College Insurrection regularly reports on courses in which aspects of American history are altered to promote a progressive agenda.
However, this distortion is not confined to the history of our coutry.
One Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) substitute teacher, who has a degree in history and is an expert in the Old World, is appalled at the anti-Israel bias presented as fact in the textbooks used in LAUSD courses.
He writes under the pseudonym Tom Durustarici, to protect himself from retaliation. “These textbooks aren’t history, they’re propaganda,” explained Durustarici. “And since many teachers don’t have my knowledge of the area and the history, they have to go by the text.”
This intrepid instructor conducted a detailed analysis of World History-California Edition:The Modern World by Elizabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler. He compared and contrasted what was written to what should haven been written from a decidedly more balanced perspective.
Here is a sample of what was written:
Modern Israel was born in 1948 on land that Arabs claimed as their own. Conflicting claims to this land led to repeated violence. After the 1948 war that followed Israel’s founding, Israel and its Arab neighbors fought three more wars, in 1956, 1967, and 1973. In these wars, Israel defeated Arab forces and gained more land. Between the wars, Israel faced guerrilla and terrorist attacks. Repeatedly, the United States tried to bring about peace.
Durustarici offers this more historically accurate version:
Modern Israel was born in 1948 on land that Arabs claimed, with little justification, as their own. Conflicting claims to this land, and Arab intransigence, led to repeated violence.
The Arabs attacked Israel when it declared its independence. This was after a legal, (and very unfavorable to Israel), UN approved, partition of the area into Israeli and Arab states. The Arabs lost this war that they had started, although it cost Israel the lives of 1% of its population….
The Arabs also carried out 3 other major acts of war, causing conflict in 1956, 1967, and 1973. In these wars Israel defeated Arab forces, gaining land in 1967. Between the wars, Israel faced guerrilla and terrorist attacks.
(His full analysis can be found HERE).
“I’ve been trying to get people to listen — no-one seems to take it seriously,” reports Durustarici. “I have had several teachers read [the analysis]. They all told me it was too pro-Israeli. The problem has gotten so ridiculous that if you try to tell the story properly people think you’re taking sides.”
Historically, this section of the world has been a continuous hotbed of unrest…politically, religiously, and otherwise. In fact, I am co-hosting a Canto Talk program (Jan. 10th, 7 pm PST/10 ppm EST) that focuses on the Crusades with noted military historian Barry Jacobsen (whose featured appearances include Themopylae and The Real King Arthur).
As Barry Jacobsen notes in his “Politically Incorrect View of the Crusades“:
“Today, a new generation in the West faces a resurgent and militant Islam, watching in horror as the ”Arab Spring” devolves into a Fundamentalist winter. It is therefore an appropriate time to take a critical look at the events that are presumed, by many, to have initiated the cycle of hatred and distrust between Islam and the West..As is so often the case when historical facts conflict with “political correctness”, facts are twisted to fit the dogma. So is the case with the Crusades.”
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” wrote philosopher George Santayana. In today’s media and educational environments, it is very difficult to remember it correctly.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“I have had several teachers read [the analysis]. They all told me it was too pro-Israeli. The problem has gotten so ridiculous that if you try to tell the story properly people think you’re taking sides.”
These same teachers no doubt ridicule Southerners for referring to the Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression.
Exactly right!
Having been a professional student all my adult life, I’m never surprised (but always annoyed) to hear the usual anti-America and anti-Israel shibboleths bandied about in a university classroom.
When I was taking grad classes in geography a few years back, I had a few classes with an Israeli guy.
In one seminar of about a dozen students, I felt pretty comfortable to speak in class because the professor, a Malaysian Chinese man, seemed to be quite good-natured, and, in a few criticisms he expressed of mainland China, he at times sounded like he might even be pro-capitalism (a big shock on a university campus).
What’s funny was one time, during one of our discussions, one student somehow managed to stray from the topic over to the Middle East and started criticizing Israel over various “injustices” it perpetrated upon the Palestinians … the usual mindless, one-sided, myopic blather.
I looked over at the Israeli guy and he just had a “here we go again … I’m so sick of this” yet, resigned look on his face. To my surprise, he didn’t speak up. He wasn’t shy, so my guess was he was afraid of losing his temper in class and had decided to just let it go, knowing we’d soon be back to the main, and unrelated, subject of discussion, and this little annoying digression was not worth choosing as a battle to fight.
I felt a little disappointed he wasn’t speaking up, so I spoke up. I set the record straight, and after one point I made, he interjected (as best I remember), “Yes! Yes! The media never talks about that!”
What’s funny is that near the end of the semester, when we were giving our Powerpoint presentations on our projects, a student in the class from South America kept weaving in subtle and not-so-subtle anti-America digs in comparison to his native country.
As I sat there feeling my blood start to simmer, speaking back to him in my head, the entire duration of his presentation my head filled with a non-stop monologue both mocking and profane … when he finished and the professor opened up things for discussion on this nerd’s presentation and encouraged questions to the dork, I kept trying to calm myself, telling myself, “let it go … let it go.”
To my delighted surprise, the Israeli guy launched into a scathing critique of this moron’s knee-jerk anti-Americanism. He went on at length and just obliterated every response the little, pampered (no doubt 1%-er of whatever country he was from, I don’t remember, but no doubt he was a privileged young man whose family could afford to send him to the States for college … perhaps to get some relief from the little know-it-all prick?) presenter, who was floored in this fight again and again.
It got to the point where you almost (almost) wanted to look at the professor as the referee and yell, “You gotta stop the fight! He’s going to kill him! He can’t defend himself! Look, he’s down on the canvass again!”
It was just beautiful to behold. Man oh man, that Israeli guy was a great American patriot, not to be mucked with.
LukeHandCool (who apologizes to Mrs. Jacobson for having used a dirty word (Prick) during this long comment to describe that little Putz. Luke searched in vain for a more decorous word, really he did, but no substitute was to be found to aptly describe this Putz as anything but a Prick)
GOOD Stuff, Leslie!!
What a comfort to see that Iran has endorsed the Hagel choice for dismantling our Armed Might, huh?
The malignancy that has become “Fact” on Israel in the revisionist, rewrite, PC, Hug an Arab culture of America leaves me stunned and outraged. And, this Evil 30-yr Neocon is a WASP. (-:
In today’s media and educational environments, it is very difficult to remember it correctly.
I would posit that if all of your schooling came after 1985 or so, it is next to impossible, without seeking the answers yourself. The media coverage of the time was seriously skewed. See: Cronkite, Walter; Tet 1968. The indoctrination factories have done their work well.
Durustarici: Modern Israel was born in 1948 on land that Arabs claimed, with little justification, as their own.
That is incorrect. Palestinians have ancient roots in the region.
That is incorrect. Palestinians have ancient roots in the region.
That’s apparently Arabs you’re talking about. They and the Jews both have ancient roots there.
Nothing justified the 1948 invasion of three Arab armies in their attempt to undo the creation of Israel.
Insufficiently Sensitive: That’s apparently Arabs you’re talking about.
Arabic is both an ethnic and cultural distinction. While most Palestinians are culturally Arabic, they are a distinguishable genetic grouping.
See Hammer et al., Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes, PNAS 2000.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8sY9bx8acNM/SXY1_svkjeI/AAAAAAAAARc/c9zVKvXIY8c/s1600/Hammer_2000_Jew_Arab_Ychromosome.png
Insufficiently Sensitive: They and the Jews both have ancient roots there.
Yes, that is correct.
Insufficiently Sensitive: Nothing justified the 1948 invasion of three Arab armies in their attempt to undo the creation of Israel.
Quite agreed. War and the threat of war has brought nothing but grief to the Palestinians and their neighbors.
War and the threat of war brought nothing but grief ultimately to the Germans and the Japanese.
LukeHandCool (who is half-German, whose wife is Japanese, and, speaking of grief, ohh … Good Grief! Luke is sure suicide bombers bring nothing but grief to their families … grief and a lot of sick, perverse pride)
LukeHandCool: War and the threat of war brought nothing but grief ultimately to the Germans and the Japanese.
It surely did.
See Hammer et al., Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes, PNAS 2000.
That’s ducky, but this discussion is not part of a genetics seminar. Your term ‘Palestinian’ is politically loaded, and is clearly a code reference to a population which prefers Arab control of a single state where once existed Israel.
No doubt it would encompass at least the entire area which the Romans first named ‘Palestine’.
It has to do with the original post, which falsely claimed that Palestinians do not have justification for their claims over land, even though they can trace their presence in the area over generations, even though they have ancient roots in the area.
Only by recognizing legitimate concerns is any progress possible. Palestinians need to recognize that every perceived wrong cannot possibly be addressed, but that living in peace with Israel is preferable to continued discontent.
“That is incorrect. Palestinians have ancient roots in the region.”
How about citing some of those ancient roots instead of just making a declarative statement without any proof?
Palestinians or Arabs? And how do we define “region”? Were there Arabs in the ancient land of Canaan? Well, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, traveling Arab merchants are mentioned, but there’s little in the archeological record of any permanent Arab settlements before the Muslim conquest in the 7th and 8th centuries CE. Certainly no sovereignty by local Arabs. Today there are a handful of wealthy, landholding Palestinian Arab clans like the Husseinis, Nusseibahs, Khalidis and a couple others, that date to that conquest.
As for other “Palestinians”, many of them have surnames like Al Masri (the Egyptian) and Bagdadi (self explanatory). Many Arabs moved into Palestine as the Zionist enterprise flourished and the local economy picked up.
Bottom line is that Palestinian nationality and nationalism are modern inventions with little to do with the ancient Middle East.
CarsInDepth.com: How about citing some of those ancient roots instead of just making a declarative statement without any proof?
Hammer et al., Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes, PNAS 2000.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8sY9bx8acNM/SXY1_svkjeI/AAAAAAAAARc/c9zVKvXIY8c/s1600/Hammer_2000_Jew_Arab_Ychromosome.png
CarsInDepth.com: Bottom line is that Palestinian nationality and nationalism are modern inventions with little to do with the ancient Middle East.
That isn’t consistent with the evidence.
Sorry, Zach, but it’s entirely consistent with the Non-Revisionist evidence.
For me, the so-called Palestinians gave it all away when they threw in with rejecting Israel’s 1948 right to exist and the Arab Armies invading. Those invaders, by-the-by, had NO intention of giving that land to a “State” of Palestine. It would only have been for the Invaders. Which makes for all the more irony when “Palestinian Rights” are endlessly, tiresomely discussed.
NeoConScum: it’s entirely consistent with the Non-Revisionist evidence.
The genetic evidence supports the claim that Palestinians have deep roots in the region.
What no one has noted is the very interesting fact that Jews have retained their genetic identity over the two millennia of the diaspora. This only further emphasizes the regional nature of the ethnic identity.
NeoConScum: the so-called Palestinians gave it all away when they threw in with rejecting Israel’s 1948 right to exist and the Arab Armies invading.
Refusing to acknowledge legitimate concerns of Palestinians will mean only more pain for the people of the region.
“legitimate concerns of Palestinians” (below) — Do you mean the Palestinian “concern” that Jews are governing a tiny part of the region that they believe to belong entirely to Dar al-Islam? Or the “concerned” way that Palestinian mothers desire nothing more than for their children to blow themselves up in the process of blowing up Jewish children?
The primary “concern” of Palestinian Arabs is to rid the Middle East (and eventually the whole world) of Jews. It’s one of the many ugly fruits of Islam — and unfortunately, many of the dhimmified Christians of that region and elsewhere go along with it, probably because there are many more Muslims than Jews in the world and the Muslims are much more ruthless. (I’m not Jewish, BTW.)
“legitimate concerns of Palestinians” – (actually, replying to the above)
Radegunda “legitimate concerns of Palestinians” (below) — Do you mean the Palestinian “concern” that Jews are governing a tiny part of the region that they believe to belong entirely to Dar al-Islam?
No, we’re referring to those who have been displaced or those living in contested territories.
All that the genetic evidence shows is that Jews and Arabs are both native to the general mideast and have some common ancestry, something that Genesis already acknowledges. The genetic evidence says nothing about how ancient a presence in historical “Palestine” the Arabs who currently call themselves “Palestinians” have had. The Jews’ closest genetic relatives, BTW, are the Kurds
CarsInDepth.com: The genetic evidence says nothing about how ancient a presence in historical “Palestine” the Arabs who currently call themselves “Palestinians” have had.
The genetic evidence indicates that Palestinians are descendants of Neolithic peoples that inhabited the area. See,
Arnaiz-Villena et al., The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations, Human Immunology 2000.
Nebel et al., High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews, Human Genetics 2000.
CarsInDepth.com: Bottom line is that Palestinian nationality and nationalism are modern inventions with little to do with the ancient Middle East.
That isn’t consistent with the evidence.
Really? So what evidence is there of Palestinian nationality or nationalism before the 20th century? In the wake of the breaking up of the Ottoman empire, “Palestinians” under British rule in Palestine bemoaned the “catastrophe” of being separated from their Syrian “brothers” who were then under French rule. Palestinian nationalism is a modern fiction.
CarsInDepth.com: Really? So what evidence is there of Palestinian nationality or nationalism before the 20th century?
“Nationalism” is a relatively recent concept. Many Americans didn’t consider themselves as a single nation until after the Civil War, and many didn’t accept a single identity even then. Germany and Italy didn’t form cohesive nations until the 19th century. Many other nations didn’t form until after WWII, including Israel. In much of the world, nationalism arose from the remains of feudalism, then from the ashes of colonialism.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean people didn’t have a belief that they were part of the history of a land.
Palestine was a derogatory term invented by the Romans to insult and rub salt in the wounds of the Jews by calling them Philistines, their historical enemy that inhabited the land.
The first people ever called Palestinians were the Jews.
That’s irrelevant as to whether the people today known as Palestinians have roots in the area.
This paper is problematic for all kinds of reasons. First, PNAS is not peer-reviewed. Once you’re part of the academy, your work can be published.
Second, you should always sense check your results. The Palestinians, per the UN, are defined as those who have lived in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea excluding Jews for a minimum of two years prior to 1948 and their descendants. The group may have mixed or not mixed with other groups over the course of history, but at the least mixed (forcibly) with the Arab conquerors – to the extent that they lived there that long at all. To believe this study, you would have to believe that a group that is, at best, amorphous and uninterested in preserving its common heritage would have similar genetics to a group that kept its common heritage, whether it was forced to do so or by choice. It flies in the face of logic.
Finally, even if the Palestinians are genetically similar to the Jews, that doesn’t mean that the Palestinians have any rights to the territory. They have chosen to identify with the enemies of the people who live there. If you go to war with a people who live in a territory (as the Arabs did in 1948, 1967 and 1973, along with intermittent terrorist attack before and after these dates, and as the Palestinians did during the intifadas as well as joining the Arab wars on Israel), the fact that you’re genetically similar to people living there does not absolve you of the fact that you made war on the people, and you may still lose the land, or your rights to the land, as a consequence. That’s what happens when you lose wars.
Ariel: PNAS is not peer-reviewed.
PNAS is peer-reviewed and has an impact factor of 9.68, making it the second most cited scientific journal in the world.
Ariel: The group may have mixed or not mixed with other groups over the course of history, but at the least mixed (forcibly) with the Arab conquerors – to the extent that they lived there that long at all.
Of course they’ve mixed. Read the studies we cited above. The Jews have mixed too, but just like the Palestinians, have maintained a distinguishable genetic grouping. It’s really remarkable considering the history of each group.
Ariel: They have chosen to identify with the enemies of the people who live there.
But Palestinians have lived there too, and most modern Jews were immigrants from other lands (though they have roots that were severed two millennia ago). There is no possible resolution without recognizing why Palestinians and Jews feel tied to the same land.
Ariel:: you should always sense check your results.
Yes, but you should always check your own presuppositions, especially when empirical results seem to you leave you so befuddled.
Ariel:: To believe this study, you would have to believe that a group that is, at best, amorphous and uninterested in preserving its common heritage would have similar genetics to a group that kept its common heritage, whether it was forced to do so or by choice. It flies in the face of logic.
Nationalism is a recent cultural phenomenon. People have traditionally identified by family and tribe. That explains their continuity over time, and should resolve your befuddlement.
Of course they’ve mixed. Read the studies we cited above. The Jews have mixed too, but just like the Palestinians, have maintained a distinguishable genetic grouping. It’s really remarkable considering the history of each group.
Yes, but to believe the study you cited, you would have to believe that the Palestinians – a group defined by being in Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River for as little as two years – would have a coherent genetic identity. That’s not remarkable, it’s fantastic, and not in the sense of being great.
But Palestinians have lived there too, and most modern Jews were immigrants from other lands (though they have roots that were severed two millennia ago). There is no possible resolution without recognizing why Palestinians and Jews feel tied to the same land.
Palestinians may have lived there for as little as two years. More Jews immigrated to what is now Israel from the Arab countries than the number of Palestinians at the time.
Why do the Palestinians feel tied to that land? It’s not, for the most part, because their families lived there since time immemorial. It’s, at best, because they’ve been propagandized to, and because they believe that all parts of Dar al Islam must be returned to Dar al Islam. That includes Andalusia as well.
What’s more, the Palestinians do not claim part of the land. They claim the land, as they say, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. You can see this on their official documentation for the PA, or in the Hamas charter, or the PLO charter. Their intentions, like other groups that have struck out at the Jews, are public, in print, and quite explicit. This is not a group that believes that both sides’ rights to the land need to be respected.
Yes, but you should always check your own presuppositions, especially when empirical results seem to you leave you so befuddled.
One funny thing about the Internet – you may be speaking to someone who knows statistics and can spot an anomaly. My presupposition is that a group that may have lived in an area for as little as two years would have any genetic commonality is the sort of statistical junk that suggests that the study has problems. What is yours? We can compare.
Nationalism is a recent cultural phenomenon. People have traditionally identified by family and tribe. That explains their continuity over time, and should resolve your befuddlement.
Great. Please tell me about the most famous leader of the Palestinian tribe. Who were some of their cultural thinkers? What was the name of their nation(s)? What unit of currency did they use? Kindly restrict your answer to pre-1945.
Befuddlement, hmm. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Ariel: Yes, but to believe the study you cited, you would have to believe that the Palestinians – a group defined by being in Mandatory Palestine west of the Jordan River for as little as two years – would have a coherent genetic identity. That’s not remarkable, it’s fantastic, and not in the sense of being great.
And yet, despite your personal incredulity, multiple studies have confirmed the finding.
Then explain a plausible mechanism.
Here’s mine: Those Palestinians who were selected were out-converts from Judaism. There’s a not insignificant population of such, including some who keep certain Jewish traditions. Most Palestinians are Arabs – and what’s more, identify as such, which is the salient point.
Ariel: Then explain a plausible mechanism.
They’re descendants of people who lived in the region.
Ariel: Those Palestinians who were selected were out-converts from Judaism.
That isn’t consistent with your previous positions, and would mean they do have ancient roots in the region.
Zachriel – ACTUALLY, the first Palestinians were Hebrews.
The Romans called Israel ‘Palestine’ to mock and insult the Jews. The word ‘Palestine’ is derived from the word, Philistines, who were heathen idol-worshipping (worship of Baal involved sex orgies, Asherah poles, etc.) and were mortal enemies of Israel. See Elijah vs Prophets of Baal/Ahab/Jezebel and David vs Goliath in the Bible.
The Muslims did not appear in Israel until many centuries later…seven or more centuries after Christ and did not keep control of Israel for all that long…most recently, immediately before the 1948 declaration of the state of Israel, it was a British colony.
There has never been a Palestinian government over the land of Israel.
Just because some muslims claim Israel and Jerusalem, does not make it so. Today, some rabid muslim was declaring that Spain rightfully belongs to Islam. They may want Spain, but they don’t have a rightful claim to it – or to the Republic of Georgia which has always been Christian.
Islam is a bunch of covetous, greedy, aggressors.
If the UN (US and UK) were honest and sane, they would curtail all the genocides, aggression and violence against women, etc. of Islam
Uncle Samuel: ACTUALLY, the first Palestinians were Hebrews.
Abraham was an immigrant to an already populated area.
So – there were possibly humans living in that area in prehistoric times, however they were not ‘Palestinians’.
That does not make the current people who claim to be ‘Palestinians’ actually ‘Palestinians’ or validate their claims to the land or justify their constant violations of mutually agreed and signed treaties,or justify their terrorist acts and threats and racist rantings. Not at all.
That does not invalidate the FACT that the first ‘Palestinians’ were the Jews/Hebrews/Israel.
That does not invalidate the VALID claims:
– the spiritual Biblical claim (the Koran does not mention Jerusalem)
– the historical claim (centuries of inhabitation by Jews)
– the political Post-WWII establishment claim
– the military claim (holding the land)
that the Hebrews have to the land of the State of Israel.
Uncle Samuel: So – there were possibly humans living in that area in prehistoric times, however they were not ‘Palestinians’.
They were the ancestors of the people that are today called Palestinians.
Uncle Samuel: That does not make the current people who claim to be ‘Palestinians’ actually ‘Palestinians’ or validate their claims to the land or justify their constant violations of mutually agreed and signed treaties,or justify their terrorist acts and threats and racist rantings.
Being indigenous is justification for claims to the land, however, nothing justifies terrorist acts.
Israel has the most legitimate claim (militarily, politically, historically, morally and spiritually) to the State of Israel of any religious and ethnic group.
That is a fact.
Correction: The Jews have the most legitimate political, historical, spiritual and moral claim to Jerusalem and the land where the State of Israel exists.
The Islamists who dispute that claim are immoral and dishonest.
This is EXACTLY an issue the GOP leadership should jump on — EXACTLY. But they’re nowhere to be found.
That’s why they urgently need to be forced out — or starved out, if they don’t go willingly.
Howard Zinn did America great harm with his myopic people’s history of the U.S.
Relativism’s desire to revise truth toward a certain political end is everywhere around us. As shown here it is meant to turn the world against the nation of Israel.
Perhaps there should be a conservative website where students can check a version of their school’s history books against other documented and highly regarded historical texts. I appreciated Durustarici’s detailed comparison.
I would like to see this analysis repeated for all grade level text books that have tainted revisionist history. I’m sure at this point that the list of books will be myriad.
Confusion abounds….
When you say “arab” it means “of Arabia”
When they say “arab” it means “muslim”.
Further, the world did not begin until:
April 26, 570 AD
Anything before that date is “unislamic”, and must be purged (blown up, covered in wax, whatever)
I always find the debate over the origins of “Palentine” fascinating. To the point I did as vast of research I could muster a couple years ago.
Weeding out the disinformation and propaganda was challenging.
I’ve come to the conclusion that “Palestine” is actually “Philistine”, which was settled by “red haired Romans”, which solved another mystery to my mind–why do Lebanese women have reddish hair, and no one else in the region.
I wonder what my Jewish childhood best friend would think about this.
I’m pretty sure I talked about him once before here on LI (unless it was somewhere else I posted it) and how he, as an idealistic, recent college graduate, started teaching the third grade in an underprivileged, almost entirely black, public elementary school.
He threw in the towel half way through his first year of teaching when, after the usual stresses of teaching in an environment where the children came from fatherless homes and the single moms were either disinterested, or downright hostile to his efforts, on his own time, to talk to them about helping their children succeed academically, he made the mistake of telling the kids in his class he was Jewish.
Word spread quickly through the school and soon he constantly heard anti-Semitic slurs yelled at him from the students of other classes and grades as he walked around the campus.
I’d love to hear his opinion on this post. But, he hasn’t spoken to me in about two years. Why? Because he thinks I’ve become too conservative!
He obviously thinks conservative equals intolerant.
Until recently I thought, if and when he finally does try to get in touch with me, I’ll just act like his insulting behavior never happened. After all, we were best friends since the fifth grade.
But now I sadly think, no way. I think about how, in middle school, he nervously confided in me that his mother was gay.
After his parents divorced and a female “friend” of his mom moved in with them, it was quite obvious to our little circle of friends that his mom was gay. Hell, even before that lady moved in, we knew she was gay just by the Candice Bergen pictures she had put up on the wall of her office.
But, we didn’t ask him about it. We knew that it must have been very painful, even scary, at an age when every boy at school uttered the most common insult, “You’re such a fag!” or various iterations, unthinkingly, maybe dozens of times a day, every day.
We all (our circle of friends), without discussing it, knew it was best to let him initiate any talk about this, if he wanted to, at a time of his choosing.
When he and I were eating lunch one Saturday, I could tell something was bothering him and he told me he wanted to share something that was a secret that was troubling him. Something about someone in his family. To tell you the truth, at first I thought he was talking about his obnoxious little brother.
Me: You’re talking about Charles, right?
Him: No.
Me: Oh. Are you talking about your mom?
Him: Yeah (he gave me a vulnerable look like the information he was about to share would put him at my mercy … that my blurting this out at school would ruin his life).
Me: Your mom’s gay, right? We (our circle of six or seven friends) know. And we don’t care. We love your mom. That’s just the way she is. And if anybody at school ever finds out and starts telling everyone, I promise you, I’ll kick his ass.
But now, decades later, for some reason increasingly incomprehensible to me, he obviously thinks that because I believe in conservative principles, and because I’m a Republican … I must be intolerant.
I guess he’s all growed up. I guess I’m still the kid.
And that’s why it pains me that I’ve come to the conclusion that if he tries to get back in touch, I’ll just simply say, “Go screw yourself.”
Life is just so full of ironies. Many of them are painful.
I spent most of my life, thus far, not knowing what a “Jew” is. Sure, I know about them in a Biblical sense. I’ve never understood what being “Jewish” meant. Growing up, I remember saying things like “You kiped my baseball”, or “I got jewed” while playing marbles. It wasn’t until in my mid 30’s I figured out what that meant, and that it was bad.
Till this day, I cannot for the life of me understand why “Jews” are hated.
I guess I still don’t know what a “Jew” is……I guess I just don’t care, they seem like anybody else to me.
“Jewish comedians, bankers, tv personalities”. Am I supposed to know the difference, or care?
I just don’t get it. At all.
Blame the Church which, as it spread beyond its Jewish roots handed down the critique of the Jewish elders like Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin vis a vis Christ and smeared all Jews with it. Forget your own history and you eat your own.
All equivocation and speculating aside, the Bible says that God gave the land of Israel to the Israelites. There is also nothing written in there that says he took it away from them. So, like most things man touches, he’s messed up this, as well.
He scattered the many as punishment, but he left a remnant. Plus, he also promised their restoration to the land. I have friends whose objection to the Jews in Israel is they left black and came back white. So far, no one’s shown me pictures. So far, they’ve said nothing about the restoration of Ethiopian and Indian and other Jews from places not European. So far, it’s all nonsense cuz they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham.
To be clear: The Muslims claim to be children of Abraham, but they are NOT. Not spiritually, not physically nor are they by their actions.
As John the Baptist said (paraphrase):
“God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones.” “Those who obey the Law and do the (righteous, merciful) works of G-D, are children of Abraham. Those who do evil are not.”
The works of Islam are the opposite of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The actions of Islam are to oppose and destroy Jews and Christians, the true children of Abraham.
[…] Dear Readers: If you get a chance, please check out my latest post on Legal Insurrection: THE ANTI-ISRAEL DISTORTION OF HISTORY. […]
RE: The Arabs also carried out 3 other major acts of war, causing conflict in 1956, 1967, and 1973
The Arabs invaded Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973. The 1956 Suez action is much more complicated than these other conflicts.
Egyptian sponsored terrorists repeatedly attacked Israel, especially from the Egyptian Gaza Strip, before the conflict. However, it was Israel that invaded Egypt, in coordination with France and Britain, after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The British and the French then demanded that both sides withdraw from the Canal. Since the Canal is wholly within Egyptian territory, this meant that the Egyptian army had to vacate Egyptian land or face attack by the two powers. The US, et. al., USSR intervened and forced all sides to return to their own lands.
Israel is one of the few modern states that does not recognized the dubious concept that groups that attack their homeland must be afforded sanctuary once they withdraw into another sovereign country.
They’re descendants of people who lived in the region.
But that’s not how Palestinians are defined. They are defined as having lived there for as little as two years. Plus, per your theory, they made no effort to stay Jewish-ish, so they would have mixed with each group that came through the region, more or less haphazardly. This would include the Romans, Arabs, Crusaders from various countries, Turks, and British, at the very least – and that’s for those that actually stayed in the region and were not more recent immigrants.
You really seem to stumble on the question about the minimum of two years. How does your mechanism account for that? You can also use the census results, which show dramatic in-migration into the territory in the fifty years (or hundred years) prior to the founding of Israel. How does your mechanism account for that?
That isn’t consistent with your previous positions, and would mean they do have ancient roots in the region.
Of course it does. Everyone recognizes that there are some out-converts among the Palestinians. There’s equally little doubt that they are the vast minority of the group – again, look at the census results.
I assumed you knew of the census – most serious people discussing this do – but with the census results and the two year rule, there really isn’t an easy way for you to square this circle.
Ariel: But that’s not how Palestinians are defined. They are defined as having lived there for as little as two years.
That’s the legal definition for defining refugee status. It turns out that Palestinians form a genetic grouping.
Ariel: This would include the Romans, Arabs, Crusaders from various countries, Turks, and British, at the very least –
Yes, that’s right, and yet after all that, they still form a distinguishable genetic grouping.
Sorry the facts contradict your belief.
The facts don’t contradict my beliefs. Statistics sometimes have funny results that suggest certain care was not appropriately taken. That’s why you have to think about how something could happen as well as what the numbers tell you. Speak to any statistician worth his/her salt and that’s what you’ll hear. I’m sorry that your knowledge doesn’t support your conclusion.
Ariel: Statistics sometimes have funny results that suggest certain care was not appropriately taken.
Multiple studies support the findings. You need to do more than simply wave your hands because you don’t like the results. For instance, can you cite a study that calls the findings into question?
BTW, how’s the research coming on the Palestinian “tribe”?
A study is not an explanation.
The cited studies are findings, in particular, that Palestinians are a distinct grouping closely related to Jews.
The authors did not, e.g., report on heteroscedasticity. That’s bad statistics, particularly with a small sample size.
Ariel: The authors did not, e.g., report on heteroscedasticity. That’s bad statistics, particularly with a small sample size.
More handwaving. They did extensive statistical testing, and you can’t point to a single paper that calls the results into question. If you have a valid objection, publish it in PNAS, or even a statistics journal.
Do you know what heteroscedasticity is? Do you know why it’s important in a small sample size?
How’s that research coming into the Palestinian tribe?
Ariel: Do you know what heteroscedasticity is? Do you know why it’s important in a small sample size?
Yes and yes. Did you have a substantive comment?
Did you actually read any of the cited papers?
I skimmed the one paper you cited.