80-year-old Palestinian man remembers destroyed village of his youth

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Shlomo Sand challenging notions of a Jewish people

Listen to words of an Israeli Jewish Historian debunking Zionist lies.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjpsoHUfWPM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Shlomo Sand challenging notions of a Jewish people

Your twisting knows no bounds my little Muslim friend.

 

[irosie91]

Interestingly enough-----a very considerable slaughter of jews was
accomplished by CRUSADERS who entered palestine-----uhm---
well sherri------how could your fellow isa-respecters have murdered
jews in palestine if there were none? For the past Several
decades------secret synagogues have been uncovered in the
estwhile "palestine" by archaeologists. The actual history is
that jews who remained in "palestine" with the advent of
STINKING NAZI PIG CONSTANTINE who elaborated the first
NUREMBURG LAWS--------did so UNDER-COVER-----Their
writings are still very much extant and very important in jewish
literature------------what can you expect from a sherri who never
even read the bible???

I was very interested in tracing the life of one RABBI ISHMAEL---
since before stumbling into his name----I had not heard of a whole lot
of jews named "ISHMAEL" ------He was an AFGHANI jew who ended
up being buried in jerusalem-----something like 300 AD------sorry
sherri-----there were lots of jews AROUND jerusalem at that time---hiding
out from genocidal isa-respecters. Sands does the HYPERCRITICAL thing--
which plays a very important role in REAL scholarship-----for those who
understand that role------which is virtually TALMUDIC

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

 

[irosie91]

yeah? so???

 

[MHunterB]

The lie Sand exposes for the lie it is is that Jews were ethnically cleansed from Palestine in 70 AD, they were not.

I should add that is just one lie about Zionist Mythology he debunks, there are many more.

And just how does an untrained amateur 'historian' presume to know for certain that Sand is the one who's accurate?

Where is the corroborating evidence from any reputable historian's work?

It seems that another poster here has confused simply repeating "I say so" with anything resembling actual proof.

 

[MHunterB]

PalWatch is nothing but a Zionist Propaganda rag Website/organization.

Shit in a toilet would tell us more truth about the matter than PalWatch.

You should know: that's where I figure you ingest most of your 'education' on the topic.

So, what's your exact bitch with the video, Nazi Gal?

Is the refugee an actor? Is what he states mistranslated? If you 'know' it's incorrect - then you *must* know what is incorrect about this specific instance. Otherwise, you've got bupkis.......

 

[Lipush]

She puts you on ignore, Marg.

She doesn't like being faces with people thinking differently.

A Vilde Chaye! (literally...)

 

[irosie91]

The lie Sand exposes for the lie it is is that Jews were ethnically cleansed from Palestine in 70 AD, they were not.

I should add that is just one lie about Zionist Mythology he debunks, there are many more.

And just how does an untrained amateur 'historian' presume to know for certain that Sand is the one who's accurate?

Where is the corroborating evidence from any reputable historian's work?

It seems that another poster here has confused simply repeating "I say so" with anything resembling actual proof.

Can someone help me out here? I am a jew------70 AD is the date of the roman
sacking of Jerusalem I somehow learned that. It is commemorated by
the ARCH OF TITUS------because titus did it. I NEVER LEARNED that all the
jews of "palestine" were removed --------are there any jews out there who did learn
that all the jews left "palestine" in 70 AD? I did learn----from general history---that
CONSTANTINE became the emperor of the Roman empire----and it was his persecution
of jews that caused most of the dispersal of jews at that time -----but there were always
some jews who remained in "palestine" -----the big lie that I know-----as a lie---is the
islamo insistence that all the jews LEFT 2000 years ago and SUDDENLY showed
up again --------in 1897 Constantine did his dirt----sometime around 300 AD

 

[irosie91]

Perhaps sherri can tell me where she read the "ZIONIST LIE" that all the jews
were cleared out of palestine in 70 AD Can someone ask her-----tragically--
she has me blocked

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Perhaps sherri can tell me where she read the "ZIONIST LIE" that all the jews
were cleared out of palestine in 70 AD Can someone ask her-----tragically--
she has me blocked

She doesn't have us blocked. She is too curious to know what we say. She replied to my posts earlier and in the past.

 

[MHunterB]

"some were sold in Libya" is a huge understatement. The Roman records of those years show that SO MANY Jews were taken out of Judea as slaves, that the price of slaves crashed on the Imperial market.

It wasn't a 'formal exile' - but it was a huge depopulation of Jews from Judea. And that changes NOTHING about the general history. It still is NOT the case that 'Jews abandoned Judea' - which is what the revisionist liars are attempting to suggest.

NOR does it matter whether the returning Jews are the exact same genetic make-up as the departed Judeans - one may become a Jew by adoption.

 

[irosie91]

"some were sold in Libya" is a huge understatement. The Roman records of those years show that SO MANY Jews were taken out of Judea as slaves, that the price of slaves crashed on the Imperial market.

It wasn't a 'formal exile' - but it was a huge depopulation of Jews from Judea. And that changes NOTHING about the general history. It still is NOT the case that 'Jews abandoned Judea' - which is what the revisionist liars are attempting to suggest.

NOR does it matter whether the returning Jews are the exact same genetic make-up as the departed Judeans - one may become a Jew by adoption.

YES I know that LOTS were taken as slaves------but why does sherri insist that someone
claimed that the entire land was ethnically cleansed? After that big slave pillage----there developed a BUY BACK program I fail to see what the putative DEBUNK is all
about

 

[Kondor3]

"...Shlomo Sand, Israel has no rights in the land, another Zionist lie debunked."

And, of course, everybody is supposed to drop everything they're doing and rush right over and sign-up to acknowledge Sand as the ultimate authority on the subject.

Not.

Some historians think the first post-Ice Age visitors to North America were Scandanavians.

Some historians think the first post-Ice Age visitors to North America were Chinese.

Both sides can serve up rational logic and some modicum of evidence to support their contention.

Doesn't mean one side or the other is actually right.

Ditto for any other event in history reaching back so far that little physical evidence still remains.

Sand raises some great points, concerning the ethnic heritage of large elements of the worldwide Jewish population, originating in Turkic and Black Sea and Caucasian and North African lands, although writers like H.G. Wells (Outline of History, 1920, et al) beat him to the punch by the better part of a century.

Sand raises some great points, concerning the ethnic heritage of large elements of the Palestinian population, being in-part descendants of Jews who chose to Switch rather than Fight once the Muslim-Arab barbarians invaded the land and as they were subjected to centuries of political and economic and religious pressure until many had converted; but, again, H.G. Wells (and others) beat him to that punch, many decades ago, as the modern science of Anthropology was defining itself in the later 19th and early 20th.

Where Sand probably goes wrong is in underestimating the size and scope and impact of the Roman-induced Diaspora and the size of the population-base which descends from that large percentage of the Jews who were carried off into slavery or forced off their lands and into the wild by violence and Roman land-retasking and giveaways to legionaries and the like. He also probably goes wrong in overestimating the scope of the Hebrew connection visible in the genetics of the Palestinians when, in truth, most of them, like most of us, are mutts; the products of centuries of conquests and defeats and migrations and admixture.

Sand calls his own country 'shitty' and goes out of his way to lay-down derisive and derogatory commentary pertaining to Israel.

No one likes or trusts a betrayer or weakener of his own people - even when he's right.

And Sand - while raising some good and likely points - has not been proven any more 'right' In The Whole, in his conclusions, than any of the other explanation.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"...Shlomo Sand, Israel has no rights in the land, another Zionist lie debunked."

And, of course, everybody is supposed to drop everything they're doing and rush right over and sign-up to acknowledge Sand as the ultimate authority on the subject.

Not.

Some historians think the first post-Ice Age visitors to North America were Scandanavians.

Some historians think the first post-Ice Age visitors to North American were Chinese.

Both sides can serve up rational logic and some modicum of evidence to support their contention.

Doesn't mean one side or the other is actually right.

Ditto for any other event in history reaching back so far that little physical evidence still remains.

Sand raises some great points, concerning the ethnic heritage of large elements of the worldwide Jewish population, originating in Turkic and Black Sea and Caucasian and North African lands, although writers like H.G. Wells (Outline of History, 1920, et al) beat him to the punch by the better part of a century.

Sand raises some great points, concerning the ethnic heritage of large elements of the Palestinian population, being in-part descendants of Jews who chose to Switch rather than Fight once the Muslim-Arab barbarians invaded the land and as they were subjected to centuries of political and economic and religious pressure until many had converted; but, again, H.G. Wells (and others) beat him to that punch, many decades ago, as the modern science of Anthropology was defining itself in the later 19th and early 20th.

Where Sand probably goes wrong is in underestimating the size and scope and impact of the Roman-induced Diaspora and the size of the population-base which descends from that large percentage of the Jews who were carried off into slavery or forced off their lands and into the wild by violence and Roman land-retasking and giveaways to legionaries and the like. He also probably goes wrong in overestimating the scope of the Hebrew connection visible in the genetics of the Palestinians when, in truth, most of them, like most of us, are mutts; the products of centuries of conquests and defeats and migrations and admixture.

Sand calls his own country 'shitty' and goes out of his way to lay-down derisive and derogatory commentary pertaining to Israel.

No one likes or trusts a betrayer or weakener of his own people - even when he's right.

And Sand - while raising some good and likely points - has not been proven any more 'right' In The Whole, in his conclusions, than any of the other explanation.

I shall believe what is written and documented by the Historian Shlomo Sand and reject the opinion of the nonHistorian Zionist poster Kondor3.

 

[Kondor3]

History tells us that the surviving population of the city of Jerusalem was carried off into slavery after Titus sacked the city in 70 AD.

The Jews fought several wars or rebellions against Rome during a 70-year span.

Some lightweight Wiki-caliber reading on the subject, and links to reference materials, may be found at... Jewish?Roman wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

The Jews weren't all kicked-out at once, in 70 AD. It took a few centuries until the Romans, Byzantines and Arabs had, in succession, worn them down and converted enough of them to make them disappear off the scope as the dominant population of the region of modern-day Israel.

But they certainly had lost positive control of their lands at the time of the Roman conquest of 63 BC, and lost even the last Jew-puppet ruler in 92 AD.

In the final analysis, the Jews (the Hebrew Tribes and their descendants) had ruled and dominated that land for more than 2,000 years (1400 BC [ish] to 800 AD [ish]) before they had been sufficiently Slaughtered and Expelled and Enslaved and Bred-Out and Converted so that they were no longer the dominant population-factor in the region.

Nevertheless, it was intentional; on the part of the Romans, their Byzantine successors, and later Arab-Muslim invaders.

Their collective memory of the Jews of Old Israel getting screwed out of their homeland is largely accurate... it's just that it took much longer than most folks anecdotally believe.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Israel deliberately forgets its history

An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East. by Schlomo Sand

"Every Israeli knows that he or she is the direct and exclusive descendant of a Jewish people which has existed since it received the Torah*(1) in Sinai. According to this myth, the Jews escaped from Egypt and settled in the Promised Land, where they built the glorious kingdom of David and Solomon, which subsequently split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. They experienced two exiles: after the destruction of the first temple, in the 6th century BC, and of the second temple, in 70*AD.Two thousand years of wandering brought the Jews to Yemen, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Poland and deep into Russia. But, the story goes, they always managed to preserve blood links between their scattered communities. Their uniqueness was never compromised.At the end of the 19th*century conditions began to favour their return to their ancient homeland. If it had not been for the Nazi genocide, millions of Jews would have fulfilled the dream of 20*centuries and repopulated Eretz Israel, the biblical land of Israel. Palestine, a virgin land, had been waiting for its original inhabitants to return and awaken it. It belonged to the Jews, rather than to an Arab minority that had no history and had arrived there by chance. The wars in which the wandering people reconquered their land were just; the violent opposition of the local population was criminal.

Founding myths shaken

But during the 1980s an earthquake shook these founding myths. The discoveries made by the “new archaeology” discredited a great exodus in the 13th century BC. Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at the time. And there is no trace of either a slave revolt against the pharaonic empire or of a sudden conquest of Canaan by outsiders.

Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism.

Then there is the question of the exile of 70*AD. There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th*century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest."

Israel deliberately forgets its history - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

 

[Kondor3]

"...I shall believe what is written and documented by the Historian Shlomo Sand and reject the opinion of the nonHistorian Zionist poster Kondor3."

You just HAD to go there again, didn't you?

So be it.

Given your well-known extreme pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim bias, I would be terribly surprised had you reacted otherwise.

Closed minds, given-over to dogma and propagandizing, have a tendency to cherry-pick for particular sources, rather than objectively analyzing the entire range of prevalent thought.

A considerable number of equally reputable and scholarly modern historical commentaries may be brought to bear which offer different explanations of cause, effect, volume, scope and impact.

One ranges over an entire spectrum of thought on such complex and long-ago overthrows of societies before locking-down a firm opinion on the subject.

Shlomo Sand raises good points and may very well be correct in part.

But his credentials and reliability and accuracy are no better or worse than his peers, and, like anyone else, is probably part right, and part wrong, in his own assessments and conclusions.

Oh, and, don't look now, but I was objectively conceding at least some accuracy or likelihood to some of Sands' findings in my Post #54 rather than dismissing them out of hand in a partisan fashion.

You, on the other hand, were so busy knee-jerk-reacting and attempting to discredit a colleague, in your customary partisan fashion, that you didn't even notice.

That, too, is unfortunate, and entirely in-character and predictable.

Now, shall we withhold further 'Zionist' and 'Palestinian' partisanship banter, and remain focused upon the impersonal contentions and points being raised in both the OP and its derivative sidebars?

 

[irosie91]

and now for a bit of reality------ABSOLUTELY NOTHING shlomo sands said-----
has any real meaning regarding the issue of PEOPLEHOOD ------for any
people in the entire world -------in fact -----using his criteria is simply nazism.

In order to evaluate "PEOPLES" in the manner that sands claims seems
reasonable to him------complete DNA profiles PLUS intricate studies of
etymology of every language would have to be carried out and help up
against the purported histories of those peoples. The first myth to fall
apart under such circumstances would be the islamic claim that arabs
have something to do with ISHMAEL

the peoplehood of jews ------as the only extant culture of the land of Canaan
is beyond question----and that's that. Jewish history has NEVER claimed
a PURE BLOOD LINE. An interesting biblical factoid------for sherri---who never
read the book --------and for Jeremah who already knows------biblical literature
VERY SELF CONSCIOUSLY claims admixture of "blood" Real scholars
theorize that the BOOK OF RUTH was added to the 'scriptures' SPECIFICALLY
as a REPUDIATION of PURE BLOODISTS. Of course everyone knows that
Moses married ------some foreign chick

HOWEVER some of the things sands claims ----are actually silly. even in post titus
times-----jews did have a problem with PROSELYTIZING-----and simply DID NOT
ENGAGE. Besides the fact that EZRA did not like the idea----Constantine---the
the founder of the filth of isa-respect/dhimmia/nuremberg code and first
Emperor of the first Reich-----rendered it a capital crime for jews

getting back to BIOLOGY-----all of the human race is as mixed as the fishes in
the sea. Studies ---even PRIOR to the human genome project----those involving
simple surface antigen thingys-------have already demonstrated that OF THE
VARIOUS POPULATIONS of the world------jews are just about the MOST----
intermixed WITH EACH OTHER of all peoples -----ie----as a "people"---
the most stable

Sands is interesting-----but makes no real point

 

[Billo_Really]

Why, Frau Sherri, no doubt there are 80-year olds who survived the war in Europe and remember the towns that they and their ancestors lived in for thousands of years. However, these people are not obsessing over it but have gone on with their lives. Of course, there are probably millions of Hindus who remember the towns they had to leave when their land was carved off to make the country of Pakistan. Don't you think that all those Christians from Syria who have become refugees will remember their little towns in years to come; however, I think they will have the fortitude to eventually make new lives for themselves elsewhere.

That has nothing to do with the OP!

You always have to hijack the thread into a different subject, don't you?