Thousands of University of Waterloo students participated last week in the first-ever referendum on UW’s links to Israeli universities. The “sever ties” referendum campaign failed to gain a majority, but it provoked a lot of discussion including among students who had never heard about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Learn more…
View original post 463 more words
On the eve of a “donors conference” in London to address the desperate situation of the Syrian refugees, a UN agency has made a desperate appeal to Canada and other countries not to overlook the over 500,000 Palestinians trapped in Syria. First expelled from Israel in 1948, they are being made refugees again. Read more
View original post 165 more words
Stephen Sizer is one of the most influential critics of Christian Zionism, and he has done some extensive research both on Israel and the holy land in the Old and New Testament, as well as the history of Christian Zionism and the present conflict in the middle east. I can highly recommend his Bible studies and other articles where he effectively challenges Christian Zionism and present an alternative Christian response to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that is based on peacemaking, reconciliation and love for all people.
In this video, Sizer is interviewed by Allan Lee, who is clearly pro-Israel but who tries to hold his arguments back in order to listen to Sizer’s reasoning. I’m very impressed by Sizer in this video, he gives a very balanced, respectful and convincing impression when he argues for peace, justice and a biblical viewpoint on Israel.
View original post 170 more words
A Colonialist Project of Dispossession in the Occupied Territories:
Israelis’ hardened hearts don’t let them understand that Palestinians are responding to the despair and purposelessness that characterizes their lives.
By Daniel Blatman Feb 01, 2016 5:10 AM
Last month Amira Hass brought more evidence of historic significance regarding events in the occupied territories (“The Duma murder is an exception to the already violent rule,” January 13), by describing how Amiram Ben Uliel used Yishuv Hada’at, one of many illegal outposts near the Palestinian village of Qaryut, as an observation post to allegedly plan the murder of the Dawabsheh family.
The land on which the outpost is situated belonged to the Musa family, which made its living by working the land and raising sheep and goats. Under the auspices of the Israel Defense Forces, which did nothing to stop the settlers’ repeated attacks on the family, the Musas were forced to leave their land in 2001. The dispossessors seized their property; the dispossessed were forced to be laborers for the Jews. This was the soil on which Ben Uliel was raised and nurtured. There are many others like him in the land of settlement and dispossession.
In Israel the knife-wielding Arab youths sacrificing their lives are regarded as dangerous terrorists. This approach is, of course, the most comfortable one for the regime, which embraces the dispossessors and gives key positions in the military, police and the legal system to those who identify with them and their opinions. The Shin Bet security service makes sure to convey the well-known message – the youth who brutally murdered Dafna Meir in Otniel was incited by Palestinian television. The 13-year-old girl who was shot to death by a policeman in Anatot set out to stab someone because she’d fought with her parents, as if it’s common for a child who fights with his parents to grab a knife from the kitchen and aim for a guard armed with an automatic weapon. Who even noticed the leaky tent, planted between piles of mud and garbage, in which she lived, facing the settlers’ red-roofed villas?
Who in this racist and violet government even thinks about these kids? The Israelis’ hardened hearts don’t let them understand that they are responding to the despair and purposelessness that characterizes their lives. Perhaps they cannot explain it as such, but they are making a pretty hopeless attempt to prevent Israel from reaching the last stage of implementing its policy of colonialism, dispossession and apartheid in the territories.
In Israel, as in other places that developed through colonialist settlement and dispossession (North America, Australia, South Africa, Namibia), this colonialism did not begin with aspirations of sovereignty. The early Jewish settlers came here for economic reasons, to escape anti-Semitic persecution, or out of some romantic fantasy of building a new society.
But their descendents, as well as other groups that arrived over the years, saw the place as their homeland and wanted to be sovereign there. This Jewish demand received support and recognition after the Holocaust. Today no international body, including the Palestinian leadership, denies the legality and historic legitimacy of this sovereignty within the pre-1967 borders.
But since that year there has developed a colonialist project of dispossession in the occupied territories; it is still unfinished because it has not yet used the most extreme tools of colonialist dispossession, namely ethnic cleansing or genocide. It has, however, reached some very advanced stages that characterized similar efforts in the past – uncontrolled land seizures, economic, political, and cultural strangulation of the local population, terror and violence to which state officials turn a blind eye, ethnic separation and in particular, the conveying of an unequivocal message that this colonial presence is not temporary but permanent.
The local population gets the message and is waging a desperate struggle to reclaim what it senses it is about to lose forever. It resists, rebels and uses terror. In Namibia, North America and Australia, the response to this resistance was genocide.
There is a complex relationship between the settlers and the state. The loyalty of the settlers to the sovereign is conditional on its desire and ability to continue to preserve their privileges. When it seems as if the government isn’t doing exactly what they think it should be doing, they do it themselves, believing the state that supports them will eventually use its powers to finish what they started. That’s what the French settlers did in Algeria when they conducted a terror campaign against the Muslims, and that’s what the German settlers did in Namibia to the Herero people in the early 20th century. That’s what the Jewish settlers are doing in the territories; they are dragging Israel to the stage at which it will have to realize their messianic aspirations. The latest dispute over the two buildings in Hebron is just one example of many.
Settler messianism, which they arrogantly present as the continuation of historic Zionism, sees the Bible as its deed to the Promised Land. This gives settlement in the territories an especially murderous potential. The German, French or British colonialist saw himself as belonging to a group that deserved to inherit the land because of its racial and cultural superiority; because they belonged to a preferred, elevated civilization than that of the natives. By contrast, the Israeli settler doesn’t merely see himself as moral, cultural, religiously (and sometimes even racially) superior; he sees himself as the historic native, the sole owner who was temporarily exiled from his homeland.
Colonial dispossessors always expected the natives to play the game, i.e. to agree to the seizure of their lands and possessions, to loyally serve the settlers as manual laborers, and so on. As long as they behaved, their existence was tolerated. But the Jewish settler cannot, over the long term, tolerate the existence of the Palestinian “native,” not just because the latter refuses to play by the rules and responds with violence, but because his physical existence is a constant challenge to the main question: Who is the true native of this land?
As a result, the final objective of the settler ideology in the territories is not the Palestinians’ obedient submission to Israeli brutality, but their total disappearance. In instances of colonialism where there were fewer components of identity and messianic faith involved, it still ended in expulsion or genocide. The reality in the territories is sliding toward this danger. There are enough West Bank settlers working to make that moment happen.
The writer is a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
It sounds like a modern version of the “Ha’avara ( Transfer) Agreement” between zionists and Nazi Germany that help the IIIrd Reich break the Boycott by selling 100’s of MILLIONS$ of these days dollars to zionists who in turn sold Jaffa oranges to Nazis at an inflated price … (It would amount in the BILLION$ in actual value…)
What did sold to ISIS to get their cheap oil ? A non-aggression pact for OCCUPIED Golan ? That would be on top of (PROVEN!) medical and intelligence support to ISIS fighters !
Again the Western media are mute on economic complicity with ISIS …
The route to Israel
After paying drivers, middlemen and bribes, IS’ profit is $15 to $18 a barrel. The group currently makes $19 million on average each month, according to the intelligence officer.
Uncle Farid owns a licensed import-export business that he uses to broker deals between the smuggling mafias that buy IS oil and the three oil companies that export the oil to Israel.
Al-Araby has the names of these companies and details of their illegal trades. One of these companies is also supported by a very high-profile Western official.
The companies compete to buy the smuggled oil and then transfer it to Israel through the Turkish ports of Mersin, Dortyol and Ceyhan, according to the colonel.
Al-Araby has discovered several brokers who work in the same business as Uncle Farid – but he remains the most influential and effective broker when it comes to marketing smuggled oil.
A paper written by marine engineers George Kioukstsolou and Dr Alec D Coutroubis at the University of Greenwich tracked the oil trade through Ceyhan port, and found some correlation between IS military successes and spikes in the oil output at the port.
In August, the Financial Times reported that Israel obtained up to 75 percent of its oil supplies from Iraqi Kurdistan. More than a third of such exports go through the port of Ceyhan.
Kioukstsolou told al-Araby al-Jadeed that this suggests corruption by middlemen and those at the lower end of the trade hierarchy – rather than institutional abuse by multinational businesses or governments.
According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only “once or twice” because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries – where the oil “gains a semi-legitimate status” – for $30 to $35 a barrel.
Read how the whole scheme works: Raqqa’s Rockefellers: How Islamic State oil flows to Israel
On Tuesday, October 27, a full-page advertisement appeared in The Guardian, announcing the support of more than 300 UK-based scholars for an academic boycott of Israel. A week on, the list of supporters had grown to some 600.
Criticism from the usual suspects was immediate, with condemnation by the Israeli embassy in London, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). Opponents of the boycott also expressed themselves in various op-ed columns and on The Guardian’s letters page.
Here I will suggest responses to the most common arguments advanced by critics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, and specifically its academic component.
View original post 2,973 more words
By Alex Winder
This article analyzes the outbreak of the deadly 1929 riots in Palestine. Focusing on Jerusalem, Safad, and Hebron, the cities most significantly affected by the events, the article sees the violence as attempts to reinforce, redefine, or re-establish communal boundaries. It argues that patterns of violence in each city can help us under- stand how these boundaries had been established and evolved in the past, as well as the ways in which new forces, in particular the economic, political, and social influence of the Zionist movement and the rise of nationalist politics among the Palestinian Arabs, had eroded older boundaries
The deadly riots that engulfed Palestine in August 1929, known today as the “Western Wall” or “al-Buraq” disturbances, marked a turning point in Arab-Jewish relations in the country. Erupting in Jerusalem, they quickly spread to Hebron and Safad. In less than a week—from 23 to 29 August—the official casualty counts listed 133 Jews killed and 339 wounded,mainly by Arab rioters, and 116 Arabs killed and 232 wounded, mainly by British security forces. The unprecedented violence spawned three commissions of inquiry, forced the British Mandate authorities to re-evaluate and temporarily suspend their policies, and revealed as never before the explosive depths of the emerging conflict.
The violence took place in the context of rising Palestinian frustration over the Mandate’s Jewish National Home policy and its consequences, especially increasing Jewish immigration and Zionist land purchases, with the economic pressures on the Palestinians exacerbated by natural factors, such as cattle plague and locusts. The immediate trigger, however, was access to and custody over the Western Wall/al-Buraq of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, where the Zionists had been challenging Muslim control since the beginning of the Mandate, and especially since autumn 1928.
On 15 August 1929, the Haganah and Revisionist Betar movements organized demonstrations at the Wall, prompting counter protests by Muslim worshippers on 16 August. The following week, several violent incidents between groups of Jews and Palestinian Arabs and swirling rumors further fueled tensions. On 23 August, demonstrations after Friday prayers quickly turned violent and spread through Jerusalem’s Old City and then into the suburbs, leaving seventeen Jews dead. The following morning, the violence spread to Hebron, where a concerted attack on the Jewish Quarter left more than sixty Jews dead and scores wounded. In the next few days, isolated clashes and attacks were noted in Haifa and Jaffa, and though the situation seemed to be calm by 27 and28 August, on the afternoon of 29 August violence erupted once again,this time in Safad. Some forty-five Jews were killed or wounded in Safad before British police and military put down the riots there, effectively bringing this outbreak of popular violence in Palestine to a close.
Strikingly, Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safad were home to three of Palestine’s oldest Jewish communities, their Jewish inhabitants having lived for generations as a recognized component of Palestinian Arab society. These cities were also among Palestine’s four Jewish holy cities(the fourth being Tiberias), and as such the religious Jews who populated them were largely (though not completely) disconnected from the growing Zionist presence in Palestine.Most explanations of the 1929 riots follow one of two paradigms. The first sees them as the expression of Muslim fanaticism and Arab anti-Semitism, a particular instance of a continuous and constant ethno-religious conflict which, though at times held in check by political power, was constantly in danger of breaking out into open violence. The second places them in the context of the developing political conflict in Palestine, focusing either on the role of the British administration and its failure to anticipate or stave off the violence, or on the role of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who during this period emerged as the preeminent political leader of the Palestinians.Each approach has flaws. The first assumes certain innate religious identities with essential characteristics (particularly Jewish vulnerability and Muslim violence) and conflates the 1929 rioting in Palestine with violence against Jews in medieval and modern Europe and elsewhere in the Arab world. At the same time, this paradigm tends to minimize the specific context of the event, thus offering a limited understanding of the causes without fully explaining why violence occurs at certain times but not at others. The second approach overemphasises the role of immediate political events in the violence and ignores deeper social structures. Although it offers far greater insight than the first, its explanation of the 1929 violence solely as a product of recent political developments is also limiting.This article approaches the communal violence of 1929 from a different angle. Instead of searching for “essential” core characteristics by which particular communities defined themselves, it sees communities as most often defined by their boundaries, the points at which they come up against other communities. From this perspective, communal violence can be viewed as an attempt to reinforce, redefine, or re-establish boundaries marked in geographical space, including by signifiers such as clothing and language, and other practices.More broadly, the article seeks to rescue the events of 1929 from essentialist or exclusively political interpretations and, in so doing, to restore to the notions of “religious” and “nationalist” the complexity that is their due. Neither religion nor nationalism exists as a unifed, homogenous, or static system; rather, each emerges and changes in keeping with the practices and discourses of those who claim them. To think of the 1929 riots in terms of“Muslims attacking Jews” or “Palestinians resisting Zionists” tells us little either about how the violence was intended or how it was interpreted by its perpetrators and its victims, all of whom saw themselves and the “other” in more complicated terms shaped by experiences and expectations developed over years or even generations. These experiences and expectations, based on lived daily life far removed from the realm of high politics, include notions of community and its boundaries, and are major factors in how individuals on all sides interpreted the events.Throughout, I will use the term “communal” to avoid imposing exclusively religious or national identifications on the participants and observers. Exploring communal boundaries in Hebron, Safad, and Jerusalem prior to the events of 1929, and how these boundaries shaped and were reshaped by these instances of communal violence, will help to elucidate this complexity
/* Must read in depth accounts of the 1929 Riots */
When zionist mention you the 1929 Riots and the tragic massacre of the Hebron Jews, post them the article and recall that with the 133 Jews murdered by Arabs, 116 Arabs were murdered by Jews. And that MOST of the 500 or so Jews of Hebron were saved, most of them by their Arab neighbors … Also of the 67 victims in Hebron, 12 were Sephardim (the Old Hebron families) 55 were Ashkenazim, mostly recent immigrants Europeans & Americans. So to say that Arabs “decimated” the Jewish community in Hebron is a blatant DISTORTION of the facts and Historically FALSE .. You’ll note that zionists never express any gratitude for the 430+ Jews saved in Hebron most of whom were saved by Arabs, nor do they mention the 116 Arabs killed during the 1929 Riots.. We also need to remember that it was sparked by the incitement of the Hagana and Betar (the Revisionist organization) taunting Arabs at the Al-Buraq Sanctuary of the Haram al-Sharif (Western Wall) … Same trick used by Ariel Sharon in 2000 to spark the Second Intifada …
“” By Raphael Cohen-Almagor
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Abstract: The litmus test for assessing the democratization of any given society is the status of its minorities. The more minorities are integrated into society and receive equal treatment, respect and concern, the more light that society would shed unto other nations,serving as an inspiring model to follow. Presently Israel is severely criticized by foes and friends for its treatment of its Palestinians citizens. This criticism is warranted. This paper shows that Israeli leaders consistently refrain from implementing comprehensive egalitarian policies. It is argued that Israel should strive to accommodate the interests of the Palestinian citizens and grant them equal citizenship rights1. IntroductionOn the eve of 2015, the Israeli population was 8,296,000. The Palestinians comprise 20.7 percent of the Israeli population (1,709,900). Many of them have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The majority of them, some 80 percent are Muslims. The Christian Palestinians, the Druze and the Bedouin are all small minorities within the Palestinian minority
Most ofthe Arabs reside in the Galilee in north Israel. Smaller numbers live in the so-called Triangle area at the centre of Israel and in the Negev desert in the south(mostly Bedouins).Between 1948 and 1966, Israeli-Arabs lived under military rule. Theirrights and liberties were severely limited; they were regarded with suspicion as asecurity threat. With the abolishing of the military rule in 1966, the Israeli-Arabsbegan their integration into society as citizens with equal claims to those of theJewish majority. The relationships between the Jewish majority and the Arabminority remain far from ideal. In 2007, 66 percent of the Arabs characterized their relationships with Jews as «not good», and 80 percent thought they were discriminated against.
The litmus test for measuring the extent of democratization of any given society is the status of minorities. The more egalitarian the society, the more democratic it is. In this respect, Israel is struggling. Egalitarianism is still in the making, something that Israel should aspire to achieve. Israel has struggled between liberalism and promoting its religion as a Jewish state. Israeli leaders have given precedence to Judaism over liberalism. While sometimes their language uttered liberal values, their actions were ethnocentric in essence, preferring on e religion and one nation over others. If words are to be meaningful, they mustbe translated into deeds.
This paper opens with quotes of several Israeli leaders – from Ben-Gurion onwards – supporting the principles of liberal democracy. It focuses on Israeli egalitarian statements and symbols. However, repeated studies have shown that on the ground these leaders all implemented policies that were not liberal.There is a striking gap between declarations and practices – a gap that is by no means unique to Israel. Why is the liberal imagination so important for those who do not abide by it? The majority of Israeli-Palestinians do not feel that they are fully integrated into Israel because it is a Jewish state, and due to continued discrimination in many spheres of life. Democracy is supposed to allow each and every individual the opportunity to follow her conception of the good without coercion. Israel today gives precedence to Judaism over liberalism. I submit the reverse should be the case.
2. Declarations, Language and Symbols
3. RealityIsrael is a Jewish democracy. The framework of governance is democratic, but its underpinning concepts give precedence to Judaism over fundamental democratic rights. Consequently, Israel adopts illiberal policies and practices thatare discriminatory in nature, preferring Jews over others. After the Holocaust,the goal was to found a safe haven for Jews all over the world so as to avoid the possibility of another horrific experience of that nature. Indeed, the United Nations acknowledged the need of establishing a Jewish state. This creation,however, based on a specific conception of the good – Judaism – discriminates against the Israeli Palestinians./…/The majority of Israeli-Palestinians do not feel that they are fully integrated into Israel because it is a Jewish state, and due to continued discrimination in many spheres of life. According to the 2012 Democracy Index, 27.7 percent of the Israeli-Palestinians greatly feel a sense of belonging to the State of Israel, while 38.2 percent feel somewhat a sense of belonging and 33.5 percent hardly feel this way. An important distinction has to be made between formal citizenship and full citizenship. Israeli Jews can be said to enjoy full citizenship: they enjoy equal respect as individuals, and they are entitled to equal treatment by law and in its administration. The situation is different with regard to the Israeli-Palestinians, the Bedouin and the Druze. Although they are formally considered to enjoy liberties equally with the Jewish community, in practice they do not share and enjoy the same rights and liberties. Thus, Sammy Smooha calls Israel «ethnic democracy»,arguing that unlike Western liberal democracies, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their own national security, demography, public space, culture and interests. In a more radical fashion, Oren Yiftachel argues that ethnic relations between Jews and Palestinians, and among ethno-classes within these two nations have been shaped by the diverse aspects of the Judaization project and by resistance to that dynamic. Yiftachel goes further than Smooha in explicitly speaking of Jewish «creeping apartheid» whereby increasingly impregnable ethnic, geographic,and economic barriers are introduced in Israel in order to monopolize power and resources
/…/4. ConclusionsBecause Israel is a relatively young democracy, it lacks experience in dealing with pitfalls involved in the working of the system. Like every young phenomenon, Israeli democracy needs to develop gradually, with great caution and care, and with ample attention to providing equal rights to all citizens without any discriminatory qualifications and without putting one religion over and above the others. Democracy is supposed to allow each and every individual the opportunity to follow her conception of the good without coercion. Israel today gives precedence to Judaism over liberalism. I submit the reverse should be thecase. Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world, should strive to retain its Jewish character. The symbols should remain Jewish with some accommodations in order to make the state a home for its Palestinian citizens as well. Shabbat should remain the official day of rest. Palestinian villages and towns may make Friday their day of rest. Hopefully, one day, when security considerations would become less dominant and pressing, and the Israeli economy could afford twodays of rest, as is the case in many parts of the world, then Friday and Shabbat will become the two official days of rest for each and every Israeli citizen. Presently, discrimination against Israeli-Palestinians is prevalent in many spheres of life, including land allocation, housing, municipality budgets,employment, education, urban development and basic civil rights. Thus the Israeli-Palestinians are put in a precarious position. As long as this is the case,Israel will be criticized. It won’t be considered «light unto the nations». There is unhealthy discrepancy between speech and conduct; the official statements are not backed by appropriate matching deeds. Arabic is an official language but it does not possess the same importance as Hebrew. The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable document but in reality there is no equality between Jews and Palestinians; the latter do not enjoy the same rights and liberties. The symbols of the Jewish state ignore its minorities. Democratic governments have to play the role of umpires both in the sense of applying just considerations when reviewing different conceptions and in trying to reconcile conflicting interests, trends, and claims. This delicate task demands integrity as well as impartiality. Governments should not exploit their role for their own advantage, and when making decisions they have to bear in mind the relevant considerations and demands which concern society as a whole, not only one or some fractions of it. It is incumbent on the Israeli government to ascertain that all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All citizens are entitled to equal protection against any form of discrimination, be it on grounds of religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender or race, and against any incitement to such discrimination. The last government (2013-2015), headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, prioritized the Jewish character of the state over its democratic character in an explicit, blunt way. Time and again, law proposals were tabled in a way that was discriminatory against Arabs: a law proposal to prefer former IDF soldiers for jobs in the public sector. These law proposals do not contribute to building Palestinian trust in Israeli politicians and do not increase the sense of belonging and comradeship of the Palestinian citizens to the State of Israel. Quite the opposite. In his comments on a draft of this paper, Moshe Lissak notes that Israeli society was never liberal and the situation is becoming worse. Lissak doubts whether the extent of liberalism in Israeli society will improve. But this does not mean that liberal elements within Israeli society should simply surrender.They should continue to fight for securing the same basic rights to majority and minorities alike. The constant challenge for Israel is to secure basic human rights for all, the powerful as well as the powerless, for Moslems, Christians and Jews.Israel needs to develop a comprehensive liberal theory of minority rights. It must explicitly address the needs and aspirations of its Palestinian minority. It should invest in cultivating tolerance. The key for understanding the other is education,making that is foreign familiar, making that is remote closer. Indeed, pluralism can be enriching rather than intimidating. Israel should erect bridges and remove obstacles to the understanding of the other through mechanisms of awareness,of recognition and of legitimacy. Continued dialogue and exchange of ideas will be instrumental in contesting boundaries by peaceful means, and in reaching fruitful compromises without resorting to discrimination, coercion and abuse.
Text of Israel Declaration of Independence, states (my empasis) :
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their
dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew Prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
As of 2016, if fails on ALL the emphasized elements of ONE article of its “solemn promise to the World” … #APARTHEID #israel also never fulfilled the UN mandated requirement to produce a Constitution in the 5 years after its acceptance in the UN in 1949, while this Declaration even promised a Constitution by October 1948! They never produced one because Jewish Israelis were NEVER ABLE to agree on what is the definition of a “Jewish State” but they do want Palestinians of Israel, Palestine and the Diaspora to agree to accpet what they were never able to define and is nevertheless upheld by their High Court of Justice, i.e. the “Jewish Character” of #APARTHEID #israel …
Herodotus was the first to use “Palestine” to describe this area of the Levant and it was it the 5th Century BCE over 2500 years ago … So don’t believe zionist #hasbara trying to push that “Palestine” was only created to punish Judahites from the Bar Kochba rebellion … Palestine existed for CENTURIES BEFORE “Syria-Palaestina” was even named !
” Posted 13th March 2012 by Karl Radl:
One of the oldest arguments made by skeptics of the Christian and jewish historical cosmos is that Herodotus; the ‘Father of History’, does not mention jews at all in his ‘Histories’. Indeed if you look up Herodotus and Jews in Google you will find an absolute wealth of Christian and jewish sites claiming this isn’t the case and professing to deal with the skeptic objections. I will deal with some of those objections here.Why answer them?Very simply: the objections that are used by Christians and jews alike tend to place the jews at the very centre of the world and as such place them on a proverbial pedestal of being a key and influential historical nation. However if we strip that away and we find little mention of the jews in Herodotus then their supposed pivotal importance in ancient history becomes downgraded to a mere tribal curiosity.Let us begin with the mentions that Herodotus makes of Palestine and then work through what it does in fact tell us as opposed to what it doesn’t.
The article even doubts that it can be proven that Jews even existed as a significant section of the Levantine society in the times of Herodotus, read it all at: Herodotus, Palestine and the Jews
On the origin and use of “Palestine”: ‘Palestine’ is an ancient name, for a land of many cultures , Origins of the Name “Palestine” and: Palestine (Region)