Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Okay, Let's Forget The Bible

A good few of the people who comment here and are opposed to my outlook seem to get very upset over the issue of historical rights.

Besides not knowing the facts of the chronology, they automatically dismiss the Biblical account. This, despite the many recent archeological finds that consistently conform the outlines and, in many instances, the details, of the history as related in the Bible.

I am not sure whether it's a religious itch that gets them going, as if you must believe in God to believe in the Bible or whther, out of a desire to eliminate all connection between the Jews and out historical national homel; and, they have the need to negate the narrative out of an ideological position (as if the Arab narrative is also subjected to the same rigorous testing and doubt - which, of course, it isn't, but that's another story).

Anyway, I was on a trip yesterday with fellow workers and we were at Shiloh.

I took advantage to walk away from the Tel itself - too Biblical.

I have already displayed here photographs of the various basilica whose remains we have discovered. They are the churches constructed during the period of 350-600 CE more or less, the early Christian period in the Land of Israel. At Shiloh, we have three and they all came about because they knew that this was the iste of Shiloh.

So, I decided to show you a family crypt from the Second Temple period, probably the 1st century BCE or perhaps even a bit later.

The formation of the gravesite is exactly as found in other burial sites of the same period in the area. A cave within a cave, made up of places where the last remains were stored away as there wan't the custom of burying in the ground at that time.

This is the historical record. Jews lived at Shiloh centuries before the Arabs and you don't necessarily need the Bible.


Martijn Lauwens said...

Even if there were people living there 2000 years ago that identified themselves as being Jewish...
Even if these people are your direct ancestors, and the direct ancestors of all 21st century Israelis (or Jews), which i strongly doubt...
Even if all of this is described in the Bible (which is more like a fairytale to me, rather then a historical proof, but ok)...
Even if the Jews were the only 'native' people back then, which means they were alone and they were the only ones who ever lived in the area...

Even then, this does never justify
the current colonisation, land theft and oppression of other people in this area.

YMedad said...

You're right.

That's why when the Jews began returning in the 19th century out of nationalist aspirations rather than just religious motivation, they bought property.

It was only when Arabs killed, pillaged and raped did they realize that only an armed struggle, first defensive and later, offensive, would achieve staehood for Jews and assure continued Jewish existence in our homeland.

He who sows, reaps.

Suzanne Pomeranz said...

Besides what you said, Yisrael, most of the Arabs who reside here today came beginning in the late 19th/early 20th centuries BECAUSE the Jews were returning to our ancient homeland and they saw the economic benefits.

I am reminded of a verse from Zachariah (8:23, but read the whole chapter...):
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."'

Oh - but that's the Bible again - still, it "speaks volumes" don't you think?

Besides that, the upper tomb picture looks like at least two others I've seen, one on the Mt. of Olives (in the "Tomb of the Prophets") and inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre - ask any Orthodox Christian priest what it is, and he will say, "it's the tomb of Joseph of Araemethea" which would make it the tomb in which Jesus was laid... right place, right time period.

Martijn Lauwens said...

Suzanne, do you have any proof of Arabs coming to Palestine BECAUSE the Jews were returning AND they saw economic profits???

YMedad said...

This is a summary pf the opposing Arab line:

1- The attempt to transform legend into history by interpreting the Old Testament literally, and without validating those assumptions with historical or archeological evidence. Biblical legends and stories have been dealt with as if they were written history.

2- Separating the history of the tribes that embraced Judaism from the history of the tribes that lived in Palestine and nearby. This is an attempt to show that what is happening now is an extension of a history that goes back 3,000 years. These are attempts that have no relation with the objective history of Palestine. For example, the history of Palestine in the Iron Age is an extension of the history in the Bronze Age and so on, throughout the Greek, Roman and Islamic eras. Thus, Jewish history in Palestine is part of the heritage of the Palestinian people who have always been on this land.

3- Therefore, the attempts to distinguish the ancient Israelite era from eras coming before or after it appear feeble. According to our interpretation, the process of writing the history of Palestine through the Israelite era and what came before and after (2) has no justification. David’s Kingdom and, later, Solomon’s and the North and South Kingdoms (after Solomon's Kingdom was divided) were not distinct from other contemporary kingdoms, such as the Philistines, Adoumayds, Amounides and Mouabs, either in production or in the level of civilization. All were the products of one phase in the history of civilization. We can even say that the Jewish kingdoms were even more backward due to their tribal structures. David and Solomon maintained the Jebusite civilization and administrative apparatus, (3) and when King Solomon thought of building the Temple, he looked to the representative of Phoenician civilization, Hiram, the King of Sour (4).

4- The attempt to separate the ancient history of Palestine from Arab Islamic history, by the use of the term, Early Arab Period (5). This term obscures the close ties that existed between the two histories, as seen in the migrations from the Arabian Peninsula to the Fertile Crescent that took place over thousands of years as well as the trade routes that sprung up.

YMedad said...

Sure. Haifa filled up with Arabs from the Hauran/Golan, inclduing Azziz Al-Adin Qassam.

Any demographic analysis of the Arab population in the Mandate 1922-1947 shows that the growth is not normal except by immigration.

And then you have the studies of the middle to late 19th century after Mophammed Ali conquered the country and North African immigration of Arabs occured.

There's this: "Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”

And this:

"the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.13 In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.14

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible.15 The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.16

The Arab population increased the most in cities where large Jewish populations had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.17"

see this

YMedad said...

The political economy of absorptive capacity: growth and cycles in Jewish Palestine under the British mandate by Nadav Halevi in: Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 19, Issue 4 October 1983 , pages 456 - 469