Comment

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 14, 2010 at 2:24pm

N E W S A N A L Y S I S

Five largest Israeli settlements: who lives there, and why.

from Christian Science Monitor
http://tinyurl.com/26b4axd

Comment by Al-KADIM on September 14, 2010 at 11:40am

TNT, my answer may have been pompous, but yours was unquestionably ill-informed and factually wrong. It is also self-contradictory, particularly when you talk of bloodlines (something I do not do) then deny ethnicity, but I'll let you work out your cognitive dissonance.

As for Jews considering themselves an ethnicity, it actually goes back much farther than the 19th century. In fact, Jewish texts, of which there are many, refer consistently to a concept of 'am' (meaning nation), but do not use any words to describe themselves as a religion. The earliest you will find the use of religion as a self-describing term is in the writings of Moses Mendelssohn in the late 18th century. He did not reject national identity. He simply added another layer to it.

Now let's look at what ethnicity means. Starting with Wikipedia: "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy)"

Common language? In addition to Hebrew, which was mostly liturgical (though it was also used to communicate between communities) two languages come to mind: \Yiddish and Ladino, which set them apart from the surrounding cultures.

Common heritage and culture: This would include a shared ethnogenesis myth (check), a shared calendar (check) and holidays (check), shared foods (check, bagels as well kosher), shared literary texts which transcended national boundaries (both religious and secular), etc., etc.

Then there is the tradition of endogamy. Check.

What would be fun is to see if you can find these same characteristics for Palestinian Arabs that distinguish them, say, from Syrian Arabs or Jordanian Arabs. Fortunately, I believe in self-determination, which you apparently do not. And don't even try Nebi Musa or Sabt an-Nur (if you know what they are). They were both localized and religiously exclusive.

Now, Zionism did not simply coalesce biblical homeland and ethnicity. Imagined ties to a homeland were part of Jewish tradition for 2000 years. Both the Passover seder and Yom Kippur services end with the phrase "Next year in Jerusalem."

There's also an underlying belief in what you say that human populations are static. In fact, human populations are migratory, with one group moving into another group's land. That didn't stop in the 20th century (which saw the greatest rate of migration in human history).

Let's take some local examples. I am currently doing work on the Greek-Turkey dispute, so I will start there. I doubt you've been to Istanbul, but it is a very Turkish city. In fact, it only became Turkish in 1453, when Columbus was a child (born in 1451). It wasn't until 1923 when the last groups left, i.e., my grandparents' lifetime.

Since then, there were countless population exchanges, from the Heimatvertriebene (you'll have to look that up) to the 10-15 million exchanged between India and Pakistan. Of course, closer to home, all of North and South America is based on population exchanges or one group displacing another (with the possible exception of Bolivia). Notice that I am NOT passing moral judgment on this. As a historian, that's not my role. I am simply stating facts.

The problem of Israel/Palestine is complex because that ethnic rivalry has never been fully resolved for a variety of reasons. Now, you might argue--and it seems you are--that the first Zionist settlers should not have arrived in the country in 1882, when they did. Perhaps you are right, though I don't think that they would have done too well in Russia, and moving to America would have caused further displacement. Whatever. The fact is that they did and their population grew.

The real question is, what do we do now? You can rant that the Israelis or Jews are stupid, evil, thieves, squatters, selfish, meanies, whatever, but that's simply passing moral judgment. It may make you feel good, but it does not resolve the current problem. It helps the Palestinians about as much as it helps the Native Americans to tell them that the Dutch should not have bought Manhattan.

The question is, what do we do now? Until you shift away from blame and begin to tackle that question seriously, you are perpetuating the current status of the Palestinian people no less than the rightwing government now in power in Israel. Perhaps moreso, because even they are trying to find some solution.

Comment by Against All Fanatics on September 14, 2010 at 7:29am

The Palestinian problems started when Arabs convinced the Palestinians to reject the UN partition plan and promised to throw the Jews into the sea. Various self-interested groups have been encouraging the Palestinians towards violence ever since. What is amazing is that there are still so many Palestinians who reject violence. They deserve our unmitigated support. One notable example is Ray Hanania:

Comment by Against All Fanatics on September 14, 2010 at 7:14am

TNT666 -- I don't believe in the Bible or any other "holy" book any more than you do, but I do believe in people. Israel exists whether you like it or not, just as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other "Islamic" states exist as well, and they aren't disappearing tomorrow. At least Israel is much more democratic than these other states although it isn't perfect. The fact that you harp on that imperfection and ignore everything else makes you a fanatic. Palestinian governments (even Fatah which I largely support) aren't perfect either, but you can choose to look at the positives, which I do.

Comment by TNT666 on September 14, 2010 at 3:23am

It is what is so entirely ludicrous about the mere existence of Israel! A bunch of atheists convinced a bunch of religious people to use biblical lore to steal land from another group of people of same blood line!!!!!!!!!

And they havn't "always" seen themselves as an ethnic group, mostly only since the past century's zionist movement has this been the case. Before zionism, "autonomy" groups were little splinter groups. Last century's zionism coalesced "ethnicity" to bliblical homeland. This modern planet of ours is not one where "groups of people" no matter their religious inclination, can just declare homelands for themselves just because "they feel like it", over the backs of other residents. What a pompous attitude.

Comment by Al-KADIM on September 13, 2010 at 9:29pm

Considering that the vast majority of early Zionists, the people who pushed for the creation of a Jewish state, were socialist atheists, that's a fairly uninformed statement. Jews always saw themselves as an ethnic, not a religious minority. This was an attitude shared by virtually all Jews in Europe, including the non-Zionists. Bundists, for example, were socialists who supported Jewish autonomy in Europe. Territorialists supported Jewish independence in places other than historic Palestine (Australia, Argentina, etc.). Anti-Zionist Orthodox believed in a "return to Zion," though autonomy and independence would only come under some Messiah figure. For a period, Jews in Russia supported a Jewish autonomous territory in Birobidzhan.

The problem is that Jews as a group are not the same as most Christians as a group or Muslims as a group. It is exclusive to an ethnicity and in that construct, ethnic identity has always come first.

What you are actually doing though is taking a very colonialist approach by which the outsider defines the group. The principle of self-determination is that the group has the inherent right to define itself. It should be pretty easy to understand though. It is the same principle by which Palestinians define themselves as a distinct group as opposed to members of some amorphous "Arab" ethnicity.

Comment by TNT666 on September 13, 2010 at 8:38pm

For me the buck stops here, the only reason Jews are in Israel is because of biblical nonsense. As atheists, it stands to reason that the mere existence of Israel is an insult to humanity at large.

Comment by Against All Fanatics on September 13, 2010 at 3:56pm

For some reason, anti-Semitic and Islamist rhetoric has replaced pro-Palestinian advocacy among many (if not most) of those who call themselves Palestinian supporters today. These individuals demonize Israel and Jews but never have anything constructive to say in support of the Palestinians. One would have expected that among Atheists at least this would not be true, but alas it seems to be.

Comment by Against All Fanatics on September 13, 2010 at 3:38pm

Quinn wrote sarcastically "Clearly anyone who opposes the continued theft of Palestinian land must be an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew".

This is a pretty stupid comment since I already told you that I oppose all settlements including existing ones. What I do not support is violence. Clearly, you do not read before you write, which is not surprising considering your extremist stance.

Comment by Against All Fanatics on September 13, 2010 at 3:28pm

Quinn -- I can't say that I am surprised to see your abusive comments. Terrorist sympathizers often act like cornered rats when questioned. The fact that there is no Palestinian state isn't only Simon and Steve's fault; it is also yours. It is the fault of all those who encourage violence rather negotiation. The fact that you think that your position is pro-Palestinian would be funny if it wasn't so dramatically wrong.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page