Historical context of Israel/Palestine

Subject: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 02 - 11:45 AM

Have you heard the one about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat finally sitting down to negotiate? Sharon opened with a "biblical" tale. "Before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. One day, miraculously, a stream appeared. They drank and then decided to bathe. When Moses came out of the water, he found all his clothes missing.

" 'Who took my clothes?' Moses asked. 'It was the Palestinians,' replied the Israelites."

"Wait a minute," interrupted Arafat. "There were no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"

"All right," smirked Sharon, "now that we've got that settled, let's start talking."

"If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed," Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels once said. What worked for Goebbels evidently is also working for Arafat.

The blatant lies and vicious propaganda emanating from the Arab world have gotten out of hand. Anti-Semitism is out of the closet. Jews are murdered in Canada, their graves are desecrated in Italy. It's time to sort through the spiteful drivel.

No, Charlie, despite what you read on a zillion Arab Web sites, Jews do not use the blood of Arab children to bake their holiday bread.

Yes, Harriet, the Jewish Temple did exist in Jerusalem. I know Arafat insists it didn't and his excavators are busy destroying all archaeological record of it. But next time you visit Rome, go check out the Forum and you'll find its story carved in the ancient stone of Titus's arch. Let's start at the beginning.

First, who really owns the land encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority? The answer is so well documented it could be the subject of future UN resolutions—the Canaanites. They established the Land of Canaan here around 2000 B.C., so they have first dibs. Unfortunately for them, there isn't a single Canaanite left on earth.

Abraham, the Father of the Jews and a figure revered by Islam, led a band of Hebrews from Mesopotamia and began the conquest of Canaan in 1741 B.C.—that's 3743 years ago. Those first Israelites were joined in about 1290 B.C. by the Jewish slaves led out of Egypt by Moses.

After many years and a lot of help from Joshua, the Israelites finally defeated the Canaanites and old King Saul united the country in 1100 B.C. King David added Jerusalem in 1000 B.C., and King Solomon built the First Temple around 956 B.C. The land was plagued by raiders like those guys dubbed the Philistines, "Sea Invaders," who came out of the Aegean and snatched a nice chunk of the coast. Remember Goliath? He was a Philistine and King David made mincemeat of him, but the Philistines were a nuisance for many years.

Big trouble loomed in 586 B.C. when the Babylonians (nasty ancestors of the nasty Iraqis) invaded under King Nebuchadnezzar II. They sacked the lavish city Solomon had built in Jerusalem and tore down the First Temple. The Babylonians rounded up all the Jews they could catch and deported them to Babylonia as slaves. That "Babylonian Exile" lasted a mere 50 years and the Jews returned to build the Second Temple.

For the next 1000 years, everyone and his brother grabbed a piece of the territory—Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The Roman reign was particularly benevolent. They destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and killed an estimated 1.1 million disobedient Jews, including one named Jesus. The Romans also maliciously renamed the area Palaestina, after the Jews' old enemy, the Philistines. The Christian Byzantine Empire took over in 300 A.D. and held on for more than 300 years. During that era, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 A.D.

Muhammad's followers believed in conversion, big time, and swarmed around the Middle East giving everyone a fair choice—become a Muslim or die. These Arabs stormed Palestine in 638 A.D. Do the math. The Arabs got to the region 2379 years after the Jews. So, who is occupying whom??

The Arabs considered Palestine unimportant and ruled from Damascus and Baghdad. You could call them benign except for the massacres and the fact that they were uncomfortable with trees . . . so they cut them all down, turning the once fertile region into a more familiar desert.

With all the hoopla about Jerusalem, check out the Muslim holy book, the Koran. The Koran mentions Mecca and Medina countless times but never once speaks of Jerusalem. On the other hand, there are 811 references to Jerusalem in the Bible.

Christian Crusaders arrived from Europe in 1099 and ousted the Arabs. In subsequent years, the land switched back and forth between invaders, and in the turmoil Jews began filtering back from their scattered exile. Many came from Spain, whence they were expelled in 1492.

In 1516, the non-Arab Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine and held sway until after World War I, when the British took over.

We really have no idea how many Jews and how many Arabs there were at the time—mainly because both groups hid from the Ottoman census takers to avoid taxes.

But we do know that there were probably fewer than 350,000 people, the majority Arab, in the whole region (including what is now Jordan) when Mark Twain made a pilgrimage in 1867.

In his travelogue, Innocents Abroad, Twain wrote, "One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings."

"Nazareth is forlorn . . . Jericho the accursed lies a moldering ruin today," Twain said, adding, "There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere."

But the population was growing. More Jews arrived from Eastern Europe and Russia in the 1880s, either fleeing oppression or following the Zionist dream. And Arabs from neighboring countries flocked to jobs created by Jewish immigrants.

Take a deep breath, because now the plot thickens.

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration and promised "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People."

The British then turned around and gave over 77 percent of Palestine to the Arab Hashemites, for what later became Jordan. The remaining 23 percent, west of the River Jordan, was supposedly for the Jews.

But in 1947, the UN voted to partition that 23 percent of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Israelis accepted the plan and in 1948 proclaimed the establishment of their state. Neighboring Arab nations, however, rejected both the partition and the idea of a Jewish state and launched a massive invasion of Israel.

They were defeated, and at the end of the 1948 war Israel held all of Western Palestine except the West Bank, which was captured by Jordan, and Gaza, which was seized by Egypt.

In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel again defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, gaining control not only of Gaza and the West Bank, but also of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights.

The big question is: Where were the calls for a Palestinian state during the 19 years Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza?

A 1978 peace accord signed with Egypt returned the Sinai to Cairo, but the Egyptians seemed relieved to leave Gaza with Israel. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan officially renounced all claims to the West Bank.

As far as Israelis were concerned, the land, won in a defensive war, belonged to them.

But even after all the nauseating terror of the last 23 months, the majority of Israelis are willing to give Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza, and half of Jerusalem for their state. We just wonder if they are willing to let us keep ours.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 10:40 AM

Interesting to see the history of the region is perspective. Thanks.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: ciarili
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 01:34 PM

It's SO nice to see that SOMEBODY has a clue! I'm so sick of hearing all about the poor Palestinians that I could just hurl. I listen to NPR when I'm in the car, and occasionally wind up hearing their not-news programs. I was sickened the other day to hear them mention the fact that Israel wouldn't let a UN inspection team into Genine. They failed to mention that it's because the UN baboons insisted upon the inclusion on the team of one particularly egregious anti-Semite whose name escapes me at the moment.

Anyway, the Arabs had caused the once-fertile region to resemble a barren desert until the Jews finally came back in large numbers and began to fix that. They also established a democratic government quite unlike that of the bribery system of the Turks and the foreign rule of the British. If the Arabs had only behaved themselves they would have been full participants in the whole thing. As far as the West Bank, this little population of just over 2 million Philistines could easily have resettled elsewhere if their so-called friends in Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon had allowed them to. I don't waste much time feeling sorry for them - I condemn the UN and the other Arab states for their 60-odd years of unwillingness to solve the problem!

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: beachcomber
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 04:51 PM

In this context there is a quite interesting article in the newspaper "Ireland on Sunday" byAndrew Collins & Chris Ogilvie-Herald about the possibility of the cover-up of ancient scrolls reputed to "blow" the story of the original Jewish return to Palestine led by Moses. These "scrolls" they claim were in the tomb of Tutankamun, opened in 1922 by Howard Carter.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: allanwill
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 05:01 PM

Guest.

An interesting read, even though obviously biased.

I don't know enough about the history behind the conflict to make any intelligent statements about it, only that it is sickening to watch the atrocities BOTH sides are committing.

I am curious though:

What were the boundaries set up for Israel in the 1947 plan, did Israel agree to these boundaries when they accepted the plan and were there any formal agreements put in place after the 1948 conflict confirming Israel's boundaries?

Who were the protaganists in the 1967 Six Day war and does this equate to Israel's attitude that "... the land, won in a defensive war, belonged to them"

As I say, I am curious - this is not an attempt to stir up an argument, especially if you are the moronic GUEST whose only purpose in life is to create trouble on this site.

Allan

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 06:16 PM

I agree with the 1st post.
(Just waiting for Carol C. to join this one.)

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: Mark Clark
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 07:45 PM

Well this is about as much vile crap as I've seen around here in a long time. As it happens, I personally know many Middle Eastern people from many countries including Palestine. I also know and admire many Jewish people, mostly from Europe but also from the middle east and even the western hemisphere. I can tell you first hand that they are all wonderful, caring people and equally deserving of a chance to live their lives in peace and prosperity. The callenge for Israelis and Palestinians and the rest of us all watching them self-destruct, is to forget about righting all the historical wrongs, both real and imagined, and help them find a way to live peacefully—together or apart—in the same general part of the world. I realize it will be many generations before these people can reach out to each other in friendship but there must be a beginning and it can't be based solely on military might.

I'm definately not the one with theanswer to the present troubles. I do think it's important to note that not all Palestinians are violent people and not all Jews are Zionists. One's faith can be a beautiful thing and the middle east is rich in many faiths, but I'm pretty sure that any time you're pushing someone else around because God wants you to or because God has told you you're better than they are, or God has given you someone else's land, you've lost your faith somewhere along the line.

Moments in history can be spun to favor any point of view one may wish to espouse. Often what is actually true matters less than what people have come to believe is true.

• According to the Old Testament, Jerusalem—named for the title of it's founder Melchizedek, King of Peace(Salem-Shalom)—was widely known as "The Holy City" long before Abraham and the hebrew people showed up on their way from Ur. In fact Abraham, having just defeated the armies of the northern kings, gave Melchizedek one tenth of the spoils he had taken and promised never to take the city of Jerusalem.
• It's very difficult for Americans and even Europeans to appreciate the time scale involved in the relations between peoples of the middle east. Great cities in the middle east and ranging through Iraq and clear up to the Caucasus had been built and rebuilt while Europeans were still tribal societies living in caves. These peoples and their traditions are very, very old indeed.
• Since Mudcat is in some sense about tradition, it's interesting to note that the people of present day Lebanon count themselves as descendents of the Canaanites and the Palestinians as descendents of the Amalekites. You'll recall that about the first thing the children of Israel did after crossing the Red Sea was to have a big war with the Amalekites, a nomadic shepherd people also known for their skill in battle.
• It's interesting to note—though no longer meaningful in the present conflict—that the waves of Zionists that began migrating to Palestine a hundred and twenty years ago came as illegal immigrants.
• Over the known history of the region of Palestine, there has been a Jewish state there, in one form or another for maybe three or four hundred years tops.

These points aren't offered to try to establish right and wrong, these concepts seem to have no application in the middle east. I offer them only as examples of interesting traditions and “facts” which, no mater how heartily endorsed and by whom, will not serve to help resolve today's mess.

For those seeking a strictly factual history of the region without editorial embellishment, I refer you to some remarkably concise histories on the Net. They don't include every detail surrounding each event but they do provide a mention of each event along with it's result or effect upon the region. One resource is the Chronology of Palestinian History on Palestine-Net and another is this Outline of Palestinian History found on Arab.net. Each of these summaries seems merely to catalog varifiable events without introducing opinion concerning the events themselves nor the motives of the people involved. A more detailed discussion of Palestine during the Roman period may be found at the University of South Dakota's On-line Encyclopedia of the Roman Provinces.

I don't believe any of us can add to a settlement of hostilities in the middle east directly, certainly not by parroting the goals and prejudices of one side or another here in these discussions. Perhaps the most effective thing we can do is to pray for all the people of the middle east and for some wisdom to be imparted to our leaders and those of the warring peoples.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 02 - 10:56 PM

Biblical archaeologists are pretty certain the Exodus never happened. Quoting the Bible as history is ludicrous. A cuneiform inscription of 841 BCE notes that tribute was paid to Shalmaneser III by Sidon, Tyre, and Jehu, son of Omri, King of Israel. There's no known earlier mention of any personage mentioned in the Bible.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: Mark Clark
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 02:29 AM

Well yes, the inscripton of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria-Bbbylonia, conflicts with the scriptures as does the stele of mesha. Other scholars have reconciled these writings but their work has not necessarily become the canon.

I didn't mean to be presenting the Bible as history. The Bible as we know it didn't come into being as a unit until the fourth century of the common era. Still the Torah, often equated to the first five books of the Old Testament, is I believe regarded as history by Zionists. My point was not that the Bible is history it was that peoples are driven by whatever they believe to be history.

I personally don't see how any solution to the present conflict can come from rehashing the ill-remembered history of ancient peoples. It may help distant observers decide for themselves which side is most or least justified but all that does is build up the opposing sides. It doesn't lead to any conflict resolution. Each side must find some way to let go of the ancient wrongs and look for ways that all peoples in the region can be successful, if not together then at least as non-combatant cohabitators. To establish that there was or was not an Exodus is not any more useful to today's combatants than showing that the parents and grandparents of today's Israelis came there illegally. The conduct of Israeli leaders prior to 1948 might be seen by many as terrorism but admitting their behavoir doesn't give license to the Palestinians to do the same.

Pray for peace,

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: ciarili
Date: 19 Aug 02 - 08:35 PM

Let's just put it this way - both sides have a point. They both need someplace to live. The Israelis never wanted the Palestinians to leave, but they had to kill or be killed. Neither should we forget that it was the surrounding Arab governments who encouraged all the Palestinians to leave, take up arms, and reconquer in a few weeks. They abdicated that responsibility and they've been letting the Palestinians down ever since. They're the real villians here!

I like my friend Steve's suggestion: let the Palestinians have everything east of that main mountain ridge than Jerusalem sits on, and the Israelis have everything on the west.

By the way, if (some of) the Jews never left and went to Egypt, what makes you think they ever migrated to Israel fr somewhere else? Don't you suppose they must've been there all along in that case? Kinda takes the wind outta "we were here first".

Here's a little fact that may help people to understand why the Jews have to be so wary: it was the Grand Mufti, (Yasser Arafat's uncle) who said "Not in my backyard!" when Hitler proposed sending all the Jews back to Israel/Palestine - he encouraged extermination. Some say he actually originated the plan.

Take that and the fact that the surrounding Arab countries have always been much happier to attack Israel than give the Palestinians a little chunk of land someplace.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: fogie
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 04:14 AM

Just what I was looking for on a blues and folk music web site!

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 03:15 PM

Alinact asks: "Who were the protaganists in the 1967 Six Day war and does this equate to Israel's attitude that "... the land, won in a defensive war, belonged to them" "

Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the 1967 "Six Day War".

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From:
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 04:05 PM

You know what's really a bummer in all of this? The Muslims were pretty good rulers in Spain. They were tolerant of both Jews and Christians. They were scholars as well, bringing a lot of ideas to the West fr India and we have them to thank for preserving so much of ancient Greek texts and learning. If only the moderates would rise up and take the reins....

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 04:24 PM

Maybe we should just take a purple crayon and draw a line down the middle. It makes about as much sense as anything else.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST,Phomphinator
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 06:17 PM

Informative Middle East history in a nutshell at this link.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 06:58 PM

Muddie again adapting to international crisis!

When tanks bulldoze little family homes then the heart is hard that feels no sorrow! They are all doing bad bad things. They all feel as if they are right. They are all following orders - even books - even scripture. It could be called acedemic stupidity and cruelty. The Reformation, the Inquisition, the NI Civil War - all over folks reading and beleiving what old books claim. Hey it could all be bullshit.

So it does not matter who did what to who any more. They all need to stop doing it NOW.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 20 Aug 02 - 07:05 PM

Ciarili, there are moderates in Iran who are trying to gain momentum. The problem is (as has been true for millenia), the prize of freedom has the price of lives. It sucks, but it is the way it is.

If it does catch on in Iran, hopefully, it will spread from there. What I don't think will ever happen is change from without. If it's going to happen, it has to be their idea.

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: AggieD
Date: 21 Aug 02 - 11:52 AM

I feel that no matter where or what the conflict is, it usually equates to either one single person or a relatively small number of people deciding that they want to totally anihilate others who do not exactly comply with their ideals, and inciting others to believe that they are the only ones who are right. Let's be honest most of us would never encourage our children or loved ones to become suicide bombers!

There is the case that the many Jews who have immigrated into modern Israel have established a very hi-tech, modern country. Many of them abhor the conflict, but are so totally fed-up with having the lives of their children taken so violently that they will put up with almost anything to try to stop the conflict.

Surely it doesn't matter what the historical significance is, don't we all have a right as human beings to live in a society without fear? Do Jews have the right to try to find a homeland where they can live without the constant threat that they will be persecuted for their beliefs?

Subject: RE: Historical context of Israel/Palestine
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 21 Aug 02 - 12:22 PM

From a historical perspective "history is in the eye of the beholder." In this case there are a bunch of "god created equally" people running around with a problem and we might as well forget where they came from and help them solve the problem in an equitable manner and leave all but recent history (the lifespans of the people involved) out of it! anything else just pollutes the issue.