The Invention of the Jewish People [Archive]

Eye

12-13-2009, 03:02 PM

Interview with Shlomo Sand published in Polish newspaper.
link (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/398485_Narod_zydowski_zostal_wymyslony.html)
Google translation:

For many years, no book so deeply shocked the Jewish world is not as "Inventing the Jewish nation," Sanda Shlomo, a professor of history from the prestigious University of Tel Aviv. Israeli scientist of Polish origin has been identified by some as a lunatic and anti-Semite, who defiled his own nest. Others see him as a visionary who is not afraid to challenge the greatest Jewish conspiracy to break the taboo and silence.
As the title of the book, Professor Sand believes that ... Jewish people was invented. In Israel, his scientific treatise met with great interest to readers and - as is almost without precedent in the scientific work - hit the bestseller list, which was on continuously for 19 weeks. Enjoyed similar success in France, where he won the prestigious Prix Aujourd'hui.
In October, the book came out in English and went to Britain and the United States, causing another wave of controversy and press disputes. Critical review on the book recently published "Financial Times". Newspaper considered it a provocation. Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, but warned that also promote a similar "can contribute to an increase in incidents of anti-Semitic background". Author of the book - according to the organization - while looking for cheap sensationalism.

Rom: Who came up with the Jewish people?

Jewish historians who lived in Germany in the second half of the nineteenth century. It was a time evolution of modern nationalism in Europe. Residents of the Old Continent then began to think in terms of ethnic communities. Nations were born: German, Polish, French. Jewish historians in Germany, were men of their time and acted under the influence of prevailing currents in them. Inspired by the nationalists of European countries, mainly Germans, and in such a way that was Zionism, and with it the Jewish nation.

How is "made"?

Was because it did not exist.

After all, Jews lived in Europe for two thousand years. Since they were expelled from Palestine by the Romans.

Nothing has happened. It is a myth. The Romans did not drive out the Jews from Palestine and the Jews did not come to Europe. System of penalties, which the Romans have used against the oppressed nations, did not provide for mass deportations. Thrown the whole nation from its land is a very complicated operation, the performance of which became possible only in the twentieth century with the development of necessary infrastructure such as railways. Even the Third Reich had big problems with such operations, let alone the Roman Empire. The Romans were obviously brutal. Able to kill many people, burn the city, but not expelled nations.

But it is a fact widely known ...

Of course, that well known. The expulsion is written in the declaration of Israeli independence in 1948, and even on our banknotes. Indeed, this is reduced myth of incorporation State of Israel: they threw us out of our land two thousand years ago, but now came back to pick her up. Even I - a professional historian for decades - is believed to uncritically. Until ten years ago, I decided not to examine this issue ...

What it turned out?

I started with literature. To my surprise it turned out that there is not one of scientific books about the expulsion of Jews from Palestine. You imagine that? One of the most important events in the history of the nation, and no one wrote about this historical development?

This is not proof that it is not true.

Let's be serious. There is a great hoax. The myth of the expulsion of the Jews is a product of Christian propaganda from the fourth century. It was supposed to be punishment for killing the Son of God. That is the myth that Zionists have established in the nineteenth century. To build a nation, we had spreparować his memory. French nationalists refer to the ancient Gauls, Julius Caesar to the Italian and German to the Teutons. The Jews took with them an example. Announced that their ancestors drove out the Romans from Palestine, those dispersed throughout the earth, but now I must again call into one nation.

But it is a fact - in Europe, Africa and Asia existed or still exist gatherings of Jews.

Yes, but all these people are not all descendants of Jews expelled from Palestine. Not only that, in the sense of ethnic Jews are not at all. This represented a variety of other peoples and nations, whose ancestors centuries ago converted to a Judaic religion. Jews found themselves all over the world, not by some mythical journey of the people, only because of the massive conversion of! Being a Jew in Europe or Africa had nothing to do with nationality. Jews were simply followers of Judaism.

Judaism, however, is closely linked with ethnicity.

Now, yes. But it is enough to study ancient Arabic sources, the early Christian, pagan or Jewish (with the head of the Talmud), to see that religion has long been the religion of Judaic recurrent. From the second century BC until the fourth century AD, Judaism was the most important monotheistic religion in the world, whose purpose was to attract as many new adherents. Pagan belief that they should believe in one God, which was done very effectively indeed. And the world took so many Jews.

But the majority of Jews in Poland look completely different than the Poles. Could not be converted to Judaism Slavs.

Converted to Judaism is not just individual people, but - as in the case of Christianity - the whole kingdom. For example, in Yemen or North Africa. And this happened with lying between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea kingdom of Khazars. In the twelfth century, the Turkish convert to Judaism, however, people began to be pushed by the Tartars and the Mongols of Genghis Khan in the west. They stopped in eastern Poland. The answer to your question is so simple:
75 percent of Polish Jews is different than the Poles, because it is the origin chazarskiego.

In Poland there is a perception that the Jews came to us from the West, not East.

This theory appeared only in the 60s Twentieth century. Previously, all the great historians - from Ernest Renan, to Marc Bloch - considered that the Polish Jews came from Khazaria. The sentence was shared by the researchers Zionist, though one of the most important Jewish historians of the inter-Yitzhak Shipper from Warsaw. They were wrong in only one. They argued that the first Jews came to Khazaria from Palestine, and then to Polish.

In Poland there is a belief that Jews settled in Poland, fleeing persecution in the West. Poland was to be a stronghold of religious tolerance.

Nice to talk about it, and yet milej listen. But I am afraid that I have to bring the Poles to the ground. From the demographic point of view can not be explained by the existence of such a large population of Jews in Poland as a result of emigration from Germany or from Spain. Rustic communities were too small. By the way, if you know how German Jews could not bear the Polish Jews? They contemptuously called Ost-Juden. Regarded them as semi-wild, dirty Asians with whom they did not want to have nothing in common. That described the term, for example, from Lodz, my parents.

Said that the descendants of the Khazars, was 75 per cent of Polish Jews. And the rest?

My mother had eight sisters. Five had jet-black hair and Semitic features - like me - but three were blonde and had blue eyes. To this day, many Jews from the Polish is a European appearance. Why? Thus, the kingdom of Khazars conquered the lands inhabited by Slavs. More or less in the vicinity of Kiev. 25 percent of Polish Jews are descendants of those Slavs who adopted Judaism chazarskich from their rulers.

Or is it the effect of mixed marriages?

Of course, this also happened, but not on a large scale. Anyhow as a result of the occupation, the Germans were in serious trouble distinguishing Poles from Jews. Father told me that during the first months of occupation, who lived in Lodz, the Germans tried unsuccessfully to identify the Jews in the eye. As a result, many Jews who had perfect Aryan features, it was itself freely in the streets. Germany - although very much wanted to - so they could not make the Holocaust in Poland on the basis of their race theories, measurements and the like. Extermination of Jews in Poland had been made on the basis of records: census, identity cards, birth certificates.

Since there was no such events as the expulsion of Jews from Palestine, is where the Jews to share?

Nowhere. Continue to live on their land in Palestine. Descendants of the ancient Jews, the Palestinians are today. These people were zarabizowani after the fact, in the seventh century, when Palestine was conquered by the Arabs. There is, moreover, they are surprising. The Arabs declared that anyone who considers Muhammad as a prophet, will be exempt from taxes. I think that if someone proposed something like that for Israelis today, probably a large proportion of them would also be converted to the faith of Allah. (laughs)

But the Palestinians, after all look like Arabs. Do not differ from the Egyptians and Iraqis.

It is difficult, so after so many centuries maintained a small nation ethnic purity. Palestinians often ask me, that is, we're the real Jews? No, I answer, you are only their descendants. Indeed, the place you live in the world, through which passed many of the winners and everyone left their here their sperm. The conquest of the Arab conquest was also biologically. Does not change the fact that a Hamas member from Hebron is more closely related to the ancient Jews than Israeli soldier, which fights.

Palestinians are said to be delighted when you say to them that in their veins the blood of Jews?

Indeed, they do not like to hear about it. (laughs) I think this is the best proof that I am not an agent of Hamas and did not write his book on behalf of the Arabs.

Let us return to the question of Jewish identity. Attitude toward Palestine and probably always have a religious dimension.

Yes, and interestingly in the expulsion of the Jewish religious tradition was a metaphysical dimension, and not real. The opposite of "exile" has always been a "redemption". Only the eternal revolution przeformowała Judaic Zionist formula "expulsion" - "redemption" to the "expulsion" - "return to their homeland." Jews for centuries believed that the return to the Promised Land, only when the Messiah will come and begin the final court. But back in the spiritual sense, after death.

Is that why many religious Jews today do not support Zionism and the State of Israel?

Not in favor? They believe that its existence is an offense against God and blasphemy. Please note that for centuries the Jews was not pushed to the Promised Land, it started only in the twentieth century. Jews lived in Babylon, after just four days riding a camel in Palestine! And I do not want to perform there.

So everything started with Zionism?

Yes, but even when that ideology no longer existed, most Jews did not burning to leave the Middle East. When in the late 80 Nineteenth century, Russia began the great pogroms, the Jews was moved. Part, as Rosa Luxemburg, became revolutionaries, some supported social democracy, but the majority voted down. Began a mass migration to America. In the 20 But the U.S. acknowledged that they had enough of the Jews, and closed the door in front of them. Then there was no choice - people began to settle in Palestine. Another wave came from Germany after Hitler came to power in the 30s And then it went. World War II, the Holocaust and the ultimate victory of Zionism, which was the creation of Israel. By the way you ever saw the famous Jewish films shot in New York in 20 years? What do you think, how they depicted the country as a beloved homeland, to which the country said with nostalgia and affection?

I guess it is not about Palestine.

About Poland! It was a true homeland for the Jews. My father, dying in Israel, said just about Poland! Country to which he missed and he considered his true homeland. He said about an old Polish Jew dying in the Jewish state in the Promised Land. Interesting, huh?

Your father survived extermination in Poland?

No, in December 1939, escaped from Germany to the Soviet occupation zone. He took my mother and sister (I was born after the war in a transit camp in Austria) and got into managed by the Red Army. Interestingly, the father before the war was a communist activist, but the Soviets did not admit to this. He was afraid that the NKVD murder him, as many other activists killed in the 30 DPS My family survived so because they were Jews, not Communists. Deported them to Uzbekistan, and there survived the war.

I have the impression that you sometimes provoke his countrymen. You said once that the creation of Israel was an act of rape.

I was then invited by the university in the occupied territories. After the lecture, the Palestinians asked me why - although I am an advocate of the theory of history - continue to justify the existence of the State of Israel. I replied that even a child born as a result of rape have the right to life. Then he described the Palestinian newspaper, and it got a lot of noise. But I uphold. I believe that Israel has the right to existence in the Middle East.
But not because of the stories about returning to ancestral lands, but because the attempt to destroy it would lead to unimaginable tragedy.

But the current shape of this country do not you answer?

No. My objection is raised that Israel officially called the Jewish state, and our flag is the Star of David. This makes a quarter of the population of the country [so-called Israeli Arabs, not to be confused with the Palestinians living in occupied territories
- Note. ed] is treated as second-class citizens. Israel should abandon its Jewish character and become a secular state of Jews and Arabs.

Is not this utopia? Many Israelis consider that when the country is in a sea of hostile Arabs, it would mean suicide.

This is exactly the opposite! Israel waiting for a disaster, if you do not change. Sooner or later there comes to mass revolt. Do not blow it in the Palestinian Authority, but in the north of Israel, in Galilee, where most residents are Arabs. Galilee is Israel Kosovo. Began to isolate Kosovo from Serbia, when the country became a tribal state, nationalist. Although inhabited by Albanians, did not want to join the poor, lagging behind in Albania and moved to independence. The same will happen to the Galilee. Israeli Arabs will not want to go backward part of the Palestinian Authority, but a long time already in the Jewish state can not endure.

Jews and Arabs together would create a single country? After all, hatred is so great ...

Look Who's Talking? Pole! And between you and that Germany was not a great hatred? And this is not your conflict lasted 60 years, only 1000! And now, somehow you are great neighbors and have found themselves in one federation? And the Poles have suffered from the Germans so much harm. I'm just one of those Jews who have not forgotten that in Poland during the war not only killed three million Polish Jews, but also the three million Poles. Do you remember the film by Claude Lanzmann's "Shoah"? Nine-document, most recorded in Poland, and not a word about the fact that Poles also died in the camps.

What is the future of Israel?

Very grim. I am afraid that in the long run there is no chance to survive in the Middle East as a Jewish state. Should break with this nonsense, and to communicate with Arabs. Finally, take note of the obvious: that we are a multicultural, multiethnic society, and not to any tribal monolith, which can isolate from the Arabs. Please walk through the streets of Tel Aviv. What is pluralism? How many types of human! European Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, Poles, Russians, Ethiopians! And all these people stubbornly repeat that in their veins the blood of one.

Indeed it is hard to believe that Ethiopian Jews are descendants of Jews from Palestine.

It is hard to believe? But they are Negroes! The worst is the fact that these people are adults completely seriously, without batting an eye claim to be descendants of King Solomon. Jews, who lost to the ages in Africa, but fortunately is found and returned home. There are moments where it seems to me that the world had gone mad. One of the greatest tragedies of humanity lies in the fact that people look but do not see. We live in the mists of ideologies that promoted by most breakneck theories, and we mindlessly accept and consider them as revealed truth.

Yours theory also raises a lot of controversy. You are even accused of anti-Semitism.

Policy of the State of Israel contributed to a much greater increase of anti-Semitism than my book. When someone says something embarrassing, it is easiest to accuse him of anti-Semitism. I will not let you close your mouth and I will continue to try to overthrow a dangerous myth that the Israelis are the ethnic community. Because it leads to madness, which is to pretend that a quarter of the population of our country does not exist. How long have you maintained this illusion? I promised myself that I did not went to any compromises with the ideology, as it has done many other researchers. Indistinctly speak or use allusions. I'm too old for this. I speak the truth, he may soon be too late. The myth on which Israel was born, it might be a myth, that it destroys.

Octavariable

12-13-2009, 03:16 PM

Yes yes.. seen him getting interviewed in every news network possible, and I can sum up his words as follows:
"buy my book, I'll entertain you, and you'll make me rich"

Israel Bartal, dean of the humanities faculty of the Hebrew University, in a commentary published in Haaretz, writes that Sand's basic thesis and statements about Jewish historiography are "baseless". Bartal answers to "Sand's arguments that no historian of the Jewish national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the Jews are ethnically and biologically "pure" [and that] Sand applies marginal positions to the entire body of Jewish historiography and, in doing so, denies the existence of the central positions in Jewish historical scholarship." Bartal refers to Sand's overall treatment of Jewish sources as "embarrassing and humiliating." He adds that "The kind of political intervention Sand is talking about, namely, a deliberate program designed to make Israelis forget the true biological origins of the Jews of Poland and Russia or a directive for the promotion of the story of the Jews' exile from their homeland is pure fantasy." Bartel summarizes his critique of Sand's characterization of Jewish historiography as follows: "as far as I can discern, the book contains not even one idea that has not been presented earlier in their books and articles by what he insists on defining as "authorized historians" suspected of "concealing historical truth,"" and calls the overall work "bizarre and incoherent."
Tom Segev wrote that Sand's book "is intended to promote the idea that Israel should be a 'state of all its citizens' - Jews, Arabs and others - in contrast to its declared identity as a 'Jewish and democratic' state" and that the book is generally "well-written" and includes "numerous facts and insights that many Israelis will be astonished to read for the first time".
Anita Shapira wrote "Sand bases his arguments on the most esoteric and controversial interpretations, while seeking to undermine the credibility of important scholars by dismissing their conclusions without bringing any evidence to bear."
For Ofri Ilani, "most of [the] book does not deal with the invention of the Jewish people by modern Jewish nationalism, but rather with the question of where the Jews come from."
Hillel Halkin has cited the book as an example of the fact that there apparently is "no book too foolish to go un-admired by someone."
Jeffrey Goldberg likened the book to Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe, another book with a controversial thesis on the genesis of the Jewish people published in 1976. "Today," Jeffrey Goldberg said, "The Thirteenth Tribe is a combination of discredited and forgotten." Goldberg also accused Sand of having disingenuous motives:
"Sand is not publishing this book at a dignified conference in Bern at which scholars of the Middle East debate the origins of the Jews ... He is dropping manufactured facts into a world that in many cases is ready, willing, and happy to believe the absolute worst conspiracy theories about Jews and to use those conspiracy theories to justify physically hurting Jews. ... It is nothing new ... We [the Jews] survived ... The Thirteenth Tribe; we can survive this.”

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Sand)

seraosha

12-13-2009, 03:22 PM

Further proof that newspapers are irrelevant, if they print rubbish like that.
Well, at atleast in Poland.

Panchito12

12-13-2009, 03:23 PM

If they were "invented", who owns the patent?

Eye

12-13-2009, 03:29 PM

If they were "invented", who owns the patent?
According to Shlomo Sand - Zionists.

NathS

12-13-2009, 03:32 PM

If they were "invented", who owns the patent?

Some German dude, Adolf or something. But they were problems with production so his company had to issue a massive recall. They went bankrupt shortly after and the surviving models are now collector.

Here it is. The worst joke ever. I can die now, there's nothing left for me to do :|

RoyB

12-13-2009, 03:40 PM

The fvck is this?

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-13-2009, 03:43 PM

I see, so certain forms of Jewish people are superior to others...hhmmm, I have some material this guy might like to read entitled "My Struggle"...

2495

12-13-2009, 03:45 PM

Some German dude, Adolf or something. But they were problems with production so his company had to issue a massive recall. They went bankrupt shortly after and the surviving models are now collector.

Here it is. The worst joke ever. I can die now, there's nothing left for me to do :|

^^^^ haven't laughed so loud for ages. "massive recall"... "now collector"...rofl

The fvck is this?

X2.

Gibberish is my best bet being nice, or total utter retarded bvllsh1t to be frank.

GiladS

12-13-2009, 05:13 PM

A Jew writes a book claiming his nation never existed and makes a lot of money off of it... sounds like a bad joke.

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-13-2009, 06:29 PM

A Jew writes a book claiming his nation never existed and makes a lot of money off of it... sounds like a bad joke.

He forgets the fact that much DNA evidence points to non-European lineage in the post-European population.

There are also many genetic diseases only Ashkenazi (as a blanket term for all European Jews) get that their European counterparts do not................

GiladS

12-13-2009, 06:56 PM

He forgets the fact that much DNA evidence points to non-European lineage in the post-European population.

Thought of mentioning that.

You can attempt to rewrite history but it's a lot harder to counter DNA studies such as this one:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm

Kaplanr

12-13-2009, 11:06 PM

I thought he meant bagels, the invention of the Juice people.

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-13-2009, 11:53 PM

Thought of mentioning that.

You can attempt to rewrite history but it's a lot harder to counter DNA studies such as this one:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm

Interesting stuff. I also read that in present day European populations there are very few people with Jewish DNA, meaning the large Jewish communities pre-WWII were quite separated in the sense that they kept marriages/relations within the community.

Though it is difficult now as most Jewish people outside of Israel are less religious and oftentimes more likely to be of mixed Jewish/non-Jewish descent.

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-13-2009, 11:54 PM

I thought he meant bagels, the invention of the Juice people.

The Juice also invented Hollywood and control the media too...................

Grahamr117

12-14-2009, 02:34 AM

Orange Juice!
Apple Juice!
Sephardic Juice!
Orthodox Juice!

Eventine

12-14-2009, 02:45 AM

I wouldn't be so quick to write him off.

He forgets the fact that much DNA evidence points to non-European lineage in the post-European population.

There are also many genetic diseases only Ashkenazi (as a blanket term for all European Jews) get that their European counterparts do not................Except he explains why this is. He does not contend that Jews aren't different from Europeans. He simply contends that European Jews aren't descended, in large part, from the original Israelites. Instead, they were other non-European peoples who converted to Judaism before or after immigrating to Europe (though I'd point out that this doesn't mean they weren't Jews, since ethnicity isn't necessarily about blood). Genetically, he contends, they were not that much different from Arabs and other Middle-Easterners. It is the religion that separated them. Gradually, however, intermarriage and conversion began to make them more like, though still not the same as, the native populations.

If Ashkenazi genetic diseases are a mark of Jewishness, then shouldn't those same diseases also be expressed prominently among Sephardic Jews?

Anyways, it seems that his central point is that modern Jews shouldn't claim that they are genetically the same as the original Israelites, who he thinks were more like modern Palestinians, and to use this as justification for excluding Palestinians from Israeli society. Thus, from his perspective, if Palestinians are the true descendants of the "original Jews," then by all rights Israel is also, and more so, their land.

If there some truth to this? I don't know; I'd have to do more research, but it's not automatically laughable.

kahn267

12-14-2009, 02:49 AM

Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself...

It starts with propaganda and lies..... and spreads

Fat Lazy American

12-14-2009, 03:26 AM

Anyways, it seems that his central point is that modern Jews shouldn't claim that they are genetically the same as the original Israelites, who he thinks were more like modern Palestinians, and to use this as justification for excluding Palestinians from Israeli society. Thus, from his perspective, if Palestinians are the true descendants of the "original Jews," then by all rights Israel is also, and more so, their land.

Exactly. This is his central point. He is anti-Zionist and works backwards from there historically.

And yes, it would be hard to write off in the days before genetic analysis (as the Koestler thesis was also hard to write off.)

But now we know that Jews are primarily of Levantine on the male side, that the Cohen and Levite lines are mostly genuine and show 2000+ year old markers that go between Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews, that there are very few Turkic genes in Ashkenazic Jews and not particularly many European genes.

The only reason to support modern historical scholarship completely at odds with genetic evidence such as this is for political purposes. Well good for Shlomo and his new metanarrative. Hopefully someone will have the good sense to move his book out of the history section and into the lit crit section where someone still buys that sort of crap.

Thugut

12-14-2009, 04:13 AM

I don't have anything to say about this particular case, but the fact is no nation is of a "pure" race, and there is no reason why anyone should have an issue with that.

GiladS

12-14-2009, 04:44 AM

I don't have anything to say about this particular case, but the fact is no nation is of a "pure" race, and there is no reason why anyone should have an issue with that.

Sums up everything pretty well.

At the end of the day the most important factor is how a people perceive themselves and the majority of Jews perceive themselves to be a nation.

Just as no one can deny the Palestinians being a nation though they didn't actually exist before the 50s or 60s but this identity was created due to geopolitics and a common history.

Fat Lazy American

12-14-2009, 04:55 AM

Just as no one can deny the Palestinians being a nation though they didn't actually exist before the 50s or 60s but this identity was created due to geopolitics and a common history.

September 1, 1970.

the_Wicked

12-14-2009, 07:08 AM

That's very interesting considering there's a virtually uninterrupted historical record of Jews around the world going back to the times of Rome, thus predating Islam and Christianity. So at what point were they "invented" exactly?

GB_FXST

12-14-2009, 08:35 AM

Exactly. This is his central point. He is anti-Zionist and works backwards from there historically.

And yes, it would be hard to write off in the days before genetic analysis (as the Koestler thesis was also hard to write off.)

But now we know that Jews are primarily of Levantine on the male side, that the Cohen and Levite lines are mostly genuine and show 2000+ year old markers that go between Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews, that there are very few Turkic genes in Ashkenazic Jews and not particularly many European genes.

The only reason to support modern historical scholarship completely at odds with genetic evidence such as this is for political purposes. Well good for Shlomo and his new metanarrative. Hopefully someone will have the good sense to move his book out of the history section and into the lit crit section where someone still buys that sort of crap.

Well said.

Sand, a known anti-Zionist communist, has finally had his 15 minutes of fame.

His specious and pejorative theory, is, at any rate, irrelevant.

Tyon

12-14-2009, 10:10 AM

Whats the big deal? Even the Tanakh speaks about converts to the jewish people.

So.... what?

Atlantic Friend

12-14-2009, 10:16 AM

If they were "invented", who owns the patent?

G-D, of course. Who else?

Atlantic Friend

12-14-2009, 10:20 AM

His specious and pejorative theory, is, at any rate, irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant, exactly? It seems to me that he's confusing the notions of a Jewish people and of a Jewish nation, but I don't see what is pejorative or irrelevant in his argumentation.

Grahamr117

12-14-2009, 11:12 AM

While we are on the point who exactly are Palestinians? Do they have any pre-islamic cultural identity and how far back does their society go?

GB_FXST

12-14-2009, 11:13 AM

How is it irrelevant, exactly? It seems to me that he's confusing the notions of a Jewish people and of a Jewish nation, but I don't see what is pejorative or irrelevant in his argumentation.

Yes; he is confusing the conept of a Jewish People and a Jewish Nation. For Jews, racial lineage is less important than religious affiliation. Regardless of what you happen to be (or look like), you can become Jewish.

I am making three claims. The first is that his theory is specious, then pejorative and lastly irrelevant.

Specious - His theory is wrong and is not backed by legitimate science or scholarship, and is particularly attractive to opponents of Zionism (in all their varied forms) and proponents of Palestinian nationalism.

Pejorative - His theory is a pathetic attempt to discredit Zionism as it is based on dubious and selective moral structure. To claim that Jews, regardless of how they happen to be Jewish, do not have a claim to their ancestral homeland because the racial link is no longer pure sets a precedent that can deconstruct all religious and national cliams made by every single group on earth. Is the Hajj of a non-Arab Moslem suspect because he is not an Arab? Is the fealty of an immigrant to his adoptive country suspect because he is an immigrant? And let's not forget, that at some point in time, each and every one of us was an immigrant.

Irrelevant - For sake of discussion, let's assume that his claim that Ashkenazi Jews originate from Khazars is correct, it changes nothing in modern day Israel. Jews of all types, stripes and origins have a legitime claim to embrace Jewish nationalism in the ancestral home of Judaism.

Octavariable

12-14-2009, 11:31 AM

While we are on the point who exactly are Palestinians? Do they have any pre-islamic cultural identity and how far back does their society go?

Their society goes all the way back to 1967.
Their history as Arab land owners in Mandatory Palestine goes back to 1917, when the British conquered it from the Ottomans. and backstabed, together with the French, King Faisal.
Before that? you'll have to recall upon Arab nationalism pre 1917, or rather the lack of it, while being ruled by the Ottomans.
So it's safe to say that genetically, they are Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, and yes, also local Arab residents of the Land which is now Israel since the 13th century, when Baibars conquered the land from the Crusaders, i.e, European Christians

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-14-2009, 11:34 AM

I don't have anything to say about this particular case, but the fact is no nation is of a "pure" race, and there is no reason why anyone should have an issue with that.

Except for the Herrenrasse of course, correct? :)

I think that it is unusual and dangerous for Jewish people to have these sort of liberal, non-practicing, "Jewish" people trying their best to drive wedges and divisions within their "own" people. ("Jewish" and "own" going back to what actually defines someone as "Jewish" birth, religion, ethnicity etc.)

This sort of thing did not work in the past i.e. the Ost-Juden v. German Jews etc...(as mentioned in the article). I read an excerpt from some book on Google that had propaganda from 20s and 30s Germany where many German Rabbi's were decrying their "superiority" over E. European Jews (oddly enough shortly before Hitler came into power) and their fear (expressed by many of the German populace) that they would be overrun by these "backwater" peoples. I would also like to mention many early Zionists saw the E. Euro Jews as more pure Jewish in the sense that they held strong in their ethnic enclaves in the East.

This sort of stuff is divisive and really serves no purpose for the 21st century Jewish people as a whole IMHO.

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-14-2009, 11:38 AM

Does anyone get the feeling he feels superior in some way for "looking/appearing" more "European"...?

There are lots of European peoples; dark to light hair, dark to light skin, different shaped faces, noses etc...does that make them any superior than others...? Not really.

Atlantic Friend

12-14-2009, 11:44 AM

Rossdobby

12-14-2009, 12:11 PM

I KNEW IT Jews aren't real! This means Hitler technically didn't commit genocide. Only mass murder.

~Berdan

12-14-2009, 12:19 PM

I KNEW IT Jews aren't real! This means Hitler technically didn't commit genocide. Only mass murder.

What the hell,eh??

Zarak

12-14-2009, 12:28 PM

Thought of mentioning that.

You can attempt to rewrite history but it's a lot harder to counter DNA studies such as this one:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/perezites/news/jewish-dna-nytimes.htm

But everyone is the same and race is a social invention! How can anyone be genetically different?

Did they lie to me in Sociology class? Oh my god...my whole worldview is based on lies

Climber

12-14-2009, 12:38 PM

My mother used to say that the worse anti semites are the Jewish anti semites.

'nuff said.

I have documents of my own family dated from the 17Th century, so Shlomo, what do you think?

Climber

12-14-2009, 12:39 PM

I KNEW IT Jews aren't real! This means Hitler technically didn't commit genocide. Only mass murder.

please, can you explain your post?

GB_FXST

12-14-2009, 12:45 PM

But in a way, are your position and his really that far from each other ?

From what I understand he speaks against a racially-based Zionism, which you yourself consider largely irrelevant, since there's no absolute and direct racial lineage between modern-day Israelis and Bible-time Jews - actually if I remember my Old Testament correctly, even back then there couldn't be a purely ethnic Jewish people.

That does leave a "cultural-political" approach to the Jewish identity, including those who converted to Judaism and the non-religious Jews, which seem to have equal claims as part of the Jewish nation. That doesn't mean that the national identity of the group is unfounded, just that it goes beyond religion or lineage.

It's a bit like... France took its name from the pagan Frankish tribes who came from their Germanic lands. In France they found earlier Wisigothic settlements, and even older Celt and Mediterranean groups. History and Christianity made these groups one nation, France, whose kids learned "our ancestors the Gauls" for generations. Yet, the national identity didn't come from Christianity, nor from Gallic lineage, nor from Frankish descent. Stating these facts does not weaken France's national identity, nor does it imply there's no connection between the nation as it is, and the land it occupies.

I know my argument's probably a bit confused, but it can all boil down to "isn't Israel a community of spirit, a community of destiny more than it is the result of historical rights by this ethnic group to settle into that piece of land" ?

Good post, and I now understand what you are saying.

At a fundamental level, both Sand and I both saying that Zionism is not and cannot be racially pure. But, from that point we diverge. For me, Israel is the proper manifestation of the legitimate Jewish yearning for its ancestral homeland. Sand considers Israel a bastard, a product of the rape (I assume) of Palestinians.

I reject Sand’s characterization of Israel unconditionally.

Zionism is unfairly vilified and assailed like no other national movement. I posted this once before:
No nationalism is legitimate if Jewish nationalism is illegitimate.

Anyone who decries Zionism – who believes Jews are not entitled to self determination in their ancestral home – must also decry their own nationalistic interests. Otherwise, they are at best hypocrites, at worst anti-Semites.

GB_FXST

12-14-2009, 12:46 PM

please, can you explain your post?

x2

Most likely a joke in poor taste. But, I too would like to here the poster's opinion.

RoyB

12-14-2009, 12:52 PM

He was sarcastic. Jesus.

Zarak

12-14-2009, 12:58 PM

Anyone who decries Zionism – who believes Jews are not entitled to self determination in their ancestral home – must also decry their own nationalistic interests.

I agree in principle.

But, it could be said that the situation of the Israelis and most other nations is somewhat different. The Jews, and most peoples, left their ancestral homes (voluntarily or otherwise, depending on that particular people). For an example, the Poles originated somewhere in Central Asia. I think that if the Poles were to return to Central Asia and claim their 'ancestral home', a land long since taken by a different people, not many would see it as a legitimate claim. Europe, it could be said, is the 'ancestral home' for most Jews, like Poland is the 'ancestral home' for the Poles. The Slav migration, in fact, occurred roughly in the same period as the Jewish migration.

But I think its pretty rediculous for anyone to question the legitimacy of Israel at this point. Its a fact of life, regardless of whether or not agrees with it. Tough ****.

I'mOnlyHalfPolish

12-14-2009, 01:15 PM

Climber

12-14-2009, 01:22 PM

He was sarcastic. Jesus.

English is my third language, I am entitled to misunderstand sarcasm with idiocy

Eventine

12-14-2009, 01:44 PM

I agree in principle.

But, it could be said that the situation of the Israelis and most other nations is somewhat different. The Jews, and most peoples, left their ancestral homes (voluntarily or otherwise, depending on that particular people). For an example, the Poles originated somewhere in Central Asia. I think that if the Poles were to return to Central Asia and claim their 'ancestral home', a land long since taken by a different people, not many would see it as a legitimate claim. Europe, it could be said, is the 'ancestral home' for most Jews, like Poland is the 'ancestral home' for the Poles. The Slav migration, in fact, occurred roughly in the same period as the Jewish migration.

But I think its pretty rediculous for anyone to question the legitimacy of Israel at this point. Its a fact of life, regardless of whether or not agrees with it. Tough ****.

Sand does not question the legitimacy of Israel, however. What he questions is whether Israel has a right to be a Jewish, as opposed to secular, state.

I think this gets down to the heart of the matter, does it not? Religious freedom is a Western value, and from that perspective no nation should be encouraged to enforce a state religion - this is why countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are criticized. What distinguishes Israel from these nations is the idea of the Jewish people as an ethnic group, as opposed to just a religious community. If this were true, then post-colonial ideas of self-determination would apply to them, thus bypassing the question of religious freedom, since Zionism would be akin to an ethnic group exerting its right to its own land, which the West supports in theory.

In his mind, Sand appears to adopt the worst possible interpretation of this scenario, in which the Jewish situation is not of a "diaspora," but of a religious community of largely converts coming from all over the globe to deprive the original Jewish people, who have since then converted to Islam and intermarried with Arabs, of their homeland. This, of course, is a very dangerous argument as it paints present-day Israelites as colonizers (though such a tendency is hardly new). I could see why it should be rejected.

At the same time, however, it does raise the question: who are the Palestinians, and do they have a right to Israel based on original descent?

In many ways, this is a religious question, because if Palestinians were followers of Judaism, there wouldn't be an issue.

Fat Lazy American

12-14-2009, 01:51 PM

From what I understand he speaks against a racially-based Zionism, which you yourself consider largely irrelevant, since there's no absolute and direct racial lineage between modern-day Israelis and Bible-time Jews.

Yes, there is. Whether the fact that there is or not has any relevance is a good question. But you can't just falsify the historical evidence and ignore the genetic evidence.

Eye

12-14-2009, 02:08 PM

No nationalism is legitimate if Jewish nationalism is illegitimate.

I don't understand why are you so eager for nationalism. Patriotism is much better and less dangerous. The same like religious man is better and completely different than some fanatic man.

Isaac Kasabian

12-14-2009, 02:33 PM

GB_FXST

12-14-2009, 02:41 PM

Sand does not question the legitimacy of Israel, however. What he questions is whether Israel has a right to be a Jewish, as opposed to secular, state.

I think this gets down to the heart of the matter, does it not? Religious freedom is a Western value, and from that perspective no nation should be encouraged to enforce a state religion - this is why countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are criticized. What distinguishes Israel from these nations is the idea of the Jewish people as an ethnic group, as opposed to just a religious community. If this were true, then post-colonial ideas of self-determination would apply to them, thus bypassing the question of religious freedom, since Zionism would be akin to an ethnic group exerting its right to its own land, which the West supports in theory.

In his mind, Sand appears to adopt the worst possible interpretation of this scenario, in which the Jewish situation is not of a "diaspora," but of a religious community of largely converts coming from all over the globe to deprive the original Jewish people, who have since then converted to Islam and intermarried with Arabs, of their homeland. This, of course, is a very dangerous argument as it paints present-day Israelites as colonizers (though such a tendency is hardly new). I could see why it should be rejected.

At the same time, however, it does raise the question: who are the Palestinians, and do they have a right to Israel based on original descent?

In many ways, this is a religious question, because if Palestinians were followers of Judaism, there wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe Sand is trying to create a philosophical construct to advance the idea of a one-state solution.

But, just as his structure sits upon morally and factually unstable ground, so too do practical realties threaten total collapse.

A one-state solution is simply not tenable.

I don't understand why are you so eager for nationalism. Patriotism is much better and less dangerous. The same like religious man is better and completely different than some fanatic man.

Call it what you will, but nationalism is an undeniably powerful and dynamic force in modern society. It exists, everywhere. Now having said that, nationalism is not necessarily xenophobic or racist or otherwise repressive to others.

JCR

12-14-2009, 03:00 PM

So the Jews invented the Jews?
I always thought the jews invented the Christians
rofl

Rossdobby

12-14-2009, 03:03 PM

please, can you explain your post?

I was being sarcastic.

The_Android

12-14-2009, 03:06 PM

I don't understand why are you so eager for nationalism. Patriotism is much better and less dangerous. The same like religious man is better and completely different than some fanatic man.

I have to agree. Also it is important to remember that nationalism is in fact a very modern ideology, having originated with the French and American revolutions. It drew much of its inspiration from romanticism. Ethnicity, tribalism and religions outdate nationalism by far. There is nothing ancient about nationalism, although nationalists would want us to believe it is so; that nationalism is somehow based on a "natural" way of order. The whole belief that peoples should be divided into nation states based on language, ethnicity, skin colour, religion etc is a product of political nationalist ideology.

Nationalism has too many times proved itself to be a dangerous and in extreme cases genocidal ideology. It makes such a strong distinction between the insiders and outsiders, "we vs them", that those inside the state who differ from the majority (there is no state which in practice is or have ever been totally homogenous anyway) will too many times suffer at the hands of the majority. Any ideology that tries to reduce a world of different shades of colours into black and white will ultimately not only fail, but it will fail with disastreous consequences if fully enforced.

I'm not saying that nationalism always leads to disaster, but the risk is always prevalent.

While most nationalists are patriots too, patriotism in itself does not have to have anything to do with nationalism. Simply being proud of your country is not nationalism.

Eye

12-14-2009, 03:43 PM

Jewish concept of nationalism it's waayy different then the Christian one. (no offence).
I don't think there is something like Christian concept of nationalism. Christainity is rather universal religion and is not connected with any nationality.

Climber

12-14-2009, 03:54 PM

English is my third language, I am entitled to misunderstand sarcasm with idiocy

I was being sarcastic.

I am sorry, but as I said, the nuances of the lenguage sometimes escapes me.

Isaac Kasabian

12-14-2009, 05:37 PM

I don't think there is something like Christian concept of nationalism. Christainity is rather universal religion and is not connected with any nationality.

So is Judaism (the universal part) and it has a concept of nationhood.
When I meant Christian concept I was referring to the European one.. being Christian and all.

Octavariable

06-09-2010, 04:44 PM

Too bad genealogy busts his claims. (yes, bumping a dead thread, but just came across this article)

Studies Show Genetic Similarities of Jews

Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives.

A major surprise from both surveys is the genetic closeness of the two Jewish communities of Europe, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. The Ashkenazim thrived in North and Eastern Europe until their devastation by the Hitler regime, and now live mostly in the United States and Israel. The Sephardim were exiled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497 and moved to the Ottoman Empire, North Africa and the Netherlands.

The two genome surveys extend earlier studies based just on the Y chromosome, the genetic element carried by all men. They refute the suggestion made last year by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times.

the rest here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes)

HellToupee

06-09-2010, 06:09 PM

Go back far enough and we are all related through genealogy.

Bloo

06-09-2010, 06:19 PM

According to Shlomo Sand - Zionists.

Zionists with time machines, the worst kind.

Hollis

06-09-2010, 07:17 PM

Go back far enough and we are all related through genealogy.

That can get pretty scary. But yes............ we are all related.

gaijinsamurai

06-09-2010, 07:24 PM

Hey Uncle Hollis:

Does that mean I can inherit your guns? :)

Hollis

06-09-2010, 09:01 PM

Hey Uncle Hollis:

Does that mean I can inherit your guns? :)

What was your name again, actually, I don't think Miss L, would oblige you.

gaijinsamurai

06-09-2010, 09:11 PM

But we're related!!!!!

Kaplanr

06-09-2010, 10:33 PM

And can you cover my mortgage this month bro?

gaijinsamurai

06-10-2010, 12:39 AM

My Uncle Hollis will give you the money.

matthew.manhorn

06-10-2010, 02:27 AM

The majority of Jewish culture originated from the diaspora era.

Honestly, the term "Jew" is a subjective term. Karl Marx's father was a son of a Rabbi yet he condemened Judaism and made anti-Semitic remarks. From what I've heard Ethiopian Jews are discriminated in Israel as well.

I honestly only consider Ashkenazic Jews as "Jews" since they're the only ones I've met in North America.

Zionism is a secular ideology, they were more choices for Zionists other than Palestine to establish the Jewish state, such as Argentina

GiladS

06-10-2010, 07:56 AM

The majority of Jewish culture originated from the diaspora era.

Yet no one can deny the vital part played by the Land of Israel in the Jewish faith and culture.

Honestly, the term "Jew" is a subjective term. Karl Marx's father was a son of a Rabbi yet he condemened Judaism and made anti-Semitic remarks.

Self hating Jews are a well known phenomenon.

From what I've heard Ethiopian Jews are discriminated in Israel as well.

There are specific cases of discrimination and racism, no society is free of bigots after all.

However in no way is there a policy of discriminating Ethiopian Jews.

I honestly only consider Ashkenazic Jews as "Jews" since they're the only ones I've met in North America.

So you are the authority on who is a Jew and who isn't?

Zionism is a secular ideology, they were more choices for Zionists other than Palestine to establish the Jewish state, such as Argentina

Wrong... there are several forms of Zionism, one of which is even known as Religious Zionism.

Secular Zionists had always emphasized that the Land of Israel was the most correct place to establish a Jewish state as it is the Jewish people's historic homeland. That is why the Zionist enterprise sought to create a Jewish state in the Land of Israel and eventually succeeded.

Russian_dude

06-10-2010, 08:55 AM

Russian_dude

06-10-2010, 08:57 AM

Russian_dude

06-10-2010, 09:07 AM

Also, BS on Romans not being able to expel people. They most certainly could. They were very well organized and could sell entire tribes into slavery.

Stalin managed to deport entire peoples (Chechens) 100's of kilometers in less then a week.

Kaplanr

06-10-2010, 10:06 AM

So the Sephardic Jews who overall had more stability in both their religious practices (no messianic hassidic movements) and their geographic state don't count? Maimonides and Judah HaLevi would be very disappointed.

The majority of Jewish culture originated from the diaspora era.

Honestly, the term "Jew" is a subjective term. Karl Marx's father was a son of a Rabbi yet he condemened Judaism and made anti-Semitic remarks. From what I've heard Ethiopian Jews are discriminated in Israel as well.

I honestly only consider Ashkenazic Jews as "Jews" since they're the only ones I've met in North America.

Zionism is a secular ideology, they were more choices for Zionists other than Palestine to establish the Jewish state, such as Argentina

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 10:50 AM

It's very easy to shoot down the "Jews were not expelled from Palestine" BS. In 19th century there were less then 20000 Jews living in Palestine. Also, I believe the Jews living all over the world can be genetically linked.
In 19th century there was no Palestine, there were Ottoman sanjaks, Al Quds, Nablus, etc. There was no political unit called Palestine (first time since Roman times there was a territorial unit called or even approximately encompassing territory Arabs claim as Palestine was during British mandate, after league of nations assigned it to the British with mandate to set up a national home for the Jews).

There were not many more Arabs. According to a first census since Roman times, which was done by Ottomans in 1840es, Jews had 60% majority, even though only Ottoman citizens could take part in the census (Ottomans forbade ashkenazi immigration, so ashkenazi jews were coming as illegals), so European Jews were not counted, there were quite a few of them, even perhaps the majority. We try to estimate that from the fact that in late 1840es, and until the end of 19th century, sir Moses Montefiore started building new neighbourhood outside of the old city, and about half of them were mainly Ashkenazi populated, Mea Shearim, Shaare Chesed, Givat Shaul, etc. So probably the number of the Jews in Jerusalem 50 years before birth of secular Zionism was at least 70-80%.

That was before Arab mass immigration started in late 19th century. They were moved there by Turks to work the fields as fellahin (serfs) of rich landowners from Cairo and Damascus because the previous population pretty much died out from poverty and disease. Around turn of the century immigration increased because of the booming economy Jews were setting up. That was the pattern in history of Israel while under non Jewish rule, population would settle, they would die out from malaria and malnourishment in 150-200 years, new population was moved in. It stopped when Jews took over, drained the swamps, irrigated the deserts, set up proper medical facilities, economy, water infrastructure, etc.

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 10:55 AM

So the Sephardic Jews who overall had more stability in both their religious practices (no messianic hassidic movements) and their geographic state don't count? Maimonides and Judah HaLevi would be very disappointed.

No messianic sephardic movements? Forgot Shabbetai Zvi? He was bigger crackpot then the worst na-nach and meshihist combined. Guy was a total loony, and he was Sephardic. Messianism and crazy ideas are not particular to any branch of Judaism, even the logical and dry Yemenites had their false messiahs (read Rambam's Iggeret Teiman - Epistle to Yemenites, he is dealing with a yemenite false messiah that was stirring trouble). But that's what makes it fun, there are always some bizarre characters around.

Bamba

06-10-2010, 10:56 AM

There were not many more Arabs. According to a first census since Roman times, which was done by Ottomans in 1840es, Jews had 60% majority

Do you have a link for this?

GB_FXST

06-10-2010, 11:03 AM

Do you have a link for this?

I have read this fact too, but cannnot recall the source. However, I believe that this statistic was only represntative of Jerusalem.

BTW, there is also an early census (pre-20th Century) of Baghdad which documents a Jewish majority. I'll look for both sources.

Bamba

06-10-2010, 11:03 AM

I honestly only consider Ashkenazic Jews as "Jews" since they're the only ones I've met in North America.

Who can argue with such sound logic?

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 11:05 AM

I will try to find some of them... Here is one in the meantime, British consular report from 1864:
"Report of the Commerce of Jerusalem During the Year 1863," F.O. 195/808, May 1864. ". . . The population of the City of Jerusalem is computed at 15,000, of whom about 4,500 Moslem, 8,000 Jews, and the rest Christians of various denominations. . ." From A.H. Hyamson, ed., The British Consulate in Jerusalem, 2 vols. (London, 1939-1941), Vol. 2, p. 331.

I will try to find an on-line source for the census, I have sources in books at home, if I don't find an on-line source, I will copy from the book and provide the reference.

GB_FXST

06-10-2010, 11:08 AM

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 11:19 AM

I have read this fact too, but cannnot recall the source. However, I believe that this statistic was only represntative of Jerusalem.

BTW, there is also an early census of Baghdad which documents a Jewish majority. I'll look for both sources.

There was very little population outside of few major cities, Jerusalem, Yaffo, Hebron... Most of which had a Jewish population...

Actually, for the not so well known history of early (mostly Christian) Zionism in puritan and Victorian era in Britain, I would recommend a book... http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Sword-England-Palestine-Balfour/dp/0345314271
It is boring until it reaches Cromwell times. Then the fun starts. It gives great background on British part of the politics up to Balfour declaration and abandonment of the Zionist project by the British, and about their dealings during the period. It gives a great insight in part of the story of Zionism that both socialist Zionists and British Labourists would prefer to forget.

Anyway, the point I tried to make is, even if the Zionist congress would have accepted the Uganda plan, or similar plan to create a Jewish state outside of land of Israel, most Jews would still emigrate to Israel, even G-d calls Jews stiff necked and rebellious people in the Torah... Secular zionist movement managed to organize a framework to turn the longing into a proper political movement that had a goal, a plan and a strategy, and thus managed to create a state.

the_Wicked

06-10-2010, 11:22 AM

I honestly only consider Ashkenazic Jews as "Jews" since they're the only ones I've met in North America.

So if I've only met white Americans in Israel, am I allowed to claim that African-Americans are not Americans?

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 11:49 AM

I have read this fact too, but cannnot recall the source. However, I believe that this statistic was only represntative of Jerusalem.

BTW, there is also an early census (pre-20th Century) of Baghdad which documents a Jewish majority. I'll look for both sources.

I think Bibi brings that up in his Place among the Nations. But I have other books, I think it is also in penguin middle east reader, collection of documents related to the Israeli history.

IDF_TANKER

06-10-2010, 11:59 AM

If the Zionists invented the Jewish people, who invented the Zionism?

Stormz_STA

06-10-2010, 12:00 PM

who invented the Zionism?

Communists.

GiladS

06-10-2010, 12:02 PM

Communists.

But I thought Jews invented Communism... now I'm confused. :|

IDF_TANKER

06-10-2010, 12:03 PM

I think there is a theory of relativity somewhere in this. And quantum mechanics.

Stormz_STA

06-10-2010, 12:08 PM

But I thought Jews invented Communism

That's what I'm talking about. The zionists invented Jews, Jews invented communism, communists invented liberalism, liberals invented Obama and we all know Obama's middle name. It's HUSSEIN . So B. Hussein Obama was invented by zionists.
It all makes sense, right?

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 12:12 PM

Wikipedia comes to the rescue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jerusalem

GiladS

06-10-2010, 12:13 PM

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 12:18 PM

If the Zionists invented the Jewish people, who invented the Zionism?

Jews. So here is the greatest conspiracy of them all, circular one.If the progressives think too much about it, and we know that "cogito ergo sum", they will create a ontological singularity and disappear in a puff of logical smoke.

MPNFL

06-10-2010, 12:19 PM

this thread can only lead to greater understanding between different people.

Abu_Elvis

06-10-2010, 12:21 PM

That's what I'm talking about. The zionists invented Jews, Jews invented communism, communists invented liberalism, liberals invented Obama and we all know Obama's middle name. It's HUSSEIN . So B. Hussein Obama was invented by zionists.
It all makes sense, right?

Yes. And he is the long lost uncle of Saddam Hussein, aunt of late king Hussein of Jordan, and 3rd wife of Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, also known as Yasser Arafat. And they were all invented by Zionists.

Stormz_STA

06-10-2010, 12:24 PM

Yes. And he is the long lost uncle of Saddam Hussein, aunt of late king Hussein of Jordan, and 3rd wife of Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, also known as Yasser Arafat. And they were all invented by Zionists.

Yeah man, those zionists are smart people, always plotting and scheming.

GB_FXST

06-10-2010, 01:17 PM

There was very little population outside of few major cities, Jerusalem, Yaffo, Hebron... Most of which had a Jewish population...

Actually, for the not so well known history of early (mostly Christian) Zionism in puritan and Victorian era in Britain, I would recommend a book... http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Sword-England-Palestine-Balfour/dp/0345314271

... snip ...

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look into it. I read Tuchman's The Guns of August some time ago, and enjoy her work.

bbsh

06-10-2010, 01:34 PM

Regarding populations/census

Interesting article..

http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine

Auu

06-10-2010, 02:20 PM

Listen guys, serious sociologists argue that Nation is:

a) invented community (Ernst Gellner)
b) imagined community (Benedict Anderson)
and they show how "nation" and Nationalism developed in European countries: germany, France, Great Britain, Italy etc.
- by using invention (to serve the interests of wannabe elites) or imagination (to serve interests of lower clases)

So there's no controversy in this pathetic interwiew, except contoversial placement of the subject in Polish newspapers.

If journalist or editor had some education, they would know that guy doesn't say anything new... but newspaper bussines is dying so they can't atract quality people for most people who are not so ignorant can work in better conditions than contemporary journalists.

matthew.manhorn

06-10-2010, 05:03 PM

What is there to say to such nonsense except for: ignorant post is ignorant.

You didn't refute my argument but use personal attacks instead, lol.

tanks_alot

06-10-2010, 05:12 PM

You didn't refute my argument but use personal attacks instead, lol.

Please try to understand that sometimes people post such idiotic things that it's impossible to give a counter argument. i mean, what kind of an answer do you expect to get for saying something along the lines of: "i consider only Ashkenzy Jews as Jews because they are the only ones i've seen in north America" - besides, you're an idiot?

Don't be offended, maybe it's a clash of cultures, thing.

matthew.manhorn

06-10-2010, 05:27 PM

Yet no one can deny the vital part played by the Land of Israel in the Jewish faith and culture.

Self hating Jews are a well known phenomenon.

There are specific cases of discrimination and racism, no society is free of bigots after all.

However in no way is there a policy of discriminating Ethiopian Jews.

So you are the authority on who is a Jew and who isn't?

Wrong... there are several forms of Zionism, one of which is even known as Religious Zionism.

Secular Zionists had always emphasized that the Land of Israel was the most correct place to establish a Jewish state as it is the Jewish people's historic homeland. That is why the Zionist enterprise sought to create a Jewish state in the Land of Israel and eventually succeeded.

Karl Marx was against all religions including Judaism. If that makes him a "self-hating" Jew, what makes of atheist Jews?

Karl Marx is a great example of how the term "Jew" should be defined. He's an anti-semite yet if you consider Jews a race he's ethnically a Jew.

GB_FXST

06-10-2010, 05:29 PM

You didn't refute my argument but use personal attacks instead, lol.

I am about to question your reading comprehension skills ... nowhere did I attack you personally.

You posted something ignorant. Period.

The larger point is a bit more research and a little less ranting would be good. Having said that, I'll admit to making similar mistakes too. The smart man learns from his mistakes.

Please try to understand that sometimes people post such idiotic things that it's impossible to give a counter argument. i mean, what kind of an answer do you expect to get for saying something along the lines of: "i consider only Ashkenzy Jews as Jews because they are the only ones i've seen in north America" - besides, you're an idiot?

Don't be offended, maybe it's a clash of cultures, thing.

I am not sure about the clash of cultures, but your two main points are correct. Sometimes fallacious statements are deserving of derision, and the intent is not to offend. If I intend to do that I would have said: "ignorant poster is ignorant." But, I did not.

Walt

06-10-2010, 11:46 PM

There were not many more Arabs.

That was before Arab mass immigration started in late 19th century.

do you have sources for these?

they run contrary to all the demographic data I've read

GiladS

06-11-2010, 12:32 AM

Karl Marx was against all religions including Judaism. If that makes him a "self-hating" Jew, what makes of atheist Jews?

Didn't you yourself state that he made anti-semitic remarks? You are aware that this applies to Jews as an ethnic group as well, right?

Karl Marx is a great example of how the term "Jew" should be defined. He's an anti-semite yet if you consider Jews a race he's ethnically a Jew.

Jews are known to be an ethno-religious group, thus you can be Jewish by religion (a person who converted to Judiasm for example) or Jewish by birth (born to Jewish parents).

So you aren't bringing anything new to the table.

Auu

06-11-2010, 07:48 AM

Hollis

06-11-2010, 09:48 AM

Karl Marx was against all religions including Judaism. If that makes him a "self-hating" Jew, what makes of atheist Jews?

Karl Marx is a great example of how the term "Jew" should be defined. He's an anti-semite yet if you consider Jews a race he's ethnically a Jew.

I would suggest reading Marx again, if you ever did. Also Lenin also commented on this and he would have disagreed with you. Materialism is not anti-religion nor is it pro-religion. It would evaluate a religion based on it's contributions or problems that it causes a society.

Russian_dude

06-11-2010, 10:31 AM

In 19th century there was no Palestine, there were Ottoman sanjaks, Al Quds, Nablus, etc. There was no political unit called Palestine (first time since Roman times there was a territorial unit called or even approximately encompassing territory Arabs claim as Palestine was during British mandate, after league of nations assigned it to the British with mandate to set up a national home for the Jews).

There were not many more Arabs. According to a first census since Roman times, which was done by Ottomans in 1840es, Jews had 60% majority, even though only Ottoman citizens could take part in the census (Ottomans forbade ashkenazi immigration, so ashkenazi jews were coming as illegals), so European Jews were not counted, there were quite a few of them, even perhaps the majority. We try to estimate that from the fact that in late 1840es, and until the end of 19th century, sir Moses Montefiore started building new neighbourhood outside of the old city, and about half of them were mainly Ashkenazi populated, Mea Shearim, Shaare Chesed, Givat Shaul, etc. So probably the number of the Jews in Jerusalem 50 years before birth of secular Zionism was at least 70-80%.

That was before Arab mass immigration started in late 19th century. They were moved there by Turks to work the fields as fellahin (serfs) of rich landowners from Cairo and Damascus because the previous population pretty much died out from poverty and disease. Around turn of the century immigration increased because of the booming economy Jews were setting up. That was the pattern in history of Israel while under non Jewish rule, population would settle, they would die out from malaria and malnourishment in 150-200 years, new population was moved in. It stopped when Jews took over, drained the swamps, irrigated the deserts, set up proper medical facilities, economy, water infrastructure, etc.

That is also true. Very few arabs in the area in 19th century.

Walt

06-13-2010, 02:30 AM

I suggest you to read posts in this thread again.

As I read it, Abu_Elvis's comments were regarding Palestine not just Jerusalem.

Plus, the wiki link doesn't show any data about mass Arab immigration into Jerusalem during the late 19th century.

Auu

06-13-2010, 04:59 AM

As I read it, Abu_Elvis's comments were regarding Palestine not just Jerusalem.

Plus, the wiki link doesn't show any data about mass Arab immigration into Jerusalem during the late 19th century.

Ottoman Palestine consisted of two administrative areas. There was the autnomous Sanjak (district) of Jerusalem which was subject to the High Porte in Constantinople.
The Sanjak of Jerusalem included an area from Jaffa to the River Jordan in the East and from the Jordan south to the borders of Egypt.
So it seems you have what you need for researching the problem...

Abu_Elvis

06-13-2010, 07:18 AM

As I read it, Abu_Elvis's comments were regarding Palestine not just Jerusalem.

Plus, the wiki link doesn't show any data about mass Arab immigration into Jerusalem during the late 19th century.
Here it is for 20es-30es
http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine

Here are some references for earlier periods:

Thomas Shaw, Travels and Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant (London, 1767), p. 331ff. De Haas notes: "Hasselquist, the Swedish botanist, munching some roasted ears of' green wheat which a shepherd generously shared with him, in the plain of Acre, reflected that the white bread of his northern homeland and the roasted wheat ears symbolized the difference between the two civilizations' Had he known that Mukaddasi boasted in the tenth century of the excellence Of Palestine's white bread he might have been still more impressed by the low estate to which the country had fallen in seven hundred years.... Hasselquist joined a party of four thousand pilgrims who went to Jericho under an escort of three hundred soldiers. He estimated that four thousand Christians, mostly of the eastern rites, entered Jaffa each year, and as many Jews. The Armenian Convent in Jerusalem alone could accommodate a thousand persons. The botanist viewed the pilgrim tolls as the best resource of an uncultivated and uninhabited country. . ~ . Ramleh was a ruin." (Emphasis added.) De Haas, History, pp. 349, 358, 360, citing Frederich Hasselquist, Reise nach Palastina, etc., 1749-1752, pp. 139, 145-146, 190.

fast forward 100 years...

But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude.... Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter -- "the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants."

The Reverend Samuel Manning, Those Holy Fields (London, 1874), pp. 14-17. W.M. Thomson reiterated the Reverend Manning's observations: "How melancholy is this utter desolation! Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, seen everywhere else, appear to relieve the dull monotony.... Isaiah says that Sharon shall be wilderness, and the prediction has become a sad and impressive reality." Thomson, The Land and the Book (London: T. Nelsons & Sons, 1866), p. 506ff.
and here you can download Innocents Abroad, Mark Twain's travelogue, he dedicates a chapter to Israel, and basically moans how desolate the land is:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3176

And here is an article about arab immigration since muslim conquest till 20th century
http://rslissak.com/content/arab-muslim-waves-immigration-palestine-land-israel-drrivka-shpak-lissak

Walt

06-14-2010, 02:44 AM

Glaz

06-14-2010, 03:04 AM

I'm still not seeing any evidence of mass Arab migration into the area in the late 19th century.
I remember reading somewheres that there were something like 2 million arabs living in the mandate which is now israel, the palestinian territories, and jordan in 1880. That's pretty fookin' sparse.

Auu

06-14-2010, 06:01 AM

Abu_Elvis

06-14-2010, 06:22 AM

Abu_Elvis

06-14-2010, 07:47 AM

I'm still not seeing any evidence of mass Arab migration into the area in the late 19th century. The wiki link is pretty standard for populations stats in Jerusalem during that period and the only increase large enough to be explained by immigration (or people moving around from one part of the country to the other) is from the Jewish population.

re: the Twain quotes- they're long since discredited. Stats for the time when Twain visited in 1867 have the population at ~350,000, most of which were non-Jewish. His quotes were also contradicted by others-

"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated."
- Ahad Ha'Am, 1891

"Palestine not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."
-David Ben Gurion, 1918

Here it is:
Official Ottoman numbers for Jerusalem (Al Quds) Sanjak, in tousands (this is 2/3 of the area of Israel)

Year: 1885 1890 1900 1910
Popul: 233.2 336.13 341.6 382.1
How many children do they have to have for population to increase by 44% in 5 years, living in condition you see on those pictures, mud huts... Infant mortality probably over 80%, if not 90 (it was like that in poorer areas of Europe in late 19th century)... Either numbers are horribly imprecise, or there was huge immigration, some 40% in 5 years. That's more then in any time in US history. Anyway, with censuses in those days there was another problem, Bedouin. Experts estimate their number in those days to be about 100 000, and Census takers would include or exclude them rather randomly. Also there is a question where did they settle in the end? Did they leave the area to avoid the war and pitch their tents in Sinai instead of Negev, or on Jordanian side of the dead sea? There is no way of knowing that.

There wasn't much jewish immigration in those years, but there was another type of immigration...
Bosnian village built on ruins of Cesarea, in 1893, Bosnian Muslims were moved there by Ottomans (and into another village in Galilee) between 1880 and 1890.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic109-m.jpg
If you go to Cesarea, tour guides still identify this as "Bosnian mosque".

http://www.padfield.com/israel/CaesareaMaritima/p7hg_img_1/fullsize/old-city-caesarea-3.jpg
Now, how are they more palestinian natives then jews that moved there in that same year? Or a sudanese muslim who came there to work as a guard for Waqf (Sudanese guarded the temple mount/el aqsa complex). How is he more native then Jews?
Temple mount guard 1893
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic341-m.jpg

And those were not exceptions, it was the rule. And it was not the only time in history, 200 years before there was similar move by Ottomans to repopulate the area. In jerusalem today you can see palestinians who are sudanese, central asian, from balkans, etc, and you will find very few that look like Arabs...

In Eurovision 2009, Israeli representatives were Noa (jewish) and Mira Awad (arab). Noa was far darker then Mira, Mira looks european, even quite Slavic, and Noa looks properly middle eastern. So journalists when interviewing them would often start asking Noa how does it feel that she is representing Israel, being Palestinian.

Walt

06-16-2010, 09:37 AM

your quotes are from after the immigration.

They're from the same period that European Zionists were telling each other that the land was empty.

As far as the number of 350 000 people is concerned, people who claim numbers don't know what are they talking about, there was no census worthy of its name outside of major cities, since it was impossible to do.

I agree that precise figures are hard to get, but demographers worth their salt on the issue agree that there is enough there to make reasonable estimates of the population at that time.

How many children do they have to have for population to increase by 44% in 5 years, living in condition you see on those pictures, mud huts... Infant mortality probably over 80%, if not 90 (it was like that in poorer areas of Europe in late 19th century)..

Internal movement within the country perhaps or maybe Arabs who did immigrate into the country went mostly to Jerusalem. It's hard to tell without immigration data from the 19th century, without providing any you'd be speculating as to the causes (as I would be), I'm not sure of the infant mortality rates you are claiming.

There wasn't much jewish immigration in those years,

The Jewish population in Jerusalem went from 12,000 in 1876 to 28,110 in 1896. If you are going to claim that the only way the Arab population grew at the rates it did was because of immigration, then you'd have to say the same about the Jewish population.

Now, how are they more palestinian natives then jews that moved there in that same year? Or a sudanese muslim who came there to work as a guard for Waqf (Sudanese guarded the temple mount/el aqsa complex). How is he more native then Jews?

Who is claiming that? Certainly not me.

Most people who have dismissed population statistics showing that there was a non-jewish majority inside 'Palestine' prior to the creation of the state of Israel are the ones who have attempted to assert the rights of one people over another.

Abu_Elvis

06-16-2010, 10:44 AM

They're from the same period that European Zionists were telling each other that the land was empty.
Depends on definition of empty... ~10 people per km2 is extremely sparsely populated. It shows pattern that you have only in countries with vast tracts of land with no population, like sub Saharan countries, and countries like Greenland and Norway that have huge polar regions. Exactly what I said, there was little population in the cities, some Bedouin roaming the desert, few mud huts here and there, and that's it. To digress, interesting question is how does a country get from there to "Gaza - most densely populated place on the earth" (that is so often mentioned in the media) is impossible to explain without huge immigration.

Nobody claimed that there was nobody living there. We are not talking mathematics here, if you find one contra example, one person living there disproves the theorem.

Besides, I was not talking about immigration in context of secular Zionism, but immigration that came before, religious immigration, not based on a European nationalistic movement from the 19th century (similar to all other European movements that created national states, Garibaldi, Bismarck, etc).

I agree that precise figures are hard to get, but demographers worth their salt on the issue agree that there is enough there to make reasonable estimates of the population at that time.
Depends what do you call reasonable. +- 30% in case of Arabs, how much in case of Jews? None of the Ottoman censuses included non-Ottoman citizens, who, in the period, built several new cities, and quite a few neighbourhoods in existing ones. Zichron Yaakov, Tel Aviv, Petach Tikva, Rechovot, Rishon le Zion (Jerusalem doubled) were all founded during the Ottoman period, and none of the residents were counted...

Internal movement within the country perhaps or maybe Arabs who did immigrate into the country went mostly to Jerusalem. It's hard to tell without immigration data from the 19th century, without providing any you'd be speculating as to the causes (as I would be), I'm not sure of the infant mortality rates you are claiming.
There are no official numbers... But what is known is that health care was virtually non existent before Jewish immigrants established hospitals in 19th century, sanitary conditions were horrible, food and clean water were scarce, and there was a lot of malaria.

The Jewish population in Jerusalem went from 12,000 in 1876 to 28,110 in 1896. If you are going to claim that the only way the Arab population grew at the rates it did was because of immigration, then you'd have to say the same about the Jewish population.
Who claims they didn't? Of course they immigrated, of course they did. Jews are proud of the fact that Jews have been immigrating to Israel ever since Babylonians took us to captivity. By the rivers of Babylon, etc. Rings a bell? :-)

Points I tried to make is:
a) Jews weren't the only ones immigrating, so there can be no claim that Arabs are natives while Jews are collonists
b) Jews were immigrating long before advent of secular Zionism, to the point that in some places Jews were a majority before Herzl was born, so there can, again, be no claim of colonialism, Jews would have continue to immigrate (as much as they could in political and economic circumstances) without the Holocaust or Zionist Congress, or what ever... Jews have been doing that for 2500 years...

Who is claiming that? Certainly not me.

Most people who have dismissed population statistics showing that there was a non-jewish majority inside 'Palestine' prior to the creation of the state of Israel are the ones who have attempted to assert the rights of one people over another.
No people has rights over another. Ever. Right of self determination is not negotiable, but can be evoked only once. That's why, in the end, international community bombed Serbia, because they tried to claim (and because they were armed to their teeth for a time they succeeded) 2 more Serbian states, in Croatia and in Bosnia. Arabs already have 22 states. They never claimed Palestinian right of self determination until 1970es, years after Israel captured WB and Gaza, before that they wanted a pan Arabic state that would include territory of Israel. After their leaders realized that such rhetoric will get them nowhere, in 1974 PLO adopted "Phased plan". Even it doesn't state a Palestinian state as the goal, but a pan Arabic one.

Today, Pan-Arabism is passée... And I do believe that many Palestinians genuinely feel Palestinian, and persons claim is enough to establish a new nation with national rights. But they can't blame Israel for not having a Palestinian state. If they ever get it, they'll get it because of Israel, and, their nation came to existence because of Israel. Otherwise they would be south Syrians, north Egyptians and west Jordanians. They have to face reality, that their nationhood is a result of creation of state of Israel, and as such they do have a right to self determination, but as their nation was created years after Israel became a middle eastern super power (after 1967), denial of reality and extreme hate and violence will get them nothing other then pain and suffering. They need to face the facts and abandon their delusions of grandeur.

Walt

06-18-2010, 10:04 AM

To digress, interesting question is how does a country get from there to "Gaza - most densely populated place on the earth" (that is so often mentioned in the media) is impossible to explain without huge immigration.

So where is the evidence of huge Arab immigration? Where is the data?

Depends what do you call reasonable. +- 30% in case of Arabs, how much in case of Jews? None of the Ottoman censuses included non-Ottoman citizens, who, in the period, built several new cities, and quite a few neighbourhoods in existing ones. Zichron Yaakov, Tel Aviv, Petach Tikva, Rechovot, Rishon le Zion (Jerusalem doubled) were all founded during the Ottoman period, and none of the residents were counted...

Many Arabs also avoided the census, bedouins were not included and woman and children were undercounted.

We can look at the Mandate statistics and see that the Jewish population is significantly smaller than the non-Jewish population, so it's safe to say these numbers were the same or smaller during the 19th century as no mass emigration of the Jews was recorded for that period.

There are no official numbers... But what is known is that health care was virtually non existent before Jewish immigrants established hospitals in 19th century, sanitary conditions were horrible, food and clean water were scarce, and there was a lot of malaria.

That isn't true.

"As all the research by historian Fares Abdul Rahim and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no "natural" increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth. ... "
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/jan/16/mrs-peterss-palestine/

Food was obviously not scarce if it could sustain the populations numbers it did and the Ahad Ha'Am contradicts any suggestion that it was.

Points I tried to make is:
a) Jews weren't the only ones immigrating, so there can be no claim that Arabs are natives while Jews are collonists

b) Jews were immigrating long before advent of secular Zionism, to the point that in some places Jews were a majority before Herzl was born, so there can, again, be no claim of colonialism, Jews would have continue to immigrate (as much as they could in political and economic circumstances) without the Holocaust or Zionist Congress, or what ever... Jews have been doing that for 2500 years...

That's a completely dishonest picture you've painted there.

Yes, there was some Arab immigration but it was nowhere in the numbers of Zionist immigration which was large, recent and done with the intent of forming an exclusive state for the Jewish population.

Arabs already have 22 states.

Then you are argueing that rights be awarded or withheld on the basis of one's race, not on where they are born or what land deeds they might own.

Clearly you do not believe your own words that 'No people has rights over another'

Auu

06-18-2010, 11:35 AM

Then you are argueing that rights be awarded or withheld on the basis of one's race, not on where they are born or what land deeds they might own.
Clearly you do not believe your own words that 'No people has rights over another'

No he is not.
And clearly you're not interested in any arguments, for you havent' provide any,
and on other's people arguments you respond with twisted conclusions.
Only quote you provide is from Ehad Haam - who is a poet.

I expect you to start using some more poetic materials in your following posts,
so I recommend you to take Koran.
But I'm afraid you will be disappointed - for even there you will find verses of Muhammad's words how Judea belongs to Jews.

GB_FXST

06-18-2010, 01:53 PM

... snip ...

Clearly you do not believe your own words that 'No people has rights over another'

So what is the end game?

I do not agree with your interpretation, but for sake of discussion, let's assume for the moment that your basic thesis is correct: "Zionist immigration which was large, recent and done with the intent of forming an exclusive state for the Jewish population" resulted in a displacement of an indigenous Arab population. If so, so what?

monolit

06-19-2010, 05:30 PM

resulted in a displacement of an indigenous Arab population. If so, so what?
Maybe it's not fair.

GiladS

06-19-2010, 05:36 PM

Maybe it's not fair.

And I guess Arab armies invading Israel in order "to throw the Jews into the sea" was very fair...

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was the reason for the displacement of Arabs above all and this was the result of the Arabs rejecting the Partition Plan and invading Israel's borders.

monolit

06-19-2010, 05:41 PM

And I guess Arab armies invading Israel in order "to throw the Jews into the sea" was very fair...

"not fair" could be on both sides.

GB_FXST

06-19-2010, 05:42 PM

Maybe it's not fair.

Where do you live?

Whereever, I suspect it is in a glass house.

GiladS

06-19-2010, 05:45 PM

"not fair" could be on both sides.

Well I guess that life ain't fair, which brings me back to GBs line which you quoted: "so what?".

monolit

06-20-2010, 06:00 AM

Something like between cardsharp - "We played honestly: I cheated, you cheated - won the best".
But it's always good to see that we do not have moral superiority over ours enemy/neighbours.

Auu

06-20-2010, 06:18 AM

Something like between cardsharp - "We played honestly: I cheated, you cheated - won the best".
But it's always good to see that we do not have moral superiority over ours enemy/neighbours.

yeah, historical developments were pretty much like in the rest of the world

GiladS

06-20-2010, 06:26 AM

Something like between cardsharp - "We played honestly: I cheated, you cheated - won the best".
But it's always good to see that we do not have moral superiority over ours enemy/neighbours.

Don't know about moral superiorty but I think it's quite clear that the tragic results of the 1948 War for the local Arab population were mainly the fault of Arab policy makers.

Abu_Elvis

06-20-2010, 06:33 AM

"not fair" could be on both sides.

They should complain to Nasser, he annulled the "all Palestine government" in 1959 by decree... If created it would have been much bigger then Israel of today, they claimed complete territory of British Mandate. Cursed Nasser, destroyed their statehood... But no! Wait, they celebrate Nasser as a great hero.

Walt

06-21-2010, 05:30 AM

So what is the end game?

I do not agree with your interpretation, but for sake of discussion, let's assume for the moment that your basic thesis is correct: "Zionist immigration which was large, recent and done with the intent of forming an exclusive state for the Jewish population" resulted in a displacement of an indigenous Arab population. If so, so what?

We don't have to assume it is correct, because it is correct.

I don't know what is meant by your 'so what' comment. Either it is because you don't have a problem with that kind of activity, which would put you at odds with civilized society, or you don't feel it's necessary to keep rehashing the past. I don't know which.

Walt

06-21-2010, 05:34 AM

y,
Only quote you provide is from Ehad Haam - who is a poet.

And?

12345678

Auu

06-21-2010, 06:07 AM

And?

12345678

If you want to use poetic discourse in discussion - I recomended you to read Kuran - where Muslim prophet Mohammad clearly says that Israel is the land of Jews.
Why do I have to write same things twice to you?

Abu_Elvis

06-21-2010, 06:14 AM

And?

12345678

Very simple, he is not an expert. He is writing poetry, not science. You like poetry? Here, here are some arguments for you:

1. THE NATION The Jewish people is a covenanted people, the originator of monotheism, formulator of the prophetic teachings, standard bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony. The Jewish people is schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its vision, survivability and faith in redemption are indestructible.

2. THE HOMELAND
The homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River." Genesis 15:18) This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety.

3. THE NATION AND ITS LAND
Israel conquered the land with the sword. There it became a great nation and only there it will be reborn. Hence Israel alone has a right to that land. This is am absolute right. It has never expired and never will.

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 09:35 AM

We don't have to assume it is correct, because it is correct.

I don't know what is meant by your 'so what' comment. Either it is because you don't have a problem with that kind of activity, which would put you at odds with civilized society, or you don't feel it's necessary to keep rehashing the past. I don't know which.

No, it is not correct for the counter arguements posted here.

But nonetheless, for the sake of discussion, let's just assume you are right and I (and others) are wrong.

1. I ask "so what" as population displacements are a fact of life, and have happened throughout history. The civilized society you speak of is a historical anomaly of the late 20th Century, and even so, is not universally applied. I doubt anyone can claim an uncontested historical claim to their homeland. Here, in AZ - where I live - I know that I cannot. You, yourself likley reside on land that once belonged to another people. If you wish to cortrect this historical ill, you might want to start a little closer to home.

2. I ask "so what" as now some 7.5 million people reside in Israel, including descendants of people displaced from as a result of Tsarists pogroms, the Holocaust, and Arab ethnic cleansing - victims themselves without redress. So, I must wonder if you are proposing to redress one crime by committing another. Are you proposing etrhnic cleansing of the Jewish population of Israel to address the claim of Arab displacement?

I ask "so what" because even if all your claims are correct about Jewish immigration to Israel, there is no moral certainity whatsoever to any solution to the current problem of Palestinian refugees. The best possible solution is a two state solution based on the rough lines of 1967.

Abu_Elvis

06-21-2010, 09:50 AM

Here is some more poetic arguments for our friend:

Your Rabbis taught: A land is bought with money
You buy the land and work it with a hoe.
And I say: A land is not bought with money
And with a hoe you also dig and bury the dead.
And I say: A land is conquered with blood.
And only when conquered with blood is hallowed to the people
With the holiness of the blood.
And only one who follows after the cannon in the field,
Thus wins the right to follow after his good plow
On this, the field that was conquered.
And only such a field gives nourishing and healthy bread
And the house which arises on its hill is truly a fortress and a temple,
Because in this field there is honorable blood.
Your Rabbis taught: The messiah will come in future generations:
And Judea will arise without fire and without blood.
It will arise with every tree, with every additional house.
And I say: If your generation will be slow
And will not grasp in its hands and forcibly mold its future
And in fire will not come with the Shield of David
And in blood will not come with its horses saddled -
The Messiah will not come even in a far off generation.
Judea will not arise.
And you will be living slaves to every foreign ruler.
Your houses will be straw for the sparks of every wicked one.
And your trees will be cut down with their ripe fruit.
And a man will react the same as a babe
To the sword of the enemy -
And only your ramblings will remain - yours...
And your statue, an eternal curse.
Your Rabbis taught: There is one truth for the nations:
Blood for blood - but it is not a truth for Jews.
And I say: There is one truth and not two.
As there is one sun and as there are not two Jerusalems.
It was written in the Law of Conquest of Moses and Joshua
Until the last of my kings and my traitors have consumed.
And there will be a day when from the river of Egypt until the Euphrates
And from the sea until the mountain passes of Moav my boys will go up
And they will call my enemies and my haters to the last battle.
And the blood will decide: Who is the only ruler here.
Now this poem is very emotional, so it is a stronger argument then poem you quoted (in a historical debate where you chose poetry as valid arguments, not me) :-p

Auu

06-21-2010, 09:51 AM

The best possible solution is a two state solution based on the rough lines of 1967.

I disagree.
About the borders.
Jordan gave up form that territories - so why should Israel give EVERYTHING to the Arabs?
Jordan's condition for giving up teritories was only "negotiations with Palestinians about these teritories", and not "giving all that teritories to Palestinians".

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 10:04 AM

I disagree.
About the borders.
Jordan gave up form that territories - so why should Israel give EVERYTHING to the Arabs?
Jordan's condition for giving up teritories was only "negotiations with Palestinians about these teritories", and not "giving all that teritories to Palestinians".

In fact, we may be in agreement. "Rough borders of 1967" is not a compete pullback to the borders of 6/4/67. For example, Jerusalem and it's environs are obviously not open for negotiation. having said that, if there is a legitimate will by all parties for a legitimate peace Israel's position on Jersualem need not be a show stopper as other remedies may suffice.

Octavariable

06-21-2010, 10:15 AM

Um el Fahem for Gush Etzion.
Taibe for Ariel.
Baqa-Jat for Maale Edumim.

tit for tat.

Auu

06-21-2010, 10:15 AM

In fact, we may be in agreement. "Rough borders of 1967" is not a compete pullback to the borders of 6/4/67. For example, Jerusalem and it's environs are obviously not open for negotiation. having said that, if there is a legitimate will by all parties for a legitimate peace Israel's position on Jersualem need not be a show stopper as other remedies may suffice.

it seems that residents of Hebron are not opened to negotiations, too p-)

Auu

06-21-2010, 10:21 AM

Um el Fahem for Gush Etzion.
Taibe for Ariel.
Baqa-Jat for Maale Edumim.

tit for tat.

Residents of "hard-line" Muslim city Um el Fahem protested about it
they say they don't want to be in Palestinian state, but want to be in Israel
In wonder why... probably because they are masochists so they want to" suffer under evil Juices" - rather than "enjoying benefits of civilised Arab society" LOL

GiladS

06-21-2010, 10:25 AM

Residents of "hard-line" Muslim city Um el Fahem protested about it
they say they don't want to be in Palestinian state, but want to be in Israel
In wonder why... probably because they are masochists so they want to" suffer under evil Juices" - rather than "enjoying benefits of civilised Arab society" LOL

Israel's Arabs know very well that they would be much more free under the Israeli "apartheid" than in any sort of Arab ruled autonomy.

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 10:28 AM

it seems that residents of Hebron are not opened to negotiations, too p-)

Hebron may serve as a sort of another litmus test to illustrate the depth of Judenrein sentiment in the PA.

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 10:29 AM

Israel's Arabs know very well that they would be much more free under the Israeli "apartheid" than in any sort of Arab ruled autonomy.

Would it be racist to suggest that an element are fifth columnists?

GiladS

06-21-2010, 10:39 AM

Would it be racist to suggest that an element are fifth columnists?

It seems that the Arab population in Israel is starting to determine their identity and allegiance.

Apart from Druze and the majority of Bedouins, it seems that in the past decades the Israeli Arabs (Christians and Muslims) have been more or less sitting on the fence when it came proving their loyalty to the country in which they live in or to their "Arab brothers".

Now there's a surge in the amount of Arab citizens (mainly Christians I believe) who are volunteering for national service while we also see a surge in the number of espionage cases and terror cells within the Arab Muslim population.

Kaplanr

06-21-2010, 10:43 AM

To show you how generous we can be, let's make it Umm El Fahem AND Majd El Krum for Gusgh Etzion.

Um el Fahem for Gush Etzion.
Taibe for Ariel.
Baqa-Jat for Maale Edumim.

tit for tat.

monolit

06-21-2010, 12:38 PM

Would it be racist to suggest that an element are fifth columnists?
The same racist as groundless questioning Jewish minority loyalty in any other country.

GiladS

06-21-2010, 12:53 PM

The same racist as groundless questioning Jewish minority loyalty in any other country.

When Jewish MPs in other countries will be making the same statements and acting the same way as our Arab MPs then you may have a point.

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 12:58 PM

When Jewish MPs in other countries will be making the same statements and acting the same way as our Arab MPs then you may have a point.

Well said.

The US Congress is filled with hypocites, but even in that institution (unlike the Knesset) no one dare declare solidarity with Al Qaeda.

monolit

06-21-2010, 03:30 PM

Well said.

The US Congress is filled with hypocites, but even in that institution (unlike the Knesset) no one dare declare solidarity with Al Qaeda.
Maybe there are not Muslims in US Congress.

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 04:05 PM

Maybe there are not Muslims in US Congress.

And that would justify giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Methinks you are proving my point.

Stormz_STA

06-21-2010, 04:08 PM

And that would justify giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Methinks you are proving my point.

And what is your point?

dudski

06-21-2010, 04:11 PM

AHH! I LOVE BEING JEWISH! So interesting hear new things about myself everyday!

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 04:32 PM

And what is your point?

Simple. Israel is plagued by a fifth column comprised of Israeli Arabs (and loony left Jews) who seek to destroy the state from within. Israeli democracy is such that these traitors are able to rise to parliamentary power.

In the US, we too have fifth columnists or fellow travellers, but are still lucky that they have not been able to obtain congressional representation (although Cynthia McKinney might have been an exception).

The two party system as well as the specific nature of the representative system in the US serves as a sort of check and balance on fringe political parties. This is not the case in Israel.

Anyone in Congress who expresses solidarity with Al Qaeda is a traitor. Period. A Muslim congressman who would express solidarity with Al Qaeda is a traitor not becuase he is a Muslim, but because he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Stormz_STA

06-21-2010, 04:36 PM

I didn't really expect a serious response from you, GB_FXST. I expected something like "**** you, you little ****"
;)

OrangeWolf

06-21-2010, 04:38 PM

AHH! I LOVE BEING JEWISH! So interesting hear new things about myself everyday!

You have been invented by some freak accident in nature. Because one fish had *** with another fish, and they had retard babies, and then the retard fish had *** with another fish which created another retard baby, this retard baby then crawled out of the sea with his mutant fish hands and had but sexx with a squirrel or something, then that had buttsex with a monkey, and with another monkey, and that created you.

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 04:51 PM

I didn't really expect a serious response from you, GB_FXST. I expected something like "**** you, you little ****"
;)

Oops ... my sarcasm meter most be off today, sorry ... :)

Stormz_STA

06-21-2010, 04:59 PM

Oops ... my sarcasm meter most be off today, sorry ... :)

Yeah, it most be.
;)

GB_FXST

06-21-2010, 05:18 PM

Yeah, it most be.
;)

Ugh ... and spelling and grammar are pet peeves of mine too.

Oh well, probably serves me right for working and posting at the same time ...

Abu_Elvis

06-21-2010, 08:10 PM

When Jewish MPs in other countries will be making the same statements and acting the same way as our Arab MPs then you may have a point.

Like spying for hezbollah...

Walt

06-22-2010, 07:47 AM

No, it is not correct for the counter arguements posted here.

then you're denying the historical record.

1. I ask "so what" as population displacements are a fact of life, and have happened throughout history. The civilized society you speak of is a historical anomaly of the late 20th Century, and even so, is not universally applied. I doubt anyone can claim an uncontested historical claim to their homeland. Here, in AZ - where I live - I know that I cannot. You, yourself likley reside on land that once belonged to another people. If you wish to cortrect this historical ill, you might want to start a little closer to home

Civilized society may not be universally applied, but international law is.

Neither Arizona or where I live has nothing to do with the topic. Any suggestion of hypocrisy, which is what you are implying, is of course a pure strawman seeing as you don't know what my position is on people who lived on the land before me. This is merely diversion away from an uncomfortable truth that all to often gets glossed over or rewritten.

2. I ask "so what" as now some 7.5 million people reside in Israel, including descendants of people displaced from as a result of Tsarists pogroms, the Holocaust, and Arab ethnic cleansing - victims themselves without redress. So, I must wonder if you are proposing to redress one crime by committing another. Are you proposing etrhnic cleansing of the Jewish population of Israel to address the claim of Arab displacement?

Aren't population displacements a 'fact of life'? It seems you treat some instances of displacement with ambilivance and others as a crime that deserves the title of ethnic cleansing.

I don't feel it necessary to make proposals for a settlement to this situation. What I want is irrelevant, as an observer I can only say how I think it will end.

Walt

06-22-2010, 07:56 AM

If you want to use poetic discourse in discussion - I recomended you to read Kuran - where Muslim prophet Mohammad clearly says that Israel is the land of Jews.
Why do I have to write same things twice to you?

Very simple, he is not an expert. He is writing poetry, not science. You like poetry? Here, here are some arguments for you:

Gibberish.

The fact of the matter is you were presented with a quote that contradicted something you wanted to believe. Instead of counter-argueing it with evidence you claim that his vocation is enough to prove his observations wrong.

Mark Twain wasn't an expert either (nor was he right) yet you quite happily offered his writings up as hard facts. Apparently poets lie and novelists tell the truth?

And yes, I do like poetry but not the religious kind so please don't quote anymore at me to 'prove' who owns what.

Auu

06-22-2010, 07:59 AM

Poets lie and novelists tell the truth............. lol.

says person who quotes only poet LOL

Auu

06-22-2010, 08:15 AM

Gibberish.

The fact of the matter is you were presented with a quote that contradicted something you wanted to believe. .

In any of your posts I haven't found any source for what you're trying to say - except for one poem.
But you post the same thing over and over again, and now you're stating that other people's arguments are "matter of faith".
In overall - it seems you're provoking flame bait.

Auu

06-22-2010, 08:19 AM

Abu_Elvis

06-22-2010, 08:45 AM

Gibberish.

The fact of the matter is you were presented with a quote that contradicted something you wanted to believe. Instead of counter-argueing it with evidence you claim that his vocation is enough to prove his observations wrong.

Mark Twain wasn't an expert either (nor was he right) yet you quite happily offered his writings up as hard facts. Apparently poets lie and novelists tell the truth?
I would never rely on evidence of one person, before quoting mark twain, I quoted a bunch of official consular reports from consulates in the area and census figures, which you, of course, ignored, because it hurts your arguments. Typical leftist...

And yes, I do like poetry but not the religious kind so please don't quote anymore at me to 'prove' who owns what. Suit yourself...
Proof of arab illegal occupation of land of Israel:
My heart is in the East, and I am at the ends of the West;
How can I taste what I eat and how could it be pleasing to me?
How shall I render my vows and my bonds, while yet
Zion lies beneath the fetter of Edom, and I am in the chains of Arabia?
It would be easy for me to leave all the bounty of Spain --
As it is precious for me to behold the dust of the desolate sanctuary.
Yehuda haLevi, c. 1130 (what is this? Zionism barely few centuries after dastardly and evil illegal Arab occupation of Eretz Israel?)

Walt

06-22-2010, 08:49 AM

In any of your posts I haven't found any source for what you're trying to say - except for one poem.

I didn't quote any poetry. I posted a quote from someone who happened to be a poet.

But you post the same thing over and over again, and now you're stating that other people's arguments are "matter of faith".
In overall - it seems you're provoking flame bait.

If you are going to rest some of your arguments on the Bible and the Koran then why should I regard those arguments as anything other than a matter of faith?

Abu_Elvis

06-22-2010, 08:52 AM

If you are going to rest some of your arguments on the Bible and the Koran then why should I regard those arguments as anything other than a matter of faith?

Again, you are ignoring consular reports and census figures... Which happen to agree with poetic description by Mark Twain...

Walt

06-22-2010, 08:59 AM

I would never rely on evidence of one person, before quoting mark twain, I quoted a bunch of official consular reports from consulates in the area and census figures, which you, of course, ignored, because it hurts your arguments. Typical leftist...

I think a more accurate depiction of how it went was that you claimed that there was mass Arab immigration into Palestine in the 19th century (did you not?) and I am still waiting to see some data which proves that claim.

The data you provided shows an increasing Arab population in Jerusalem which you say is due to immigration but you didn't provide any proof, so you were speculating.

Auu

06-22-2010, 09:07 AM

I didn't quote any poetry. I posted a quote from someone who happened to be a poet.
If you are going to rest some of your arguments on the Bible and the Koran then why should I regard those arguments as anything other than a matter of faith?

I rested my arguments with statistics, historical materials and literature and sacred texsts.
And your argument rests only one ONE poet's words.
And you insist that that only argument is "the right one".

Listen, that kind of behaviour has it's clinical name, and it's called:
Lunatic ideas
"Patient's opinions arise from his personal beliefs. He firmly believes that it was being pursued (persecution mania), that God (religious mania), or that everything related to it (the idea of arbitration), holding firmly their beliefs from which one can not turn away any assurances or evidence that his ideas do not fit reality. The cause lies in the fact that the patient withdrew into his inner world and that "hooked curtain, similar to what we saw with hallucinations. So lose the ability to make their thoughts, their own "reality" compare with the reality of the outside world."

...and it's a symptom of schizophrenia.

Auu

06-22-2010, 09:11 AM

Walt

06-22-2010, 09:16 AM

Again, you are ignoring consular reports and census figures... Which happen to agree with poetic description by Mark Twain...

Which census figures are you claiming support Mark Twain's depiction of the land as unhabitated and desolate?

Auu

06-22-2010, 09:28 AM

Which census figures are you claiming support Mark Twain's depiction of the land as unhabitated and desolate?

you're making us to run in circles again...
Why don't you read whole thread once again before posting same questions again and again?
They were all answered with arguments, so I'm really beginning to think you really have problems with your mental condition.

AS I SAID: PEOPLE OPOSED YOUR ATTITUDE AND CONTRIBUTED TO THIS THREAD WITH STATISTICS, LITERATURE, HISTORICAL RECORDS, PHOTOS AND QUOTES FROM SACRED TEXTS, SO READ THEM ALL OVER AND STOP BRAGGING US WITH YOUR LACK OF INTELIGENCE

(If I'm gonna get infraction for this yelling, so be it - I cant' stand this provocateur any more)

Walt

06-22-2010, 09:36 AM

...and it's a symptom of schizophrenia.

So - FOR THE S E C O N D time in this thread - Jerusalem statistics are the one to research considering this matter.

I've already explained how this does not prove Abu_Elvis claims of Arab mass immigration into Palestine and subsequently Jeresulem in post #112. (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?170598-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People&p=5013699&viewfull=1#post5013699)

There is no record of this mass immigration taking place in Ottoman population statistics. Unless you are going to post some, then don't bother responding as you appear to struggle to comprehend what is being debated and seem more interested in practising amateur Psychiatry and quoting religious texts in a debate about history.

Auu

06-22-2010, 09:37 AM

anyways, here's vid from some other post so I hope "Walt" will enjoy it

http://www.youtube.com/v/q14hG6_gmzQ

GB_FXST

06-22-2010, 09:45 AM

then you're denying the historical record.

... snip ...

And, I can make the very same claim against you. We can go in circles or agree to disagree.

... snip ...

Civilized society may not be universally applied, but international law is.

Neither Arizona or where I live has nothing to do with the topic. Any suggestion of hypocrisy, which is what you are implying, is of course a pure strawman seeing as you don't know what my position is on people who lived on the land before me. This is merely diversion away from an uncomfortable truth that all to often gets glossed over or rewritten.

... snip ...

Whatever helps you get through the night.

Yes. I am accusing you of hypcorisy on the issue. And, your attempt to evade the charge by dismissing its relevancy proves my point.

An Israeli has as much a moral claim to his home as anyone else in the world - possibly even a stronger claim because his claim is not founded on a colonial enterprise.

If you dismiss his claim because he suppossedly displaced someone else, you too must suffer the same moral scrutiny. That uncomfortable fact is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

If you wish to remedy the ills of population transfers and colonialism, you should look to somewhere other than Israel if you do not want to be labeled a hypocrite.

Universal application of international law ... debunking that myth is for another day.

... snip ...

Aren't population displacements a 'fact of life'? It seems you treat some instances of displacement with ambilivance and others as a crime that deserves the title of ethnic cleansing.

... snip ...

Of course, the plight of the average Palestinian person is tragic, especially so since was inflicted and further exacerbated by those who claimed to care so very much for them.

But, who is responsible for the Palestinian population transfer of 1948? Neither I nor my ancestors. My grandfather, who fought for the Hagannah, was fighting in a defensive war. A war declared by Arab states in contravention of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Who is responsible for the outcome of that war? The Arab bloc, Palestinians in particular, are responsible for their historical choices and current predicament.

- The Arabs rejected the 1937 Peel Commission.
- The Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
- The Arabs went to war in 1948.
- The population displacement of 1948 is a direct consequence of the Arab decision to go to war.
- The Arab states displaced their Jewish citizens after 1948.
- The Arab states refused to assimilate their "Palestinian" brothers.
- The Arab states issues the three No's of Khartoum after 1967.

Absolution is not to be granted to the Palestinians. And, Israel is not to shoulder the responsibility for all these historical blunders.

And yet, in all this discussion of population transfers, I find it fascinating that advocates for the Palestinian cause are so dismissive of the massive population transfer of Jews between 1939 and 1955. Another case of hypocrisy it seems.

... snip ...

I don't feel it necessary to make proposals for a settlement to this situation. What I want is irrelevant, as an observer I can only say how I think it will end.

Whatever.

I know exactly what you are advocating. The leftist wet-dream of a one-state solution is a non-starter for many many reasons, not least of which are the atavism and xenophobia of both Fatah and Hamas.

GiladS

06-22-2010, 09:46 AM

I don't really get this whole argument about demographics during the Ottoman Empire.

Will a statistic proving either one of the two arguments change the fact that there is currently a Jewish state called Israel and that this state will continue to strive to maintain a Jewish majority?

Auu

06-22-2010, 09:49 AM

I've already explained how this does not prove Abu_Elvis claims of Arab mass immigration into Palestine and subsequently Jeresulem in post #112. (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?170598-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People&p=5013699&viewfull=1#post5013699)

There is no record of this mass immigration taking place in Ottoman population statistics. Unless you are going to post some, then don't bother responding as you appear to struggle to comprehend what is being debated and seem more interesting in practising amateur Psychiatry and quoting religious texts in a debate about history.

And Abu Elvis argued that you're not right, in post http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?170598-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People&p=5013798&viewfull=1#post5013798

You posted:
They're from the same period that European Zionists were telling each other that the land was empty.
Depends on definition of empty... ~10 people per km2 is extremely sparsely populated. It shows pattern that you have only in countries with vast tracts of land with no population, like sub Saharan countries, and countries like Greenland and Norway that have huge polar regions. Exactly what I said, there was little population in the cities, some Bedouin roaming the desert, few mud huts here and there, and that's it. To digress, interesting question is how does a country get from there to "Gaza - most densely populated place on the earth" (that is so often mentioned in the media) is impossible to explain without huge immigration.

Abu Elvis:
Nobody claimed that there was nobody living there. We are not talking mathematics here, if you find one contra example, one person living there disproves the theorem.

Besides, I was not talking about immigration in context of secular Zionism, but immigration that came before, religious immigration, not based on a European nationalistic movement from the 19th century (similar to all other European movements that created national states, Garibaldi, Bismarck, etc).

Yout:
I agree that precise figures are hard to get, but demographers worth their salt on the issue agree that there is enough there to make reasonable estimates of the population at that time.

Abu Elvis:
Depends what do you call reasonable. +- 30% in case of Arabs, how much in case of Jews? None of the Ottoman censuses included non-Ottoman citizens, who, in the period, built several new cities, and quite a few neighbourhoods in existing ones. Zichron Yaakov, Tel Aviv, Petach Tikva, Rechovot, Rishon le Zion (Jerusalem doubled) were all founded during the Ottoman period, and none of the residents were counted...

You:
Internal movement within the country perhaps or maybe Arabs who did immigrate into the country went mostly to Jerusalem. It's hard to tell without immigration data from the 19th century, without providing any you'd be speculating as to the causes (as I would be), I'm not sure of the infant mortality rates you are claiming.

Abu Elvis:
There are no official numbers... But what is known is that health care was virtually non existent before Jewish immigrants established hospitals in 19th century, sanitary conditions were horrible, food and clean water were scarce, and there was a lot of malaria.

You:
The Jewish population in Jerusalem went from 12,000 in 1876 to 28,110 in 1896. If you are going to claim that the only way the Arab population grew at the rates it did was because of immigration, then you'd have to say the same about the Jewish population.
Abu Elvis:
Who claims they didn't? Of course they immigrated, of course they did. Jews are proud of the fact that Jews have been immigrating to Israel ever since Babylonians took us to captivity. By the rivers of Babylon, etc. Rings a bell?

Points I tried to make is:
a) Jews weren't the only ones immigrating, so there can be no claim that Arabs are natives while Jews are collonists
b) Jews were immigrating long before advent of secular Zionism, to the point that in some places Jews were a majority before Herzl was born, so there can, again, be no claim of colonialism, Jews would have continue to immigrate (as much as they could in political and economic circumstances) without the Holocaust or Zionist Congress, or what ever... Jews have been doing that for 2500 years...

You:
Who is claiming that? Certainly not me.
Most people who have dismissed population statistics showing that there was a non-jewish majority inside 'Palestine' prior to the creation of the state of Israel are the ones who have attempted to assert the rights of one people over another.

Abu Elvis:
No people has rights over another. Ever. Right of self determination is not negotiable, but can be evoked only once. That's why, in the end, international community bombed Serbia, because they tried to claim (and because they were armed to their teeth for a time they succeeded) 2 more Serbian states, in Croatia and in Bosnia. Arabs already have 22 states. They never claimed Palestinian right of self determination until 1970es, years after Israel captured WB and Gaza, before that they wanted a pan Arabic state that would include territory of Israel. After their leaders realized that such rhetoric will get them nowhere, in 1974 PLO adopted "Phased plan". Even it doesn't state a Palestinian state as the goal, but a pan Arabic one.

Today, Pan-Arabism is passée... And I do believe that many Palestinians genuinely feel Palestinian, and persons claim is enough to establish a new nation with national rights. But they can't blame Israel for not having a Palestinian state. If they ever get it, they'll get it because of Israel, and, their nation came to existence because of Israel. Otherwise they would be south Syrians, north Egyptians and west Jordanians. They have to face reality, that their nationhood is a result of creation of state of Israel, and as such they do have a right to self determination, but as their nation was created years after Israel became a middle eastern super power (after 1967), denial of reality and extreme hate and violence will get them nothing other then pain and suffering. They need to face the facts and abandon their delusions of grandeur.

Now I'm adding this:
If you're gonna make me re-read your posts, than I have to read an answers to that... and it's all sick.
Please make an apointment with psychiatrist

Abu_Elvis

06-22-2010, 10:52 AM

I think a more accurate depiction of how it went was that you claimed that there was mass Arab immigration into Palestine in the 19th century (did you not?) and I am still waiting to see some data which proves that claim.

The data you provided shows an increasing Arab population in Jerusalem which you say is due to immigration but you didn't provide any proof, so you were speculating.
You want proof, you will have to visit a library...

To someone who is not trying to be obtuse on purpose, it is evidence enough.
1) You have a stable population in past several centuries, at about 600 000 residents in whole of mandate area (today's Israel, Jordan and PA, where Israeli & PA of today is 20% of the complete mandate territory, Jordan has 80%) - you can check census figures by yourself
2) Jews start buying land in 1880-es and setting up agricultural enterprises - nobody disputes that fact
3) Arabs star settling in camps around jewish agricultural settlements, in some areas there were 10 arab migrant workers for each jew (for example, around Rishon le Zion) -- as churchill reported before house of commons in 1939:

I end upon the land of Palestine. It is strange indeed that we should turn away from our task in Palestine at the moment when, as the Secretary of State told us yesterday, the local disorders have been largely mastered. It is stranger still that we should turn away when the great experiment and bright dream has proved its power to succeed. Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing passages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done. They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore. They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the land. So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.
http://www.ismi.emory.edu/PrimarySource/jnh1944.html
But there is far more evidence, Emile Meyerson reports, reports from consulates, reports from authorities... Arab population rose by 500 000 in few decades... Huge majority in western Palestine (Israel), as census figures show.

Legue of nations report from 1921, they are still dealing with eastern and western Palestine as one, before creation of trans-jordan:
http://www.gwpda.org/1918p/samuel1921.html

The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

Encyclopaedia britannica, edition of 1911 reports of mixed population:

There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy, Turkoman settlements, a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony, Motawila, long settled immigrants from Persia, tribes of Kurds, German "Templar" colonies, a Bosnian colony, and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres, by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin, a large Algerian element in the population , still maintain(s) [while] the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.
British census of 1931 of Palestine brings 26 countries of origin for muslim population, and 24 mother tongues for them. For statistical breakdown you'll have to go to a big library, and take a look at it, they won't let you take it out, and it has some 10 volumes, so sorry, there is no online source and, no, I won't copy the whole bloody thing.
And also, for the migrant fellahin working the land for absentee landlords, the whole system is well explaiend and plenty proof is provided here: http://www.amazon.com/Issawi-Economic-History-Columbia-economic/dp/0231034431
Sorry, book is copyrighted, but you should read it if you are really interested in the subject. I think it is out of print, but it can be found in antique book shops and libraries. Here are some quotes on emigration patterns:

For example, Circassian and other colonists were deliberately planted on the frontier of settlement, especially from 1870 onwards.

About 1860 several hundred tents of the Wulda tribe crossed the Euphrates and eventually settled down about thirty miles south of Aleppo, in Jebel Samaane. Sections of other tribes, such as the Bu Shaikh, Lheib, and Aquedat also drifted west, usually after being defeated in raids or wars, half fleeing from the powerful desert tribes and half attracted by the possibilities of settlement.

But, Hope-Simpson report is available on-line: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E3ED8720F8707C9385256D19004F057C
Then there is Ominsby-Gore report: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7

All these documents paint the same picture, and some refer to huge arab immigration. Here are some more travelogues for a more poetic description (rather then dry data):

Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, by John Burckhardt (1822)

The oppressions of the government on one side, and those of the Bedouins on the other, have reduced the Fellah of the Haouran to a state little better than that of the wandering Arab. Few individuals either among the Druses or Christians die in the same village in which they were born. Families are continually moving from one place to another; in the first year of their new settlement the Sheikh acts with moderation towards them; but his vexations becoming in a few years insupportable, they fly to some other place, where they have heard that their brethren are better treated, but they soon find that the same system prevails over the whole country. Sometimes it is not merely the pecuniary extortion, but the personal enmity of the Sheikh, or of some of the head men of the village, which drives a family from their home, for they are always permitted to depart. This continued wandering is one of the principal reasons why no village in the Haouran has either orchards, or fruit- trees, or gardens for the growth of vegetables. "Shall we sow for strangers?" was the answer of a Fellah, to whom I once spoke on the subject, and who by the word strangers meant both the succeeding inhabitants, and the Arabs who visit the Haouran in the spring and
summer.
and

This continued wandering is one of the principal reasons why no village in the Haouran has either orchards, or fruit-
trees, or gardens for the growth of vegetables. "Shall we sow for strangers?" was the answer of a Fellah, to whom I once spoke on the subject, and who by the word strangers meant both the succeeding inhabitants, and the Arabs who visit the Haouran in the spring and summer.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8sria10.txt

also in Thomson, Land and Book (1868) on Ottoman tax collectors:

They extort from [the peasants) nearly all the produce of their lands in return for the doubtful advantage of having them stand between them and the officers of the government.... The farmer [tax-farmer] of a village ... is, in fact, a petty tyrant who takes all if he cannot otherwise get back what he has spent, and the iniquitous interest also.
This system of tax-gathering greatly multiplies the petty lords and tyrants who eat up the people as they eat bread.
on google books (books.google.co.il/books?id=2DUHAAAAQAAJ&ots=IB_Yk3eULR&dq=Thomson%2C%20Land%20and%20Book&hl=en&pg=PA320#v=onepage&q&f=false)

I think this is enough data for a forum, this is not a doctoral dissertation, it is an internet forum.

Octavariable

06-22-2010, 10:55 AM

Don't forget Henry Baker Trisram's - The Land of Israel, A Journal of travels in Palestine.

Hollis

06-22-2010, 11:04 AM

zad

06-22-2010, 11:09 AM

Finding a thread getting into a circular argument, instead of keeping it going, place that member on Ignore and move on. If a member doesn't "get it" in a post or two, more posts will not do it. Same way if you are being baited, use Ignore. Report the post and move on.

In computer science we call that an infinite loop. p-)

Abu_Elvis

06-22-2010, 11:19 AM

In computer science we call that an infinite loop. p-)

No it is not an infinite loop, it is infinite recursion, since posts keep growing, and resource usage is getting heavier with every iteration :-)

Hollis

06-22-2010, 11:25 AM

Ok infinite and ever expanding loop, That is what caused the first destruction of the universe.

Auu

06-22-2010, 11:28 AM

Finding a thread getting into a circular argument, instead of keeping it going, place that member on Ignore and move on. If a member doesn't "get it" in a post or two, more posts will not do it. Same way if you are being baited, use Ignore. Report the post and move on.

ok, so now I have to find that button for "Ignore"... where the hell is that?
Hard mission to acomplish :-)
Can anybody help me with this?

zad

06-22-2010, 01:04 PM

No it is not an infinite loop, it is infinite recursion, since posts keep growing, and resource usage is getting heavier with every iteration :-)

I stand corrected sir. :)

I wonder when will we reach the final stopping condition Godwin's law.

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 02:23 PM

He brings up a valid point about the Ethiopian Jews. How can they be descended from the same racial line as Ashkenazi Jews?
Simple. Israel is plagued by a fifth column comprised of Israeli Arabs (and loony left Jews) who seek to destroy the state from within. Israeli democracy is such that these traitors are able to rise to parliamentary power.

In the US, we too have fifth columnists or fellow travellers, but are still lucky that they have not been able to obtain congressional representation (although Cynthia McKinney might have been an exception). It seems hypocritical for you to be talking about traitors in the US congress when you ally yourself with a foreign power (Israel) against your host country (USA).

GiladS

06-22-2010, 03:31 PM

He brings up a valid point about the Ethiopian Jews.

Who does?

How can they be descended from the same racial line as Ashkenazi Jews?

Ethiopian Jews are probably mostly the descendents of converts as a pose to Spharedi and Ashkenazi communities.

However that really doesn't matter as Jews are an ethnoreligious group.

It seems hypocritical for you to be talking about traitors in the US congress when you ally yourself with a foreign power (Israel) against your host country (USA).

Unless Israel is considerd to be an enemy state by the US, I'd say your argument is rather hollow.

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 03:56 PM

Unless Israel is considerd to be an enemy state by the US, I'd say your argument is rather hollow. Not an enemy but they have different agendas. Jews are only 1.7% of the US population. I'm sure you understand the hypocrisy of dual citizenship given the many breaches of US national security/intelligence by American-Israelis.

OrangeWolf

06-22-2010, 03:58 PM

OrangeWolf

06-22-2010, 03:59 PM

Not an enemy but they have different agendas. Jews are only 1.7% of the US population. I'm sure you understand the hypocrisy of dual citizenship given the many breaches of US national security/intelligence by American-Israelis.

How the hell do you define hypocrite? What do your alleged claims - if even true - have to do with hypocrisy?

monolit

06-22-2010, 04:07 PM

Since when are USA and Israel hostile nations? He refers to Israeli citizens collaborating with forces who want to destroy Israel.
What with Jonathan Pollard? Why did he spy for Israel in US if they are allied nations? I don't think that was isolated case, but most famous.

OrangeWolf

06-22-2010, 04:12 PM

What with Jonathan Pollard? Why did he spy for Israel in US if they are allied nations? I don't think that was isolated case, but most famous.

Yeah, ok. It doesn't answer ANYTHING:

I) how is it comparable to say someone is hypocritical when someone supports Israel, to Israeli citizens supporting Hezbollah/Hamas.
II) how does bringing up Jonathan Pollard answer anything? People can still support Israel without breaching US interests.

EDIT: I challange you to come with other examples such as Jonathan Pollard, with relation to Israel.

GiladS

06-22-2010, 04:12 PM

Not an enemy but they have different agendas.

That is your opinion.

Jews are only 1.7% of the US population.

Which means what exactly? Just because Jews are a minority in the U.S then both countires can't enjoy close and friendly relations?

I'm sure you understand the hypocrisy of dual citizenship given the many breaches of US national security/intelligence by American-Israelis.

Many?

Apart from Pollard (an affair that is already 25 years old) I doubt that you can provide any other concrete examples for this argument.

Octavariable

06-22-2010, 04:15 PM

In before the Falcon/Patriot/J-10 to China.

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 04:23 PM

Apart from Pollard (an affair that is already 25 years old) I doubt that you can provide any other concrete examples for this argument. Gilads,

Let's not get too far off topic but come on, you know there are other cases. Just to answer your question.
In 1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO was indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86)
In 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system. (1/17/92, Edward T. Pound and David Rogers).
In early 1997, an Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, told investigators that he "inadvertently" gave classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).
Richard Perle (Secretary of Defense under Bsuh II) apparently passed US secrets to Israel.
Read Victor Ostrovsky's books (ex-Mossad agent) and he details all the commercial espionage that Mossad did in the US.

GB_FXST

06-22-2010, 04:24 PM

He brings up a valid point about the Ethiopian Jews. How can they be descended from the same racial line as Ashkenazi Jews? It seems hypocritical for you to be talking about traitors in the US congress when you ally yourself with a foreign power (Israel) against your host country (USA).

Where do you live?

WTF are you talking about?

You seem to be ignorant about Judaism: Judaism is not a race, so the race of Ashekanzi, Sephardic or Ethiopian Jews is irrelevant.

You seem to be ignorant about what it means to be a US citizen. A US citizen is not "hosted" by the US. As a US citizen (by birth), I do not have a "host country." Further, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the reference to host country is a slip of the tongue and not a slur.

You seem to be ignorant about the national origin of most of the citizens of the US - this is a nation of immigrants, and mosty people have ties to some other country. If you are going to question the loyalties of Jews, are you also prepared to the question the loyalties of Catholics and Muslims? How about all of the people of Irsih, Italian, German, Russian, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc., descent?

You seem to be ignorant about US foreign policy and its relations with foreign nations.

You seem to be ignorant about the First Amendment.

You seem to be ignorant about patriotism and loyalty.

Pray tell, is there a topic of which you are not ignorant?

GB_FXST

06-22-2010, 04:29 PM

Gilads,

Let's not get too far off topic but come on, you know there are other cases. Just to answer your question.
In 1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO was indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86)
In 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system. (1/17/92, Edward T. Pound and David Rogers).
In early 1997, an Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, told investigators that he "inadvertently" gave classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).
Richard Perle (Secretary of Defense under Bsuh II) apparently passed US secrets to Israel.
Read Victor Ostrovsky's books (ex-Mossad agent) and he details all the commercial espionage that Mossad did in the US.

Source?

So you seek condemn a population of millions on the alleged actions of a handful of people. Classy, very classy.

You, of course, are prepared to discuss US espionage on foriegn nations, and the espionage of other nations against the US, correct?

Tyon

06-22-2010, 04:31 PM

He brings up a valid point about the Ethiopian Jews. How can they be descended from the same racial line as Ashkenazi Jews?

When did judaism define itself through race? Yeah right never. There have always been converts so the whole "outrage" of nonjews about the book is rather weird.
He tells nothing new and claims that it was claimed otherwise.

And there are some DNA studies that show how mizrahim, sephardim and askenazim are rather alike. And even if not... its no big deal

Its like with the whole "he is a half jew" thats utter BS.

GiladS

06-22-2010, 04:32 PM

What with Jonathan Pollard? Why did he spy for Israel in US if they are allied nations? I don't think that was isolated case, but most famous.

Sorry to burst your buble but there are plenty of cases of friendly nations spying on each other.

It ain't polite and not a desriable state of things but it happens.

For example there was a whole affair between the U.S and France in 1995 over a CIA spy ring that was uncovered.

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 04:32 PM

I am not attacking you for being Israeli , so please stop flaming me.
this is a nation of immigrants, and mosty people have ties to some other country. If you are going to question the loyalties of Jews, are you also prepared to the question the loyalties of Catholics and Muslims? How about all of the people of Irsih, Italian, German, Russian, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc., descent? Exactly. German/Italian/British Americans identify themselves as Americans and they do not have allegiances to their original countries. I would say that is not true for American-Israelis (or Muslims btw - I'm not just picking on one group).

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 04:35 PM

You, of course, are prepared to discuss US espionage on foriegn nations, and the espionage of other nations against the US, correct? Of course, I am no hypocrite. I think we all know that the CIA is not operating in Israel.

OrangeWolf

06-22-2010, 04:36 PM

Gilads,

Let's not get too far off topic but come on, you know there are other cases. Just to answer your question.
In 1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO was indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86)
In 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system. (1/17/92, Edward T. Pound and David Rogers).
In early 1997, an Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, told investigators that he "inadvertently" gave classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).
Richard Perle (Secretary of Defense under Bsuh II) apparently passed US secrets to Israel.
Read Victor Ostrovsky's books (ex-Mossad agent) and he details all the commercial espionage that Mossad did in the US.

I cannot find any reliable sources for this, only stuff like goofy blogs and people making comments. So why dont you supply the actual articles?

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 04:40 PM

When did judaism define itself through race? Yeah right never. There have always been converts so the whole "outrage" of nonjews about the book is rather weird.
. But you can be a secular Jew entitled to lived in Israel under the 'Right of Return', no? There is an strong element of race in Zionism, no? True, though, not all Jews are descended from the original Israelis. Also, Judaism isn't big on conversion. That is why it has not expanded like Christiantiy and Islam.

Octavariable

06-22-2010, 04:48 PM

American-Israelis
"American Israelis" or vice versa, are not American Jews. The later are as American as anyone, while the former are expatriates, Living in America due to work or Education.

So please take note on that. and stop confusing yourself.

Fat Lazy American

06-22-2010, 04:49 PM

Of course, I am no hypocrite. I think we all know that the CIA is not operating in Israel.

Are you retarded?

deagle

06-22-2010, 04:56 PM

you know, some ppl believe that if the jewish faith was invented, so was the notion of a G-d and any other religion

GiladS

06-22-2010, 04:58 PM

In 1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO was indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86)

This is an illegal trafficking case, not espionage and the dealings were between Smyth and an Israeli frim. Not the Israeli government.

By the way, krytrons can be used for many purposes and not just nuclear triggers... that's not to say that what he did was alright but it ain't a concrete example.

http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fmiddle_east%2F1960179.stm&rct=j&q=smyth+bbc+triggers&ei=QCQhTJa9E8TgsAaHm-TdDg&usg=AFQjCNHLoaLUlJ9VGyC3tpMblVSbT9Ew5Q

In 1992, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system. (1/17/92, Edward T. Pound and David Rogers).

This is cited by many crackpot sites (a nice and easy copy and paste job on your part) but I can't seem to find the original article anywhere.

In early 1997, an Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, told investigators that he "inadvertently" gave classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).

Look what I found....

http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F08%2F23%2FAR2008082301605.html&rct=j&q=David+A.+Tenenbaum+exonerated&ei=kSMhTNPkGM2VsQah0ZyXDg&usg=AFQjCNEpGlwo2oUw4xPLrsofGbgAjjEkLQ

The man was exonerated but you still decided to bring this case up.

A lack of proper research or intentional distortion of facts on your part.

Richard Perle (Secretary of Defense under Bsuh II) apparently passed US secrets to Israel.
Read Victor Ostrovsky's books (ex-Mossad agent) and he details all the commercial espionage that Mossad did in the US.

I won't even waste my time on this rubbish.

GiladS

06-22-2010, 05:24 PM

you know, some ppl believe that if the jewish faith was invented, so was the notion of a G-d and any other religion

The two other (and bigger) monotheistic religions did derive from Judiasm... that's a pretty recognized fact.

HansGruber

06-22-2010, 05:58 PM

Gilads
Sorry but you're trying to deceive here. The FBI don't just raid people's houses because they are Jewish. I'm sure you are well aware of how the legal system is played by a defendant. The USA is Israel's biggest friend - without it - Israel would not exist - they do not persecute Israelis. Also, do you exepect do find hard copies of articles published in the early 90's before the internet had kicked in?
Here is Viktor Ostrovsky's book (a high ranking ex-Mossad agent) who details Israel's espionage against Western states. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27175886/Other-Side-of-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky
No need to argue about this. Clued-up Israelis know what Mossad is doing in its attempts to do what it thinks is best for Israel but Mossad espionage is for another thread.

GB_FXST

06-22-2010, 06:05 PM

I am not attacking you for being Israeli , so please stop flaming me. Exactly. German/Italian/British Americans identify themselves as Americans and they do not have allegiances to their original countries. I would say that is not true for American-Israelis (or Muslims btw - I'm not just picking on one group).

True enough, you are not attacking me for being pro-Israel.

Instead, you are questioning my allegiance to my country of birth because of my religion.

Further discussion with you is futile. You have a lot to learn about history and human nature. The CIA does spy on Israel. Ethnic allegiance is not uncommon in the US. Others have already debunked your claims of Israeli spies in the US.

But, I suspect you will remain impervious to these facts; your prejudices will continue to blind you.

You are welcome to come out of the darkness of the cave of ignorance, but until then, pound sand little man.

KoTeMoRe

06-22-2010, 06:11 PM

Ok don't kill me, but she's right...I mean every human group is an invention...be it a Religion, a Nation, a Party. So nothing new. Now why she says that and why she pisses the crap out of people that's the real question.

nicholasjulian

06-22-2010, 06:13 PM

If you think the Americans dont spy on Israel you are very naive indeed. Everyone spies on everyone its all part of the game.

Tyon

06-22-2010, 06:45 PM

But you can be a secular Jew entitled to lived in Israel under the 'Right of Return', no?

Yeah. So what? Has nothing to do with "race".

There is an strong element of race in Zionism, no? True, though, not all Jews are descended from the original Israelis.

Zionism? I thought we were talking about judaism. Isnt the book entitled about jewish something and not zionist something?"

Also, Judaism isn't big on conversion. That is why it has not expanded like Christiantiy and Islam.

Just because they dont storm into your house preaching everything they got doesnt mean that they arent big on conversion.
Anyone can join the jews. Its just not that easy as in other religions.

bbsh

06-22-2010, 09:21 PM

If you think the Americans dont spy on Israel you are very naive indeed. Everyone spies on everyone its all part of the game.

CIA does operate in Israel, and just about every other country in the world too..

Yosef Amit, Andrzey Kielczynski, etc.

Israel is just the jew of all nations, and treats itself accordingly..

GiladS

06-23-2010, 02:48 AM

Sorry but you're trying to deceive here.

May I remind you that you are the one who brought up David A. Tenenbaum, a man who was exonerated, as an example of "Jewish disloyalty" and Israeli espionage in the U.S.

The FBI don't just raid people's houses because they are Jewish. I'm sure you are well aware of how the legal system is played by a defendant.

From the source I provided:
Pentagon's inspector general exonerated Tenenbaum and endorsed his assertion that the investigation by the leaders of the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren targeted him because he is a practicing Jew.

So you really shouldn't be arguing with me over this but with the Pentagon's inspector general.

Israel's biggest friend - without it - Israel would not exist - they do not persecute Israelis.

Close U.S-Israeli relations have only existed for about 40-45 years... Israel has existed for over 60 years now.

That's not to say that U.S-Israeli relations are not vital for both parties, but it ain't a one way street as you seem to portray it.

I also doubt that there is any sort of policy of persecution in the U.S but every system is made up of people and at times people have their flaws and their prejudice. So in the case of David A. Tenenbaum, a diservice was done.

Also, do you exepect do find hard copies of articles published in the early 90's before the internet had kicked in?

No, I expect you to bring concrete examples.

That means not just citing your sources but also being able to provide them.

Here is Viktor Ostrovsky's book (a high ranking ex-Mossad agent) who details Israel's espionage against Western states. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27175886/O...ctor-Ostrovsky (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27175886/Other-Side-of-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky)

A high ranking ex-Mossad agent or simply a cadet who was dismissed during training? That's all still up for debate.

Hollis

06-23-2010, 02:37 PM

ok, so now I have to find that button for "Ignore"... where the hell is that?
Hard mission to acomplish :-)
Can anybody help me with this?

Click on the person name, go to their profile. The add them to your ignore list.

Walt

07-08-2010, 03:24 PM

Arabs star settling in camps around jewish agricultural settlements, in some areas there were 10 arab migrant workers for each jew (for example, around Rishon le Zion) -- as churchill reported before house of commons in 1939:

Leaving aside the obvious absurdity in trying to prove your original claim of 19th century mass Arab immigration with a quote from someone who visited well into the 20th century, I'm familiar with Mandate statistics. It appears that you aren't. They prove Churchill's comments to be somewhere between delusional and propagandistic

Years 1920-1945: 33,304 for non Jewish immigrants and 367,45 for Jewish immigrants.
source (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story835.html)

The official British Census data for Palestine, the reports made by the Mandatory Administration to the League of Nations, the 1938 Palestine Partition Commission, Population expert A.M. Carr-Saunders, and the Anglo-American Committee concluded that Arab population growth was attributable to "natural increase", not to any substantial immigration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine

McCarthy explains, "... evidence for Muslim immigration into Palestine is minimal. Because no Ottoman records of that immigration have yet been discovered, one is thrown back on demographic analysis to evaluate Muslim migration."[49][50] McCarthy argues that there is no significant Arab immigration into mandatory Palestine:

From analyses of rates of increase of the Muslim population of the three Palestinian sanjaks, one can say with certainty that Muslim immigration after the 1870s was small. Had there been a large group of Muslim immigrants their numbers would have caused an unusual increase in the population and this would have appeared in the calculated rate of increase from one registration list to another... Such an increase would have been easily noticed; it was not there.[50]

The argument that Arab immigration somehow made up a large part of the Palestinian Arab population is thus statistically untenable. The vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs resident in 1947 were the sons and daughters of Arabs who were living in Palestine before modern Jewish immigration began. There is no reason to believe that they were not the sons and daughters of Arabs who had been in Palestine for many centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine

Churchill was of course partisan player in all of this, so his comments are not surprising.

I've already posted a small section of this article in regard to claims of arab immigration during the Ottoman period . I noticed 'Auu' conveniently missed it out when he was quoting me, so I'll post it again with a few extra paragraphs.

As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no “natural” increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth, not incursions into the country by the wandering tribes who by then had become afraid of the much more efficient Ottoman troops. Toward the end of Ottoman rule the various contemporary sources no longer lament the outbreak of widespread epidemics. This contrasts with the Arabic chronicles of previous periods in which we find horrible descriptions of recurrent epidemics—typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague—decimating the population. Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow.

The Jews were amazed. In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews’—slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers. Mrs. Peters accepts that theory completely; she has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase.

The Mandatory authorities carried out two modern censuses, in 1922 and 1931. Except for some mistakes committed in 1922 in counting the Negev Bedouins, which were corrected in 1931, the returns showed the strength of the “natural process” of increase. The figures for the last years of the mandate are based on continuous collection of data by the department of statistics. These figures showed that in 1947 there were about 1.3 million Arabs living in Palestine.

The strength of the process of natural increase was finally proved not elsewhere but in Israel itself. In 1949 there were about 150,000 Arabs in Israel within the 1949 armistice lines. To that number, one has to add the 20,000-odd refugees who returned to the state as part of the government’s scheme for the “reunion of families.” The Israeli authorities cannot be blamed, as the British “imperialists” were, for helping the Arabs enter the country. And despite the strict control of Israel’s borders, the number of Arabs living in Israel proper has more than trebled since. The rate of the Israeli Arabs’ natural increase rose sharply (between 1964 and 1966 it reached the world record of 4.5 percent a year) and brought about the remarkable increase in the size of that community. No Egyptians, Bedouins, Syrians, Bosnians, etc. were needed.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/jan/16/mrs-peterss-palestine/?page=2

Walt

07-08-2010, 03:26 PM

Yes. I am accusing you of hypcorisy on the issue. And, your attempt to evade the charge by dismissing its relevancy proves my point.

There was no relevancy to dismiss.

An Israeli has as much a moral claim to his home as anyone else in the world - possibly even a stronger claim because his claim is not founded on a colonial enterprise.Pre-48 Zionist immigrants were not Israelis. Poor attempt at blurring the line between the two.

If you dismiss his claim because he suppossedly displaced someone else, you too must suffer the same moral scrutiny. That uncomfortable fact is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

If you wish to remedy the ills of population transfers and colonialism, you should look to somewhere other than Israel if you do not want to be labeled a hypocrite.lol

Where did I say I was supportive of some instances of colonialism and not others? You need to look up the definition of a strawman argument.

And yet, in all this discussion of population transfers, I find it fascinating that advocates for the Palestinian cause are so dismissive of the massive population transfer of Jews between 1939 and 1955. Another case of hypocrisy it seems.Another strawman. And for the record-

Iraqi-born Ran Cohen, a former member of the Knesset, said: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee. I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee". Yemeni-born Yisrael Yeshayahu, former Knesset speaker, Labor Party, stated: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations". And Iraqi-born Shlomo Hillel, also a former speaker of the Knesset, Labor Party, claimed: "I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands#Compensation

My grandfather, who fought for the Hagannah, was fighting in a defensive war
Ethnic cleansing and land annexation is always done under the guise of defence.

- The Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
you mean the undemocratic, non-binding plan which proposed giving their property to somebody else? a plan which Israel agreed to but ignored anyway in keeping with Ben Gurions pledge to 'abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine'?

- The Arabs went to war in 1948.Zionists declared war against the Arab population as early as 1905:

[We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” -Israel Zangwill

- The population displacement of 1948 is a direct consequence of the Arab decision to go to war.Only in your imagination. The endless quotes from Zionist leaders talking about the need to give the natives the boot coupled with newspaper reports and more recent Israeli scholarship paint a different picture as to why it happened.

- The Arab states displaced their Jewish citizens after 1948How many were displaced due to persecution and how many due to wilful migration (Ran Cohen quote above) and Zionist coercian is a matter of debate amongst scholars and witnesses.

“I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.” I write about it because I was part of it.”
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html

I know exactly what you are advocating.You don't know, you assume to know, and lack the ability to see the difference between the two.

The leftist wet-dream of a one-state solution is a non-starter for many many reasonsThe 'leftist wet dream' being made a reality by the rightist wet dream of a Greater Israel which includes the West Bank. Pretty ironic.