Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
NO HISTORICAL CONTINUITY PART 1. GENETIC ROOTS
CAMERA is a US-based Zionist group that portrays itself as "reporting" and "analyzing" the Middle East. But, its website is full of attacks, mystifications, and isn't about the Middle East but about the Israelis and against anything that relates to the Palestinians. The organization is also active on Wikipedia were it in 2010 began to incite supporters of the Israelis by providing hasbara knowledge needed to alter entries to disseminate which makes Wikipedia no longer neutral on this issue. For example:
But, what does history show? A number of pre-British Mandatory (of Palestine) Zionists, from Ahad Ha'am and Ber Borochov to David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi thought of the Palestinian peasant population as descended from the ancient biblical Hebrews, but this belief was disowned when its ideological implications became problematic. Ahad Ha'am believed that, "the Moslems [of Palestine] are the ancient residents of the land ... who became Christians on the rise of Christianity and became Moslems on the arrival of Islam." Israel Belkind, the founder of the Bilu movement also have said that the Palestinian Arabs were the blood brothers of the Jews. Ber Borochov, one of the key ideological architects of Marxist Zionism, claimed as early as 1905 that. These statements have one thing in common: they are related to the question: who is indigenous? However, there are several definitions about 'indigenous', one of which we prefer to follow: the definition that refers to the notion of a place-based human ethnic culture that has not migrated from its homeland, and is not a settler or colonial population. During the Roman Empire, Jews had chosen to decide to flee Palestine, which means that they also had chosen to give up their sovereignty by leaving, no matter the reason, to resettle elsewhere. So, if they resettle elsewhere, their historical continuity also resets, and those after them, their historical continuity had yet to start running. We didn't mention the possibility to define the roots of an ethnic group by using (medical) scientific methods such as generic profiling. But, to be able to do such profile, you need samples of the very first people to match them with samples of today's people, not the samples of people from a cherry picked (Canaan) era or samples from a cherry picked (Jewish) group of people like the diagram below is showing. It looks very identical to similar diagrams but about the distribution of the first humans, starting from the region of what is now Uganda and Kenya into north, crossing the discussed region into what is now Turkey, and from there into and across Europe and to Asia. Is the unknown source trying to tell that the roots of the Jewish is anywhere in the sub-Saharan region, Ethiopia for example? In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Jews to their host countries. Many Palestinians themselves referred to their Jewish neighbours as their awlâd 'ammnâ or paternal cousins. According to a 2010 study by Behar et al. titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people", Palestinians tested clustered genetically close to Bedouins, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians which was described as "consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula". In the same year a study by Atzmon and Harry Ostrer concluded that the Palestinians were, together with Bedouins, Druze and southern European groups, the closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish populations. One DNA study by Nebel found substantial genetic overlap among Palestinian Arabs and Ashkenazi* and Sephardic* Jews. A small but statistically significant difference was found in the Y-chromosomal haplogroup distributions of Sephardic Jews and Palestinians, but no significant differences were found between Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians nor between the two Jewish communities. However, a highly distinct cluster was found in Palestinian haplotypes. 32% of the 143 Arab Y-chromosomes studied belonged to this "I&P Arab clade", which contained only one non-Arab chromosome, that of a Sephardic Jew. This could possibly be attributed to the geographical isolation of the Jews or to the immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium. Nebel proposed that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD". The problem with generic science is that it isn't telling which generation(s) from a Jewish or Palestinian group that have been researched to base findings like it is written above. Also, such science is in our view cherry picking in the evolution of the Middle East. Because, it is only about comparing one group of people with another group of people. It is even not about defining the geographic roots of anyone's origin but an attempt to prove anyone's identity. Let's take another example: “Ashkenaz” is Hebrew and refers to Germany. However, in this American newspaper we found that 'Ashkenazi'' are those who originated in Eastern Europe. That is weird as 'Ashkenazi'' is adjective and supposed to be to people who are from “Ashkenaz”. But, it looks that Ashkenazi Jews have their origin in a comnplete different part of the world. Here's a citiation from an article written by ecturer in population, medical and evolutionary genomics, University of Sheffield "It starts in Persia (modern-day Iran) during the sixth century. This is where most of the world’s Jews were living at this time. The tolerance of the Persians encouraged the Jews to adopt Persian names, words, traditions, and religious practices, and climb up the social ladder gaining a monopoly on trade. They also converted other people who were living along the Black Sea, to their Jewish faith. This helped to expand their global network. Among these converts were the Alans (Iranian nomadic pastoral people), Greeks, and Slavs who resided along the southern shores of the Black Sea. Upon conversion, they translated the Old Testament into Greek, built synagogues, and continued expanding the Jewish trade network." With all respect, but we see the failure of realizing that it is about studying a selected link belonging to an endless chain, which gives immense amount of knowledge but only about the selected link, the Ashkenazi Jews. If you want everything that belongs to the totality in an arrangement, laying out the exact order in which everything became to exist, you need to speak in terms of chronology, whereby scientific fractioning as written above, politics, politicization and even religionization are then irrelevant if they are not connected with one other. If we look at science of humanity, it is the study of connections. For instance, if you want to know how people though during the 16th and 17th centuries, just look in the arts in writing, painting and what's behind the composing of music. But we don't see this when it comes to a history. It is about, let us say 'everything' that belongs to a history. If we go back to the ancient times, we see that the Philistines, the Amalekites, the Canaanites, the people of Moses, the Hebrews (= Abrahamic people) also don't have a historical continiuty as the history of urbanization did not begin with them. They all have their predecessors too. These predecessors are the early modern humans and they also came from elsewhere as the map below shows . So, you simply can't say that archaeological and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites. They didn't as they appear to become to exist via extensively mixing between Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Anatolians. Another strong indication that Israelis don't have any historical continuity. |
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
LEBENSRAUM
Let us repeat this question: what is history? The abstract meaning is scientific study of the past. In a more broader sense, it is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. However, "umbrella term" is confusing because it is the presentation of a totality as a whole, so encompassing everything that belongs to that totality. But, if you want everything that belongs to the totality in an arrangement, laying out the exact order in which everything became to exist, you need to speak in terms of chronology, whereby politics, politicization and even religionization are irrelevant. "Everything" means here any link belonging to an endless chain. And, every link belongs to one other, is part of one other and is associated to one other even when a link is related to a link ahead of it or way back from it. Because, that particular link can't exist if it is not 'sprouted' from a previous link who also needs to 'sprout' from another link. That's what a chronology is. Only an untouched chronology of events presents the truth, not the politicization and religionization by snippet practices. Each link presents or represents an event, a happening, an occurrence. In first instance, they look different from each other as they may be about different issues in different situations like one is about religion while the next one is about war. But, are they really that different? For instance, "lebensraum" is the naming for a territory which a group, state, or nation believes it is needed for its survival. The term is best known in the context of Nazism were it was based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén's geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel's human-geography term. The Nazis established "lebensraum" as the racist rationale of their foreign policy by which they began the Second World War. They needed Eastern Europe to fulfill that idea, which was introduced on September 1, 1939. This absurd idea isn't new as a similar development occurred seven decades earlier but in the context of 'religionization' of politicized ideas. The resurfacing of Zionism in 1897 was also about establishing of such territory as Theodor Herzl (see image original cover of the book The Jewish State) proclaimed that Jews have the right to have their own land. At that time, Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire. So, on May 15, 1901 Herzl went to sultan Abdul Hamid to ask for autonomy of Palestine. The sultan denied. Herzl then went to the British who had a powerful influence in that region. But they offered Herzl Uganda. Herzl rejected that offer. On August 25,1933 German Zionists reached and signed an agreement the Nazis. It is known as the Haavara Agreement. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine possible between 1933–1939. It is clear that the Zionists were already looking before the Nazis came to that idea ..... 'lebensraum'.
|
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
JUST ANOTHER CONTINUATION
Let us begin with this quote
We reject the content in the quotation. As people, Jews are not originated from the Israelite tribe. "Jews" is the name the people carry to present themselves as belonging to a belief. This belief, Judaism is an offshoot from ttribal beliefs as the map on the left shows that there where no Jews at the time of the map. In other words: 'Jews' is not a race. So is 'Jewish' as that is a reference in terms of relating to, associated with, or denoting. We also know that the Israelites were not the indigenous people of Canaan just like the Philistines. The Israelites arrived in Canaan when the Philistines were already there. But, there's a similar development more into the direction of the Modern Ages as we notice that the Israelis are also not indigenous people. Israelis can only claim being indigenous if their entire ancestry directly leads to the very first Jews. That is not the case. Nor does their ancestries directly lead to the Jews who fled the Roman controlled Palestine. As people, the Israelis descend from European Jewish migrants who have resorted themselves in the politicization of religionized ideas, abandoning themselves from pure religion. How did this happen? In the 16th and 17th centuries a number of “messiahs” came forward trying to persuade Jews to “return” to Palestine. The Haskala (“Jewish Enlightenment”) movement of the late 18th century urged Jews to assimilate into Western secular society. Today's equivalent to assimilate in the Western secular society (see table) is by penetration into vital resources the public opinion rely on, such as politics, news, social media, education. An example is this: In August 2010, we have find out that entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on the Jewish issue were constantly altered by by the Zionist group "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" (CAMERA). So, we do no longer rely on Wikipedia. In the early 19th century interest in a return of the Jews to Palestine was kept alive mostly by Christian millenarians, not by the Hungarian born Theodor Herzl. In 1905, there was a wave of pogroms and repressions in Russia after the failure of the revolution. Thousands of Russian Jewish youth were incited by the Ḥovevei Ẕiyyon (“Lovers of Zion”), led by Austrians and Germans, to migrate to Palestine. It was the first assimilation campaign in the 20th century from outside Palestine. These historical events not only prove that the roots of the ancestors of the ancestors of the Israelis, is in Eastern Europe. Israelis from 1947 to present are no other then those who also have their roots in Europe and therefre not to be considered as "indigenous people".
|
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
ISLAM: ROOTS & BIRTH
There's a story about the birth of Islam that goes like this: The Prophet Mohammed had an uncle who was a trader. His uncle traveled often to the region what is now Palestine. As a young boy, Mohammed often joined hm. In the region, that might issue the era when it was under Roman control, Mohammed saw a lot of things he didn't understand. Well, his uncle does. On one of his uncle's trip, Mohammed saw women who were fully covered. He wanted to know why the women where dressed that way. The story about this issue but explained in the Koran, known as from Mohammed's uncle, comes actually from a story that is known in the Old Testimony: A story about an orgy appears to include a detail about women who where scarcely dress and drunk. When God saw, He told Moses -in Islam he's named Musa- that the women should cover themselves. The (conservative) Jewish interpretation is that women shouldn't wear men's clothes, and that men shouldn't wear women's clothes. The (conservative) Muslim interpretation is that women should cover their head (Iran) or even from top to toe (Saudi Arabia). These are misinterpretations as God only said to Musa (Moses) that women should cover themselves. He didn't told Musa that women should wear a burka, a hijab or a headscarf. Mohammed also saw groups of people visiting buildings he had noticed. He wanted to know from his uncle what these buildings are and what the people he saw were doing there. They are temples to pray, his uncle explained. The mosque (and the church) has its roots here. And so collected Mohammed his experiences he later wrote in a manuscript. When Mohammed returned to Mecca, he began to share his experiences. But somehow his speeches turned into prophecy. The religion of Islam was born. And, there were religions born, there's also disagreements, differences in view, bringing opponents to the idea to begin their own enunciations, which often didn't went peacefully. Because, Mohammed fought four wars and lost the last one. However, an important detail has never been cleared: There's a story about a caliph who killed Prophet Mohammed. To our understanding it must be an caliph who ruled the region what is now Iraq and Iran as Mohammed's last war was fought there. The caliph became aware that Mohammed's knowledge would disappear if no one preserves it. So he send couriers and soldiers out into his newly seized land to record witness experiences from those who were in whatever way with Mohammed. The caliph also became aware that there were 4 pages from Mohammed's manuscript left. They were in the possession of one of Mohammed's wives. The caliph send a representative to the woman to ask if she would lend the remaining pages with the promise that they will be returned. Then, the caliph called his scientists to ask them to write a manuscript based on these four pages but must contain the caliph's views. These views also includes the way he wants to rule and to punish. They should burn these 4 pages when they have completed their writing. That manuscript is the real first Koran. This ancient legend indicates that the roots of birth of Islam, so not the birth, appears to be the region what is today's Palestine but Mecca remains the place were Mohammed's lectures turned into prophecy, to many seen as the birth of Islam. But, in Britannica you will find this: "Muhammad is the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān, Islam's sacred scripture. He spent his entire life in what is now the country of Saudi Arabia, from his birth about 570 CE in Mecca to his death in 632 in Medina." Nevertheless, the belief of the Muslims can be considered as Semitic because of the roots of Islam's birth. ------------- photo 1. Mohammed's early life photo 2. Mohammed in the Battle Of Badr photo 3 & 4. Earliest mosque found in Tiberias
|
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
THE CLAIM OF JERUSALEM
Speaking about tablets. This map in the French language shows you the situation during the Egyptian Amarna period.
The Amarna Letters are a group of around 400 clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform (“wedge-shaped”) Akkadian writing that date to the fourteenth century B.C. and were found at the site of Tell el-Amarna, the short-lived capital of ancient Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten (ca. 1353–1336 B.C.). Most of these letters come from vassal cities in Syria-Palestine, including Byblos, Tyre, Gezer, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), Ashkelon, Megiddo, and Jerusalem. The letters from Jerusalem (written as “Urusalim” in the Amarna texts) are from a Canaanite ruler named Abdi-Heba. In multiple letters Abdi-Heba states that he “falls at the feet of my lord the king, seven times and seven times,” a stock phrase and common ancient Near Eastern motif that conveys his faithfulness to his Egyptian suzerain. He also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king.” This is a clear indication that he wasn't the heir to the throne as it was given by the Egyptian king himself. But, Abdi-Heba is a theophoric name invoking a Hurrian goddess named Hebat, implying that the Jebusites were Hurrians themselves, were heavily influenced by Hurrian culture, or were dominated by a Hurrian maryannu class. The letters come a few centuries before King David would ostensibly vanquish the Jebusite tribe of the place, which carried the name of this tribe, and make it his own capital. So, to our understanding, Abdi-Heba appears to be from Hurrian descend. He led, however, the Jebusite tribe, whom roots is unclear. According to Edward Lipinski, professor of Oriental and Slavonic studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, the Jebusites were most likely from the Amorite tribe (see map) who are ancient Semitic-speaking people who dominated the history of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine from about 2000 to about 1600 BC. Lipinski identified the Jebusites with the group referred to as Yabusi'um in a cuneiform letter found in the archive of Mari, Syria. However, most Biblical scholars hold the opinion that the Jebusites were identical to the Hittite tribe, originally Indo-European who entered the area better known as Anatolia, in Turkey and from there into Upper Mesopotamua.. This indicates that the Jebusite tribe are also not the indigenous people of Jerusalem nor of Canaan just like the Israelites. They are at least the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem, and named after Jebus the strongest fortress in Canaan. It is very clear that Jerusalem became Jewish by means of King David. So, it is completely false to claim that Jerusalem is Jewish. The fact is that Jerusalem became Jewish and after King David's desire was bloodily fulfilled. That is a much different story. During the Medieval Ages, Christianity, an offshoot of Judaism, returned back to Palestine and reached Jerusalem in a similar way: also by wars but by Crusaders to drive out the Muslim rulers. But, the city returned under Muslim ruling centuries later: by the Ottomans. If we would continue to speak in a religious way, we then would reflect: God didn't make Jerusalem Jewish. Warriors did. And, if we translate to the year:
It is important to mention that the name 'Israel' and its adjectives 'Israelis' and 'Israeli'' are misleading as the Israelis lets you believe that theirs is from 'Israelites'. Israelites were a nomadic tribal people. 'Israelis' is adjective the East European Jewish migrants have given to themselves in 1948. They enforced international recognition of that naming after having assassinated the Swedish UN diplomat, Folke Bernadotte in that year.
THE TEMPLE CLAIM Let us begin with some referals: 1 Chronicles 17:1 issues the covenant King David had with God and reads:
1 Chronicles 17:2 also concerns the covenant King David had with God and reads:
But, God said to Nathan, the prophet “Go and tell my servant (King) David, that he's not the one to build me a house to dwell in.”. The words "to build me a house to dwell in” refers to a temple King David wanted to build. David was not allowed to build because of the bloodshed he created during his siege to take Jerusalem from the Jebusites. His son, King Solomon was allowed to build. His temple was record as completed in 957 BCE*. Also, the biblical story continues to tell that King David only collected the material needed to build. That means he didn't build the temple. So, were does the pictured claim come from? Comment on 1 Chronicles 17:2: the use of the word "replied" keeps the reader in the darkness as the used word forces to ask how did he replied: by saying or by writing?
RECAP It is widely accepted that the Jebusites were the first who inhabited the hills of what is later named Jerusalem. The record about the existence of a fortress carrying the name Jebus; described as the strongest in Canaan; to whom the tribe owes its name, supports the acceptance. The 'general'accepted finding actually means that the ground is Jesubite, not Jewish. The story tells about how King David's city was build: "upon the ruins" but not by himself as he wasn't allowed to build. It was his son Solomon who build. Nevertheless, it means that the city but only encompassing the buildings, not the ground upon they are build, can be described as by King Solomon, the son of King David. The biblical situation reminds us to the Al Aqsa compound which groundplan is declared by an UN resolution, whereby underneath the compound is considered as Jewish, everything above is Palestinian. But this resolution ignores the fact that the Israeli claim is about a temple build on the grounds which where the habitat of the Jesubites. We also know that there is disagreement in view about the roots of the Jebusites: from the Amorite tribe from Northern Syria, then a part of Mesopotamia' to identical to the Hittite tribe in today's Turkey. It means at least that the Jebusites were not indigenous to Canaan. The Israelites were a nomadic tribe who entered the Amelekite habitat in what is now the Negev desert. The Israelites were driven from the habitat and into northern regions. They were also not indigenous to Canaan. The first temple was planned to build after King David started a bloody onslaught to drive the Jebusites from the Jerusalem hills, destroyed the city that was build by the Jesubite tribe, then build his own one upon the ruins city and then came to the idea to build, not a temple but a temple of his own. However, in the Bible is to read that David wasn't allowed by God to build a temple because of his bloody onslaught. So, he didn't build the temple himself. His son King Solomon was allowed to build a temple. A third temple was never build. If we could draw an conclusion, it would be: None of the mentioned group of people were and are not native to the location.That also means the Israelis can not claim the ground as theirs. ------------------ Used sources: Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC; Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium; Britannica; Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art of The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York; Religion Wikia; Biblia by Faithlife; Jewish Virtual Library; *) Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE) are abbreviations used by the Jewish for the reason, what they claim, "to avoid religious partiality". But, the Jewish religion is partial. First, because of their own god. YHWH, which is not the god of the Israelites (Britannica) as they had a tribal belief of multigodization, Second, their belief stops there were the New Testimony begins.
|
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
ABOUT THE FIRST (BIBLE) PEOPLE
In our country the Netherlands, there's a body naming itself "Center for Information and Documentation Israel". It calls itself 'Jewish'. But, were does "Jewish" actually come from? Every 'truth' has a beginning. But not everybody starts from there. The problem is that even the Israelis do not know were the Israelites really came from. Becoming Jewish and being always Jewish are two different stories. And so is the issue about the modern-day Israelis. All of them became Israelis ... in 1948. So, were does this all come from? Like it is said, even here the 'truth' has a begin not everybody starts with. The history of Palestine is the study of the past in the region of Palestine, defined as the territory. The name "Palestine" originally comes from “Philistia,” which refers to the Philistines, and first appeared in the 12th century BC when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria with that name. Philistines are believed to be people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine. They were at least there when the Israelites arrived (see map on the left). The Philistines are not indigenous to Canaan. However, there's not much clearness about Canaanites either. In the Book of Genesis, the Philistines are said to descend from the Casluhites, an Egyptian people. Modern-day scientists appear to have differences in view: from 'Arab descend', Egyptian, and recently even claimed as 'from Greece'. It gives at least the idea that today's Palestinians may not related to the Philistine people, noted that these ancient people have disappeared. But, the Israelites are also not indigenous people. How did this happen? Again this question: who started to live on these hills of Jerusalem? As already said, scholars believe the first human settlements took place during the Early Bronze Age—somewhere around 3500 B.C. That is at least a strong indication that Jerusalem became Jewish much and much later. According to (Jewish) scholars, in the Canaanite period (14th century BCE), Jerusalem was named by Egyptians "Urusalim", probably meaning "City of Shalem", after a Canaanite deity. A strong indication that Jerusalem still wasn't Jewish. Then, Israelites were nomadic people who practiced tribal multi-godization and who arrived in the Amalekite's tribal habitat in what is now the Negev desert, and after the Philistines settled along the southern coast of Canaan, now the Gaza Strip. But the Amalekites drove the Israelites into north. This small detail is not told by Jews nor by Christians but those close aligned to Jews. The historical scientific explanation doesn't align with the this: There were two groups of people who entered Canaan. The first group are written as those freed from slavery and were led by Moses (in Islam, Musa). The other group are written as those who migrated and were led by Abraham (in Islam: Ibrahim). Now from a religious point of view this question: Who did already live in the area, noting that the two groups had to arrive, one from ancient Egypt and the other group from Ur in Mesopotamia. That brings us to the phrase "promised land", which is also adjective as it is written as a referral to Abraham (Ibrahim) who is described as a prophet. But, it is also a referral to Moses (Musa).
So, God made a promise two times and to two different people? But, notice what is to read in the referral to Abraham as "nations' and 'kings' are plural, which reads as references to today's 'countries' and 'leaders' and that is exactly how the world still is today. Stories like those of Moses and Abraham are written in a particular age were the world was different, were the people were different, and were the way of thinking was different. So, the way things in the Old Testimony has been written had to be read the way it was meant to be read .... as from that time. The more people get evolved, the more their way of thinking modernizes, the greater their distance from an originality or roots. For instance:
The initial story may be something we would like to reflect this way: Once , there was one world, one people to whom God have given one language, one thinking, so the unity of One . But, the people have asked God for more. God asked the people what they would like to have more. The people wanted knowledge. God gave the ability and the skills to learn. Then, people asked for their own kingdom. God gave them a kingdom. Still, the people were not satisfied as they wanted more than the kingdom they've had. They wanted the same place were God is. So, they started to build. When God saw, he warned the people. The people didn't listen and continue to build. God warned the people again. Still, the people refused to listen. When the people reached God's place, they were punished as God took everything they have away. The world, once one, is shattered into pieces and so the unity of one people now spread over all these shattered pieces. If we materialize both NIV version and our own reflection, "shattered pieces" refers to the state our planet was at the beginning of the prehistoric ages: One continental shelve broke in pieces (in modern times known as tectonic plates), which floated away from one other to become the continents we still know today. The phrase "who would make you into nations" from the referral about Abraham refers to the first inhabitants on these 'pieces' So, we see a link between the 'Tower of Babel' and the story of Abraham because of this question: were the stories written to mean something other than religion? The answer? You have to think outside the modern-day box to realize that is a way of documenting that part of history.
'GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE' & 'PROMISED LAND'
Throughout history, various groups of people have considered themselves to be the chosen people. The phenomenon of a "god's chosen people" is centuries old. There is no conclusive information that tells us how exactly people thought at the time when they started to record events we can read in religious books, whether it is the bible or the Koran. We only know what was written but only after and from interpretation, reinterpretation to modernization of reinterpretation. The basis of all this is what it is known from times centuries after Christ and Mohammed. One of the four earliest known recording appears to be the Codex Sinaiticus, an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in uncial letters on parchment and dated paleographically to the mid-4th century after CE*. Other codex are the Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE*) and the Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 CE*). The authors could only have written if there were sources. These sources are inscriptions on (clay) tablets as they were the medium before parchment became in use. It is even not known who the authors (name of the engravers) of the inscriptions on tablets where. Another example are the Dead Sea scrolls which in 1947 were found in a cave, not caves near Khirbet Qumran in the West Bank. The Israelis only mention that the scrolls are in Hebrew while there are also scrolls found written in Aramaic and in Greek, which partially answers the question who wrote them, namely authors from three different groups of people. Like the found remaining pieces of tablets, it is about pieces or fragments from ancient documents. So, each found ancient documents misses parts of handwritings, which makes it impossible to learn the exact meaning of the content on each document even when you use the most advanced technology like artificial intelligence. The first people who started to record did the same as what we do in modern times, namely quoting and referring to who- or whatever a record might have been come from, like this example which we have used before:
Genesis is not a person as it means "In the beginning" and is the title of, what is called a book. That book does not have the age of the biblical events as it is written when "In the beginning" already had taken place. Nobody knows to what time "In the Beginning" really refers to unless we put it in the context of the evolution of our planet (see image on the right). We also would like to remind the reader that "nations and who would be kings" are plural, which suggest that 'nations' is symbolic for world, because you don't read 'land' in the referral to Abraham. So, if Genesis is only the name of a title, then who wrote it, when was written and on what was it originally written? ---------------------- Used sources: Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC; Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium; Britannica; Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art of The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York; Religion Wikia; Biblia by Faithlife; Jewish Virtual Library;
|
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
ALL FROM THE SAME ROOTS
After driven into the north, the Israelites ended up in King David's territory, now the most northern part that borders with Lebanon. But, the king didn't want them either. So, the Israelites were driven out again but from David's kingdom into the direction of the hills of Jerusalem were the driven Israelites themselves also drove a tribe but from one of the hills. That hill would feature in two 19th century ideologies. But only those of Theodor Herzl is written about the most. That is misleading. But, who started to live on these hills of Jerusalem before whoever was driven out? Scholars believe the first human settlements took place during the Early Bronze Age—somewhere around 3500 B.C. That is at least a strong indication that Jerusalem became Jewish much and much later. In the Canaanite period (14th century BCE), Jerusalem was named as Urusalim on ancient Egyptian tablets, probably meaning "City of Shalem" after a Canaanite deity. A strong indication that Jerusalem still wasn't Jewish. That brings us to the key question: is Judaism an offshoot from another belief? Yes. because it arose from the Canaanite multi-gods belief. Moreover, the early period of the Hebrew religion -it wasn't named Judaism- had still all the elements of the Canaanite multi-godization. Then we have Christianity which is rooted in Second Temple Judaism thus an offshoot from the Jewish. And so it looks that one after the other is rooted from one other. What do we miss here? Centuries long lack of awareness that it is about a chain, linking one belief to another belief all the way, yes, even to Islam! But, one does not belong here: erasure of the other .... by force, by falsehood, by politicization and most of all by religionization.
|
Important:
this page is not about history but about a view on a history.
THE BEGINNING
There are a lot of websites about the Palestinians and the Israelis. Most of them are driven by politics, politicization and even religionization. which threatens the visitor's attention away from that what should be all about: how did they all got into a situation that never seems to end. It is at least obvious that most of them avoid to begin were you should begin. Indeed, the beginning and that is not whatever temple nor the Al Aqsa mosque. History is often explained as "umbrella term". That is confusing because it is the presentation of a totality as a whole, so encompassing everything that belongs to that totality. If you want everything that belongs to the totality in an arrangement, laying out the exact order in which everything became to exist, you need to speak in terms of chronology, whereby politics, politicization and even religionization are irrelevant. "Everything" means here any link belonging to an endless chain. And, every link belongs to one other, is part of one other and is associated to one other even when a link is related to a link ahead of it or way back from it. Because, that particular link can't exist if it is not 'sprouted' from a previous link who also needs to 'sprout' from another link. Each link presents or represents an event, a happening, an occurrence. In first instance, they look different from each other as they may be about different issues in different situations like one is about religion while the next one is about war. But, how do they in first become to look different? There's an religious answer in sense of a story that the Flemish Golden Age painter Pieter Breughel the elder visualized in two versions. One version is to see in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The other version is in Vienna, Austria. The story? Here's our reflection: Once , there was one world, one people to whom God have given one language, one thinking, so the unity of One . But, the people have asked God for more. God asked the people what they would like to have more. The people wanted knowledge. God gave the ability and the skills to learn. Then, people asked for their own kingdom. God gave them a kingdom. Still, the people were not satisfied as they wanted more than the kingdom they've had. They wanted the same place were God is. So, they started to build. When God saw, he warned the people. The people didn't listen and continue to build. God warned the people again. Still, the people refused to listen. When the people nearly reached God's place, they were punished as God took everything they have away. The world, once one, is shattered into pieces and so the unity of one people now spread over all these shattered pieces.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
The definition of 'terror' is extreme fear. 'ism' at the end of the word 'terror' is a suffix to indicate that 'terror' represents acts and activities related to causing extreme fear, while 'terrorizing' is the act with the aim to cause extreme fear. The word 'terrorism' refers to methodologies on which the use of terror is based. Anyone who resort in acts and activities with the intention to cause extreme fear, that person is a terrorist. But, when two or more people form, or people join the forming of a group with the intention to cause extreme fear, they are members of a terror group, not a terrorist group as that is a undefined political pleonasm. Here is why: The aforementioned does not explain what kind of terrorist they are. Because terror-ist, so someone who spreads extreme fear, may also refer to a tyrant, an dictator, an autocrat even the military that has taken over an civilian ruling like in Myanmar. Again, "terrorists" is a popularized collective name that is even used on social media against anyone who post content that is pro-Palestinian. This kind of brandishing have been since the speech by US President George W. Bush from September 20, 2001 when he introduced 'war on terror'. Canada, the European Union, Israelis, Japan and the United States have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. Australia, New Zealand, Paraguay and the United Kingdom have designated only its military wing as a terrorist organization (as of 2021). It is not considered a terrorist organization by Brazil, China, Egypt, Iran, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Syria and Turkey. In December 2018, the United Nations General Assembly rejected a U.S. resolution condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. The question rises when is it correct to label Hamas as an armed terror organization?
Hamas is not residing in the Israeli occupied territory, is that territory was never consecutive and historically Israeli. The Israelis do not live in time of peace as they never have lifted the their self-declared stage of war since 1967. That is why the United Nations still considers the Israelis as war belligerent. So, labeling Hamas as a "terrorist organization" is purely based on Zionized politics, not with criteria as written above. According to Law Of Belligerent Occupation, occupation means a situation when, in during an international armed conflict, a territory, or parts thereof, comes under the effective provisional control of a foreign power. The latter brings us to Article 51 in the UN Charter:
Gaza is not a country. It is part of the occupied State Of Palestine. We can at least say that the occupation of Gaza have never ended despite the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. This brings us back to the Law Of Belligerent Occupation that provides occupied people the right to form armed groups to resist occupation. Hamas is in this regard an resistance group, not an "terrorist group." The adamant stubbornness the Israelis always have been showing, that Hamas is a "terrorist organization" is to protect a long lived desire that their ancestors, the European migrants, brought into British Mandatory Palestine but introduced in Basel, Switzerland in 1897: Zionism. Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions stipulates the provision of the right of self-determination when people are under foreign and colonial rule. The Israelis are descendants of European Zionist migrants, and currently a people from around the world. They all are not autochthonous to the region thus frankly foreigners. The foreigners in the West Bank, actually in the whole of the occupied State Of Palestine, are of the same definition as those from Britain, France and the Netherlands when they went to the American continent more than 400 years ago to take the land of the indigenous people. Lots of wars were waged to remove these people there where the Europeans wanted to settle. That's how the United States and Canada came to exist. It is also the way how European Zionist migrants created theirs. Members of the Hamas have the full right to resist the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the annexation of the West Bank. If they take and use that right, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of articles 43 & 44 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments. |
No one is aware, many even don't know, that there is not one Palestinian problem but two. Both have a totally different story as the widely known Palestinian problem started with the partition of the remaining Ottoman Empire by France and Britain in 1916. The two countries stood also at the beginning of the Gaza problem that began with loosing the control over the Suez Canal after the then-president of Egypt had nationalized the French-British Suez company. The French and the British wanted the canal back but were eager to start a war with Egypt. They asked the Israelis for help who attacked Egypt in 1956 by seizing Gaza to occupy it until 2005. There were 21 settlements in Gaza under the occupier's administration of the Hof Aza Regional Council. The land was allocated in such a way that each Israeli settler disposed of 400 times the land available to the Palestinian refugees, and 20 times the volume of water allowed to the peasant farmers of Gaza. The first settlement was Kfar Darom, which was originally established in 1947, and reformed in 1970. In 1987, several Palestinians were killed by an Israeli truck driver. The attack, not an accident as altered by CAMERA in WIkipedia, triggered the First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli West Bank and Gaza occupation. led Yassin and six other Palestinians to found Hamas. The way the Israelis crushed the Intifada prompted Hamas to emerged. In fact, Hamas is created by the Israelis this way. In 2003, Ariel Sharon proposed the withdrawal from Gaza in the wake of a peace agreement between the Israelis and Egypt. That agreement have led to the dismantling of settlements in the Sinai.. Sharon's proposal came into effect in 2005 with the dismantling of the 21 settlements. The dismantling didn't take place without resistance by settlers. In 2006, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and assumed administrative control of Gaza Strip and West Bank. In response, Egypt and the Israelis blockade Gaza by closing the land borders, preventing air traffic from and to Gaza and by stopping all maritime traffic into the territorial waters of Gaza. |
WHAT IS SEMITISM?
Semitism is the fact or quality of being a Semitic person, not being part of a specific group of people. A Semitic person is someone who is born, started and continue to build a life in the region, and never have left the region that charisterizes by its language, tradition, and culture as Semitic. Such a person is not from a colonist, migrant or settler. People who leave or have left the region permanently will loose or have lost what is called historical continuity as they went to build a new historical continuity elsewhere in the world. The first of such migration was during the Roman invasion of ancient Palestine when Jews fled to Central and Eastern Europe via Spain and France where they build a new continuity to become European Jews, no longer Semitic Jews. Based on this historical fact, there is no Antisemitism, and no one canbe accused of being a antisemitist.
WHAT IS ANTIZIONISM? "Zionism" is not that, what on Wikipedia is altered by CAMERA.Org. into "a movement for (orginally) the re-establishment, and (now) the development and the protection of a "Jewish state." The name "Zionism" belongs to poltical deliberation and advocacy leading to a manifest as a response by the Hungarian Jew, Theodor Herzl to the first pogrom that was in Russia and Ukraine at the end of the 19th century. No one can be accused of being a anti-Zionist because the issue is about criticizism against a political idea or ideology, not against am religion.
|
pdf=http://pares.glosm.eu/pdf/GLOSM-PARES - 2015 - IsraelI Nuclear Program, The first Militarization Of Nuclear Energy In The Middle East|500|300|native