Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 39 (since 2010-06-20 18:57:11)

Showing comments 39 - 1
Page:

  • Israel is now attempting to 'de-Arabize' Palestinian Christians, but in the 1950s it was Jews from the Middle East
    • The Ghassanids and Lakhmids were tribes generally supposed to originate in Yemen. The Lakhmids migrated northeast, the Ghassanids, northwest a couple of centuries later. Both were pagan first, at least nominally Christian as time went on.

      Other notable tidbits:
      Before Muhammad, there were plenty of Christian Arabs in the Arabian peninsula.
      Ramallah was founded by Christian Arabs who have a tradition of originating in or near the west of modern Yemen.
      Jordan has Christian Bedouin tribes; I think their family names often end in and 'at' or 'et' sound.
      Here's an ancient story about pagan bedouin converting to Christianity,
      http://www.al-bushra.org/arbhrtg/boutros.htm

      A Lebanese Shiite family today may have been Maronite 200 years ago, the converse, too.

  • Bill supporting God-given Greater Israel comes to New Mexico
    • It's not just wierd, there's a concerted effort behind this assertion: Over the last few years an interpretation of the 1920 San Remo Resolution, plus the Balfour Declaration, plus the Palestine Mandate, has been promoted as validating Jews' right to a "national home" all the territories of Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan. This is a basis of the frequent claim that Israel has already given up most of the land to which it was entitled, by which they mean the territory of present-day Jordan.

  • Most Israelis say, it's apartheid. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
    • @Mayhem - Who cares what Malaysian leaders say? Care only about what is right. If "Malay" were replaced with "Israeli Jew" and "Chinese" with "Palestinian Arab", this list would be even more useful.

  • Pro-Israel ads suggesting Muslims are 'savage' set to arrive in NY subways next week
    • "Muneer Awad of CAIR says it's legal to be a bigot; but there will be an assertive response by Muslims to dispel these vicious characterizations." Let it all out in the open. More people will be compelled to take a position one way or the other, and one hopes most people in the US are still reasonable enough to decide for logic and tolerance.

  • Settler Marc Zell talks Jewish identity at the King David Hotel
    • " I admire the way he handled some tough questions...What a pity that most Jewish neoconservatives in the United States can’t make as positive an impression as Zell."

      You admire how he's used his intelligence and education to cultivate a dishonest glibness about the nature of the conflict and its possible future? You admire the fact that he seems to believe that the the Arabs understand only force and may even feel that the only good Arab is one that's "crawling to [him] on all fours"? That he uses his education and social standing (you can call it intellectual standing if you really have to) to pronounce like this make him worse than the Yesha leaders, some of whom have once in a while at least admitted some genuine esteem for the Arabs around them. This seems like Western supremacist combined with Jewish victimhood.

      Apologies, this comment thread is already old, I'm not really adding anything..

    • @giladg - "The Torah has been the guiding light for Jews to think and work on how to be a better person and to help others." Except Palestinian Arabs, right giladg? What does the Torah have to say about the attitude of net contempt in which the secular Zionist leaders held Arabs, as evidenced by their words actions for the last 110 years or so? On the other hand, did Yeshayahu Liebowitz live by Torah, giladg? What do you think he learned from it? Teach, here, giladg, from the Torah about Amalek, Ishmael, Esau, and so on, then and today. Are they still alive today? What does it tell us to do about them?

    • Zell is an ideologue at heart. If he were Muslim, he'd probably be an "Islamist", if a Christian, he'd be in the Pat Robertson crowd. If Hindu in India he'd look the other way when Hindu fundamentalists look for Christian and Muslim backs to break. There are conservative, religious people, even those with an eschatological mindset, even Jewish settlers, who remain sensitive at heart to their fellow human beings, sensitive enough to have an evolving view of the place and influence of their ideologies in their milieus. Too bad they don't seem to influence more strongly what actually ends up going down...

    • Agree with Krauss. Romney is an act. He's trying to appeal to the common man, or what he thinks is the common man. It's something George W. Bush did, and something his dad George HW did, though he has a greater distance than his son does between what he really is and his public, campaign persona. (I saw George HW in person once, not in a political context. He was far more assured, weighty and impressive in person, even physically so, than ever you saw on TV; almost a different person. And he's still acting when he comes on TV with Barbara these days.) It's something the upper-middle and upper classes learn to do by osmosis, when they have to deal with lower strata, and requires a dumbing-down posture. Therefore, conclude not that Romney is dumb, but that he's lying in all his words and demeanor. Conclude that he knows exactly what's wrong economically- and policy-wise, that he knows the classical, practical approach to the common welfare is the best, and that he's chosen to pander to the right. Having said that, don't conclude that he'll moderate if he wins, because he moderates his pandering with almost nothing.

  • While Palestinians in the West Bank barely have enough water to drink . . .
    • What pool in Gaza?
      What guys?
      What agenda?

      Had you forgotten the first sentence, "This should be all over the place", by the time you got through the second?

      The facts of Israel's control and denial of water to Palestinian Arabs are hyperbolic enough on their own.
      It's obviously not an Olympic pool, which is 50 meters long.
      Should zealousness permit inaccuracies?

    • This should be all over the place.
      Just one problem: it's not an Olympic-sized pool, it's about half that.

  • Another Christian apostasy on NPR (when will non-Zionist Jews get some air?)
    • You really think NPR is that in cahoots with Zionists?

    • "...tossed out of her church after she declared that she's an atheist"--They should have given her a raise instead?

      Maybe the real story is not about the self-evident reasonableness of atheism versus nonsensical religious faith, but that this newborn Baptist-to-Methodist-to-atheist is egotistical and unstable, looking for something that's granted by no belief system, maybe not even God, but only by an individual to themselves.

  • Netanyahu involved in '60 Minutes' pushback; Official compares CBS story to a 'strategic terror attack' on Israeli diplomacy
    • Pat Robertson's CBN News also has a "pushback". Let them know what you think here: "Bob Simon and Bethlehem Christians" blogs.cbn.com/jerusalemdateline/archive/2012/04/26/bob-simon-and-bethlehem-christians.aspx

  • Video: Senior IDF officer smashes peaceful activist in the face with his M-16
  • MSM jailbreak: Chris Hayes devotes 2 hours to conflict with panel of 2 Zionists and 2 Palestinians
    • At the beginning of the segment with Shlomo Gazit, around 1:25, Hayes says 'intifada' with a decent stab at Arabic inflection...hmm...

  • Robert Reich pretends he's stupid
    • Having so valued Reich's service, learning and instruction for so long, having presumed rectitude in his character and intellect, this is extremely disappointing.

  • Why Christian Zionism is nothing short of outright heresy
    • In light both of the events of Pentecost as described in Acts 2, and Sura 4:171, let's label this also as ridiculous,

      "By the 3rd century CE a large part of the peasantry of Palestine were followers of Jesus and practiced a form of Christian Judaism in which Jesus was Messiah but neither God nor son of God."

    • "Most don’t understand the full theology of it, but they buy into it as it brings a real living perspective to their belief. Jesus is coming soon and he’ll save them all from tribulation."

      There's far more to the theology than most of even their teachers could competently address. The whole issue suffers from one of the diseases of US Christianity: self-centeredness.

    • The real problem, for all concerned, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Israeli, Arab, US citizen, etc. is eschatological. Is there a God? If so, who and what is he/she/it? Has this God been doing anything, and will it do anything further, to define itself to the world? Doesn't defining itself to the world mean affecting the world in some ways? The orthodox response of all three religions to this is 'yes'. The trouble has been, is and will be in the details.

      Some Jews, Christians and Muslims implicitly accept that violence is a terrible but, because of human wickedness, unavoidable product of the remaking of the world. Some fewer, for now, accept it is a necessary means of furthering an eschatological program. Even fewer still--may their numbers decrease--endorse it and so are forced to precede it with calumny.

      The first group includes Christian Zionists who are completely non-violent, occupied with evangelization among Jews and Arabs alike, in order to build churches comprised of both.

      Christian Zionists in the third group have lost their view of the Gospel completely, or never had one, and take an exotic, attractively militant and supremacist religious Zionism in place of their spiritual emptiness.

      Christian Zionists in the second group are harder hearts than the first, but they don't have the right combination of foolish guts, unfulfilled bigotry and blinding ignorance to be in the third group.

      Once advocating a Palestinian state, Pat Robertson's CBN has been increasingly moving towards the third group, presenting all the latest rightwing and religious Zionist historical, religious and spiritual apologetics/propaganda. CBN.com even maintains links to the rightmost of Jerusalem Post columnists. That they could square this with the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ is astounding.

    • To face up to their ignorance, inconsistencies, and psychological and social issues, they should be urged to wear one. The problem with this kind of Christian Zionist is the same as with any who abuse religious orthodoxies for their personal issues. Unfortunately, the current zeitgeist fosters this kind of self-therapy.

    • This, "the Quran in Arabic represents the oldest least tampered tradition of Jesus" is absolutely ridiculous. It should be regarded as axiomatic that successfully arguing for something requires attempting to argue successfully against it, so please figure out why it might be absolutely ridiculous.

      A potpourri of hints for some essential perspectives:
      Regarding Christian orthodoxy and that Jesus is God: history and historiography of New Testament writings and the Council of Nicea.
      Regarding non-Jewish Arab Christian and Christianity in Arabia before Muhammad: The Christian non-Jewish Ghassanids, Nejdis, Lakhmids. Learn about Philip the Arab, Roman Emperor in the third century. Peter the Beduoin bishop in the fifth century. Who is surprised that there were and are Christian Bedouin non-Jewish tribes and families?

      Of course there was "a connection between Christian Judaism and the mission of Muhammad", but why does that imply what you claim? And is the term "Christian Judaism" appropriate for the fact on the ground in the seventh century, when Jews following rabbinic Judaism, Jewish Christians, Arab Christians, pagans and monotheists all lived in Arabia? Why do you tend to be persuaded that that amateur games with etymology might decide the issue?

      First of all ancient Jews and Arabs were in continual contact, both hostile and convivial, from the times of their progenitors onwards. Yes, Jews were far more wideley settled in the ancient world than is commonly supposed, which supposition is not to be blamed on ancient sources, but on plenteous modern presumption. The most famous ancient source is the record of events on the day of Pentecost/Shavuot, sometime in the fourth decade AD/BCE. Acts 2:5, "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven." Acts 2:10-11, "Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs..." All Jews. Not non-Jews, except where specified. Arab Jews, not non-Jewish Arabs. To them and all those "God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven", Peter said, "Fellow Israelites...let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” [emphases added]

      It is Christian orthodoxy that Jesus Christ is God; it was from the beginning of the movement. No two ways about it, no new etymological discoveries by bible scholars looking for tenure or a book to sell to pseudo-intellectual agnostics, no hearfelt, folksy-minded yearning by those of us who love Islam and Muslims and are anguished over Israel/Palestine will make this otherwise. You may accept what some modern scholars imply in their books for the general public: that all Christianities, orthodox, gnostic, Nestorian were and are equally valid, and that the early church councils were merely exercises in power; you propose that if you know nothing about what transpired at those church councils, or if you're a scholar looking for popular book sales and TV interviews, but this is a gross, ad hoc simplification of the genesis and conduct of the councils.

      Apostle Paul spent time in Arabia, perhaps among the same Jewish communities Muhammad engaged with almost six hundred years later. Six hundred years of Christian history and writings before Muhammad and you want to claim that "the Quran in Arabic represents the oldest least tampered tradition of Jesus"? Do you also indulge in books on Urantia and so on?

      Christians of Jewish and Arab ethnicity were in much of the Arabian peninsula before Muhammad, certainly in his native region. If they didn't believe that Jesus was God or the Son of God or both, and if their beliefs weren't grounded in and closely identified with writings (even if they weren't all literate), then why did Muhammad dictate,

      “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.” Sura 4:171 [http://www.multimediaquran.com/quran/004/004-171.htm]

      As you know, in the ancient world, Jews and Muslims considered Christians to be idolaters. Nothing has changed about the orthodoxies of the three religions. To the extent they wish to get along in humility and true fear of God, their doctrines present them with some really big, goddam problems. But ignoring facts is not the way to solve them.

    • Regarding Scofield, would you say wikipedia has a good sizing-up, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._I._Scofield ? He may have been intelligent, dreaming, willful, rash and impetuous, esteeming himself as certain of his stances, but actually unstable and seeking, drawn to a kind of grandiosity, not reflective in a productive way. Like actors and televangelists.

      Netanyahu has been pitching to Christians for all the few decades of his career. He's very good at a kind of cultural name-dropping: many years ago in some speech to some pseudo-intellectual, conservative political group, he referenced "George Eliot, the Christian Zionist". Of course, if you know Daniel Deronda, his reference was accurate.

    • Whether they're pretending to be or actually ignorant of this, they either focus on "good Arab" Christians who are Israeli citizens or who have been discriminated against in some way by Muslims. The honest ones, who don't tone down their belief that Christ is the Messiah for all, Jew and Gentile, spend much effort on Jewish-Arab churches in Israel.

      The schemers and bigots go on and on with Zionist-supplied propaganda about how Arab Christians aren't really Arabs; true Arabs are those who conquered after Muhammad's death, imposing Arabic language and culture on their subjects. Middle East Christians are by definition not Arab at all. Informed by this, they go on to expound on Arab Muslims especially, but also other Muslims being the spiritual descendents of Ishmael and Esau, condemned by their ancestors' choices to be opposed not only to the Jews but to everyone, and so worthy targets of condemnation and aggression.

  • Dumb as rocks ('Washington Post' says giving Palestinians access to quarries will 'advance the peace process')
    • Did it take you until Obama's administration to realize that Ross has only one idea, that Israel gets to take over pretty much whatever it can? As he managed to parlay into an esteemed diplomatic career his attendance at most of the bottlenecks, stalls and failures, wasn't the fact that he was part of the Obama administration a bad sign?
      Now you see what he was up to all along, and why Obama selected him: for cover.

      Ross's "idea" has been the same as Netanyahu's: "do wonders for the overall Palestinian economy", which means make some so comfortable that they don't have much fight left, and make others so uncomfortable that they leave, or get injured or killed. While Israel surrounds them on all sides, they're controlled by judicious application of pleasure and pain. That's always been the plan.

  • Cooking magazines dish on new trend: labeling Arabic food Israeli!
    • "in the Bible, mentions of honey refer not to bees' honey, but to date honey."

      Maybe in some places. But both Samson and John the Baptist ate wild honey, whereas date syrup is produced by people. And there's archaeological evidence of bee-keeping in Canaan from long before Abraham.

      The biblical Hebrew for honey, something like 'debesh', seems to means something syrupy and sticky. But it's used for what Samson eats from the body of the lion, which had bees swarming in it. Likewise, many other instances of the word in the Old Testament are modified by terms which in context indicate honey from a honeycomb.

      The New Testament Greek word for honey seems to be literal; anyone who knows Romance languages would probably recognise it, 'meli'.

      Another quick-study journalist helps to dumb things down?

  • The gift of the Jews
    • @Krauss -- Self-absorption and selflessness, and their respective causes, mused upon in almost equal measure, the degree to which one mitigates the other evaluated, and the concept of an abstract moral order to which humankind may be subject is recalled, almost a mini tour-de-force for an informed, reflective, modern, western Jew, a good model for anyone of any place.

      For any Jew or Gentile, contemplating themselves and their people, careering around the region between self-apotheosis and self-abnegation, an very old Jew had some very good advice,

      "Two things I ask of you, O LORD; do not refuse me before I die:
      Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
      give me neither poverty nor riches,
      but give me only my daily bread.

      Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
      and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’
      Or I may become poor and steal,
      and so dishonor the name of my God."
      -- Proverbs 30:7-9

  • Accusing Obama of 'appeasement,' Romney says he'd travel to Israel on first trip as president
    • Saying "Appeasement!" brings in campaign ziodollars?
      Isn't he rich enough not to have to lie and cheat for a lesser-paying job?
      What a smile.

  • Kristol accuses Obama of wanting the Jewish state to disappear
    • Not even that would satisfy them. Arrogance such as theirs, based on insecurities as great as theirs, is never ultimately satisfied. It's ultimately closed to the world and open only to itself.

  • Revival of Geneva Initiative features divisive figure: Bernard-Henri Levy
    • What would good Zionism be? If you are a reasonably sophisticated and well-informed resident of the West, can't you imagine it yourself? On the part of Jews, it would be everything it is now extensively modified by honesty and repentance regarding long-standing European Jewish bigotry towards the Arabs and Muslims and regarding the circumstances of Israel's founding, and by a good faith commitment to reconcile. On the part of Arabs, it would be a whole-hearted recognition that the Jews' origins are in the Middle East, that they are welcome as good neighbors, even as cousins, that the Middle East was most often somewhat cosmopolitan, and even the supposed hinterlands, such as Arabia were never ethnically pure and even benefited from this, and that the conflict of the last 100 years must and will be settled in all good faith. On all sides, the religion justifications and excuses must be both fully acknowledged and also put up as excuses for aggression.

      Fat chance, one might say.

    • No fan of BHL here. But with Einstein's letter as well as BHL pics, precision is a virtue. There seems to be neither medallion nor hair on his chest. OK, he can stick with black and white 24/7, or at least in public. But he until he starts remembering that top button, it's like nothing so much as a pretentious costume, and as such seems to complement at least some of his thinking.

    • @Taxi -- "yeah yeah power zion!"

      Be assured that the appellation "powzon" absolutely, positively, cross-the-heart-and-hope-to-die has nothing at all, not in signification, indication or derivation, to do with what you've surmised. Though now that you've proposed it, it may be related by accident. Zion. What did it mean to US slaves, or to Bob Marley, or to Morpheus and Neo?

    • Einstein did not condemn Zionism in the 1948 letter; he condemned the actions and ethos of Menachem Begin and his Freedom Party, likening them to Fascism. Einstein contrasts their activities what he likely considered commendable and valuable Jewish activities in Palestine,

      "The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots."

      And he condemned the "top leadership of American Zionism" for refusing "to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin".

      Everyone with pretensions to being seriously engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be conversant with the attitudes of all the players: Western nations, diaspora Jews, Arabs, and with the causes of those attitudes. Anyone in the West who knows both Jews personally and as some part of their national culture, and who knows the history of gentile attitudes towards Jews in their culture, knows the facts about anti-semitism, and knows what "Zionism" signifies for Jews.

      It's likely that only a minority of Jews will be won to the idea that Zionism because of its crimes against the Palestinian Arabs, is all bad. And in fact, the Zionism of the gentlemen mentioned above was largely good, to put it a little simplistically. If you don't know what "Jerry Haber" means by Zionism, you could find out, The Magnes Zionist - FAQ on Zionism and Racism. As for racism in Zionism, even Ahad ha Am could be said to have been a little bit racist in some expressions of superiority of Jews over Arabs, but it was nothing so bad as the hypocrisy of facilitator of the settlements, the Labor party, for instance.

      As agitprop, a response such as Annie's may be constructive to an extent, but it's a short-lived constructiveness that works via the same heightened emotions as the kind of Zionism she excoriates, and leaves ordinary Jews pulled between the part of Zionism that for them is a reassurance and the part they're morally compelled to condemn. This type of tension and pressure is one reason why, for instance, ordinary Israelis, with as little time to learn about and reflect upon the forces acting upon their lives as ordinary US citizens, have voted more right than left. It would be nice to suppose that recognition of this pressure upon ordinary Jews and Israelis was in King Abdullah's mind when he said to Thomas Friedman something you should all be familiar with, "I wanted to find a way to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them. But the Arab people do reject what their leadership is now doing to the Palestinians, which is inhumane and oppressive. And I thought of this as a possible signal to the Israeli people.'' Yes, the chief Zionist response, where there was one at all, to the Saudi peace proposal was to disingenuously question whether "full normalization of relations" really meant some kind of cold peace, as if "full normal..." could mean anything but "full normal...". If only Abdullah's intention "to make clear to the Israeli people that the Arabs don't reject or despise them" could become an ongoing effort, from the Arabs to the Israelis, despite what their governments do.

    • "2. Zionism has no place in the Middle East."

      How about the Zionism of Ahad ha Am, Buber, Einstein, Jerry Haber? Couldn't most Arabs get behind that, if they were to consider it? Wouldn't an expansion of what the term "Zionism" could, and should, indicate be a positive development, and preferable to the endless Zionism is either all good or all bad?

  • Lauren Pierce needs a history lesson
    • Who or what on earth is a 'Lauren Pierce' and why is it relevant?
      Anyway, Tel Aviv was founded before World War I: the general site was defined in 1908 or 1909 and it was actually named 'Tel Aviv' in 1910.
      That, of course, is not to exonerate 'Lauren Pierce' of whatever she may be culpable.

  • Condi Rice was 'shocked' by 'ethnic purity' claims for Jewish state
    • @ahhiyawa -- That's it? Is there anything more to Zionism than that? A response to antisemitism, for instance? Feel free to develop a comprehensive assessment. Try to avoid using "construct" and "merely".

    • @Mayhem - "I can’t see that powzon has disproved anything I said about the population in Palestine in the 19th century."

      The exhortation to study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine, included the admonition, "Be sure to follow and study all the links". You didn't take that seriously, did you? Here's the link for you, then,

      Demographics of Palestine - Travelers' impressions of 19th century Palestine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Travelers.27_impressions_of_19th_century_Palestine

      Have fun with it.

      Starting around chapter 49 of "The Innocents Abroad", you can read about the verdant valley of "Nablous/Shechem", and some chapters later about the oranges of Jaffa. If you'd read it critically, you'd realize that Twain calls almost everything "barren" from Italy to Palestine. Hes writes that almost nothing grows almost everywhere except when he realizes what he first thinks is a weed is really a grape vine, and when he mentions, forgetting that he's called some or all of a country "barren" and/or "full of weeds", what's actually cultivated there. (In some cases, he's actually eaten it, naturally.) Twain wrote to entertain, offering smart cracks for every ethnic group he encounters, starting with the very first foreigners he comes across in the Azores. He passed through Palestine in the summer, so of course everything was hot and dry. His route, except for Jericho, took him mostly through the center of the country, which, then as now, was stony hills partly terraced. The abandoned structures he saw were actually permanent shelters used part time, for sleeping in the fields during harvest seasons.

      Now, in that wikipedia about 19th C impressions of Palestine, there's a reference to mid-century de-cultivation in some areas, which could only mean, Mayhem, that it had been cultivated, and, as testified to by the notable men below, would very soon be cultivated again, by Arabs, that is. You must have come across these famous doozies,

      "We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated." Ahad ha'Am (Asher Ginzburg) writing in 1891-2 after a few months in Palestine, quoted in "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris, p. 42.

      "We have not come to an empty country. We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture...Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about the mutual misunderstanding? between us and the Arabs, about common interests [and] about the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples...[But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise." -- Moshe Sharret, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel, from his personal diary of 1914

    • @Mayhem - "At the turn of the 19th century the land of Palestine was virtually desolate."

      Have you bothered to investigate whether that is true? If not, why not? Is it too much work? Here,

      What is meant by the term, "Palestine"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine. Be sure to follow and study all the links. By the way, "Palestine Mandate" does not equal the lands of ancient Israel or of ancient Palestine.

      The citations here are useful for Mark Twain fixations,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Travelers.27_impressions_of_19th_century_Palestine

      As for Arab immigration into Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th C because of the Zionist economic miracle, learn to use this site, http://www.populstat.info/. You'll see that the populations of all Arab areas around Palestine, including their capital cities increased by roughly 50 percent in the first half of the 20th C. So where did the extra Arabs come from?

      If anyone turns you on to refutations of this such as Fred Gottheil's "The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931", notice preserving a semblance of academic forces him to shoot himself in the foot in his conclusion,

      "...there is every reason to believe that consequential immigration of Arabs into and within Palestine occurred during the Ottoman and British mandatory periods...

      "The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn."

      That is something can't be "unknown", limited, tentative and "undetected", but also very, very big, as he implies with the use of "immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected". What a joker.

  • Taking himself to woodshed, Derfner says his 'awful truth' column isn't what he believes and stood in opposition to 'my allegiance to Israel'
    • @MHughes976,
      That's very interesting. The purpose of citing this story was to highlight the violence, and that it was the group that used violence which prevailed. If the successors of Hillelites never got any kind of recompensed or validation of their views, the story is not flattering to the Shammaites and their successors. So who benefits?

Showing comments 39 - 1
Page: