Talk:Palestine/Archive 2
|
|
Talk:Palestine Archive 2
The last part of the article is a paper from somewhere else. What about copyright? --css
I think it is in the public domain, it has an author statement, representing who wrote it is the very last part or the long article 10 years??
Joseph
Unless it is very old (i.e. at the very least, over fifty years) or the author explicitly states it is in the public domain, it is copyrighted. Now if it has references to things in the 1980s, the copyright certaintly hasn't expired, so it is copyrighted unless the author puts it in the public domain. So unless you have a statement from the author saying they put it in the public domain, or saying that it can be distributed under the terms of GNU FDL, I am afraid we are going to have to remove it. -- Simon J Kissane
- Describing the "ancient decline of Jewish population of Palestine" with only passing references to the Babylonian and Roman conquests is like describing the "creation of Palestinian refugees in 1948" with only passing references to the Israeli military. Furthermore, someone reading the above section would think that Jews considered their ancient homeland insignificant between, say, the years 200 and 1900; in reality, references to "Eretz Yisrael" and its importance pervade classical Jewish legal and liturgical writing.
Maybe the changes I have just made make it better. However, while certaintly the Babylonian and Roman conquests was part of the cause, I think its role is often overestimated. Many of those in the ancient Diasporas had ample opportunity to return to Israel, but didn't -- because they didn't want. Many of those deported by the Babylonians, but were given the chance to return (at the end of the Exile), but didn't want. For the same reason as many American Jews today can emigrate to Israel -- the Israeli government even goes to enormous lengths to encourage them to do so -- but they don't. Why? Because they are happy where they are. And in the same way, yes deportation is a factor in the decline of the Jewish population -- but another, often ignored, reason for the decline is that many Jews preferred to live in the Diaspora to Israel. It was also for that reason that many of them voluntarily emigrated as well. -- Simon J Kissane
On a new topic near and dear to my heart - nomenclature and etymology: no one has explained the etymology of the odd term Palestine and its relation to Philistine. I don't know enough to write the paragraph. I'd like to know the history of the LOCAL use of the term. Was it continuous, or revived under the colonialist influence? --MichaelTinkler
R.K. -- Please try to avoid including statements which reflect only one sides point of view, be it the Palestinian or the Israeli side, unless it is clearly identified whose point of view it reflects. The article should not give the impression of supporting either side of the conflict. The original article was rather pro-Palestinian, yes, but the solution to that is not what you have done, which is try to make it pro-Israeli. The solution is to create an article which both sides could agree on. -- Simon J Kissane
There is almost no similarity at all? Rubbish. They both use the Torah, although in different versions; and many Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the Samaritan Pentateuch contains some older textual variants closer to the original than the Massoretic text. In particular, it often agrees with the LXX or the Qumran texts against the Massoretic.
The idea that all Jews follow the oral law is just plain historically incorrect. The oral law represents only one sect within 1st century and earlier Judaism, the Pharisees. The Saducees and the Essenes, which were just as Jewish as the Pharisees, either rejected the oral law or had different versions of it. Now it is true that the Pharisees were eventually triumphant, but having the Rabbinical oral law is not a essential part of the definition of Judaism, historically considered. Many scholars (both Christian scholars and liberal Jewish scholars) doubt that the oral law originated at Sinai, as the Rabbis claim, but that it was rather developed by the Pharisees, who then projected it back in time in justification.
And there are still Jews today who don't follow the oral law; the Karaites. Claiming the Karaites to be a separate religion from Judaism because they reject the Rabbinical Jewish traditions is like claiming Protestantism to be a separate religion from Christianity because they reject the traditions of the Catholics.
And as to the Samaritans practicing animal sacrifice -- Jews once practiced animal sacrifice as well. In later Judaism they only did it at the Temple, and since then they have stopped it completely; but in early Judaism there is evidence that it was a lot more wide spread. So the fact that Samaritans practice animal sacrifice does not show they are not a branch of Judaism, in the same way as the fact that ancient Jews practiced animal sacrifice does not show they are not a branch of Judaism. And I find your suggestion that I am a liar or an anti-Semite highly offensive. I think that sort of name-calling is beneath deserving a response. -- Simon J Kissane
- Yes, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, and not support one viewpoint or the other. Your statement It is clear that an anti-semitic person is blatantly lying about Jews in this entry as part of a Palestinian effort to disconnect Jews from the land of Israel. is totally uncalled for, and is offensive on so many levels that I do not even know where to begin. Simon has backed up his claim with relevant facts and arguments, and I warmly invite you to do the same, and maybe we can develop an article which presents a balanced viewpoint of both sides of the argument. But keep your racist invective to yourself. Anyone with an anti-anyone viewpoint is not welcome here, this applies equally to anti-semites, anti-westerners, anti-islamic, etc. -- ManningBartlett
Simon has received unwarranted criticism. However, on a histroical point I disagree with his position about the Samaritans and Judaism. Simon writes "There is almost no similarity at all? Rubbish. They both use the Torah, although in different versions"
RK (me) writes: I fully agree; however, so do Mormons, Protestant and Catholics. Yet these religions have little in common with Judaism.
- Yes, but Mormons, Protestants and Catholics add radically non-Jewish elements to their theology -- the trinity, the incarnation, salvation by grace, the vicarious atonement. And Mormons believe in three Gods, and believe that at least two of these Gods have a body, and at one stage at least (they seem to be moving away from some of their more unusual beliefs, so maybe not so much anymore) they believed that humans could become gods, and rule over other planets, and that God lived physically on another planet, and some of them even taught that Adam was God. These are all radically non-Jewish beliefs. Samaritans, though they may differ in some of their ritual and legal practices, have a theology much closer to Judaism.
- As far as I'm aware, the Samaritans are mostly in agrement with the 13 points of Rambam; something which cannot be said for (-- Simon J Kissane
Simon writes The idea that all Jews follow the oral law is just plain historically incorrect." RK writes: I disagree with this claim. With the exception of two tiny Karaite towns, 99% of the religious Jews in the world see Judaism via the oral law. (I am leaving out those people of Jewish descent who have no religion, or who have converted to another faith.) It is true that 2000 to 3000 years ago were there Israelites who felt otherwise, yet these groups no longer exist. Today even Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, the most liberal branches, still accept the Mishnah and Talmud as authoritative to some degree, even if not in a binding sense. RK
- Do you deny Karaites are Jews? Do you deny that the ancient Saduccees and Essenes were Jews? Unless you deny they are Jews, it follows that the oral law is not a neccessary part of the definition of Judaism, and that historically (and today as well) not all Jews have followed the oral law. Now, yes, almost all Jews today follow the oral law; but that is not because the oral law is a necessary part of Judaism, rather it is because those Jewish sects which supported the oral law won over those sects which did not have it. -- Simon J Kissane
Simon writes "Many scholars (both Christian scholars and liberal Jewish scholars) doubt that the oral law originated at Sinai,..."
- I also doubt this claim; it is definately an exagerration. RK
Definitely an exagerration? The Rabbis taught that the oral law was given in its whole by Moses at Sinai. Many scholars (certaintly almost all Christian scholars, and some Jewish scholars as well) would argue that the oral law was mostly developed by the Pharisee sect of Judaism over several centuries after the return from the Babylonian exile (long after Moses), and that little or none of it derives from Moses. -- SJK
- Yet no matter where the oral law originated, it is the lens through which Jews views the Bible. That is what makes their religion different from the other religions based on the Bible. When one replaces the oral law with other books, such as the New Testament, you get a different religion (Christianity.) When one replaces the oral law with other books, such as the Samaritan Chronicles and law codes, you get a different religion (Samaratanism), etc. Of course Judaism, Christianity and Samaratanism all have the same basic books as their core, but they all go off in different directions with them, and thus are different religions. RK
But Christianity is much further from Judaism than Samaritanism. Christianity claims that God came to earth in the form of a man to die in order to save the world. The basics of Christian theology are radically different from those of Judaism. But the basics of Samaritan theology are pretty close to Judaism. Karaism also goes off in different directions from the Tanach, as did many ancient forms of Judaism, but they are still Judaism. -- SJK
Simon correctly notes that "As to the Samaritans practicing animal sacrifice -- Jews once practiced animal sacrifice as well." That is true. But Jews do not sacrifice animals, and have not done so for 2000 years. They also do not stone adulterers to death, nor do they follow any of the laws relating to the Temple. Why? The religion known as rabbinic Judaism is not synonymous with ancient Hebrew practices; it is only one evolutionary outgrowth of them. Jews - myself included - believe that this evolutionary path is the correct path for us to have followed. Other peoples have taken different paths. Christians developed different interpretations and scriptures than Jews, and so did Samaritans and Muslims. They of course believe that this is the correct path for them to have followed. C'est la'histoire. But why the need to identify any two or more of them as really still being the same religion? RK
- I am sure you must be aware that some Jews want to rebuild the Temple and restart animal sacrifices. Of course that is very unlikely to happen; but supposing it did -- would these Jews cease to be followers of Judaism? No. Then there is nothing incompatible with Judaism and following all the laws relating to the Temple. Isn't it true, in fact, that Rabbinic Judaism teaches that with the coming of the Messiah, that the Temple will be rebuilt and Temple sacrifices will start again? How can sacrifices be incompatible with Judaism, if a central hope of the Jewish religion is that sacrifices will recomence? If sacrifices are incompatible with Judaism, then Judaism is a religion whose greatest hope is to be replaced with another religion. -- Simon J Kissane
- RK - I know absolutely nothing about the subject which is why I'm not debating. However, your article calmly takes what Simon said, issues challenges and supports your arguments. This is intelligent, well-reasoned and rational debate, and I find it a pleasure to read. Thank you - MB
Can someone explain something to me? What present-day political agenda does it serve to assert that Samaritanism is greatly divergent from Judaism? What present-day political agenda does it serve to assert that Samaritanism is not greatly divergent from Judaism?
- The PLO has been producing propaganda for years that the Samaritans are the "real" Jews, and that all the other Jews in the world - i.e. 99% of the Jewish people - are imposters; that they all are "only" recent descendent of European converts, who have taken on the mantle of ancient Judaism as part of a pro-Western and anti-Arab plot. The PLO, further, maintains that the Jewish people never lived in the land of Israel, and never built a Temple in Jerusalem. All archaeology that supports such a fact, therefore, is a hoax and lie, even the archaeology done by Chrisitians, and by moderate Arabs. (They teach all this in their public school system). Accroding to this view, much of Jewish history that is in Western encyclopaedias is a lie and hoax designed to hurt Palestinians. RK
- But I have never said that the Jews aren't real Jews. All I said was that the Samaritans and Jews are fundamentally the one religion. -- Simon J Kissane
On the other hand, I am not aware of any cause that has an ulterior motive to "assert" that Samaritanism, Christianity, Mormonism, or Islam is greatly divergent from Judaism. These are just historical and obvious facts. They simply are different religions.
- I see. Thank you. Since this is an issue of present-day dispute, I suggest we find a way to work this into a sub-article somewhere. --Branden
The entry says "Several of the Palestinians who originally reported the massacre have now say that the claims they made were false and an exagerration. Other Palestinians argue that it is these retractions that are false."
[Are the Arabs who have now retracted their claims non-existent? Wholesale rewriting of fact is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia entry. Palestinians schools and government offices also officially deny that the Holocaust took place? So what? In the interest of "balance" should we admit that the Holocaust might be a Jewish hoax? Look, some Arabs have now retracted their claims, and this indisputable fact is well documented. If Palestinians on this forum don't like this, that's too bad. But if they imply that these people don't exist, or that they didn't retract their claims, then they are engaging in antisemetic historical revisionism.]
- "these retractions that are false" is supposed to mean not that the retractions were never made, but that the content of the retractions was false. I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I'm merely stating what many Palestinians would say, to try to get rid of some of the bias. -- Simon J Kissane
Palestinians consider a far more accurate statement of the intention of the founders of Israel ... [Is it the position of this Encyclopaedia that Palestinians are telepaths? This entry should stick to history, and not mind-reading games. Would Palestinians like it if all quotes by Arab leaders were followed by quotes from people who telepathically guessed their "real" intentions? Let us stop the Jew-bashing games and get on with recorded _history_, not histrionics.]
- I am the person who wrote that, and I am not a Palestinian. I was trying to make the article more neutral (it reflects mainly the Israeli point of view), and I was incorporating some of the comments placed in the article originally by a Palestinian refugee, Joseph E. Saad, who edited it earlier. I am getting very sick and tired of being accused of "Jew-bashing games" or "anti-Semitic historical revisionism". As I said before, I find those sort of comments so patently offensive as to be beneath reply. Is it at all possible for you to discuss things without being abusive?
- You are just going to have to get used to the idea that this article is NOT going to support one side or the other, be it the Israeli side or the Palestinian side. Do you deny that a lot of Palestinians believe that was the real intention of the founders of Israel? Rightly or not, a lot of them do, and so we should state that they do so. Not say what was or wasn't the real intentions of Israel's founders, but just say what many people think those intentions were. See NeutralPointOfView if you can't get this concept. -- Simon J Kissane
On the date of British withdrawal the Jews declared the formation of the State of Israel. On the day Israel proclaimed its independence there were already 300,000 Palestinian refugees, and Zionist forces had occupied large chunks of territory designated for the proposed Arab state as well as parts of Jerusalem intended for international administration.
Israelis allege that the Arab refugees left their homes because Arab radio from surround nations ordered them to leave.
Outrageous historical revisionism. All Arab historians admit that this is real. This Encyclopaedia has been overrun by some fairly serious Jew-haters.
- As I said before, I am not a "fairly serious Jew-haters", you have absolutely no evidence that I am, and you are just being insulting and offensive. Do all Arab historians admit this is real? If they do so produce some evidence that they do. I was bracketing the statements as Israeli claims (which is a fact, they are Israeli claims) to try to make it less pro-Israel and more neutral. Maybe the way I choose to deal with the bias wasn't the most accurate; but it was the best I could do. If you can see a better way of including those facts without making the article either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian then do so. -- Simon J Kissane
They claim that Arab military commanders promised an immediate invasion of the nascent Jewish state that would kill all the Jews, and Arabs were ordered to leave to reduce casualties. Israelis claim that the Arabs were promised that victory would be quick, and that they would be able to return to their homes within a few weeks.
Talk continues at: Archive 3