This is what is missing in today's educational system. Instead of teaching the historical truths they teach gender dysphoria and DEI and a socialist ideology that for historical benefit to the timeline has never worked. Socialism is only good for the people in charge just like communism. They think socialism is going to make them feel better. Not learning the proper history and just taking the rhetoric of a fake people is going to make them on the right side of Islam there is no right side or the non-believers.
I was never taught gender dysmorphia in school. I wish I had been—gender dysmorphia is objectively a real thing, well-documented with decades of empirical evidence and absolutely not a shred of credible empirical counterevidence. I agree whole-heartedly that we need to learn proper history, which is why this blog post is so important and is also why refusing to accept transphobic worldviews that deny science, medicine, psychology, and history is also important.
Very helpful overview. It's staggering how such mindless propaganda has so easily taken hold of so many. The universities have a lot to answer for in their blithe promotion of activist positions.
All of written history and now paleo-genomics show populations have continuously been replaced in whole or part. Certainly Jews lived and governed in Jerusalem during Biblical times. This is not relevant to the present. What is, is that the Jewish state exists now and is not going anywhere. There is no place on earth where the ruling population didn't colonize it, and nearly all of those displaced existing peoples. So what.
"so what" is a horrible attitude. If we don't learn from the past, then the past repeats. The truth is Jews are not colonialists like the British were.
"So what" is aimed at anyone thinking there was some point in history where everyone was where they were supposed to be - in particular, aimed at those who think we should go back to Poland, Ethiopia, Iran or wherever we were at some ideal point in the past. It's not a horrible attitude. It's a Zionist attitude saying we are here to stay and will defend ourselves no matter what names you call us.
Sadly, many of them are as bad, push Edward Said’s theories as if they were the Holy Grail. We are now seeing just why Qatar - who also alongside Iran have funded Hamas - have pumped billions into the USA University system.
Just a note. It was Harry St John Philby who aligned with the Saud family, not Lawrence of Arabia, who preferred support for the Hashemite family, traditional guardians of the holy city of Mecca. The Saud family was closely connected to the severely Islamist Wahhabist movement since the 18th century, while the Hashemite family was sympathetic to the emerging Arab nationalist movement.
It’s Palestinians and their supporters that raise the issue of Colonialism by falsely claiming through genetic ancestry that Jews don’t belong there… and feel, through this, they’ve won the political argument.
I’ve shown them clearly that they’re wrong, and thus they’ve resoundly lost the political argument. Any other claims I can shove back up your bum while you’re here?
It’s Palestinians and their supporters who use the DNA-Ashkenazi link to try and prove some form of ‘outsider’ colonialism.
Your diatribe also doesn’t address the other key issue raised that ‘colonialism’ generally stems from a mother country spreading its dominance to other regions; or, in the case of Islam, spreading its religion with attached rules and laws, to other regions.
In any case, your whole premise about military dominance and control falls flat from the outset. The first Jewish population arriving and even up until 1948 had no military dominance; they scraped together rifles from Czechoslovakia to defend against the onslaught of five surrounding Arab nations, and it was indeed miraculous that they won.
Also, they accepted the partition plan, and would have been quite happy to live peacefully next to a Palestininian state - rather than one hell bent on Israel’s destruction, and again getting aid from various Arab nations to fulfill that up until 1973… and devolving since into various terrorist groups, again funded by outside Arab nations.
Israel’s military has only gained such strength through having to repeatedly defend against these terrorist Jihadist onslaughts.
, and the idea that Jews aren’t “outsiders,” and now claim it’s Palestinians who are obsessed with ancestry.
By jove, he's got it. If this wasn't at the root of many Palestinian's claims of Israeli Jews being outsiders, and thus colonialists, it wouldn't have been an issue. It needed tackling, which I did thoroughly.
My 1948 comment is not irrelevant, but your aftermath comment about 750,000 Palestinians leaving/expelled is. With five Arab nations trying to force their will, it was a miracle the Jews won... and if they'd lost, it would have been 600,000 of them fleeing/expelled.
Also, at this same time, some 1 million Jews fled/expelled Muslim nations between 1948-1950. The way Israel/Jews looked at it this was like a 'population exchange', similar to that that took place between Greece and Turkey decades previous. But the Arab nations refused to absorb them, preferring to keep them as refugees as a political weapon against Israel.
One of the first heads of UNRWA, Lt. General Sir Alexander Galloway, was particularly blunt on the issue in an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph as early as 1952: 'It is perfectly clear that the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.'
The arms issue and Israel's initial weakness, you have tried to skirt around unsuccessfully. You can hardly be an invading, colonial nation if you lack the military power to keep at bay the numerous Arab nations bent on your destruction.
Finally, you keep using the term settlers... but you can hardly be an invading 'settler' when in essence you are returning to your own nation and roots, albeit a long gap in between. Ben Gurion on that subject in 1947 to the UN:
'I am afraid, sir I cannot agree with that view, because it implies a few things which we think are not the way you put it, Mr. Chairman. We have no conflict with the Arabs on our side. As far as this country and the Arabs are concerned, what we say is that we were dispossessed from our country, although it was a considerable time ago. But we did not give it up. It is our home. We admit that all those who are living in this country have the same right to it, just as we. We do not say, as in the case of other dispossessed people, that the people who are there ought to be removed.
‘There was such a view held by the Labour Party, adopted only two years ago by the British Labour Party, just before the election, that in order to make more room for Jews the Arabs should be encouraged to transfer to other countries. We did not accept it even then; we did not approve of it. We do not claim that any Arab ought to be removed. Therefore, we have no conflict, as far as we are concerned, with the Arabs. They deny our right to be in our home. If you call this a conflict, then there is a conflict, but it is not a conflict on our side.'
It's a bit like, if you imagine the native US Indians, rather than just being put in reservations, were dispersed to the four winds to live in other nations. If they then returned and made a bid to have a state of their own, or even half a state, nobody would describe them as 'invading settlers', however much of a gap had transpired in-between.
Also the fact that the checkpoints and occupation you mention were all but non-existent until 2005, and only came about because of successive waves of terrorist attacks. If you'd travelled in the region extensively before that, which I did between 1977- 1982, you'd have seen that. You could travel from Jerusalem to the Jordan border, or the other way into Gaza all the way to the sea, buy fish there and return... and hardly see a single checkpoint, guard or barrier. And Palestinians too used to move freely, buying in the markets in Israel before returning to Gaza or the West Bank.
Arafat made a proclamation in the mid 1980s, 'We will make life insufferable for the Jews... they will have no choice but to leave.' Thus started numerous intifadas and terrorist attacks... which with the necessary barriers and checkpoints, backfired.
Without Arafat's and hardline Palestinians' intent to ethnic cleanse the entire area of Jews through endless terrorist bombings and attacks... it would be like the 1977-82 period again... hardly any barriers and checkpoints in sight.
It’s also absurd to act like collective punishment through walls, checkpoints...
You seem to have coveniently sidestepped the point that these only came about due to Arafat's declaration that they would make life insufferable for the Jews... an intended and planned ethnic cleansing, Two suicide bombings a month sometimes... one of the last before the barriers killed 22 young teens aged 13-19 in an afternoon disco.
Such was the public outrage that there were demands for the barriers to be built. These phrases such as 'collective punishment' are so lame given this context and background.
Were not the waves of suicide bombings a 'collective punishment' against the people of Israel? Afraid to go on a bus or sit in a cafe or allow their teen children to go to an afternoon disco? Of course it was.
It actually sickens me how so many Palestinian supporters use stock phrases without thinking them through.
The security divides were seen as a matter of survival to Israeli society, no more, no less. Also, they were an enormous inconveniece to Israelis too ... no more trips to Nablus or Ramallah for shopping, unless you want to risk getting stoned or knifed. And Gaza post 2005, you risked beeing kidnapped or killed.
So that false claim of 'collective punishment' also worked against the Israelis... all instigated by an intended suicide-bombing led ethnic cleansing aim from Arafat et al.
Thoughtful analysis.
This is what is missing in today's educational system. Instead of teaching the historical truths they teach gender dysphoria and DEI and a socialist ideology that for historical benefit to the timeline has never worked. Socialism is only good for the people in charge just like communism. They think socialism is going to make them feel better. Not learning the proper history and just taking the rhetoric of a fake people is going to make them on the right side of Islam there is no right side or the non-believers.
I was never taught gender dysmorphia in school. I wish I had been—gender dysmorphia is objectively a real thing, well-documented with decades of empirical evidence and absolutely not a shred of credible empirical counterevidence. I agree whole-heartedly that we need to learn proper history, which is why this blog post is so important and is also why refusing to accept transphobic worldviews that deny science, medicine, psychology, and history is also important.
Once asylums were closed these people came out . They are a mico sized minority but for some reason they're on the top of the list .
MAGA MAKE ASYLUMS GREAT AGAIN
Excellent essay.
Thanks for this thoughtful and in depth analysis which attempts to fight the sea of misinformation. Its deeply appreciated! 👏
This is an excellent essay. Thank you, John.
Very informative. Such a complicated and multi-faceted history of the peoples and the regions, which you manage to explain so clearly. Thank you.
Very helpful overview. It's staggering how such mindless propaganda has so easily taken hold of so many. The universities have a lot to answer for in their blithe promotion of activist positions.
All of written history and now paleo-genomics show populations have continuously been replaced in whole or part. Certainly Jews lived and governed in Jerusalem during Biblical times. This is not relevant to the present. What is, is that the Jewish state exists now and is not going anywhere. There is no place on earth where the ruling population didn't colonize it, and nearly all of those displaced existing peoples. So what.
"so what" is a horrible attitude. If we don't learn from the past, then the past repeats. The truth is Jews are not colonialists like the British were.
"So what" is aimed at anyone thinking there was some point in history where everyone was where they were supposed to be - in particular, aimed at those who think we should go back to Poland, Ethiopia, Iran or wherever we were at some ideal point in the past. It's not a horrible attitude. It's a Zionist attitude saying we are here to stay and will defend ourselves no matter what names you call us.
Rather than taking a swipe at the students, ask, "who are the teachers?"
Sadly, many of them are as bad, push Edward Said’s theories as if they were the Holy Grail. We are now seeing just why Qatar - who also alongside Iran have funded Hamas - have pumped billions into the USA University system.
What about this guy?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Just a note. It was Harry St John Philby who aligned with the Saud family, not Lawrence of Arabia, who preferred support for the Hashemite family, traditional guardians of the holy city of Mecca. The Saud family was closely connected to the severely Islamist Wahhabist movement since the 18th century, while the Hashemite family was sympathetic to the emerging Arab nationalist movement.
So, how would you describe the formation and subsequent history until now? And, what about the settlements in the West Bank
The Ummah is nothing if not a colonial project.
Aside from the point about TE Lawrence and the Saud family, an excellent article.
You’ve got this ass upwards.
It’s Palestinians and their supporters that raise the issue of Colonialism by falsely claiming through genetic ancestry that Jews don’t belong there… and feel, through this, they’ve won the political argument.
I’ve shown them clearly that they’re wrong, and thus they’ve resoundly lost the political argument. Any other claims I can shove back up your bum while you’re here?
It’s Palestinians and their supporters who use the DNA-Ashkenazi link to try and prove some form of ‘outsider’ colonialism.
Your diatribe also doesn’t address the other key issue raised that ‘colonialism’ generally stems from a mother country spreading its dominance to other regions; or, in the case of Islam, spreading its religion with attached rules and laws, to other regions.
In any case, your whole premise about military dominance and control falls flat from the outset. The first Jewish population arriving and even up until 1948 had no military dominance; they scraped together rifles from Czechoslovakia to defend against the onslaught of five surrounding Arab nations, and it was indeed miraculous that they won.
Also, they accepted the partition plan, and would have been quite happy to live peacefully next to a Palestininian state - rather than one hell bent on Israel’s destruction, and again getting aid from various Arab nations to fulfill that up until 1973… and devolving since into various terrorist groups, again funded by outside Arab nations.
Israel’s military has only gained such strength through having to repeatedly defend against these terrorist Jihadist onslaughts.
Nice try… but no cigar.
, and the idea that Jews aren’t “outsiders,” and now claim it’s Palestinians who are obsessed with ancestry.
By jove, he's got it. If this wasn't at the root of many Palestinian's claims of Israeli Jews being outsiders, and thus colonialists, it wouldn't have been an issue. It needed tackling, which I did thoroughly.
My 1948 comment is not irrelevant, but your aftermath comment about 750,000 Palestinians leaving/expelled is. With five Arab nations trying to force their will, it was a miracle the Jews won... and if they'd lost, it would have been 600,000 of them fleeing/expelled.
Also, at this same time, some 1 million Jews fled/expelled Muslim nations between 1948-1950. The way Israel/Jews looked at it this was like a 'population exchange', similar to that that took place between Greece and Turkey decades previous. But the Arab nations refused to absorb them, preferring to keep them as refugees as a political weapon against Israel.
One of the first heads of UNRWA, Lt. General Sir Alexander Galloway, was particularly blunt on the issue in an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph as early as 1952: 'It is perfectly clear that the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.'
The arms issue and Israel's initial weakness, you have tried to skirt around unsuccessfully. You can hardly be an invading, colonial nation if you lack the military power to keep at bay the numerous Arab nations bent on your destruction.
Finally, you keep using the term settlers... but you can hardly be an invading 'settler' when in essence you are returning to your own nation and roots, albeit a long gap in between. Ben Gurion on that subject in 1947 to the UN:
'I am afraid, sir I cannot agree with that view, because it implies a few things which we think are not the way you put it, Mr. Chairman. We have no conflict with the Arabs on our side. As far as this country and the Arabs are concerned, what we say is that we were dispossessed from our country, although it was a considerable time ago. But we did not give it up. It is our home. We admit that all those who are living in this country have the same right to it, just as we. We do not say, as in the case of other dispossessed people, that the people who are there ought to be removed.
‘There was such a view held by the Labour Party, adopted only two years ago by the British Labour Party, just before the election, that in order to make more room for Jews the Arabs should be encouraged to transfer to other countries. We did not accept it even then; we did not approve of it. We do not claim that any Arab ought to be removed. Therefore, we have no conflict, as far as we are concerned, with the Arabs. They deny our right to be in our home. If you call this a conflict, then there is a conflict, but it is not a conflict on our side.'
It's a bit like, if you imagine the native US Indians, rather than just being put in reservations, were dispersed to the four winds to live in other nations. If they then returned and made a bid to have a state of their own, or even half a state, nobody would describe them as 'invading settlers', however much of a gap had transpired in-between.
Also the fact that the checkpoints and occupation you mention were all but non-existent until 2005, and only came about because of successive waves of terrorist attacks. If you'd travelled in the region extensively before that, which I did between 1977- 1982, you'd have seen that. You could travel from Jerusalem to the Jordan border, or the other way into Gaza all the way to the sea, buy fish there and return... and hardly see a single checkpoint, guard or barrier. And Palestinians too used to move freely, buying in the markets in Israel before returning to Gaza or the West Bank.
Arafat made a proclamation in the mid 1980s, 'We will make life insufferable for the Jews... they will have no choice but to leave.' Thus started numerous intifadas and terrorist attacks... which with the necessary barriers and checkpoints, backfired.
Without Arafat's and hardline Palestinians' intent to ethnic cleanse the entire area of Jews through endless terrorist bombings and attacks... it would be like the 1977-82 period again... hardly any barriers and checkpoints in sight.
It’s also absurd to act like collective punishment through walls, checkpoints...
You seem to have coveniently sidestepped the point that these only came about due to Arafat's declaration that they would make life insufferable for the Jews... an intended and planned ethnic cleansing, Two suicide bombings a month sometimes... one of the last before the barriers killed 22 young teens aged 13-19 in an afternoon disco.
Such was the public outrage that there were demands for the barriers to be built. These phrases such as 'collective punishment' are so lame given this context and background.
Were not the waves of suicide bombings a 'collective punishment' against the people of Israel? Afraid to go on a bus or sit in a cafe or allow their teen children to go to an afternoon disco? Of course it was.
It actually sickens me how so many Palestinian supporters use stock phrases without thinking them through.
The security divides were seen as a matter of survival to Israeli society, no more, no less. Also, they were an enormous inconveniece to Israelis too ... no more trips to Nablus or Ramallah for shopping, unless you want to risk getting stoned or knifed. And Gaza post 2005, you risked beeing kidnapped or killed.
So that false claim of 'collective punishment' also worked against the Israelis... all instigated by an intended suicide-bombing led ethnic cleansing aim from Arafat et al.