Adonis Diaries

Archive for February 29th, 2012

Are Palestinians an “Invented People”? And Israel, how was it created?

I received a developed feedback from a reader, probably from a collection of posts on Palestine, and I decided to publish it, with minor editing.
 
“The name “Palestine” has been around for a long time. “Peleset” is transliterated from Egyptian hieroglyphics “P-l-s-t”. Palestine is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from around 1150 BC.
 
The “Philistine” States existed concurrently with the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, making up the coastal plain below Jaffa and south to Gaza.
 
In the 5th Century BC, Herodutus wrote of a “district of Syria, called Palestine”. About a century later, Aristotle described the Dead Sea in Meteorology and located it in Palestine:
“Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it, it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salty that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them.”
This writer frequently engaged in debates with Zionists (a bad habit I need to kick!) who often tend to seize on small ideas, such as “When did the Palestinians ever have their own country?”
 
In order to win such an argument I would have to reduce myself to their terms, and produce a map that shows a country and borders: “Palestinian Kingdom, 1587- 1702”, and then let them present their map of ancient Israel and Judea, and then get into a wrestling match, and the winner would claim the territory for their own. 
 
Or perhaps the issue would be better settled the way the New York colony won Staten Island from New Jersey: with a boat race. If the goal is exclusivity, as it always has been with Zionism, then the only criterion in achieving it is winning, whether a war or a race.

There was no 17th century Palestinian Kingdom, or 18th or 19th. There were, prior to Allied victory in World War One and the League of Nations “mandates”, which granted European powers control of the region, various provinces in a larger Ottoman empire, ruled from Istanbul (previously known as Constantinople, and before that, Byzantium), much as there are today various American States governed from Washington.
 
Objectors will cry “Foul!”, as Americans are governed by Americans in Washington, whereas Arabs were governed by Turks, a different ethnic group with a different language.
 
Fine. So I modify my comparison to the Spanish speaking Puerto Ricans governed from Washington, or the French speaking Quebecois governed from Ottawa. Neither the Puerto Ricans nor the French Canadians are being ethnically clean.
 
Prior to Zionism, there was no need for the Arabs of Palestine to focus on Palestinian identity. They were citizens of the Ottoman Empire. When, during the mandate years the British made contradictory promises to the Zionists and the Arabs, and the Arabs expected, and had the right to expect, eventual self-rule, it was certainly not a foregone conclusion that there was going to be an independent Palestine.
 
Palestinians might well have been a part of a larger South Syria, or of a Greater Syria, and happily so. They certainly would not have been ethnically cleansed under those circumstances. The Arabs of Palestine have always had their own distinct Arabic dialect, and various other cultural attributes that set them apart from other regional Arab cultures, but that was never particularly relevant.
 
Many various subcultures existed within the Ottoman Empire, and continued to exist within British and French mandates. Interestingly, during the years of the Yishuv, the pre-Israeli-statehood, Zionist community in Palestine and Jewish-Zionist settlers called themselves “Palestinians”.
 
In this way, the Zionists ironically affirmed the thing that many of them wish now to deny: Palestinian identity. In 1948, amid the massacres and military forced mass expulsions of the “nakba” (Arabic for catastrophe, the name commonly given to the events of 1948), as the State of “Israel” was recognized by the UN by a majority of a single vote, all of the Jews who had been calling themselves Palestinians became “Israelis”.
 
When the dust cleared after expelling the Palestinians from their towns and villages, the Arabs who remained within the green line became “Arab Israelis”, like it or not.
 
The designation “Palestinian” was more actively embraced beginning in 1964, with the forming of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), this out of necessity, because a people who had been ethnically cleansed, who were in a state of shock and humiliation, and who were desperate to recover and regain what was rightfully theirs, found it useful to rally around symbols representing themselves: A name and a flag are two of the basics.
 
Golda Meir famously said in 1969, during her tenure as Israeli prime minister;
“There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian State? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.”
I would not have been able to show Golda a map that says “Kingdom of Palestine” or “Grand Duchy of Palestine” or any of dozens of designations that might have satisfied her. But this I can say for sure: There were human beings on that land, and they had been there all their lives, and their families for many generations before them down through the centuries.
 
And many Palestinians were actually descended from ancient Jews who later converted to Christianity and Islam, while our ancestors, Golda’s and mine, the Ashkenazi Jews, were converting to Judaism in the Khazar Kingdom on the shores of the Caspian Sea.

Golda actually knew and the information, which has become available to the general public in the decades since, that: We Jews did come and throw them out and take their country away from them. It’s been thoroughly documented. It wasn’t when she made this statement in 1969.  
 
Golda was able to get away with it then. But since an entire generation of Jewish-Israeli scholars, (and many others, but we Jews need to hear it from Jews first!) has carefully documented the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and presented the history that she personally knew, but actively hid and denied.
 
Golda and her colleagues concealed the truth from Jewish supporters of Israel all over the world including my family, who taught me lies quite innocently, because they didn’t know any better.

In 1984 a book written by Joan Peters, entitled From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, was released to the world. The book claimed that the Palestinians were not resident in Palestine long-term, but were recent arrivals, having come to take advantage of economic opportunities in Palestine which were largely the result of Zionist Jewish settlement.
 
What a perfect way for us Zionist Jews to massage ourselves (I was one at the time!) and drive a wedge between ourselves and the growing awareness about Palestine in the world around us! So it really was a “land without people for a people without a land”! Those Arabs were all immigrants!
 
And how ungrateful that the Palestinians hate us after all the opportunity we gave them! A wave of related claims surfaced among the Zionist community. An essay by Mark Twain describing his touring of a sparsely populated 19th century Palestine, was offered up into the mix of “Palestinian-denier” evidence.
 
Twain, whose writing was full of humorous and ironic opposition to human bullshit, was no doubt rolling in his grave over this. And claims were often heard that prominent Palestinians, from Edward Said to Yassir Arafat, were “not really Palestinian”.

Enter another book, in 2003, The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. In case 19 intervening years had given anyone a memory lapse since the publication of Peters’s book, Dershowitz borrowed heavily from same, giving the same statistics and making the same conclusions.

Enter yet another book, but this one very different: In Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, published in 2005, Norman G. Finkelstein exposed Peters’s statistics as fraudulent, and with that revelation both her argument and that of Dershowitz, collapsed.
 
However, the damage is done among those who wish to ignore Finkelstein, and there are many! “Isn’t Finkelstein a holocaust denier?”, I’ve been asked. I respond: “No. His parents were holocaust survivors.”
 
Zionists have long used a familiar tactic against those who challenge their propaganda: Defamation. And so the lies persist. This writer still has people putting From Time Immemorial in his face to prove their argument. They refuse to be embarrassed.
At the time of this writing (January 2012), the American public is being treated to an entertainment we get every four years: the run up to our presidential election. As the Democratic candidate will obviously be the incumbent, we are witnessing the Republican candidates claw at each other in their striving to win support for the Republican nomination.
 
Enter a billionaire Jewish American Zionist named Sheldon Adelson, casino magnate and the 8th wealthiest American alive, who along with his wife has donated $10 million to candidate Newt Gingrich. Adelson, whose holdings include the Israeli newspaper Israel HaYom (Israel Today) made some interesting statements while in Israel at an Israel Media Watch event in 2010:
“I am not Israeli. The uniform that I wore in the military, unfortunately, was not an Israeli uniform. It was an American uniform, although my wife was in the IDF and one of my daughters was in the IDF … our two little boys, one of whom will be bar mitzvahed tomorrow, hopefully he’ll come back– his hobby is shooting – and he’ll come back and be a sniper for the IDF.”
 And:
“All we (the Adelson family) care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.
Does it sound like this guy has “divided loyalties?” Maybe like the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration who got us to fight a proxy war for Israel in Iraq? No- you can’t say that! It would be “anti-Semitic”!
 
So is it any wonder that Newt Gingrich has made the utterly incorrect and profoundly idiotic statement that he has made about the Palestinians being an “invented” people? It has nothing to do with any education on the subject of the history, or any awareness of the current situation. 
 
It’s simply a question of wanting to win, and of reiterating nonsense he has heard in conversations with a very rich and generous supporter, nonsense which jives with the general impressions that Americans get from our Zionist-controlled media, and that no doubt circulate in Gingrich’s Republican circles. Does anyone think Gingrich has read Finkelstein? I doubt it! And if he did, would he turn down $10 million in favor of truth and justice?

The people native to the land of Palestine were not “invented” as Rich Siegel said, and foolishly repeated by Newt Gingrich . It is indeed unfortunate that someone who is supposedly educated, and who has achieved position in life where he is poised to potentially become the next president of the United States, is putting forth such foolishness
 
Advertisements

Recklessly abused your ears: And suffering from “Acouphenes”?

What they share? Phil Collins, Eric Clapton, Pete Townshend (the Who guitarist), Barbara Streisand…all suffer greatly from hearing noises, an irreversible hearing ailment called “Acouphenes” in French.

All these musicians and singers attended countless extremely loud concerts, as loud as jet taking-off at 130 dB, and they spent at least 10,000 hours in practice sessions wearing directly loud earphone-kinds over their ears, and ruined their ear physiology…

At least, these famous musicians made plenty of money in returns for “hearing noises”, but why most youth are engaged in ruining their hearing, listening to loud music, full volume, via their MP3-type earphones, for hours on?

Acouphenes has becoming an epidemic in the last 3 decades, and increasing exponentially. A patient started hearing voices after a visit to his dentist. The metal mixture of his tooth filling played the role of radio antenna

Maybe there are other  “antenna culprit” in a few of these noise hearing cases that physicians never had taken seriously or occurred to their one-dimensional minds, but hearing noises is a debilitating phenomena that drive people mad, and eventually to committing suicide…

Any cures for hearing noises?

If your acouphenes syndrome is recent, there is a new treatment.  Acouphenes is the symptom of permanently hearing background noises or repeated beats that may drive patients crazy.  The majority of patients hear high frequency noises that become intolerable.

Getting old is one major factor, or a sudden loud bang, or recently the constant listening to the MP3 type gadgets.  It is known that high dozes of aspirin induce temporary symptoms of acouphene:  It is due to the active component salicylic.

The new treatment for recent patients is a first breakthrough in reducing or eliminating background noises for three weeks. A micro-pump is being readied to allow the patient at home to inject the solution when noises reappears.  The solution of gacyclidine is administered to the proximity of the “round window” in the inner ear; then the solution leaks in to the junction of the cochlea and then to the auditory nerve.

A catheter pierces the tympani membrane and then reaches to the “round window”.  A few surgeons actually pierced the “round window” with very thin needles.

Gacyclidine is generally used on patients suffering cerebral trauma; this substance has neuro-protective properties that blocks nerve dysfunctions.

For “ancient” acouphenes patients, electro-magnetic treatments are being tested to stimulate the auditory brain through a process of “re-organization”.  The patient listens to recorded specific sounds for about 6 months.

Refrain from loud close ear direct listening of music, and give your ears frequent breaks.  You don’t need to be listening to music all the time; remedy this music addiction behavior to ward off crazy noises.

Note: For further description of the symptoms and the other treatments link to my previous post Hearing Voices https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/are-you-hearing-voices/

Anthropologists poking at Capitalism? With the Four-Field Manifesto? Part 1

Anthropology documents human possibility, and demonstrates that the “way things are” is not the way things must be. Anthropologists do not need to support market-capitalism at any costs:  This prevalent need to believe capitalist’s fairy tales of power and allure.

What kinds of fairy tales that capitalists dump on us?  

The premises of the market-capitalist religion are:

  1. Humans are naturally greedy-selfish.
  2. Capitalism harnesses greed and selfishness for productive dynamism.
  3. Capitalism successfully delivers the goods.
  4. Capitalism is invincible.

I have read a lengthy article by a team of anthropologists, and I will split it into two parts, with minor editing.

The first part is to refute the claims of triumph and inevitability of capitalists, and the second part on how Capitalism has not delivered the goods

“Anthropologists recognize the U.S. does not have a functioning government. Officials who have signed pledges to never increase taxes–even as they bemoan deficits; officials who refuse to consider jobs programs–even after years of unemployment; this is no longer a functioning government capable of acting on behalf of the governed.

What is this Moral Optimism? Michel-Rolph Trouillot wrote: “We owe it to ourselves and to our interlocutors to say loudly that:

1.  We have seen alternative visions of mankind and we know that the alternative economic growth constructs as the ultimate human value may not be the most respectful of the planet we share, nor the most accurate, and  nor the most practical.

2. We owe it to ourselves to say that it is not the most beautiful and nor the most optimistic”.

A specter is stalking Capitalism–the specter of Anthropology. All the Powers of Capitalism have bound themselves in a crusade against this spectre: the Florida Governor and the U.S. President, Dominique-Strauss Kahn and the IMF, Wall Street and Congress.

Trouillot resumed:

“Anthropology knows that what currently exists does not have to be.

Anthropology knows more about capitalism than any other academic discipline.

Anthropology needs to make “an explicit claim to the moral optimism that may be this discipline’s greatest appeal and yet its most guarded secret”

It is high time that the Anthropologists openly set forth before the whole world their perspective, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this fairy tale about Capitalism with a Four-Field Manifesto.

To this end, Anthropologists of the most diverse nationalities and sub-fields assemble on open threads like Academia and #OWS, informing the following Manifesto.

On the fairy tale of capitalist triumph and inevitability:

One mistake of  The Communist Manifesto was to accept the claims on Capitalism four premises. Its first chapter reads:

“The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, making river-traffic possible, whole populations conjured out of the ground–what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?”

Marx and Engels portray capitalism as a revolutionary and inevitable force, and communism as a further inevitable revolution. Later, in the reflective-historical mode of the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx was much more circumspect about the influences of past traditions, the complexities of class analysis, and the non-inevitability of historical transformations.

Anthropology cannot make the mistake of accepting the capitalist fairy tale. We must challenge each part of the fable. Trouillot wrote:

“When powerful financiers, politicians, and economists tell billions of humans that they should adopt the market as sole social regulator, anthropologists are well placed to show that what is presented as a logical necessity is actually a choice”

Fortunately anthropology has a four-field rebuttal to the four parts of the fable.

Part 1. Biological Anthropology: Humans are not naturally greedy-selfish

Greed and selfishness are certainly present across human groups and our non-human primate relatives. But this does not mean greed and selfishness are any more fundamental to human nature than altruism or empathy, as Sarah Blaffer Hardy demonstrates in Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding.

As Daniel Lende writes in a beautiful and moving post Why We Protest:

“Our sense of fairness, and the human emphasis on cooperation and reciprocity, is something with deep evolutionary roots, to chimpanzees and Capuchin and beyond, and yet uniquely developed in humans so that we can do it in generalized ways.”

Biological anthropology reveals primate plasticity, variability, and flexibility. We are not programmed for any particular kind of life, a point I hope emerges from the fatherhood and testosterone studies: It is not that men are biologically programmed for fatherhood, or women for motherhood, but that our abilities and biological capacities emerge within a process of development.

Tim Ingold wrote: “Human beings are not naturally pre-equipped for any kind of life; rather, such equipment as they have comes into existence as they live their lives, through a process of development. And this process is none other than that by which they acquire the skills appropriate to the particular kind of life they lead”

Mankind, even as they might be bio-culturally reinforced and developed, depend a great deal on context. Someone marked as greedy in one context can be quite altruistic in another. The values we ascribe to particular contexts can make all the difference. This is a further contribution of biological anthropology–questioning all those just-so stories about gender relations and domesticity, lately served up by evolutionary psychology, and rightly taken to task in posts like Kate Clancy’s Mate magnet madness.

Even Adam Smith, falsely enlisted by fairy-tale capitalism as the defender of self-interest, saw a buffer in the idea of sympathy, that other human beings take the role of a moral spectator. In fact, what Adam Smith viewed as the essential human characteristic of sympathy is quite like what Hardy describes as evolutionary empathy.

The world needs biological anthropology and primatology more than ever before: we can have our disagreements about testable hypotheses, the precise role of biology in the patterns of human behavior, the degree of hierarchy in non-human primate societies–but we can agree humans are not by nature programmed to be greedy and selfish, not by nature condemned to the vast inequalities of contemporary capitalism.

Back to Lende: “Chimpanzee society does not function on 1% versus the other 99%. Life does not function that way.”

Part 2. Archaeology: Countering dynamism with sustainability

The second part of the capitalist fairy tale is how capitalism harnesses natural greed to purposes of productive dynamism. The Communist Manifesto over-celebrates this dynamism, ascribing to capitalism incredible transformation and constant revolution. We can now look historically and see other periods of non-capitalist dynamism: there were many who admired Russia in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, or Cuba in the 1960s because these regimes seemed to deliver more rapid economic development and dynamism than capitalism.

But these systems withered, and today are not a counterpoint to capitalist dynamism.

Fortunately, anthropology has archaeology, which gives us a long-range perspective on dynamism. McAnany and Yoffee in Questioning Collapse wrote:

“Can anyone say that the present balance of economic and political power will be the same in 2500 as it is today? For example, in the year 1500 some of the most powerful and largest cities in the world existed in China, India, and Turkey.

In the year 1000, many of the mightiest cities were located in Peru, Iraq, and Central Asia. In the year 500 they could be found in central Mexico, Italy, and China. . . . What geographic determinism can account for this? Is history a report card of success or failure?

Whereas capitalism has been dynamic for 100-200 years, archaeology shows us incredibly diverse and dynamic societies, flourishing and ebbing, sometimes over a 700-800 year span.”

Archaeology invites us to consider sustainability. For example, what will the balance of economic and political power be in 2500? Or can our planet endure 500 more years of capitalist dynamism?

At present trend we could be facing vast species death and massive dislocations. Jared Diamond was surely wrong about agriculture as the Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, but industrial capitalism is looking very much like the worst mistake in human history, as it continues to take us to the brink of global annihilation.

As Questioning Collapse rightly demonstrates, we do not need to stress the Collapse of ancient societies–many of which feature remarkable long-run resilience, creativity, and non-capitalist dynamism–in order to question our present course.

The world needs archaeology more than ever before. We may disagree on process’s versus post-processual approaches or the comparability of complex societies–but we can agree on the need for a long-term archaeological perspective to counter the extreme short-term horizon of contemporary capitalism.

With respect to the specifics of our political-economic situation and the condition of capitalism, anthropology urges:

  1. That poverty and inequality–globally and regionally–be placed at the forefront of policy agendas.
  2. Progressive income taxes and taxes on conspicuous consumption, with revenue devoted to a true national healthcare system: Medicare-for-All.
  3. Increasing inheritance taxes and other measures addressing wealth inequalities, with revenue devoted to prenatal care, infant nutrition and early childhood education. Particular attention to the ongoing racism manifest in infant-mortality disparities.
  4. Abolition of off-shore tax havens, declaration of all income from investments, and full enforcement of capital-gains taxes, with revenue devoted to reparations.
  5. Regulations on credit and banking so the financial industry becomes a boring sector dedicated to allocating investment, not a glamorous parade of outsized returns. Make banking boring again.
  6. Investment in mass-transit and regional infrastructure to provide alternatives to individual automobiles.
  7. An agricultural plan to phase out subsidies for mono-cropping, to encourage environmentally-sustainable farm management, and eliminate the tariffs harming the world’s poorest farmers.
  8. A true jobs program to increase employment, with work targeted toward infrastructure improvement and environmentally-sensitive retrofitting. Consideration of measures such as reducing the work week in order to address contradictions of a high unemployment rate coupled to overwork by the employed.
  9. Comprehensive immigration reformto bring rationality and humanity to a broken system.
  10. Investment in education to create truly informed citizens. An educational system based on human holism, not just mono-dimensional economic efficiencies…

Anthropology has expertise and knowledge about each of these issues. Anthropologists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their objectives can be attained only by breaking the shackles of tradition.

Franz Boas in “An Anthropologist’s Credo, 1938)” wrote:

“In fact, my whole outlook upon social life is determined by the question: how can we recognize the shackles that tradition has laid upon us? For when we recognize them, we are also able to break them”.

Wallerstein wrote in The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century: “There is nothing to lose but our irrelevance. We can make the world less unjust; we can make it more beautiful; we can increase our cognition of it”

The life expectancy of irrelevance tends to be short. More courageous and healthier is the acknowledgment of the many dead ends within the human disciplines brought about or brought to light by current global transformations, including the death of utopia. Trouillot wrote:

“We might as well admit that all the human sciences may need more than a facelift; most will be deeply modified and others, in their current institutional shape, might disappear. As the world changes, so do disciplines”

Anthropologists and allies of all lands unite!

Note 1: Most excerpts were borrowed from the Findlay edition

Note 2: You may read Class Theory or Class Analysis? A Reexamination of Marx’s Unfinished Chapter on Class

Note 3:  You may read Rosemary Joyce Don’t Know Much About History, Don’t Know Much Anthropology…

And Alex Golub at Savage Minds In America education should produce citizens, not workers.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Blog Stats

  • 1,346,925 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 690 other followers

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: