Post Reply
Page 4 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Nakba is Ongoing For Palestinians Today
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 1:01PM #31
LeahOne
Posts: 16,083

Sherri, the area of the Philistines was 5 city-states around Gaza.  It's an area smaller than the Gaza strip.


There is evidence that the word 'Palestina' may NOT relate to 'philistine' after all, since the actual WORD (as opposed to a 'translation') was 'P'lish'tim'    If you want, I can explain the linguistic details which make that 'P' distinct from the 'ph' - and since Latin had a 'sh' there's no reason for that 'h' sound to disappear. 


Just as 'Bethlehem' was never said by Jesus' followers:  they called it 'Beit-Lekhem'.  I understand that it's sometimes difficult for people to 'get' linguistics when they have no background in it, and there's no need to learn it.


I just wish that such people wouldn't ignore the work of actual philologists and linguistic scholars in favor of the often bowlderized near-nonsense published by those ignorant of the research.


In brief:  the 'P'lish'tim'/Palestine' connection is NOT the only possibility - and even so it didn't rightly refer to more than a tiny sliver of the land of Israel.


Nobody denies that the land was ever labelled 'Palestine':  but it was ONLY labelled so by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt.   You apparently wish to insist that the Land of Israel was known to its own inhabitants as 'Palestine' for "thousands of years" before that point. 


You are quite simply WRONG in that assertion.  Not from a 'religious' nor a 'political' view, but from an accurate representation of History as a field of study known as a 'social science'.  The 'argument' you give violates many principles of historical research so cannot be taken seriously.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 1:05PM #32
LeahOne
Posts: 16,083

May 17, 2012 -- 8:03AM, Dostojevsky wrote:


"According to to the search that I made of the New Testament, (New American Version, English King James, American Standard Version) "Palestine" appears not once. "Judea" seems to be the standard term"


Nahum, I got lost on that link. Wanted to see the year of publication.


For any historical validity I'd go to older translations or other old texts of Greeks and Romans. Also, times have changed. People's borders were that tree and that creek.


When was the first world map drawn, anybody knows?




Irrelevant, really.  The religious texts are not a primary historical source:  the civil documents of whoever was in control of the territory ARE.  Which would pretty much be the Romans during this period - and they did NOT change the name to 'Palestine' until after ca 135 CE.


Please, people - we are talking about *History* here!  Not religion or culture.  The reliable historical documentation cannot *prove* the 'Holy Land' was known as "Palestine" before 135 CE.


Yes it is *possible* that some people called some part of it 'Palestine' earlier than 135 CE.  But assuredly NOT the majority, and NOT the whole place - which appears to be what Sherri's trying to claim.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 1:09PM #33
LeahOne
Posts: 16,083

As for Sherri's claims about Herodotus, I think that needs to be investigated.


We already know that the purported references to Jesus in Josephus' writings were later interpolations - additions by Christians to bolster their claims, as was the custom of Greek and Roman culture.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 3:10PM #34
NahumS
Posts: 1,696

Dos - The site semed pretty easy to navigate. You can try any other searchable NT and probably come to the same conclusion. You could try the Concordance at your local library as well.


There would be little reason for the NT to call the land anything other than "Judea" or the "Land of Israel" as Jews did at the time. "Palestine" is a Roman term. Use of it today has clear political implications. Obviously, during the Birtish Mandate it was perfectly accurate. If some writers continued to use it after 1948 it is either an anachronism or has political motivation. It is certainly not "Biblical".


This is a side point.
I read an excellent article on the Naqba today. It describes the fate of Jews in areas where the Arabs took over.


blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-truth-about-...




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 4:51PM #35
KindredSai
Posts: 5,376

May 16, 2012 -- 12:14PM, browbeaten wrote:


May 16, 2012 -- 11:26AM, Miraj wrote:


The problem with your reasoning is that the Arabs didn't start the war.  Any time a population of outsiders comes in to take what is yours, they're the instigators, not you.  The involvement of colonial Europeans who were trying desparately to eliminate Jews by carving up the Middle East to accomodate their racist intent didn't contribute favorably to the situation.


Ultimately, Jews will be the losers in this.  They are outnumbered in the region, and, from what we read here, still unloved in much of the world.  Like Rocky likes to say, when at least 3 people tell you you're drunk, lie down.  Personally, I don't have a thing against Jews, but, whether or not it's right, the fact is the world has been telling Jews they're drunk for centuries.  There is a basis in reality to wonder what it is about them that so many find so annoying that they were exiled from Europe and given a nation of their own that remains under seige.


I expect those who demand that others take responsibility for their circumstances to do the same.  If Israel ever wants to be safe, it has to accept that it has a responsibility for what's happening to it too.  Denying its own history, born in violence of its own making, is not the best way to make that happen.


May 16, 2012 -- 3:01AM, rangerken wrote:


I see this as nothing more than the losers in a war they started, meaning the Arabs living in and around, and next to what became Israel in 1947, trying to claim that the results of their actions, their attacks, their decisions, and their attmpts to destroy Israel, are somehow the responsibility of anyone except themselves.


The nakba is entirely, solely, 100% the responsibility of the Arabs who would not and will not accept Israel starting in 1947. They chose war. They lost. I have zero sympathy for them and I hope my country continues to support Israel as a friend and ally.


I also hope to see a viable, properous Palestinian state some day...alongside Israel but not replacing Israel. What has been and continues to be a real shame is that the Palestinians could have and should have long since had their state except for their own stupidity and desire for Israel's desruction. I have written before on this forum and on the old, Israel vs. Palestine forum that I completely agree with the statement that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The simple fact that Palestinians permit an organization like Hamas to exist within their lands is proof that this statement is still accurate.


Ken








Classic blame the victim.  If everyone thinks your bad or is jealous of you, then there is obviously, something wrong with you.  It is the Jews fault for all the problems of the world.  You see, we get it.  You are just confirming what we already know and why Israel will ALWAYS represent the Jewish people.  And BTW, not all Jews were outsiders either.  Arabs migrated to the region and those "outsiders" represented much of the 800,000 that were displaced.  You can't rewrite the facts.


.




I didn't at all cite that Jews were outsiders at all. In fact the Old Yishuv Jews had a direct genetic ancestral lineage that goes back centuries if not a millennia or so.


Brow cites a falsehood here the 800,000 that were replaced were outsiders. In fact this is untrue, they were coined Arab that is true but so have Jews in different geographical locations in the Islamic World. The fact is the "Arabs" which we know of were for the most part descendants of Jews and Christians in the region. In fact Zionists consider them foreign because they converted outside of Judaism.


I would consider Jews victims if they were in the case of Israel and Palestine. Israel was a victor by enforcement, 86% of the non-Jewish population left in war. These are the real victims.

Moderated by Merope on May 18, 2012 - 12:07PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 5:34PM #36
browbeaten
Posts: 2,920

May 17, 2012 -- 4:51PM, KindredSai wrote:


May 16, 2012 -- 12:14PM, browbeaten wrote:


May 16, 2012 -- 11:26AM, Miraj wrote:


The problem with your reasoning is that the Arabs didn't start the war.  Any time a population of outsiders comes in to take what is yours, they're the instigators, not you.  The involvement of colonial Europeans who were trying desparately to eliminate Jews by carving up the Middle East to accomodate their racist intent didn't contribute favorably to the situation.


Ultimately, Jews will be the losers in this.  They are outnumbered in the region, and, from what we read here, still unloved in much of the world.  Like Rocky likes to say, when at least 3 people tell you you're drunk, lie down.  Personally, I don't have a thing against Jews, but, whether or not it's right, the fact is the world has been telling Jews they're drunk for centuries.  There is a basis in reality to wonder what it is about them that so many find so annoying that they were exiled from Europe and given a nation of their own that remains under seige.


I expect those who demand that others take responsibility for their circumstances to do the same.  If Israel ever wants to be safe, it has to accept that it has a responsibility for what's happening to it too.  Denying its own history, born in violence of its own making, is not the best way to make that happen.


May 16, 2012 -- 3:01AM, rangerken wrote:


I see this as nothing more than the losers in a war they started, meaning the Arabs living in and around, and next to what became Israel in 1947, trying to claim that the results of their actions, their attacks, their decisions, and their attmpts to destroy Israel, are somehow the responsibility of anyone except themselves.


The nakba is entirely, solely, 100% the responsibility of the Arabs who would not and will not accept Israel starting in 1947. They chose war. They lost. I have zero sympathy for them and I hope my country continues to support Israel as a friend and ally.


I also hope to see a viable, properous Palestinian state some day...alongside Israel but not replacing Israel. What has been and continues to be a real shame is that the Palestinians could have and should have long since had their state except for their own stupidity and desire for Israel's desruction. I have written before on this forum and on the old, Israel vs. Palestine forum that I completely agree with the statement that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The simple fact that Palestinians permit an organization like Hamas to exist within their lands is proof that this statement is still accurate.


Ken








Classic blame the victim.  If everyone thinks your bad or is jealous of you, then there is obviously, something wrong with you.  It is the Jews fault for all the problems of the world.  You see, we get it.  You are just confirming what we already know and why Israel will ALWAYS represent the Jewish people.  And BTW, not all Jews were outsiders either.  Arabs migrated to the region and those "outsiders" represented much of the 800,000 that were displaced.  You can't rewrite the facts.


.




I didn't at all cite that Jews were outsiders at all. In fact the Old Yishuv Jews had a direct genetic ancestral lineage that goes back centuries if not a millennia or so.


Brow cites a falsehood here the 800,000 that were replaced were outsiders. In fact this is untrue, they were coined Arab that is true but so have Jews in different geographical locations in the Islamic World. The fact is the "Arabs" which we know of were for the most part descendants of Jews and Christians in the region. In fact Zionists consider them foreign because they converted outside of Judaism.


I would consider Jews victims if they were in the case of Israel and Palestine. Israel was a victor by enforcement, 86% of the non-Jewish population left in war. These are the real victims.




1.  I responded to Miraj, not you.


2.  I said much of the 800,000 (really more like 650,000) were not originally from the region.


Yours, is NOT sound reasoning.

Moderated by Merope on May 18, 2012 - 12:08PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 5:53PM #37
Shusha
Posts: 4,276

KSai,


I didn't at all cite that Jews were outsiders at all. In fact the Old Yishuv Jews had a direct genetic ancestral lineage that goes back centuries if not a millennia or so.



Is direct ancestral lineage that goes back centuries or millennia your criteria for land ownership or national rights in Israel\Palestine?  I don't necessarily buy into your premise, but in order for you not to be hypocritical about this, you need to apply it to BOTH sides.



The fact is the "Arabs" which we know of were for the most part descendants of Jews and Christians in the region.



Do you have any facts to substantiate this claim?

Moderated by Merope on May 18, 2012 - 12:08PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 2:34AM #38
NahumS
Posts: 1,696

It's interesting how the term "refugee" was defined - as someone who resided in Palestine before 1946. Apparently a number were fairly recent immigrants to Palestine. Many Arabs immigrated to Palestine along with the Jewish Zionist immigration - whole villages doubled their population in a year or two. It's not surprising that they left when the conflict escalated, and the Arab High Command instructed them to evacuate until the Jews were defeated.

Moderated by Merope on May 18, 2012 - 12:09PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 8:03AM #39
SherriMunnerlyn
Posts: 7,492

May 17, 2012 -- 1:09PM, LeahOne wrote:


As for Sherri's claims about Herodotus, I think that needs to be investigated.


We already know that the purported references to Jesus in Josephus' writings were later interpolations - additions by Christians to bolster their claims, as was the custom of Greek and Roman culture.




Leah,


We have established no such thing about Josephus writings and his use of the name Palestine, your buying into anti Christian propaganda is all about you, certainly about noone else in our world.


Here is a  a discussion about ancient writers using the name Palestine, and this document provides links to the document where the writers referred to Palestine, long before Hadrian named a province. 


"Palestine Used by Ancient Writers


Several ancient Greek writers use the term "Palestine," [Palaistinh, Palaistine] referring to the broad region which included Judea. Aristotle, Herodotus, Philo the Jew, and Plutarch all use this term.



The citation from Aristotle is very interesting - he is describing what he has heard about what we call the Dead Sea,


Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them.    Meteorology II.3

This is a clear example of using the term in a broad sense that includes Israel. Herodotus, speaking of circumcision, gives us an interesting text in Euterpethat includes Syria in Palestine,


The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians; and the Syrians...say that they have recently adopted it from the Colchians. Now these are the only nations who use circumcision, and it is plain that they all imitate herein the Egyptians.    Euterpe II.104

Philo is an interesting source since he was a contemporary of Jesus and a Jew. Speaking of the Essenes,


Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety...because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.    Every Good Man Is Free XII.75

Philo is also interesting because he represents the Hellenized Jews - Greek Jews scattered around the Roman Empire, unable to worship according to the Laws of Moses. Philo lived in Alexandria, Egypt with around 1 million Jews, the largest Jewish population outside of Jerusalem. Notice that he refers to "Palestine" as a region that includes the Jews.



It is clear from these citations that the term "Palestine" was used to refer to the region in broad terms, including Judea. McCall is mistaken when he claims that this term was not used until Hadrian."


 www.churchhistory101.com/century1-palest...


Sherri

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 8:22AM #40
SherriMunnerlyn
Posts: 7,492

May 17, 2012 -- 1:01PM, LeahOne wrote:


Sherri, the area of the Philistines was 5 city-states around Gaza.  It's an area smaller than the Gaza strip.


There is evidence that the word 'Palestina' may NOT relate to 'philistine' after all, since the actual WORD (as opposed to a 'translation') was 'P'lish'tim'    If you want, I can explain the linguistic details which make that 'P' distinct from the 'ph' - and since Latin had a 'sh' there's no reason for that 'h' sound to disappear. 


Just as 'Bethlehem' was never said by Jesus' followers:  they called it 'Beit-Lekhem'.  I understand that it's sometimes difficult for people to 'get' linguistics when they have no background in it, and there's no need to learn it.


I just wish that such people wouldn't ignore the work of actual philologists and linguistic scholars in favor of the often bowlderized near-nonsense published by those ignorant of the research.


In brief:  the 'P'lish'tim'/Palestine' connection is NOT the only possibility - and even so it didn't rightly refer to more than a tiny sliver of the land of Israel.


Nobody denies that the land was ever labelled 'Palestine':  but it was ONLY labelled so by the Romans after the Bar Kochba revolt.   You apparently wish to insist that the Land of Israel was known to its own inhabitants as 'Palestine' for "thousands of years" before that point. 


You are quite simply WRONG in that assertion.  Not from a 'religious' nor a 'political' view, but from an accurate representation of History as a field of study known as a 'social science'.  The 'argument' you give violates many principles of historical research so cannot be taken seriously.


 




Leah,


The issue of linguisitics tells us nothing about what the land  known of today on maps as Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories was called when Jesus lived there.


Ancient writers spoke of this land as Palestine, as it was called for thousands of years.


The Kindom of Israel existed under 100 years, by comparison, and that assumes the  Biblical Narrative is accepted.


"According to Biblical tradition, the united Kingdom of Israel was a kingdom that existed in the Land of Israel, a period referred to by scholars as the United Monarchy. Biblical scholars have dated the kingdom from c.1026 BCE to c. 930 BCE, though there are differences of opinion as to exact dates."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)


You can ignore history, of course, we all have choices to make, about what we believe about our world.


Sherri

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook