Casual Observation

2 Comments

1. 

   soj on September 23, 2009 at 1:58 am

   Well to be SUPER fair, the British got the Mandate back in what, 1918?  Something like that.  And by this time Herzl’s ideas, born from the Dreyfus affair, WERE leading to some migration and therefore some conflict, so let’s say 90 years for any true conflict between self-identified Arabs and Israelis.

   The “5000” years thing though is a little weird because even in fundamentalist Jewish theology, Abram hadn’t even left Ur at that point.

   If you want to take the most charitable route, that Canaanites evolved into Phoenicians who evolved in Palestinians (which is true, etymologically anyway) versus the Habrius who evolved into Israelites who evolved into the Israelis, then we’re still only talking roughly 3000 years.

   Except of course that 90% of those original feudsters were put to the sack around 786BC by Assyria and the tattered remnants were smashed in 70AD so there was NO CONFLICT from that point on UNTIL say around 1920.

   And the people they were feuding with in AD 70 were not “Arabs” in any way shape or form, so again it’s a strange way to stretch a continuum.

   The Weekly Standard might as well have written that the Hutus and Tutsis have been fighting for 5,000 years LOL.

   Their ANCESTORS might’ve fought over resources but before 1850 there WERE no Hutus or Tutsis.  They had a different cultural identity then 🙂

   But hey, what the F, right?  In for a penny, in for a pound when it comes to rhetoric 😛

   Pax

2. 

   MNPundit on September 23, 2009 at 4:46 pm

   Interestingly, the appropriate way to defame someone is to call them “A Israelite” as opposed to “A Phillistine” since the Phillistines were much more culturally advanced during the period.