Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
To the first line of argument mounted yesterday, Part III section C, I omitted something which cannot be omitted viz the Israeli offer made in 1955 and kept open with Mr. Comay intructed to make that clear ebfore the U.N. By contrast, in the wake of 1948, Arab govts. confiscated the assets of Jewish residents and expelled them from their countries and have never made any offer of resitution for those sequestered assets. Quite a contrast, given the very generous offer of the Israeli govt. to the Arabs who left Israel for the purpose of war against Israel and the massacre of the Jewish people, aims still inculcated in the children of the Arabs of the `Palestinian Territory’ ( as well documented). A contrast which rebounds on those who assert Israel has robbed Arabs of their rights. Yes, some govt. did rob people of their rights, they are all Arab govts., the worst case those of Egypt, some 180,000 Jews robbed of their assets by that govt. and driven out of Egypt, the Iraq govt. who did it to some 90,000 Jews.

The contrast runs deeper. The Israeli govt exhorted the Arabs not to leave but to stay and continue to add to the economic and general prosperity of themselves and Israel in general. In other words, the Israeli govt. did not seek the ruination of those Arabs and tried to convince them not to ruin themselves. The Arab govts., on the other hand, in robbing Jews of their lawful rights, thus also robbed their countries and so people of valuable economic activity. On that, even to speak of Israeli intolerance of Arab residents is merely stupid while, to speak of Israeli abuse of Arabs and oppression of Arabs is a viscious lie which only serves to fuel hatred of the Jewish people and modern Israel. That the U.N. foments such malevolent propaganda is only further evidence of the duplicity, mendacity, and all round rottenness of the U.N., more so given the record of the stance of the Israeli govt. before the U.N.

Secondly, just to check, it is as well to state what was also implied of the force of Toynbees assertions regarding the upshot of the second Jewish-Roman War. The Arab tribes, unified by Mohammedism, on their conquest of the middle East, found a virtually empty land devoid of civilisation (2). The Arabs thus merely occupied Palestine and re-inaugurated civilisation in Palestine. No other conclusion can be drawn because that is what the force of his claim amounts to. This claim, is central to securing the major assertion, the arabs of palestine are the `native people’ of palestine, whom the Jewish people from 1917 pressed and finally overthrew in 1948.

The convenience of the argument is the fallcy of shifting sand. If there is no people who are `Palestinian Arabs’, the assumption of `unoccupied ‘ country secures , none-the-less, the claim the Arabs in Palestine are the people of that country. Jews in Palestine, it can only be concluded, being mere, originally, migrants from Europe succeded by, on Balfour’s Declaration, migrations to the `Homeland’. The Jews ceased, therefore, to be merely migrants taking up residency in an Arab country under Arabic `laws’ and govt. and became intruders then , conquistadors from 1948.

It might be agreed, for all intents and purposes, if the Arabs had assumed an unoccupied land and, settled in it, it is their territory.There was no Jewish hold in Palestine are than a few migrant Jews taking up residency oin an Arab country. The proposition is false, however, because Toynbee’s historical `facts’ are not only false, there is not one very modest circumstantial fact to lend weight to his claim. And this from an historian ?!! Well, perhaps not unusual, Toyn bee not being the first historian to be careless with truth and not the last.

The significance of the above is not Toynbee’s claim per se but, the fact that the Jews became intruders and took Palestine by force of arms, overthrowing the `native’ `palestinian population’ is, quite in evidence, a lie beleived not only by quite a few in the mid-east but also quite a few in the West, even believed by some Jews - if Encounter is any indication. This takes us to Toynbee’s second argument from history, an independent argument, ivolving an archaism which is, in any case false also. conquest as a means by which a conqueror takes over another country and asserts not only administrative control over that country but the conqured country is thereupon, say, Egytian, territory, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman territory, no longer the country of the conquered.

An archaism because, even if that argument from conquest is correct, it was definitely not acceptable since the end of the ancient period, definitely not in 1917, not in 1948, not in the 1960’s and not so today (3).So, Toynbee committed the fallacy opposite that of anachronism. The position of the conquered in the ancient middle East reamined an independent country but bound as vassal to the the Overlord King, formalised in vassal treaties with terms specifiying conditions which the vassal King had to fulfil (4). Standard expressions included familiars like `brother’, the overlord would protect his brother/son even, and do so so long as the other `brother’ fulfilled his brotherly, it might be said, obligations.

Even the harshest, most oppressive of conquering overlords, the Assyrians were no exception. The Assyrians were ever-ready to take direct administrative control of a vassal, deporting the monarch and senior adminstrators and chieftans and replacing them with their administrators. They did this, however, in strict form.

Their tactic was to impose the harshest terms on a vassal, terms almost certain to provoke revolt by the vassal. The Assyrians would retaliate with a bloody campaign completed with very brutal execution of prominent people and impose additional treaty terms. Vassal revolts again providing the `legal’ trigger to slaughter most of the ruling house and enough of the supporting arisitocratic families and install their own administration . Yet, they never equated that with, the vassal so reduced that country is henceforth Assyrian country. So even of the two Assyrian empires, and each empire -from the Egyptian and Hittite, to the Greek and Roman empires and the intervening satrapies , is Toynbee’s assertion true. Toynbee’s assertion is false completely.

Not only of the above empires but, critically, also of the Arab and Turkic empires until 1917, from the c. mid 4th century c.e. to 1917, some 1,600 years of history.From the conclusion to the second Jewish-Roman Empire to 1917, Palestine remianed Jewish country and Jeruslam their capital. Though had, at best, very limited standing -their property could be confiscated and subjected to very high rates of taxation, and though perscuted - with mob violence and sluahgter , as also during the interlude of the Crusaders occupation ( as also Moslems), they were never expelled enmasse from Palestine, it remained Jewish. Damascus was the capital of the Arab world, Mecca its holy temple. The Arabs who conquered Jerusalem were composed of mainly the southern desert tribes and for the Arab empires, as also the Turkic empire, the interest was economic and military control. Palestine remained Jewish country and Jeruslaem their captial all down those centuries post-Roman until 1917.

The above is reflected in the situation when Chauvel and Allenby put an end to the Turk Empire. Middle Eastern countries of peoples observing the same traditions, law, beliefs and such things. So to Palestine the country of the Jewish people. Balfour’s declaration is redundant on that count. It’s significance lies in, it really only amounts to formal international recognition of that fact in 1917, supported by the League of Nations, agreed by them that is the case. The League went further, the Jewish people should be encouraged to build their economic intersts, establish their own governance, should be encouraged to advance their traditions and practices and, what is more, Jews in other countries contemplating migration to the homeland of the Jewish people should be welcomed to do so.

While Balfour’s Declaration, reflecting the position of the League of Nations by formalising what was the case anyway, doesn’t explicitly provide for independence such as declared in 1948 and the naming of the country Israel ( which only reflects the case), the statments of the declaration effectively assent to what was the case, palestine is an independent Jewish country. It recognises, what actually remained was , on the end of turkish control, for the people to re-establish institutional apparatus for the purposes of, for example, law by way of courts and of governance.

The above illuminates, bye the bye, `Zionism’ and the `Zionist movement’ , for the above is the content of `Zionism’ .The belief, for example, it refers to some atavistic desire to impose an empire over the mid-east of Solomonic-Davidic proportions is downright rubbish. Rubbish, further illustrated by, some schools of Orthodox Juadiasms (in the defintion of Juadism as traditions of faith - Judaism is not a homologous tradition and never has been ) are working hard to bring that about. To the contray, the Orthodox position , not novel to 20th century Orthodox jews, is a will-o’-the wisp one of, if god wishes the people to have such natioanl greatness he would bring it about , no human action required. On this score, Israel they regard as illegitimate.

Toynbee’s next argument from history is peculiar to say the least, a moral one and resting on a crude contradiction . Toynbee compares the Arab-Muslim conquest with the oundation of Jerusalem and Judaea as the country of the Jewish people who invaded semtic territory. He is speaking of the wars of Joshua, Judaea was established by conquest of invaders. Here, he asserts, it is arrant hypocrisy to allow the foundation of the Jewish people as ligitmate but deny the same for the `Palestinian Arabs’. Since it is Toynbee who considers modern Israel was established only by conquest and yet declares Israel to be illegitimate, it is Toynbee who has hung his hat on the rack of hypocrisy.

Hypocrite and no schoalr of ancient history is he. He is reliant on history according to the Bible, disregarding the type of literature it is. The first Herodotus of Jewish History, Josephus was so reliant because their were, at best, very few few records of ancient history were available. We are pretty sure of this because he is reliant on Biblical narrative until he arrives to `modern’ hisotry, one could sya, when his evidence is rather more abundant and himself having lived through some major events. And, like Herodotus, Josephus was a very careful historian in his evaluation of evidence. In otherwords, he was quite alert to the evidential shortcomings he faced, unlike so many today.

Eeven by the 1960’s, after about a century of distinguished, brilliant biblical scholarship on the onehand and, on the other hand, archaeology, it wasn’t simply clear the Bible is not relaible history books. It was clear the narrative of history was stylised, not a-typical of narratives of `history’. It was also clear, by then, the belief the Jewish people were a unique group of newcomers to the land of Semites, engaged in wars and, finally, after toiling, warring, ado, the `Isarelite League’ , these foriegners, ancestors of the Jewish people today, caputred jerusalem and Judaea and much more besides ,and made it their capital and country, doesn’t agree with the more mundane explanation , despite the effort to still assert the Bible as reliable history.

The only valid conclusion, the ancient Jews were the orginal inhabitants of Judaea. In other words, Jewish hisotry begins with that stark but mundane observation.Not invaders, not outsiders to the Jordanain defile from Cis- to-trans- Jordan, just the people who populated Judaea whose dialect was Judahite, not to be confused with the `paleo- Hebrew’ of the Bible. That the Jewish people managed to survive the eructions of history as an independent people with capital and country is the remarkable thing.

One confines observation of ancient Jewish history to just the above point because, more is prolix matter and, that singular statement suffices for the argument in hand. To say the least, therefore, who are the Jews and the hisotry of the Jewish people is not a matter of , the Bible says so, whatsover. The integrity of Jewish history to the present,begins with that singular observation just made. In other words, the coninuity and integrity of Jewish history is not a line from conquering invaders but precisely the ancestors of the Jewish people today were the original population of Judaea, their capital Jerusalem,a `native’ (to use an otherwise vulgar and useless, meaningless term used by so many for so many different bits of nonsense - like native species) semetic population , reflected in traditions inclusive of lanaguage.