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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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,