Myth #1... Israel is "Stolen Land"

[CJ 2.0]

I did not say wealth automatically leads to a higher standard of living. The argument was that Jews are more successful and that this is the result of some unique Jewish ability. I noted that this is more likely the result of a massive amount of resources being invested in an incredibly small group. If wealthy Arabs sought to share their wealth with other Arabs it would diffused among a much larger group. Still there are examples, like the UAE, where high levels of wealth have translated into much higher living standards.

ok, so let's get at this.

1. you are undoubtedly correct in saying that, all else the same, access to capital can increase development, growth, etc.

2. You seem to go further than this, however, and say that the development associated with pre-Israel Palestine brought about by the zionist pioneers was solely or primarily a result of capital investment (we can leave out the "from rich Jews/Jewish banking barons/etc." because it is irrelevant to the analysis - the source of funds is not material, from what I can see of your paradigm, and is therefore irrelevant.

I think 1 is perfectly evident - given a set of institutions, technological advancement, and population demographics (age, education, physical constitution, etc., access to more resources to achieve a goal should help to increase the probability of a good outcome or increase the degree of an outcome the group could hope to achieve.

Now of course, this is not universally true, and tehre are exceptions. First, institutional limitations could actually cause more investment to reduce outcomes, if, for example, the institutions lack mechanisms for addressing corruption and the influx of capital causes the population to pursue self interest in capturing these resources at the expense of the "common program". Second, capital may have no effect on outcomes if it cannot be dedicated to furthering the goals at issue - whether because of input constraints or of allocating those resources ineffectively. No matter how many dollars at your disposal, once you use every skilled worker in a field, the only way to increase output while maintaining quality would be to train more people, which could involve a significant lag. On the later, dedicating funds to an initiative that will not achieve a positive result will not generate any benefits, even though you may think ex ante that the initiative is the best way to go.

However, the key failing in your analysis is that it does not account for (1) the institutional capacity of the zionist population (which includes organizational on the ground and abroad, including in raising capital where necessary) (2) the educational and "life experience/outlook" endowment of that population (3) the resolve of the population given historical circumstances (which is tied closely to 1 and 2 and (4) the ability of the population to innovate when facing challenges new to the population.

Because without the endowments the zionists had in all of these areas, access to capital would have been wholly ineffective. Stated differently, capital was a necessary, but hardly sufficient, condition for the success of the zionist enterprise.

And no, no one is claiming that Jews are "special" or different from anyone else in any sort of genetic way or because of being the chosen people or any claptrap like that. But the fact is that distinct population groups have distinct cultures and values. These are born from history, from circumstance, from that internal fluidity that is culture, in order to cause the population to act differently and give them the potentuial to achieve a different outcome facing identical circumstances. Reputations of certain groups of people as industrious (e.g., Germans), hard working, dedicated to education etc. are often very well grounded. While they do not apply on the micro level very well, they certainly do apply when looking at propensities within broader population groups.

And the largely Ashkenazi zionist movement of the late 19th early 20tyh century did have a very distinctive set of attributes which was extremely helpful in their enterprise. They were highly educated. They paid close attention to the social theories of the day, they knew they needed to learn about agriculture (having been barred from agriculture for an extremely long time in their European history) but were very willing to innovate, etc. As one point of contrast, many cultures (including religious Jewish cultures) have a very strong aversion to innovation, which would be a distinct disadvantage in this sort of enterprise (think the Luddites). The largely non-religious zionist movement, however, did not face this constraint.

More to the point the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and other wealthy Jews like Jacob Schiff invested a great deal of money in Jewish causes. Universities, scholarship programs, and other projects to advance Jews in society including supporting other Jewish businesses. These were individuals who had amassed a daunting amount of wealth and so putting it into such a small community will inevitably produce disproportionate success.

and this is demonstrably false, without even leaving the sphere of this conflict. The international community has provided more resources to the Palestinians than any other group on a per capita basis as far as aid goes. And due to corruption and culture, it has gone precisely nowhere.

Wealth, as I said, was certainly a necessary factor. But it was hardly sufficient, nor particularly determinative. technological and educational endowment, combined with the social philosophy of the movement, were the primary driving factors behind the movement's success.

Basically he's talking about focusing on the global trade rather than a regional trade. That is hardly some special economic model and does not adequately account for Israel's success.

No, it doesn't. But then again, neither does access to limited funding during the pre-state days. Israel was extremely poor, and needed to address a great influx of ill-educated immigrants who had their assets seized when they were ethnically clensed from middle eastern communities they had lived in for centuries or millenia before Islam was invented. That was not remedied by rich jew bankers, and certainly did not stan in the way of Israel growing to the economic sophistication it has achieved to date while its neighbours wallow in stagnant backwardness.

 

[Demon of Light]

However, the key failing in your analysis is that it does not account for (1) the institutional capacity of the zionist population (which includes organizational on the ground and abroad, including in raising capital where necessary) (2) the educational and "life experience/outlook" endowment of that population (3) the resolve of the population given historical circumstances (which is tied closely to 1 and 2 and (4) the ability of the population to innovate when facing challenges new to the population.

My focus on money was directed more at the general success of Jews in business and academics. In Palestine the Rothschilds did not simply invest money, but brought people with considerable experience there to insure the success of their business ventures.

And no, no one is claiming that Jews are "special" or different from anyone else in any sort of genetic way or because of being the chosen people or any claptrap like that.

I don't care why someone is claiming a group is better than the rest, only that it is being claimed.

and this is demonstrably false, without even leaving the sphere of this conflict. The international community has provided more resources to the Palestinians than any other group on a per capita basis as far as aid goes. And due to corruption and culture, it has gone precisely nowhere.

Aid =/= investment.

Israel was extremely poor, and needed to address a great influx of ill-educated immigrants who had their assets seized when they were ethnically clensed from middle eastern communities they had lived in for centuries or millenia before Islam was invented. That was not remedied by rich jew bankers, and certainly did not stan in the way of Israel growing to the economic sophistication it has achieved to date while its neighbours wallow in stagnant backwardness.

In large part it has not been remedied.

 

[donsutherland1]

I did not say wealth automatically leads to a higher standard of living. The argument was that Jews are more successful and that this is the result of some unique Jewish ability.

I don't know if anyone was suggesting that the Jewish people possessed "unique ability" by virtue of who they are as a people. There is little doubt that currents related to the pursuit/attainment of education, entrepreneurship, and innovation run deep through the Jewish historical experience. Those elements, which are synergistic, have contributed to successes. Historical adversity e.g., persecution, may well have helped shape and reinforce those elements e.g., faced with barriers, Jewish people might well have, to some extent, been more likely to channel their efforts into entrepreneurship. One has witnessed a similar phenomenon among first-generation immigrants.

I noted that this is more likely the result of a massive amount of resources being invested in an incredibly small group. If wealthy Arabs sought to share their wealth with other Arabs it would diffused among a much larger group. Still there are examples, like the UAE, where high levels of wealth have translated into much higher living standards.

Capital abundance does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes. Future generations can squander capital accumulated over earlier generations (individually and as a society). Current generations can make choices that destroy capital leading to capital flight. Indeed, in many cases, a surge in capital inflows can prove greatly destabilizing. However, when capital is deployed effectively, it can facilitate competitive and economic success. I would argue that cash inflows from the sale of oil or other valuable resources, often magnitudes of order greater than the initial capital inflows into the Palestine region prior to Israel's re-establishment, represent capital streams that were deployed ineffectively or worse.

More to the point the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and other wealthy Jews like Jacob Schiff invested a great deal of money in Jewish causes. Universities, scholarship programs, and other projects to advance Jews in society including supporting other Jewish businesses. These were individuals who had amassed a daunting amount of wealth and so putting it into such a small community will inevitably produce disproportionate success.

Those successful businessmen recognized the paramount importance of education, specifically its benefit in their own lives. Their philanthrophy with respect to education is a natural response and it did make a positive difference. There perspective is one that is essentially a recognition of the long-term value of investment in developing human capital. Other societies could/should replicate such investment. The UN Development Program's Arab Human Development Report addressed, in part, the formidable barriers confronting Arab intellectual development. From a social perspective, the failure to plow even meaningful amounts of oil-based income into building world class education systems is a tragic waste of human capital. From a geopolitical perspective, the region's education deficit could wind up becoming a source of instability (domestic or external) as under-educated youth find it difficult to obtain jobs, much less those that make possible a high standard of living in a demanding global economy.

Basically he's talking about focusing on the global trade rather than a regional trade. That is hardly some special economic model and does not adequately account for Israel's success.

Trade is one of the mechanisms by which a nation can surmount a "hostile" environment, be it one in which a country is confronted by enemies or one in which it is endowed by little or no resource abundance. How nations address the challenges of adversity can make a substantial difference in whether they achieve the competitive advantages necessary to achieve and then sustain a high standard of living. Israel, of course, is far from alone in having surmounted its challenging environment to produce a high living standard. Nonetheless, its achievements should not be discounted. Many other nations faced with far lesser challenges have fallen far short of what Israel has achieved.

 

[CJ 2.0]

My focus on money was directed more at the general success of Jews in business and academics. In Palestine the Rothschilds did not simply invest money, but brought people with considerable experience there to insure the success of their business ventures.

ok. So then what is the point, exactly? Certainly, good management skills brought to any movement or initiative is helpful in bringing about a successful outcome. And a community or society that produces a greater number of successful managers is more liekly to succeed in any individual project, particularly if they are also good at allocating responsibility based on aptitude (whether through the market, suasion or otherwise) than a society that imposes managers from above without reference to ability or performance.

It may have been the strategists that developed the battle plan to retake Europe from the Germans, but it was the training and the execution by the boots on the ground that won the war.

I don't care why someone is claiming a group is better than the rest, only that it is being claimed.

well, then you have a PC problem. Some groups ARE better than others, and other groups could do very well by seeking to emulate that group in whatever has caused it to be more successful.

Businesses need to do it with their competitors, students need to do it with their peers, and schools of philosophy need to do it with competing ideologies. Groups of people forming national or community groups ought to do it too.

There is a whole lot that can be learned by looking at why the zionist movement was such a success, far beyong the "they had rich jew bankers" argument. This case study has direct relevance to institutional and development issues in the developing world today, which has the potential to provide substantial benefits to millions upon millions of people. That you would refuse to look at it based on some twisted PC notion that it is unethical to "claim one group is better than the rest" for any reason is, actually, rather appalingly immoral. Even the Palestinians, who you would purport to support, would do very well by looking at the socilogical, demographic and political reasons for the success of the zionists and compare those institutional capacities with their own, to see where they are lacking and work to remedy those deficiencies.

But I guess ignorance is bliss, no?

Aid =/= investment.

of course it is. Or at least, certain kinds of aid are investment. Aid in developing agricultural infrastructure, educational infrastructure, governing institutions, effective security and the rule of law, etc. All of these ARE investments in the society in which the aid is invested. And all of that was made available, in spades, to the Palestinians through the PLO.

In large part it has not been remedied.

what has not been remedied? please explain.

 

[Demon of Light]

I don't know if anyone was suggesting that the Jewish people possessed "unique ability" by virtue of who they are as a people. There is little doubt that currents related to the pursuit/attainment of education, entrepreneurship, and innovation run deep through the Jewish historical experience. Those elements, which are synergistic, have contributed to successes. Historical adversity e.g., persecution, may well have helped shape and reinforce those elements e.g., faced with barriers, Jewish people might well have, to some extent, been more likely to channel their efforts into entrepreneurship. One has witnessed a similar phenomenon among first-generation immigrants.

Many persecuted people never succeed and indeed it is primarily at the behest of the government in power that European Jews were able to succeed. Most other persecuted groups were not extended the same pleasantries.

Those successful businessmen recognized the paramount importance of education, specifically its benefit in their own lives. Their philanthrophy with respect to education is a natural response and it did make a positive difference. There perspective is one that is essentially a recognition of the long-term value of investment in developing human capital. Other societies could/should replicate such investment.

I am not suggesting it is a bad thing, only that it is the reason for such success.

Many other nations faced with far lesser challenges have fallen far short of what Israel has achieved.

That is because they do not have many influential benefactors sprinkled across the developed world.

ok. So then what is the point, exactly?

The point is too often we hear of how Palestine was an arid landscape the Arabs could not develop and then the Jews came in and miraculously brought the land to life even increasing the lot of the ungrateful Arabs. Basically it uses all the rhetorical apologetic devices of racist colonialism. That of the lesser natives being helpless before the superior peoples who brought them prosperity and civilized them. Then it is followed with outcries about the audacity of the natives to rebel against their benefactors.

If the rhetoric used to hail Jews and Israel were used to hail whites people would be screaming at the top of their lungs about white supremacy and hate speech.

well, then you have a PC problem. Some groups ARE better than others, and other groups could do very well by seeking to emulate that group in whatever has caused it to be more successful.

Some groups are more successful, this is not the same as being better. It also does not mean they should be emulated. Nothing analogous to the Zionist project should ever be emulated.

of course it is. Or at least, certain kinds of aid are investment. Aid in developing agricultural infrastructure, educational infrastructure, governing institutions, effective security and the rule of law, etc. All of these ARE investments in the society in which the aid is invested. And all of that was made available, in spades, to the Palestinians through the PLO.

There was direct investment in Palestine by Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds. Significant investment as I already noted. Nesher Cement and the Israel Electric Corporation have a monopoly over their respective industries and were both set up with direct financial support from Edmond de Rothschild and the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association he had set up. There is just no comparison of the situation.

what has not been remedied? please explain.

The situation of Mizrahi Jews. While some have had limited success they have not had anywhere near the success of Ashkenazi Jews.

 

[Efendi]

Jews were given a land to build a state in a stranger territority. Jews invaded country which wasn't belong to them at that time. Now there are millions of Israel living there long it is not fair to send them abroad.

 

[digsbe]

Jews were given a land to build a state in a stranger territority. Jews invaded country which wasn't belong to them at that time. Now there are millions of Israel living there long it is not fair to send them abroad.

There was no Jewish invasion, there was no theft. There was only a partition given by the UN which the Arabs rejected. Through wars and other conflicts, Israel has gained and lost land. Israel was not created with a war for independence or conquer. Rather, her creation sparked a war that led to Israel's first victory among many.

 

[Efendi]

There was no Jewish invasion, there was no theft. There was only a partition given by the UN which the Arabs rejected. Through wars and other conflicts, Israel has gained and lost land. Israel was not created with a war for independence or conquer. Rather, her creation sparked a war that led to Israel's first victory among many.

Not only partition.

The land first stolen from Turk. Then filled with strangers, then after partitition. Yes it was UN decision. Arabs who were under invassion of UN opposed to it. Still opposing it. No one asked opinion of local people in the region. Palestine wasn't country of Jews who were sent there. They were actually totally stranger to the land, the culture.

It was the cost of being alliance with British agaisnt Ottoman. Reason why I am not against existence of Israel is, there are millions of jews having life in the country, they have no where else to go.

It is clear It wasn't their country when Israel created. Call it thieft or invasion of Britania, both of them ring the same door. It was just having a stranger land that wasn't your country.

Jews were not man of this land. They were foreigner.

 

[digsbe]

Not only partition.

The land first stolen from Turk. Then filled with strangers, then after partitition. Yes it was UN decision. Arabs who were under invassion of UN opposed to it. Still opposing it. No one asked opinion of local people in the region. Palestine wasn't country of Jews who were sent there. They were actually totally stranger to the land, the culture.

No, the land was annexed by Brittan after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Brits handed over the British mandate over to the UN and the UN set a partition for two states. One being a Jewish state and the other being an Arab state. There was no invasion of the UN. The UN had legal control and sovereignty over the British Mandate when Brittan gave them authority over it. The creation of Israel was not meant to be a democratic decision, it was partitioned and presented to both parties. The Jews accepted the partition and the Arabs rejected it even though Israel got less than 20% of the Mandate. The day after Israel's creation many Arab nations went to war against Israel in hopes of destroying it and claiming the entire region as an Arab state. There has always been a Jewish presence in present day Israel. It's the Jewish homeland, and Jews have always inhabited that region (even in sparser populations) sense it became their homeland thousands of years ago.

It was the cost of being alliance with British agaisnt Ottoman. Reason why I am not against existence of Israel is, there are millions of jews having life in the country, they have no where else to go.

I can understand this.

It is clear It wasn't their country when Israel created. Call it thieft or invasion of Britania, both of them ring the same door. It was just having a stranger land that wasn't your country.

Jews were not man of this land. They were foreigner.

It was no one's country. The land of present day Israel has not been a sovereign state since Biblical times. After it's capture by the Romans, Israel has been a territory of other empires and never a sovereign state. It hasn't been anyone's country since the Jews were taken over by the Roman Empire and made a territory of that Empire. The land of Israel has never been a sovereign Arab nation either. There was no theft, just transfer of powers. The Ottomans had it, then they gave it to the British Empire. The Brits then gave it to the UN, and the UN chose to create two nations with the territory. Jews were not foreigners in their homeland. Again, there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel since ancient times. Again, the land of Israel has also never been a sovereign Arab state either. Populations have fluctuated, but the Jewish people have always had a population there, it is their historic homeland, and has never been a sovereign state since the Jews ruled it before being taken over by the Romans.

 

[Efendi]

No, the land was annexed by Brittan after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman didn't gave the land free, There were actually invaded by Britania. These are sheer fact in Turkish history.

.

The Brits handed over the British mandate over to the UN and the UN set a partition for two states. One being a Jewish state and the other being an Arab state

Thats true. UN seperated the land into two, filled one part with foreiner Jews set there Jewish country, gave the other part to Arabs.

There was no invasion of the UN. The UN had legal control and sovereignty over the British Mandate when Brittan gave them authority over it.

So UN took control of the invaded land, shape the land to create Jewish state, because there were newlly invaded land.

The creation of Israel was not meant to be a democratic decision, it was partitioned and presented to both parties. The Jews accepted the partition and the Arabs rejected it even though Israel got less than 20% of the Mandate. The day after Israel's creation many Arab nations went to war against Israel in hopes of destroying it and claiming the entire region as an Arab state.

The fact that it wasn't democratic means injustice isn't that?

There has always been a Jewish presence in present day Israel. It's the Jewish homeland, and Jews have always inhabited that region (even in sparser populations) sense it became their homeland thousands of years ago.

Homeland: 1. One's native land.

So It was homeland of jews who are native to the land.

I can understand indigenious jews have the region as homeland. But I can't understand what the foreign jews to do with land. It wasn't their native land. Beside they had not clear idea what the land was. They weren't part of the country actually.

Foreing Jews were foreign to the country because they weren't part of the country. They have not been part of it for thousands years. If one is not part of the country he is foreigner, correct me please.

To say the last, land is taken by army. States build up by army. It is usual course of human history.

 

[Demon of Light]

There was no Jewish invasion, there was no theft.

That depends on how you define invasion and what you consider to be theft. Technically the first European settlers here did not invade or steal land. Yet in just a few centuries of the first dozen or so arriving the natives found themselves considered foreigners in their own land and increasingly conceding territory until they were driven from much of what they called home. Most conflicts with them were actually initiated by the natives in response to a creeping annexation of their homeland by a foreign people.

I imagine some looking back feel there is nothing inaccurate about saying, "We got robbed!" I would agree.

Israel was not created with a war for independence or conquer. Rather, her creation sparked a war that led to Israel's first victory among many.

Perhaps, but given the nature of partition I think even if it was accepted by the Arabs Israel would have moved quickly to find an excuse to start a war and gain more territory.

 

[mbig]

Not only partition.

The land first stolen from Turk. Then filled with strangers, then after partitition. Yes it was UN decision. Arabs who were under invassion of UN opposed to it. Still opposing it. No one asked opinion of local people in the region. Palestine wasn't country of Jews who were sent there. They were actually totally stranger to the land, the culture.

It was the cost of being alliance with British agaisnt Ottoman. Reason why I am not against existence of Israel is, there are millions of jews having life in the country, they have no where else to go.

It is clear It wasn't their country when Israel created. Call it thieft or invasion of Britania, both of them ring the same door. It was just having a stranger land that wasn't your country.

Jews were not man of this land. They were foreigner.

Actually the "Turks"/Ottomans conquered/"stole" it as well. It was last a self-governing when it was called 'Israel' and then reconstituted as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

"...In the late 13th century, Palestine and Syria were the primary front for battles between the Egyptian Mamluks and the Mongol Empire. The pivotal battle was the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, when the Mamluks, after having brokered a cautious neutrality with the Crusaders (who regarded the Mongols as a greater threat), were able to advance northwards and achieve a decisive victory over the Mongols at Ain Jalut, near Galilee. The Mongols were, however, able to engage into some brief Mongol raids into Palestine in 1260 and 1300, reaching as far as Gaza.

Due to the many earthquakes, the religious extremism and the black plague that hit during this era, the Population Dwindled to around 200,000. It is during this period that the land began to have a Levantine Muslim majority and even in the traditional Jewish stronghold of Eastern Galilee, a new Jewish-Muslim culture began to develop.

The Mamluk Sultanate ultimately became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, in the wake of campaigns waged by Selim I in the 16th century.

Early modern period

In 1516 the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine.[61] The country became part of the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople appointed local governors. Public works, including the city walls, were rebuilt in Jerusalem by Suleiman the Magnificent in 1537. An area around Tiberias was given to Don Joseph Nasi for a Jewish enclave. Following the expulsions from Spain, the Jewish population of Palestine rose to around 25% (includes non-Ottoman citizens, excludes Bedouin) and regained its former stronghold of Eastern Galilee. That ended in 1660 when they were massacred at Safed and Jerusalem. During the reign of Dahar al Omar, Pasha of the Galilee, Jews from Ukraine began to resettle Tiberias.
[.....]

So much for the impression there were no Jews since their defeat by the Romans.
And so much for "there was no violence against Jews before Zionism."
Jews (Safed, etc) were again attacked several times in the early 19th Century; before Herzl was born.

This string needed refreshing for our New crop of posters, Some with warped history.

 

[Red_Dave]

There was no Jewish invasion, there was no theft. There was only a partition given by the UN which the Arabs rejected. Through wars and other conflicts, Israel has gained and lost land. Israel was not created with a war for independence or conquer. Rather, her creation sparked a war that led to Israel's first victory among many.

From a respected Israeli historian YouTube - Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Ilan Pappe - Part1

 

[Gardener]

From a respected Israeli historian YouTube - Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Ilan Pappe - Part1

You mentioned a respected Israeli historian, but I see you inadvertantly referred us to Ilan Pappe.

Would you kindly reference the respected historian, instead. Thanks.

 

[mbig]

You mentioned a respected Israeli historian, but I see you inadvertantly referred us to Ilan Pappe.

Would you kindly reference the respected historian, instead. Thanks.

You'd think he would at least mention 'controversial'.
Or that he is the most noxious/virulently anti-Israel of the 'New Historians'/Revisionists.
He probably just doesn't know.
Of course, Googling/Wiki is always a good idea especially if you don't.

Nonetheless, if there's some Specific issue he'd like to discuss from his Pappe multi-part Monologue...

 

[shanners]

The Myth of Palestine as "A Land Without People" by Allan C. Brownfeld


Ahad Ha'am, the respected Russian Jewish writer and philosopher, refused from the beginning to ignore the presence of Arabs in Palestine. He paid his first visit to the new Jewish settlements in Palestine in 1891. In his essay, The Truth From the Land of Israel, he says that it is an illusion to think of Palestine as an empty country: "We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, a non-cultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow..."

The behavior of Jewish settlers toward the Arabs disturbed him. They had not learned from experience as a minority within a wider population, but reacted with the cruelty of slaves who had suddenly become kings, treating their neighbors with contempt. The Arabs, he wrote, understood very well what Zionist intentions were in the country and "if the time should come when the lives of our people in Palestine should develop to the extent that, to a smaller or greater degree they usurp the place of the local population, the latter will not yield easily...We have to treat the local population with love and respect, justly and rightly. And what do our brethren in the land of Israel do? Exactly the opposite! Slaves they were in the country of exile, and suddenly they find themselves in a boundless and anarchic freedom, as is always the case with a slave that has become king; and they behave toward the Arabs with hostility and cruelty."

Jewish ethics were the heart and soul of Ahad Ha'am's brand of nationalism, and to the end of his life he denounced any compromise with political expediency. In 1913, protesting against a Jewish boycott of Arab labor, he wrote to a friend: "...I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: If this is so now, what will our relations to the others be like if, at the end of time, we shall really achieve power in Eretz Israel? And if this be the Messiah, I do not wish to see his coming."

... The promotion of Jewish nationalism, David Goldberg argues, "meant the propagation of myths which became enshrined in Zionist ideology." One of these myths was that the Jews "were one nation." In fact, he declares, "The Jews were not, and are not." What they share is not nationality but "religious identity...It was fidelity to the teachings and practices of their religion, Judaism" that provided common ground to Jews from Europe, the Middle East and other parts of the world.

A more dangerous Zionist myth, he concludes, "was fostered to justify the Zionist enterprise: that the return to the barren and sparsely populated Jewish homeland was being undertaken by enlightened bearers of Western culture to the backward Orient. Zionism never recovered from the shock of finding in Palestine a large Arab population that had lived on the land for centuries and was indifferent to the benefits of colonization. Zionism had to adjust its rationale: it was Palestine by 'historic right' (whatever that may mean, and a strange proof of divine sanction to be advanced by secular nationalists)...


The Myth of Palestine as "A Land Without People" (by Allan C. Brownfeld) - Media Monitors Network

 

[Red_Dave]

You mentioned a respected Israeli historian, but I see you inadvertantly referred us to Ilan Pappe.

Would you kindly reference the respected historian, instead. Thanks.

The univeristy of Exeter seem to think so

 

[mbig]

The Myth of Palestine as "A Land Without People" by Allan C. Brownfeld
Ahad Ha'am, the respected Russian Jewish writer and philosopher, refused from the beginning to ignore the presence of Arabs in Palestine.
[........]
Media Monitors Network[/url]

Media Monitors Network
Muhammad Ali Khan (Chief Editor & Founder MMN)
Today's top story?
Osama Bin Lynched
Osama Bin Lynched - Media Monitors Network (MMN)


Ahad Ha'am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"....Ha'am believed that rather than aspiring to establish a 'Jewish National Home' or state immediately, Zionism must bring Jews to Palestine gradually, while turning it into a cultural center. At the same time, it was incumbent upon Zionism to inspire a revival of Jewish national life in the Diaspora. Then and only then, he said, would the Jewish people be strong enough to assume the mantle of building a nation state....

Importance of Hebrew and Jewish culture

Ahad Ha'am's ideas were popular at a very difficult time for Zionism, beginning after the failures of the first Aliya. His unique contribution was to emphasize the importance of reviving Hebrew and Jewish culture both in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora, something that was recognized only belatedly, when it became part of the Zionist program after 1898.... Ahad Ha'am played an important role in the revival of the Hebrew language and Jewish culture, and in cementing a link between the proposed Jewish state and Hebrew culture.

Cultural Zionism

Ahad Ha'am's 'cultural Zionism' and his writings have been widely Distorted however, or misunderstood and Quoted Out of Context to imply that he thought Jews should Not settle in the Land of Israel / Palestine, or that he thought it was impossible to ever establish a Jewish state. In 1889 his first article criticizing practical Zionism, called "Lo ze haddereckh" (This is not the way) appeared in HaMelitz.[8] The ideas in this article became the platform for Bnai Moshe (sons of Moses), a group he founded that year. Bnai Moshe, active until 1897, worked to improve Hebrew education, build up a wider audience for Hebrew literature, and assist the Jewish settlements. In 1896, Ginsberg became editor of Hashiloah, a Hebrew monthly, a position he held for six years. After stepping down as editor in 1903, he went back to the business world.
[.....]
He settled in Tel Aviv in early 1922, plagued by ill health, and died there in 1927.[2]

Ginsberg's tomb, labeled "Ahad Ha'am" on the tombstone, Trumpeldor cemetery, Tel Aviv

Political role

Ahad Ha'am's influence in the political realm can be ascribed to his charismatic personality and spiritual authority rather than to his official functions he fulfilled. For the "Democratic Faction", the party that propagated cultural Zionism (founded in 1901 by Chaim Weizmann), he served in the words of his biographer, Steve Zipperstein, "as a symbol for the movement's culturalists, the faction's most coherent totem. He was, however, not – certainly not to the extent to which members of this group, especially Chaim Weizmann, would later contend – its chief ideological influence."[9] It is not widely known, that the rather shy Ahad Ha'am was a talented negotiator: In this role he was engaged during the "language controversy" that accompanied the founding of the Haifa Technikum (today: the Technion) and in the negotiations culminating in the Balfour Declaration.[10]

Commemoration

Many cities in Israel have streets named after Ahad Ha'am.

 

[shanners]

Media Monitors Network
Muhammad Ali Khan (Chief Editor & Founder MMN)
Today's top story?
Osama Bin Lynched
Osama Bin Lynched - Media Monitors Network (MMN)

So?

Ahad Ha'am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So?

 

[donsutherland1]

Media Monitors Network
Muhammad Ali Khan (Chief Editor & Founder MMN)
Today's top story?
Osama Bin Lynched
Osama Bin Lynched - Media Monitors Network (MMN)

So?

The source typically provides largely unsubstantiated and greatly exaggerated opinion. The Osama Bin Laden piece is just one representative example of the source's body of work. Hence, it lacks credibility. Given that general flaw, its opinions on the Mideast do not add much insight, particularly if one is looking for a serious discussion of the region's history and dynamics.

Although opinions are subjective by nature, well-written opinions should be grounded in facts and they should avoid exaggeration. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Media Monitors Network's opinion pieces.

 

[shanners]

The source typically provides largely unsubstantiated and greatly exaggerated opinion. The Osama Bin Laden piece is just one representative example of the source's body of work. Hence, it lacks credibility. Given that general flaw, its opinions on the Mideast do not add much insight, particularly if one is looking for a serious discussion of the region's history and dynamics.

Although opinions are subjective by nature, well-written opinions should be grounded in facts and they should avoid exaggeration. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Media Monitors Network's opinion pieces.

Nowhere as greatly exaggerated as some of the pieces in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Besides, it's Allan C. Brownfeld's work you should be trying to debunk, not Media Monitors Network, who is simply the host.

 

[mbig]

Nowhere as greatly exaggerated as some of the pieces in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Besides, it's Allan C Brownfeld work you should be trying to debunk, not Media Monitors Network, who is simply the host.

Brownfield's main source, comprising 5 paragraph's in the middle of the article WAS Adressed by me. (Ahad Ha'am)
Your response, probably not having even read your own article, was "So?".

Do you have any points of your own to make- or one highlight you'd like to discuss? Or will it be the usual?

 

[shanners]

Brownfield's main source, comprising 5 paragraph's in the middle of the article WAS Adressed by me. (Ahad Ha'am)
Your response, probably not having even read your own article, was "So?".

Meaning, what's your point? The section on Ahad Ha'am supports Brownfield's argument that Palestine was not "A Land Without People": he "refused from the beginning to ignore the presence of Arabs in Palestine" and said "it is an illusion to think of Palestine as an empty country". How does the Wikipedia article negate/rebut this, which presumably is what you are trying to show?

 

[donsutherland1]

Nowhere as greatly exaggerated as some of the pieces in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Besides, it's Allan C. Brownfeld's work you should be trying to debunk, not Media Monitors Network, who is simply the host.

You didn't understand the point of Mbig's message. I was explaining why the point he made was relevant. Of course, he also debunked Mr. Brownfeld's opinion, but that was a separate matter.

 

[shanners]

You didn't understand the point of Mbig's message. I was explaining why the point he made was relevant.

And I explained why I felt your response was irrelevant.

he also debunked Mr. Brownfeld's opinion

How? By simply posting an excerpt from a Wikipedia article (as if that site was an absolute authority) and then highlighting a part? Where he seems to be suggesting that Brownfeld has distorted Ha'am's writings or quoted him out of context. I'm sorry but that is not a debunking.

Besides, when Wikipedia quotes Ha'am as saying "We who live abroad are accustomed to believe that almost all Eretz Yisrael is now uninhabited desert and whoever wishes can buy land there as he pleases. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land [ha’aretz] cultivated fields that are not used for planting. Only those sand fields or stone mountains that would require the investment of hard labor and great expense to make them good for planting remain uncultivated...", that would appear to support Brownfeld's argument, wouldn't you say?