Posted on 08/10/2005 6:33:39 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
For several years I have watched the revival of antisemitism with growing dismay. Then along comes Steve Erlanger’s article in the New York Times, regarded by itself and many of its readers—especially Jewish ones—as the world’s greatest newspaper. He writes about an Israeli archaeologist who has uncovered the ruins of an important two-thousand-year-old building which, she asserts, was part of King David’s palace.
Maybe she is right; maybe not. Archaeologists are not certain; more evidence and study is no doubt necessary. That is how science works. We are then informed, accurately, that archaeologists are debating whether David’s kingdom was a great power or merely a tiny chiefdom. While not all her colleagues agree with her conclusion about the building, all those quoted respected the importance of the find.
But under the new post-rational ideology, the author tries at the very start to discredit the archaeologist in advance. Despite the fact that she is a respected scholar, the framework for the article is set by a claim that she is working for an institution partly funded by a “conservative” businessman who supposedly wants to prove a Jewish connection with Jerusalem for political purposes.
In other words, there is something supposedly shady about the whole enterprise, an assertion merely based on the fact that one of the donors also gives money to a conservative Israeli think tank. Thus, there is no such thing as professional ethics or a search for truth but merely hirelings for some cause making propaganda. Such things do happen but some real evidence is supposed to be required for such charges.
This kind of reasoning is often employed nowadays by people who should know better. The scientific method which puts the emphasis on examining evidence is thrown out the window in exchange for the crude radical concept of “who benefits.” This, incidentally, is the foundation of the conspiracy theories that bedevil the Arab and Muslim worlds.
It is also the crudest form of Marxism, arguing that consensual reality is only a construct created by ruling classes to remain in power, merely one narrative among many. Out of such thinking comes a paragraph in the article that should live in infamy as a prime exemplification of this kind of intellectual malpractice. Let me quote it in full:
“The [archaeological] find will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem—whether the Jews have their origins here and thus have some special hold on the place, or whether, as many Palestinians have said, including the late Yasir Arafat, the idea of a Jewish origin in Jerusalem is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation.”
Do the Jews have any connection with Jerusalem and the land of Israel? Well, according to the Times, it is just a matter of political debate now, in which the views of Palestinian propagandists have equal weight. While the statements or findings of Western, democratic, or moderate sources are subjected to the highest degree of cynicism and challenge, those of radicals are treated with the utmost respect.
Let us ponder the awesome implications of this paragraph. Whether or not Jerusalem should be partitioned as part of a political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a valid subject for discussion. It should be noted that in 2000 Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered such a deal at Camp David and it was extended further in the Clinton plan. Nevertheless, the Jewish connection with Jerusalem cannot be in doubt, attested to not only in Jewish writings but also in Christian and Muslim writings.
Whether or not King David’s palace is found will have no effect on the contemporary political debate. We already know and take for granted this historical connection, which is accepted by every real archaeologist who has dealt with that subject. One might reject giving up (east) Jerusalem because of its overwhelmingly central historic and religious importance to the Jewish people for 3000 years—or favor it as a necessity based on what is needed to attain peace, international attitudes, and the large Palestinian population in the eastern part of the city.
Yet now Erlanger gives equal credence to the “expertise” of Arafat who, let’s face it was no archaeologist but the most important terrorist of modern times and a proven serial liar. {Having written a biography of Arafat I am well aware that even the statement that Arafat was a terrorist is highly controversial among the West’s cultural ruling class.} After all, Arafat also claimed that Israel carried out most of the terrorist attacks on itself, poisoned Palestinians with gas, water, and chewing gum, and aimed to rule the entire Middle East. Why should he only be given credence on the Jerusalem issue?
In contrast, when Arafat tried that nonsense about Jerusalem at the Camp David summit, President Bill Clinton rightly called him on it, saying, “I’m not a Jew, I’m a Christian. It’s well known this is where the Temple is.”
On the basis of this latest article, though, one can imagine a parallel Times article from an equivalent controversy of the previous century: “The claim by a Jewish writer, financed by those trying to prove this case, that his people have accurately recounted their history will become part of the debate over whether, as many Germans have said, including cabinet minister Joseph Goebbels, this story is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation.”
That example was not meant as a joke or exaggeration. Such things are the precise historical equivalent of the kind of ideology far too often prevalent nowadays. For the assumption behind the post-Marxist, pre-Enlightenment ideology is that truth is merely a question of (political) faith. Fascism, as the Soviet foreign minister said in 1939 is a matter of taste. Or as a British reporter sneered last month at his country’s ambassador who was demanding the UN act strongly against terrorism, but isn’t one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter?
Don’t the purveyors of such ideas understand how this type of thinking has always been responsible for the worst type of prejudice, racism, and anti-rationalism throughout history? What we have here is the return of medievalism in its worst guise. One can almost hear in many reports today the equivalents for what the BBC would have sounded like in the eleventh century: “The body of a young boy has been discovered in Lincoln, England, apparently murdered by local Jews to make Passover matzo. Film at eleven.”
Even the true life story of Hugh of Lincoln—which led to massacres of Jews at the time—is not far-fetched when one recalls recent such lies that justified bloodshed of the same sort: a widely reported but non-existent massacre in Jenin; continuing claims of ritual murder to make matzo in the Saudi press; and the case of a young Palestinian turned into a global martyr after the world media falsely reported he was killed by Israeli bullets.
How then can one be surprised that many Europeans, much less Arabs and Muslims, believe the September 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by American or Israeli intelligence and similar nonsense? In the same vein, many British writers responded to the London terrorist attacks by attacking their own country. Suicide blamers act as apologists for suicide bombers.
Here, for example, are some of the things I learned about the Middle East in just 24 hours of listening to National Public Radio:
--A discussion of terrorism: in 1972, “extremists” attacked the Israeli Olympic team in Munich according to an “expert” and the segment’s host, who took almost excruciating care to avoid mentioning that these were PLO terrorists in an operation directed by that organization’s top leadership.
--Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis are “barbaric” people claiming all Muslims are terrorists, according to a Muslim-American “liberal reformer.” whose words were not challenged by the interviewer. This is despite the fact that both have repeatedly acclaimed moderate Islam and the latter is the main champion of the argument that Islam is in no way intrinsically anti-democratic.
--Terrorism is only a typical tactic used by Europeans and Asians faced with occupation armies, according to an “expert” on comparative culture. I don’t seem to remember even the much-provoked French or Italian resistance deliberately murdering German children and exulting at their successes in doing so. As I recall, it was the Nazis who were the terrorists. That’s why they are so reviled, remember?
What we have here goes beyond merely passionate political debate or different points of view. It is a profoundly anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and anti-liberal mode of thought alongside an abandonment of professional standards. Every such instance should be challenged.
1)The New York Times has long been the number one example cited by Jew-hating "palaeos" of the "Zionist media." Of course, being mentally ill, they will at once acclaim this article and continue to wave the Times around as a big bad Zionist bugbear (just as they do with the UN).
2)The parallel drawn between Biblical criticism and Holocaust denial is spot-on. I'm glad to see someone other than myself make this point.
3)However, there is one thing about this article I disagree with most profoundly. The author constantly harps on the "medievalism" and "pre-modernism" of denying the Jewish claim to Jerusalem, which implies that this claim is the discovery of modern iconoclastic science when the exact opposite is true. It is really sad that people have to apply a modern, liberal, rationalistic justification for anything pro-Jewish when the Jewish position originates in the Holy Torah. But then again, this is the website that just this week called the late Rabbi Me'ir Kahana' (zt"l, Hy"d) a "terrorist." I appreciate Mr. Horowitz and his contributions to conservatism, but he is still an agnostic who derives his morality from human reason rather than the Torah and thus Rabbi Kahana', a latter day Joshua, was condemned by a writer who obviously thinks Israel's legitimacy depends on its espousal of liberal democratic capitalism rather than on the Decree of the A-mighty.
A Jewish connection to Israel? You don't say! Idiots.
A former minister of mine used to refer to the Biblical Holy Land as "Palestine". I took it for what it was - a conscious effort to ignore the historical existence of Israel.
And this in the "Zionist" (according to the "palaeos") New York Times. As I said, they'll actually invoke this article while they still attack the paper as "Zionist." This is how they deal with the UN. They applaud and call for the implementation of the UN's anti-Israel resolutions even as they continue to scream to get the US out of the "Zionist" United Nations.
Maybe one day mental illness will be conquered.
What incredible garbage. This is absolutely astounding that such total crap is being pushed by the left with and pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. Where to the NYT's pseudoscietists think the Jews came from. Want to bet that even the National Geographic's DNA study doesn't count when it comes to shutting these Palestinian liars and their liberal accomplices up. Rant over.
Before the Jewish settlement it was 'Eretz Kena`an (which is actually how it is referred to most often by the Bible). Since then it has been 'Eretz Yisra'el. "Palestine," a name derived from the Philistines by the Romans, appears maybe one time in the TaNa"KH (Peleshet) and (ironically enough) not at all in the "new testament."
Wouldn't any denial of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and Israel mean invalidating nearly the entire Old Testament? On second thought, this is just what the NYT and its liberal friends want.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
I think I recall a Twilight Zone story that had a line something like, "When everyone in a place is insane, a sane man will appear to be crazy". Thus, the analogy is similar to making sense of what the NYT prints. All their credibility is gone.
You know, I've racked my brains forever trying to understand ant-Semitism, and you nailed it for me.
Of course.
Deny the Old Testament, then throw out the New Testament by defaul, then they deny G-d.
Then you have moral relativity and Communism.
That's it.
Ignore the politics and all the other "facts" and rhetoric, and the agenda is as clear as day.
It's just another way they are trying to kill off G-d.
Exactly. Our Lord and Savior was a Jew. He was the Messiah of the Jews. Deny the Jews, deny the Christ. Deny the Christ, deny God.
Why would it? The Gospel is a message of life and hope. Today's Palestinians are the messengers of death and despair. What would it purpose any divine being to bring them into a holy text... whether that of the ancient Chosen, the Jews, or that of the Christians? I see where the Jews fit in scripture. I see where the Christians (who, if they are true to their faith, love and honor the Jews) fit. But where do Abu Mazen's exploding humanoids fit? There isn't that much scriptural demand for bad examples, which is the only role I see them filling.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Yes. These "readers" are also known as "morons".
(P.S. The Internet is the world's greatest newspaper--also the newspaper of record.)
You wouldn't expect to find a large population of Palestinians in Jerusalem. It suggests an awful lot of tolerance and good faith on the part of the Israelis; qualities not generally associated with conquerors and occupiers.
Yes, they do, but since they're seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeensitive LIEberals, it doesn't matter that they know that everything they say is propaganda and lies.
I hate the NY Slimes.
Watch anything on TV about Jesus and you will hear something like: "in those days in Palestine".
The Romans renamed Judea to Palestine a hundred years after Jesus's time. Jesus would have never heard of a place called Palestine.
Lets pretend there is no Jewish claim to Jerusalem.
Ok then we Jews are still a people with a certain mythology.
But
Christianity Vanishes
Some in the family tree may have been Jewish but today they are not Jewish in any way shape or form. They are Episcopalians.
They used to say the same about the Washington Post's Katharine Graham- whose funeral was in Church officiated by Christian clergy. I think that's a big hint that someone is not Jewish.
The libs make propaganda, instead of search for truth, all the time (viz. global warming), so they figure everyone does it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.