Luckily for me, I inherited a large collection of books on Palestine from my grandparents that are all in good shape. One article I enjoyed reading 14 years ago was by Professor Alfred Guillaume, under the title of Zionists and the Bible (published by Igram Press, and sold for 50 cents). The article was part of a bigger pamphlet that included several articles, under the title of Israel: According to the Holy Scriptures.
Just when I wanted to type it out, I found the article over here,now the source might be controversial; however, it saved me hours of typing.
The article discusses in details whether or not Israel was a Promised Land in the 20th Century, and furthermore reveals whether of not the Zionists actually followed the 'Bible' or not. Despite my athiesm, I enjoy following someone's claim all the way, as a Lebanese proverb says: "Keep Following the Liar to his/her house". It is interesting to read that perspective as well...
Professor Alfred Guillaume is a professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of London, has authored various works on the Old Testament and is co-editor of "The Legacy of Islam".
I know the article is not of class struggle in nature, but enjoy it
MFL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This is a strange form of argument - instead of relating to the actual phenomenon, this argument deals with a chimerical Zionism which is all in the Prof's head.
Zionism is not a religious movement, and "the Promised Land" holds no water with most Zionists.
Most of us are secular, we believe in a Jewish nationhood as distinct from merely a Jewish religion.
My forefathers came to settle this land, not conquer it but unfortunately the Arab Rebellion (30s), the 48 war, the 67 war etc etc set us on the course we have been sailing on ever since.
Ummm..... the Arab rebellion came as an answer to what exactly? mass expulsions, importing 60,000 Jews, and classifying the Jews as a different race... Arab Jews were living perfectly in harmony with the Christians and Muslims... the 1948 war and the late 1930s rebellions were answers to expanding Jewish settlements on other peoples' expense... even several British officials (then) realized it was a mistake to go with the plan.... the very fact of having a "race pure" nationhood is wrong, and even more wrong at the expense of someone else...whose aftermath remains till this very day
MFL
We know who this post is dedicated to.
But we didn't advocate a race pure country; the movement my family belongs to for example were in favour of a binational state (check in wikipedia, HaShomer Hatsair)
We were treated as illegal immigrants are, and violence was used against us.
Just to bring a similar example, how hospitable are Lebanese to Palestinian refugees?
Don't have citizenship, right? Treated quite badly in fact...
This is how my people were treated in Palestine by the Arabs.
The use of military force against us was a mistake and served as a catalyst for the formation of a 'Sparta' type country.
Interestingly enough this same process happened to the Palestinians and to a lesser degree the Lebanese.
In any case if you want a good look at the 'enemy' then we are not here because of any promised land, this is not a serious part of a two thousand years tradition.
We are here to revive our ancient presence in this land after a terrible tragedy befell us in Europe (holocaust), and persecution in modern Arab countries.
I pray for peace for every person in our region, may we know better times.
Dear Anonymous
I welcome your constructive debates and may your prayers for peace be answered ...
however, you have no right after 2000 years to come to an inhabited land and reclaim it as yours, and in your own words you were settled there.
Prior to the Zionist exodus to Palestine, the Palestinians and the Jews lived in harmony. Zionism preached seggregation. The revionist Zionists were even more extreme. The importing of Jews and expulsion of Palestinians in 90% of the cases triggered an Arab reaction to innocent Jews (mainly the Jews of Iraq, and I recall several innocent Lebanese Jews killed)... however importing and expulsions and guided by an isolationist policy will trigger all that.
Furthermore, a lot of Jews that arrived from Europe forced the local Jews of Palestine to fire the Arab labor and replace them with much more expensive Jewish labor, hence creating out a market within a market was a disaster.
The Holocaust as bad as it is , doesn't justify the expulsions of the Arabs starting from 1920 away from their homes...
As for the Palestinian Question in Lebanon, I am against it, and demanding more rights to them...
MFL
On a side note, do not hesitate to participate in the discussions
Real change is through interactions....
MFL
Anon,
MFL is the best of discussants, but if he will allow me to chip in:
Violence against Jews did not arise with the wave of late 18th century immigrants. It did not even arise after the first Aliyah in 1881. It arose after decades of Palestinian peasants losing their land and their livelihood and after the formation of the militant Ha-Shomer in 1907, which alienated a lot of Palestinians.
Violence, in fact, started after the Balfour declaration when it became all too evident that the Jews streaming steadily into the land wanted a Jewish nation-state where the Palestinians would be strangers in their own country.
I have no doubt that there were many Jews who would have hoped for another solution, including your family. But after the 1905 Aliya, the pushing out of Palestinians became systematic and telling of a general trend of unwillingness to share the land. This continues to this very day, as evidenced by the unrelenting building of settlements and the deafening silence on this in Israel.
As for your argument that Judaism is a nationhood and not merely a religion, it took me a long time to accept this, but I have learned to accept it. But it will take a lot more to convince me that a "state" centering on the exclusive rights of one "nation" is anywhere close to democratic.
Salam/Shalom
But Miss Tee, the isolationist Jews (who evolved to Zionists) of the 18th Century faced the Integrationists who called that the Jews are part of the country they are living in wherever they are, hence "French Jews, Algerian Jews, English Jews" and others... the concept nation cannot be adopted, and as you said, not on the expense of others , which triggered all this shock wave of reactions
Nice pitch-in
MFL
MFL, notwithstanding my total dislike of nationalism and its artificiality, if someone presents him/herself under a certain name, I feel that to engage them, I need to take that seriously. Particularly when they do not respond to any other name.
Dearest Ms. Tee
I do understand what are you talking about... I myself had to liberate myself from Lebanese and Palestinian nationalism, (as well as Arab Nationalism), in order to see the world in the Marxist Perspective= One World, One People Suffering from the Elites globally...
I even believe the need to debate with supporters of nationalism in order to hopefully change their perspectives... including the Zionists... however fvery ew are exceptional to the norm, such as one ultra-Zionist (the Kahanists) at Renegade Eye's blog... (www.advant.blogspot.com)
I believe the real change as Marx himself said it is through social interaction on the ground... so I agree with you in that point
Best Regards
MFL
PS: Love reading your ideas
Same here. Hope we will be able to meet and discuss things more thoroughly one day. Although, given the three elements of Beirut, pubs, and Marxism, chances are we already know each other :)
I sure hope so :)
Thanks for inviting me to the discussion.
Guess I'm not anonymous anymore... whoops ;)
I don't see Jews lining up to join Kahanist groups. MZ doesn't understand what I mean, when I talk about materialism. The point is that Israelis, aren't going to be attracted to a movement, that promises continual war, for a vision not shared.
Post a Comment