Sunday, April 22, 2007.
We visited the Burke Museum on campus this afternoon to see an exhibit of "modern" coastal art. A lot of very good work, though I wish there was more annotation and more art.
I did not expect to encounter racism.
On the way out we made a mistake. We visited an exhibit of photography by "indigenous peoples." At first I thought this was a great idea! Imagine if "natives" had a magazine called Native Geographic to compete with National Geographic! Seeing images by indigenous people was intriguing. I would like to see much more!
To my shock, amidst this varied collection of works by different first peoples, there were two pieces by a self identified "Palestinian/Iraqi." At first I thought I had misread and assumed this was by some person with mixed Palestinian and Iroquoi origins. That would be interesting!
No way. The images were made by a self described indigenous Palestinian, an indigenous native of Palestine. Taking on the blanket of first people elsewhere, he bemoaned how the natives of Palestine had been destroyed by you can guess who.
The Palestinians are many things, but they are NOT the indigenous people of Israel.
I admire my Palestinian brothers and sisters as children of the same distant origins, as victims of European arrogance and yes, even as victims of Hitler and the European concept of nationalism, i.e. Zionism.
BUT ... Palestinians are not an indigenous people any more than New Yorkers or modern natives of any part of the world with a long history of immigration and emigration qualify as "first peoples." I am a native Bostonian, that does not make me a cousin of Squanto.
This claim by Palestinians is part of a persistent racist effort to deny the Jews OUR heritage. Palestinian textbooks claim that they are the descendants of the ancient Palestinians while the Israeli Jews are impostors descended from Europeans who adopted the Jewish religion.
Here are a few facts:
1. The term "Palestine" in English comes from the Roman "Philistia." In modern Arabic, "Palestinians" are called "Philistines." The Romans renamed Judea "Philistia" after the Jewish Wars. The Empire's goal was to wipe out the Jewish heritage.
The Romans adapted a long abandoned name. There were once real Philistines, the sea people, relatives of the early Greeks and Phoenicians. The ancient Philistines, however, had gone or been conquered by Canaani, Hebrews, Egyptians, et al. some 500 years or more before the Romans came.
Palestinians are as likely to be descended from Marc Anthony, Cleopatra's last lover, as they are to be descended from Goliath, the Philistine giant.
The only national entity calling itself "Palestine" after Roman times was the Crusader state. Hardly an object of pride to Jews or Arabs!
Indeed until 1948, the word Palestinian was rarely used to refer to Arabs. "Palestinian" generally meant a Jew living or born in "Palestine." The "Palestinian Brigade" of the British Army in WWII was made up of members of the embryonic Israeli army, the Haganah.
2. Modern Jews can be shown genetically to be descendants of the people of pre-Roman Israel. In turn, those people were the descendants of the Canaanites and Babylonian immigrants who made up Judea before the Romans committed ethnic cleansing.
Undoubtedly, many Palestinians have the same roots as Jews, assuming Jewish conversion under the Roman sword and Islamic scimitar. The local Arabs of this region are no more the descendants of the Canaani than they are the descendants of Ishmael. Israel/Judea/Palestine has been the superhighway for armies going from Asia into Africa and vice versa for thousands of years. Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians, are the descendants of ancient Hebrews, Canaani, Romans, Egyptians, European Crusaders, Kurds, etc. Genetic studies show that Israelis and Palestinians are close cousins.
There were identifiable Arabs in pre-Roman Judea, the Bedouins. Perhaps the Bedouin can be called an indigenous people. The Bedouin are an ancient people of the area, but today Arabs are not Bedouins and the Bedouin are as likely to side with Israel as they are with the PLO. For that matter the Druse, a non muslim Arab people, are ancient as well. Bedouins were a small minority in Roman Israel and perhaps can claim, if anyone can, the mantle of indigene.
3. Modern "Palestinians," the Arabs of the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, have become a people. They, like the modern Israelis, are a modern people burnished in the horrid fires of the last five decades of semitic wars. Zionist dogma, and my own beliefs, consider these people our equals and brothers. Like many Jews, I want peace AND brotherhood. We have much to gain from each other. Too many lives have been lost based on this pseudo history, too many lives of Semites, Arab and Jew.
Racism arises because it is part of the Palestinian canon that THEY, not the Jews, are the indigenous people of this land. I understand that even in UN run schools, textbooks teach this racist theory.
The Palestinian propaganda is as racist and as absurd as the claims of Afrikaners, having largely wiped out the indigenes of the Cape, to now be the indigenous people of South Africa. A modern Arab, the descendant of Romans and Arab invaders, is in some ways like an Afrikaner. At least this would be true if we assume that 13 hundred years after Omar's conquest of Jerusalem, Jews and Muslims have co-mingled our eggs and sperm and assume that the South Africans have similarly mingled their genes with those of the indigenous peoples.
The Palestinian claim to be indigenes is also akin to the Chinese claim that the Ching were Chinese, not Korean .. a claim that lies at the basis of the Chinese hegemony over Szechuan and Tibet as well as ancestral Korean lands bordering on their client state, North Korea.
This sort of racism always shares the idea of denying others their homes. It is no better when done by Jews than it when done by Arabs, but few if any Jews deny our common semitic origins.
For what it is worth, even after the Roman massacres, Jews lived continuously in Sephad and Tiberias. The majority of people in Hebron, the mythic burial place of Abraham, were Jews until a pogrom led by the Arabs in the 1920s. Jews, some claiming millennia long family trees, lived on in Jerusalem until we were expelled by the newly Christian Byzantine Romans. Later, when the great caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem, he invited us back and the Jewish quarter in what is now the Arab quarter of East Jerusalem persisted until 1948 when the Arab Legion expelled us.
None of this gainsays the real claims of our Semitic brothers and sisters. I won't use this space to re-argue all the complex issues of who is right and who is wrong in the confrontation between the Arabs and the Jews. However, any solution must be based on history, not racist mythology.
I am upset by the misuse of an academic museum. The Burke is an anthropology museum. This exhibit does harm to academic truth and worse to the causes of real indigenous peoples of the world.
The Burke Museum should be ashamed.
35 comments:
Oh dear,why do you make the same mistake as the Europeans (from the Middle Ages onwards)? Yes, I agree Palestinians are not inigenous people - but neither are Jews a race.
Stop that comparison, its unhealthy.
Of course Jews are not a race. Neither are Frenchmen, Germans, Lakota, Tamil, etc.
Jews are, howevfer, a people .. as are the Palestinians. Like the Lakota, the majority of Jews come form a single area ... genetics proves this, but like the French or the Lakota (the poeple white folks call Sioux) we are an admixture because we asccept people who choose to join us. There has eve, BTW, been a Jewish chief among the Lakota!
The Jewish and Palestinain peoples share many things. We are boith semtiic peoples. This does not mean semitic by race, althoughwe both share genetic origins. It does mean a long skein of geentics and linguistics that trace our languages and words to co0mmon origins.
We aslo differ in important ways. Jews have the issue of the diaspora and the existance of a continuous national identity that traces back two thousand years. Palestinains are undergoing something klike a modern diaspora but have no history of being recognized as a nation.
Is this a balanced view for you?
Persoanlly my dream is for a "Peace of the Siblings" where Israel, Jordan, and Palestine form a nidus of a new Andalus.
Dude, you need to get your facts straight. DNA tests confirm this claim of palestinians being in the land for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_clues
The palestinians are in fact descendants of canaanites/phoenicians, as well as several other groups. that might not make them indigenous, but who cares; they have lived there for several thousand years. It is the zionists that have been denying this history for political reasons. Trying to change another peoples heritage for the sake of keeping them out of their land is truly racist.
Palestine might not have been a recognized, independant state when jewish zionists came and tok it, and palestinian nationalism did not exist in its present form until the 1960, but people did own, work on and live off their land before the jewish settlers came and tok. These are the facts, and you can simply not change that. With present day technology and a far more balanced media (due to the internet), the zionists cannot hold these lies going for too long. I suggest you take a closer look at both history of the peoples of the middle east and at the new historians in israel who are using newly released israeli archives to expose some of the myths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians
These are all mostly zionists, mind you, they are not "self-hating jews". They only want the truth out whether it hurts them or not.
Peace
"Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of "indigenous peoples" for certain purposes has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:
* before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
* alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
* independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
Seems like they can be called indigenous as much as the jewish Indigenous palestinians, or native americans for that matter.
1. DNA tests confirm that the Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites and Phoenicians.
Sorry, this comment makes no sense and a reference to the wikipedia does not help either.
First, the Canaanites and Phoenicains were different people and never did claim the land of Judea/Israel. You may be cofusing them with the philistines. The philistines ceased being a unrecognizable ethnic group easily 2500 years ago.
Second, genetic testing has disproven the hypothesis that askenazim ("German" jews do not come from the same stock as other semites including the palestinains and sephardim.
The non Jewish and non Bedouin populations of Israel/Judea have been very transient for the last 2000 years. Anyone who is not one of these two gr4oups would be certain to have greek, persian, roman etc etc ancestry. Studies if Bedouins and Jews do show continuity.
Bottom kine ... there is no genetic evidence to support any continuous descent other than that of Bedouins and certain Jews.
Palestinian vs. Jewish Zionism.
I have read the documents you cite and the facts are as I have stated them. You are not disagreeing!
Of course there were non Jeiwsh people, as well as Jews, at the time of the onset of Zionism. This people did not consider Israel Judea their country, ecept for the small minoirty who were Bdedouin. The Zionists,as Europeans, were nationalists and the rest is history.
Today, leaving aside history, there are tow groups of people who regard this land as theirs. Now what .. kill kill or peace peace. I amfor peace-peace.
Schwartz wrote:
"First, the Canaanites and Phoenicains were different people and never did claim the land of Judea/Israel. You may be cofusing them with the philistines. The philistines ceased being a unrecognizable ethnic group easily 2500 years ago."
You are wrong, the people living in the area years and years ago was called both canaanites and phoenicians. You can read about this by following the links of wikipedia:
"Early on the Canaanites acquired fame as traders across a wide area beyond the Near East. There are occasional instances in the Hebrew Bible where "Canaanite" is used as a synonym for "merchant" — presumably indicating the aspect of Canaanite culture that the authors found most familiar. The term was derived from the place name, because so many merchants described themselves as Canaanites.
One of Canaan's most famous exports was a much sought-after purple dye, derived from two species of Murex sea snails found along the east Mediterranean coast and worn proudly by figures from ancient kings to modern popes.
Between ca. 1200–1100 BC, most of southern Canaan was settled, and according to the Bible conquered, by the Israelites, while the northern areas were taken over by Arameans. The remaining area still under clear Canaanite control, is referred to by its Greek name, "Phoenicia" (meaning "purple", in reference to the land's famous dye).
Much later, in the 6th century BC, Hecataeus of Miletus affirms that Phoenicia was formerly called χνα, a name that Philo of Byblos subsequently adopted into his mythology as his eponym for the Phoenicians: "Khna who was afterwards called Phoinix". Quoting fragments attributed to Sanchuniathon, he relates that Byblos, Berytus and Tyre were among the first cities ever built, under the rule of the mythical Cronus, and credits the inhabitants with developing fishing, hunting, agriculture, shipbuiding and writing.
St. Augustine also mentions that one of the terms the seafaring Phoenicians called their homeland was "Canaan." This is further confirmed by coins of the city of Laodicea by the Lebanon, that bear the legend, "Of Laodicea, a metropolis in Canaan"; these coins are dated to the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BC) and his successors.
The first of many Canaanites who emigrated seaward finally settled in Carthage, and St. Augustine adds that the country people near Hippo, presumably Punic in origin, still called themselves Chanani in his day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Phoenician_Canaanites
"The Phoenicians were also the first state level society to make extensive use of the alphabet, and the Canaanite-Phoenician alphabet is generally believed to be the ancestor of all modern alphabets. Phoenicians spoke the Phoenician language, which belongs to the group of Canaanite languages in the Semitic language family e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, etc."
"In terms of archeology, language, and religion, there is little to set the Phoenicians apart as markedly different from other local cultures of Canaan, because they were Canaanites themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia
It is simply two names for the same people. That is, the phoenicians are part of the canaanites while not all canaanites can be described as phoenicians.
DNA testing has shown that the lebanese people are to a large extent descendants of phoenicians. National Geopraphic channel has even had a program about this.
Schwartz wrote:
"Second, genetic testing has disproven the hypothesis that askenazim ("German" jews do not come from the same stock as other semites including the palestinains and sephardim."
I am not denying this. I am not saying that jews are not descendants of people who where living there. I have, on the conterary, read several reports of DNA-tests indicating that they are infact related to palestinians wich obviously means they have ancient forefathers in the same land. I am simply saying that the palestinians, according to the history and DNA-testing, are infact direct descendants of those who have lived there for thousands of years. The fact that they have lived under other peoples rule or converted to different religions several times does not change the fact that they are the same people and that some of the cultural stuff has been passed along generation by generation.
It is not racist to claim this, it is simply facts. What is racist however, is trying to deny this and to say that the palestinians came from arabia to steal from the jews AFTER the jews arrived. This is what alot of israel-sympthatizers are saying these days and it is simply not backed up by science. One shouldn't deny another peoples heritage to legitemate ones own theft of land. That is just wrong.
Schwartz wrote:
"Of course there were non Jeiwsh people, as well as Jews, at the time of the onset of Zionism. This people did not consider Israel Judea their country, ecept for the small minoirty who were Bdedouin. The Zionists,as Europeans, were nationalists and the rest is history."
I do not know anything about any sense of nationalism in the modern european form amongst canaanites/phoenicians, but that is because the culture simply was different. What is known however, is that there have been continuous cities through all the years, and one would normally identify with ones city rather than the entire country. For instance, a guy from Jerusalem would call himself a jerusalemite. But this fact - the fact that there where no real palestinian nationalism until the 1960s, does not deny the people their right to their cities, their properties and their homes. Whether it was a UN recognized nation or not does not change the fact that it was the land of their forefathers. This is what the zionist came and took away, alongside with part of their history.
Schwartz wrote:
"Today, leaving aside history, there are tow groups of people who regard this land as theirs. Now what .. kill kill or peace peace. I amfor peace-peace."
I fully agree on this note. Jews that are born in Israel today knows no other homeland and so nobody should tell them to leave. However, palestinians who are living on top of each other in refugee camps should also get a fair treatment. I think the one-state solution is the only solution that might have a slight chance of bringing lasting peace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational_solution
You need to learn to use sources other than the Wiki
You can read about this by "following the links of wikipedia:
"Early on the Canaanites acquired fame as traders across a wide area beyond the Near East. There are occasional instances in the Hebrew Bible where "Canaanite" is used as a synonym for "merchant" — presumably indicating the aspect of Canaanite culture that the authors found most familiar. The term was derived from the place name, because so many merchants described themselves as Canaanites.
Semantics and religion aside, the books of Judges and Kings are legendary, possibly have some accuracy, but are not histories. Modern historians have a consensus that there never was a Joshua-like invasion of Canaan. Rather the Hebrew culture arose within Canaan, probably in the hills and eventually through the usual means of conquest,e tc. became dominant.
While I suspect many people have used the term in many ways since then, by 2500 years ago the predominant culture and ethnicity of the region was Hebrew and Samaritan along, I assume, with some Bedouin.
The term Canaanite is used today to refer to the pre-hebrew era.
"One of Canaan's most famous exports was a much sought-after purple dye, derived from two species of Murex sea snails found along the east Mediterranean coast and worn proudly by figures from ancient kings to modern popes."
Sorry,m the Canaanites were never a coastal culture. You are confusing them with the Phoenicians and the Philistine.. two of the "sea peoples." Unless I am mistaken the majored source of the dye was Tyre, a Phoenician city.
"Between ca. 1200–1100 BC, most of southern Canaan was settled, and according to the Bible conquered, by the Israelites, while the northern areas were taken over by Arameans. The remaining area still under clear Canaanite control, is referred to by its Greek name, "Phoenicia" (meaning "purple", in reference to the land's famous dye)."
You base your ideas on mythology not archaeological evidence.
Occupancy of the area is far older than 1200 BC ... there is even evidence of Neanderthal presence! The "Bible" you refer to is not part of the Jewish revelation but is misused as such by Christians. For Jews these are the semi-historical, mytholgical writing knon as prophets, kings and judges and referring to our history from the legendary time of Moses (as "revealed" in Torah) to the time of the conquest of Jerusalem. Only the latter parts of that history have been confirmed by archeology. The earlier parts have, in part been refuted including clear lack of evidence for a Joshua like conquest.
Much later, in the 6th century BC, Hecataeus of Miletus affirms that Phoenicia was formerly called χνα, a name that Philo of Byblos subsequently adopted into his mythology as his eponym for the Phoenicians: "Khna who was afterwards called Phoinix". Quoting fragments attributed to Sanchuniathon, he relates that Byblos, Berytus and Tyre were among the first cities ever built, under the rule of the mythical Cronus, and credits the inhabitants with developing fishing, hunting, agriculture, shipbuiding and writing.
Again, this is interesting and I must say I have not read Hecateus. BUT, this all refers to Phoenicia and is well trod but separate from Cannan. The Phoenicians were a wide spread coastal culture that extended from Tory to Britain. There commercial empire was huge and the cultural effects, as you say very impressive.
They were not among the oldest of civilizations but their ships, transporting inter alia Canaani and Hebrews, did spread a lot of common culture across the middle sea.
Modern studies show that they did not invented "phonetic." The earliest phonetic scripts are usually attributed to a "canaanite" culture .. which obviously would have included the hebrews. The forst such script is not entirely clear .. it could have been by any "Canaanite" people, inlcuding the hebrews and there is soem evidence that the origin was actuallin Egypt, possibly among the Huksos .. thus accounting for the method grwoing in Israel/Judea/Caaan once the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt.
Since the only Canaanite language to survive from that time to the present is Hebrew and given the unique emphasis amongst the Jews of writing as a common skill extending back at least 2500 years, it is more reasonable to say that the alef-bet comes from hebrew than from Phoenician.
St. Augustine also mentions that one of the terms the seafaring Phoenicians called their homeland was "Canaan." This is further confirmed by coins of the city of Laodicea by the Lebanon, that bear the legend, "Of Laodicea, a metropolis in Canaan"; these coins are dated to the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BC) and his successors.
You confuse too many things. Antiochus was GREEK, an invader with Alexander. Augustine, mother than many other issues with his weird life, is from a far later era, hardly a witness to anything we are discussing.
The first of many Canaanites who emigrated seaward finally settled in Carthage, and St. Augustine adds that the country people near Hippo, presumably Punic in origin, still called themselves Chanani in his day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Phoenician_Canaanites
Leaving aside this earl;y Christian, Carthage of course was a Pheonican city .. the same culture as Troy, Tyre, and many other similar cities on spits into the Mediterranean sea. If you want to confuse the modern Palestinians with THESE folks, things will get very weird ... excluding the North Arabians (the "Arabs"), the bedouin, etc..
"In terms of archeology, language, and religion, there is little to set the Phoenicians apart as markedly different from other local cultures of Canaan, because they were Canaanites themselves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia
WADR ... The Phoenicians built cities all over the Mediterraneans and went as far as England. Equating these sea farers with the moutain living Hebrews and the Canaani is a bit iof a reach but if you did accept it, the I suppose yopu would have to argue that the Jews are the closest we have to cescendents of the Phoenicians.
What is known however, is that there have been continuous cities through all the years, and one would normally identify with ones city rather than the entire country. For instance, a guy from Jerusalem would call himself a jerusalemite. But this fact - the fact that there where no real palestinian nationalism until the 1960s, does not deny the people their right to their cities, their properties and their homes. Whether it was a UN recognized nation or not does not change the fact that it was the land of their forefathers. This is what the zionist came and took away, alongside with part of their history.
First, the MAJORITY in Jerualem BEFORE the early waves of the Zionists, were Jews. Jews have continuously occupied Jerusalem for all but the era of the Ro,an.Byzantine horror.
Second, the Zionist ideal was for codominion, not expulsion. Even today, to my knowledge, the only movements that promote two peoples living in one land is Jewish. Jews are nto even allowed to live in many Arab countries. BTW .. I assume you are aware that before its conquest by Mohammed. Medina was a Jewish city. Do you suppose the Arabs would trade Medina today for Haifa?
BTW, until 48 the terms Jerusalemite and Palestinians gerally implied "Jew."
As to whether the ownners of land were ... owners of land. I do not hink anyone argues with that. Where there is reasobale dispute is whether the policy of the zionists in 48 were to force permanent expulsion of some non Jews. There is some vidence for that BUT there is overwhelmining evidence that the Arab side expected to make the area Judenrien (and did in the aresa they conquered) and that the Mufti tolks arabs to flee rather than stand their ground.
Again, at least at an official level, Israel has always siad it WANTED to include Arabs and Jews in its population,
I fully agree on this note. Jews that are born in Israel today knows no other homeland and so nobody should tell them to leave. However, palestinians who are living on top of each other in refugee camps should also get a fair treatment. I think the one-state solution is the only solution that might have a slight chance of bringing lasting peace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational_solution
1. If we are to follow YOUR logic, there already are two states. One is called Jordan. The great mjority of Jordanian citizens are of the same ethnicity as the Palestinans. Certainly in 48 NOONE would have suggested there wer two distinct peoples.
I assume you do not mean that Israel, Palestine, and Jordan should unify?
So, what you must mean is that for some reason the state of Israel shipbuild be disestablished so that the Jews can become a minority in a Muslim majority society?
Have you any idea what that means?
1. Under Islamic Law, Jews would not be entitled to hold office.
2. When the WestBank was under Jordanian rule, Jewish areas were totally cleansed (today's "arab quarter" of Jerusalem(, Jewish holy sites were used as pissoir, and the Temple Mount was banned to Jews. Is that OK by you?
3. You confuse the Palestinains with indigenes. The real story for the modern Palestinains is far more comlex. For example, did you know that Arafat was born in Cairo? Also, a juge proportion of the non-Jewish population of Israel/Palestine arrived in the area in the late 80s as immigrants to the new farms and industries that arose as the Zionists invested there. Do these people have the same rights as "ancient" Palestinians?
3. In Israel, Jews are taught that Arabs are a brother sister people.
This is isn dire ocntrast to the hatred taughtesp in Gaza by Hamas that not only is antisemtic, it promotes sharia under which Jews CANNOT hold office in the state.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fianlly, thwe saddest part of this all is that there is no way that what is now left of Palestine can ever be a state on its own. The rump land along the Jordan with or without Gaza is too poor and too small to succeed except as an economic partner of Israel.
The Palestinian people are, whatever bull shit we all spread, real. They do need a home. So do the Israelis.
The only realistic answer is 2 1/2 countries .. Israel, Jordan and a Palestinian state in some sort of Federation, a mini EU, is what most Isaeli dream of.
Getting there is possible. Israel certainly wants this as does Jordan. Jordon lacks the $$ to make it work and Palestine lacks the government. The $$ could be solved by a Marshall Project for Jordan. That is very doable and well within the means of the EU who sure as hell ought to to do something useful! Add in a few bucks form the effin Saudi's and peace would be possible.
Except ... fr the irredentism of Hamas and the corruption of Fatah.
Those problems seem overwhelming and may onlky be solveable by miliatry means.
I wonder if what is needed is a re-occupation of the WestBank by Jordan and of Gaza by Egypt to impose peace?
I do want to make one thing clear. I believe there are legitimate, if retrospective questions about the concept behind Zionism. The concept arose in an era where assumptions were made about European rights to colonize and organize the world. Those ideas wer wrong and it makes as good sense for the Arabs to say that a Jewish intrusion in their hunk of geography is wrong as it goes for the Tibetans to protest the Chinese, any native American to protest the US, etc.
If sopmeone told me that we should disestablish Israel and instead create a Jewish homeland out of part of Germany and Poland, to pick on tow of the worst regimes of WWII, I think I might agree.
OTOH, there have been Jews continuously in Eretz Yisrael for 3500 years. Claiming we are not indigenous makes as little sense as claiming that the Koisan are not indigenous to South Africa because the Euros and Zulus and Bantus peoples have invaded and dispaced them.
Nor is it correct to balme Israel's success in 48 on the European Holocaust. Jews in Arab lands, including Eretz Yisrael, were heootibly treated for centuries and the Arab forces in WWII were pro Nazi,
There is a flip side here. IF the Palestinians would truly seek peace, Israel would be defenseless and somethng quite new nuight grow of the encounter.
Wow dude, that was a lot of text. I simply don't have the time to comment on all, so I'll just do the most important parts.
Schwartz wrote:
"You need to learn to use sources other than the Wiki"
I do use other sources. However, for an internet debate like this, wiki is really good because you can check out their sources yourself.
Schwartz wrote:
"Sorry,m the Canaanites were never a coastal culture. You are confusing them with the Phoenicians and the Philistine.. two of the "sea peoples." Unless I am mistaken the majored source of the dye was Tyre, a Phoenician city."
You're commenting on wikipedia here, not me. Most of my previous post was all straight from wikipedia. Like I said, look at their footnotes, not their claims.
Swchartz wrote:
"You confuse too many things. Antiochus was GREEK, an invader with Alexander. Augustine, mother than many other issues with his weird life, is from a far later era, hardly a witness to anything we are discussing."
Again, you are commenting on the wiki, not me.
The whole point of my showing you to wikipedia, was not for you to take everything there as facts. My only point is that the phoenicians are regarded at part of the canaanites. That is what they are, by virtually all historians and archeologists of near easterns studies.
Schwartz:
"WADR ... The Phoenicians built cities all over the Mediterraneans and went as far as England. Equating these sea farers with the moutain living Hebrews and the Canaani is a bit iof a reach but if you did accept it, the I suppose yopu would have to argue that the Jews are the closest we have to cescendents of the Phoenicians."
I do not know who can claim to be closest related to the phoenicians, and frankly I do not care. Whether the jews of the world are closely related to the phoenicians through their hebrew ancestors or not, does simply not change the fact that DNA tests of "surviving" remains of phoenicians has shown that the people living in this area are infact their direct descendants.
As for the hebrews being closer related, like I said, it doesn't matter, but as far as I understand they where sort of neightbours rather than the same people.
Schwartz:
"I assume you are aware that before its conquest by Mohammed. Medina was a Jewish city. Do you suppose the Arabs would trade Medina today for Haifa?"
I don't really care about what the arabs want, I don't care about groups. I care about individuals and what happend to the individuals living there.
Schwartz wrote:
"As to whether the ownners of land were ... owners of land. I do not hink anyone argues with that. Where there is reasobale dispute is whether the policy of the zionists in 48 were to force permanent expulsion of some non Jews. There is some vidence for that BUT there is overwhelmining evidence that the Arab side expected to make the area Judenrien (and did in the aresa they conquered) and that the Mufti tolks arabs to flee rather than stand their ground."
I've read Joan Peters, Alan Derschowitz, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé and Norman Finkelstein. (Interestingly all jews, except for Joan Peters who knowbody even knows if exists).
In other words, I have seen a wide specter of evidence, documentation and sources for a whole lot of claims. Fact is, there are very much information that does indicate an expulsion; an expulsion that was under planning early on in the 20th century and was carried out (as planned) as soon as Israel came to exist.
This is what palestinian-arab aggression was a answer to. Think about how you would feel if a people started mass imigrating (illegally mind you) into your counrty with the intention of creating their own state. One thing I know for sure is, here in Sweden people would go nuts.
So please dont use this "juden rein" holocaust rethoric. Yes, the mufti of Jerusalem did side with Hitler because he was afraid, but there where no Hitler-like anti-semitism amongst the palestinians previous to their mass immigration. Muslims, christians and jews lived side by side, all in peace before the zionists came along.
And for the record, "arabfrei" is a widely used expression amonst israelis about the palestinian-free areas of Israel.
And one more thing, there is no evidence of the arab leaders telling palestinians to flee; this is another myth to validate the theft of land. In fact, there are evidence to the conterary:
"The BBC monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored account of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." (Erskine Childers (a British researcher and UN official) , quoted by Sami Hadawi in “Bitter Harvest”)"
Schwartz:
"Again, at least at an official level, Israel has always siad it WANTED to include Arabs and Jews in its population,"
That is because it would be flat out stupid to say that they where there to steal their lands. If I want to take your property for my own, I would say "let's all share it" rather actually telling your neighbours and friends that my intention is to remove you from it. Behind closed doors and amongst themselfs, there are much documentation of what they actually where saying, and it all fits mich better with the reallity we saw than with the official messages.
Virtually all the leaders of the zionists where talking about a clean jewish land and a plan to get them out. Here is a couple of quotes of Israels first prime minister David Ben-Gurion:
". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
"There is a reason to believe that what is being done . . . is being done out of certain political objectives and not only out of military necessities, as they claim sometimes. In fact, the transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the boundaries of the Jewish state is being implemented . . . the evacuation/clearing out of [Palestinian] Arab villages is not always done out of military necessity. The complete destruction of the villages is not always done only because there are no sufficient forces to maintain a garrison." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)
"If I was an Arab leader I would never make [peace] with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country." David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
Moshe Dayan, leader of Haganah:
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
"we must understand the motives and causes of the continued emigration of the [Palestinian] Arabs, from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and not to undermine these cause after all, we want to create a new map." (Righteous Victims, p. 338)
Schwartz wrote:
"I assume you do not mean that Israel, Palestine, and Jordan should unify?"
No, I mean that Israel and Palestine should unify in terms of territory, police, military, economics, while at the same time maintaining autonomous leadership for each nations sovereignty. In other words, two nations on a shared territory under one federation. The constitution should be designed in a way that it is absolutely impossible for one people to rule over the other; every single decision concerning both nations would have to be agreed uppon by leaders of both nations.
I do not think this is an easy solution, I simply think it is the only solution with a slight chance of working. Like you said, there is not enough palestine to make an independent state (the two-state solution must soon have a world record of failing). Also, the palestinians living in gaza and the west bank are will never give up their right to return - even if the israelis manage to keep them out till the day when ALL who actually where removed are dead, their descendants will never accept this. The Israeli settlements are also a problem that can only be solved through unification; cleansing them out of the area now is simply not doable.
Schwartz wrote:
"If sopmeone told me that we should disestablish Israel and instead create a Jewish homeland out of part of Germany and Poland, to pick on tow of the worst regimes of WWII, I think I might agree."
Actually, it was suggested early on for that the zionists create a homeland in an unsettled area of Argentina. This however was dropped very soon because Palestina was he promised land (even though it already was settled). So even if you would agree with that, the early zionists would definetly not.
Schwartz:
"OTOH, there have been Jews continuously in Eretz Yisrael for 3500 years. Claiming we are not indigenous makes as little sense as claiming that the Koisan are not indigenous to South Africa because the Euros and Zulus and Bantus peoples have invaded and dispaced them."
I am not claiming the jews are not indigenous, I have read alot about this too. For instance, I have read The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein, alongside with modern DNA-testing that shows that the jews does infact have roots in this country, and indeed are as much descendants of the canaanites as anybody else. I am simply claiming that the palestinians ALSO have their roots and heritage in the same country, all the way back to the time of the canaanites.
I had a conversation about this with Jonathan N. Tubb, Curator of Syria-Palestine, Western Asiatic Department, British, a while ago, and he too was convinced that the inhabitants of the entire area of ancient Palestine where at no time removed; they rather changed and adapted to their conquerors while still maintaining some culture. For instance, alot of palestinians carry the surnames Al-Kanaani, Canaan, etc.
Schwartz wrote:
"There is a flip side here. IF the Palestinians would truly seek peace, Israel would be defenseless and somethng quite new nuight grow of the encounter."
Indeed it would. It could actually be the end of the israeli state as a clean jewish homeland, which is why I think Israel does so much to maintain the conflict. For instance, did you know that it was Israel who financed Hamas to begin with? I am sure their analysts where not stuped enough NOT to see that islamic extremists would ruin any chance of peace. Here is a list of children killed since september 2000. Notice that not a single month, with the exception of december 2007, where the palestinians left alone; every single month these past years CHILDRENS have been killed. is it possible that Israels analysts are unaware that the parents, brothers and sisters of these dead kids will not fight back with rockets and suicide bombs? I truly doubt it, I think it is obvious that Israel fears the consequenses of peaceful palestinians.
As for your comments about israelis wanting peace, learning that arabs are brothers and sisters and wanting to share, share, share, I truly suggest you take a trip to the country some time and spend some time on both sides. The hate is staggering on both sides, not only amongst palestinians. Here is a few youtube clips that actually shows the reality of the hate. You might think this is incidents that almost never happend, but I can guarantee you that if you spend some time traveling around in the area, you will see that it is the norm rather than exceptions:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_5OOGBRHq8A
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DYuWOi56Wq0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xHE0RtdKp8U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2EUUrE8Lm14
Youtube is just full of these kind of videos.
I forgot to add the list of childrans killed in the conflict. Here it is: http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html
On the top you can pick any year from 2000 to 2008
I do not know who can claim to be closest related to the phoenicians, and frankly I do not care. Whether the jews of the world are closely related to the phoenicians through their hebrew ancestors or not, does simply not change the fact that DNA tests of "surviving" remains of phoenicians has shown that the people living in this area are infact their direct descendants.
This is likely nonsense. If you have a reference show it to me.
In other words, I have seen a wide specter of evidence, documentation and sources for a whole lot of claims. Fact is, there are very much information that does indicate an expulsion; an expulsion that was under planning early on in the 20th century and was carried out (as planned) as soon as Israel came to exist.
I call bullshit. I have read most of the same sources you refer to. Thery do show some bigotry, hardly surprising. But tyhey do not showe an effort at ethnic cleansing. Again, I challenge you to find evidence that there was a government policy or high level plan to expel all arabs form Jewish areas.
This is what palestinian-arab aggression was a answer to. Think about how you would feel if a people started mass imigrating (illegally mind you) into your counrty with the intention of creating their own state. One thing I know for sure is, here in Sweden people would go nuts.
The massacre at Hebron occurred long before the large scale immigration of Jews. Moreover, the mjor forces behind irredentism were Egyptian not Palestinian.
A comparison to Sweden makes no sense. Were there an ancient people that still survies and you eexpeld them???
Better comparisons can be made to Tibet, The Baltic States, and, of course, efforts by indigenes in the uS to expel Euroes from "their" land.
So please dont use this "juden rein" holocaust rethoric. Yes, the mufti of Jerusalem did side with Hitler because he was afraid, but there where no Hitler-like anti-semitism amongst the palestinians previous to their mass immigration. Muslims, christians and jews lived side by side, all in peace before the zionists came along.
What utter nonsense.
What is true is that Muslims and Arab relationships to Jews in Islamic States were far more generous than the situation on Christian states where Jews were regularly enslaved, executed, forced t convert, etc.
BUT, saying things were better for Jews in the Ottoman areas than in Europe does not say thinsg were all that good either.
There were multiple episodes of massacre of Jews within the Islamic world long before origin of Zionism beginning, of course, with the extermination fo Jews in Yathrib. Maimonides fled Alewhite extremism to come to Cairo under the Kurd, Salafin. Jews were totally barred from many Arab countries and subjected to strct dhimmitude in others.
There was some co-existence in Syria (the province divided up now into Iraq, Lebanaon, Israel, Jordan and Palestine, by the Euroes) under the TURKS who generally were more given to tlerance than the Arabs.
Mjay I suggest that there IS a middle path. One that recognizes the rights and interests of both groups. That apth involves a restoration of indigneous rule to Jordan. I beolieve this si actually the intent of the current King, albeit he is doing it slowly. The indigenous Jordanians are, of course, ethnically the same as the "Palestinians." With real foreign aid, Jordan shuld enmerge as a an economic center that can poffer jobs and stability to Arabs without requ8iring that they work in Israel.
This would allow the West Bank and even Gaza to emerge as viable homes to many people while alos providimng a hinter land.
Israel, for its part, could gradually trade its obsession with security for the shared goals of regional development.
Why isn't this happening? It si not happening and can not as long as antisemitism and irredentism raign supreme on Hamas.
Schwartz wrote:
"This is likely nonsense. If you have a reference show it to me."
(about the phoenicians)
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text/5
quote:
"Who were the Phoenicians? The answer deciphered from their vials of DNA both pleases and frustrates the scientists. Perhaps most significantly, their data show that modern Lebanese people share a genetic identity going back thousands of years.
"The Phoenicians were the Canaanites—and the ancestors of today's Lebanese," says Wells.
That result extinguishes Wells' theory that the migrating Sea Peoples interbred with the Canaanites to create the Phoenician culture.
"The Sea Peoples apparently had no significant genetic impact on populations in the Levant," he explains. "The people living today along the coast where the Sea Peoples would have interbred have very similar Y-chromosome patterns to those living inland. They are basically all one people.""
End quote.
If national geographic doesn't cut it for you, I've got some more achademical papers on this too.
Like you said, the palestinians and the lebanese where not distinguishable before zionism came along, and palestinians living along the coast in the northern parts of modern Israel where, like the lebanese, living on the area of ancient Phoenicia. The genetic makeup of coastal lebanese, coastal palestinians, inland lebanese and inland palestinians are all the very same. If you doubt this, I've got plenty of research papers on that too.
Scwhartz wrote:
"A comparison to Sweden makes no sense. Were there an ancient people that still survies and you eexpeld them???"
end quote.
Palestinians never expelled the jews. That is, the people who where living in Israel prior to zionism - the people which we now call the palestinians, did not expel the jews. So the comparison is good.
Bottom line in both this scenario and the palestinian reality: Individuals living peacefully on their forefathers lands feels threatned by newcomers with ancient scriptures and an open plan to annex your town in their state. That is not cool.
Schwartz:
"BUT, saying things were better for Jews in the Ottoman areas than in Europe does not say thinsg were all that good either."
end quite.
I am not talkning about the Ottomans, I am talking about the muslim, christian and jewish individuals living in what is now Israel prior to zionism. They all lived peacefuly side by side under the Ottoman rulers. Whether laws coming from Ottoman rulers where harder on jews or not, does not change this. Did you know that alot of indegenous (palestinian) jews where as much opposed to the zionist plans as the arabs and the christians in the beginning?
Schwartz wrote:
"Mjay I suggest that there IS a middle path. One that recognizes the rights and interests of both groups. That apth involves a restoration of indigneous rule to Jordan. I beolieve this si actually the intent of the current King, albeit he is doing it slowly. The indigenous Jordanians are, of course, ethnically the same as the "Palestinians." With real foreign aid, Jordan shuld enmerge as a an economic center that can poffer jobs and stability to Arabs without requ8iring that they work in Israel.
This would allow the West Bank and even Gaza to emerge as viable homes to many people while alos providimng a hinter land."
End quote.
This will not happend because it would mean that the palestinians have to give up the right of return. I'm not principally against a solution like this, I just don't see the palestinians accepting it. And to be honest, I wouldn't accept it either in their place.
A solution like this was probably what most israelis where hoping for a few decades ago. Back then it was more viable, but no more fair to the indivuals who would never get their homes back.
Now however, the palestinians have got themselfs a national identity, just like the one we have in Sweden, the one the israelis has and the one the chinese has. So any solution not allowing them, as a people, to get their rights fulfilled, will probably not work. This nationalism that arouse in the 60s and 70s is probably the single worst thing that could ever happend to the zionist plans. It is this nationalism that has caused the palestinians to get worldwide recognision for their battle, it has made historians revisit the accepted history of the state (wich to a large extent was all propaganda), and it is now standing in the way for any solution that is not fair to those individuals who lost their lands.
Schwartz wrote:
"Why isn't this happening? It si not happening and can not as long as antisemitism and irredentism raign supreme on Hamas."
End quote.
It is not antisemitism and irredentism that drives the palestinians, it is the theft of their homes and the oppression they have been living under for six decades. They have been screwed over by virtually everybody; the brits, the UN, the french, the americans, the jews, and last but certainly not least, the arab neighbours. That kind of experiance combined with war and oppression for 60 years in refugee camps that make up the most populated area of the world, can make anyone angry. You keep saying anti-semittism, but there is no hatred here that needs to be explained with anything but the reality. Please leave anti-semitism out, for the sake of the real victims of anti-semittism (and there are ALOT of them).
You probably know about the israeli human rights organization b'tselem. Read around there, look through their archives and such. The jews as a people are not the victims here. http://www.btselem.org/English/
Also, like I said, Israel nurtured and financed Hamas to begin with. Creating an islamist group like that amongst really angry people who has been screwed over by the entire world AND Fatah lastly, is simple and easy. I don't really know why Israel decided to give Hamas power, probably it was because they wanted an opponent to Arafat. Either way, Hamas is Israels creature, and using Hamas to explain why there is no peace now is also saying it is no peace because of Israels manipulations.
In Re Wells ..
I tried to look at NG but the articles require a subscription. If you want to get me text and email ti I will look at it.
In the mean time:
1: Am J Hum Genet. 2008 Apr;82(4):873-82. Epub 2008 Mar 27.
Y-chromosomal diversity in Lebanon is structured by recent historical events.
Zalloua PA, Xue Y, Khalife J, Makhoul N, Debiane L, Platt DE, Royyuru AK, Herrera
RJ, Hernanz DF, Blue-Smith J, Wells RS, Comas D, Bertranpetit J, Tyler-Smith C;
Genographic Consortium.
Collaborators: Schurr TG, Santos FR, Quintana-Murci L, Bertranpetit J, Comas D,
Tyler-Smith C, Zalloua PA, Balanovska E, Balanovsky O, Behar DM, Mitchell RJ, Jin
L, Soodyall H, Pitchappan R, Cooper A, Royyuru AK, Rosset S, Blue-Smith J,
Hernanz DF, Wells RS.
The Lebanese American University, Chouran, Beirut 1102 2801, Lebanon.
Lebanon is an eastern Mediterranean country inhabited by approximately four
million people with a wide variety of ethnicities and religions, including
Muslim, Christian, and Druze. In the present study, 926 Lebanese men were typed
with Y-chromosomal SNP and STR markers, and unusually, male genetic variation
within Lebanon was found to be more strongly structured by religious affiliation
than by geography. We therefore tested the hypothesis that migrations within
historical times could have contributed to this situation. Y-haplogroup J*(xJ2)
was more frequent in the putative Muslim source region (the Arabian Peninsula)
than in Lebanon, and it was also more frequent in Lebanese Muslims than in
Lebanese non-Muslims. Conversely, haplogroup R1b was more frequent in the
putative Christian source region (western Europe) than in Lebanon and was also
more frequent in Lebanese Christians than in Lebanese non-Christians. The most
common R1b STR-haplotype in Lebanese Christians was otherwise highly specific for
western Europe and was unlikely to have reached its current frequency in Lebanese
Christians without admixture. We therefore suggest that the Islamic expansion
from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century CE introduced
lineages typical of this area into those who subsequently became Lebanese
Muslims, whereas the Crusader activity in the 11(th)-13(th) centuries CE
introduced western European lineages into Lebanese Christians.
In other words, from Well's own lab, he finds substantial evidence that those who all themselves "Muslims" have an Arab lineage attributable to migration from Arabia.
Given that the PHoenicians as a distinct people ceased to exist during preislamic times, it is hard to imagine how the conclusions you claim could be derived.
My guess is that what Wells has seen is that there are traits indigenous to Lebanese that indicate a choke point (that is a relatively small set of ancestors far enough back to relate to the Phoenicians. This certainly can nto prove that the Pheonicians were Canaani or that modern Lebananese are the people identified as Phoenician back then.
Also, as the abstract of the article in NG states, the concept of Phoenician is itself a bit vague ... since there never was a formal empire that united the Phoenician cities.
Finally, there is simialr evidence for an ancestral choke point that unties other semites, including Jews and Arabs with origin in Northern Arabia as well as evidence that shows a choke point unique to Jews about 3000-3500 years ago, possible associated with the conquest of the Jebusites. It might be interesting to know the incidence of this marker, sometimes called the Cohen marker, amongst modern Palestinians.
"Palestinians never expelled the jews. That is, the people who where living in Israel prior to zionism - the people which we now call the palestinians, did not expel the jews. So the comparison is good.
Bottom line in both this scenario and the palestinian reality: Individuals living peacefully on their forefathers lands feels threatned by newcomers with ancient scriptures and an open plan to annex your town in their state. That is not cool."
I suppose this depnds on who you think the Palestinians are descended from. One thing is certain. By 2000 years ago, the majority of the folks in Pjillistia were Jews. If there were any Canaaini around then, the Romans diod not note them. So, using your logic, either the modern Palestinians are the descendent of the Jews or they are the descendants of the invaders ,, a long list that includes Romans, Greeks, Franks, and Arabs. The best evidence form your own Wells suggests the latter is true.
If the latter is true then the ancestors of the Palestinians were people who expelled or tried to expell the Jews.
Frankly, I think thsi is horseshit. The indigenes as of the 1800s included three people with reasonably ancient claims .. Jews, Druse, and Bedouins. There were no people identified nas Palestiainas at that time but there were many on Jewish Arabs. They likely (see Wells) had many roots, including ancient Jewish roots.
Wherhn the Zionists began theor movement, t made as much sense .. in their context .. as any of many modern movements of peoples to make home lands. Other examples might include the establishment of Utah (with no historic connection), the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh (where non indigenous minorities now rule), the establishment of Liberia, the Bantu take ove rof South Africa, etc.
Frankly, there is a simple answer. Zionism does not need to be denigrated for standing up for Jewish rights given the 1000 or 1400 years of oppression by the Roman/Christian world and the Muslim world.
At the same time, only a blindly unkind person could fail to feel the pain of the Palestinians. Calling them illegitimates makes no sense either.
Wells...
"The Sea Peoples apparently had no significant genetic impact on populations in the Levant," he explains. "The people living today along the coast where the Sea Peoples would have interbred have very similar Y-chromosome patterns to those living inland. They are basically all one people.""
since I lack access to his text, muy comments must be limited. I think he is saying that today's coast Lebanese lack genetic evidence of being a distinct population as might be expected if they were the descendants of the coastal cultures of 3000 and more years ago. I do nto see why this is surprising, nor does it mean that the existence of the sea peoples, supported a a lot of other evidence, is not correct. FWIW, I believe we lack contemporary genetic evidence for cro-magnon man.
"You keep saying anti-semittism, but there is no hatred here that needs to be explained with anything but the reality. Please leave anti-semitism out, for the sake of the real victims of anti-semittism (and there are ALOT of them)."
Damnit ... read any Hamas literature. Regardless of the history, to no call this antisemitism is blind.
Why in hell can't you feel for all people? The Palestinians bleed when cut just as Jews do. There is no answer that does not require a cessation fo violence and that will not cease as along as one side or the other is not willing to accept living together as two peoples.
Does that mean that Jews are not victims of Hamas' rockets and Palestinians of the Israeli retribution?
"Also, like I said, Israel nurtured and financed Hamas to begin with. Creating an islamist group like that amongst really angry people who has been screwed over by the entire world AND Fatah lastly, is simple and easy. I don't really know why Israel decided to give Hamas power, probably it was because they wanted an opponent to Arafat. Either way, Hamas is Israels creature, and using Hamas to explain why there is no peace now is also saying it is no peace because of Israels manipulations."
I do not know why you think Israel created Hamas. I would guess it is because Israel opposed Fatah's corruption?
All I know or care about is that until the Palestinians have a rational government that accepts co-existence, Israel has no real choices. There are two other alternatives ... genocide of either side against the other.
Look,
If you really care about the Palestinians, then
1. contact me by name, I would like to know you.
2. consider how you can really help not on;y the Palestianians but the general gulf between the arab/muslim world and the rest of us.
I believe that there are things that can be done.
I feel like I need to make one thing perfectly clear before I proceed: I do not consider the question of the phoenician heritage relevant to the current conflict in any way. My only reason for trying to find scientific indications for the claim that the Levantines are descendents of the phoenicians is because ancient history is just interesting.
The same goes for the canaanite heritage claims; I personally do not think that such claims should be considered at all when talking about the current mideast conflict. Ancient history is ancient history. I do however think it is relevant to point out the facts when people use the "the jews where there first, so it's their land"-argument. The facts are clear: Both jews and palestinians have their roots in the Southern Levant.
And that is why I commented on your blogpost with the references to ancient history and DNA clues. You stated that "This claim by Palestinians is part of a persistent racist effort to deny the Jews OUR heritage". The irony in this is the fact that this palestinian (as far as I can tell) did not try to deny anyone their heritage; he simply claims his own (which is well supported by virtually all recent research). In other words, in your blogpost, you are the one being racist, according to your own perception of the meaning of racism.
----------------
Scwhartz wrote:
"I tried to look at NG but the articles require a subscription. If you want to get me text and email ti I will look at it."
----------------
You're talking about the research article and not the general NGM article, right? The NGM article is open for all and can be found by googling ngm.com+phoenicia. From Wells, I do not have anything else, besides this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZjF5IfuML0&feature=related
His statemens seems to support the statement of Jonathan N. Tubb: Quote "I personally believe very strongly in continuity of population. I would also maintain that the indigenous people of the southern Levant (coastal Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan), were the Canaanites. Their closely related counterparts in central inland Syria were the Amorites. Both were a west Semitic people - based on language.
Throughout the history of the region, despite political and religious changes, there is no reason to suppose that the native Canaanite population did not continue to live there, nor indeed does not continue to live there to this very day.
[...]
although new ruling classes arrived in the region, the basic population remained the same."
End quote.
For more articles and research on the phoenicians and their heritage, you can find a whole lot by following the sources on phoenicia.org. Let me just make it clear that I do not percieve the people behind this site as objective; they clearly have an agenda and a pride that sometimes boarders to some sort of phoenicio-centrism. But, they base most of their claims on scientific research that we all can explore. The following article in particular handles the phoenician heritage of today: http://phoenicia.org/today.html
----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"In other words, from Well's own lab, he finds substantial evidence that those who all themselves "Muslims" have an Arab lineage attributable to migration from Arabia."
----------------
No doubt about that; alot of people left their markers among the Shouthern Levantines, including the arabs and the crusaders. But this does not change the fact that the inhabitants of the Levant, whether they be muslim, christian, jewish or druze today, are the direct descendants of the original canaanites.
Another thing worth mentioning is that even though most of the original inhabitants of this land has changed religion, written language and some culture, there are still alot of traces remaining from ancient times. For one thing, the arabic spoken in Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian territories differ very much from Egyptian or Saudi spoken Arabic; the Levant-arabic is much closer to hebrew and arameic. Same goes for other cultural traits like food, traditions, etc.; even though it all has similarities to that of the rest of the arab world, it is easily distinguishable. This goes for most arab countries.
----------------
Scwhartz wrote:
"Given that the PHoenicians as a distinct people ceased to exist during preislamic times, it is hard to imagine how the conclusions you claim could be derived."
----------------
That depends on how you would define "ceased to exist". Their blood and alot of their culture still exists. Their heritage and their descendants still exists. When the Levantines are learning about their history and their forefathers, the phoenicians and the rest of the canaanites are as relevant to learn about as the Vikings are relevant for us to learn about in Sweden. Pretending that their history starts in 638 and deleting the rest of their heritage just doesn't make any sense.
----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"If the latter is true then the ancestors of the Palestinians were people who expelled or tried to expell the Jews."
----------------
Even if there was any truth to this, it would be utterly irrelevant because the descdendants of whomever people expelled the jews, was not alive back then and should not be punnished for any actions committed by their forefathers from thousands of years ago. No more than young israelis of today are responsible for the actions of their parents. This is why I hate collectivism so intensly, it allows for that kind of groundless judgements of complete groups.
With that being said, I have to say the same as I've been saying all along: There is no evidence in archeology, history, DNA research, anthropology, or any other scientific field to suggest that the people who was living in the Southern Levant 3000-4000 years ago was at any time driven out or replaced by others (with the exception of the jews which partly have returned). ALL science point to the opposite - to the claim that Southern Levantines, including the ashkenazi jews, are all direct descendants of the canaanite peoples.
----------------
Scwartz wrote:
"Frankly, I think thsi is horseshit. The indigenes as of the 1800s included three people with reasonably ancient claims .. Jews, Druse, and Bedouins. There were no people identified nas Palestiainas at that time but there were many on Jewish Arabs. They likely (see Wells) had many roots, including ancient Jewish roots."
----------------
That's because of both arabic nationalism and islamic religious sense of brotherhood. Muslim arabs back then would identify with their religion rather than their pre-islamic forefathers. That does not change the history and the facts.
You keep calling it horseshit and such, but are you able to produce any scientific evidence to suggest that the canaanites where infact exterminated or driven out and replaced at any time? Can you find any evidence to show that the modern Southern Levantines culture and language are -all- legacy of the invaders? So far, all your proof only shows that the Levantines carried markers left from invaders. Nothing else. I would advise you to think about how jews feel when others try to distort and deny their heritage, because that is what you are doing to the non-jews in the Levant.
----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"Frankly, there is a simple answer. Zionism does not need to be denigrated for standing up for Jewish rights given the 1000 or 1400 years of oppression by the Roman/Christian world and the Muslim world."
----------------
I agree that zionism was created under different times and that it had good reasons for being created; the jews were indeed in severe need of a homeland. Even though zionism clearly has what we would call racist goals today, the reality of the situation did and does justify such an ideology, simply because the jews needed and probably still needs this sort of protection. This need for protection in it self does, however, not justify the choice of populated land for the goals, nor does it justify the expulsion of the residents of this land. As said, there was talk about using a piece of uninhabited land in Argentina early on, but it was dismissed due to the Levant being "the promised land". In my view, that very choice was the start of the entire conflict. Even if it was an accepted sort of "micro" imperialism at the time, it was no more right then the highly accepted american slavery of africans.
And even though done is done, this part of the history - the illegal immigration to the Southern Levant which resulted in the expulsion of the palestinians, is highly relevant when talking about solutions. For any solution to have the slightest chance to work, this problem needs to be tackled. Since we still haven't invented a device that deletes an entire peoples memory, I believe the only way to solve this problem is to somehow allow the return of at least the palestinians living in refugee camps.
----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"Damnit ... read any Hamas literature. Regardless of the history, to no call this antisemitism is blind."
----------------
First of all, as far as I can tell they've always used an anti-zionist and thus anti-israel rethoric; not an anti-jew rethoric. This is made quite clear both in their charter and in speeches by the leaders. Here is an interview with Ahmed Yassin, the wheelchair old guy that was assassinated by Israel:
QUOTE:
But the terrorist attacks inside Israel are strengthening the view of Israelis that you want to "throw them into the sea."
"No Palestinian says that we want to throw the Jews into the sea. The Palestinians always say that they want to live on the lands of our forebears and that all of us - Muslims, Jews and Christians - will live together in the spirit of democracy. But the problem is that the Jews don't want to give the others their rights. They want to establish a racist regime."
In other words, you foresee a state in which Jews will live under Muslim rule?
"It is said that whoever commands the majority will govern. I say, for example, that the Jews in Andalusia lived at a very high level."
I know Palestinians who are afraid to live in a state under the Islamic leadership of Hamas.
"We have never imposed our principles, nor do we want to dictate them with force. There is no dictate. To each his own religion in a state that will respect all the human rights."
Yet the Islamic governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia do not respect human rights, do they?
"I am putting forward the correct Islamic picture, and the implementation by others is of no interest to me."
END QUOTE
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=411571
I think we need to make a clear distinction between the anti-semittism of christians which lead to the holocaust and the kind of hate that ALWAYS exists between enemies. The "throw the jews into the sea"-rethoric, the attacks on Israel and the critic of israeli religious extremists is all the result of the conflict. The jews that died in concentration camps in WW2, where killed for a completely different sort of evil. I am reluctant to use the term anti-semitism about all critics and attacks on jews because the term becomes watered out and eventually loses its original meaning, which is irrational and groundless hatred towards jews.
----------------
Scwartz wrote:
"Why in hell can't you feel for all people? The Palestinians bleed when cut just as Jews do. There is no answer that does not require a cessation fo violence and that will not cease as along as one side or the other is not willing to accept living together as two peoples.
Does that mean that Jews are not victims of Hamas' rockets and Palestinians of the Israeli retribution?"
----------------
Have I ever said anything that suggests that I don't feel the same for all peoples? If so, I have not been clear enough. In my view, the death of an israeli civilian is just as bad as the death of a palestinian civilian. There is NO difference between these whatsoever; humans are humans. But the truth is that somewhere between five and seven times as many civilian palestinians gets killed, compared to israelis. And a whole lot more lose their limbs, their homes, their family members. And what's more, when an israeli civilian dies in a suicide attack, he dies at the hands of some nasty group, while when a palestinian civilian dies, he dies at the hands of a national soldier of a civilized, western-like democracy - soldiers with orders from the top of the government. When terrorist organizations kills, the entire world condemn it strongly, whereas when this democratic government kills plenty more, only a few people condemn it. The U.S. even seems to approve it, judging by her reactions - or rather lack of reactions.
In other words, I condemn the actions of the IDF as much as I condemn the actions of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. My point is not that palestinians getting killed is worse than israelis getting killed, my point is that each life is equal and that Israel kills far more of these equals and to a large extent gets away with it.
----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"I do not know why you think Israel created Hamas. I would guess it is because Israel opposed Fatah's corruption?"
End quote.
----------------
I wouldn't go as far as to say Israel created Hamas. I'm saying Israel nurtured and financed hamas in the early days because it is known facts (although both sides are avoiding any mention of it today). The official explenation is that Israel thought the PLO was their worst enemy and that Hamas could be a good counterpart to reduce the power of the PLO, and today they are saying it was a big mistake. I have problems with believing this explenation because the experts and analysts in IDF and Mossad would have to be downright stupid. I personally could have told them what would happen if islamists where allowed to rize to power; in my mind there would never be any doubt that it would harm any chance for peace. I cannot be a greater expert on these matters than Israels analysts. Because of this, I am trying to see what Israel gained out if this, to check if there is infact a possibility that the experts did know what they where doing and what was going to happen. Looking at the situation from outside, I'de say the existence of Hamas power has done some good for Israel. The rockets and the suicide bombs sure are a huge problem, but the gains are greater; PLO has lost much power, the palestinians in general have lost sympathy and support throughout the world (and Israel has gained some), and most importantly; peace is further away than in a long time. As explained both before and later in this post, I think Israel fears peaceful palestinians far more than they fear aggressive palestinians.
----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"All I know or care about is that until the Palestinians have a rational government that accepts co-existence, Israel has no real choices. There are two other alternatives ... genocide of either side against the other."
----------------
I don't believe this will happen as long as Israeli leaders wants a jewish homeland and not a jewish AND palestinian homeland. Because if the palestinians really become peaceful, Israel would have no choice but to give in to some of the palestinian demands, which ultimately could undermine the zionists wish for a homeland where the jews are the solid majority in power. The ongoing conflict allows the zionists justify anything to keep secure the integrity of Israel as a jewish homeland. With peaceful palestinians, they would lose this security. I think this is the only explenation for the nasty things the Israeli government does - and the list of nasty things is LONG. If this was NOT the case, it would mean that Israel is just nasty for the sake of being nasty, and that simply does not make any sense. I have changed words with israeli jews many times, and I am convinced that they are not evil by heart.
In America, I believe you guys don't get the true image of what really happens down there through your mass media. Europe too has some filters, but nothing compared to you. I would like you to watch this documentary (link at the bottom). Let me first make it clear that there is no doubt this documentary focus mainly on the palestinian issue, and as such it is biased; it doesn't distort the truth, it kind of just ignores the israeli side of the story. Therefor, I would not recommend it for someone who knows nothing about the conflict. Nevertheless, the facts that are presented, the account of the history and the analysis of the different events and how the media in America portraits them, are all well documented and correct. As far as I could tell, there where no lies and no twisting of truths. I think every american should know the facts presented in it, for your own sake.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565
Schwartz wrote:
"Look,
If you really care about the Palestinians, then
1. contact me by name, I would like to know you.
2. consider how you can really help not on;y the Palestianians but the general gulf between the arab/muslim world and the rest of us.
I believe that there are things that can be done."
End quote.
When employers are evaluating their candidates here, they always do these internet background checks, so I'd rather keep my name as clean as possible. Not that my views are extreme or anything, but the Israel/Palestine issue is a touchy subject for alot of people. In other words, I'de rather stay anonymous for now. If there is anything you want to talk to me privately about though, I can be reached at pseudonym47@gmail.com
And that is why I commented on your blogpost with the references to ancient history and DNA clues. You stated that "This claim by Palestinians is part of a persistent racist effort to deny the Jews OUR heritage". The irony in this is the fact that this palestinian (as far as I can tell) did not try to deny anyone their heritage; he simply claims his own (which is well supported by virtually all recent research). In other words, in your blogpost, you are the one being racist, according to your own perception of the meaning of racism.
I suggest you read some Palestinian literature. Yjeuy certainly do claim that they and no the Jews are the descendants of the Canaani. Commonly they assert that Jerws have no genetic tie to the ancient peoples .. citring the Khazari as evidence.
As for whether these ancient DNA ties mean much, the only value I can see is in substantiating the more importnat ethnic ties. Since Judaism by defintion has never been based on blood, a convert is as much a Jew as one whose blood is pure Abraham.
So, WADR, there is nothing whatsoever racist about my stand. What is racist and intellectually wrng is for a Palestinian to claim that HE or SHE is ethnically tied to this bot of soil based on a fictitious view of history. It would be equally wrong for a Jew to claim that the Palestinians are not descended form folks who lived there long ago.
BUT, the only ones making such claims that I know of are the Palestinians.
I would also maintain that the indigenous people of the southern Levant (coastal Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan), were the Canaanites. Their closely related counterparts in central inland Syria were the Amorites. Both were a west Semitic people - based on language.
Throughout the history of the region, despite political and religious changes, there is no reason to suppose that the native Canaanite population did not continue to live there, nor indeed does not continue to live there to this very day.
[...]
although new ruling classes arrived in the region, the basic population remained the same."
There are manyn issues here. First, you cited the genetic data not I. I read the critical papaer and as you can see for your self it does not support the claim that any modern group can identify themselves with the the Canaani or the Popenicians and certainly ti doe snot supprt the idea that the Phoenicians were the Canaani.
Second, in re the cultural data, there is a very alrge literature on differences between different groups in the area including differences between the coastal popele abd the mountain people.
Trying to trace those differences culturally over 3000 years when the cultural entities themselves were not recognizable, except for the Jews, by 2000 years ago seems absurd.
Suggesting that DNA, OTOH, can say YEP .. Sima and Shima share an ancestor who lived at the time of the Canaani, that is OK but mneans something quite different than cultural descent.
With that being said, I have to say the same as I've been saying all along: There is no evidence in archeology, history, DNA research, anthropology, or any other scientific field to suggest that the people who was living in the Southern Levant 3000-4000 years ago was at any time driven out or replaced by others (with the exception of the jews which partly have returned). ALL science point to the opposite - to the claim that Southern Levantines, including the ashkenazi jews, are all direct descendants of the canaanite peoples.
I gnerally agree but you do overstate the data. There is gfood evidence og huge Arab immigration after 638 as well as other immigrations before and after that. Simialrly, modern Jews have a DNA tie but are not descended form one common ancester.
The ideal POV, in my opinion, is that the Palestinainas and the Jews are siblings and should be able to work together. THAT, bubbelah was and is the key concept in Zionism.
"I am reluctant to use the term anti-semitism about all critics and attacks on jews because the term becomes watered out and eventually loses its original meaning, which is irrational and groundless hatred towards jews."
WADR .. you have a convenient tolerance of the antisemites ...inlcuding the very stement here. I am Andalusian. We did live under islamic rule ti is was a lot better than Christian rule BUT we never had equality, were were usbjected to regular pogroms and Islamic law dictates that we can not be equal. This si just the facts.
Nothing in what you cited explains why the Muslims insist they must be the majority.
:n other words, I condemn the actions of the IDF as much as I condemn the actions of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. My point is not that palestinians getting killed is worse than israelis getting killed, my point is that each life is equal and that Israel kills far more of these equals and to a large extent gets away with it.
:
The bottom line is that the great majority of Jews want to live side by side in peace. The Palestinians do not. They make war. What in hell would you do?
I don't believe this will happen as long as Israeli leaders wants a jewish homeland and not a jewish AND palestinian homeland. Because if the palestinians really become peaceful, Israel would have no choice but to give in to some of the palestinian demands, which ultimately could undermine the zionists wish for a homeland where the jews are the solid majority in power. The ongoing conflict allows the zionists justify anything to keep secure the integrity of Israel as a jewish homeland. With peaceful palestinians, they would lose this security. I think this is the only explenation for the nasty things the Israeli government does - and the list of nasty things is LONG. If this was NOT the case, it would mean that Israel is just nasty for the sake of being nasty, and that simply does not make any sense. I have changed words with israeli jews many times, and I am convinced that they are not evil by heart.
You seem to be proving my point.
What is wrong with there being a Jewish and a Palestinian state? How do the Palestinians get hurt by that?
BYTW .. as you well know, Jordan is already ethnically a Palestinian satte. Are you aware of IDF rockets going there? Why not?
The video??? What do you think that proves?
First of all you haver a very arrogant POV in re that someone like me reads. I have very little doubt, base don your posts, tat I read more widely than you do.
I am also a long time supporter of Jimmy Carter and would commend HIS book to you if you want a less biased view of Palestinians suffering than one Chomsky trots forth. His analogy to Apartheid is all to real.
NONE of this offers an answer.
You seem, moreover, utterly ignorant, of what has happened in the apst when Jew lived under Muslim control. Extermination is IN THE KORAN!!! Jews were wiped out of East Jerusalem by Jordan!
The idea that there is a solution by sending Jews to such na sttae is disgusting.
There are answers and folks like you do evil by ignoring them .. the answers are only two .. evauate Israel make it Yideen Rein, the only pattern that has worked in the modern Arab world, OR have two states. The forer is easy to understand. The latter seems hard for you to understand. Ask yourself why.
As for this video ...
Have you LISTENED to it? I have, all ti says is obvious. Israel occupies these lands. we all agree on that. Occupation sucks we agree. Israel's efforts include PR .. why not?
You live outside the US and Israwl. Where? What can YOU or your country do to help? AFIK, most of the non US powers involved feed the conflict by not supporting peace efforts. When did you kast donate a penny to an organization devoted to peace?
How many countries supprt economic development in Jordan or Lebanon? How many countries oppose the military domination of Lebanon by the Syrians?
I call BullShit on mist of this. If you want to convince ME that anti zionism is anything but antisemtiism show me, as Jimmy Carter has, a sincere commitment to peace.
Schwartz wrote:
"I suggest you read some Palestinian literature. Yjeuy certainly do claim that they and no the Jews are the descendants of the Canaani. Commonly they assert that Jerws have no genetic tie to the ancient peoples .. citring the Khazari as evidence."
--------------
Some palestinian intellectuals claims this, yes. Others claims to be arab, while others again claims to be descendants of the philistines. Arafat claimed that Jesus was a palestinian. The palestinian perception of the jewish heritage and their own heritage has never been monotone.
The same goes for jews; alot of jews still says the palestinians are all arabs who came with the invasion of the arabs in 638 and replaced the indegenous peoples. Alot of jews, particularly from your generation, even says the palestinians of today was not even in the country until the jews came and brought the soil to life. That was the common perception in the entire west for decades, along with other created myths like "britain tried to prevent the establishment of a jewish state", "the palestinians fled their homes of their own free will", and so on. All myths created for propaganda purposes to legitimate and justify what happend. The denial of Al Nakba in particular is percieved as horrible amongst palestinians who experianced it.
Point is, both sides have always been lying and twisting the reality to their own advantage, and while the palestinian and arab versions was accepted in the arab and muslim countries, the israeli version was accepted in the west.
-----------------
Schwartz wrote:
"So, WADR, there is nothing whatsoever racist about my stand. What is racist and intellectually wrng is for a Palestinian to claim that HE or SHE is ethnically tied to this bot of soil based on a fictitious view of history."
How about if they feel culturally and socialy tied to this bot of soil based on the sense of social and cultural belonging to others in the same land and to all their known forebears which to their knowledge did infact live on the same soil? What is, then, wrong with invastigating the origins of culture and traditions and identify with whatever source it had in the same way as scandinavians study the norse society of old and percieve themselfs as the legacy of the Vikings?
As a palestinian, one can indentify ones own heritage and be fascinated by it without ever uttering anything about the jews. This is my problem with your blogpost; it seems like you attack ALL claims of the palestinians being canaanite, not just the ones who ALSO denies the jews their heritage. Though I might have misunderstood you.
---------------
Schwartz wrote:
"Trying to trace those differences culturally over 3000 years when the cultural entities themselves were not recognizable, except for the Jews, by 2000 years ago seems absurd.
Suggesting that DNA, OTOH, can say YEP .. Sima and Shima share an ancestor who lived at the time of the Canaani, that is OK but mneans something quite different than cultural descent."
---------------
I agree on that one, but there is so much that really seperates the peoples of the Shouthern Levant from their neighbours. For instance, the pentecontad calendar system which is thought to be of Amorite origin and dates back to atleast the 3rd millennium BCE, was still in use by palestinian fellahins well into modern age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecontad_calendar
Same with spoken language and alot of cultural and traditional norms; alot of it has been kept in families for thousands of years. Why is this not good enough to consider oneself indegenous of the land? Why do you insist that muslim and christian Southern Levantines should feel like invaders rather than converts, when in fact all scientific research point to them being predominantly converts?
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"The ideal POV, in my opinion, is that the Palestinainas and the Jews are siblings and should be able to work together."
-------------
I completely agree on that one.
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"WADR .. you have a convenient tolerance of the antisemites ...inlcuding the very stement here. I am Andalusian. We did live under islamic rule ti is was a lot better than Christian rule BUT we never had equality, were were usbjected to regular pogroms and Islamic law dictates that we can not be equal. This si just the facts.
Nothing in what you cited explains why the Muslims insist they must be the majority."
-------------
I know that the muslims treated jews different, but mostly they treated non-muslims, as in christians, jews, druze, etc. all the same. That is not antisemitism, it is regular discrimination of all those who are different. Anti-semittism is different because it is directed towards jews only, usually because they're jews and nothing else. When calling every single line of critics against anything jewish "anti-semittism", the word loses this meaning, and becomes just another word for "discrimination". I think it should be preserved for the groundless and direct hatred of jews which still can be found amongst many people throughout the world. This meaning should be preserved for the sake of avoiding anything like the holocaust ever happening again.
--------------
Schwartz wrote:
"The bottom line is that the great majority of Jews want to live side by side in peace. The Palestinians do not. They make war. What in hell would you do?"
--------------
Well, for starters I would stop the building of settlements in palestinian areas, stop the unnecessary discrimination of israeli palestinians (b'tselem for documentation) and stop the demolition of palestinian houses. Also, I would build the security fence on my own recognized territory and not in a way that it eats up huge parts of the palestinian territories. These are all things Israel does that have nothing to do with protection against palestinian attacks. On the contrary, these actions provokes the palestinians to fight harder. Why then are they doing it? What is the point of placing out settlers in occupied land? What do they gain by making innocent people homeless? Why don't they build the fence around THEIR country?
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"What is wrong with there being a Jewish and a Palestinian state? How do the Palestinians get hurt by that?"
-------------
You mean a to-state solution? The palestinians living in refugee camps who have been screwed by the entire world over and over again, will get hurt by that because nothing of what was taken away from them will be given back. Like I said, principally I have no problem with the to-state solution. In reality however, I simply do not think it will ever work, because of the facts, the situation and the views of both sides. I'm not taking the side of the palestinians in this matter, I am simply trying to figure out what solutions CAN work. The binational solution is in my view the only viable proposed solution so far, because it really deals with the needs of both sides.
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"BYTW .. as you well know, Jordan is already ethnically a Palestinian satte. Are you aware of IDF rockets going there? Why not?"
-------------
I don't see how Israel would win anything by starting an open war with Jordan.
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"First of all you haver a very arrogant POV in re that someone like me reads. I have very little doubt, base don your posts, tat I read more widely than you do."
-------------
I feel the same way about your point of view, but I don't see how it is fruitful to start analyzing each other instead of focusing on the material in the cases. let's avoid comments like "you're arrogant, ignorant and supporter of evil", shall we?
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"I am also a long time supporter of Jimmy Carter and would commend HIS book to you if you want a less biased view of Palestinians suffering than one Chomsky trots forth. His analogy to Apartheid is all to real."
-------------
I have read it and also think it's great. Actually I don't think his point of view differs much from that of Chomsky, who by the way also is supporting the two-state solution rather than a binational solution.
Have you noticed that Carter is declared persona non grata amongst a whole lot of Pro-Israelis for this book? What do you think that kind of reactions does to the next guy who tryes to write a book about these matters?
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"You seem, moreover, utterly ignorant, of what has happened in the apst when Jew lived under Muslim control. Extermination is IN THE KORAN!!! Jews were wiped out of East Jerusalem by Jordan!"
-------------
I'm not. I am actually very aware of the history of the muslims and I know how they treated dhimmis throughout the muslim world. I also know that there was no spesific mistreatment of jews compared to other dhimmis. Discrimination? Yes. Anti-semittism? Not of the same kind that you find amongst the users of Stormfront.org.
I also find it frightening that you think "Extermination is IN THE KORAN!!!". That is total bullshit propaganda that has nothing to do with neither reality nor with the koran. The only thing written in the koran about extermination is about those who oppress and murder the muslim for their faith. Other than that, there is nothing like that. Sure, you can quote verses of the koran that is out of context and say "kill those" or "kill that", but that is no different than when anti-semites quote the old testament and the Talmud on their not too flattering descriptions of gentiles. It's bullshit nonsense.
If you're refering to the Banu Qurayza tribe and Muhammeds treatment of them, they where first of all enemies because of actions and not because of their faith. After all, Muhammed recognized that their God was the same as his and he himself said the jews of the world was the people of the book. So even if he did slaughter 900 jews, it would not have anything to do with the nazi type of anti-semittism - it would simply be another sort of evil. Second, the historic accounts of what really happend back then, how it happend and why it happend, is highly debatable. Most muslims holds that there was no slaughter of innocent jews by Muhammed, and the koran states nothing about any massacre. The koran also states that 35:18: "No soul shall bear another's burden. If a laden soul cries out for help, nothing of its burden will be carried even by a relative.". This highly contradicst the notion that he would kill 900 people for belonging to a tribe. Also, there have been found no traces of any massgraves to suggest this actually happend. It is mostly groundless statements based on highly unreliable hadeeth texts which was written by others centuries after it actually took place.
-------------
Schwartz wrote:
"There are answers and folks like you do evil by ignoring them .. the answers are only two .. evauate Israel make it Yideen Rein, the only pattern that has worked in the modern Arab world, OR have two states. The forer is easy to understand. The latter seems hard for you to understand. Ask yourself why."
--------------
I'm not advocating a solution that would put the jews under muslim rule. The main goal of the solution I am advocating here is to give back to the people who where robbed of their properties, what is theirs. Other than that, I am open for all suggestions. For instance, the constitution of such a binational state could hold that each political party that runs for the rule of the entire territory, is bound to have a sufficient amount of both palestinians and jews in order to not let one nation run over the other.
And another thing, for the last several decades, the jews have been greater in numbers compared to palestinians in Israel and the palestinian territories combined. Even today they are still in greater numbers, so if we implemented a binational state on the entire territory today, the palestinians would be the minority, not the jews. Sure the palestinians breed like rabits these days, but that is the consequense of the horrible situation their in; look at anywhere else in the world where breeding is on such a high rate; it is ALWAYS people who are very poor. If the palestinians get out of this state, gets better educations and good work, I am absolutely positive the high birthrates will turn around. The longer Israel waits to find a solution however, the more palestinians there will be to handle. I believe the palestinians is expected to outnumber the jews at around 2020 if the current birth rates keep going like they do now.
---------------
Schwartz wrote:
"Have you LISTENED to it? I have, all ti says is obvious. Israel occupies these lands. we all agree on that. Occupation sucks we agree. Israel's efforts include PR .. why not?"
---------------
Ofcourse I have. Like I said, I would never suggest for a person that is uninformed about the conflict to watch this because it clearly shows everything from the palestinian point of view, without looking at how israelis percieve it. But I honestly thought you would be able to handle it. Maybe I was wrong. All the facts about the US media coverage is being filthered and how the peace negotiations went forth, is true.
---------------
Schwartz wrote:
"You live outside the US and Israwl. Where? What can YOU or your country do to help? AFIK, most of the non US powers involved feed the conflict by not supporting peace efforts. When did you kast donate a penny to an organization devoted to peace?"
---------------
I have spent enough time in the area to know what is going on in the streets of both sides. I do however not think this is relevant; my words are worth as much as - and no more than - their argumentative reasoning and documentation, no matter who I am or what I've seen personally.
Alot of organizations that state their devotion for peace, are not actually doing anything that will help to bring peace, so no I do not donate to such organizations. You find me an organization that supports my perception of how the problems should be solved, and I might do my best to contribute. Today there are no such organizations with real influence; the only people who support the binational solution are a few intellectuals here and there.
As for the US being the only country contributing to peace, I strongly disagree. The americans hardly know anything about the situation, and the US government is under exterme influence by lobby organizations such as AIPAC. It is well known and accepted amongst american politicians that you cannot be on the wrong side of AIPAC and come to power. That very notion causes any elected american official to almost ALWAYS favor the views of AIPAC. Back in 1992 the true nature of AIPAC was exposed when a jewish real estate developer decided to see what he could get out of David Steiner, then President of AIPAC by pretending to be a supporter of their ideals. The recorded conversation was sent to the Washington Times which blew it all out in the open. And what was the consequenses? David Steiner took the entire blow and left his position, AIPAC got a new president and everything continued like always. AFTER this incident (and previous to it), there have been several cases of espionage in the White House linked to AIPAC, without it ever reducing the power of this terrible lobby organization.
Complete transscript of the Katz/Steiner conversation here: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1292/9212013.html
Wikipedia about the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Steiner_(AIPAC)
ONE of the espionage scandals here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal
To sum this up, I believe the US is not doing anything good for peace in the mideast; on the contrary, by always doing whatever Israel demands, they are unfit for the role of negotiators.
---------------
Schwartz wrote:
"I call BullShit on mist of this. If you want to convince ME that anti zionism is anything but antisemtiism show me, as Jimmy Carter has, a sincere commitment to peace."
---------------
If your definition of anti-semitism is "anything or anyone doing anything negative to anything or anyone related to anything jewish", then yes, anti-zionism can be called anti-semittism. However, like I said, I am reluctant to water out this term for the sake of real victims of groundless hatred towards jews. If we are to use "anti-semittism" about all kinds of negative actions or words against jews, we should coin a new word for the kind of hatred the jews of Europe experianced previous to WW2.
As for my convincing you that I have a sincere commitment to peace, I do not see how I can do that. You have an entirely different perception of the recent history and ongoing situation than me, so anything I say will be as wrong to you as your solutions for peace will be to me. As long as we disagree about the facts - about who's doing what and who wants what - we will not agree on what needs to be done to achieve lasting peace for both sides.
Post a Comment