חברים יקרים
- פותח הנושא חנהר
- פורסם בתאריך
chriswinter
New member
Some people get the joke....
She thought it was hilariously funny.
Respect, though? What am I? A character in the Godfather? Respect is something I generally see people ask for that don't deserve any.
Hanna's very respectable. She works for a living, is generally liked by people. You know. As opposed to others.
She thought it was hilariously funny.
Respect, though? What am I? A character in the Godfather? Respect is something I generally see people ask for that don't deserve any.
Hanna's very respectable. She works for a living, is generally liked by people. You know. As opposed to others.
chriswinter
New member
Obviously
I ran it by her before even writing is, it was very much a concerted effort at humor.
You speak about that which you do not know or understand. It seems to be common here. Have a good day at work.
I ran it by her before even writing is, it was very much a concerted effort at humor.
You speak about that which you do not know or understand. It seems to be common here. Have a good day at work.
הבעיה היא
לא בדעות שכריס או את מחזיקים, הן רחוקות מלהיות קיצוניות בשיח הפוליטי האירופאי, הן אפילו יחסית נורמליות ואני נתקל בהן לא פעם ולא פעמיים.
הבעיה היא, וכתבתי את זה לכריס בשירשור, זה שהדעות הללו מבוססות על עובדות היסטוריות מוטעות, תהליכים שנלקחו מחוץ לקונטקסט שלהם, מקרים ספציפים שמוכלים על כלל ההבנה ההיסטורית, ונקודת מבט רטרופרספקטיבית אשר חוטאת לאמת ולא מבינה.
דעות ניתנות להיות סובייקטיביות, עובדות היסטוריות פחות. היו גירושים, היו רציחות של אזרחים, והיו אפילו מעשי אונס (בסביבות ה24 אם אני זוכר נכון מהקריאות שלי), אבל (וזה חתכת אבל), לא היה גירוש מתוכנן וטיהור אתני, לא היו רציחות סיסטמטיות, לא הייתה טרוריזציה נגד אזרחים במובן הרחב של המילה ובאופן ממלכתי. וכשלוקחים את כל אלו ביחד ושמים את זה בקונטקסט של מלחמת 48, כאשר קבוצה שלמה של אנשים קמה עליך להורגך ולהחריב את הישוב שלך בכל צורה שהיא, המסקנה היא שמלחמת 48 הייתה יחודית בהיסטוריה האנושית, כי בכל מקרה דומה, עם מאזן כוחות דומה,המצב היה נגמר בטיהור אתני מלא של האוכלוסיה הערבית בארץ. וזה לא קרה.
אם הרצון האמיתי שלך הוא להבין את תולדות הסכסוך אני מציע לקחת קורס אקדמאי רציני בנושא, הסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי מלא באינפורמציה חלקית, ורק גישה אקדמאית אמיתית, ששמה את העובדות כנר לרגלייה, יכולה לשפוך אור של מה שקרה.
לא בדעות שכריס או את מחזיקים, הן רחוקות מלהיות קיצוניות בשיח הפוליטי האירופאי, הן אפילו יחסית נורמליות ואני נתקל בהן לא פעם ולא פעמיים.
הבעיה היא, וכתבתי את זה לכריס בשירשור, זה שהדעות הללו מבוססות על עובדות היסטוריות מוטעות, תהליכים שנלקחו מחוץ לקונטקסט שלהם, מקרים ספציפים שמוכלים על כלל ההבנה ההיסטורית, ונקודת מבט רטרופרספקטיבית אשר חוטאת לאמת ולא מבינה.
דעות ניתנות להיות סובייקטיביות, עובדות היסטוריות פחות. היו גירושים, היו רציחות של אזרחים, והיו אפילו מעשי אונס (בסביבות ה24 אם אני זוכר נכון מהקריאות שלי), אבל (וזה חתכת אבל), לא היה גירוש מתוכנן וטיהור אתני, לא היו רציחות סיסטמטיות, לא הייתה טרוריזציה נגד אזרחים במובן הרחב של המילה ובאופן ממלכתי. וכשלוקחים את כל אלו ביחד ושמים את זה בקונטקסט של מלחמת 48, כאשר קבוצה שלמה של אנשים קמה עליך להורגך ולהחריב את הישוב שלך בכל צורה שהיא, המסקנה היא שמלחמת 48 הייתה יחודית בהיסטוריה האנושית, כי בכל מקרה דומה, עם מאזן כוחות דומה,המצב היה נגמר בטיהור אתני מלא של האוכלוסיה הערבית בארץ. וזה לא קרה.
אם הרצון האמיתי שלך הוא להבין את תולדות הסכסוך אני מציע לקחת קורס אקדמאי רציני בנושא, הסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי מלא באינפורמציה חלקית, ורק גישה אקדמאית אמיתית, ששמה את העובדות כנר לרגלייה, יכולה לשפוך אור של מה שקרה.
היי אפון
האמת שלקחתי קורס מזרחנות באוניברסיטה אותו העביר דר' יובל-ארנון אוחנה, מזרחן יוצא מוסד לשעבר, היה לי כ"כ מעניין שקיבלתי 92 בקורס
.
יצאתי עם המון ידע ומסקנות מהקורס. ידע מסוג שמדינה זהו ביזנס אחד גדול ושארה"ב מממנת אותנו ומדינות ערביות אחרות, וכולם מוכרים לכולם נשקים ושהערבים רוצים לחזור לימי קארבלה בהם הם שלטו במזרח התיכון והיו הכי חזקים ושארה"ב ומדינות באירופה מעוניינות לשמר את המצב הקיים בישראל-פלסטין כי הוא מכניס המון כספים לכיסים של העשירים שלא נוטלים חלק מהפורום הזה ועוד.
סתם רציתי לספר לך על זה.
האמת שלקחתי קורס מזרחנות באוניברסיטה אותו העביר דר' יובל-ארנון אוחנה, מזרחן יוצא מוסד לשעבר, היה לי כ"כ מעניין שקיבלתי 92 בקורס
יצאתי עם המון ידע ומסקנות מהקורס. ידע מסוג שמדינה זהו ביזנס אחד גדול ושארה"ב מממנת אותנו ומדינות ערביות אחרות, וכולם מוכרים לכולם נשקים ושהערבים רוצים לחזור לימי קארבלה בהם הם שלטו במזרח התיכון והיו הכי חזקים ושארה"ב ומדינות באירופה מעוניינות לשמר את המצב הקיים בישראל-פלסטין כי הוא מכניס המון כספים לכיסים של העשירים שלא נוטלים חלק מהפורום הזה ועוד.
סתם רציתי לספר לך על זה.
שלום שלום
הטענות שלי לא היו אד-הומינום, אלא פשוט אי הסכמה גורפת עם מה שאתם מנסים להציג כעובדות היסטוריות. אני חושב שזה חשוב לך, וחשוב גם לכריס להבין שאתם נטלים בעובדות היסטוריות שבמקרה הטוב הוצאו מקונטקסט ובמקרה הרע שיקריות לחלוטין. כי אני לא חושב שאתם עושים את זה בכוונה.
אנא קראו עוד מבני מוריס, ראו הרצאות שלו, ותבדילו בין ניתוח של העובדות ההיסטוריות לבין דעות. אפילו לבני מוריס יש היום דעות ימניות שאני לא מסכים איתם, אבל ברמת העובדות אי אפשר להתווכח.
יש צורך בהמון קריאה וידע בכדי להבין את הסכסוך, הרבה יותר ממה שיש לכם במצב הנוכחי (ואני ממש לא מנסה להעליב או לתקוף, פשוט מנקודת מבט אקדמאית). לכן אתם צריכים להיות מאוד זהירים עם מה שאתם קוראים ולהיות ביקורתיים.
לבסוף האירוניה והפרדוקס בכל המצב הזה היא שאין באמת צורך בלהבין את כל ההסיטוריה, הפוליטיקה, ומערכת הכוחות של הסכסוך בכדי להגיע לפתרון, הפתרון הרבה יותר פשוט. שתי מדינות לשתי עמים, בלי זכות שיבה, פירוק רוב שטחי ההתנחלויות, סיום הכיבוש, השארת מוקדי אוכלוסיה יהודים גדולים, פיצוי כספי וטרטורי, הפסקת האיבה והחינוך המיליטנטטי, פירוז הגדה המערבית, ויצירת מדינה מתפקדת בגדה. את יודעת איך יודעים שזה הפתרון הטוב ביותר? כי שני הצדדים לא יהיו מרוצים מפתרון כזה.
הטענות שלי לא היו אד-הומינום, אלא פשוט אי הסכמה גורפת עם מה שאתם מנסים להציג כעובדות היסטוריות. אני חושב שזה חשוב לך, וחשוב גם לכריס להבין שאתם נטלים בעובדות היסטוריות שבמקרה הטוב הוצאו מקונטקסט ובמקרה הרע שיקריות לחלוטין. כי אני לא חושב שאתם עושים את זה בכוונה.
אנא קראו עוד מבני מוריס, ראו הרצאות שלו, ותבדילו בין ניתוח של העובדות ההיסטוריות לבין דעות. אפילו לבני מוריס יש היום דעות ימניות שאני לא מסכים איתם, אבל ברמת העובדות אי אפשר להתווכח.
יש צורך בהמון קריאה וידע בכדי להבין את הסכסוך, הרבה יותר ממה שיש לכם במצב הנוכחי (ואני ממש לא מנסה להעליב או לתקוף, פשוט מנקודת מבט אקדמאית). לכן אתם צריכים להיות מאוד זהירים עם מה שאתם קוראים ולהיות ביקורתיים.
לבסוף האירוניה והפרדוקס בכל המצב הזה היא שאין באמת צורך בלהבין את כל ההסיטוריה, הפוליטיקה, ומערכת הכוחות של הסכסוך בכדי להגיע לפתרון, הפתרון הרבה יותר פשוט. שתי מדינות לשתי עמים, בלי זכות שיבה, פירוק רוב שטחי ההתנחלויות, סיום הכיבוש, השארת מוקדי אוכלוסיה יהודים גדולים, פיצוי כספי וטרטורי, הפסקת האיבה והחינוך המיליטנטטי, פירוז הגדה המערבית, ויצירת מדינה מתפקדת בגדה. את יודעת איך יודעים שזה הפתרון הטוב ביותר? כי שני הצדדים לא יהיו מרוצים מפתרון כזה.
chriswinter
New member
Now you and I
Are at least somewhat talking on the same level, even if obviously I don't agree with you about the wrongness and out-of-context aspect of your answer. However, I can respect the gist of your answer. Thank you for that.
As far as academic courses are concerned, will you take one at the University in Ramallah or Tel Aviv? Or Amsterdam or Oslo? Or at Yale or in Moscow? Because Academics are also people. They narrate from their viewpoint mostly.
As neuro-linguist George Lakoff argues: There is no strict division between objective and subjective. The question will forever divide people as long as this is in living memory.
The only thing I can hope to achieve is saying things that people consider outrageous and hope at least someone somewhere will think for themselves, if only briefly.
Are at least somewhat talking on the same level, even if obviously I don't agree with you about the wrongness and out-of-context aspect of your answer. However, I can respect the gist of your answer. Thank you for that.
As far as academic courses are concerned, will you take one at the University in Ramallah or Tel Aviv? Or Amsterdam or Oslo? Or at Yale or in Moscow? Because Academics are also people. They narrate from their viewpoint mostly.
As neuro-linguist George Lakoff argues: There is no strict division between objective and subjective. The question will forever divide people as long as this is in living memory.
The only thing I can hope to achieve is saying things that people consider outrageous and hope at least someone somewhere will think for themselves, if only briefly.
Saying things for the sake of them being
outrageous is anti-intellectual in my opinion. Might work in a debate (like the many you are having right now) but counterproductive when trying to find the truth. Which is the only thing I am trying to argue here.
Please also see my other comment, I tried to further elaborate there.
The discussion regarding objective and subjective realty and facts is far far behind me, there is an objective world out there. There are things that happened and there are things that never took place, the role of historians is to differentiate the first from the last and to put them in the right context. Many of the sources your claims are based on do not do so. Dot.
We should not be afraid to admit the truth, there is no harm in doing so. My main problem with most of your claims was and still is that you are not aware of the limited and questionable validity they have. Please find the time to read criticism on many of the authors you quote. A good place to start with is Benny Moris himself.
First and far most we need to agree on the historical facts. While all sources can be argued to have some narrative in them I will argue that real scientific research can be 'clean' to the a necessary level. These studies of the period have yet to support most of your claims, and when they do, it is to a very limited extent. Far from what you argue here.
outrageous is anti-intellectual in my opinion. Might work in a debate (like the many you are having right now) but counterproductive when trying to find the truth. Which is the only thing I am trying to argue here.
Please also see my other comment, I tried to further elaborate there.
The discussion regarding objective and subjective realty and facts is far far behind me, there is an objective world out there. There are things that happened and there are things that never took place, the role of historians is to differentiate the first from the last and to put them in the right context. Many of the sources your claims are based on do not do so. Dot.
We should not be afraid to admit the truth, there is no harm in doing so. My main problem with most of your claims was and still is that you are not aware of the limited and questionable validity they have. Please find the time to read criticism on many of the authors you quote. A good place to start with is Benny Moris himself.
First and far most we need to agree on the historical facts. While all sources can be argued to have some narrative in them I will argue that real scientific research can be 'clean' to the a necessary level. These studies of the period have yet to support most of your claims, and when they do, it is to a very limited extent. Far from what you argue here.
chriswinter
New member
Not because of that alone
Firstly let me say that while my opinions do sound outrageous to many, but it's not the only reason I say these things. I also say these things because I sense a truth in there, otherwise I would not say them.
The matter of finding truth is an interesting one. It also depends on what your frame of mind is. I fully understand the notion that the Jewish people wanted a homeland after WWII and even during the start of Zionism (Herzl laid the groundwork for this movement long before WWII after all, in 1872).
The fact that I empathize with the plight of the Jewish people does not make it morally OK to walk into the middle east with claims on the land because of some biblical reference. I've stated this many times, there is no god, and without gods the notion of Judaism becomes just as silly as any other religion. Hence, in my view it is still immoral to run a man off of his farm because you claim your god thinks you should have it.
So people in this forum seem to be confused by me. I don't contradict myself at all. I understand the plight of the Jewish people just like I understand the plight of anyone that has endured hardships and persecution. That is part 1. Part 2 is that I still think it's immoral what happened in the British mandate of Palestine in 1915-1950, and as such I question the moral cornerstones upon which the state of Israel are based.
This is in no way an indication that I particularly hate Jews, hate Israelis or hate anyone for that matter. It is just a dry observation on morality.
That out of the way, if such is my frame of reference, what book would you than propose I read by Benny Morris? I am quite willing to hear a well-built counter argument, it's not like I am an exclusive fan of Noam Chomsky either, you know. But do remember not to come at me with Biblical claims. They will never work for me. The religious argument is one argument to which I am deaf for all eternity, amen.
What does worry me is that you claim there is "Clean" data out there. We are looking at a combination of eye-witness accounts from both sides, records from both sides, then the subsequent editing of those records by the managers of those records. For instance, one problem that Ilan Pappe had in writing his book is that quite a few bits of Ben Gurion's diary entries have been redacted. So much so that finding references of a certain kind have become a search for a needle in a haystack.
Now this should already make clear that information is obfuscated and muddled. How are you going to argue there is a "Clean" truth out there, when the narrative is spun one way, and records are being redacted so as to not endanger that narrative?
By the way, I never claimed anything personally. I base my statements on seven or eight different author's work, some things I have seen and witnessed in my time in Israel and also largely on news I read in seven or eight different sources from all over the planet. Given all of the above, I would rather figure that they would treat what I'm saying somewhat seriously.
However, it seems to be par for the course here to give me shit for venting these opinions in this forum. So far I have been called a despicable and low human being, one forum member even took the trouble to SMS my wife personally to tell her that I am one of the worst Arsim she ever had the misfortune of running into, I have been called traumatized, diseased, a hater of Jews, an anti-Semite and many other things, and you are the only one who approaches this discourse somewhat intelligently.
And they call me the asshole. So I'll reiterate the fact that I appreciate your approach here. In summary, let me know what book you think I should read on this, I will order it, read it, consider it, and tell you what I think of it.
Firstly let me say that while my opinions do sound outrageous to many, but it's not the only reason I say these things. I also say these things because I sense a truth in there, otherwise I would not say them.
The matter of finding truth is an interesting one. It also depends on what your frame of mind is. I fully understand the notion that the Jewish people wanted a homeland after WWII and even during the start of Zionism (Herzl laid the groundwork for this movement long before WWII after all, in 1872).
The fact that I empathize with the plight of the Jewish people does not make it morally OK to walk into the middle east with claims on the land because of some biblical reference. I've stated this many times, there is no god, and without gods the notion of Judaism becomes just as silly as any other religion. Hence, in my view it is still immoral to run a man off of his farm because you claim your god thinks you should have it.
So people in this forum seem to be confused by me. I don't contradict myself at all. I understand the plight of the Jewish people just like I understand the plight of anyone that has endured hardships and persecution. That is part 1. Part 2 is that I still think it's immoral what happened in the British mandate of Palestine in 1915-1950, and as such I question the moral cornerstones upon which the state of Israel are based.
This is in no way an indication that I particularly hate Jews, hate Israelis or hate anyone for that matter. It is just a dry observation on morality.
That out of the way, if such is my frame of reference, what book would you than propose I read by Benny Morris? I am quite willing to hear a well-built counter argument, it's not like I am an exclusive fan of Noam Chomsky either, you know. But do remember not to come at me with Biblical claims. They will never work for me. The religious argument is one argument to which I am deaf for all eternity, amen.
What does worry me is that you claim there is "Clean" data out there. We are looking at a combination of eye-witness accounts from both sides, records from both sides, then the subsequent editing of those records by the managers of those records. For instance, one problem that Ilan Pappe had in writing his book is that quite a few bits of Ben Gurion's diary entries have been redacted. So much so that finding references of a certain kind have become a search for a needle in a haystack.
Now this should already make clear that information is obfuscated and muddled. How are you going to argue there is a "Clean" truth out there, when the narrative is spun one way, and records are being redacted so as to not endanger that narrative?
By the way, I never claimed anything personally. I base my statements on seven or eight different author's work, some things I have seen and witnessed in my time in Israel and also largely on news I read in seven or eight different sources from all over the planet. Given all of the above, I would rather figure that they would treat what I'm saying somewhat seriously.
However, it seems to be par for the course here to give me shit for venting these opinions in this forum. So far I have been called a despicable and low human being, one forum member even took the trouble to SMS my wife personally to tell her that I am one of the worst Arsim she ever had the misfortune of running into, I have been called traumatized, diseased, a hater of Jews, an anti-Semite and many other things, and you are the only one who approaches this discourse somewhat intelligently.
And they call me the asshole. So I'll reiterate the fact that I appreciate your approach here. In summary, let me know what book you think I should read on this, I will order it, read it, consider it, and tell you what I think of it.
Well firstly
you should not be worried about getting biblical references and claims from me, much like you I am a devoted Atheist
After saying that, the claim for the Land back in the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century by the Jewish immigrants, was far from being a religious process. Zionism emerged as a combination of three main concepts: secularism, socialism, and European nationalism. So without going into to much details it is quite obvious that at least in the first couple of decades the Jewish community in the Land was far from being religious. It is true that there were more than a few religious notions, but in essence the population was not very religious. I would say, and that can definitely be argued, that in its core the Zionist movement was not based on any promises made by an imaginary entity 3000 years ago. But rather on social, cultural and symbolic traditions that stand at the core of the Zionist movement, and place the Holy Land as the only suitable place for the Jewish people. I don't claim that there are no religious bases to these notions, there are most definitely, but I will argue that they were not of vital importance.
Now as for finding 'clean' data I will only answer shortly, for I am a scientific person who hates arguments regarding the subjective nature of reality and the like. In history it is not possible to find cold, hard, clear cut evidences. You are right in saying that it is all built on documentation and personal testimonies. Nonetheless, as it goes in science, what we are aiming at is to get to a theory that has the widest base of evidence, explains variation to the largest extent, and can explain reality in the most holistic way. The fact is that the RELIABLE data we have at the moment, which can be crossed with various documents, testimonies and files, suggests what I have written before. It does not matter whether Israelis, Palestinians or anyone else like what it suggests (lets face it, both sides don't like to move from their narrative) the only question is what can we proved beyond reasonable doubt/what is the most likable explanation.
Ilam Pappe is a pseudo historian, who puts the narrative before the evidences. As for Benny Morris his political analysis is interesting, but I must agree with you that it is a bit remote. What I am asking you is to listen only to his historical analysis, and to ignore the personal interpretation and subjective opinion he later gives regarding the current situation in the area.
I, like you, do not share the perspective over the Arab and Muslim world which Morris' holds, and the amount of readings I have do not allow me to read more at the moment. That's the life of a student
I strongly recommend the first book my Morris, but the revised edition, it is the same but with further research and a bit of political redemption "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited"
It is important to be careful with Morris and differentiate between historical records and current political analysis. As bad as Morris might be in his current political thought his actual research is well done and he at least separates between politics and history, something many of his critiques fail to do time and time again.
Lastly lastly, do not worry about the other discussions that are going around, what I am arguing with are ideas and thoughts, not individual people. So I do not hold anything against you on that level.
you should not be worried about getting biblical references and claims from me, much like you I am a devoted Atheist
After saying that, the claim for the Land back in the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century by the Jewish immigrants, was far from being a religious process. Zionism emerged as a combination of three main concepts: secularism, socialism, and European nationalism. So without going into to much details it is quite obvious that at least in the first couple of decades the Jewish community in the Land was far from being religious. It is true that there were more than a few religious notions, but in essence the population was not very religious. I would say, and that can definitely be argued, that in its core the Zionist movement was not based on any promises made by an imaginary entity 3000 years ago. But rather on social, cultural and symbolic traditions that stand at the core of the Zionist movement, and place the Holy Land as the only suitable place for the Jewish people. I don't claim that there are no religious bases to these notions, there are most definitely, but I will argue that they were not of vital importance.
Now as for finding 'clean' data I will only answer shortly, for I am a scientific person who hates arguments regarding the subjective nature of reality and the like. In history it is not possible to find cold, hard, clear cut evidences. You are right in saying that it is all built on documentation and personal testimonies. Nonetheless, as it goes in science, what we are aiming at is to get to a theory that has the widest base of evidence, explains variation to the largest extent, and can explain reality in the most holistic way. The fact is that the RELIABLE data we have at the moment, which can be crossed with various documents, testimonies and files, suggests what I have written before. It does not matter whether Israelis, Palestinians or anyone else like what it suggests (lets face it, both sides don't like to move from their narrative) the only question is what can we proved beyond reasonable doubt/what is the most likable explanation.
Ilam Pappe is a pseudo historian, who puts the narrative before the evidences. As for Benny Morris his political analysis is interesting, but I must agree with you that it is a bit remote. What I am asking you is to listen only to his historical analysis, and to ignore the personal interpretation and subjective opinion he later gives regarding the current situation in the area.
I, like you, do not share the perspective over the Arab and Muslim world which Morris' holds, and the amount of readings I have do not allow me to read more at the moment. That's the life of a student
I strongly recommend the first book my Morris, but the revised edition, it is the same but with further research and a bit of political redemption "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited"
It is important to be careful with Morris and differentiate between historical records and current political analysis. As bad as Morris might be in his current political thought his actual research is well done and he at least separates between politics and history, something many of his critiques fail to do time and time again.
Lastly lastly, do not worry about the other discussions that are going around, what I am arguing with are ideas and thoughts, not individual people. So I do not hold anything against you on that level.
chriswinter
New member
So how do you feel....
Thanks for the excellent write up. What do you study, by the way?
I agree with you that Zionism came out of Socialist and Nationalist thinking. As nation states emerged during the first half of the 19th century, I guess these people also wanted a slice of some kind of pie, which is understandable. What bothers me about this is that these secularist nationalist actually went and *created* a narrative of religious claims to this land that they, after the fact, juxtaposed on their Nationalist ideas.
Today, when you talk to many Israeli's about the claim to the land and the right of return of Jews vis a vis the right of return of Palestinians, they will try to tell you that the Jewish population was there "first", and possibly even that the land was uncultivated and empty when the people of what is now Israel walked in. This is somewhat funny, because according to the actual Bible, Abraham was an Iraqi immigrant to the region, and the book describes plenty of other tribes and cities that were already there when he walked in with his herd of sheep and tents.
Obviously I am not saying you look at it like that, because as an atheist and someone who understands narrative versus data, you give the impression that you're ahead of that curve. So honestly, what do you, as an able minded atheist, think about this rationale you hear on the streets a lot?
Again, I'll order the two books by Morris and the book by Palumbo. The latter I will order because Palumbo bases his research on UN observer's testimonies from various countries and on former Hagana force's testimonies. This was before the state archives had opened up further, but it offers a valid view.
However, I do think we can conclude, if you read summaries and reviews of all books by Morris, Palumbo and Pappé, that the truth is in the middle, as the Dutch saying goes. Disregarding his political analysis, Morris also lists at least 24 examples of villages that were ethnically cleansed by any modern definition of that phrase.
In my mind this makes the discussion not about whether what I claimed happened, but more about these two questions:
1) How widespread was it?
2) Was it centralized policy by Ben Gurion and his Consultancy?
Would you agree that to be the point of contention here, or do you view it differently?
Thanks for the excellent write up. What do you study, by the way?
I agree with you that Zionism came out of Socialist and Nationalist thinking. As nation states emerged during the first half of the 19th century, I guess these people also wanted a slice of some kind of pie, which is understandable. What bothers me about this is that these secularist nationalist actually went and *created* a narrative of religious claims to this land that they, after the fact, juxtaposed on their Nationalist ideas.
Today, when you talk to many Israeli's about the claim to the land and the right of return of Jews vis a vis the right of return of Palestinians, they will try to tell you that the Jewish population was there "first", and possibly even that the land was uncultivated and empty when the people of what is now Israel walked in. This is somewhat funny, because according to the actual Bible, Abraham was an Iraqi immigrant to the region, and the book describes plenty of other tribes and cities that were already there when he walked in with his herd of sheep and tents.
Obviously I am not saying you look at it like that, because as an atheist and someone who understands narrative versus data, you give the impression that you're ahead of that curve. So honestly, what do you, as an able minded atheist, think about this rationale you hear on the streets a lot?
Again, I'll order the two books by Morris and the book by Palumbo. The latter I will order because Palumbo bases his research on UN observer's testimonies from various countries and on former Hagana force's testimonies. This was before the state archives had opened up further, but it offers a valid view.
However, I do think we can conclude, if you read summaries and reviews of all books by Morris, Palumbo and Pappé, that the truth is in the middle, as the Dutch saying goes. Disregarding his political analysis, Morris also lists at least 24 examples of villages that were ethnically cleansed by any modern definition of that phrase.
In my mind this makes the discussion not about whether what I claimed happened, but more about these two questions:
1) How widespread was it?
2) Was it centralized policy by Ben Gurion and his Consultancy?
Would you agree that to be the point of contention here, or do you view it differently?
Claims for the any land
are always a combination of emotional, traditional, historical, and social factors. Without going into the discussion regarding the Palestinian claim for the land (around 80% of Palestinians are immigrants to the same extent Jewish people are), the Israeli side, which I support, claim can be based on:
- Historical records of Jewish/Israelite populations living in the Land
- Tradition of returnees to the Land of the Jewish nation based on the Jewish religion (here the connection is religious to a large extent but did develop since then)
- The most practical solution at the time (beginning 20th late 19th) from both the Jewish stand point but also the European powers, especially when looking at the situation in East Europe and later in Germany
- Lastly in 1948 it was a situation of no return, the Jewish population in the Land was so significant that the situation was irreversible. Removing the Jewish community at that point would be as much of a war crime as the displacement of Arab population. That holds even more true today.
Due to all these I think that while we can probably have a theoretical discussion about whether Jewish people should have immigrated to the Land in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th, somewhere in the late 30's this discussion became irrelevant, and still is today. So from that point the discussion should be on the pragmatic level of how to resolve the conflict/s, not on whether Jewish people have the right to live in the Land, because at the moment they do to the same extent as Palestinians. A simple Israeli's connection to the hills, the soil and the culture is as valuable as a simple Palestinian's connection to the above. So any solution must be respectful to both sides.
As for what I hear on the streets I do not like it, and that is an understatement. But these are social and educational problems Israel have and need to deal with, similar if you like to many other countries with severe social problems such as the US.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things and to read further literature, and finally I think we are reaching some understandings between us.
I completely agree with your two concluding questions, nonetheless (there is always nonetheless) four more things have to be added:
Firstly the context in which actions as such happened, and I think I elaborated enough on that point earlier. Secondly what happened in similar situations in history. Thirdly in what way, form and extent did the Arabs themselves were responsible for some of these actions (rape maybe not at all but evacuation of population in many cases yes). Fourthly when actions as such did take place to what extent did it happen and what happened earlier by the Arab population and armies.
What do you think, shell we write a PHD proposal based on that? And I study psychology, but evidently with a wide interest in politics and the Israeli Arab conflict
If you will be in the next forum meeting I might come, I promise to leave the torches and pitchfork at home
are always a combination of emotional, traditional, historical, and social factors. Without going into the discussion regarding the Palestinian claim for the land (around 80% of Palestinians are immigrants to the same extent Jewish people are), the Israeli side, which I support, claim can be based on:
- Historical records of Jewish/Israelite populations living in the Land
- Tradition of returnees to the Land of the Jewish nation based on the Jewish religion (here the connection is religious to a large extent but did develop since then)
- The most practical solution at the time (beginning 20th late 19th) from both the Jewish stand point but also the European powers, especially when looking at the situation in East Europe and later in Germany
- Lastly in 1948 it was a situation of no return, the Jewish population in the Land was so significant that the situation was irreversible. Removing the Jewish community at that point would be as much of a war crime as the displacement of Arab population. That holds even more true today.
Due to all these I think that while we can probably have a theoretical discussion about whether Jewish people should have immigrated to the Land in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th, somewhere in the late 30's this discussion became irrelevant, and still is today. So from that point the discussion should be on the pragmatic level of how to resolve the conflict/s, not on whether Jewish people have the right to live in the Land, because at the moment they do to the same extent as Palestinians. A simple Israeli's connection to the hills, the soil and the culture is as valuable as a simple Palestinian's connection to the above. So any solution must be respectful to both sides.
As for what I hear on the streets I do not like it, and that is an understatement. But these are social and educational problems Israel have and need to deal with, similar if you like to many other countries with severe social problems such as the US.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things and to read further literature, and finally I think we are reaching some understandings between us.
I completely agree with your two concluding questions, nonetheless (there is always nonetheless) four more things have to be added:
Firstly the context in which actions as such happened, and I think I elaborated enough on that point earlier. Secondly what happened in similar situations in history. Thirdly in what way, form and extent did the Arabs themselves were responsible for some of these actions (rape maybe not at all but evacuation of population in many cases yes). Fourthly when actions as such did take place to what extent did it happen and what happened earlier by the Arab population and armies.
What do you think, shell we write a PHD proposal based on that?
And I study psychology, but evidently with a wide interest in politics and the Israeli Arab conflictIf you will be in the next forum meeting I might come, I promise to leave the torches and pitchfork at home
חקלאי פיקח
New member
difference between colonialist and refugee...
Hello Afon & Chris,
I like to read the exchange between the two of you, would like to add my 2 cents here, history was always an hobby for me (got the bug from my dad who's an historian in Israel), I want to make a distinction in the facts that have been circling around here.
Jewish people who came to Israel as part of the first Aliya (mid-late 19th century) aren't defined as colonialists for three simple reasons:
1. Being a colonialist means that you have a "mother country" (metropole in essence) that is sending you to establish a colony to its sovereignty.
Jewish people came to Israel from many places, not only from Europe & "Northern Asia" but also other parts of Asia and Africa.
The main reason for many of them was simply - running away from pogroms & worsening environments in which they lived.
In fact, a more suitable title for them, would be refugees. A very good example is the Aliya of the Yemenite Jews "אעלה בתמר" who came to Israel because of the carrot (rumours of Sir Oliphant getting a franchise to sell lands for Jews in the holy land) and the stick (heavy penalties and pogroms aimed at that population in Sana'a and that have become heavier in the end of the 19th century after Yemen was conquered by the Ottoman empire).
The amount of Jews who came from Yemen is measured in around 5000 people from the 1880's until 1914, the importance of them is because they composed 50% of the Jews who stayed in Israel at the end of the Aliya (many of the Euro-Asiatic Jews left back to their home).
So in essence, it's quite interesting to see that 50% of the Jews who were left came from Yemen - not the most Ashkenazi Jews in the world
2. Colonialists don't go into another sovereign land and declare it their own, if they do, they are called Invading Army.
The sovereign entity in Israel at those times was the Ottoman empire, with which all of the European countries - had diplomatic relations.
The Jews who came to Israel, had not only to buy a boat/train ticket but also a certificate in order to get into the country (of course im not mentioning the Bakshish and everything around it, since this wasn't only for the Jews and at the end - just quickened the Empire's demise).
Jews bought land from the sovereign entity in a legal manner. Of course there were skirmishes & fights & deaths, but to say there was an ethnic cleansing is a crude exaggeration.
3. I don't like to repeat what people have said before, so i'll keep it short
Afon wrote above me about the origin of the Palestinians (it's a wrong term since its quite new and there are many more groups than just Arabs, Bedouins, Druz, Adyghe, Achmadim and many more), in essence many of them also came from the same 'refugee' status that the Jews did. Coming from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and more.
All of the above is hard-proofed not only by an "Israeli Data Bank" but by records from the Ottoman Empire (today you can find them in the Ottoman Museum in Istanbul).
One point regarding the Rape in an occupying force, I have sent this to Hanna a few days ago, will attach the link here for you as well, in essence its kind of ironic - the author of the MA (Tal Nitzan) titled "Controlled Occupation: The Lack of Military Rape in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict" deduce that the lack of Rape cases from IDF soldiers against Palestinian women, comes from racism against them (i.e. de-womanising and not want to come closer to them).
Last point, I am talking only of myself (though im sure that many of the people here are quite similar in that notion), being a secular I can admit to the amazing Paradox that is Israel (a country that was created on a religious basis by many secular people), I don't like the religious coercion in Israel, I know that from one point I want a separation of State & Religion and from the other, I know it would be counter-productive to the essence of it, I think there should be a 3rd option we haven't thought about, but in the end of the day - you are talking with me, with us, we are trying to communicate on very difficult ideas (your trauma with the kids, my jumping up every first Monday of the month at 12:00 sharp).
What I am saying is, that the people who created Israel (the ones who you titled as ethnic-cleansing planners) are much more similar to you, than you care to admit. In fact, they are much closer to you than the other groups of religious fanatics (both Jewish & Muslim) that are growing in a rapid pace in Israel (birth rate is a bitch) until one day they'll be the majority and like the words of Etnozam - then Israel will finish its adaptation process to the area where it is.
The question of course is, what will you say then ? will you think it's a 'better' place than before ?
Hello Afon & Chris,
I like to read the exchange between the two of you, would like to add my 2 cents here, history was always an hobby for me (got the bug from my dad who's an historian in Israel), I want to make a distinction in the facts that have been circling around here.
Jewish people who came to Israel as part of the first Aliya (mid-late 19th century) aren't defined as colonialists for three simple reasons:
1. Being a colonialist means that you have a "mother country" (metropole in essence) that is sending you to establish a colony to its sovereignty.
Jewish people came to Israel from many places, not only from Europe & "Northern Asia" but also other parts of Asia and Africa.
The main reason for many of them was simply - running away from pogroms & worsening environments in which they lived.
In fact, a more suitable title for them, would be refugees. A very good example is the Aliya of the Yemenite Jews "אעלה בתמר" who came to Israel because of the carrot (rumours of Sir Oliphant getting a franchise to sell lands for Jews in the holy land) and the stick (heavy penalties and pogroms aimed at that population in Sana'a and that have become heavier in the end of the 19th century after Yemen was conquered by the Ottoman empire).
The amount of Jews who came from Yemen is measured in around 5000 people from the 1880's until 1914, the importance of them is because they composed 50% of the Jews who stayed in Israel at the end of the Aliya (many of the Euro-Asiatic Jews left back to their home).
So in essence, it's quite interesting to see that 50% of the Jews who were left came from Yemen - not the most Ashkenazi Jews in the world
2. Colonialists don't go into another sovereign land and declare it their own, if they do, they are called Invading Army.
The sovereign entity in Israel at those times was the Ottoman empire, with which all of the European countries - had diplomatic relations.
The Jews who came to Israel, had not only to buy a boat/train ticket but also a certificate in order to get into the country (of course im not mentioning the Bakshish and everything around it, since this wasn't only for the Jews and at the end - just quickened the Empire's demise).
Jews bought land from the sovereign entity in a legal manner. Of course there were skirmishes & fights & deaths, but to say there was an ethnic cleansing is a crude exaggeration.
3. I don't like to repeat what people have said before, so i'll keep it short
Afon wrote above me about the origin of the Palestinians (it's a wrong term since its quite new and there are many more groups than just Arabs, Bedouins, Druz, Adyghe, Achmadim and many more), in essence many of them also came from the same 'refugee' status that the Jews did. Coming from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and more.
All of the above is hard-proofed not only by an "Israeli Data Bank" but by records from the Ottoman Empire (today you can find them in the Ottoman Museum in Istanbul).
One point regarding the Rape in an occupying force, I have sent this to Hanna a few days ago, will attach the link here for you as well, in essence its kind of ironic - the author of the MA (Tal Nitzan) titled "Controlled Occupation: The Lack of Military Rape in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict" deduce that the lack of Rape cases from IDF soldiers against Palestinian women, comes from racism against them (i.e. de-womanising and not want to come closer to them).
Last point, I am talking only of myself (though im sure that many of the people here are quite similar in that notion), being a secular I can admit to the amazing Paradox that is Israel (a country that was created on a religious basis by many secular people), I don't like the religious coercion in Israel, I know that from one point I want a separation of State & Religion and from the other, I know it would be counter-productive to the essence of it, I think there should be a 3rd option we haven't thought about, but in the end of the day - you are talking with me, with us, we are trying to communicate on very difficult ideas (your trauma with the kids, my jumping up every first Monday of the month at 12:00 sharp).
What I am saying is, that the people who created Israel (the ones who you titled as ethnic-cleansing planners) are much more similar to you, than you care to admit. In fact, they are much closer to you than the other groups of religious fanatics (both Jewish & Muslim) that are growing in a rapid pace in Israel (birth rate is a bitch) until one day they'll be the majority and like the words of Etnozam - then Israel will finish its adaptation process to the area where it is.
The question of course is, what will you say then ? will you think it's a 'better' place than before ?
chriswinter
New member
So happy you mentioned that...
Historical claims don't mean much.
The reason for that is twofold,and I'll try to explain myself as nicely as I can. Firstly, the trouble is that history, in the majority of cases, is written by the victor or survivor. The image we have of Native Americans has been dictated by the colonialists and can't really be refuted because there's not a native American around anymore to refute anything. So there's a generally accepted narrative that has become the norm, and anyone who challenges that narrative is discredited, because people don't like their world view rocked.
This works similarly with the Naqba. Whether there were 2, 24, 200 or 2000 massacres in the British Mandate of Palestine is not the discussion here. What is the discussion is that before 1948, every Zionist that has ever written down anything has so much as said that the Palestinians needed to be displaced to make way for the purely Jewish state, and after 1948, history has been written by the victor. This narrative is so ingrained in the Jewish population of Israel that a challenge of that narrative has explosive consequences. So the narrative completely sidesteps the actual fact that people were evicted and should have the right under all kinds of international law and covenants on the treatment of humans to return to their original property.
And it goes deeper than that, because the narrative that accompanies the above has also conjured up the image of the wandering Jew that returns home. Now I am fairly convinced that if you put a number of Jewish people in one room, one Ethiopian, one Russian, one Polish, one Dutch, one American, one Indian, one Turkish, one Moroccan and one Yemenite, you will see the argument that this is "one people" by blood destroyed. The Ethiopians and Europeans are converts, which has been documented, and even the Middle Eastern and Arabic Jews have seen conversion waves back and forth through history. Dude, it's *just* a religion. And don't say Hitler disagreed, because as we all know that bloke was a wanker and a nut job.
So, explain to me what claim an Ethiopian, Russian, Pole, Dutchman, Indian and American can make on Palestine? To my mind the only Jewish people that may lay any claim to this strip of land are the Mizrahi. They are locals to the region. You can see it in their faces, their culture and their behaviour.
The second reason historical claims are nonsense and poppycock is because Judaism is relatively young. It digs it's own grave. Monotheism only arose as society moved away from hunting, gathering and nomadic tribalism into a more agricultural and urbane society. Even so, various pagan and polytheist faiths hung in there for a long, long time. The area now known as Israel has always been under the influence of the ancient Egyptians, and the kingdoms of Judea and Israel have only existed ever so briefly around 900-700 BCE. The Egyptians and Mittani ruled to where now the border of Israel and Lebanon are. The Lebanese were under the Anatolian Mittani sphere, while until at least 1200 BCE, what is now Israel was an Egyptian province. These maps demonstrate my point quite well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Near_East_1400_BCE.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amarnamap.png
If you then really want to claim ownership of Israel based on the first non-nomadic society recorded there, you ought to give the place to Egypt, which is the only truly ancient society in the region. Hell, even the Torah says Abraham came from Ur between the Eufrate and Tigris, which makes him a Babylonian or Iraqi at best. Even the original father of the tribes was an immigrant to the region according to the definitive guidebook, not so?
What you say about the crime of displacing the newly immigrated Jews from Palestine in 1947 might indeed hold true. But that does not mean that a population of 35% can just displace 65% of the population and claim all of their land, possessions and strip away their rights as human beings. Let's argue the moral thing would have been to create a mixed state of Jews and Palestinians in which the pie was shared. To be honest, that would have been quite generous of the locals. Think about it: We are 17 million Dutch. How do you think things would go if suddenly the 4 million Palestinians, currently a people without a country, after all, would walk into the Netherlands and claim 25% of this land? Would we accept this?
Quite honestly, I really do believe that you will never know peace unless Israel's political system would own up to and take responsibility for the Naqba. It has to be from that point that peace talks with Palestinians depart.
Furthermore, I am longing for the day when Israeli's wake up and realize that talking about the world in terms of "Demographic Threats" or "Demographic Problems" is morally bankrupt. Any Zionist from Herzl and Ben Gurion to Olmert and Netanyahu talk about "Demographic problems" if the non-Jewish population becomes more than 20% of Israel. The fact that people speak in terms of "Demographic threats" in Israel is not only morally bankrupt but also an indication of the inherent racism nine out of ten Israeli's display. On top of that it really highlights the fact that it is an inherently undemocratic system.
Honestly: What if your children decide to become atheist? What then? What if intermarriages happen? And immigration from other countries? Israel wants to be walled up behind barbed wire and not let the rest of the world in? Have you even considered that this will cause health problems? Because inbreeding is already an issue amongst the Ashkenazi, so I predict if you do that for 500 years, your abortion rates will skyrocket or you will be stuck with an awful lot of folks with various physical and mental disabilities that are related to a limited gene pool.
To cut a long story short, on any longer term plan the attitude is simply unsustainable for a number of pragmatic and psychological reasons. I don't say this for my benefit, because I live in a rich, pluralistic and inherently free society. I just wish Israel would get on board with that notion too.
As far as that meeting is concerned, I don't know if I would be welcome. Some people have indicated I am a monster.
However, you are completely welcome to a beer, coffee or arbitrary beverage with me if you like. I don't mind at all, I live in Emmeloord. You're welcome. Asian food in Amsterdam would also work.
Historical claims don't mean much.
The reason for that is twofold,and I'll try to explain myself as nicely as I can. Firstly, the trouble is that history, in the majority of cases, is written by the victor or survivor. The image we have of Native Americans has been dictated by the colonialists and can't really be refuted because there's not a native American around anymore to refute anything. So there's a generally accepted narrative that has become the norm, and anyone who challenges that narrative is discredited, because people don't like their world view rocked.
This works similarly with the Naqba. Whether there were 2, 24, 200 or 2000 massacres in the British Mandate of Palestine is not the discussion here. What is the discussion is that before 1948, every Zionist that has ever written down anything has so much as said that the Palestinians needed to be displaced to make way for the purely Jewish state, and after 1948, history has been written by the victor. This narrative is so ingrained in the Jewish population of Israel that a challenge of that narrative has explosive consequences. So the narrative completely sidesteps the actual fact that people were evicted and should have the right under all kinds of international law and covenants on the treatment of humans to return to their original property.
And it goes deeper than that, because the narrative that accompanies the above has also conjured up the image of the wandering Jew that returns home. Now I am fairly convinced that if you put a number of Jewish people in one room, one Ethiopian, one Russian, one Polish, one Dutch, one American, one Indian, one Turkish, one Moroccan and one Yemenite, you will see the argument that this is "one people" by blood destroyed. The Ethiopians and Europeans are converts, which has been documented, and even the Middle Eastern and Arabic Jews have seen conversion waves back and forth through history. Dude, it's *just* a religion. And don't say Hitler disagreed, because as we all know that bloke was a wanker and a nut job.
So, explain to me what claim an Ethiopian, Russian, Pole, Dutchman, Indian and American can make on Palestine? To my mind the only Jewish people that may lay any claim to this strip of land are the Mizrahi. They are locals to the region. You can see it in their faces, their culture and their behaviour.
The second reason historical claims are nonsense and poppycock is because Judaism is relatively young. It digs it's own grave. Monotheism only arose as society moved away from hunting, gathering and nomadic tribalism into a more agricultural and urbane society. Even so, various pagan and polytheist faiths hung in there for a long, long time. The area now known as Israel has always been under the influence of the ancient Egyptians, and the kingdoms of Judea and Israel have only existed ever so briefly around 900-700 BCE. The Egyptians and Mittani ruled to where now the border of Israel and Lebanon are. The Lebanese were under the Anatolian Mittani sphere, while until at least 1200 BCE, what is now Israel was an Egyptian province. These maps demonstrate my point quite well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Near_East_1400_BCE.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amarnamap.png
If you then really want to claim ownership of Israel based on the first non-nomadic society recorded there, you ought to give the place to Egypt, which is the only truly ancient society in the region. Hell, even the Torah says Abraham came from Ur between the Eufrate and Tigris, which makes him a Babylonian or Iraqi at best. Even the original father of the tribes was an immigrant to the region according to the definitive guidebook, not so?
What you say about the crime of displacing the newly immigrated Jews from Palestine in 1947 might indeed hold true. But that does not mean that a population of 35% can just displace 65% of the population and claim all of their land, possessions and strip away their rights as human beings. Let's argue the moral thing would have been to create a mixed state of Jews and Palestinians in which the pie was shared. To be honest, that would have been quite generous of the locals. Think about it: We are 17 million Dutch. How do you think things would go if suddenly the 4 million Palestinians, currently a people without a country, after all, would walk into the Netherlands and claim 25% of this land? Would we accept this?
Quite honestly, I really do believe that you will never know peace unless Israel's political system would own up to and take responsibility for the Naqba. It has to be from that point that peace talks with Palestinians depart.
Furthermore, I am longing for the day when Israeli's wake up and realize that talking about the world in terms of "Demographic Threats" or "Demographic Problems" is morally bankrupt. Any Zionist from Herzl and Ben Gurion to Olmert and Netanyahu talk about "Demographic problems" if the non-Jewish population becomes more than 20% of Israel. The fact that people speak in terms of "Demographic threats" in Israel is not only morally bankrupt but also an indication of the inherent racism nine out of ten Israeli's display. On top of that it really highlights the fact that it is an inherently undemocratic system.
Honestly: What if your children decide to become atheist? What then? What if intermarriages happen? And immigration from other countries? Israel wants to be walled up behind barbed wire and not let the rest of the world in? Have you even considered that this will cause health problems? Because inbreeding is already an issue amongst the Ashkenazi, so I predict if you do that for 500 years, your abortion rates will skyrocket or you will be stuck with an awful lot of folks with various physical and mental disabilities that are related to a limited gene pool.
To cut a long story short, on any longer term plan the attitude is simply unsustainable for a number of pragmatic and psychological reasons. I don't say this for my benefit, because I live in a rich, pluralistic and inherently free society. I just wish Israel would get on board with that notion too.
As far as that meeting is concerned, I don't know if I would be welcome. Some people have indicated I am a monster.
However, you are completely welcome to a beer, coffee or arbitrary beverage with me if you like. I don't mind at all, I live in Emmeloord. You're welcome. Asian food in Amsterdam would also work.
chriswinter
New member
chriswinter
New member
I missed...
The private message.
Benny Morris in turn has been criticized by both Ilan Pappé and Michael Palumbo for using only those sources that corroborate his views, and he's quite the right-winger and Zionist.
So I will go an read one of this earlier books (the left wing period) and the book you mentioned (the right wing period). Then I will also go and read Michael Palumbo's book.
I will get back to you when I am done, but I will tacitly say that based on the 90 minute video of him, I really don't think I agree with his analysis of Arab culture.
I will offer a couple of books for you to read:
"Destiny Disrupted - A world history through Islamic eyes" by Tamim Ansary
"Aladin's Lamp - How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World" by John Freely
"A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin.
All three will give you a perspective on the Arabic, Levanti and Turkish sensibilities at the time that very much differs from the rhetoric used by Benny Morris, I am afraid.
Let me know what you think when you're done.
The private message.
Benny Morris in turn has been criticized by both Ilan Pappé and Michael Palumbo for using only those sources that corroborate his views, and he's quite the right-winger and Zionist.
So I will go an read one of this earlier books (the left wing period) and the book you mentioned (the right wing period). Then I will also go and read Michael Palumbo's book.
I will get back to you when I am done, but I will tacitly say that based on the 90 minute video of him, I really don't think I agree with his analysis of Arab culture.
I will offer a couple of books for you to read:
"Destiny Disrupted - A world history through Islamic eyes" by Tamim Ansary
"Aladin's Lamp - How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World" by John Freely
"A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin.
All three will give you a perspective on the Arabic, Levanti and Turkish sensibilities at the time that very much differs from the rhetoric used by Benny Morris, I am afraid.
Let me know what you think when you're done.
אני פשוט בשוק מהשרשור הזה
ואני רוצה לומר לכל החברים שהגיבו לחנה וכריס פשוט שאפו על האיפוק ועל התגובות הבוגרות.
וגם סחטיין על הנכונות לנהל דיון עם מי שלא ראוי לזמן שלכם.
אני באופן אישי ניהלתי בשבועות האחרונים דיונים עם אנשים שדעותיהם דומות לאלו של חנה וכריס, אנשים שחושבים שישראל היא שורש כל רע, ואפילו הם לא הגיבו באופן כל כך קיצוני. לייחס לעם על בסיס היותו עם תכונות כאלה ואחרות זו גזענות.
תתפלאי לדעת, זה באמת סתם שיש לי בן זוג בלגי. לא תכננתי את זה, לא חיפשתי את זה, לא הייתי כמהה לזה. סתם פגשתי מישהו בתחנת אוטובוס והתאהבתי בו. הסיבות שלי להגירה לא דומות לשלך, אז אל תסיקי על אחרים, תסיקי אך ורק על עצמך.
וחנה, לגבי תחושת השייכות המיידית להולנד, אני מאמינה שזה עניין אישי, ואם את רוצה להאמין שאת שייכת מנטלית ונפשית למקום מסויים, את גם תרגישי ככה.
אני לא מאלה שמאחלים לאנשים דברים רעים, אז אני רק אומר שאני מקווה שלא תתבדי בהמשך הדרך. את יכולה להזדהות עם ערכים, עם מנטליות, אבל בשורה התחתונה לעולם לא תרגישי בבית כפי שהרגשת במקום שבו חיית את רוב חייך מילדות. יכול להיות שמנגנון ההכחשה עובד אצלך באופן יעיל.
ואני רוצה לומר לכל החברים שהגיבו לחנה וכריס פשוט שאפו על האיפוק ועל התגובות הבוגרות.
וגם סחטיין על הנכונות לנהל דיון עם מי שלא ראוי לזמן שלכם.
אני באופן אישי ניהלתי בשבועות האחרונים דיונים עם אנשים שדעותיהם דומות לאלו של חנה וכריס, אנשים שחושבים שישראל היא שורש כל רע, ואפילו הם לא הגיבו באופן כל כך קיצוני. לייחס לעם על בסיס היותו עם תכונות כאלה ואחרות זו גזענות.
תתפלאי לדעת, זה באמת סתם שיש לי בן זוג בלגי. לא תכננתי את זה, לא חיפשתי את זה, לא הייתי כמהה לזה. סתם פגשתי מישהו בתחנת אוטובוס והתאהבתי בו. הסיבות שלי להגירה לא דומות לשלך, אז אל תסיקי על אחרים, תסיקי אך ורק על עצמך.
וחנה, לגבי תחושת השייכות המיידית להולנד, אני מאמינה שזה עניין אישי, ואם את רוצה להאמין שאת שייכת מנטלית ונפשית למקום מסויים, את גם תרגישי ככה.
אני לא מאלה שמאחלים לאנשים דברים רעים, אז אני רק אומר שאני מקווה שלא תתבדי בהמשך הדרך. את יכולה להזדהות עם ערכים, עם מנטליות, אבל בשורה התחתונה לעולם לא תרגישי בבית כפי שהרגשת במקום שבו חיית את רוב חייך מילדות. יכול להיות שמנגנון ההכחשה עובד אצלך באופן יעיל.
Copyright©1996-2021,Tapuz Media Ltd. Forum software by XenForo® © 2010-2020 XenForo Ltd.