The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why I stopped being Jewish > Comments

Why I stopped being Jewish : Comments

By Ron Witton, published 20/6/2011

The first reason has been to oppose anti-Semitism. The second reason has been to support the Palestinian cause.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Very well said, and a refreshing touch of reality to the lies and distortions that are commonly bought forth in an attempt to excuse the bloodshed and brutality regularly and systematically dished out to the Palestinian people. The so called 'good book' - that familiar compendium of myths, fallacies, brutality, historical inaccuracies, logical inconsistency, and incredible misogynism has much to answer for, as does it's alleged albeit non-existent author.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Monday, 20 June 2011 10:21:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Jews will not miss you.
Posted by Seneca, Monday, 20 June 2011 10:34:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a beautiful piece of writing, Ron.

The content is also fascinating.

Could you have a chat with David Singer sometime soon?
Posted by Stan1, Monday, 20 June 2011 10:54:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dr Whitton,

Thank You for an interesting article and for the book by Shlomo Sand.
I'm going to try to get hold of a copy. I appreciate your sharing with us your reasons for "Why I stopped being Jewish." I'm sure many people of other religions will be able to identify with you - possibly having taken the same journey from their own religious perspective - "Why I stopped being a Catholic," and so on. Personally,
I feel that one doesn't have to stop being "Jewish, Catholic, Muslim,
Hindu or whatever," to be a good person. But of course that's only my opinion. I don't like what organised religion has done to the world, however I've come to see that true religion is internal, not external.
Secularized organized religions have become, in many cases, as calcified as other institutions that form the structure of the modern world. Possibly that's why they're rejected. Our religious institutions have fat too often become handmaidens of the status quo, while a genuine religious experience is anything but that.

Spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical sustenance that feeds our souls. But enough said. I understand the main point that you're making. If we only could remove from our hearts the illusion that we're separate. If every nation and every people and every colour and every religion could find at last the one heartbeat that we all share.
If we could remove the walls that separate us and the chains that hold us down - then perhaps we could create a new world here on earth.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 20 June 2011 11:45:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank-you for sharing what is a very interesting and unique view to your personal experiences as an Australian Jew.

You made a very important point that I think perhaps many people are not aware of, and can be made aware of, that Israel was established on Palestinian land, as Australia was on Aboriginal land.

The real issue is that the Zionists in Israel believe that it is their God given right to occupy the land, and that is why they are constantly building settlements that are in opposition to peace.

This encapsulates the impetus behind the injustices that the Zionists of the Israeli state are perpetrating; they believe it is their God given right as ‘Gods chosen people’. They validate their inhumne actions through this believed right.

I’d like to make the point that, while you have validated that Israel is misguided in its efforts to establish the Israeli state at all costs as they are not Gods chosen people, they are none the less misguided even without such proof.

As ‘God’s ‘chosen people’ - proven or not, These people should know, that even if God wanted them to live in the land, surely it would not be at the expense of others,

Firstly as a decent human beings who believe in human rights and human dignity according to International laws and norms built over time, Then as good people of God,who have been victims in the past, these people should know better.

God would not have wanted the suffering of so many hundreds and thousands of people, living as perpetual refugees,

That should be the main point, that it doesn’t matter if they believe that its their God given right or not, it does not negate their obligation to treat people around them with respect and not this inhumane occupation that has been going on for the last sixty three years.

Thanks again for the article, we can only wish that more people start to see this from a humanity point of view.
Posted by Rose Anon, Monday, 20 June 2011 12:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Ron,

I also stopped being Jewish with the help of Zand's book.

The main victims of Judaism are not the Palestinians: the main victims are the Jews themselves and the Israelis in particular.

If one really owns something (such as a land), then one has the right to dispose of it or gift it to others, wholly or partially as they please. What one is not allowed to dispose of - is not theirs!

Jews feel obliged to occupy and settle the land of Israel, whether they like it or not. I do not agree with GYM-FISH's unkind remark as if Judaism is an excuse for bloodshed and brutality: yes, Palestinians do suffer brutality (but though I would hate living as a Palestinian, "bloodshed" is quite inappropriate and grossly exaggerated as Jewish-inflicted fatalities are rare and unintentional: the Jewish intention is to drive non-Jews away from the land, not to kill them), but while Judaism is at cause, it is not an "excuse" but a true reason, it makes the Israelis suffer too by feeling compelled to conquer and occupy, mostly against their will, then suffer the repercussions which they then feel are unfair (for who are they to disobey god's commands?).

The worst about Judaism, is that it portrays God as a whimsical and racist tyrant, instilling in His followers fear of Him instead of love (Jesus attempted to repair this deep-rooted false image, with partial success). Judaism unabashedly abused God's name to make Him serve the national-political aspirations of its leaders. How is one supposed to love such a tyrant will all one's heart, soul and might? As I do love God, I have no choice but to leave Judaism behind.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 June 2011 2:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O' please Ron, spare us the hand wringing.
Don't tell me you're afflicted by "White Guilt",you could do more for reconciliation (here and in Palestine)by taking your "As a Jew I believe" stand and expose the extensive historical involvement of European Jewry in the pillage and dispossession of indigenous peoples worldwide.
Palestine is part of a pattern, ask yourself the question:
"Who financed colonialism and who reaped the profits?"
Who were the provenders, the ship chandlers, the bankers, the slavers and mining magnates?
Who put up the money for the ports, the railways, the mines, the land clearing?

Anglo/European "Blue Bloods" and their Jewish business partners are responsible for both the plight of Aboriginals and Palestinians, they have names, they have estates and heirs that live on to this day.

Ron and Jay's ancestors didn't kill or steal from Aborigines,we didn't pillage the land. I'll wager that you're not a rich man and that you, like the rest of us have had to go into debt to these same Anglo Jewish imperialist financial institutions.

It's a very simple matter to apportion blame for Colonialism, both historical and contemporary,just follow the money trail.
Once we all start moving in the one direction on issues of reconciliation and ditch this stupid, counterproductive "White Guilt" some real ground could be made.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 20 June 2011 5:10:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Jay,

You are no better than the Rabbis - they try to instill guilt on people and so are you.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 June 2011 5:20:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, well said, Ron.

My compliments to you not primarily for what you have said, but for feeling the need to share it. The fact that as a result of your scholarship you have also become an atheist as well as having discarded myths and fables from Judaism, means quite clearly that you have been part of a life-changing experience. We all trust that you would have not been subject to the slings and arrows of Zionist zealots during your path to your new life.

We are all aware of the cruel treatment experienced by others who have seen the light, in many cases having been forced to recant such things as UN reports into the Gaza killings or suffer isolation from family and past friends as only Zionists can demand. Such treatment has now become the norm.

The people that support Palestine and will never forgive Israel for their inhumanity, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, such people once given harsh treatment as with Gypsies and other ethnic groups by the Third Reich now having developed into a group themselves with values in 2011 no better or enlightened than the conquerors of Europe, seventy years ago. Yes, the world does wonder how such people can hypocritically encourage Jews from far away places to settle in Palestine by stealing land, murdering the occupants and yet, as you have said, refuse to accept a Palestinians right of return to the land that they have owned since time began.

So you have many more friends here just by your caring attitude to a Palestinian people and the world will welcome you as a catalyst for the cause of peace and justice in those lands.
Posted by rexw, Monday, 20 June 2011 5:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A most welcome article. Finally Sand's important book is gaining the public recognition that it so rightly deserves. It's a mind changer, or so I found it when I first read it soon after it became available in English.
The link with indigenous Australians is also timely. I can only remember disagreeing with Noel Pearson once, and that was when I read him likening the plight of the Aborigines with that of the Jews.
The more apt comparison is with the Palestinians in that both were ancient owners/occupiers of a now contested land, and both were dispossessed by invading colonists from Europe.
Posted by halduell, Monday, 20 June 2011 5:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Halduell wrote....

"The more apt comparison is with the Palestinians in that both were ancient owners/occupiers of a now contested land, and both were dispossessed by invading colonists from Europe?.

You are right of course but Pearson would have been aiming for some support, financial or otherwise by likening the Jews to the Aborigines perhaps even an indigenous 'holocaust-type' museum in Arnhemland or similar. However, I venture to say that he would know that there could not be a more appropriate example than the Palestinians and the Aborigines, both depressed by their treatment at the hands of others and in Australia, going nowhere with current government policies, unlikely to ever change. The old practice of throwing money at all the problems we have here has never been seen before on such a scale in our history.
The end result is that our indigenous people have bargaining power well in excess of their 2.5% of our population which is not enjoyed by Palestinians under the hateful yolk of Zionism. The opposite applies in fact. Our ethnic cleansing on a much smaller scale ended a long time ago. Israel has been at it now for sixty years.

The sole object by Israel is ethnic cleansing, fast coming to an end, fortunately. But we have been engaged in our efforts at developing the capabilities of our peoples for over two hundred years with little or no progress. That must be viewed as incompetence.

Not the first error Mr. Pearson has made in his understanding of facts and history but he is cunning enough to know where the money is and how to score a point or two.
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 10:04:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ yuyutsu.
Not so, I'm saying heal Judaism instead of abandoning it, similarly I'd like to see my race heal itself and start moving forward again.
The guilt lies with the guilty, rich Whites and rich Jews were the driving force behind the great Capitalist adventure of colonialism, then as now.
The men who pillaged Australia and Palestine wore tailored suits and travelled first class, they didn't wear moleskins or sidelocks and they didn't arrive in steerage.
We can't escape our heritage, we have to absorb it's lessons and move on.
There's nothing shameful in the journeys of ordinary White Australians nor do ordinary Israeli Jews have anything to be ashamed of.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 6:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

I feel sorry that you fell into one of the Rabbis' gravest trap.
You claim: "We can't escape our heritage", which is just what they want you to believe, that "once a Jew - always a Jew" (which BTW, besides the rabbis is also what Hitler believed).

The Rabbis want to convince you that a Jew has a *special* soul, unlike anyone else (and on the Sabbath a Jew receives a further extra soul!). One of them (Rabbi Kook) went as far as writing: "While the difference between an animal and a human is just quantitative, the difference between a gentile and a Jew is qualitative". Are these the lessons you wish to absorb?

I have good news for you - this is false! it's a mere superstition!

Of course you may CHOOSE to keep the Jewish heritage or any part thereof, if that's what you want, but there is nothing compelling you to do so (unless it's your wife - then I said nothing...).

As I have not researched the roots of colonialism, I have no opinion in the matter, but as you said, ordinary Australians and Israeli Jews are not rich, nor ever actively pursued colonialism, hence this whole guilt thing does not apply and should probably not be mentioned again - we each have enough personal guilt to contend with due to our own past actions, so no need for this encore.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 6:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also Jay, if our Australian government did just one of the many things that the Israeli government do on a daily basis in subjugation of the Palestinians we'd be terribly ashamed. We can't exactly liken the two anyway. Especially when our govt are making reparations with indigenous Australians. You would have to be kidding to say they have nothing to be ashamed of when considering what the govt they elect does.
Posted by Rose Anon, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 6:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't think that Jay is being influenced by anybody. He's simply stating that you don't have to give up being Jewish. He doesn't sound
like he's on any "guilt" trip to me. Not all Jews are Zionists are they? And as far as I know Shlomo Sand, Antony Loewenstein, Robert Manne, Arnold Zable, Louise Adler, and many others who are critical of Israel are still proud to be Jewish. Same as I am still Catholic
(probably not a very good one) despite some of the actions of Cardinal Pell.
Many Jewish people, including Israelis support the state of Israel and believe in its existence but not at the expense of the Palestinian people. As Loewenstein states,
"There must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people."

Things are difficult at present because the current government of Israel believes that erecting walls, checkpoints, and barriers is
in the need of Israel's "security." And the world is told to believe
that the Palestinians should only accept peace on Israel's terms.

However many ordinary Israelis do not necessarily share their government's views. You've only to read "Haaratz," to see that.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 7:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Ron Witton is entitled to make any personal choices he likes.

However as a Senior Fellow in the Faculty of Law at the University of Woolongong he is not entitled to misrepresent international law in relation to Palestine.

He states:

"I had always been aware that Israel had been established for the victims of the holocaust ... However, I came to realise that Israel had been established on Palestinian land."

He is wrong for the following reasons:

1. The 51 member states of the League of Nations unanimously endorsed the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1922 - well before the Holocaust - without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-jewish communities.

2. The land was not "Palestinian land". It was part of the territory of the defeated Ottoman Empire captured by Britain and France in World War 1. 99.999% of that land was set aside for Arab self determination. 0.001% was set aside for Jewish self determination.

3. The Arabs have never accepted this division of captured Ottoman Territory nor the binding legal effect of the Mandate.

He further states:

"It is the belief in the promised land that has resulted in Israel continuing to defy international law by occupying Palestine land and allowing, and often encouraging, so-called Israeli settlements to spread beyond its borders, thereby destroying any hope of even a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict."

The law and the facts say otherwise:

1. There are no borders - only armistice lines marking a ceasefire in hostilities in 1949

2. The West Bank is not "Palestinian land". Both Jews and Arabs claim sovereignty which remains undetermined since Great Britain left in 1948.

3. Jews are legally entitled to settle in the West Bank under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

4. Israel offered to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank in 2001 and 2008. Both offers were rejected.

I don't know what law courses Dr Witton teaches. I hope it is not international law.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 8:05:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi,

Obviously no one HAS TO follow my recommendation to give up being Jewish: my point was that one CAN give it up if they want, despite the deeply-ingrained, brainwashed belief that it is impossible.

How can Judaism be compared with Catholicism when the one is a nationality and the other is a religion? It's a common mistake to consider Judaism as a religion - Judaism can best be described as an identity-group; or an hereditary-club (which is somewhat close, but not exactly, to the modern concept of nationality). It just happens to own a particular doctrine with [false] claims to God, a doctrine that was cleverly designed not for the service of God, but for the service of the group, for keeping it tightly together and secluded from the rest. In Judaism, the nation comes first, God is secondary. Did you know that the Rabbis are allowed to modify the laws of their own, supposedly God-given, scriptures, if that is beneficial for the advancement of the Jewish nation?

I am not interested in concentrating the discussion on the Palestinian issue, because the topic is much broader while the treatment of Palestinians could be just one symptom. The point is, that Judaism was born in sin, Judaism is based on lies, on which I was brought up and which I am no longer willing to accept.

There is nothing wrong with feeling sentimental about certain Jewish customs that one was brought up on. Some can be even beautiful - especially if everyone is allowed to take part, not just Jews. Note that while some of the customs are nice on their own, the real stories and rationale behind them, which only insiders are usually aware of, can be cruel, fanatic and racist. There are however some beautiful non-racist sections of the Jewish prayers, and tunes, which one may well wish to preserve. If those help one to relate to God, then that is wonderful and there is no need to give them up, but for being decent and truthful, one ought to dispose of the venom of Jewish-identity.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 11:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Singer,

I don't know the author either, but I found your response too personally vindictive and inappropriate for an academic and legal discussion.

More importantly, you are incorrect on a number of issues to which I will outline, for the sake of our readership and for truth and justice.

First of all, the assertion that only .0001% of Palestine was set aside for Jewish self-determination is absolutely incorrect, particularly considering the 1947 UN Partition Plan (which was not completely accepted by the Arab States nor the Jewish Community in Palestine). Along those lines, specifics of previous agreements with regards to a Jewish state in Palestine become more or less obsolete and inconsequential. Furthermore, the fact that Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans prior to the British Mandate does not change the fact that a people with a distinct identity lived on that land as well.

To address your second block of beliefs and unfounded assertions, I would begin by saying your cherry picking of old and vague agreements, precepts, and circumstances echoes the false arguments of Julius Stone from 1981. Even had the international agreements and rules to which Stone referred in his 1981 book been valid upon the book’s publication, they would be unquestionably outdated today. The multiple agreements, to which Israel is party, including the latest agreements at Annapolis in 2007, absolutely forbid the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Your assertion that the 1948-49 armistice borders are the only agreed upon borders is extremely incorrect and seems to forget the 44 years between June 1967 and June 2011 Furthermore, Israel does not claim sovereignty over the West Bank (see Haaretz, today, as just one reference). Finally, Article 80 of the UN Charter says nothing of “Jews are entitled to settle in the West Bank;” how you interpret it as such is simply baffling.

Based on your reading of agreements and international laws, I’m forced to question and seriously doubt your level of legal training.

With respect.
Posted by Giovanni della Mirandola, Tuesday, 21 June 2011 11:33:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rexw wrote ...our indigenous people have bargaining power well in excess of their 2.5% of our population...
I suggest that this has come about because of a guilt-empowered cultural blackmail that has been going on for the last 40 or 50 years. Peter Sutton's book The Politics of Suffering has a great deal to say about this, although I don't remember if he called it blackmail. See especially the third chapter, The Trouble With Culture.
To go from the national to the global, the Zionists have been conducting a similar guilt-empowered cultural blackmail on all the world for the last century, but especially since the Holocaust. As an example, in my lifetime we in the west have gone from exalting our common Greco-Roman heritage to citing our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Cultural blackmail such as these is a distortion, as well as an extraction. We are being conned on two fronts.
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 9:04:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Giovanni della Mirandola (Part 1)

You state:

"First of all, the assertion that only .0001% of Palestine was set aside for Jewish self-determination is absolutely incorrect, particularly considering the 1947 UN Partition Plan (which was not completely accepted by the Arab States nor the Jewish Community in Palestine)."

I never said that.

1. What I said was that 99.999% of the captured Ottoman Empire (Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Mesopotamia)was set aside for Arab self-determination. Palestine comprised only 0.01% of that lost territory.

2. Furthermore the Arab States completely rejected the UN Partition Plan. The Jewish community in Palestine accepted the Partition Plan.

You then state:

" Along those lines, specifics of previous agreements with regards to a Jewish state in Palestine become more or less obsolete and inconsequential. Furthermore, the fact that Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans prior to the British Mandate does not change the fact that a people with a distinct identity lived on that land as well."

The UN partition Plan was a compromise plan. Had it been accepted then one might be able to argue that the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter had been superseded. But that did not happen - and neither have any of the peace proposals since then such as Oslo and the Roadmap. The Mandate and article 80 are alive and kicking today - supported by UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

No people with a distinct identity lived in Palestine. As I pointed out Jews, Moslems and Christians lived there. What distinct identity do you claim this population shared other than the same postal address? How would you compare their identity to say the Kurds or the Copts?
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 11:33:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Giovanni della Mirandola (Part 2)

You state:

"The multiple agreements, to which Israel is party, including the latest agreements at Annapolis in 2007, absolutely forbid the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. "

This is simply not true. I challenge you to point to any statement confirming your claim.

Israel made it clear at Annapolis that negotiations would be conducted in accordance with the letter given by President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004. That letter said (among other things)

"The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. "
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 11:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Giovanni della Mirandola (Part 3)

You continue:

"Your assertion that the 1948-49 armistice borders are the only agreed upon borders is extremely incorrect and seems to forget the 44 years between June 1967 and June 2011"

I'm sorry but the same 1949 armistice line still exists unchanged by anything over the last 62 years.

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

You then state:

"Israel does not claim sovereignty over the West Bank (see Haaretz, today, as just one reference)."

Can you give me the link to the specific article?

You then state:

"Finally, Article 80 of the UN Charter says nothing of “Jews are entitled to settle in the West Bank;” how you interpret it as such is simply baffling."

Article 80 preserves the rights of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

The Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations prescribed the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine which includes the West Bank. The rights vested in the Jewish people did not disappear with the demise of the League of Nations.

I am more than happy to answer any further comments you may wish to make.

However vague and unsubstantiated general comments - such as your attack on the late Professor Julius Stone serve no real purpose other than to denigrate a jurisprudential giant whose seminal work still remains a leading text on the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine - notwithstanding attempts to rewrite the history of Palestine.

Until you accept the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter still are current and relevant in 2011 - you are destined to completely misunderstand the nature of the conflict
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 11:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Singer,

I’m afraid that going point by point will prove tedious and unfruitful in this forum. To address some issues, however:

You, as Stone, erroneously try to imply the invalidity of a distinct Palestinian identity. It would be close to impossible to fully address the complexities of identity in any part of the Middle East, but I can tell you that it is more complex than simply “Arab Palestinian.” Simply because the Ottomans considered the area to be part of the Vilayet of Syria does not invalidate the independent identity - in fact multiple identities- of the people on that land. Filastiin has been the name of that strip of land in one way or another since before the arrival of the first Hebrews (see the Torah for reference to the Philistines). TE Lawrence’s The Seven Pillars of Wisdom also provides an interesting insight into the diversity and complexity of identity and ethnicity in the area prior to 1917.

Regarding Jewish acceptance of the UNGA Res 181, Ben Gurion’s testimony and letters expressing his sentiment for the plan “as not acceptable to us” indicates that both sides had reservations. Furthermore, the Mandate cannot be described as “alive and kicking.” The 1948-49 lines do not follow the 181 lines and those, in turn, only approximately followed the borders suggested by the mandate’s Peel Commission. As they say of Keynes and Freud, the Mandate is dead.

Your reference to the LoN endorsement of the British Mandate in Palestine tells only part of the story. The LoN did endorse the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine but made it expressly clear that said home was not to comprise all of Palestine. That stipulation echoes the wording of the Balfour Declaration, decisions of the San Remo conference, and Churchill’s 1922 White Paper, among other statements and agreements.

Having spent significant time living and traveling in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine, and spent significant time with people on both sides of the conflict, I believe I can confidently say I do understand the conflict quite well.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-israel-needs-to-separate-from-the-palestinians-1.368795

With Respect,
Posted by Giovanni della Mirandola, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 1:17:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I believe that Judaism is the religion of over 18 million Jews. It is one of the oldest major religions and was the first religion to teach the belief in one God. That unlike the other major religions, Judaism is the relgion of only one people - the Jews. Both Christianity and Islam developed from Judaism. These religions accept the Jewish belief in one God, and the moral teachings of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible is what Christians call the Old Testament. The basic laws and teachings of Judaism comes from the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

Jews are the descendents of an ancient people called the Hebrews. Or at least that's what I've believed.

That's why I still can't fathom what all this is about. You can give up a religion and still be Jewish - can't you?

Now I'm confused. I guess I shall have to read Sand's book - because
I thought I knew what I was talking about - but now I'm not so sure.
And I have to admit that your reference to the "venom" of Jewish
teaching disturbs me greatly. I don't believe that any religion can be summed up in a single line. It's just as much of a fallacy to say
that "Christianity is a religion of peace," as it is to say that "Islam is a religion of hatred." Both have a God that loves and
smiteths.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 3:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi,

I did not say that Jewish teachings are a venom - some of which are actually quite good and even worth following. The venom I mentioned is in the Jewish IDENTITY not in the Jewish teachings (obviously other than those particular teachings that promote Jewish identity).

"I believe that Judaism is the religion of over 18 million Jews"

That number is only if you count every person whose mother was Jewish (and her mother, etc.), even atheists; those who follow a different religion; and those who are not even aware of their mother being Jewish.

"the first religion to teach the belief in one God."

Judaism is not as old as its myths claim, only about 2500 years old.
Not much was committed to parchment earlier, so information about earlier versions of monotheism was probably lost, but one did remain from about 900 years earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

"That unlike the other major religions, Judaism is the relgion of only one people - the Jews"

Exactly, because it is not a religion at all, it is a identity-group in the guise of religion.

"Both Christianity and Islam developed from Judaism. These religions accept the Jewish belief in one God, and the moral teachings of the Hebrew Bible."

I admire Jesus for his great effort and personal sacrifice to purify and separate the good and moral teachings from the racist and immoral ones. He was crucified for taking the reality of God ["too-"]seriously while his contemporary Jewish leaders only considered Him as a business-opportunity.

"Jews are the descendents of an ancient people called the Hebrews"

Read Sand's book, it's very interesting on this point.

"You can give up a religion and still be Jewish - can't you?"

Yes, half the Israelis are atheists, yet call themselves "secular Jews".
In fact, most Israeli-Jews, even atheists, believe that they have no choice because no matter what you do, there is no way to cease being Jewish in this lifetime (some believe that it is possible to reincarnate as a gentile, others not even that). Such deep is the brainwash.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 June 2011 8:24:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to address Mr Singer,

it is highly offensive to make statements such as "No people with a distinct identity lived in Palestine."

Have you ever been to Palestine or ever read any history books about the region? Have you met any Palestinians? Or are you simply relying on the incestuous scholarship of Bernard Lewis?

You have made it clear to us readers, after making that statement in particular and many of the statements that you have in your arguments above (that clearly disregard facts and reason) it is quite clear that you are a person of extreme ideological bias- an ethnically based ideology at that- who is interested in perpetuating a re-writing of history in favour of Zionists and to the demise of a people who you refuse to acknowledge exist.

I was glad to see that the majority of people, who commented on this article are in fact informed people who are interested in justice and humanity for all people, (and looking at CURRENT facts on the ground not selectively choosing outdated laws and facts) not just in supporting a minority of people to the expense of hundreds and thousands of people who miss Palestine and feel homesick from their denial of the right to see the home they were born in.

It was interesting to read your discussion today, so I wanted to let you know Mr Singer that I'm happy to send you some academic 'peer reviewed' literature so that you can refresh your knowledge instead of referring to unscholarly internet sites.

At the end of the day, its ludicrous to perpetuate this awful situation at the suffering of the refugees all over the world that long to return to the place they called home and their history to it. Most people can see that, and that is why state after state in the world is in fact acknowledging Palestine - it is well founded
Posted by Rose Anon, Thursday, 23 June 2011 12:02:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for responding to my post. I will have to read Sand's book
before I can make any further comments. I must admit however, I still find it disturbing - your feelings on this topic. I feel sorry reading such negativity coming from anyone. Still it's what you've experienced. I on the other hand have had many positive experiences
in my inter-action with Jewish people, both firm believers and secular Jews, Holocaust survivors and Israelis. My husband and I lived and worked in the US for ten years. Our children were born in the US. I have tremendous respect for what I found their culture to be. I hope that one day I shall travel to Israel - we have friends in
Tel Aviv. One can only judge from what one experiences.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 23 June 2011 10:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi,

It's not the Jewish people (in general), it's not the Jewish culture (in general), it's not the Jewish state (in general) and it's not the Jewish religion (in general). It's the Jewish identity which is the problem.

Obviously, not being born-Jewish yourself you were able and lucky to enjoy the nice aspects of Judaism without being exposed to the Jewish identity. Just note that even good things can be used as a honey trap.

I am not asking anyone to give up anything good and nice, but if the Jewish culture is so great, then why should it be limited to Jews?
For example, the Jews gave the world (and Christianity) the ten commandments, including the fourth and indeed a 7-day week with at least one day of rest is observed throughout - but did you know that according to Jewish law, a gentile who observes the Sabbath should be put to death?

Or did you know that according to Jewish law, it is forbidden to continue sifting through the rubble of a collapsed building on the Sabbath, searching for survivors, once it becomes clear that no Jewish (but perhaps some gentile) survivors can possibly still be buried there? Or that if a gentile (but not a Jewish) shop-keeper gave a Jew too much change by mistake, then the Jew should not return the difference?

Such distinctions between a "Jew" and a "Gentile" should go quickly down the rubbish-tip of history. However, that's one thing which Jews will not give up, because it's at the core and there would be no Judaism without it, just a collection of nice customs (plus others that are not so nice).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 23 June 2011 12:40:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

According to Jewish Law? Well there's many things in the Bible that also leave a lot to be desired as I'm sure there are in the Koran and other Holy books as well but who takes them literally except perhaps for fundamentalists. And fundamentalists exist in all religions.
I don't mean to be contentious here but how we inter-act with each other are decisions that we can make for ourselves. Whether it be a Priest or a Rabbi - we don't have to necessarily pay much attention to an individual's rantings. I ignore much of what Cardinal Pell has to say because his version of God is different to mine. Mine is an inclusive God. Pell's doesn't seem to be. I've been fortunate to meet some outstanding Rabbis in the US who taught me so much about loving your fellow man and our combined humanity. You seem to have had some bad experiences - I only wish that I could have changed that for you.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 23 June 2011 1:15:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Giovanni della Mirandola (Part 1)

You continue to claim the Palestinians have a distinct Palestinian identity but refuse to give any basis or specific authority for your claim.

I posed the following question for you to answer in relation to that identity which you have so far avoided doing:

"No people with a distinct identity lived in Palestine. As I pointed out Jews, Moslems and Christians lived there. What distinct identity do you claim this population shared other than the same postal address? How would you compare their identity to say the Kurds or the Copts?"

Fill us in on your thoughts.

Of course Ben Gurion had reservations but the bottom line is he accepted the UN Partition Plan. The Arabs did not. Had they done so they would have had their state (in a larger area than they say they are now prepared to accept) and 63 years of death trauma and suffering on both sides would never have occurred.

You seem unable to grasp that the lines drawn by the Peel Commission and the UN Plan were proposals only that were never accepted by the Arabs and became extant on their rejecting those proposals.

The 1949 armistice lines were agreed between Jordan and Israel and have remained unchanged since then. They are not permanent borders but only mark where the opposing forces ceased hostilities.

Keynes and Freud are indeed dead. The Mandate is not dead by virtue of article 80 of the UN Charter for the reasons I have given you. You advance no argument to the contrary.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 23 June 2011 5:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Giovanni della Mirandola (Part 2)

The Churchill White Paper did make clear that where the words "in Palestine" were used in the Mandate they did not mean "all of Palestine". Churchill was forced to do this when he had to appease the French by giving 78% of the territory slated for the Jewish National Home to Emir Abdullah who was on the way to help his brother out in Damascus with an armed force of 300 supporters. This vast slab of Palestine originally designated for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home was instead to become an exclusive Arabs only state today called Jordan.

Thank you for sending the link to the article which you sent to support your statement that "Israel does not claim sovereignty over the West Bank (see Haaretz, today, as just one reference)."

The article says nothing of the sort.

Be prepared to substantiate any statement you make by referring to the precise source you use - not just a general reference to a text book but the actual page.

Generalities are a waste of time and space
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 23 June 2011 5:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ron, I have read your article several times -I have no desire to attack you or support you, just to state my reaction to your article on Sand's book.

Surely all that you are, all that you have achieved and all that you have lost comes from your Jewish/life experience - not just your, personal journey - also the respective journey's of your family members including those who were murdered by the Nazi's.

You have spoken so openly about your life as a Jew and conveyed a sense of bewilderment with those experiences. I find what you have communicated to be utterly sad and wonder if you feel the grief which must be there when one comes to believe that ones identity is a lie. Or is it that Sand's book provides you with the 'academic' proof you need to justify the position you took before reading it?

Are you saying that one book, written by one man has brought you to this place? It appears that he is now your God, you identify with him - he is now your people. You have at last found a way to opt out of the responsibility of being Jewish, now you can metaphorically return to playing war games but this time minus the childhood confusion and pain,I think you are still in hiding.

How can you or anyone talk of Palestine without talking about Hamas? It is Hamas who govern Palestine and they are sworn to kill every Jew on the face of the earth! I think Israeli's have 15 seconds? after the siren sounds to find shelter before a bomb hits - you cant even microwave an egg in that time How can any Australian with our history of mistreatment of the Indigenous people of this land dare to throw stones at Israel and to do so with passionate consistency? Perhaps in this way we get to feel better about our selves - as we place our sins on the goat and send him out into the desert of Israel.
K.
Posted by Kaylene, Thursday, 23 June 2011 6:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Rose Anon

The first time the Palestinians are mentioned is in the 1964 PLO Charter.

They define themselves in the following terms:

"Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

Being Arabs and being an integral part of the Arab nation - can you please explain what constitutes their distinct identity that sets them apart from the rest of their Arab brethren?
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 23 June 2011 6:25:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Singer,

Thank you for your response.

To your concerns about specifics and generalities, and in regards to your specific question, I would only repeat what I explicitly said as well as tried to implicitly convey, through brevity, in my previous comment: I am not interested in discussing this issue at length in this extremely limited forum as it, in my view, proves unfruitful. The pay-off of voice exposure for time invested is limited, and efficiency is everything.

I would also add that you seem to make the same mistake as that of which you accuse me by making specific claims with little documentation or support. The difference is that I admittedly have engaged in nothing scholarly in this debate, while you seem to maintain that you have. Were either of our arguments to be placed in front of any sort of academic review, I can assure you they would be laughed at.

After having looked around at your extensive list of opinion pieces I have to conclude that you are of the Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Brigette Gabriel, and Glenn Beck type when it comes to making an argument. A quick Google search, maybe a random statement taken out of context, and -‘voila!’- you have academic proof. I had a particularly good time reading your recent Six Day War article and then referring to your “source.” And I had thought Michael Oren’s account was slightly biased.

I will simply conclude that many of the things you assert as fact are simply analyses, obviously biased ones that align with your own “Palestine is Jordan” ideology. If you were to look in any truly scholarly account of the creation of Jordan, such as those of Beverly Milton Edwards, Richard Held, Fred Halliday, Albert Hourani, and Phillip Hitti, just to name a few, you would probably find overwhelming divergence from your point of view. I would say your misrepresentation of the fact is slightly frustrating, but that would just be wasted emotive language.

With respect.
Posted by Giovanni della Mirandola, Thursday, 23 June 2011 7:11:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Giovanni della Mirandola

As I said in my last post:

"Be prepared to substantiate any statement you make by referring to the precise source you use - not just a general reference to a text book but the actual page.

Generalities are a waste of time and space"

You apparently are not going to rise to the challenge. That is your prerogative. Readers will make their own judgement.

Perhaps you might still like to answer this question which is posed to you for a third time:

"No people with a distinct identity lived in Palestine. As I pointed out Jews, Moslems and Christians lived there. What distinct identity do you claim this population shared other than the same postal address? How would you compare their identity to say the Kurds or the Copts?"

I hope when you answer the question you give some specific authority to support your claim.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 24 June 2011 8:21:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

you need to do your own research. I'm not going to waste my time, as you clearly do, on this website . . with poorly referenced materials and hand picked excerpts some of which are out of date.. Reading some of your arguments are pretty amazing.

Maybe you can invest in travelling to the region and finding out for yourself? Maybe you can make friends with someone Palestinian who can show you around both areas?

As Mr Giovanni pointed out to you above, that’s the thing with academia. You need to take the body of text not just excerpts. Likewise, you can’t put ‘Arab’s’ in a box and call them all the same and try and use that as a ticket to kick them out of that region. Explain to me how Europeans all have distinct and separate identities? (dumb huh)

If it appeared that you were at all interested in understanding a different view from your own, I would be willing to help you, (and I would have liked that) but you are clearly entrenched in a particular ideological bias and even if we showed you the sun, you would disagree it existed and cite an outdated text that claimed otherwise. Therefore I will use my time in something more productive in the future than reading from you.

The sad thing is that, you’re clearly passionate about this topic, yet you choose to subscribe to extremist ideologies, which are not helpful. Your ‘Jordan is Palestine’ approach and approach of ‘these people don’t exist’ is kind of a waste. No one who knows this region and topic (unless they are an extremist such as yourself) will listen to you, and clearly the UN is not buying it.

I trust one day you will be enlightened through either your own research or experience
Posted by Rose Anon, Friday, 24 June 2011 9:14:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers (just those who are willing to be confused by the facts) might like to read
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=jews-worldwide-share-genetic
Some of you may be able to access the referenced article through
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(10)00246-6
Posted by ER, Friday, 24 June 2011 8:25:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sand ignores the fact that the genetic studies were done in many countries by well known academic researchers and published in prestigious peer review journals. That research clearly shows that, even though there is no "Jewish DNA," there is definite biological-genetic evidence that the Jews are ONE people.
The researchers found that despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. The researchers studied seven Jewish populations: Yemenite, Ashkenazic, Near Eastern, North African, Asia Minor, the Balkans and Ethiopian. The first six showed a strong affinity, with the Ashkenazic and Yemenite populations coming out the closest. Palestinian, Syrian and other non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations were also very close to the Jewish populations.
Other research shows that the Jews in different countries are much closer to Jews in other countries than to their non-Jewish neighbors.
If modern-day Jews are descendants of converts, as Sand claims, then there would have been no similarity between the different Jewish communities. And the Jewish populations would have been similar to their non-Jewish neighbors. In fact, the Ethiopian Jewish community is different from the other Jewish communities because it originated from descendants of local converts.
The Ashkenazi Jews were not found to be similar to present-day Turkish speakers. This opposes the suggestion that Ashkenazi Jews descended from the Khazars. Dr. Neil Risch, a researcher at the Department of Genetics at Stanford University, said:
"If you made a [genetic] map of Europe and the Middle East and you put Ashkenazi Jews on it, they would not end up in Turkey or in the middle of Europe, but in the Mediterranean."
The results of the research support the notion that modern Jews descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population.
Contrary to Sand's assertion, both history and science support the existence of the Jewish people.
To Ron's great disappointment, he does belong to the Jewish people and is a descendant of the Jews who lived in Judea some 1900 y ago.
Posted by Ariram, Saturday, 25 June 2011 12:46:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, so Witton and Sand are wrong on genetics; it's probably not their expertise. But Witton's wrong on almost all of his other "facts", as has been stated in some of the posts. 1 fact not yet rebutted: Pakistan has absorbed millions of Muslim refugees from India (and vice-versa);"Refugee-ism" hasn't been inherited there. Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of refugees from Arab countries. It's the Arab countries who have mistreated Palestinian refugees, and their descendents!
Posted by ER, Saturday, 25 June 2011 8:37:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Rose Anon

You state:

"If it appeared that you were at all interested in understanding a different view from your own, I would be willing to help you, (and I would have liked that) but you are clearly entrenched in a particular ideological bias and even if we showed you the sun, you would disagree it existed and cite an outdated text that claimed otherwise. Therefore I will use my time in something more productive in the future than reading from you."

I am sure that if you had any facts or sources to contradict any of my statements and the facts on which I rely - you would have done so by now.

Instead you continue to do as so many do on OLO - shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 25 June 2011 11:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Giovanni della Mirandola,

There is something of great rarity you have managed to achieve, getting David Singer to use the word Palestinians. It is something he is so loathed to do that when discussing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict over 22 articles for OLO in the last year he has used the term less than a dozen times.

Congratulations. But I gather you understand the mindset you are dealing with. My best wishes.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 26 June 2011 12:42:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ariram. you write that "most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level". Most human populations are not significantly different either from each other or from chimpanzees. Your point was?
Posted by Candide, Sunday, 26 June 2011 12:44:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To csteele

Glad to see you are still closely reading and monitoring my posts.

At least you have now let us know the number of times I have used the term "Palestinians" in my last 22 articles. Why you behaved so petulantly in refusing to do so previously is quite odd. Why you should be so obsessed with the use or lack of use of that term is equally puzzling. As I have pointed out to you on many occasions the use of the term "Palestinian Arabs" is the more proper and accurate term to use.

Even happier to see you have not taken issue with any of the considerable volume of material used by me in the ongoing exchange of correspondence with Giovanni della Mirandola.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 26 June 2011 9:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Archaeologists are aware that there are contradictions between archaeological evidence and the Bible. But are increasingly surprised at how much evidence there is to support it. The Apiru/Hapiru. believed to be the ancestors of the Israelites are recorded in the Armana Letters; the Israelites, well established in the Iron Age 2, on the Meshe Stele.

Many places and architectural projects undertaken by various kings have been unearthed; and many sites - Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, Jerusalem (150 sq acres) etc. Whilst archaeologists state in many cases the Hebrew Bible cannot be taken literally, they also agree that many of the people, places and events probably existed at some time.

Considering the Hebrew Bible emerged from an Iron/Bronze age people - for a period of oral transference - there are inevitable innaccuracies ... and myths part of it. What people/culture/society does not have its myths. What is surprising that an Iron/Bronze age people could produce the highly sophisticated Ten Commandments.

As for the Jews being the 'chosen people' this means that they were 'chosen' to carry forth the concept of monotheism. Nothing more, nothing less. One could observe that they were handed "a poisoned challice."

The Biblical God as presented by these people was ferocious and punishing - which gods weren't at this period. People were trying to make sense of their existence. To impose 21st century thought upon Iron/Bronze age peoples is an anachronism.

Gym-Fish

... "bloodshed ... myths, fallacies, brutality, historical inaccuracies, logical inconsistency, and incredible misogynism"

This Biblical litany pales in comparison with what has occurred, is occurring in, and disseminated by the Middle East in our modern period - and I don't mean the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Jesus did not deviate from Jewish teaching of his day ... in fact, stated this. Two scholarly works: S.G.F. Brandon, "The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth" and William Loader, "Jesus' Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels."

Archaeological and paleontological studies, associated disciplines, are available. Research of molecular biology, gene/genome/dna is increasingly providing evidence ... All fascinating areas ...

Ron Witton states: "I didn't think I looked Jewish."
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 26 June 2011 9:26:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rose Anon and Giovanni della Mirandola,

Real academic rigour and scholarship demands in depth research of primary sources; one never, ever, relies upon secondary or tertiary sources alone.

Rose Anon, your comment: "I'm happy to send you some academic peer reviewed literature" is intriguing and welcome. Do cite these for OLO interest.

Some interesting observations:

Among the historians Giovanni della Mirandola recommends is Arab-American historian, Prof. Philip Hitti. Hitti stated (with some passion it would seem) at the Anglo-American Committee, 1946:

"There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."

The following resolution was adopted by Palestinian Arabs at the 1919, First Congress of Muslim-Christian Association, Jerusalem, February, 1919:

"We consider Palestine as part of Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time."

In 1937, Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi testified to the Peel Commission:

"There is no such country (as Palestine)! ... There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

The Arab Higher Committee to the UN submission to the General Assembly, May 1947, reiterated this, further adding:

"...politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."

Again - Ahmed Shuqeiri (subsequently PLO chairman) to the Security Council:

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

Yet again - the late Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, in 1974; and Jordanian King Hussein, at the 1987 Conference in Amman.

In an interview with Arianna Palazzi, 1970, Arafat rabbitted on about Pan-Arabism ... then declared:

“What you call "Jordan" is nothing more than Palestine."

Arafat’s comments raise another issue. Perhaps what David Singer states has merit.

Arab states determine citizenship by native parentage alone; a number have laws enabling naturalization of foreign Arabs - except Palestinian Arabs.

Jordan, however, instituted a “law of return” in 1954 granting citizenship to all former Palestinian residents (except Jews).
(Jordanian Nationality Law, Article 3(3) of Law No.6 of 1954, Official Gazette, No.1171, February 16, 1954)

Lebanese writer, Joseph Farah
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 27 June 2011 1:43:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Giovanni would appear perfectly capable of looking after himself and addressing your rather fraught 'volume of material'.

'Palestinian Arabs' is not how the rest of the world recognizes them, to us they are Palestinians. You are making every effort to delegitimize any claim they might have as a group by insisting on your personal nomenclature.

Most people recognize this but you might appear a touch more consistent if every time you refer to Israelis you made the distinction as to whether you are talking about Jewish Israelis, or Arab Israelis, or Christian Israelis. If you can manage this I will undertake to stop making such an issue of your past deep reticence to use the term 'Palestinians'.

Thanking you in advance.  

Dear Ron Witton,

I realize I have been particularly rude for not acknowledging your piece which I found quite moving. Only you would know how much the actions of Israel have led you to critically examine and ultimately step away from a rich cultural heritage but I can only assume they were not insignificant.

Thank you for sharing this with us.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 27 June 2011 8:34:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To csteele

The term "Palestinians" excludes Jews and non- Arab Christians - indeed anyone who is not an Arab. It is a racist and non-inclusive term .

The term "Israelis" includes all citizens of Israel - Jews,Arabs, non-Arab Christians and all other citizens of Israel. It is a non-racist and all inclusive term.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 6:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms. Danielle,

Thank you for you for your comment; I believe your arguments display an understanding which is not found in Mr. Singer’s comments and touch on the nuances of history and identity in the Middle East.

I feel we would agree that for real academia, particularly in matters of history, anything beyond primary sources loses a large degree of credibility. It’s unfortunate that we must often rely on historians who inevitably infuse their account with their own perceptions. Yet, in a sense we might take such a discussion to its absurd limits, crossing into hermeneutics and interpretation of texts, then leading us into a deconstructivist’s view on scholarship; a fascinating discussion, no doubt, but also beyond the scope of this article.

Regarding Hitti, it looks like I need to review his statements; however, I would add that Hitti’s account of the history of the Arabs as a people demonstrates that the realities of identity and history in the Middle East is not so simple as saying “Arabs”. This is why many Lebanese insist that they are Phoenician.

Furthermore, your arguments hit on a more complex and nuanced debate regarding Palestine in the context of Syria. As someone trained by a Lebanese gentleman of the old-school, who shared some Antoun as-Sa’adi sympathies, the Greater Syria debate holds a lot of interest for me. I would love to discuss that regional concept but this forum seems limiting. I would only say that statements supporting a Greater Syria concept, such as those of Shuqeiri and Abdul-Hadi, presuppose the existence of a region called Palestine and an absence of Israel. Whether or not Palestine was ever politically independent is irrelevant as such.

To Arafat’s comments, please put them in context. Arafat at that time was engaged in an insurrection against the Jordanian monarch. Furthermore, Arafat was neither a scholar nor a particularly skilled politician.

The Jordanian Law of Return is more extensive than you indicate. Please see the law in regards to the 1967 Refugees from the West Bank and then the separate regard given to those from Gaza.

With respect,
Posted by Giovanni della Mirandola, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 3:56:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There’s one thing I wanted to add, and this may be addressed to all, though I think particularly to Mr. Singer.

This whole debate as to whether Palestine exists or doesn’t and whether it has historical foundation or doesn’t ultimately misses the point.

The whole debate, in fact, serves as a distraction, if not an obstacle, to the human concern. Whatever you want to call them (i.e. Palestinians, Arabs, Canaanites…etc.) there is a large group of people that do not enjoy many basic human rights and experience a large degree of restriction in their daily activities. There were also a large number of people forced away from their homes, in which their families had lived for many generations. Many of those people, and their families, continue to live in varying degrees of refugee status and do not enjoy the same rights as many other international refugees.

What I’m arguing, in this regard, is that to debate the existence of a Palestinian group and then use that debate for political purposes, is ultimately to dehumanize the members of that group. It reduces those people to simply “an identity” and forgets that they are human beings dealing with oppressive conditions. While some might try to argue that the people in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as the remaining refugees, do not live in oppressive conditions, I would challenge them to spend any significant time in the West Bank and maintain that opinion. Asserting that the non-Jewish residents of the West Bank do not experience repression is similar to American political pundits asserting that water-boarding is not torture; were they to experience it themselves, I’m certain they would change their minds.

Csteele, I also wanted to add my thanks for your comments as well.

With respect to all.
Posted by Giovanni della Mirandola, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 6:19:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy