Mairav Zonszein reports at +972:
According to a report in Israel National News, the commander of Israel Army Radio, the national radio station in Israel operated by the Israel Defense Forces, has determined that all the station’s reporters should refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.” The report states the decision was made as a result of complaints made by Israel Media Watch that the radio station’s referral to the area as the “West Bank” gives the impression to listeners that the territory does not in fact belong to Israel.
Even Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon refers to the area as “the West Bank” in his famous “hasbara” (PR) video explaining why the land is in fact not occupied – but I am all for calling the area “Judea and Samaria.” Since Israel looks like a theocracy and acts like a theocracy, it might as well talk like one too.
I shot the picture below in Gaza two years ago-- a common feature of rubbish bins after the Israeli onslaught of '08-'09, a star of David scratched on to the sides of them. I believe it's anti-Semitic, and god knows it made me upset. But then isn't such a response the natural result of Jewish colonists appropriating religious symbols as they take your land?
Rubbish bin
When will American Jews waken to the threat that this type of rhetoric represents to our position in diverse societies? I don't like Islamist radicalism, I think it's a real issue. But this army radio language is the Jewish equivalent. And it's what Ambassador Howard Gutman was saying when he said that some of Israel's actions contribute to anti-Semitism.
Its another way of saying “a land without a people,” and pretty much the last thing any Jew with a sense of history should be participating in.
it is all a matter of using language to falsely frame an issue; it’s like using the terms “Settlers” and “Settlements”, as if the Palestinian lands are an unoccupied prairie and moving onto the land is a matter of a manifest destiny, rather than an illegal occupation and stealing of someone else’s land.
Israel descends into the abyss of religious extremism, guided and driven by its politicians and its Israel Destruction Forces. Israel = Iran.
Iran has Rumi and Hafiz. Israel has who?
Hi Philip,
Q: …some of Israel’s actions contribute to anti-Semitism.
R: Perhaps you’re a bit PC here? Over the past three decades almost all of Israel’s actions have made me look [and feel] like a complete idiot and one who cannot defend its idiosyncratic nature to boot.
thank you Daniel. I am trying to correct my over the top exaggeration pounding the table tone. but i do think modest claims on the basis of facts are very helpful ….
Taking the other tack (for how can there be a middle ground for Phil to take if there are not, first, extremists?) I ask how Israelis of conscience can remain so essentially silent, can indeed remain as Israelis. In the 1940s, Jews and even non-Jews were leaving Germany, Austria, then France — if they still could! — and not only the Jews, though largely the Jews, and many who couldn’t leave wished they could.
Daniel , I had the same impression, when I’ve read this part of the sentence.
I think it is the spirit of Christmas that tell us to be nicer, gentlier, more understanding.
“Christmas truce was a series of widespread unofficial ceasefires that took place along the Western Front around Christmas of 1914, during the First World War. Through the week leading up to Christmas, parties of German and British soldiers began to exchange seasonal greetings and songs between their trenches; on occasion, the tension was reduced to the point that individuals would walk across to talk to their opposite numbers bearing gifts.
On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, many soldiers from both sides – as well as, to a lesser degree, from French units – independently ventured into “No man’s land”, where they mingled, exchanging food and souvenirs. As well as joint burial ceremonies, several meetings ended in carol-singing.
Troops from both sides were also friendly enough to play games of football with one another…”
link to en.wikipedia.org
–”Think of the press (MainStreamMedia) as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
— “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success, UNLESS one fundamental principle is borne in mind CONSTANTLY – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them OVER AND OVER.”
Joseph Goebbels –propagandists’ guru
Now, it is time to install , over and over, a new point into heads of brainwashed public, so they can recite it as necessary.
“No West Bank ,but Judea and Samaria”: propaganda specialists said so.
I think the Arab Spring will become in some ways an extended lifeline to Israel.
Israel may not longer claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East. However, it may now claim to be the only secular (and to some extent liberal) democracy in the Middle East. Surrounded by a sea of Islamism, it will make the case that whatever it’s fault the other guys are worse.
And to some extent that’s still true. At least within Israel proper, it is. The occupation will continue to tear away at the fabric of it’s society but I do not actually think that the BDS movement will be that successful in the short run.
Whatever we may otherwise disagree on, it’s patently clear that the liberals have lost – and lost bigtime. The vote of the Islamists have ranged from 40 % to 70 %. In every country where there have been semi-free elections, without any exception, the single biggest party has been an Islamist party. Often, the second-biggest have been one too.
If you’re opposed to something, you need something to latch onto. What can the muslim brotherhood give? People on the left should not underestimate the other side. The most influential is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the muslim brotherhood and their leading intellectual on religious matters(which makes him hugely important as they are a religious party).
link to en.wikipedia.org
He has praised Hitler and made comments that he thinks Jews have lied about the Holocaust to gain the sympathy of the world.
I could go on and on, but my point is that in the Middle East you are increasingly going to get two sides that are reactionary, but Israel will be able to play the Western game better than the Muslim Brotherhood and come across as much less so.
And if the left doesn’t spend time on the muslim brotherhood in equal amounts then the Zionist right-wingers will claim – with some justification – that there is a bias. Naturally, I admit to being much more interested in Israel for both personal and cultural reasons, but the point still stands.
The pessimists were proven right. The Arab Spring basically empowered the Islamists and not the liberal secular forces. It remains to be seen if these liberal secularists can grow more powerful in the years to come, but I highly doubt it. If you look at the history of the Arab world since the 50s, secular nationalism has had it’s rise and fall(and they weren’t exactly very friendly to Israel to begin with), and from the 70s onwards Islamism has gained ground at a steady pace.
We’re now reaching the long arc of Islamist domination of Middle Eastern life. Iran will not remain a nutty outsider but increasingly the norm. Some may be more moderate and others may be more crazy, but the pattern is the same.
And against this backdrop, Israel has a golden opportunity to smear their neighbours. Whatever Israel’s faults, it’s unlikely that a larger mass of people in the Western world will side with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose influential intellectuals praise Hitler and the Holocaust – and then expressing hope that Muslims will carry out the next Holocaust.
I’m sorry, but it just won’t happen, people won’t be able to support that, and frankly they should not either or they would be morally bankrupt. As bad as Danny Ayalon is, he isn’t exactly praising Stalin’s purges and Pinochet’s mass executions.
So will Israel be a paragon of virtue? Of course not, but the Arab “Spring” will give it ample cover for at least several years down the road. If there’s a war in Iran, look for a 1948- or 1967-style ethnic cleansing of the West bank and/or Israel proper.
This is like a burning building with no exists. There isn’t a way out here, because as bad as Israel is, the alternative is Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood. All those who seek liberal democracy will lose, on both sides. At least in the next decade and perhaps beyond.
i hope everyone opens that link krauss. i do not know the man but i had to scroll long and hard to find the reference to hilter which i would not define as ‘praise’, since the translation was from memri, a racist group well known for mistranslations.
it also says:
And if the left doesn’t spend time on the muslim brotherhood in equal amounts then the Zionist right-wingers will claim – with some justification – that there is a bias. Naturally, I admit to being much more interested in Israel for both personal and cultural reasons, but the point still stands.
if the point stands one should spend equal time criticizing both the muslim brotherhood and zionist right-wingers which zionist right-winger would you demonize and warn about the way you have Al-Qaradawi?
i ask this not as fan of the MB but i find it very odd you would be promoting israel here as a secular state given the radical ascendance of extreme religious party in the government.
also, with all due respect, Al-Qaradawi is not promoting a decades old occupation and ethnic cleansing. not that i know of anyway.
Thanks for following up Krauss’s link annie and giving the other side of the story.
Krauss appears to be a Jewish supremacist; as such he needs careful watching.
The 2 questions Israel can’t answer are
1 where are your borders ?
2 what is your long term solution to the Palestinian issue ?
Perhaps in the short term things will work out . But that open economy running apartheid – it’s hopelessly deluded to think they can pull it off . Think of all the damage they have self inflicted to date chasing the dream.
As to question 1, seafoid, it isn’t can’t but won’t, surely.
Both Hostage and talknic have shown very clearly the only legal borders are those of the 1947 Partition Resolution.
Not that they were ever respected by Israel, and not that they were ever just or moral.
Legality and international law Zionists consider moveable at their whim, because Zionism trumps all else according to the Jabotinsky measure of what justice and morality is; to Zionists there is no other morality.
Both Hostage and talknic have shown very clearly the only legal borders are those of the 1947 Partition Resolution.
That is correct, but that fact is complicated by the legal effects of the armistice agreements. The belligerent parties concerned granted one another civil jurisdiction over the areas they held on either side of the permanent armistice lines of demarcation. At the time, Arab Palestine was democratically represented by Jordan through the device of a federal union and an Arab League trusteeship which reserved claims to all of the territory of Palestine pending another, final, process of negotiation and agreement.
link to mondoweiss.net
During the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, the Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, stated that the armistices were “a provisional settlement which can only be replaced by a peace agreement” and:
— link to un.org
The armistice agreements were sanctioned and accepted under Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions that both the General Assembly and ICJ cited in their legal analyses regarding the status of the territory in the 2004 Wall Case. For example, the General Assembly determined that the construction of the Wall was illegal where it had deviated from the Green Line and entered Palestinian territory.
yeah the legality of even those borders still is questionable though.
“However, it may now claim to be the only secular (and to some extent liberal) democracy in the Middle East.”
but not a “Jewish” state.
“The pessimists were proven right. The Arab Spring basically empowered the Islamists and not the liberal secular forces.”….Krauss
t
The fat lady hasn’t sung yet krauss. But so what if the Islamist ended up in power…how would they be much different than the powers in Israel at present?
Israel is not a western style democracy……the difference between zionism and radical types of Islam is not much. In fact I’d be inclined to give the Muslim states a higher grade than Israel —to my knowledge none of them are confiscating Jewish homes and property and discriminating against Jews within their states.
What some Islamist are doing is protesting against the ‘zionist” state, but then a lot of western states and people are protesting Israel also.
Krauss, annie’s right. That Hitler comment came from MEMRI and Steve Emerson, fercrissake, and we have no way of determining the accuracy. Emerson is the guy down in Tennessee right now–except he got caught in a money scandal over it–trying to convince the Baptists that Muslims want to bring Sharia Law to America and enslave us. Since there is no such thing as a body of law called Sharia–you can’t buy a bunch of books called Sharia Law–that ought to tell you what that cretin is up to. Check out page five of this investigative report here to get the skinny on that (you have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the number 5):
link to tennessean.com
It’s all boogeyman talk: throw a Hitler or two in there and everyone freezes and assumes it’s the truth. The fact is it’s deceit.
Since the Israeli Foreign Ministry gives classes in how to slant Wikipedia entries, I’d take it with a grain of salt. Watch it yourself:
link to youtube.com
al-Qaradawi is not an extremist, by any means, and the majority of MB in Egypt are doctors, lawyers, and educated professionals. Furthermore, Islam isn’t some unified body of thought. There is no priestcraft in Islam. There are only scholars who interpret the Koran one way or the other. Muslims are free to believe them or not. Islam does not impose one point of view. Some Muslims who band together and declare themselves a sect can have a set outlook–like the Saudi Wahabists did 200 years ago. Islam is not a religion like the Catholic religion that has an entire hierarchical religious structure to it, or like the Protestants with Pastors, or the Jewish religion.
Islam doesn’t work that way. The deal in Islam is to honor God (Allah) in what you do daily. Period. That’s why Mohammed wouldn’t allow his face used. He did not want idolatry. al-Qaradawi is a moderate, and is no different than Niebuhr…or Chris Hedges, for that matter, who went to Harvard’s Divinity School.
israel chose the image of a religious symbol for their flag to represent their state. a flag that has come to represent militarism, no different than countries using the stars and stripes to protest or symbolize america. so it is not clear whether someone is using the star of david as a religious symbol in this instance, or one of protesting the state or militarism.
to promote ones state as both democratic with a secular as well as using a religious symbol to represent it one cannot very well then turn around and claim another is targeting the religious nature of the symbol when used as a form of protest.
iow, they ask for it.
But, Annie don’t some Islamic terrorists adopt religious symbols and don’t we urge ppl to distinguish Islam from those criminals? shd Palestinians observe similar distinction?
well, yes they do phil. but when they put the star and cresent on a flag doesn’t that say to you it symbolizes the religion and the government? even turkey has the star and crescent in it’s flag.
don’t we urge ppl to distinguish Islam from those criminals?
of course. i think you are missing what i am saying. i am saying if a country is at war and you use the symbol of it’s flag as a form of protest you are not necessarily attacking the religion, you could be (symbolically) attacking the government attacking you. no different than someone burning an american flag. it is not a racist action if iraqis burn an american flag. the star now represents the state as well as the religion. it could be a form of protest against the ‘symbol’ that represents the government.
What else would a protestor against Israel use as a symbol besides their Star of David? Does Israel have any other symbol? I don’t know of one.
What else would a protestor against Israel use as a symbol besides their Star of David? Does Israel have any other symbol?
There is also the Menorah used on the State Seal. link to akhlah.com
Desiring is one thing. historical facts another thing.
got it, and you don’t do ‘historical facts’ (nor back up your historical claims, readers scroll up, the thread is littered with unanswered queries re his claims)
another thing..look at this flag of The Jewish Authority in Eretz Yisrael …Ariel the lion of God, a symbol of the tribe of Judah
link to mondoweiss.net
so if someone scratched a symbol of a derogatory lion’s head would it be anti semitic or would it imply it was directed as a protest against the authority?
by merging a religious symbol w/a state then how does one protest the state without implying one is targeting the religiosity? make another symbol for zionism and the use of the star who likely diminish as a symbol of protest.
when bombs have stars of david on them, not pretty.
also, what other symbol that does not have the potential to suggest anti semitism would be appropriate to address the policies of israel? what other symbol is there? or should palestinians just not use symbols? and when a settler marks a palestinian shop owners door in hebron with a star of david is that anti semitic?
It’s a Catch-22 so that if you use the Star of David in your protests, then they can scream anti-semitism. If we had the Christian cross on our flag there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth from a good swath of our public claiming they were burning our god when foreigners burned our flag, etc etc.
If they don’t want the Jewish aspect attacked as a national issue they shouldn’t put Israel forward as a Jewish state. Either that, or grow a pair. But this psychopathic push/pull doesn’t work when you want to play nationhood. Turkey was secular for decades and its flag has the star and crescent moon. They are ancient symbols that the Sultan picked up and used in the Ottoman empire. They represented entities in the heavens originally.
The Star of David has been dragged through the mud by Israel. It has a gun to its head. “Render unto God what is God’s and render unto Caesar what is Caesars’s” was a great bit of advice. The SoD should be withdrawn from politics.
Seafoid,
I know. It is sad that it has become perceived more as a militaristic sign.
The Star of David was even found on ancient Byzantine (ie Christian) ruins. And the “Seal of Solomon” was venerated by Christian pilgrims on King Solomon’s ring.
Was the “Star of David” at that time the same as the “Seal Solomon?”
“Render unto God what is God’s and render unto Caesar what is Caesars’s” was a great bit of advice. The SoD should be withdrawn from politics.
That was an allusion to the fact that each person bears the image and likeness of God. Genesis 1:26: And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
So the Jewish speaker was advising against attaching religious significance to the mundane objects used to pay taxes, i.e. bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.
So it logically follows that you should simply ignore mundane political images like the Star of David.
I am confused how “Judea and Samaria” can rationally refer to the West Bank.
Judea is the name for the Kingdom of Judea and for the Roman Province of Judea, and those extended way beyond the West Bank, and included Jerusalem and went as far west as to the Mediterranean Sea.
So how is someone to equate the West Bank with “Judea and Samaria”? It seems to do this, they must think that the 1967 war has created this designation, which in any case contradicts the ideology of “continuation” with the pre-Roman Judean states.
Secondly, I like both Jews and Palestinians, and in the ideal situation would like the Holy Land to be a secular democracy for all its citizens. Due to the conflict however, I think it would be OK if the country was divided about along the middle like the 1967 lines.
I’m not sure that the 67 lines were ‘along the middle’ in terms of good land and natural resources.
The area round Jerusalem was certainly part of the K of Judaea. Samaria was traditionally very resistant to kings and priests based in Jerusalem, so calling a territory by a name traditionally associated with anti-Jewish sentiment is an odd way to press a Jewish claim. The city of Samaria was the site of a major war crime by the Jewish King John in 113 BCE.
You got the history wrong.
The Samaritans are thus called because they settled in the area of shomron, not vice versa.
You’re the one who has the history wrong, benedict:
link to historykb.com
Omri seems to have built the city of Samaria on a greenfield site (?875) and presumably the name, then attached to a few green fields, preceded the city. But the importance of the site and the fame of the name were due entirely to people who were not amenable to Jerusalem authority and with them the name became associated, just as I mentioned, in the Tanakh and in the New Testament. Between the testaments came the Hasmonean war crime,which resulted in the destruction of the city. An odd name to go with a Jewish claim.
OK, I get that you guys have different opinions about the validity of calling Samaria that, but what do you think about the name “Judea”? Don’t you think that the name Judea should connote a swath of land that extends far beyond just the West Bank, to include the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea and the Roman Province of Judea?
What is the ideological basis for separating the “Judea” of the West Bank from what Judea actually means- the ancient province extending to the sea? To me, since I don’t understand the ideological basis, it has the sound of a cheap attempt to avoid calling it the “West Bank of the Jordan“, and to give it a more ideological name that is actually less logical even within the ideology.
mrw-
in what way am i wrong?
mhuges-
The book of kings is quit clear about the source for the name shomron: it is because king omri purchased the land from a nice chap by the name of shemer.
Being that the aforementioned omri happened to be ruler of a country known as Israel it is quit understandable that contemporary Israel would use the name shomron to describe the area.
Shomron was the second capital of Israel following tirzah (in eastern trans-jordainian Israel)
Thank you for making me think about old Omri, clearly an important historical character, again!
Some say that the true etymology of ‘Samaria’ is ‘Watch Mountain’. Some place Tirzah near Nablus.
I quite see that modern, Jerusalem-based Israel wants to co-opt the ‘Israel’ of 875 BCE. But whether you read Kings with belief or with scepticism Omri and his city come across as a person and a place completely antagonistic to Jerusalem. That is why the language about him is so harsh. To draw attention to the name Samaria is to draw attention, at least among people who read the Bible, to these antagonisms and harsh judgements. The people in Samaria may have judged the people in Jerusalem just as harshly.
WJ mentions Judaea. A couple of years ago I went to a lecture by Eyal Weizman, author of a book (which I haven’t got round to reading!) called ‘Hollow Land’, which is about ‘the architecture of occupation’ and more generally about how Israel uses the humane academic disciplines to support its activities. He began his lecture by saying that until 1967 Israel had been in possession not of the historic lands of the Jews but only of the historic lands of the Jews’ enemies. So (my paraphrase from now on) there was a persistent memory of non-Jewish presence in the coastal strip, Philistia and Phoenicia,which required immense emphasis to be laid on the core territory of Judaea – the central, sacred area to which the rest had become subdued. Omri must be turning in his grave.
I quite see that modern, Jerusalem-based Israel wants to co-opt the ‘Israel’ of 875 BCE. . . . Omri must be turning in his grave.
Of course. It’s not without relevance that the ancient Kingdom of Israel was founded as a consequence of a revolt against their Jewish brethren. I agree that there is an element of supercessionism or irony in the fact that the founding fathers of the Zionist movement named their Jewish State “Israel”. FYI, many of the Talmudic sages insisted that the faithless members of the ten tribes would never return to Palestine: MISHNAH. THE TEN TRIBES WILL NOT RETURN [TO PALESTINE], FOR IT IS SAID, AND CAST THEM INTO ANOTHER LAND, AS IS THIS DAY . . . GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The ten tribes have no portion in the world to come, as it says, And the Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation: And the Lord rooted them out of their land, refers to this world; and cast them into another land — to the world to come: this is R. Akiba’s view. link to halakhah.com
hostage-
what is it you have with quoting only those sources that support your opinion. Didn’t you see the rest of the Talmudic discussion. I thought your all for the minorities?
hostage- what is it you have with quoting only those sources that support your opinion.
benedict I didn’t say that the passage from the Talmud that I quoted reflected my personal opinion. I said that it is something that many of the Talmudic sages believed and I provided a link to the entire discussion so that people could read all about it for themselves.
I could have just as easily quoted modern scholars who advise that the 12 tribes never actually existed or that the exile is all part of an recurring allegorical theme with its basis in religious myths. See for example Israel Jacob Yuval, “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship”, Common Knowledge – Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33 link to muse.jhu.edu
Just because I write about the beliefs that played a central role in Jewish history, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I share them. Unlike the majority of commentators, I habitually provide citations and links so that readers can follow along and verify what I’m talking about.
P.S. In earlier posts here at Mondoweiss I’ve cited Rashi’s Commentary about Jeremiah and the return of some members of the 10 tribes to explain why modern-day Jews claim descent from all of them, not just the ones of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. So, I’ve presented the evidence for the various historical claims on this particular subject: link to mondoweiss.net
The racism practiced in Israel does generate anti-semetic reactions in some parts of the world. For example, in Mogadishu Somalia, a particularly aggressive tropical plant that takes over abandoned homes ( tribal-ly cleansed) in a relatively short time is called ” geed yehudi” or the Jewish plant.
Just going by what you wrote, Abu Malia, it doesn’t seem to me that is necessarily anti-Semitism at all.
Something aggressive that takes over abandoned homes in a relatively short time. That is what Jews who are also Zionists are well known for being and doing, but only over seven decades out of the last 200. You describe it as “the racism practiced in Israel”, which presumably includes the Occupation.
Not Jews as Jews, not Jews who are not Zionists and have a long history, but Jews as Zionists of Israel. Let’s not give an inch to any conflation of the two.
It is them being delegitimized because of what they do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who they are.
You are absolutely right John and I stand corrected. Personally, I found the name poetic justice !
“It is them being delegitimized because of what they do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who they are.”
Hard to say whether the above is antisemitism or not – you are conflating a lot of “theys”.
“It is Jews being delegitimized because of what Jews do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who they are.”
Or “It is Jews being delegitimized because of what Zionists do; it is not anti-Semitism because of who Jews are.”
“Jews do” and “Jews are” are kind of touchy.
Having said that, as the point has been made, considering the appropriation of the Jewish star by Zionism and its expansionist, oppressive policies, the use of the star in anti-Zionist graffiti can hardly be questioned.
I have often felt there is a bit of “reaction formation” going on by Zionists – and the Jewish star symbolizes it well. “We were once pathetic victims (labeled with the Jewish star on the way to our deaths) – now we’ll show you – we can be the biggest bully, and label our army with the same star.
The distinction between what we do and who we show ourselves to be – therefore who we are, at least for a time – is not hard and fast, I would think, in any context.
I think it’s important to distinguish between noting, in an objective spirit, bad things done by certain English people and therefore being against those people and on the other hand being so predisposed to suspect and condemn anyone who is English that you will not judge objectively or fairly. It is the latter rather than the former that I would call Anglophobia. But people may define words as they wish.
Abu seems to have had no problem. Nevertheless, you do, pnkfloid, correctly show I should have been more specific by using my previous paragraph terms.
That is, “it is them [Zionists of Israel] being delegitimized because of what they [as Zionists of Israel] do; it is not anti-Semitism[, which would be] because of who they [Jews as Jews] are.”
Better still, that paragraph should not have appeared at all as I had already made my point. Ah yes, hindsight…
Abu malia-
I would say that “jeed el arabi” is a more appropriate name since it is well known fact that Arab colonialism swiftly took over many countries in the seventh century CE. For instance the arab invaders (starting with caliph omar) expropriated the lands of many of the original Jewish inhabitants of eretz yisrael and settled there Arab nomads brought over from the Arabian peninsula.
For instance the arab invaders (starting with caliph omar) expropriated the lands of many of the original Jewish inhabitants of eretz yisrael and settled there Arab nomads brought over from the Arabian peninsula.
Benedict the people of the land of “Yisrael” during the era of the Second Commonwealth included “Galilee of the Gentiles”, the Samaritans, and the Edomites (an Arab people). Josephus wrote that Hyrcanus subdued the latter and allowed them to remain in that country if they agreed to circumcise their genitals and make use of the laws of the Jews. According to some sources, the Herodian line of kings were descendants of these Arabs.
You are also overlooking the fact that some of those “Arab conquerors” were Jews or converts from the defunct Jewish Kingdom of Himyar (Yemen) and elsewhere in southern Arabia. The Islamic Conquest was carried out by a relatively small force of about 25,000 men. They did not establish Arab colonies. They subjugated and assimilated other peoples. As noted above, the inhabitants of the region always included Arab nomads in the pre-Islamic period who considered everything between Syria and Yemen to be part of the Peninsula. Archeologists have found Arabic and Arab language inscriptions, written phonetically in scripts of other languages, throughout the region. They date back to the 1st century of the current era. So the Caliph didn’t bring in the Arab nomads. link to islamic-awareness.org
After the Second Commonwealth came to an end the Jews eventually concentrated in the four Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias.
There always were some arab elements floating around the vicinity of eretz yisrael. The nabateans of petra had a small flourishing Kingdome down in the south arava and according to the jewish chronicler yosef ben matityahu herods mother was a nabatiean princess. Even sefer berayshit mentions some Arab caravan merchants way back circa 18 century BCE. Yet it is clear that arabs had a negligible role in events relating to eretz yisrael prior to the Arab colonial occupation of 636 CE. It is quit telling that the earliest arab inscription in eretz yisrael dates to the 7 century CE (the earliest Hebrew inscription found to date is the qiyafa/sharayim ostracon going all the way back to 11 century BCE.
Contrary to your claim there are numerous contemporary sources that document what can only be described as a massive human immigration following the arab conquest. In addition to the fighting forces entire families where brought over from Arabia and Persia to colonize the land. Sources also document confiscation of jewish property.
arab elements floating
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It is quit telling that the earliest arab inscription in eretz yisrael dates to the 7 century CE
I gave you a link to a page that includes “A First/Second Century Arabic Inscription Of ʿEn ʿAvdat” (a canyon in Israel, in the Negev Desert).
annie-
Perhaps you where ofended by my use of the term floating. All that I meant by that was that the arab tribes at the time we are discussing were indeed mostly transhumant/nomadic. That is how they appear in historical records of that time.
All that I meant by that was that the arab tribes at the time we are discussing were indeed mostly transhumant/nomadic.
The Jewish patriarchs were portrayed as nomads who traveled through Syria Lebanon and Canaan with stops along the way at places like Damascus, Shechem, and Hebron.
hostage
Yes indeed. And I have already mentioned the presence of the nabati (authors of that inscription) who established a trade kingdom centered in petra (to the south of trans-Jordanian Israel) with series of six caravan stations thru the negev hinterland. The nabati are well known but ultimately hade a peripheral presence in eretz yisrael.
I repeat: transient Arab elements have been floating around the outskirts of Israel for millennia. No argument about that. But to find any permanent arab presence in the country proper you have to go all the way to 7 century CE.
The nabati are well known but ultimately hade a peripheral presence in eretz yisrael.
The Edomites played a central role in the Second Commonwealth according to the legends about King Herod the Great and the Herodian dynasty. Why try so hard to minimize the presence of other peoples in Palestine throughout its history?
Sure enough, hostage.
The Hebrew patriarchs where indeed transhumant nomads with a lifestyle probably quit similar to one of Arab nomads. But that was well before the timeframe we are discussing her – around 18-20 century BCE.
(as an aside: i think you got the part of about the patriarchs visiting Damascus and Lebanon wrong, but that’s beside the point).
right which is why a stele commerating victory in a battle mentions arabs a full 350 years before than.
and its not the anachronistic eretz yisrael it either palastine or caanan.
what stele are you reffering to?
why is eretz yisrael more anachronistic then palestine or cnaan?
Very interesting speech made recently by Russian President.
It sounds like preparation to the war.
link to youtube.com
Phil consistently confuses ethnic integralism (either fundamentalism or monism) with religious integralism.
There is some minor overlap because both ethnic integralists and religious integralists occasionally refer to authenticity but attempting to live within a religious system of morals is very different from basing a national-political-moral system on race (Volk) as Zionists do.
Claudia Koonz discusses German Nazi ethnic fundamentalism in detail in The Nazi Conscience: link to books.google.com
.
“There is some minor overlap because both ethnic integralists and religious integralists occasionally refer to authenticity but attempting to live within a religious system of morals is very different from basing a national-political-moral system on race (Volk) as Zionists do.”
Appears to me zonist base zionism today on both race and religion, they’ve tied the two together.
I don’t understand why using the proper geographical terms of yehuda and shomron is more inflammatory then calling el-kuds yerushalayim, calling el-chalil chevron, or calling nablus sh’chem? In fact how is it different than calling Palestine eretz yisrael (or for that matter calling Egypt mitzrayim)?
To me this seems to be another step in erasing the Jewish connection to the land of Israel.
And by the way Judea and samaria are terms that appear on official UN documents even befor the state of Israel was established.
Judea and samaria are terms that appear on official UN documents even befor the state of Israel was established.
any examples? link?
if your going to use the arabic names could you at least spell them correctly. hell I know preciously jack shit of the arabic language and I know the transliteration is al-quds not el-quds. but than again given the general lack of caring about facts why would something as minor as spelling matter to you.
pjdud-
i stand corrected.
why do you acuse me of “lack of caring about facts”?
because your blatently ignoring information that is evidence of arab and proto arab people in the region predating any record of jewish states.
“I don’t understand why using the proper geographical terms ”
Because they aren’t “proper geographical terms.” They are political labels intended to further the Zionist plan of cultural genocide. Any geographic content they may have had has been destroyed by the attempt by the Jews occupying Palestine to wipe out the rights and culture of the Palestinians. Another example of this usage is the labeling of Palestine “Israel.”
As for why it is “more inflammatory,” it is because of the power dynamic. The Jews occupying Palestine hold the whip, and have their jack boots on the Palestinian throat. Their actions are furthering their plans of death and oppression of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are merely trying to survive against a heartless and inhuman foe.
because they are proper geographical terms. they are used to make it seem the jewish presence is either more or more important than it actually is. it is impossible to erase a connection to something that doesn’t exist. your trying to erase all the other people who in some cases are far more historically relevant from the region by using its jewish ahistorical name.
Your attitude puzzles me. You seem to be terribly concerned about my supposed erasure of arabs and “proto arabs” and yet you insist on erasing the jewish connection to the land calling it “ahistorical”.
you insist on erasing the jewish connection to the land calling it “ahistorical”.
Scholars, like Dame Kathleen Kenyon and Israel Finkelstein have concluded that many of the details and stories contained in the biblical narrative are fictional. They say that the Jews were originally another Canaanite tribe and that the legend regarding the origins of the twelve tribes of Israel is a myth.
Hostage-
Let’s be a little more accurate. SOME scholars think that SOME of the descriptions of the tanach are wrong. That’s a far cry then the claim that the Jewish connection to eretz yisrael is “ahistoricle”
Yes you have finkelstein and Kenyon and then you have a whole bunch of scholars such as keneth kitchen, james hoffmeir, anson rainy, William dever, abraham malamet and amichai mazar who consider the biblical description to be a more or less reasonable portrayal of ancient jewish history. Why do you prefer kenyon’s theory over kitchen’s? (after all both are british!)
To me it seems that finkelstein actually strengthens the jewish connection to eretz yisrael since according to his theory the ancient Israelis are not foreigners invading from Egypt (as per tanach) but part of the indigenous population. Difficult to see how this strengthens the claim that jewish connection to Israel is “ahistoricle”.
For instance look up the description of the arab country in UN resolution 181.
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
this post is kind of ridiculous since Judea and Samaria are ancient and well known descriptors of the land. I honestly don’t see what the point here is besides erasing the jewish connection to eretz yisrael.
the point? you dropped ‘And by the way’, i was curious to read it. that’s all. not readily available eh. no biggie.
i noticed the divert
I honestly don’t see what the point here is besides erasing the jewish connection to eretz yisrael.
Duh! The problem is that the typical Zionist doesn’t realize that the terms “Judea and Samaria”, which you cited from the text of UN General Assembly resolution 181(II), were actually used to exclude those regions from the State of Israel (Medinat Yisrael), i.e.:
BTW, the term you used, “historical connection”, was concocted to downplay the fact that the Zionists lack any legal standing to assert a claim to the territory of Palestine during the Post-WWI peace conferences at Versailles and San Remo. The Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for a legal entitlement, so Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about the “historical connection” of the Jewish people be added to the Mandate instead. The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate reveal that the Allies did not consider the historical connection as a basis for any Jewish claim:
– See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100
The General Assembly resolution that you cited not only excluded the bulk of Judea and Samaria from the Jewish state, it prohibited the inhabitants of the Jewish state from obtaining citizenship and moving there:
— United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
It should also be noted that the terms used denoted just a part of the proposed Arab State, not the totality of it, just as the Eastern Galilee denoted a part of the proposed Jewish State. Calling the totality of the West Bank Judea and Samaria makes as much sense as calling Israel Eastern Galilee, something I’m sure you would find objectionable, benedict. That’s one of the problems with Zionists. Most of them seem to have little to no capacity to reverse the roles and understand that what they do or justify is in fact unjustifiable.
>> … the jewish connection to eretz yisrael.
Many people have an “Elvis connection to Graceland”. That doesn’t give them the right to (self-)self-determine themselves there and to drive others out.
Desiring something – even really really really REALLY REALLY REALLY and religiously desiring something – is not a basis for ownership rights.
Desiring is one thing. historical facts another thing. And political application a third thing. Why cant you keep them separated
“Desiring is one thing. historical facts another thing. And political application a third thing. Why cant you keep them separated”
Because the Jews occupying Palestine refuse to do so. For too many of them, simply the fact that some Jew, at some time in the past, lived on a piece of that land, or had in mentioned in their holy book, is enough for them to declare it part of the “promised land” and oppress the people whose land it actually is.
>> Desiring is one thing. historical facts another thing. And political application a third thing. Why cant you keep them separated
I’m not occupying Palestine. I have no trouble keeping them separated.
Tanaka-
So because some Zionists make the mistake of conflating history with current day politics you are making the identical but opposite mistake of bending history to fit your current day political position?
benedict,
“…you are making the identical but opposite mistake of bending history to fit your current day political position?”
Actually, I am doing no such thing. I recognize the history and understand that that history is absoluely and in every way irrelevant to this dispute. It is no different than the fact that it is an absolute historical fact that the coastline of Anatolia was indisputably an historic and important Greek area, and that fact grants the Greeks absolutely no rights in Turkey. Similarly, the fact that parts of Palestine were formerly inhabited by the Israelites grants modern day Jews absolutely no rights in Palestine. (Obviously, every individual person has right to their human rights.)
You asked why people don’t separate desire, history and politics, and I answered why. If one side is not doing it, only a damned fool would ask why the other side does not, if, for not other reason, than to not give away whatever rhetorical advantage there is in the question.
As an example, there are a ton of moronic, mouth-breathing bible readers in the US who actually view this human-rights and property dispute through the lens of a claim that god gave the land to the Israelites and because the Jews of today claim a religious connection with them (notwithstanding the fact that modern Palestinians are at least as related to the ancient inhabitants of the land as modern Jews), that these Idiot Americans are willing to permit the most heinous human rights abuses because they see nothing wrong with Jews dispossessing the rightful owners of land, one the basis of a really bad religious book that is thousands of years obsolete.
I am talking about eretz yisrael not medinat yisrael.
Historical facts do not require the blessing of any lord or noble. My impression is that some people over here are troubled by the mere notion that Jews might have any kind of connection whatsoever to eretz yisrael.
I am talking about eretz yisrael not medinat yisrael.
No you’re not. Eretz Yisrael doesn’t operate an Army Radio Station.
Historical facts do not require the blessing of any lord or noble.
You appear to be disputing the historical fact that the international community of states intentionally excluded the bulk of historical Judea and Samaria from the Jewish State and that they continue to do so. The majority of other states recognize the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders and will not recognize any unilateral changes imposed by Israel. For example, the European foreign ministers have stated that the EU will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by both of the parties concerned. The same policy applies to the Middle East Quartet, the UN Security Council, and the General Assembly.
It seems to me you are conflating historical association with contemporary political contingency. Just because a particular landmark has deep Jewish roots does not mean it must become part of medinat yisrael. One can recognize the first without accepting the second. The first is a matter of historical fact the other a matter of practical consideration.
I was always puzzled by the extraordinary lengths some anti-Zionists are willing to go just to deny ANY kind of connection between the Jewish people and eretz yisrael. It is quit normal that jews will address areas by there historical Jewish names.
are you aware you are repeating yourself like a broken record while being completely unable to back up any of your bloviations.? impressions aside, no one here is interested in beating this silly drum, except you..without any copy/paste..nothing. you made remarks earlier that have been flipped on you and apparently completely make the opposite pt you were trying to make, in fact debunking your own argument.
It seems to me you are conflating historical association with contemporary political contingency.
so, iow when you say “this post is kind of ridiculous since Judea and Samaria are ancient and well known descriptors of the land.” you are speaking “contemporary political contingency”. thanks, i think we already figured that out.
and when you say by the way Judea and samaria are terms that appear on official UN documents even befor the state of Israel was established you are speaking “contemporary political contingency” as well. got it.
tell you what, if you are not interested is discussing historical data, try not dropping little “contemporary political” myths into the discussions as if they were historical facts supporting your political myths. thanks!
It seems to me you are conflating historical association with contemporary political contingency.
Don’t be ridiculous. It is the government of Medinat Yisra’el that intentionally conflates the two. See Israeli lawmakers move to annex West Bank, one museum at a time link to csmonitor.com
Annie-
Let me make this clear. Just because a particular area has a jewish name does not mean it must be part of the modern day state of Israel. It is hostage who conflated the historical with the political. As for me – I can affirm the historical jewish connection to Judea and samaria will denying any political significance to that fact.
By pointing out that these terms appear in UN documents I was simply showing that they were not artificially invented by Zionist propaganda but do indeed have a recognized historical meaning.
I don’t know which remarks hade been flipped on me debunking my argument.
It is hostage who conflated the historical with the political.
Once again, I provided you with a link to an article which explained that there is legislation pending in the Israeli Parliament that would extend Israeli municipal law and jurisdiction to the historical museums which are dedicated to the biblical era in the West Bank, i.e. legally annexing them. The same government operates the IDF radio station that adopted the policy, mentioned above, against referring to the area in question as the West Bank.
Unless you happen to be a member of the Knesset or government, your personal views on the significance or importance of these developments are not the subject of this discussion. The State of Israel has officially conflated the historical, spiritual, and religious with Israeli political identity and used it to sanction its attempts to reestablish Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Israel ever since its inception. Here is a link to the Provisional Government of Israel’s Official Gazette: Number 1; Tel Aviv, 5 Iyar 5708, 14.5.1948 Page 1, The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel which explicitly stated as much: link to knesset.gov.il
“It seems to me you are conflating historical association with contemporary political contingency. Just because a particular landmark has deep Jewish roots does not mean it must become part of medinat yisrael. One can recognize the first without accepting the second. The first is a matter of historical fact the other a matter of practical consideration.”
“I was always puzzled by the extraordinary lengths some anti-Zionists are willing to go just to deny ANY kind of connection between the Jewish people and eretz yisrael. It is quit normal that jews will address areas by there historical Jewish names.”
The problem is that the foreign Jews who have occupied Palestine have used this supposed “historical fact” to support a right to possess at the exclusion of Palestinian rights. One need only look at the liquidation of the Moroccan quarter to make a courtyard for the Wailing Wall to see this. Even your use of the term “eretz yisrael” is troublesome, because it is an assertion of a right to possession over Palestine.