? You've already argued they have no
national existance
I have presented arguments by Arabs from the first half of the 20th century
arguing that "Palestine" was a European/Jewish invention; that the resident
Arabs identified as "Syrian" since the land was "Syria". There is a group of
people who today identifies as "Palestinian" and I don't deny that. But what
defines this otherwise nebulous group was that these were Arabs (of various
backgrounds) who became refugees in a war started by Arab states bent on
destroying the newly founded state of Israel. It's not even the group of Arabs
who lived in Mandate Palestine -- are the Bedouins or Druze considered
"Palestinian" today? Are the Israeli Arabs considered "Palestinian"?
> I think you've taken issue with the use of the label.
The term has been co-opted. Prior to 1948, my parents were "Palestinian" (says
so on various papers). Does that make me a Palestinian, too? Primarily it was
the Jews in the Mandate who were known as Palestinians, the Arabs were called
Arabs. The Arabs were represented by the Arab High Committee. In 1936 it was
the Arab, not the Palestinian, riots. The Palestine Brigade and the Palestine
Post were Jewish organizations. Analogies are difficult, but imagine if a
group of Canadians settled in the "midwest" over the course of a few hundred
years and then called themselves Midwesterners, as if they were the indigenous
population and not Canadians....
Tell, me, why wasn't an independent Palestinian Arab state established in
1947/48 (in accordance with the UN compromise)? Why not between 1949-1967 --
when the disputed territories were held by Arab states? Why was it that
Transjordan "unified" itself with the West Bank and (since it was no longer
just Transjordanian/eastern Palestine) renamed itself Jordan?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 371 of 604:
|
May 10 13:47 UTC 2002 |
the canaanites were *assimilated*?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 372 of 604:
|
May 10 13:48 UTC 2002 |
that's an interesting word
for genocide. 8D
|
lk
|
|
response 373 of 604:
|
May 10 18:53 UTC 2002 |
Puleeze. From an Arab web-site that claims that the Temple was not in
Jerusalem, we get this:
King David came and defeated the Philistines just after the beginning
of the first millennium BC and the entire Hebrews, Philistines, and
Canaanites were eventually assimilated.
http://www.hebron.com/palestine.html
Here's another account:
12. the Israelite conquest of Canaan took several centuries, in part
by conquest, and in part by assimilation, but by the eleventh century
B.C., the whole region was unified in a loose confederation of tribes
claiming common ancestry and common worship.
http://www.drhistory.org/chapter4/index2.html
The funny thing is that we have two competing and contradictory claims
countering my own:
Marcus contends (or at least paraphrased an Arab source claiming) that
the "Palestinians" are descendents of the Canaanites. Yet Happyboy is
saying that they were wiped out by the Israelites. Both cannot be right.
Is there any archological record of the Canaanites or the Philistines, as
a separate body from the Israelites, from between 900 BCE and 600 CE?
Is there any such mention in the New Testament, sources written in the
first centuries?
Perhaps the truth is that the Canaanites were abducted by aliens and then
reappeared in the late 19th century as the Palestinian Arabs?
|
lk
|
|
response 374 of 604:
|
May 11 01:55 UTC 2002 |
Wups, minor correction: The Philistines didn't fade away until around
700 BCE, but still around 1300 years prior to the arrival of Arabs.
Marcus may say:
> So far as I can tell, the Israelis have no interest documenting the
> existance of Palestinian Arabs in Israel.
But that just seems to corroborate that either he's not looking or he
really does know that there is no connection between the Philistines
of old and the Palestinians of today:
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/archaeology/Article-4.
htm
l
Since "Palestinian" is a ~20th century concept, it's not surprising that
archeologists don't have a great interest. But for excavations from the
Arab period, see:
http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00vd0
http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dot0
http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0g6y0
http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ie40
|