 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
The highly influential Zionist lobby -in conjunction with the American government and media- is using the Holocaust, which neither the American government NOR that same Zionist leadership ever effectively tried to prevent and was one of the most atrocious crimes of human history, to justify its support of the Zionist state of Israel and its oppression of its native population, Muslims, Christians AND Orthodox Jews, who by a large majority were united in their opposition to European colonization. |
quote:
I would like to add that in my view the greatest crime of the Zionists was NOT their conquest and oppression of the Muslims, Christians and Orthodox Jews in Palestine, BUT their betrayal of the European Jews before and during the Second World War. |
[/q]
As for prevention - Jewish activists both from splinter gruops and official jewish agency groups, tried to meet with Nazi representatives during the 30s and 40s. They attempted several deals, the goal of which was the migration of european jews to the Yishuv in Palestine, instead of thier execution.
Furthermore, the jewish groups did what they could - They during the 30s supported a stream of youth migration to Israel, to save them from what was apparent as another large "pogrom".
They trained special forces to defend Palestine against possible Nazi occupiers (this was encouraged by the Brittish). The head of Etzel was sent by the brits on a spying and sabotage mission in then pro-nazi arab countries (the mission sadly failed).
They trained a paratrooper group destined to help anti-german resistance, which dropped behind enemy lines in europe, all of whom were killed.
They did what they could to alert the world of the horror.
After the war, they did what they could, even illegally, to provide for the survivors whose lives were shattered, and brought them to a - by then - prospering Yishuv.
As for the opression - Since you're a master of quoting sources - I demand proof of opression of local muslim, christian and orthodox groups, divided into the periods:
1888 - 1939 | 1939 - 1948 | 1948 - 1967 | 1967 - 1993 | 1993 - 2000 | 2000 - 2003
quote:
Our essential difference of opinion is about the definition of Jewish identity.
Unlike the Nazis, I define a Jew by his religion. |
That's a nice covert ad-hominem attack - comparing me to a nazi.
Again, I'm a jew by ethnicity and religion (I'm a spiritual reformist).
You are a person from the netherlands, probably atheist. You have absolutely positively zero authority to define a jew.
A person's religious conviction is established by him alone.
Each major religion has several streams, from the orthodox to the liberal - Judaism is no different.
A person's nationality is established by his feelings about his hisotrical and national identity. A nationality is by choise. You can not deny a person from being a Jewish or Israeli national.
A person's ethnicity is established by his genetic traits, as also by his culture. You can not tell a person, who has genes unique to Jews, and whose whole culture is based on the bible and talmud - that he isn't a "real" jew.
Zionism has long established itself as a majority in the national wishes of Jews. Whether Jews around the world feel they want to live in Israel, or support it's actions - an absolute majority of jews (as polled by jewish international organizations) support the existance of Israel and say it represents them.
You are confused by the different ideas of religion, nationality and ethnicity.
You consider Judaism to be only a religion - which is false. This belief is saddly common among neo-nazis. I'm not accusing you, but I'm informing you that this type of thought is encouraged by neo-nazis.
What you fail to get, is that unlike christianity or islam or buddhism - judaism is an ancient religion - some 5-10 thousand years old.
Until 2,000 years ago, religions went together with nationality and ethnicity. That was the deal - you were hebrew and believed in Jahowa. Greek - and believed in Zeus. Hitti - and you believed in Baal and Assura (iirc).
As of 1700 years ago - religions became ultra-national and rose beyond national and ethnical boundries. The same process did not occur in judaism which remained a small closed society, keeping it's religion close to it's culture and nationality.
That was until the 18th - 19th centuries, with emancipation, and then reformation of western european jews - who wished to keep the jewish faith while taking on local nationality, and losing touch with the hebrew ethnicity.
Until the start of the 20th centuty, that view was very unpopular.
However, today, an absolute majority of Jews, are either reformist or conservative or non-religious - following some stream of the faith (or non) and now having a local nationality.
All Zionism did - was to unite those who wished to keep jewish nationality alive, and infact find a way to realize the jewish nationality in a jewish state, in it's historical place- Land of Israel, included in the western messopotamic area named by the romans "Provincia Palestina"
As for the jewish ethnicity - it isn't as strong as it was 2000 years ago - but still exists. It's agreeably fading in the diaspora among non-conservative jews. In Israel it does as well - but much much less.
The jewish ethnicity remained since most of the communities, for the most part of the 2000 years of diaspora - lived in closed communal groups who supported inter-marriages and disliked accepting strangers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
I think some people need to CHILL.
But the next personal insult will lead to a restriction.
|
Dear Moderator Ming,
Could you please point out the personal insults in my post?
I would like to point out that I have probably more extensively cited from professional historical research on many different topics than the rest Apolyton combined. When it would interest you, you might visit the now defunct GGS Forum and the old CivIII Forum (moderated by Yin26) before the game came unto the market.
In my view the insult to Raoul Hilberg, a most-respected scholar by every professional historian, is the most outrageous. That was nothing new to me though, because my dear friend has dismissed practically all my verbatim quotes from primary AND secondary sources as propaganda, perhaps by lack of true arguments?
Personally I don't care about the puerile insults; you have also insulted me several times, perhaps by lack of true arguments?
Sirotnikov claims to have been quoted 'out of context'.
I have added the complete original post I quoted.
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze
Dear S Kroeze, I'm far from being ever present and sometimes miss replies.
As for your reply.
quote:
I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed. |
Well to me this way of understanding seems odd, as to me it seems that if anything, the letters e.g. come to give an example to issues in which the court did not interviene.
Give your opinion, do you have any basis or any fact suggesting that at some point the rabinical courts actually tried to prevent such things? Other than the sentance which meaning we seem to disagree about?
You don't. It's a figment of an overly zealous imagination.
As for the rabinnical courts rulings of marriage, it simply means the following:
1) only the rabinnical orthodox court has authority to marry two jews in Israel (but if they marry elsewhere it's fine).
2) non jews, or the marriage of a jew and a non-jew is not permitted in the rabinnical orthodox court, and is therefore not under it's authority.
I would further add, that there has been some progress in talks with the orthodox establishment, and in some time in the future, there will be a non-religious marriage option.
quote:
So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?). |
Since ever.
There never was a ruling by any court nor any law forbidding such marriages. Therefore - since ever.
quote:
Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law. |
Why would a legislator want to write a law for every concievable situation?
As long as such a marriage is not fobidden, it is allowed.
quote:
In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view! |
I already quoted an official figure from the Israeli interior minsiytry, about some 80,000 (or so) mixed married couples in Israel.
But it appears that you missed it, just as I missed your aforementioned reply.
quote:
It is obvious Arabs have not ALL civil rights 'Jewish' citizens possess.
Besides that there are many 'unwritten' discriminating laws. |
Incorrect.
Arabs have exactly the same civil rights as Jews have.
What you may be referring to is several segregation like laws, such as laws defining the nature of the Jewish agency and it serving the jews only.
However, this seems only natural to me, as there are similar (though much smaller) bodies like the Muslim brotherhood and so on, which only serve moslems and so on.
So while each society has a body which deals uniquely with it, the Jewish body is strongest, both because of it being older, and because of it's lobby.
Naturally, given the older age of the Jewish agency, and it's early existance and goal, it, unlike most muslim brotherhoods, owns land in Israel, a thing which is rare. But still, some 10% of the land of Israel is still in private hands (mostly arab iirc) and some 17% is owned by the Jewish Agency.
As far as unwritten laws go - that's a fiction since any law is based on it being written.
I agree there are discriminating policies, but it's hardly based on unwritten laws, but rather on the well known idea of political power.
For instance, the Orthodox establishment has huge political power, and therefore orthodox schools recieve huge funds, disproportionate to the numnber of funds that go to normal state schools, and the smaller funds that are channelled into arab schools.
now before you go on ranting about more seperation - let me explain to you the idea of arab , state and orthodox schools.
In Israel, minorities have a right to establish their own schools and have their own teaching program.
A person is free to choose into which school he goes.
Most arabs, feeling closer to the issues studied in the arab program, choose to go to arab schools. But some go to general state schools.
Most orthodox, feel closer to the orthodox schools, and go there.
It's simply another option for people to better teach their culture.
quote:
I still define a Jew by religion, not by 'race'. |
Then you would be drifting in your own universe, since you have zero incluence over this.
The definition of Jew is best left to jews. I don't go around choosing who is muslim or palestinian.
Your sayings that only those who honor Talmud are jews, is as stupid as me saying that only Shiites are true muslems.
Or like saying that protestants are not real christians.
It is silly - please understand that.
You can't cancel out a whole flow of judaism just because it doesn't fit what you think judaism is!!
quote:
To me 'race' is a most abhorrent concept. |
You also should understand that you're not living in a fairy tale world with only one kind of people.
Call it race, ethnicity or kuala-lumpur - people from different heritages and blood lines have different genetic characterstics.
Furthermore - even forget race.
There is a thing called nationality.
Palestinians, be they moslems or christians, are after all palestinians once they have defined themselves to be such, and accepted their national image and heritage.
Jews are the same = they, whether believe in judaism or not, accept their heritage and history and national image as parts of the Jewish (hebrew) nation.
Hearing you come and say what constitutes a real jew, after reading some encyclopedia on world religions (am I right?) seems absurd.
quote:
I am still eagerly waiting for the day when Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, will -in his boundless benevolence- reveal title and writer of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history. |
That's exactly the point.
There isn't an only reliable source. Almost each source has a bias or a goal, therefore you must consider those. And you fail to do that, time after time.
Instead of accepting neturei karta as an opinion of a minority of jews, you have said things which make it seem as if you believe them to be the ultimate authority on everything jewish, even though they are a minority
Instead of reading academic reports striving to be impartial, you are reading books which are published to advance an already known goal. When you pick up "the rape of palestine" you know that the author has already decided what he wants to tell you.
It doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. You just need to learn to address the inherent bias in its analysis of events.
Even most your book titles sound alike and present a consitent view:
"Zionism and Dictators"
"The siege and saga of Zionism"
it only misses "Zionism the false prophecy" (or something like that. it's a real book) to be complete.
Please, at least, try to balance your view by reading as much pro-Israeli books or books by zionist authors.
And as far as your view of my knowledge and sources - I studied judaism and bible from some among the best of Israeli teachers. I've read chapters from the talmud, and other sources.
I've also read dozens of books, heard several lectures, watched dozens of history shows.
So excuse me if I can't always remember every resource by heart and that I do not intend to translate the entire Israeli law to english.
At least I don't go around copying and pasting paragraphs from a "why is Israel inherently evil - including well researched quotes" internet site, which is what you seem to be doing, considering how easily you skipped from one source to another, following the same subjects and so on.
Either that, or you have wrote a paper on it, basing it on several books, and keep it handy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
"The Rape of Palestine" was republished in 1975. I found it's first publishing date to be 1938. It was written by William Ziff during the events, and is not revisionist, and is much more pro-Israeli than any of the books you pointed me to.
I suggest you read it. |
Dearest Sirotnikov,
On this issue you are completely right. My apologies, it was indeed written by Ziff and not by Frommer.
Perhaps we should both read it!
quote:
Your inability to deal with actual primary resources proves that you have no deal with history or historical research.
You are completely inept at critical reading of difficult sources. You can't deal with bias in books. You never consider the writer's background.
Once you decided that the Washington Report is realiable - you shall never again question it.
...
...But this is about the 5 th time I make the same points over and over, and you keep posting quotes you prepared in advance of me , you or some book, instead of reading my answers and using R-E-A-D-I-N-G C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N. |
Thank you for your most kind words! I hope you enjoy ridiculing my academic training.
Actually I don't care, because I know that the details I have given about my life and career are true. I do not expect you to believe me.
But since in your view I am completely inept, I suggest that you search for historical research to support your own view. I have in the previous year quoted quite extensively from about a dozen different sources, most of which were dismissed by you as propaganda. So it would be a waste of time to proceed on that same route.
Please decide what encyclopaedias to consult, which bibliographies, which historical reviews!
Perhaps you can teach me how to start a historical investigation?
It is nice to notice that you have finally given some titles of books you consider to be reliable. Thank you!
I have tried to describe how I generally proceed in quite some detail; I am eager to hear about your methods.
A small other question: What on earth is that Washington Report you are speaking about? I have not the slightest idea honestly.
And could you please give your opinion about these studies:
M.J. Proudfoot, European refugees, 1939-1952 (1957)
R. Hilberg, The destruction of the European Jews (1961, 1967)
H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (1963)
E. Davidson, The Trial of the Germans: Nuremberg, 1945-1946 (1966)
K.A. Schleunes, The twisted road to Auschwitz (1970)
J.M. Ciechanowski, The Warsaw rising of 1944 (1971, trans. 1974)
L.S. Dawidowicz, The war against the Jews, 1933-1945 (1976)
Which are reliable, which are not? Which are propaganda, anti-Semitic etc.
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caspian
|
 |
Scotland
Sep 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Can I say first of all that, even though I am not Jewish, I find that site to be very offensive. Its author is insane and he is a Nazi. I'm quite sure that most of us here are average people and not academics. Even so, some of you good people have found loop holes and contradictions in his arguements that are aimed only at very stupid people.
There are two types of Nazis. The Brains and the Brauns. The 'Brauns' are a pretty simplistic lot who thrive on basic ideas and strong authority. That is why they tend to be militaristic. The 'Brains' are the real nasty ones. They over value their own worth, are prone to delusions of granduer and are invariably megalomaniacs. The author of this trash as a 'brain'. The idea behind this kind of material is to influence the weak minded as the 'brains' thrive on power. It is also aimed at convincing us that the Nazis weren't really all that bad so that in time, our opinion will soften and the Nazis may become a legitimate political entity again. A political entity that the 'brains', to satisfy their own megolamaniac tendancies, see themselves at the head off. (Like I said, they are crack pots)
I'm sorry to barge in on your conversation here, but if you're into conspiracy theories, please stick to something more wholesome like 'aliens are among us' (and they are you know  !!)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
Am I right in reading Straybow's logic to be, "Damning an entire race for the long-past actions of some members of that race, and not damning them are equally bigoted"?
I must be interpretting something wrong somewhere... |
Yes, you are interpreting something wrong. It is correct to damn the group for their collective actions, because one can understand that guilt is not uniformly distributed among members of the group.
That condemnation does not belong to the race, but to the Judean leadership and supporting population of that generation. The destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Jewish religion as it then existed was the penalty prophesied by Jesus in the gospels, and prophesied in the Revelation to John.
The proximate cause was a revolt of Judean Jews in 67 AD (and a few other local Jewish revolts around the same time). The Christian take is that having rejected the true Messiah they sought a political means to affect their expectations of YHWH's deliverance. A political scientist studying the history might come to some other driving force that is equally speculative. No matter, either way they "had it coming to them" because of their actions.
Extending that condemnation to the present populations is not valid. But not being able to see that actions and decisions made by the Jews of that generation had consequences that eventually brought catastrophe is equally invalid.
The analogous situation in Germany is that the Germans suffered defeat in WWII. The decisions and actions brought consequences that one might call "judgment." Members of generations that follow do not have guilt attached to them (except perhaps that involving property seized unjustly which has not been returned to heirs). Those who wish to resurrect Nazism do not truly share in the guilt of Nazi crimes but certainly should be suspected of wishing to add like crimes of their own to the list.
Try and think, man!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The difference is that individual guilt is real, collective guilt is not. Collective guilt is bullshit, and no rational person could say such a thing exists. |
So then nobody is guilty if they stood by and did nothing while innocent people were dragged away to concentration camps? True, they can't be accused of a specific crime, but guilt is another matter entirely.
quote:
[Re: A third of Judean Jews being Christians —S] Source? Not the Bible, mind you. Historical documentation of it. Because as far as historical record goes, this is a complete fabrication. |
There's a big difference between speculation and fabrication. There aren't any numbers in the scriptures, except for one phenomenal event when thousands were converted and a tally of believers a short time later. I guess they weren't big on statistics.
I don't have data on how many Jews left Judea before Titus' armies closed in. Tradition says that the Christians took Jesus' prophecy at face value and pulled up stakes, heading for Alexandria and Antioch. Probably some Jews didn't support the rebellion and fled. There might be some numbers in Josephus, not that it matters to you since you already reject that source as tainted.
quote:
If a full third of Judean Jews converted to Christianity after his crucifixion, there would, you think, be SOME mention of it in contemporary documents. But there ain't a peep about it. |
Why? Converts to Jesus' teaching looked no different from other Jews to outsiders. They still went to prayers at the Temple, attended the feasts and other rituals of Judaism, etc.
They were still living outwardly as Jews. The Gentile controversy reflects this (cf. Acts 10, Acts 15, Romans 1-3, Galatians 1, etc). No Greco-Roman historians took much note of Judaism at all, much less its sectarian divisions. Josephus is pretty much it.
As for documentary evidence in Jewish records there is very little of any records dating prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. The new traditions that emerged in the wake are responsible for almost all the rabbinical writings we have.
They made some effort to record ancient traditions for the first time. They made no effort to record schismatic doctrines of the Essenes or the followers of Jesus. That's one thing making the cache of documents hidden away by the Essenes in Qumran so interesting, both as a glimpse into the Essenes and into Judaism before the Diaspora.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The difference is that individual guilt is real, collective guilt is not. Collective guilt is bullshit, and no rational person could say such a thing exists. |
So then nobody is guilty if they stood by and did nothing while innocent people were dragged away to concentration camps? True, they can't be accused of a specific crime, but guilt is another matter entirely. |
That would still be individual guilt, silly. If an individual had the power to stop something bad from happening, and didn't, then he would indeed have something of which to be guilty. But there were those who were powerless (children, the poor, the disenfranchised, among others), and those who resisted as best they could, those who fled to other countries as refugees, etc. These people are not guilty, and ergo you cannot lay collective guilt on the German people for the Holocaust, but rather hold the individuals who perpetrated/allowed it accountable.
quote:
There's a big difference between speculation and fabrication...yadda yadda yadda snip snip snip both as a glimpse into the Essenes and into Judaism before the Diaspora. |
Didn't think so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Siro, I think you over-generalize. Religion didn't change suddenly 300 years ago.
Greeks under Alexander adopted Zoroastrianism from Persia, which persisted throughout the Greco-Roman world until Constantine. Isis worship imported from Egypt was quite the rage in Rome.
In general, metropolitan populations were diverse. Rural populations were more highly restricted to local culture/religion.
Prophets routinely warned and damned the Hebrews of old for worshipping the Molechs, Daggons, Asheras, etc of the other regional tribes. Only post-exile Jews were staunchly YHWH-ists as a population. |
I know that large parts of the population worshipped all sorts of other gods (i study bible and have a final exam this year) but still, Hebrews were expected follow Judaism, which is why prophets began their work. Judaism was a huge part of Hebrew culture.
During the disapora however, the link between Judaism and Hebrew culture grew - since the Jews were distanced from their lands and holy sites, and had no national state. So many hebrews kept Judaism and were very staunchy about it too.
Each people with hebrew links, which Israel found and helped make aliyah - have some sort of Judaism like religion. Most of it is based on early Torah books, since most of the people are remains of the Israelis who were bannished much before the bible came to it's final shape.
What I'm saying is that there's the link between Jewish race and Judaism is a relic of ancient world type of religion following, where each nation would have it's god, and when they fought, each 'summoned their god' to help - and that tie is much stronger in Jews due to diaspora.
Therefore you can't dismiss Judaism as merely a religion. It's also a religion. But I don't relate to orthodox Judaism. I see Judaism as my culture, tradition and nationality.
And no one can come and declare it's wrong.
quote:
Dearest Sirotnikov,
On this issue you are completely right. My apologies, it was indeed written by Ziff and not by Frommer.
Perhaps we should both read it!
|
I will try to find it in the library.
If you can find a freeware version on the net - I'd be grateful.
As for my original point - I remembered now what book I was talking about. I still don't remember it's name, but it had to do with comapring Zionism (or at least Revisionism) to Fascism. I found it's copy on an Islamic site, featured together with the protocols of Zion.
As far as Frommer goes - isn't it an actor? I googled the name and found no author of that name.
quote:
Thank you for your most kind words! I hope you enjoy ridiculing my academic training.
Actually I don't care, because I know that the details I have given about my life and career are true. I do not expect you to believe me.
But since in your view I am completely inept, I suggest that you search for historical research to support your own view. I have in the previous year quoted quite extensively from about a dozen different sources, most of which were dismissed by you as propaganda. So it would be a waste of time to proceed on that same route.
Please decide what encyclopaedias to consult, which bibliographies, which historical reviews!
Perhaps you can teach me how to start a historical investigation?
It is nice to notice that you have finally given some titles of books you consider to be reliable. Thank you!
|
I don't have time to actually begin a scholarship level argument with you.
If that is what you wish - I again state - I don't have the energy or time.
As for my thoughts on your sources:
I am also familiar to some extent with methods of research, analyzing texts and journalism. I've studied it both in school, and myself from books on the subject.
I think that categorically deciding a source is either 100% trust worthy or 100% not trustworthy is wrong. Given that most of written history is infact somewhere around 50% trustworthy or less - I think your way would make us disabled in our quests.
You still haven't answered any of my points that actually required answering.
I told you again - when I talked to you about info that I possess from for primary sources (Israeli Statistics Agency / Israeli Law Books etc) you evaded them by demanding me to give you a book written by a historian, proving that they primary sources are not invented by me.
I think it's rather silly - as the premesis for any discussion has to assume that even if the information we give might be incorrect - our intentions are at the very least honest.
Also - when we talked about the marriage of mixed couples - you asked me to provide you with a law stating that such a possibility exists. Israel is a demcratic country - all laws on civilian actions are by definition only limiting laws - thus everything not covered by a law is allowed. According to this attitude - if there is no law prohibiting inter-racial/religious marraiges, then there's no reason not to have such marraiges.
What is a problem, is that the only institution in Israel which exists to perform marraiges is orthodox and it's stance is that every marraige between a jew and a non-jew would not be orthodox - thus they can't perform the ceremony. However if the couple is married by a christian / muslim institution, or is performed in other countries, Israel acknowledges it as an existing marriage.
This problem does not arise from the zionistic or even jewish nature of the country, but rather the grip of power the orthodox institution has on Israel - something that is considered bad by all non-orthodox jews.
I for instance, voted for a zionist liberal centrist party called Shinui. One of it's principles is to act to further seperate between religious institutes and state, and especially to counter-balance the otrhodox parties.
Infact, there is now talk about creating a civilian institution that can marry couples whom the orthodox institution can not marry.
quote:
I have tried to describe how I generally proceed in quite some detail; I am eager to hear about your methods.
|
1. Investigate the source:
Who wrote it? What was his goal? What is his premesis? Who was it written for?
Then I decide how trustworthy is it:
a. very
b. somewhat
c. not so much
d. not at all
2. Read the paper
a. check for biases in the author's way of presentation
b. search for logical faults in his arguements
c. search for clashes with things I know and am reasonably sure about.
3. Re-evaluate the text:
a. both non-biased and correct
b. non-biased and inaccurate
c. somewhat biased but correct on the facts
d. biased and inaccurate
e. very biased and inaccurate
f. very biased and false.
For each type of text I decide how to take on it.
If it's inaccurate I would cross it's facts with other sources.
If it's slightly biased, I would try to "fix" the bias when making conclusions.
If it's accurate but biased, I would trust it on the facts , but less on the analysis
(example: Israel began the 1967 war to expand it's territories as a prime goal
siro's approach: Israel did began the attack in 1967 war - fact. True. it began the agression - analysis. I disagree. Among it's goals was expansion - analysis. I agree. It was a primary goal - I disagree.
Disagreements and agreements are based on what I read and know until this point, and I will not expand on it).
quote:
A small other question: What on earth is that Washington Report you are speaking about? I have not the slightest idea honestly. |
I appologize. I mistakenly took your reference to the middle east journal, from washington, as a reference to "washington report" - a resource that Cyber Gnu quoted a few times, and in my opinion is very biased against Israel, though it's relatively correct on the factual part.
You and gnu seem to post at the same time and at the same threads, (hmmm....  ) and I apparently mistakenly attributed this source to you.
I appologize again.
The middle east journal is interesting. It's somewhat lacking on an Israeli point of view. searches havn't yelded much pro-israeli sourcse in thier library, and a casual browse found little pro-israeli reports (or israeli reports in general). Also, the prominent editors list had much more arabs than jews. I'm assuming now that arabs are more likely to take the arabist anti-western-colonializm stance, and jews are more likely to take the clash-of-civilizations stance.
I would judge this source would be almost always correct on facts, but may sometimes be biased in analysis, in favor of palestinians, due to their p.o.v. having apparently larger representation among the staff.
I would seriously suggest you read:
Fabricating Israeli History: The `New Historians'
I only read excerpts, but I trust this to be an important book in setting a premisis for discussion.
It basically compares quotes and excerpts used in books of Israeli pro-palestinian 'new historians' and shows that they often omitted words, ignored documents, and even misworded and distorted quotations to prove their point. For that reason, he says, their research is untrustable.
quote:
And could you please give your opinion about these studies:
M.J. Proudfoot, European refugees, 1939-1952 (1957)
R. Hilberg, The destruction of the European Jews (1961, 1967)
H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (1963)
E. Davidson, The Trial of the Germans: Nuremberg, 1945-1946 (1966)
K.A. Schleunes, The twisted road to Auschwitz (1970)
J.M. Ciechanowski, The Warsaw rising of 1944 (1971, trans. 1974)
L.S. Dawidowicz, The war against the Jews, 1933-1945 (1976)
Which are reliable, which are not? Which are propaganda, anti-Semitic etc. |
Given I probably can't gain access to most of them - I would have to ask to use more accessible sources.
Also - since unlike you I do not have records of possible quotations at home - I will often not be able to base my opinion, since I can't always remember where I read what, or quote it when I'm making the post.
For instance, I've read several articles and some excerpts about the nature of "Jewish Labor" in zionist thought in the 1900-1948 area. One of your articles I read erlier (when we had a previous encounter) blamed the Jews of trying to push arab working hands our of the market, and suggested they were doing that on purpose to oust the arabs and "rob them".
Based on what I read, I think it heavily ignores the jewish point of view - Jews were mostly white collar workers or traders or capitalists. Much of the thought in Zionism talked about the holy land's earth and soil - and how the jews should change their social structure or else they won't be able to be a nation.
I think that much less driving arabs out, the zionists were trying to drive jews in. According to their line of thought, if jews didn't work their own land - they can't possibly claim it. buying the land, and then keeping arab workers to work it, seemed very "imperialist" and wrong to them. If you want to get rights to that land to call it yours - work it yourself.
I can't for the life of me now bring you any specific souce for it. But many of the extracts I read from speeches, articles and books written at that time - spoke of this point.
Infact I think Herzel and even Pinsker talked about this priority - creating a large jewish working class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
As for my thoughts on your sources:
I am also familiar to some extent with methods of research, analyzing texts and journalism. I've studied it both in school, and myself from books on the subject.
I think that categorically deciding a source is either 100% trust worthy or 100% not trustworthy is wrong. Given that most of written history is infact somewhere around 50% trustworthy or less - I think your way would make us disabled in our quests. |
Dearest Sirotnikov,
It appears that at least some of our friction is caused by a completely different training.
Though you are free to disbelieve that I followed any academical historical education, I will continue to 'pretend' I did.
I would like to point out that in general journalists are the very opposite of historians. Most journalists write on a daily or weekly/monthly base. They usually write about an event that happened most recently, while having access to less than 20% of the relevant facts, without being able to situate this event into some larger perspective.
As a result most journalists are generally considered with contempt, or at least reserve.
So I was extremely surprised to note that you accepted in the other thread about Iraq/Vietnam c.q. support of Saddam Hussein by the CIA in 1963 the authority of the New York Times.
The opinion of a historian would hardly be influenced, since this article was written 40 years after the event, nor gives it any source references, nor is there any reason to have any faith at all in Roger Morris, about whom no information is available. Probably the only argument in its favour is that the New York Times seems to be a 'respectable' newspaper.
Since this is a link to information on the Internet, I would be double suspicious: how do we know whether this article has actually appeared in print? How do we know, when it was printed, if it was?
When assessing this information my first questions would be:
Who is Roger Morris? Why is he not able to give source references?
What is the reputation of the New York Times in respect of US involvement in the Middle East?
Since it would probably take far too much time to answer these questions I would try to obtain information in another way: the way I have previously described, which you decided to ridicule.
Then about the book by Ziff.
No, I do not have a link on the internet of it. I wouldn't trust it!
How do we know whether the version on the internet is the actual text as it appeared in print? It might be edited, abridged, etc.
Once I have visited on the Internet a site about the Holocaust: a most-respected scholar -among historians at least- was quoted verbatim. The quote was 100% correct in all details but one: a 6 had been replaced by a 1!
As I said, you are free to disbelieve me when I tell you that as a rule I do not search my sources on the internet. I will either buy the book or consult it in the library. I want to thumb it through on the couch.
I am aware of the fact that some books are also available on the internet. This doesn't prove that I used that text instead of a printed version.
quote:
I told you again - when I talked to you about info that I possess from for primary sources (Israeli Statistics Agency / Israeli Law Books etc) you evaded them by demanding me to give you a book written by a historian, proving that they primary sources are not invented by me. |
In this case I am fully convinced that the Israeli Statistics Agency will have printed this text.
When you would have given the full bibliographical data, I would have tried to find in it in the library. When you were not able to give the complete bibliographical data, this made me very suspicious.
Your information about source criticism is interesting, but you have omitted the first and most important problem: Which book(s) to read about some subject?
So my question is:
When confronted with the information presented by Orange about the Holocaust, which books to read?
As a historian I will immediately push aside all non-academic publications and search for academic studies.
So ALL books without source references and bibliographies can be thrown into the dustbin!
(I agree that doubtless some academic publications will turn out to be better written/ more reliable/ more recent/ more extensive/ less biased/ better documented/ more informative/ more comprehensive/ more intelligent etc, but before we can assess them we have to find them!)
So please answer this question: Which studies to read about the Holocaust?
quote:
I would seriously suggest you read:
Fabricating Israeli History: The `New Historians'
I only read excerpts, but I trust this to be an important book in setting a premisis for discussion.
It basically compares quotes and excerpts used in books of Israeli pro-palestinian 'new historians' and shows that they often omitted words, ignored documents, and even misworded and distorted quotations to prove their point. For that reason, he says, their research is untrustable. |
Please acquire the habit of providing complete bibligraphical data when recommending some book! When discussing with scholars there will be less risk to be immediately considered ignorant.
quote:
Given I probably can't gain access to most of them - I would have to ask to use more accessible sources. |
Most strange! I would expect that every scholarly library paying attention to the Holocaust -something not alien to a Jewish or Zionist community- would have most of these studies in their collection. Are you sure? Is there active censorship in Israel?
quote:
Also - since unlike you I do not have records of possible quotations at home - I will often not be able to base my opinion, since I can't always remember where I read what, or quote it when I'm making the post. |
What made you able to dismiss the books of Hilberg, Novick and Finkelstein immediately as 'worthless ****'?
Sincerely,
S.Kroeze
Last edited by S. Kroeze on 01-04-2003 at 05:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
It appears that at least some of our friction is caused by a completely different training.
Though you are free to disbelieve that I followed any academical historical education, I will continue to 'pretend' I did. |
Maybe you left before they taught you no how to deal with possibly biased sources 
quote:
I would like to point out that in general journalists are the very opposite of historians. Most journalists write on a daily or weekly/monthly base. They usually write about an event that happened most recently, while having access to less than 20% of the relevant facts, without being able to situate this event into some larger perspective. |
I agree - which is why I generally dislike journalists that do not have a background in history.
quote:
So I was extremely surprised to note that you accepted in the other thread about Iraq/Vietnam c.q. support of Saddam Hussein by the CIA in 1963 the authority of the New York Times. |
I didn't accept it is as a positive truth but rather of something that I suspect is possible, and is supported by several well known sources (NYT being one).
I didn't say that I will from now on regard it as absolute truth. It's not my mission. I keep possible events in mind, with a "score" of a likely hood for them being true.
I have heard previous claims of CIA being involved in other "regime changes" and given their likelyhood is true, it raises the "authenticity" score for this event as well.
quote:
The opinion of a historian would hardly be influenced, since this article was written 40 years after the event, nor gives it any source references, nor is there any reason to have any faith at all in Roger Morris, about whom no information is available. Probably the only argument in its favour is that the New York Times seems to be a 'respectable' newspaper. |
I agree.
The fact that this was an Op-Ed. is even more suspicious and makes me feel uncomfortable.
But at least I gained some new (though yet unconfirmed) information.
quote:
Since this is a link to information on the Internet, I would be double suspicious: how do we know whether this article has actually appeared in print? How do we know, when it was printed, if it was? |
There was a link to this article on the NYT internet site.
quote:
Once I have visited on the Internet a site about the Holocaust: a most-respected scholar -among historians at least- was quoted verbatim. The quote was 100% correct in all details but one: a 6 had been replaced by a 1!
|
Well sadly this happens not only in internet sites but also in printed publications : According to Efraim Karsh, that's exactly what Israeli "new historian's" did.
quote:
As a historian I will immediately push aside all non-academic publications and search for academic studies.
So ALL books without source references and bibliographies can be thrown into the dustbin!
(I agree that doubtless some academic publications will turn out to be better written/ more reliable/ more recent/ more extensive/ less biased/ better documented/ more informative/ more comprehensive/ more intelligent etc, but before we can assess them we have to find them!)
So please answer this question: Which studies to read about the Holocaust? |
If you expect to have an academic level discussion with completely documented sources and so forth - I told you in advance - I'm not up for it.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't provide you with most of my sources. I can niether bring before you holocaust survivors I have talked to, nor can I prove their authenticity.
I don't regard myself as a historian, yet.
But I think that for an arguement on an interenet forum, one can rely on most newspapers and reliable internet sources, unless he can prove they are either baised or inaccurate from other sources.
But do tell me - if you are coming to investigate the early jewish nationhood of the time of the Kingdom of Judea and Israel - what would you do?
According to your own claims, you wouldn't read the bible at all, as it's not 100% reliable. you wouldn't read ancient documents and scribbles found later, since they were not written by historians, and could have been falsified or be very biased.
I really can't imagine how could you , with such an attitude of black and white discrimination between sources, investigate anything before the 20th century.
quote:
Please acquire the habit of providing complete bibligraphical data when recommending some book! When discussing with scholars there will be less risk to be immediately considered ignorant.
|
That's nice, but as far as my memory serves me, you aren't a scholar in History.
And as it seems, even schollars have thier own faults.
One could become a schollar even if he got all C's throughout his studies.
quote:
Most strange! I would expect that every scholarly library paying attention to the Holocaust -something not alien to a Jewish or Zionist community- would have most of these studies in their collection. Are you sure? Is there active censorship in Israel?
|
I'm sure I could access these papers. But again - this is an internet forum - not a schollarship research. I don't intend to invest hundreds of hours of work, just to prove an internet fellow wrong.
I told you in advance - if you expect someone to make some historical research paper like posts, you should go to your university and not to internet forum.
Also, when speaking to 'common folk' and not your university buddies, to refer to people who may have not equal access or equal experience in historical research, as "ignorants" seems to me as general snobishness.
If you are so sure that you are of such a higher schollarship level, then why the heck did you come here to argue about things with me? To rub it in that I still don't have a B.A in Middle Eastern History? (while you also have no such thing iirc).
quote:
What made you able to dismiss the books of Hilberg, Novick and Finkelstein immediately as 'worthless ****'?
|
I haven't dismissed them in particular, but more your general posts.
I remind you again, that you once told me that after reading about Neturei Karta, and some book about world religions, you decided that anything short of following the Halacha is not Judaism.
Furthermore, having proved very little sources, your opinion remains that Judaism is only a religion.
You also seem to ignore any first hand information. It seems to be as if in your opinion all historians do is copy each other's works.
Well, again - someone writing about a new topic would have to quote from sources which haven't been covered before.
Most of my knowledge is based on such first hand sources as newspapers, israeli & foreign encyclopedias, israeli popular books about history, israeli school-books about history, interviews, discussions and lectures from people with expertese in these subjects.
Sure, I may not be a legitimate schollar in this - but I have never claimed to be.
I am however, much less ignorant of the issues than you are, since you neither have a degree in judaistic studies and middle eastern history, nor have you had the sheer amount of first hand sources infuencing your knowledge, as I have.
And would you please stop signing your posts as this was some kind of an international correspndence between schollars, on the subject of jewish history.
it isn't.
I know you're S.Kroeze and I know how to recognize when your posts end.
Even news groups posters don't keep signing thier names on newsgroups that are as lively and as popular as this forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
Siro, so you were saying you think that Jewish religion changed around 1700, or that various brands of Christianity, etc changed but Jewish religion didn't? I think the tie between nationality and religion among us Goyim was still fairly solid, except in America. In England there was the CofE. In Scotland there was Presbyterianism. In Germany and Norway(?) Lutheranism. In major Swiss cities, Holland, and various other places Calvinism. RCism and EOxy held in West, South, and East Europe, etc.
Well, no matter. The tie between the Jews and their religion was fomented by separation from the Holy Lands, but not in 70 AD. During the exile in Babylon the Jews would leave one wall of the house unfinished, symbolizing their unwillingness to call anything but the Promised Land their home, in acknowledgment of the prophecy of Jeremiah that said the exile would be for 70 yrs.
After the return to Jerusalem they even changed their name. Before the exile they were usually referred to as "Hebrew" (as a race) but after they used the name "Juda" (or "Jew" in anglicized form) in honor of Judah (the smaller of the divided kingdoms/the larger of the 2 faithful tribes). They never again dabbled in idolatry. This change held fast for 300-400 years!
What happened in the diaspora was a change in the way the religion was reckoned. No Temple, no sacrifice, no Land = dilemma. They had to allegorize all rituals, recreating their religion from the ancient foundation. Without the tempering of the Exile they would not have had the mettle to survive losing the Promised Land again and without prophetic promise of return.
For example, the Romani ("Gypsies") were originally from India and practiced some form of Hinduism. Some might have picked up Zoroastrianism. But once they arrived in Europe they adopted RCism (maybe EOxy in the East?) and stuck with it. The Jews might have done the same, still retaining unique cultural attributes and separation, dumping Hebrew religion.
Many of us Christians are glad they didn't, because without the Jews, and especially the Masoretes, we wouldn't have nearly as reliable OT manuscripts or nearly as much understanding of ancient Hebrews.
Edit: forgot Presbys 
Last edited by Straybow on 03-04-2003 at 19:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Forget even Roman documents...how about Jewish? You said a THIRD of Jews in all of Judea converted to Christianity after the crucifixion. This is a monumental event, if true. There would be SOME historical record of it. You expect me to believe millions of prostletyzing Christians kept quiet about the new faith to which they are converted with passion?
The burden of proof is on you--you made the statement, you need to back it up. |
So, again, your speculation on what should be in surviving historical records is all important, and what really is in surviving historical records is untrustworthy (eg, Josephus), and what anyone besides you reads from the events is nothing?
I think I said that before, didn't I? I don't feel like repeating myself, yet repetition is the soul of teaching. So here goes.
We don't see rabbinical writings commenting on the stupidity of fighting against Rome at such cost. We don't see OT-style numberings of families and groups anywhere, nor tallies of the dead, despite the "monumental" event. We don't see direct commentary on politics to attach blame to one party or the other.
I don't claim to be an expert on rabbinical writings, but I do recall what I've learned from various sources over the years. There is no mention of Jesus, no direct refutation of Christian teaching, and much of what is known is inferred from the way rabbinical teachings were phrased to exclude the tenets of the Christian heresy.
We see the same thing in Qumran scrolls. Essenes didn't directly challenge standard Jewish practice, nor engage in any kind of Hellenistic debate. They taught their doctrine, and in some of it is phrasing that seems designed to oppose certain teachings. But the foremost expert on Qumran scrolls (I saw in a TV interview) can only speculate on that.
There is some of this in the Essene writings that were known prior to Qumran, with teachings that seemed designed to oppose the teachings of Paul in the Christian scriptures. This is an inferrence made by scholars, and cannot rise to the level of proof you demand.
Does this mean Christianity didn't exist? Hardly. Even you aren't fool enough to make that claim, yet that is where your "method" (I use the word loosely) of debate leads. After all, there ought to be SOME record, other than the existing records which you reject because you know better than everyone else. I suppose that means there never was a rebellion, it was really a Roman plot to frame the Jews! Quick, we must rewrite the history books, Boris has at last uncovered the Truth!
quote:
Typical cry of the fanatic--any critique of the historical accuracy fo your relgious dogma is instantly a product of "sour grapes." People must have an agenda to look at things objectively, yes. |
Everyone has an agenda. I'm honest about mine: I believe in Christ, and I proclaim what fragmentary evidence supports the existence of Jesus as a real, historical figure. I don't claim to believe because of historical proof.
You are not honest about your agenda. You try to claim objectivity while insisting on a level of proof which archeology cannot provide on demand. All this merely to whine about the religion you have rejected for personal reasons. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Nope. Don't think I've even debated this, actually.
|
I think we did, but the search function is limited in scope.
quote:
Has nothing to do with it. The question was whether Arafat was democratically elected. Jimmy Carter, as head of the the UN election observers, declared that the election was fair and democratic.
Good attempt of weasling out of admitting you were wrong though. Not succesful, but good. If I remember correctly, in the original thread you just disappeared...
|
I wasn't wrong.
You tell me: If prior to the 2000 elections, Bush had received 1.5 years of free presidency, with no balances for his executive power, and no media coverage for his opponent - Al Gore.
Would you call that "fair" and "democratic"?
I'm sure you'd be one of the first people to accuse him of dictatorship.
And I appologize I disappear more and more oftenly but now I do have school assignments and a girlfriend.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-03-2003 06:43
|