The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by anarchism101

Etymological fallacy there.

How is that a fallacy? Your arguments are looking pretty weak

Jerusalem is a Hebrew word because the city was originally a Jewish city

A mythical character, most likely

And King Herod?

Of course, he wasn't real; it's a Jewish conspiracy to fake history :wink:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6483

Original post by young_guns

How is that a fallacy? Your arguments are looking pretty weak

Jerusalem is a Hebrew word because the city was originally a Jewish city

No, Jerusalem is a Latin word; Yerushalaim is a Hebrew word. True, Jerusalem is a Latinisation of the Hebrew, but that means nothing. It's a fallacy because the etymological origins of city names has no bearing on moral or legal rights to the place. Several towns in England have Latin name origins; should they therefore be part of Italy?

And King Herod?

Herod is a historical figure; we have compelling evidence outside the Bible that he existed. We do not have the same for Solomon.

And for the record, evidence suggests Herod was of Nabatean Arab descent.

Original post by young_guns

I haven't encountered many people who outright deny that the origin of the Jewish people is in Israel. I suppose you realise how destructive that admission would be to your arguments

You're conflating Judaism as a religion with Jewish as an ethnic group or nationality. The former goes back thousands of years (admittedly with changes and various sects and denominations), while the latter is a much more recent idea

You also believe there is no such thing as a Palestinian?

Not objectively, no. It's an invented idea like all nationalities.

Reply 6484

Original post by anarchism101

No, Jerusalem is a Latin word; Yerushalaim is a Hebrew word.

So you accept Israel used to be inhabited by Jews?

Herod is a historical figure

Indeed. He's a historical Jewish king who ruled over areas that are today part of Israel/Palestine.

And for the record, evidence suggests Herod was of Nabatean Arab descent.

Who converted to Judaism, and ruled over a Jewish kingdom. I'm glad you accept that area of the world was a Jewish kingdom

You're conflating Judaism as a religion with Jewish as an ethnic group or nationality.

You seem to be confused. Show me where I conflated them?

It's also interesting that you attach land ownership and "peopleness" to ethnicity rather than culture.

The logical endpoint of your belief is that no immigrant to Britain can ever really be one of us, they'll always be foreigners. According to your worldview

Not objectively, no.

I'm glad you accept that. So we have a completely artificial nationality on the one hand with the "Palestinians", and an ancient culture which has indisputable ancient ties to that area. Thanks for confirming

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6485

Original post by anarchism101

while the latter is a much more recent idea

Actually, you're completely wrong about that. It's a bit disconcerting that you consider yourself well informed on this subject but could be so ignorant of the most basic and ancient tenet of Judaism, which is that it considers itself a "nation", not just a religion and had married within accordingly.

Reply 6486

Original post by young_guns

Err, no. The Arabs came to Israel with the Arab conquest in the 7th century. That Arab conquest displaced many Jews, though not all

Nope. There were undoubtedly some Arab migrants, yes, but the local population was also largely Arabised over time (adopting Arabic language, dress, etc). Many of them also converted to Islam, though of course Jewish and Christian minorities remained.

Though despite regular pogroms against the Jews (particularly the Jews of Hebron), the Jews managed to maintain continuous habitation of Israel from 1000BC to 2015 CE

I'm not going to claim that the Middle Age Islamic world was some paragon of religious freedom and equality, because it wasn't, but in general Jews were far better off there than they were in Christian Europe. For example, when the Crusaders came, the Jews of Palestine fought on the side of the Muslims, and later on Saladin's side when he took it from the Crusaders.

Reply 6487

Original post by anarchism101

Nope. There were undoubtedly some Arab migrants

How many?

Reply 6488

Original post by anarchism101

was also largely Arabised over time (adopting Arabic language, dress, etc). Many of them also converted to Islam, though of course Jewish and Christian minorities remained.

Also, even if that were to be accepted, why should those who collaborated with the invading culture have superior rights to those who fled in order to keep their culture intact?

Reply 6489

Original post by anarchism101

though of course Jewish and Christian minorities remained

And yet its your position that Jewish minority deserves no rights whatsoever? You may claim otherwise but clearly it is if you'd deny them self-determination in the areas in which they were a majority.

Tell me, did you oppose Scottish independence?

Reply 6490

Original post by young_guns

So you accept Israel used to be inhabited by Jews?

People of the Jewish faith, yes, not the modern conception of Jewishness as a national or ethnic (or 'cultural', if you insist) identity.

Indeed. He's a historical Jewish king who ruled over areas that are today part of Israel/Palestine.

Who converted to Judaism, and ruled over a Jewish kingdom. I'm glad you accept that area of the world was a Jewish kingdom

See above.

You seem to be confused. Show me where I conflated them?

You do it every time you equate modern 'Jews' to Biblical-era 'Jews'.

It's also interesting that you attach land ownership and "peopleness" to ethnicity rather than culture.

I don't. Quite the opposite, as I said I consider ethnic identity to be a relatively recent invention.

As for 'culture', see my response to the next bit below

I'm glad you accept that. So we have a completely artificial nationality on the one hand with the "Palestinians", and an ancient culture which has indisputable ancient ties to that area. Thanks for confirming

You're seriously arguing that the Jews who lived in the area that is now Israel/Palestine 2000 years ago, the far flung Jewish communities around the world in the intervening period, and modern Israeli Jews are culturally the same? Despite not sharing anything that is generally considered to make up a distinct culture, such as language (Hebrew being a extinct language before its revival by Zionism), cuisine, literature, dress habits, etc?

Reply 6491

Original post by anarchism101

People of the Jewish faith, yes, not the modern conception of Jewishness as a national or ethnic (or 'cultural', if you insist) identity.

Are you not aware that Jews have referred to themselves as a nation for thousands of years? Perhaps you're confusing the idea of nation, which is a very old concept adhered to by the Jews, with that of nation-state.

I don't. Quite the opposite, as I said I consider ethnic identity to be a relatively recent invention.

Then you'd be utterly wrong.

You're seriously arguing that the Jews who lived in the area that is now Israel/Palestine 2000 years ago, the far flung Jewish communities around the world in the intervening period, and modern Israeli Jews are culturally the same?

Despite not sharing anything that is generally considered to make up a distinct culture, such as language (Hebrew being a extinct language before its revival by Zionism)

What language do you think the Pentateuch and Tanakh (Torah / Hebrew Bible) are in? If you were to visit a Jewish community in 11th century Grenada, or the Jews of London in 1750, or the Jews of Hebron in the 1500s, or the Jews of Egypt in the 5th century, they would all possess and revere the Hebrew Bible / Torah, written in Hebrew. It's incredible you didn't know that

literature

So you've never heard of the Babylonian Talmud? Or the enormous amount of Jewish literature that has been produced by Jewish communities all over the world, whether in Europe, North Africa or Mid East, and how it's been shared between those communities?

It's incredible that you feel yourself competent to comment when your knowledge of Judaism and the Jewish ethnos is so obviously lacking

Reply 6492

Original post by anarchism101

X

By the way, I'm very happy to school you a bit to bring you up to speed on the history of Judaism.

Modern Judaism is called Rabbinic Judaism, which evolved during the Babylonian Captivity. Rabbinic Judaism is the form that spread through migration to North Africa, Italy, Spain, and then north into Central Europe.

There is a clear continuity in Jewish literature from the Mekhilta of the Tannaitic Period (around 200CE), to the Genesis Rabbah and Lamentations of the 5th and 6th centuries, through the Midrash proverbs of the 8th and 9th centuries, the Exodus Rabbah of the 11th century, the Midrash Aggadah of the 13th century. These are all examples of a culture that was continuous and without discontinuity from the time of the Roman Empire to today.

By the way, do you know where Yiddish came from? It was a language spoken by Central European Jews (who it is believed had migrated north from Italy, where they had come to from other places). It emerged in the 9th century CE, it's written with Hebrew script and it's a mix of medieval German and Hebrew.

There's a reason we know about all these rabbis from the 9th and 10th centuries and the middle ages, in Germany and Spain and North Africa and Palestine; it's because they produced a vast body of literature which is still fundamentally important to Jewish sects today, and which was connected at the time and played off one another. That literature that was produced then was connected with what came before it and what came after it.

You would do well to perhaps read up a little on the Jews, it's a fascinating history and they're really the only continuous culture that has existed from antiquity to modern times. You act as though we don't really know where Jewish people come from, which is ridiculous. Their writings provide a very clear history; in fact, late antiquity and the dark ages was no dark age for the Jews. The 8th to the 12th century is in fact considered a Golden Age, and one that provides an extremely clear link and continuity between ancient and modern Judaism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6493

Original post by young_guns

Actually, you're completely wrong about that. It's a bit disconcerting that you consider yourself well informed on this subject but could be so ignorant of the most basic and ancient tenet of Judaism, which is that it considers itself a "nation", not just a religion and had married within accordingly.

The earliest recorded sources of the traditional idea of Jewishness by matrilineal descent only date back to around 200CE. Anything more than that is largely a result of trying to stretch interpretations of Biblical passages.

The arrogant snarls don't prove anything, btw. I can quite easily say the same about you.

Reply 6494

Original post by anarchism101

The earliest recorded sources of the traditional idea of Jewishness by matrilineal descent only date back to around 200CE. Anything more than that is largely a result of trying to stretch interpretations of Biblical passages.

The fact that Jewish people may have changed their rules on descent proves nothing about the nature of their polity/ethnos.

I'd perhaps even go further to say it might only have been in the Middle Ages that the matrilineal rule came in. That doesn't change their affinity to one another as a nation.

And are you avoiding the very clear reference in the Torah/Tanakh/Old Testament to Israelites as a nation?

The arrogant snarls don't prove anything, btw. I can quite easily say the same about you.

My "arrogant snarls" (by which you mean to say, my pointing out the gaps in your knowledge) are accurate. It appears you weren't even aware the Torah is written in Hebrew and always has been

Are you going to respond to the rest of my comments, or are you going to dodge my substantive debunking of your claim of discontinuity between ancient and modern judaism?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6495

Original post by anarchism101

You're seriously arguing that the Jews who lived in the area that is now Israel/Palestine 2000 years ago and modern Israeli Jews are culturally the same?

Answer this for me; Jews were never wholly expelled from Palestine. They continued to live there from ancient times. There were prominent Jewish communities in Hebron and Safed, amongst other places. For example, Safed was 40% Jewish in the 1550s.

Where do you claim these Jews came from? Are you denying there has been a continuous Jewish community in Palestine from ancient times to modern times?

And if they are not the same as Jews from elsewhere, why do they share the same religion? Is it just the most amazing, incredible coincidence that the Jews of Palestine adhere to the same Rabbinic Judaism as the Jewish communities of Europe and other areas of the Middle East?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6496

Original post by young_guns

Are you not aware that Jews have referred to themselves as a nation for thousands of years?

They've been using a French word to refer to themselves?

Perhaps you're confusing the idea of nation, which is a very old concept adhered to by the Jews, with that of nation-state.

A much more likely explanation is that gradually over time certain Hebrew words and concepts have been mistranslated and misinterpreted over time, and at a later date attempted to fit in with European ideas.

Then you'd be utterly wrong.

Nope, I'd be right. Nationalist historiography has been considered junk (though unfortunately, often dangerous junk) for quite a while now.

What language do you think the Pentateuch and Tanakh (Torah / Hebrew Bible) are in? If you were to visit a Jewish community in 11th century Grenada, or the Jews of London in 1750, or the Jews of Hebron in the 1500s, or the Jews of Egypt in the 5th century, they would all possess and revere the Hebrew Bible / Torah, written in Hebrew. It's incredible you didn't know that

I think you're strawmanning me and being obstinate deliberately now. You know full well that I was referring to vernaculars. We don't consider Muslims to have a "shared language" of Arabic just because the Koran is in Arabic, as many Muslims do not speak Arabic as their native, daily-used language (ditto Catholics with Latin).

So you've never heard of the Babylonian Talmud? Or the enormous amount of Jewish literature that has been produced by Jewish communities all over the world, whether in Europe, North Africa or Mid East, and how it's been shared between those communities?

I never said Jewish communities didn't write anything. There's quite a big gulf between that and the claim that secular Hebrew-language literature was being disseminated en masse contemporarily all the way through the pre-Zionist period.

It's incredible that you feel yourself competent to comment when your knowledge of Judaism and the Jewish ethnos is so obviously lacking

Considering you still hold to the idea that there even is an 'ethnos' as anything more than an idea, this is very much pot calling kettle.

Reply 6497

Original post by young_guns

The fact that Jewish people may have changed their rules on descent proves nothing about the nature of their polity/ethnos.

It says plenty. A significant change in the criteria of who can be considered a member of a group makes the claim that the group itself is anything more than an invented idea ridiculous.

I'd perhaps even go further to say it might only have been in the Middle Ages that the matrilineal rule came in. That doesn't change their affinity to one another as a nation.

And are you avoiding the very clear reference in the Torah/Tanakh/Old Testament to Israelites as a nation?

Already discussed this in my earlier comment regarding the term 'nation'.

My "arrogant snarls" (by which you mean to say, my pointing out the gaps in your knowledge) are accurate.

No, they are largely an arrogant conviction that your interpretation and narrative must be the correct one, and that someone who disputes it must therefore not know about the subject.

It appears you weren't even aware the Torah is written in Hebrew and always has been

No, that did not appear. If you were being intellectually honest rather than trying to look for a chance to say "Gotcha", you'd have realised (or maybe you did, but chose to push ahead with the strawman anyway) I was talking about vernacular languages.

Are you going to respond to the rest of my comments, or are you going to dodge my substantive debunking of your claim of discontinuity between ancient and modern judaism?

Which would be a claim I never made.

Unsurprisingly, responding to a lot of comments can take time.

Reply 6498

Original post by anarchism101

They've been using a French word to refer to themselves?

Actually, the French/English applied the word nation as the best translation of the entity of the Israelites/Jews

And Jews were referred to as a nation by non-Jewish writers in Europe, as being a distinct entity that had its own culture, its own customs, its own religion.

A much more likely explanation is that gradually over time certain Hebrew words and concepts have been mistranslated

Which Hebrew words and concepts are you claiming have been mistranslated?

Nope, I'd be right. Nationalist historiography has been considered junk (though unfortunately, often dangerous junk) for quite a while now.

Again, you seem to be confused. The Hebrews/Israelites/Jews have viewed themselves as being a distinct entity/grouping/ethnos for a long time. You are confusing their view of themselves as being a nation, with the Zionist objective of a nation-state. The former predated the latter by thousands of years

I think you're strawmanning me and being obstinate deliberately now. You know full well that I was referring to vernaculars.

I'm not strawmanning you at all. You claimed the Jews did not share the normal traits of a culture, like language, and asserted Hebrew was not used by Jewish communities until the creation of the State of Israel. That is untrue.

Jewish communities in all places and at all times have held onto Hebrew as the religious language, the language of their Torah/Tanakh. The fact there was communication and interaction between Jewish communities in Europe and North Africa, the sharing of ideas and religious commentaries, seems very clearly the basic element of a shared culture.

I never said Jewish communities didn't write anything. There's quite a big gulf between that and the claim that secular Hebrew-language literature was being disseminated en masse contemporarily all the way through the pre-Zionist period.

That's not what I claimed, and now you're strawmanning me. You said that the Jews did not share anything that would resemble a culture, such as language, literature, and so on. I was pointing out they clearly have and do. Not only the continuous use of Hebrew based on their ancient writings, which has been maintained up to the present day, but also the widespread sharing of religious commentaries, of rabbinical literature, across Jewish communities.

In the 10th century, Jewish communities in Mainz would be sending letters to Jewish communities in North Africa and the Levant. They would discuss religious issues, and keep each other up to date. That is clearly a shared culture, the fact you won't even concede that is very suspect

Reply 6499