Capitalism redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.
Many people believe that if they are earning a living then they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism and should therefore support right-wing organisations and political parties. They continue their support for capitalism even as workers rights are eroded by these same capitalists. Workers rights that were fought for by left-wing organisations to end exploitation and ensure the needs of society were met. What workers should realise is that they are being thrown the crumbs of capitalism by the rich who build their personal wealth through exploiting workers.
Wealth is unevenly distributed in capitalist nations, not because some people have a better education or more drive than others, but because of greed and an unwillingness by many to contribute to society in order to meet the basic needs of us all, such as health, shelter, education and security.
Capitalists promote the idea that the richer they become, the more people they can afford to employ and the better wages and conditions they can afford to provide. This is a falsehood. The idea of 'trickle down economics' is misleading. The mega-rich are always looking for ways to increase their profits, which means lowering their costs and increasing prices. Reduced costs can be achieved through a smaller work force with fewer entitlements and lower real wages.
Capitalists will often refer to the Soviet Union or other despotic and repressive regimes as being the hallmark of socialism. Yet, they fail to mention right-wing despots who were often sponsored by capitalists and right-wing governments, particularly the USA, UK, France and Germany. This support was based on nothing more than greed for power and wealth with no concern for the human rights abuses being committed. It resulted in economic and military support for tyrants such as Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy's Benito Mussolini, Indonesia's Suharto, Cambodia's Pol Pot, Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Uganda's Idi Amin, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and apartheid regimes of South Africa and Israel, to name a few.
True socialism does not require repression, it does not require censorship, it does not require pogroms against dissenters or racial and religious groups. Those regimes claiming to be socialist or communist, but which relied on repression, did so in order to protect the power and wealth of the leadership, not to protect or provide for the needs of the community. Protection of power and wealth for the individual is the domain of capitalism.
True socialism ensures that the needs of the community are met before the wants of the individual are. True socialism tempers the greedy, individualistic exploitation of capitalism, in order to ensure that all people in society are looked after and benefit from the national wealth.
American author, Fran Lebowitz said, 'In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country (USA), capitalism triumphed over democracy'.
Capitalism triumphed over communism in the Soviet Union, long before perestroika and glasnost brought an end to it. Even under Stalin, extortion masqueraded as 'wealth redistribution' to shore up the power and wealth of the Politburo. Money extorted from workers under pain of imprisonment, torture and death, was spent on military technology and conquest, rather than on the people of the Soviet Union and their basic needs.
Capitalism usurped democracy long ago. This is particularly evident in the United States where only the wealthiest can afford to conduct an election campaign. Throughout the world, big business and the richest few have more say over government policy than the voters, ensuring the interests of the wealthy are protected while the ordinary citizen struggles to meet the growing cost of living. A cost that redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.
The failure of capitalism is that we are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor. There is more money spent on the military in order to defend capitalist interests than on the poor. Money that could save lives by being spent on health, housing and education is directed to fund wars against the poor.
Capitalistic greed only benefits a few individuals while exploiting, and even killing, the poor. This is the fruit of capitalism and it is rotten to the core. It doesn't nourish, it doesn't fulfil. Instead it feeds greed and an insatiable hunger for more, while lessening the appreciation of what we already have. It focuses on wants, not needs.
We should stand up against it.
We should defend the interests of all over the interests of a few.
Don't be deceived by the greed.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Scientists find the God Particle ... and it's in Queensland.
On the day that Queensland wins its seventh consecutive State of Origin series, scientists announce the discovery of the God Particle ... and it's in Queensland!
Scientists from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) arrived at this momentous conclusion after smashing two protons together in the Hadron Collider in Switzerland and producing the Higgs Boson, which they believe 'may' be the God Particle; an elementary particle which gives mass to other elementary particles.
On the day of the announcement, two warrior teams in Australia went to battle in the ancient stadium of Lang Park. The subsequent brutal clash of these fierce fighters smashing each other resulted in Queensland securing a 1 point victory and a record breaking 7th consecutive State of Origin series. Some say that 7 is God's own number ... the scientists realised that the Hadron Collider was redundant when pitted against the primeval ferocity of State of Origin waged on the ground that is the origin of Origin.
The fall-out from these historic series as seen the likes of heroes who have become the building blocks of Queenslanders' basic 'never die' nature - they are the elementary particles that give mass, life & character to Queensland!. These heroes are of almost mythical proportions, such as Origin's 'first man', or the 'Adam' of Origin, namely the mighty Artie Beetson, followed by Gods and Kings such as Wally Lewis, Alfie Langer, Darren Lockyer and today's team of heroes, including Petero 'This is Sparta' Civoniceva who just played his 300th NRL campaign and his final State of Origin series.
Forget CERN, forget the Hadron Collider ...
Photo: Getty Images
Scientists from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) arrived at this momentous conclusion after smashing two protons together in the Hadron Collider in Switzerland and producing the Higgs Boson, which they believe 'may' be the God Particle; an elementary particle which gives mass to other elementary particles.
On the day of the announcement, two warrior teams in Australia went to battle in the ancient stadium of Lang Park. The subsequent brutal clash of these fierce fighters smashing each other resulted in Queensland securing a 1 point victory and a record breaking 7th consecutive State of Origin series. Some say that 7 is God's own number ... the scientists realised that the Hadron Collider was redundant when pitted against the primeval ferocity of State of Origin waged on the ground that is the origin of Origin.
The fall-out from these historic series as seen the likes of heroes who have become the building blocks of Queenslanders' basic 'never die' nature - they are the elementary particles that give mass, life & character to Queensland!. These heroes are of almost mythical proportions, such as Origin's 'first man', or the 'Adam' of Origin, namely the mighty Artie Beetson, followed by Gods and Kings such as Wally Lewis, Alfie Langer, Darren Lockyer and today's team of heroes, including Petero 'This is Sparta' Civoniceva who just played his 300th NRL campaign and his final State of Origin series.
Forget CERN, forget the Hadron Collider ...
Photo: Getty Images
Friday, June 22, 2012
The War against Christianity's fundamentals
Today's church is going medieval on society through legalism and its insistence that government legislate biblical law. When they don't get their way, they scream 'War against Christianity' and 'War against Faith'. Yet, the real 'War against Christianity' is the one in which 'fundamentalist' churches have hijacked the message of Jesus and turned him into a selfish, money-hungry bigot.
These sensationalist allegations of 'war against the church' are being made by fundamentalist Christian groups and aimed squarely at President Obama and others who dare to have the temerity to allow for diversity in our society.
Below is a short summary of some of the issues and quick response to each:
Of course these are just a few of the issues that some Christian groups claim are undermining the church and are part of the 'War against Christianity'. Yet, not one of these issues directly affects Christianity, nor weakens the church as a religious organisation. The church's priority should be salvation, not enforcing rules. Religious groups have taken a retrograde step through such legalistic positions. Today's church is going medieval. As with the medieval church, the legalism is not about salvation or helping society, but about political power, and this we see with the rise of religious political parties.
If fundamentalist churches and religious groups wish to engage in political activity, then they should pay tax. At the moment, they do not contribute financially to government through taxes, but want to dictate how government is run and the decisions it makes.
Fundamentalist Christians fervently supported the invasion of Iraq regardless of the illegality of it, regardless of the fact that Iraq had been the playground of the United States for years and its people suffered, as did many others around the world, as the USA spread its evil, capitalistic greed and power-hungry hegemony over the globe. Hussein was funded by the USA. As was Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, resulting in Al Qaeda and the Taliban respectively.
Yet some Christian groups expect us to continue to support this war-mongering in the name of Christ because the USA is seen as some sort of bastion of Christianity. These people seem to not understand that the founding fathers took pains to ensure that the USA was a secular nation by separating church and state. God is not mentioned in the Constitution and the First Amendment specifically states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...'.
Remember, Jesus telling us to 'turn the other cheek'? We wouldn't have to turn any cheek if it wasn't for the aggression of the USA and blood-thirsty screams for vengeance from 'fundamentalist' Christians every time someone dares to question or fight against US aggression.
War against Christianity? War against Faith? Damn, right there is a war.
It is the War against Truth, the War against Love, the War against the Beatitudes, the War against the Poor, the War being waged by the those who have reinvented Jesus as a war-mongering, homophobic, capitalist bigot. The war is against fundamentalism, not the right-wing reinvention of fundamentalism, but the true fundamentals of Christianity, namely the messages of love, grace and forgiveness which Jesus preached and which Christianity is founded on.
That is the real War against Christianity.
These sensationalist allegations of 'war against the church' are being made by fundamentalist Christian groups and aimed squarely at President Obama and others who dare to have the temerity to allow for diversity in our society.
Below is a short summary of some of the issues and quick response to each:
- welfare
to deny welfare or sharing of wealth, some Christians focus on the verse in Matthew 26:11, in which Jesus says 'For you have the poor will you always ... '. However, this verse is out of context because the second part of it reads '... but Me you do not always have'. Jesus was telling the disciples that He, as the Son of God, should be their priority; He wasn't saying to ignore the poor. There are over 2,000 scriptures saying to care for the poor unconditionally, including the original scripture that Jesus was referencing, which is found in Deuteronomy 15:11, 'for the poor will never cease from the land; therefore, I command you, saying 'You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land' '. None of this 'give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time' maxim which is not biblical and is often used to justify not giving to the poor at all. God commands us to give food, drink, clothes, shelter and money to the poor and needy. If we can help the poor by giving them jobs and careers that is good, but don't ignore their immediate needs with misquoted scripture and clever sayings. - refugees and asylum seekers
the media reports the constant attack by conservatives and the religious right on asylum seekers, refugees and most often on the 'queue jumper' - boat people - those who decide that their lives are more important than protocol. Yet Christians want to crucify them. The bible tells us to care for the stranger. For instance, Matthew 25:34-35, ' ... for I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Ironically, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt in order to save the life of the baby Jesus. If Joseph and Mary weren't 'queue jumpers', then Jesus wouldn't have lived and there would be no Christianity. - multiculturalism
(importantly, non-Christians) since when is western society the exclusive domain of white Christians? - removal of military insignia from bibles sold to US servicemen bibles are still available, just not with an insignia.
- universal health-care
why shouldn't everyone be entitled to access free health care. It works fine in countries such as Australia, so why isn't it good enough for the USA? Oh, that's right. It is part of an evil Socialist Agenda! - big government
read 'big government' to mean any government that taxes people, provides welfare and tries to govern for the betterment of society. Of course, if the government is giving tax concessions and hand-outs to big business then that is ok! Ironically, these same Christian groups wants the government to enforce their religious rules through legislation, but don't want to pay tax to fund their increasingly political activities. - war
apparently, the church is quite happy to wage war, but then again it does have a history of it. Crusades anyone? Matthew 5:9, ' blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God '. - same sex marriage
any relationship is the business of the two people concerned. It is not the business of the church to say who can or cannot marry. Yet some Christian groups and churches have campaigned for legislation against, or preventing legislating of, same sex marriage. The argument that gay people are just indulging in their lusts shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic building block of a long-term, committed relationship: love. It is most convenient for some Christians to ignore the basic biological fact that people are born gay. For an in-depth study of biblical scripture regarding homosexuality, refer to this article: 'Adam & Eve meet Adam & Steve' - abortion
regardless of the moral argument over this, some groups use the issue to vehemently, and sometimes violently, promote a religious agenda. Forcing Christianity onto non-Christians and telling them what to do is not acceptable. Additionally, many of those same groups cease to care about people once they are born, instead they condemn welfare for the poor. If human life is so sacred to them, then they should be caring for people from conception to the grave.
Of course these are just a few of the issues that some Christian groups claim are undermining the church and are part of the 'War against Christianity'. Yet, not one of these issues directly affects Christianity, nor weakens the church as a religious organisation. The church's priority should be salvation, not enforcing rules. Religious groups have taken a retrograde step through such legalistic positions. Today's church is going medieval. As with the medieval church, the legalism is not about salvation or helping society, but about political power, and this we see with the rise of religious political parties.
If fundamentalist churches and religious groups wish to engage in political activity, then they should pay tax. At the moment, they do not contribute financially to government through taxes, but want to dictate how government is run and the decisions it makes.
The true 'war against faith' is that in which Christianity is being hijacked and it's faithful being manipulated into believing that 'real' Christians support right-wing parties, support war, support capitalist greed while opposing 'socialist' initiatives such as assistance for the poor, the down-trodden, the widow, the refugee.
Any attempt by government to assist the poor, or for that matter everyone, through the provision of universal health-care, welfare, jobs programs and daring to suggest that the wealthy pay more tax, results in the rabid religious right screaming that it is a 'war on faith', a 'war on Christianity', that it is 'socialism'.
Well, guess what? Jesus was a socialist AND he told us to pay our taxes. But, I guess we shouldn't say that too loud, it might upset those Christians who are chasing the great American Dream: to get as wealthy as possible with the blessing of God (I'm not sure what scripture actually says that God wants us to accumulate wealth at the expense of others - I can name a few that say to get rid of your wealth and share it with the poor - but that would be socialism!).
Just a few scriptures:
Any attempt by government to assist the poor, or for that matter everyone, through the provision of universal health-care, welfare, jobs programs and daring to suggest that the wealthy pay more tax, results in the rabid religious right screaming that it is a 'war on faith', a 'war on Christianity', that it is 'socialism'.
Well, guess what? Jesus was a socialist AND he told us to pay our taxes. But, I guess we shouldn't say that too loud, it might upset those Christians who are chasing the great American Dream: to get as wealthy as possible with the blessing of God (I'm not sure what scripture actually says that God wants us to accumulate wealth at the expense of others - I can name a few that say to get rid of your wealth and share it with the poor - but that would be socialism!).
Just a few scriptures:
- Matthew 25:34-36 'for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to Me'
- Matthew 25:45 'inasmuch as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to me'
- Acts 4:34-35 'Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need'
Fundamentalist Christians fervently supported the invasion of Iraq regardless of the illegality of it, regardless of the fact that Iraq had been the playground of the United States for years and its people suffered, as did many others around the world, as the USA spread its evil, capitalistic greed and power-hungry hegemony over the globe. Hussein was funded by the USA. As was Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, resulting in Al Qaeda and the Taliban respectively.
Yet some Christian groups expect us to continue to support this war-mongering in the name of Christ because the USA is seen as some sort of bastion of Christianity. These people seem to not understand that the founding fathers took pains to ensure that the USA was a secular nation by separating church and state. God is not mentioned in the Constitution and the First Amendment specifically states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...'.
Remember, Jesus telling us to 'turn the other cheek'? We wouldn't have to turn any cheek if it wasn't for the aggression of the USA and blood-thirsty screams for vengeance from 'fundamentalist' Christians every time someone dares to question or fight against US aggression.
War against Christianity? War against Faith? Damn, right there is a war.
It is the War against Truth, the War against Love, the War against the Beatitudes, the War against the Poor, the War being waged by the those who have reinvented Jesus as a war-mongering, homophobic, capitalist bigot. The war is against fundamentalism, not the right-wing reinvention of fundamentalism, but the true fundamentals of Christianity, namely the messages of love, grace and forgiveness which Jesus preached and which Christianity is founded on.
That is the real War against Christianity.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Praxis of Evil - SMS, telegrams & linguistic evolution
Language is under threat from SMS, Twitter and other social media which require users to abbreviate words ... or so we are told. Yet English today is almost unrecognisable to what it was 1,000 years ago ... and the apocalyptic SMS wasn't responsible for that. Given the linguistic evolution of English, who are we to whinge if some enterprising pundit of modern technology uses common sense in spelling a text, Twitter or Facebook update?
SMS and social media have certainly introduced their own sub-culture language, even hijacking numbers in their quest to subvert the laws of linguistics. The number '8' is certainly a prime offender, being used to overthrow the suffix '-ate'. Some common social media abbreviations include:
- 'r' for are
- 'L8R' for later
- '2moro' for tomorrow
And then there are the initialisms:
- 'ROTFLMAO' for 'rolling on the floor laughing my ass off'
- 'LOL' for 'laugh out loud'
- 'TTL' for 'talk to you later'
- 'BBL' for 'be back later'
Is language truly under threat though? Yes and no.
'No' ... no, it is not under threat from social media. No more so at least, than it was threatened by telegrams. Remember them? Telegrams were a fore-runner of SMS and far more costly. Telegrams were usually charged by the word, so senders would leave words such as 'a' and 'the' and abbreviate phrases to save money. Admittedly, people didn't send telegrams as often as people send SMSs today.
But 'Yes', the english language as we know it is is under threat. Not from social media, but quite simply for linguistic evolution. The english that we speak today has borrowed heavily from numerous languages, including latin, greek, french and arabic, amongst others. It has also been influenced by people who couldn't spell or who thought the previous spelling conventions (if they ever existed) required a good tune-up.
Does it really matter if English changes? Or should I say, 'if it continues to change'?
The below bible verse (John 3:16) is copied from various versions of the bible and shows the evolution of the language since the 14th century. Thank God, that English has evolved:
Although English has improved throughout the centuries, it still has so many quirks in spelling, sounds and grammatical rules as to make it a difficult language to learn - particularly if learning it as a second language. There are so many changes that could be made to the language to make it easier. For instance, would it kill us if the following changes were accepted as correct:
Back in the day, most silent letters were pronounced. These days, silent letters are a nightmare. In fact, 'nightmare' is a nightmare. It has a 'gh' in it, which is usually pronounced 'f', yet is silent. 'Mare' rhymes with 'air', but is spelt with an 'are'. By itself, 'are' is pronounced 'ar' not 'air'. So who are we to whinge if some enterprising pundit of modern technology decides to use some common sense in spelling when sending a text or facebook update?
In some words, there are different letters which are pronounced the same! Why? What is their purpose other than to confuse? Why isn't 'confuse' spelt 'confuze', or 'confyuz', or 'konfyuz'? What about words that are spelt differently, sound the same and have contradictory meanings? For example, 'raise' and 'raze': 'raise' means to elevate, erect or increase, while 'raze' means to tear down, demolish or destroy. It's easy to see the difference between homonyms while reading, but try seeing the difference while speaking without the letters psychedelically appearing before your eyes like a grammatical acid trip.
Then there are some words which have at least two contradictory meanings. For example, dust can mean to remove dust from or to cover in dust, cleave means to tear apart or join together.
I could go on and on about duplication and contradictions in the English language with letters, words and grammar.
Now, I'm not advocating the wholesale, over-night decimation of the alphabet and immediate reconstruction of the rules of grammar. I am saying that the English language has a lot of wriggle room for improvement, some of which will come to fruition along its evolutionary path.
Feel threatened by SMS? Like the telegram, SMS is not going to redefine the English language, it is merely a blip on the grammatical radar. However, the English language is evolving, as it has always done. The language in 100 years will be as strange to us as the language of 100 years ago is. In 500 years, our language of today will be as antiquated as the language of Shakespeare and King James. It will be comprehensible for the most part, but will have phrases, words and terminologies that we just won't have a clue about.
Rather than being precious about our language changing, rather than demonising elements of its usage, we should study it, master it and accept that change is natural.
CUL8R!
SMS and social media have certainly introduced their own sub-culture language, even hijacking numbers in their quest to subvert the laws of linguistics. The number '8' is certainly a prime offender, being used to overthrow the suffix '-ate'. Some common social media abbreviations include:
- 'r' for are
- 'L8R' for later
- '2moro' for tomorrow
And then there are the initialisms:
- 'ROTFLMAO' for 'rolling on the floor laughing my ass off'
- 'LOL' for 'laugh out loud'
- 'TTL' for 'talk to you later'
- 'BBL' for 'be back later'
Is language truly under threat though? Yes and no.
'No' ... no, it is not under threat from social media. No more so at least, than it was threatened by telegrams. Remember them? Telegrams were a fore-runner of SMS and far more costly. Telegrams were usually charged by the word, so senders would leave words such as 'a' and 'the' and abbreviate phrases to save money. Admittedly, people didn't send telegrams as often as people send SMSs today.
But 'Yes', the english language as we know it is is under threat. Not from social media, but quite simply for linguistic evolution. The english that we speak today has borrowed heavily from numerous languages, including latin, greek, french and arabic, amongst others. It has also been influenced by people who couldn't spell or who thought the previous spelling conventions (if they ever existed) required a good tune-up.
Does it really matter if English changes? Or should I say, 'if it continues to change'?
The below bible verse (John 3:16) is copied from various versions of the bible and shows the evolution of the language since the 14th century. Thank God, that English has evolved:
- Wycliffe (1385) - note that verses were not numbered in this translation: 'Forsothe God so louede the world, that he 3af his oon bigetun sone, the ech man that bileueth in to him perische not, but haue euere lasting lyf.' (http://www.biblesofthepast.com/Texts/1380-1385/_File.htm)
- Tyndale (early-mid 16th century): 'For God so lovethe the world yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyf.' (http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/joh.txt)
- King James Version (1611): 'For God so loued the world pe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whoseuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.'
(http://www.biblesofthepast.com/Texts/1611-1611/_File.htm) - King James Version (1769): 'For God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' (http://www.biblesofthepast.com/Texts/1611-1769/_File.htm)
- New King James Version (1979): 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&version=NKJV)
Although English has improved throughout the centuries, it still has so many quirks in spelling, sounds and grammatical rules as to make it a difficult language to learn - particularly if learning it as a second language. There are so many changes that could be made to the language to make it easier. For instance, would it kill us if the following changes were accepted as correct:
- 'f' instead of 'gh'
- 'f ' instead of 'ph'
- 'k' instead of 'ch'
- 'ch' has a couple of personalities as a 'k' and a 'sh', for instance, 'school', 'machine'
- 'z' instead of a hard sounding 's'
- for that matter, 's' having a consistent sound, instead of doubling as an 's' and a 'z', e.g. 'terse' and 'tease'
- why does 'c' masquerade as both a 'k' and an 's', e.g. 'cool', 'lettuce' (why not spell them, 'kool', 'letus'). I propose that the letter 'c' is redundant and should be dismissed from the alphabet!
- on the subject of redundancy, what is with the letter 'q'? It can't go anywhere without a 'u', so why not ditch it and use the versatile letter 'k'?
- why do we use double letters when single ones will do nicely?
Back in the day, most silent letters were pronounced. These days, silent letters are a nightmare. In fact, 'nightmare' is a nightmare. It has a 'gh' in it, which is usually pronounced 'f', yet is silent. 'Mare' rhymes with 'air', but is spelt with an 'are'. By itself, 'are' is pronounced 'ar' not 'air'. So who are we to whinge if some enterprising pundit of modern technology decides to use some common sense in spelling when sending a text or facebook update?
In some words, there are different letters which are pronounced the same! Why? What is their purpose other than to confuse? Why isn't 'confuse' spelt 'confuze', or 'confyuz', or 'konfyuz'? What about words that are spelt differently, sound the same and have contradictory meanings? For example, 'raise' and 'raze': 'raise' means to elevate, erect or increase, while 'raze' means to tear down, demolish or destroy. It's easy to see the difference between homonyms while reading, but try seeing the difference while speaking without the letters psychedelically appearing before your eyes like a grammatical acid trip.
Then there are some words which have at least two contradictory meanings. For example, dust can mean to remove dust from or to cover in dust, cleave means to tear apart or join together.
I could go on and on about duplication and contradictions in the English language with letters, words and grammar.
Now, I'm not advocating the wholesale, over-night decimation of the alphabet and immediate reconstruction of the rules of grammar. I am saying that the English language has a lot of wriggle room for improvement, some of which will come to fruition along its evolutionary path.
Feel threatened by SMS? Like the telegram, SMS is not going to redefine the English language, it is merely a blip on the grammatical radar. However, the English language is evolving, as it has always done. The language in 100 years will be as strange to us as the language of 100 years ago is. In 500 years, our language of today will be as antiquated as the language of Shakespeare and King James. It will be comprehensible for the most part, but will have phrases, words and terminologies that we just won't have a clue about.
Rather than being precious about our language changing, rather than demonising elements of its usage, we should study it, master it and accept that change is natural.
CUL8R!
Monday, June 4, 2012
Eddie Koiki Mabo - Hero!
Eddie Mabo is one of Australia's greatest heroes. The man who single-handedly (well, with the help of family, other Islanders & a talented legal team) overturned 200 years of legitimised theft of indigenous land by colonial powers.
The pilfering was legitimised in Latin. Now, it is common knowledge that if you use a latin phrase then you must be right. After all, those Latins knew what they were talking about. Terra nullius! oooooohhhh ... Latin ... therefore it must right. What does it mean? Well, it means 'empty land' 'uninhabited land', 'no-man's land'. That was the description ascribed to Australia and it's islands by Captain James Cook as he landed on Cape York Peninsula, in the area that was to become known as Cooktown.
To claim land, the British Empire had three options. They could purchase the land, they could conquer the land or they could deem the land uninhabited. Under international law, to purchase or conquer land required the Empire to respect the rights of people from whom it was being purchased or conquered. This was unacceptable, so Captain Cook claimed the land for the British Empire and deemed it uninhabited - terra nullius.
With the pronouncement of terra nullius, the colonial invaders began settling the continent as there was obviously no-one else settled here, well, apart from around a million aborigines and Islanders. Today there are around 500,000. Settlement was not their friend. Many died from disease, many were murdered. The colonial government classified aborigines and Islanders under the Flora and Fauna Act, which may help explain why shooting them was considered a sport.
Eddie Mabo discovered just how insidious one little Latin phrase could be when he learnt that his family's traditional tribal lands actually belonged to the Crown and not to them.
Eddie was from Mer (Murray) Island in the beautiful Torres Strait. He was born on 29 June1936. In 1959 he married Bonita Neehow and their fruitful marriage produced 10 children. After a stint of pearling, Eddie ended up working as a gardener at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. It was here that he met the esteemed historian, Professor Henry Reynolds*, with whom he struck up a friendship. While Eddie was reminiscing about his homelands, Reynolds broke the news to him that the Crown actually owned the land, not Eddie or his family. Eddie was introduced to terra nullius and it came as a shock.
In 1982, Eddie was invited to speak at a Land Rights Conference at JCU, where he explained land inheritance. After hearing Eddie's speech, a lawyer encouraged him to sue the government for land rights and to have terra nullius overturned. Reynolds supported and encouraged Eddie to pursue this.
When I think of this law-suit I can't help but think of Dennis Denuto, the fictional lawyer in the classic Australian movie, The Castle, who sued the government for reclaiming land that belonged to the Kerrigans, in the Melbourne suburb of Coolaroo. Denuto, trying to explain why the dispossession was wrong in light of the Australian Constitution, stated poetically and rather aptly, 'but it's the vibe of the thing, your Honour'.
Eddie and Bonita Mabo, other representatives and their legal team, were tenacious in pursuing justice. Eddie knew that the dispossession of his land was wrong, even though the law said that it was right. Regardless of what was in the Constitution or in the law, terra nullius was wrong. It was just the vibe of the thing!
Ten years after Eddie Koiki Mabo, a humble man from Mer Island, took on the might of the Australian government and 200 years of tradition, the High Court handed down it's historic decision: terra nullius was overturned and native title was recognised. It was a landmark decision, a turning point in indigenous affairs and Australian history.
Unfortunately, Eddie Mabo did not live to see this decision. The stress of 10 years of legal struggle affected his health. On 21 January 1992, five months before the decision was handed down, Eddie died of cancer.
Eddie's name is synonymous with land rights and social justice. He was a man who stood up for what was right, and challenged the law when it was wrong.
Eddie was given a traditional burial ceremony on Murray Island - a traditional ceremony for the burial of a King!
In 1992, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission posthumously awarded the Human Rights Medal to Eddie. The Medal was also awarded Barbara Hocking, a barrister with the legal team, and the other Islanders participating in the case, namely Sam Passi, Reverend Dave Passi, James Rice and Celuia Mapo Salee.
Eddie Mabo is a true hero; an inspiration for his people, an inspiration for all Australians.
--0--
* Henry Reynolds is another Australian hero who has written substantially about indigenous history, including his seminal work 'Why Weren't We Told', in which he details indigenous dispossession, and in particular, his discussions with Eddie Mabo. His books are available from most book stores.
The pilfering was legitimised in Latin. Now, it is common knowledge that if you use a latin phrase then you must be right. After all, those Latins knew what they were talking about. Terra nullius! oooooohhhh ... Latin ... therefore it must right. What does it mean? Well, it means 'empty land' 'uninhabited land', 'no-man's land'. That was the description ascribed to Australia and it's islands by Captain James Cook as he landed on Cape York Peninsula, in the area that was to become known as Cooktown.
To claim land, the British Empire had three options. They could purchase the land, they could conquer the land or they could deem the land uninhabited. Under international law, to purchase or conquer land required the Empire to respect the rights of people from whom it was being purchased or conquered. This was unacceptable, so Captain Cook claimed the land for the British Empire and deemed it uninhabited - terra nullius.
With the pronouncement of terra nullius, the colonial invaders began settling the continent as there was obviously no-one else settled here, well, apart from around a million aborigines and Islanders. Today there are around 500,000. Settlement was not their friend. Many died from disease, many were murdered. The colonial government classified aborigines and Islanders under the Flora and Fauna Act, which may help explain why shooting them was considered a sport.
Eddie Mabo discovered just how insidious one little Latin phrase could be when he learnt that his family's traditional tribal lands actually belonged to the Crown and not to them.
Eddie was from Mer (Murray) Island in the beautiful Torres Strait. He was born on 29 June1936. In 1959 he married Bonita Neehow and their fruitful marriage produced 10 children. After a stint of pearling, Eddie ended up working as a gardener at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. It was here that he met the esteemed historian, Professor Henry Reynolds*, with whom he struck up a friendship. While Eddie was reminiscing about his homelands, Reynolds broke the news to him that the Crown actually owned the land, not Eddie or his family. Eddie was introduced to terra nullius and it came as a shock.
In 1982, Eddie was invited to speak at a Land Rights Conference at JCU, where he explained land inheritance. After hearing Eddie's speech, a lawyer encouraged him to sue the government for land rights and to have terra nullius overturned. Reynolds supported and encouraged Eddie to pursue this.
When I think of this law-suit I can't help but think of Dennis Denuto, the fictional lawyer in the classic Australian movie, The Castle, who sued the government for reclaiming land that belonged to the Kerrigans, in the Melbourne suburb of Coolaroo. Denuto, trying to explain why the dispossession was wrong in light of the Australian Constitution, stated poetically and rather aptly, 'but it's the vibe of the thing, your Honour'.
Eddie and Bonita Mabo, other representatives and their legal team, were tenacious in pursuing justice. Eddie knew that the dispossession of his land was wrong, even though the law said that it was right. Regardless of what was in the Constitution or in the law, terra nullius was wrong. It was just the vibe of the thing!
Ten years after Eddie Koiki Mabo, a humble man from Mer Island, took on the might of the Australian government and 200 years of tradition, the High Court handed down it's historic decision: terra nullius was overturned and native title was recognised. It was a landmark decision, a turning point in indigenous affairs and Australian history.
Unfortunately, Eddie Mabo did not live to see this decision. The stress of 10 years of legal struggle affected his health. On 21 January 1992, five months before the decision was handed down, Eddie died of cancer.
Eddie's name is synonymous with land rights and social justice. He was a man who stood up for what was right, and challenged the law when it was wrong.
Eddie was given a traditional burial ceremony on Murray Island - a traditional ceremony for the burial of a King!
In 1992, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission posthumously awarded the Human Rights Medal to Eddie. The Medal was also awarded Barbara Hocking, a barrister with the legal team, and the other Islanders participating in the case, namely Sam Passi, Reverend Dave Passi, James Rice and Celuia Mapo Salee.
Eddie Mabo is a true hero; an inspiration for his people, an inspiration for all Australians.
--0--
* Henry Reynolds is another Australian hero who has written substantially about indigenous history, including his seminal work 'Why Weren't We Told', in which he details indigenous dispossession, and in particular, his discussions with Eddie Mabo. His books are available from most book stores.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Mabo Day - Validation of indigenous history
The significance of the Mabo Decision, passed by the High Court of Australia on 3 June 1992, should not be forgotten. Whilst the case itself was about native title, the Decision validated the history of indigenous people and formally acknowledged their dispossession. The Mabo Decision proved that there is a lot more to indigenous history than land rights.
Eddie Koiki Mabo had been a tireless campaigner for indigenous land rights. In 1981, after advice from lawyers at James Cook University in Townsville, Mabo mounted a legal challenge against the Commonwealth government regarding the principle of 'terra nullius' (or 'uninhabited land') which had resulted in the Crown legally owning land that had traditionally belonged to his people. Ten years later, and three months after Eddie Mabo's death, the High Court accepted Mabo's case and overturned the principle of 'terra nullius'.
Sunday, 3 June 2012, is the 20th anniversary of the historic Mabo decision. For two centuries terra nullius had been the principle behind the massive European land grab by declaring Australia to be 'uninhabited land' and classifying indigenous people under the Flora and Fauna Act. Whilst the Mabo decision was a significant achievement, much more needs to be done in order to remove the vilification and human rights abuses that continue to plague indigenous Australia.
Aborigines were driven from their homelands and relocated to communities which they had to share with many other displaced tribes. This effectively destroyed tribal blood-lines and familial relationships through the destruction of their complicated kinship laws which determined who could marry whom. Aborigines were unable to marry without the permission of the Chief Protector of Aborigines, children were forcibly removed from families, communities were subject to curfews, alcohol was banned, they were prohibited from voting, movements and employment were restricted, they were banned from speaking their own languages and celebrating their own cultures.
Indigenous workers were either paid below award wages or their wages were garnished by the government and held in trust, literally for decades. A court case which commenced in the 1980s sued the Queensland government for back-pay because of wages that had been held since the 1950s. This case was finally settled 10 years later.
Many non-indigenous Australians see them simply as living a privileged, lazy life dependent on welfare and alcohol, collecting excessive welfare hand-outs and benefits; almost an idyllic life of beer and skittles. Yet, contrary to this, indigenous Australians need to meet more stringent conditions than non-indigenous Australians before receiving welfare. Additionally, many indigenous communities had a 'work for the dole' scheme years before it was introduced for non-indigenous Australians. Yet, they are still amongst the most disadvantaged people in Australia, with higher mortality rates from preventable illnesses, less access to decent and affordable housing, lower quality medical care, lower literacy and numeracy levels, higher unemployment rates, higher rates of incarceration for similar crimes committed by non-indigenous people and much higher rates of deaths in custody than the non-indigenous.
Instead of accepting ignorant, racist opinions, we should firstly put ourselves in the shoes of those who have lost so much for so long. Instead of believing that aboriginal issues are ancient history and that 'they' should just 'get over it', we need to understand that the centuries of abuse are not over. Indigenous Australians are still subject to human rights abuses and racial vilification. This isn't ancient history. It is ongoing.
Some will argue that if they want better conditions, then they should move out of the communities and into larger towns or cities. There are some who have done this, only to find difficulty in securing accommodation and employment because of institutionalised racism. They end up homeless, living in parks or over-crowded accommodation with family or friends, which only reinforces the racial stereotypes.
Successive governments have attempted to address indigenous issues, yet have failed dismally. In 1989, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) whose role was to address injustices to aborigines and assist in improving aboriginal conditions. Unfortunately, ATSIC's demise was spectacular and cemented in the mind's of many that indigenous people were incapable of governing themselves. A number of factors contributed to the fall of ATSIC, including sexual abuse allegations against their chairman, Geoff Clark. A review of ATSIC in 2003 also exposed financial corruption.
Around 15 years after it was established, ATSIC was abolished by Prime Minister John Howard who condescendingly stated 'the experiment in elected representation for indigenous people has been a failure'. Howard essentially was stating that aborigines could not be trusted to look after themselves. This was nothing new. Australia had two centuries of laws and policies based on the assumed supremacy of white people over Aborigines and Islanders.
After abolishing ATSIC, Howard sent the Army into aboriginal communities to combat sexual abuse of children. In a move reminiscent of a colonial army marching on unarmed 'natives', the Australian government took control of 73 indigenous communities in what he called the 'Northern Territory Intervention'. The government also cut welfare payments to parents whose children failed to attend school. Failing to provide welfare for children not in school exacerbates an already difficult situation and does nothing to benefit either the children or parents. Howard also reduced funding to the Community Development Employment Project (a work for the dole scheme) which had greatly benefited many aborigines through providing them work in their communities. Following the intervention, the locals still live in sub-standard housing, with poor water supply and limited employment, education and health services.
The Northern Territory Intervention encouraged a supremacist belief in many non-indigenous Australians who viewed the people in these communities as alcoholics and rapists. Yet there are many people involved in the implementation of programs which address alcohol and drugs, domestic violence and sexual abuse. Contrary to the message sent by the Northern Territory Intervention, the majority of indigenous people are not alcoholics or paedophiles.
Rather than the paternalistic, condescending, white-supremacist approach, the government has to work with indigenous people and their representative organisations in order to develop and support sustainable initiatives. Over the years, there have been a number of successful initiatives implemented by indigenous people in the areas of business management, employment and training.
There have been some steps forward. In 1996, in response to a legal challenge mounted by the Wik people of Cape York Peninsula, the High Court of Australia handed down a decision which ruled that aspects of the Native Title Act which previously had granted exclusive possession to the holder of the pastoral lease and prevented any native title claim over that land, were now invalid. The decision meant that indigenous people now had access to land held by pastoral leases if they could prove traditional ties to that land.
In 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised on behalf of the Australian government for the 'laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians'. Unfortunately, some Liberal Party MPs boycotted the apology in disagreement. In contrast to Rudd's apology, the Liberal Party response delivered by Brendan Nelson took little responsibility for government actions and instead, criticised the victims. Nelson's speech was met with derision and resulted in many people turning their backs on him, whilst Rudd's speech was met with cheers and support from indigenous Australians.
The current Labor government has been supporting homelands, which are small communities comprised of aborigines who have left the larger communities to live on or close to their traditional lands. In the Northern Territory there are around 500 homeland communities and about 30% of the indigenous population live there. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights, 'these communities have lower levels of social problems, such as domestic violence and substance abuse, than more populated communities. According to reports, the health of indigenous people living on homelands is significantly better than of those living in larger communities. Homelands are also used effectively as part of substance abuse and other programmes for at-risk Aboriginal youth living in more populated or urban centres.' (http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26411)
There are a number of events throughout the year which should be embraced and acknowledged by non-indigenous people in order to break down the barriers and improve understanding of indigenous issues. These events include Mabo Day and NAIDOC week (National Aboriginals and Islanders Day Observation Committee - refer to their website at www.naidoc.org.au ). There is also the anniversary of the National Apology given by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Even Australia Day should include dedication and acknowledgement of the impact that European settlement had on Aborigines and Islanders, as well as the contribution that Aborigines and Islanders have made to the development of Australia.
All Australians should learn the true history of their country, including indigenous dispossession, the effect of mining and pastoral leases on tribal lands, the Stolen Generations, the marginalising of indigenous people into remote communities, the wage quarantines, the strikes of the 1950s in Queensland and the government's strike-breaking actions which saw families split up as the male strikers were relocated to other communities, the brave battles fought by Aborigines and Islanders defending their territories against British and European invasion (and later fighting for Australia in numerous wars), the efforts and significant achievements by numerous indigenous organisations, incarceration rates, deaths in custody, the racism that indigenous Australians experience in seeking accommodation, employment, education and even while simply shopping.
The question that should be asked of all Australians is 'what would you do if you experienced this?'.
Eddie Koiki Mabo had been a tireless campaigner for indigenous land rights. In 1981, after advice from lawyers at James Cook University in Townsville, Mabo mounted a legal challenge against the Commonwealth government regarding the principle of 'terra nullius' (or 'uninhabited land') which had resulted in the Crown legally owning land that had traditionally belonged to his people. Ten years later, and three months after Eddie Mabo's death, the High Court accepted Mabo's case and overturned the principle of 'terra nullius'.
Sunday, 3 June 2012, is the 20th anniversary of the historic Mabo decision. For two centuries terra nullius had been the principle behind the massive European land grab by declaring Australia to be 'uninhabited land' and classifying indigenous people under the Flora and Fauna Act. Whilst the Mabo decision was a significant achievement, much more needs to be done in order to remove the vilification and human rights abuses that continue to plague indigenous Australia.
Aborigines were driven from their homelands and relocated to communities which they had to share with many other displaced tribes. This effectively destroyed tribal blood-lines and familial relationships through the destruction of their complicated kinship laws which determined who could marry whom. Aborigines were unable to marry without the permission of the Chief Protector of Aborigines, children were forcibly removed from families, communities were subject to curfews, alcohol was banned, they were prohibited from voting, movements and employment were restricted, they were banned from speaking their own languages and celebrating their own cultures.
Indigenous workers were either paid below award wages or their wages were garnished by the government and held in trust, literally for decades. A court case which commenced in the 1980s sued the Queensland government for back-pay because of wages that had been held since the 1950s. This case was finally settled 10 years later.
Many non-indigenous Australians see them simply as living a privileged, lazy life dependent on welfare and alcohol, collecting excessive welfare hand-outs and benefits; almost an idyllic life of beer and skittles. Yet, contrary to this, indigenous Australians need to meet more stringent conditions than non-indigenous Australians before receiving welfare. Additionally, many indigenous communities had a 'work for the dole' scheme years before it was introduced for non-indigenous Australians. Yet, they are still amongst the most disadvantaged people in Australia, with higher mortality rates from preventable illnesses, less access to decent and affordable housing, lower quality medical care, lower literacy and numeracy levels, higher unemployment rates, higher rates of incarceration for similar crimes committed by non-indigenous people and much higher rates of deaths in custody than the non-indigenous.
Instead of accepting ignorant, racist opinions, we should firstly put ourselves in the shoes of those who have lost so much for so long. Instead of believing that aboriginal issues are ancient history and that 'they' should just 'get over it', we need to understand that the centuries of abuse are not over. Indigenous Australians are still subject to human rights abuses and racial vilification. This isn't ancient history. It is ongoing.
Some will argue that if they want better conditions, then they should move out of the communities and into larger towns or cities. There are some who have done this, only to find difficulty in securing accommodation and employment because of institutionalised racism. They end up homeless, living in parks or over-crowded accommodation with family or friends, which only reinforces the racial stereotypes.
Successive governments have attempted to address indigenous issues, yet have failed dismally. In 1989, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) whose role was to address injustices to aborigines and assist in improving aboriginal conditions. Unfortunately, ATSIC's demise was spectacular and cemented in the mind's of many that indigenous people were incapable of governing themselves. A number of factors contributed to the fall of ATSIC, including sexual abuse allegations against their chairman, Geoff Clark. A review of ATSIC in 2003 also exposed financial corruption.
Around 15 years after it was established, ATSIC was abolished by Prime Minister John Howard who condescendingly stated 'the experiment in elected representation for indigenous people has been a failure'. Howard essentially was stating that aborigines could not be trusted to look after themselves. This was nothing new. Australia had two centuries of laws and policies based on the assumed supremacy of white people over Aborigines and Islanders.
After abolishing ATSIC, Howard sent the Army into aboriginal communities to combat sexual abuse of children. In a move reminiscent of a colonial army marching on unarmed 'natives', the Australian government took control of 73 indigenous communities in what he called the 'Northern Territory Intervention'. The government also cut welfare payments to parents whose children failed to attend school. Failing to provide welfare for children not in school exacerbates an already difficult situation and does nothing to benefit either the children or parents. Howard also reduced funding to the Community Development Employment Project (a work for the dole scheme) which had greatly benefited many aborigines through providing them work in their communities. Following the intervention, the locals still live in sub-standard housing, with poor water supply and limited employment, education and health services.
The Northern Territory Intervention encouraged a supremacist belief in many non-indigenous Australians who viewed the people in these communities as alcoholics and rapists. Yet there are many people involved in the implementation of programs which address alcohol and drugs, domestic violence and sexual abuse. Contrary to the message sent by the Northern Territory Intervention, the majority of indigenous people are not alcoholics or paedophiles.
Rather than the paternalistic, condescending, white-supremacist approach, the government has to work with indigenous people and their representative organisations in order to develop and support sustainable initiatives. Over the years, there have been a number of successful initiatives implemented by indigenous people in the areas of business management, employment and training.
There have been some steps forward. In 1996, in response to a legal challenge mounted by the Wik people of Cape York Peninsula, the High Court of Australia handed down a decision which ruled that aspects of the Native Title Act which previously had granted exclusive possession to the holder of the pastoral lease and prevented any native title claim over that land, were now invalid. The decision meant that indigenous people now had access to land held by pastoral leases if they could prove traditional ties to that land.
In 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised on behalf of the Australian government for the 'laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians'. Unfortunately, some Liberal Party MPs boycotted the apology in disagreement. In contrast to Rudd's apology, the Liberal Party response delivered by Brendan Nelson took little responsibility for government actions and instead, criticised the victims. Nelson's speech was met with derision and resulted in many people turning their backs on him, whilst Rudd's speech was met with cheers and support from indigenous Australians.
The current Labor government has been supporting homelands, which are small communities comprised of aborigines who have left the larger communities to live on or close to their traditional lands. In the Northern Territory there are around 500 homeland communities and about 30% of the indigenous population live there. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights, 'these communities have lower levels of social problems, such as domestic violence and substance abuse, than more populated communities. According to reports, the health of indigenous people living on homelands is significantly better than of those living in larger communities. Homelands are also used effectively as part of substance abuse and other programmes for at-risk Aboriginal youth living in more populated or urban centres.' (http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26411)
There are a number of events throughout the year which should be embraced and acknowledged by non-indigenous people in order to break down the barriers and improve understanding of indigenous issues. These events include Mabo Day and NAIDOC week (National Aboriginals and Islanders Day Observation Committee - refer to their website at www.naidoc.org.au ). There is also the anniversary of the National Apology given by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Even Australia Day should include dedication and acknowledgement of the impact that European settlement had on Aborigines and Islanders, as well as the contribution that Aborigines and Islanders have made to the development of Australia.
All Australians should learn the true history of their country, including indigenous dispossession, the effect of mining and pastoral leases on tribal lands, the Stolen Generations, the marginalising of indigenous people into remote communities, the wage quarantines, the strikes of the 1950s in Queensland and the government's strike-breaking actions which saw families split up as the male strikers were relocated to other communities, the brave battles fought by Aborigines and Islanders defending their territories against British and European invasion (and later fighting for Australia in numerous wars), the efforts and significant achievements by numerous indigenous organisations, incarceration rates, deaths in custody, the racism that indigenous Australians experience in seeking accommodation, employment, education and even while simply shopping.
The question that should be asked of all Australians is 'what would you do if you experienced this?'.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Road to Nakba
Israel's 'Law of Return' is based on the presumption that Jews across the globe, regardless of race, are descended from one of the 12 tribes of Judah who once lived in the Holy Land. This presumption fails to acknowledge that most Jews across the globe are descended from converts to Judaism and have not racially originated from the Holy Land at all. The true descendants from this time are the Palestinians, whose history is rooted in Judaism and subsequent conversions to Christianity and Islam.
Many governments across the globe support Israel and believe its existence to be a valid return to origins for the Jewish diaspora. In spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, most nations are not willing to challenge this revision of history. Many adherents of Judeo-Christian faiths believe this Israeli version of history because they believe it is God's will and fulfillment of His divine prophecies.
On 14 May, Israel annually celebrates its Day of Independence which it declared in 1948. On 15 May, Palestine commemorates the 1948 Nakba. Nakba meaning 'the catastrophe' - the day that Israel was formally proclaimed, representing the ethnic cleansing and Judaising of Palestine based on the Law of Return.
While it is often believed that Israel was created by UN Resolution 181, it was actually created by the Jewish Agency in contradiction to Resolution 181, which had resolved that the Jewish state should be created along with an Arab state and with the permission of the local Arab population. Of course, the locals weren't in agreement with having half their country given away to foreigners. The Jewish Agency wouldn't take no for an answer and set about systematically destroying Palestinian villages and forcibly removing or executing the inhabitants. To justify this, and to gain the support of the majority of the world's nations, Israel propagated the story that Jews have a right to return to their homeland, the Holy Land, Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel. In order for this story to gain credence, history has been rewritten. Ironically, Adolf Hitler stated, 'if you tell a big enough lie, often enough, it will be believed.'
How many expulsions make an Exile?
The first claim is that the Jewish diaspora was the result of a dispersal of Jews from the Holy Land through exile. According to the Bible, around 597BC Nebuchadnezzar exiled Judeans to Babylon, whilst some fled to Egypt and others remained in Judea. By 538BC, the Judeans were allowed to return, which many did, and others remained in Babylon and Egypt. This exile was temporary and did not result in Jews wandering throughout the world.
It is also claimed that after destroying the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, the Roman Empire exiled the Jews from Palestine. This exile supposedly resulted in Jews wandering throughout the world for the next 2,000 or so years. This is quite the exaggeration. In 63BC, Judea (a small region of Palestine) became a province of Rome. Around 70AD the Judeans revolted, resulting in many deaths and much of the population enslaved. However, Rome did not exile or deport the entire population of the region, or even a significant portion of the population. From132AD to 135AD, there was another revolt (led by Shimon Bar Kokhba) in Judea. Again the Judeans were defeated, many killed, some enslaved, some fled, some exiled (mainly the leaders of the revolt); most remained.
No history book of the era records a mass exile or a mass exodus of Jews from the Holy Land. (1) The Romans were adept at many things, in particular recording their heroic deeds for posterity. Yet, strangely, the Romans did not record such a monumental event. Additionally, why would they do such a thing? With roughly 2,000,000 Jews in the Holy Land around that time, it would have been a lot of tax-payers to kick out of the Empire. It makes no sense. The respected Jewish historian, Josephus, also did not record any such exile. Certainly, some of worst agitators suffered expulsion from Judea, however, this was not a mass exile.
The few historical records of the alleged 'exile' were written centuries after this and appear to be fabrications as they do not match any record written at the time of the 'exile'. Eventually Jewish historians realised that an invented 70AD exile, and/or a 135AD exile did not match existing historical records, so they rewrote the exile to coincide with the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land around 638AD. (1)
Exile, regardless of whether it was in 70AD, 135AD or 638AD is claimed to have dispersed the Jews throughout the world, resulting in a Jewish diaspora.
Proselytes - Jewish by conversion, not race
What is rarely discussed, however, is that from around 200BC, the Jews had begun proselytising the Roman Empire and the many traders who travelled to and through the Holy Land, including Persian and Asian traders using the Silk Road. The bible has a number of references to proselytes as converts to Judaism, including this verse in Matthew 23:15 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel the land and the sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves'.
Women were most willing to convert to Judaism, perhaps because the men didn't want to pay the price of admission to this exclusive religion; namely by severing their fore-skins. It is interesting that the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 2:28-29 'For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is one outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.'
It would appear that Paul wasn't keen on promoting physical circumcision either, but opted for the more palatable and less painful, 'spiritual' circumcision. For that matter God wasn't keen on promoting physical circumcision at this point as it represented the old covenant which required blood sacrifice. The new covenant that God made, a covenant in which Jesus paid the blood sacrifice for all, focussed on man's spiritual condition and relationship with God. The old covenant required man to constantly atone for sin, under the new covenant Jesus was the atonement and we were forgiven by grace.
Conversion to Judaism was not always voluntary. In his book 'The life of Flavius Josephus', Josephus writes 'the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them'.
As a result of centuries of proselytisation, Jewish converts extended throughout the Mediterranean, from Northern Africa through Egypt, Persia, and the areas now known as Turkey, Greece, Italy, France and Spain. By around 300AD, the proselytes also extended into Eastern Europe, Western and Central Asia. From these, the mighty Khazar empire was established and expanded throughout Euroasia, from Russia in the north to Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia and north-eastern Turkey. The Khazar aristocracy eventually converted to Judaism and obviously encouraged the ongoing proselytising of Eurasia.
Meanwhile the proselytes living in the Roman Empire and subsequent Byzantine Empire continued their proselytisation into Northern Europe.
The European Jews who migrated to Israel during the 20th century, claiming that it was their land, were not descended from Jews of the Holy Land (Palestine, Judea, Israel) but were descended from European and Central Asian converts to Judaism. They are the descendants of proselytes. They have as much claim on the Holy Land as a Christian descended from Britons.
The diaspora written about in the bible referred to Jews who had moved or been exiled to Babylon or Egypt, where they remained - they did not become 'wandering Jews'. It was not a world wide dispersal.
Palestinians are the true descendants of Judea
The tragic irony of the persecution that is being wielded against Palestinians (and has been since at least 1948) is that the ancestors of most of those Palestinians would have been Jews in Palestine 2,000 years ago. Over the centuries many of them converted to Christianity during the malevolent reign of the Byzantine Empire which forced conversions on its citizens and persecuted Jews.
Following the Muslim conquest of Palestine around 638AD, many of the citizens converted to Islam. Unlike the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Empire did not force conversion on the population. Contrary to the claims of some Zionists who believe that this resulted in the exile of Jews, the Muslims did not require anyone to leave the country. Similar to the Roman Empire, exile would have drastically reduced the Caliphate's tax base.
Many of the Jews in Palestine at the time welcomed and assisted the establishment of Islamic rule because it was preferable to the cruel Byzantine rule. Under Islamic law, Muslims were not required to pay tax and non-Muslims were. Not surprisingly, many non-Muslims, in particular Jews and Christians, eventually converted to Islam as a tax avoidance measure. This introduced a problem for the Caliphate government because their tax-payer base rapidly dwindled, so they eventually revised their taxation policy.
The descendants of these Muslim converts live in the Holy Land today and, ironically, face persecution and a form of exile at the hands of Jews, the returning 'diaspora', who are descended from Jewish converts.
Palestine - 'terra nullius'
In the late 19th century, a small group of Zionists cast their covetous, collective eye towards Palestine. Zionists claimed that the Jewish diaspora had a God-given right to inhabit the Holy Land. The problem with this is that they wanted Jews to be given the land and the original inhabitants to secede power to them. In 1948 this came to fruition.
By 1948, following centuries of horrific European pogroms against Jews which culminated in the genocide unleashed by the Nazis, the world was convinced that Jews around the world should be granted their own land. They were given Palestine. This in itself was perhaps the world's worst example of NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. At that time, the United States and some European nations were refusing to take in Jewish refugees following the Second World War. It suited them perfectly for the problem of Jewish refugees to be moved somewhere else, anywhere else. So United Nations Resolution 181 was passed with little consultation, and no negotiation, with Palestinians.
On 14 May 1948 modern Israel was formally established by the Jewish Agency. 15 May 1948 is commemorated by Palestinians as the Nakba - 'Day of Catastrophe'.
For 50 years prior to the establishment of Israel, Zionists had been saying that they needed to take a nation that was empty. They decreed the land of Palestine to be a "land without people - for a people without land". Essentially they were proclaiming Palestine to be 'terra nullius' (latin for 'land without people'). And so the cleansing of history began. The propaganda stated that the Palestinians were an invented people. Yet the Jews making this claim were not descendants of Abraham or any other resident of the Holy Lands. The Palestinians had resided there for thousands of years. The European Zionists and their ancestors had never resided there.
Government policy - Judaise Palestine
In order to supplant the local population, a law was passed that enabled any Jew from anywhere in the world to relocate to Israel and inhabit land and property that had been stolen from the local Palestinian population. This was property that had once belonged to Palestinians who had either been violently forced to abandon it, or had been violently threatened in order to cheaply sell the property to the government of Israel. The Israeli government worked ferociously to encourage Jews to move to Israel and to drive out the local Palestinians, offering them cheap houses and land. The reason for this was to "Judaise" the country by increasing the numbers of Jews and decreasing the numbers of Palestinians (2).
1948 wasn't the return of a diaspora, but an invasion of Palestinian land.
'Law of Return'
Today, Israel requires all citizens and political parties to acknowledge the 'Law of Return' which enables Jews from anywhere in the world to become Israeli citizens, whether or not they were born there and whether or not they even chose to remain in the country. Even parties representing Muslims or Palestinians are required to acknowledge this law.
The 'Law of Return' assumes that all Jews have genetic roots in Israel/Judea. There can be no 'return' if their ancestors where never from there. The 'Law of Return' is one of the key tools in the Judaisation of Israel/Palestine.
The real Semites
Criticism of Israel often results in accusations of anti-Semitism. The irony of this, is that the Palestinians whose land was forcibly taken from them are Semites who lived in the area for millenia, while the bulk of the Jews who moved to Palestine around 1948, are not Semitic, but from various European and Asian races.
Additionally, most of the criticism is not against Jews or Judaism, but against human rights abuses committed in the name of Israel. The nation of Israel has established itself as a Jewish state, but like any State it must be held accountable for its actions, regardless of its State religion.
Martin Luther King and 'that' quote
Occasionally someone will repeat the quote purportedly written by Martin Luther King, "When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism". This was supposedly written by MLK in "Letter to a Zionist Friend". It is false. MLK never wrote such a letter. The quote itself? There appear to be two sources of it. One account is by Seymour Martin Lipset who claims that MLK was at a dinner in Cambridge when a young man made disparaging remarks about Zionists as a people group. MLK replied with "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism". This account is documented at: http://electronicintifada.net/content/fraud-fit-king-israel-zionism-and-misuse-mlk/4373
The second account claims that King was speaking at Harvard University when a student asked a hostile question about Zionism. MLK responded with "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking about anti-Semitism". This account is recorded here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369
The quote itself is based on an incorrect assumption, namely that Zionists are Jews. However, not all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists. To demonstrate this inaccuracy, one only has to look at the large number of Christian Zionists and of course the large number of Jews who criticise Zionism. Sadly, many Jews who are critical of either Zionism or Israeli policy are labelled 'self-hating' Jews in an effort to motivate them through patriotism and loyalty and the implication that they are traitors to their own people.
However, patriotism is a dangerous thing which often discourages people from criticising their own for fear of being labelled treacherous. As Guy de Maupassant once said, 'Patriotism is a religion, the egg from which wars are hatched.' Also in relation to the dangers of patriotism, William H Boyer stated, 'blind patriotism has been kept intact by rewriting history to provide people with moral consolation and a psychological basis for denial.'
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Judaism. Israeli policies have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and the issuing of hundreds of UN resolutions condemning Israeli aggression and illegal settlements.
Even with the 'Law of Return', most Jews have chosen not to return. There are many Jews throughout the world who do not agree with, or believe, the Zionist propaganda. However, the propaganda has influenced so many people that many Jews and Christians, and even a number of non-religious people, believe that Palestinians have no claim to their own land.
There have been gross human right violations committed on Palestinians in the name of Zionism. The world needs to understand the truth behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the reconstruction of history and the manipulation of religion that Zionists have used for the illegal creation of Israel in 1948 and to justify the ongoing expansion of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories and the perpetuation of gross human and civil rights violations (3).
Zionism ignores the fundamental tenets of scripture, will calls for treating each other with love and respect. For instance, Leviticus 19:18, '... you shall love your neighbour as yourself '.
Democracy(?)
Israel prides itself being the sole democratic nation in the Middle East. It even allows Palestinian parties to be represented ... along as they accept the Law of Return. However, would Israel ever allow the Knesset to be ruled by Palestinians?
Palestinians are treated like second class citizens in Israel, while those who live in Palestine are treated as anathema, a problem to be destroyed.
Israel states that it is a Jewish nation and therefore only Jews can rule the nation. This is not seen as contradictory to democracy, yet it does not allow fair representation of, or opportunity for, all people in the nation.
Israel in its embrace of Zionism, ignores basic Jewish scripture in the way that it treats non-Jews, particularly Arabs, who live there. Leviticus 19:33-34 states 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.'
The violation of this scripture is all the worse for the fact that the Palestinians are not 'strangers in the land' as they lived, owned and worked this land for thousands of years, yet they are treated worse than strangers.
Israel - with right comes responsibility
Although created illegally, Israel's existence has been accepted by the United Nations and it's occupants have a right to exist in peace. This right however, should not come at the expense of the occupants of that land. Palestinians also have a right to exist and to live in peace, secure from attack and secure from their land being stolen. They have a right to the same freedoms that we all are entitled to. They should not be caged behind walls (euphemistically called security barriers) which prevent them accessing health services, education, jobs and their own farms.
Whether a one state or two state solution is adopted, all people there have a right to live peacefully.
Peace is possible for Israel and Palestine, however, it will struggle while history is being reinvented, people's rights are being abused and the Nakbah is denied.
References
(1) "The Invention of the Jewish People", Schlomo Sand, 2009, (Verso, New Left Books) Chapter 3 "Invention of the Exile", including references to numerous historians, such as:
(a) Chaim Milokowsky, "Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature" in "Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions", James M. Scott (ed), Leiden: Brill, 1997.
(b) Israel Jacob Yuval, "The myth of the exile from the land: Jewish time and Christian time", Alpayim 29, 2005, 29-35.
(c) "East and West: A History of Canaan and the Land of the Hebrews", A.G. Horon, Tel Aviv: Dvir, 2000, 344.
(2) "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", Ilan Pappe, 2006, Oneworld Publications Limited.
(3) "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World", Avi Shlaim, 2000, Penguin Books.
Further reading
Israel - Superstition, Prophecy and Human Rights.
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/israel-superstition-prophecy-and-human.html
Palestine's Right to Exist
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/palestines-right-to-exist.html
RIP Victims of Operation Cast Lead
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/rip-victims-of-operation-cast-lead-27.html
Updated 15 May 2016
Many governments across the globe support Israel and believe its existence to be a valid return to origins for the Jewish diaspora. In spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, most nations are not willing to challenge this revision of history. Many adherents of Judeo-Christian faiths believe this Israeli version of history because they believe it is God's will and fulfillment of His divine prophecies.
On 14 May, Israel annually celebrates its Day of Independence which it declared in 1948. On 15 May, Palestine commemorates the 1948 Nakba. Nakba meaning 'the catastrophe' - the day that Israel was formally proclaimed, representing the ethnic cleansing and Judaising of Palestine based on the Law of Return.
While it is often believed that Israel was created by UN Resolution 181, it was actually created by the Jewish Agency in contradiction to Resolution 181, which had resolved that the Jewish state should be created along with an Arab state and with the permission of the local Arab population. Of course, the locals weren't in agreement with having half their country given away to foreigners. The Jewish Agency wouldn't take no for an answer and set about systematically destroying Palestinian villages and forcibly removing or executing the inhabitants. To justify this, and to gain the support of the majority of the world's nations, Israel propagated the story that Jews have a right to return to their homeland, the Holy Land, Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel. In order for this story to gain credence, history has been rewritten. Ironically, Adolf Hitler stated, 'if you tell a big enough lie, often enough, it will be believed.'
How many expulsions make an Exile?
The first claim is that the Jewish diaspora was the result of a dispersal of Jews from the Holy Land through exile. According to the Bible, around 597BC Nebuchadnezzar exiled Judeans to Babylon, whilst some fled to Egypt and others remained in Judea. By 538BC, the Judeans were allowed to return, which many did, and others remained in Babylon and Egypt. This exile was temporary and did not result in Jews wandering throughout the world.
It is also claimed that after destroying the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, the Roman Empire exiled the Jews from Palestine. This exile supposedly resulted in Jews wandering throughout the world for the next 2,000 or so years. This is quite the exaggeration. In 63BC, Judea (a small region of Palestine) became a province of Rome. Around 70AD the Judeans revolted, resulting in many deaths and much of the population enslaved. However, Rome did not exile or deport the entire population of the region, or even a significant portion of the population. From132AD to 135AD, there was another revolt (led by Shimon Bar Kokhba) in Judea. Again the Judeans were defeated, many killed, some enslaved, some fled, some exiled (mainly the leaders of the revolt); most remained.
No history book of the era records a mass exile or a mass exodus of Jews from the Holy Land. (1) The Romans were adept at many things, in particular recording their heroic deeds for posterity. Yet, strangely, the Romans did not record such a monumental event. Additionally, why would they do such a thing? With roughly 2,000,000 Jews in the Holy Land around that time, it would have been a lot of tax-payers to kick out of the Empire. It makes no sense. The respected Jewish historian, Josephus, also did not record any such exile. Certainly, some of worst agitators suffered expulsion from Judea, however, this was not a mass exile.
The few historical records of the alleged 'exile' were written centuries after this and appear to be fabrications as they do not match any record written at the time of the 'exile'. Eventually Jewish historians realised that an invented 70AD exile, and/or a 135AD exile did not match existing historical records, so they rewrote the exile to coincide with the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land around 638AD. (1)
Exile, regardless of whether it was in 70AD, 135AD or 638AD is claimed to have dispersed the Jews throughout the world, resulting in a Jewish diaspora.
Proselytes - Jewish by conversion, not race
What is rarely discussed, however, is that from around 200BC, the Jews had begun proselytising the Roman Empire and the many traders who travelled to and through the Holy Land, including Persian and Asian traders using the Silk Road. The bible has a number of references to proselytes as converts to Judaism, including this verse in Matthew 23:15 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel the land and the sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves'.
Women were most willing to convert to Judaism, perhaps because the men didn't want to pay the price of admission to this exclusive religion; namely by severing their fore-skins. It is interesting that the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 2:28-29 'For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is one outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.'
It would appear that Paul wasn't keen on promoting physical circumcision either, but opted for the more palatable and less painful, 'spiritual' circumcision. For that matter God wasn't keen on promoting physical circumcision at this point as it represented the old covenant which required blood sacrifice. The new covenant that God made, a covenant in which Jesus paid the blood sacrifice for all, focussed on man's spiritual condition and relationship with God. The old covenant required man to constantly atone for sin, under the new covenant Jesus was the atonement and we were forgiven by grace.
Conversion to Judaism was not always voluntary. In his book 'The life of Flavius Josephus', Josephus writes 'the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them'.
As a result of centuries of proselytisation, Jewish converts extended throughout the Mediterranean, from Northern Africa through Egypt, Persia, and the areas now known as Turkey, Greece, Italy, France and Spain. By around 300AD, the proselytes also extended into Eastern Europe, Western and Central Asia. From these, the mighty Khazar empire was established and expanded throughout Euroasia, from Russia in the north to Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia and north-eastern Turkey. The Khazar aristocracy eventually converted to Judaism and obviously encouraged the ongoing proselytising of Eurasia.
Meanwhile the proselytes living in the Roman Empire and subsequent Byzantine Empire continued their proselytisation into Northern Europe.
The European Jews who migrated to Israel during the 20th century, claiming that it was their land, were not descended from Jews of the Holy Land (Palestine, Judea, Israel) but were descended from European and Central Asian converts to Judaism. They are the descendants of proselytes. They have as much claim on the Holy Land as a Christian descended from Britons.
The diaspora written about in the bible referred to Jews who had moved or been exiled to Babylon or Egypt, where they remained - they did not become 'wandering Jews'. It was not a world wide dispersal.
Palestinians are the true descendants of Judea
The tragic irony of the persecution that is being wielded against Palestinians (and has been since at least 1948) is that the ancestors of most of those Palestinians would have been Jews in Palestine 2,000 years ago. Over the centuries many of them converted to Christianity during the malevolent reign of the Byzantine Empire which forced conversions on its citizens and persecuted Jews.
Following the Muslim conquest of Palestine around 638AD, many of the citizens converted to Islam. Unlike the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic Empire did not force conversion on the population. Contrary to the claims of some Zionists who believe that this resulted in the exile of Jews, the Muslims did not require anyone to leave the country. Similar to the Roman Empire, exile would have drastically reduced the Caliphate's tax base.
Many of the Jews in Palestine at the time welcomed and assisted the establishment of Islamic rule because it was preferable to the cruel Byzantine rule. Under Islamic law, Muslims were not required to pay tax and non-Muslims were. Not surprisingly, many non-Muslims, in particular Jews and Christians, eventually converted to Islam as a tax avoidance measure. This introduced a problem for the Caliphate government because their tax-payer base rapidly dwindled, so they eventually revised their taxation policy.
The descendants of these Muslim converts live in the Holy Land today and, ironically, face persecution and a form of exile at the hands of Jews, the returning 'diaspora', who are descended from Jewish converts.
Palestine - 'terra nullius'
In the late 19th century, a small group of Zionists cast their covetous, collective eye towards Palestine. Zionists claimed that the Jewish diaspora had a God-given right to inhabit the Holy Land. The problem with this is that they wanted Jews to be given the land and the original inhabitants to secede power to them. In 1948 this came to fruition.
By 1948, following centuries of horrific European pogroms against Jews which culminated in the genocide unleashed by the Nazis, the world was convinced that Jews around the world should be granted their own land. They were given Palestine. This in itself was perhaps the world's worst example of NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. At that time, the United States and some European nations were refusing to take in Jewish refugees following the Second World War. It suited them perfectly for the problem of Jewish refugees to be moved somewhere else, anywhere else. So United Nations Resolution 181 was passed with little consultation, and no negotiation, with Palestinians.
On 14 May 1948 modern Israel was formally established by the Jewish Agency. 15 May 1948 is commemorated by Palestinians as the Nakba - 'Day of Catastrophe'.
For 50 years prior to the establishment of Israel, Zionists had been saying that they needed to take a nation that was empty. They decreed the land of Palestine to be a "land without people - for a people without land". Essentially they were proclaiming Palestine to be 'terra nullius' (latin for 'land without people'). And so the cleansing of history began. The propaganda stated that the Palestinians were an invented people. Yet the Jews making this claim were not descendants of Abraham or any other resident of the Holy Lands. The Palestinians had resided there for thousands of years. The European Zionists and their ancestors had never resided there.
Government policy - Judaise Palestine
In order to supplant the local population, a law was passed that enabled any Jew from anywhere in the world to relocate to Israel and inhabit land and property that had been stolen from the local Palestinian population. This was property that had once belonged to Palestinians who had either been violently forced to abandon it, or had been violently threatened in order to cheaply sell the property to the government of Israel. The Israeli government worked ferociously to encourage Jews to move to Israel and to drive out the local Palestinians, offering them cheap houses and land. The reason for this was to "Judaise" the country by increasing the numbers of Jews and decreasing the numbers of Palestinians (2).
1948 wasn't the return of a diaspora, but an invasion of Palestinian land.
'Law of Return'
Today, Israel requires all citizens and political parties to acknowledge the 'Law of Return' which enables Jews from anywhere in the world to become Israeli citizens, whether or not they were born there and whether or not they even chose to remain in the country. Even parties representing Muslims or Palestinians are required to acknowledge this law.
The 'Law of Return' assumes that all Jews have genetic roots in Israel/Judea. There can be no 'return' if their ancestors where never from there. The 'Law of Return' is one of the key tools in the Judaisation of Israel/Palestine.
The real Semites
Criticism of Israel often results in accusations of anti-Semitism. The irony of this, is that the Palestinians whose land was forcibly taken from them are Semites who lived in the area for millenia, while the bulk of the Jews who moved to Palestine around 1948, are not Semitic, but from various European and Asian races.
Additionally, most of the criticism is not against Jews or Judaism, but against human rights abuses committed in the name of Israel. The nation of Israel has established itself as a Jewish state, but like any State it must be held accountable for its actions, regardless of its State religion.
Martin Luther King and 'that' quote
Occasionally someone will repeat the quote purportedly written by Martin Luther King, "When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism". This was supposedly written by MLK in "Letter to a Zionist Friend". It is false. MLK never wrote such a letter. The quote itself? There appear to be two sources of it. One account is by Seymour Martin Lipset who claims that MLK was at a dinner in Cambridge when a young man made disparaging remarks about Zionists as a people group. MLK replied with "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism". This account is documented at: http://electronicintifada.net/content/fraud-fit-king-israel-zionism-and-misuse-mlk/4373
The second account claims that King was speaking at Harvard University when a student asked a hostile question about Zionism. MLK responded with "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking about anti-Semitism". This account is recorded here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369
The quote itself is based on an incorrect assumption, namely that Zionists are Jews. However, not all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists. To demonstrate this inaccuracy, one only has to look at the large number of Christian Zionists and of course the large number of Jews who criticise Zionism. Sadly, many Jews who are critical of either Zionism or Israeli policy are labelled 'self-hating' Jews in an effort to motivate them through patriotism and loyalty and the implication that they are traitors to their own people.
However, patriotism is a dangerous thing which often discourages people from criticising their own for fear of being labelled treacherous. As Guy de Maupassant once said, 'Patriotism is a religion, the egg from which wars are hatched.' Also in relation to the dangers of patriotism, William H Boyer stated, 'blind patriotism has been kept intact by rewriting history to provide people with moral consolation and a psychological basis for denial.'
Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Judaism. Israeli policies have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and the issuing of hundreds of UN resolutions condemning Israeli aggression and illegal settlements.
Even with the 'Law of Return', most Jews have chosen not to return. There are many Jews throughout the world who do not agree with, or believe, the Zionist propaganda. However, the propaganda has influenced so many people that many Jews and Christians, and even a number of non-religious people, believe that Palestinians have no claim to their own land.
There have been gross human right violations committed on Palestinians in the name of Zionism. The world needs to understand the truth behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the reconstruction of history and the manipulation of religion that Zionists have used for the illegal creation of Israel in 1948 and to justify the ongoing expansion of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories and the perpetuation of gross human and civil rights violations (3).
Zionism ignores the fundamental tenets of scripture, will calls for treating each other with love and respect. For instance, Leviticus 19:18, '... you shall love your neighbour as yourself '.
Democracy(?)
Israel prides itself being the sole democratic nation in the Middle East. It even allows Palestinian parties to be represented ... along as they accept the Law of Return. However, would Israel ever allow the Knesset to be ruled by Palestinians?
Palestinians are treated like second class citizens in Israel, while those who live in Palestine are treated as anathema, a problem to be destroyed.
Israel states that it is a Jewish nation and therefore only Jews can rule the nation. This is not seen as contradictory to democracy, yet it does not allow fair representation of, or opportunity for, all people in the nation.
Israel in its embrace of Zionism, ignores basic Jewish scripture in the way that it treats non-Jews, particularly Arabs, who live there. Leviticus 19:33-34 states 'And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.'
The violation of this scripture is all the worse for the fact that the Palestinians are not 'strangers in the land' as they lived, owned and worked this land for thousands of years, yet they are treated worse than strangers.
Israel - with right comes responsibility
Although created illegally, Israel's existence has been accepted by the United Nations and it's occupants have a right to exist in peace. This right however, should not come at the expense of the occupants of that land. Palestinians also have a right to exist and to live in peace, secure from attack and secure from their land being stolen. They have a right to the same freedoms that we all are entitled to. They should not be caged behind walls (euphemistically called security barriers) which prevent them accessing health services, education, jobs and their own farms.
Whether a one state or two state solution is adopted, all people there have a right to live peacefully.
Peace is possible for Israel and Palestine, however, it will struggle while history is being reinvented, people's rights are being abused and the Nakbah is denied.
References
(1) "The Invention of the Jewish People", Schlomo Sand, 2009, (Verso, New Left Books) Chapter 3 "Invention of the Exile", including references to numerous historians, such as:
(a) Chaim Milokowsky, "Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature" in "Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions", James M. Scott (ed), Leiden: Brill, 1997.
(b) Israel Jacob Yuval, "The myth of the exile from the land: Jewish time and Christian time", Alpayim 29, 2005, 29-35.
(c) "East and West: A History of Canaan and the Land of the Hebrews", A.G. Horon, Tel Aviv: Dvir, 2000, 344.
(2) "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", Ilan Pappe, 2006, Oneworld Publications Limited.
(3) "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World", Avi Shlaim, 2000, Penguin Books.
Further reading
- 'A Witness in Palestine', Anna Baltzer - http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/
- 'The origin of the Palestine-Israel conflict' - published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East - http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
- 'Seven biblical answers to popular Zionist assumptions', Stephen Sizer - http://vimeo.com/album/1030735/video/39352443
- 'Nakba - the process of Palestinian dispossession'- http://www.passia.org/publications/bulletins/Nakba%20website/index.htm
- The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - http://www.icahd.org/
- Christian Peace-maker Teams - http://www.cpt.org/work/palestine
- International Solidarity Movement - http://palsolidarity.org/
- The Free Gaza Movement - http://www.freegaza.org/
- The Electronic Intifada - http://electronicintifada.net/
- Friends of Sabeel - North America, Voice of the Palestinian Christians - http://www.fosna.org/content/study-guides
- Team Palestina - www.teampalestina.org and Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Team-Palestina/198580813517826
Israel - Superstition, Prophecy and Human Rights.
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/israel-superstition-prophecy-and-human.html
Palestine's Right to Exist
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/palestines-right-to-exist.html
RIP Victims of Operation Cast Lead
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/rip-victims-of-operation-cast-lead-27.html
Updated 15 May 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)