Palestine, NOT the Muslim Perspective

Who Are Israelites? · Palestine, NOT the Muslim Perspective

Why I Changed My Mind about Palestine
Blogging Theology | 19 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDR8OJz1O00

8:27 Unveiling, you said a few seconds ago, you know how that is spelled in Greek, right?

Now look up Apocalypse 11. Is there an entity or city, which can be described as "spiritually Sodom and Egypt" on the world scene today, with a geographical locality near Calvary?

20:23 You are aware that on a document citing the founders of Israel, perhaps the constitution or sth, a certain Adolf Hitler is mentioned?

I'm not sure if it is an urban legend, but it is if so a prevalent one.

22:07 I've heard that Islam sometimes also divides Arab speakers into "Arab" and "Mustariba" ... in this sense the Palestinians (except perhaps the Shareef families) would obviously be "Mustariba" ... = Arabised. Not from Yoktan or Ishmael/Madian, but from other stocks, adopting their language.

22:51 Here is where my perspective is radically different from a Muslim one. Or at least his Muslim one.

Palestinians are no more and no less descendants (partially) of Canaanites than other Israelites, using the word to describe origins.

The purest Israelites today would be Samaritans, Christian Palestinians, Druz, Muslim Palestinians, in that order and with quite a few populations of oriental Jews and of Karaites interspersed around Druz between Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

Most Sephardic Jews (or all if it doesn't include Mitsrahi Jews) and all Ashkenazi Jews would be less pure Israelites.

B U T ... your prophet had a few things to say of Jews which makes Muslim Palestinians very unwilling to say "we descend from Jews 2000 years ago" and they prefer saying "we descend from Canaanites 3500 years ago" ... this is where the Muslim perspective contributes to less clarity rather than more.

It is much easier to debunk a claim about Canaanites 3500 years ago, than about Jews 2000 years ago.

23:02 There actually is a matter of interpretation how many Canaanites eventually after Israelite conquerors from Joshua to David survived inside the Holy Land (rather than pushed up to Lebanon) and still a separate entity. The most probable interpretation is:

• they did survive inside the Jewish and Samarian nations as parts of their ancestry (and Philistines perhaps a little bit longer separately, but ultimately also merging with Jews)
• they did NOT survive as a separate nation.

A Palestinian who says "we want justice for the Canaanites who were mistreated by Joshua" is like a mixed race descendant of a slave owner and of black slaves to ask for reparations well after 1865. (Reparations were voted and granted that year, but I think they were sometimes also bamboozled out of the hands of former slaves).

23:44 It seems there was exactly one Amalecite who survived that massacre.

The king of that people was not executed by Saul when God asked it, he was executed belatedly, and some Jews say he had in the intervening night made a baby who became ancestor of Haman (see the book of Esther).

Whether this is true or not, it would be hard for Palestinians to descend from a people group which was wiped out.

These are the last chronologically ordered references to Amalecite or Amalec:

And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David: and they gave him bread to eat, and water to drink 12 As also a piece of a cake of figs, and two bunches of raisins. And when he had eaten them his spirit returned, and he was refreshed: for he had not eaten bread, nor drunk water three days, and three nights 13 And David said to him: To whom dost thou belong? or whence dost thou come? and whither art thou going? He said: I am a young man of Egypt, the servant of an Amalecite, and my master left me, because I began to be sick three days ago
[1 Kings (1 Samuel) 30:11-13]

And the young man that told him, said: I came by chance upon mount Gelboe, and Saul leaned upon his spear: and the chariots and horsemen drew nigh unto him 7 And looking behind him, and seeing me, he called me. And I answered, Here am I 8 And he said to me: Who art thou? And I said to him: I am an Amalecite 9 And he said to me: Stand over me, and kill me: for anguish is come upon me, and as yet my whole life is in me 10 So standing over him, I killed him: for I knew that he could not live after the fall: and I took the diadem that was on his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm and have brought them hither to thee, my lord 11 Then David took hold of his garments and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him 12 And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until evening for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword 13 And David said to the young man that told him: Whence art thou? He answered: I am the son of a stranger of Amalee 14 David said to him: Why didst thou not fear to put out thy hand to kill the Lord's anointed 15 And David calling one of his servants, said: Go near and fall upon him. And he struck him so that he died
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 1:6-15]

[10] "I killed him": This story of the young Amalecite was not true, as may easily be proved by comparing it with the last chapter of the foregoing book.

And all the vessels of gold, and silver, and brass king David consecrated to the Lord, with the silver and gold which he had taken from all the nations, as well from Edom, and from Moab, and from the sons of Ammon, as from the Philistines, and from Amalec
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 18:11]

So, it would seem King David killed the last Amalekite.

24:32 Netanyahu was dishonest or ignorant to mention Amalek.

If Amalek is as Amalek does, the reason for the grudge against Amalek (which by the way is Edomite and not Canaanite proper) was an act of withholding food, what does that make Netanyahu?

28:56 It can be mentioned there is something to be said for some 19th C. Colonialists.

Check Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. For that matter, while I deplore the post-victory tactics of Bugeaud, check the men who took Algiers in 1830.

They abolished slavery and in some cases such people didn't come across Muslims but idolaters who sacrificed men, so they even abolished human sacrifice.

Obviously, Zionist ambitions are not quite the same league, though brutality by 19th C. Turkish potentates in Palestine could be mentioned.

29:24 "wanted to make the Muslims French, and that meant secular ..."

Not historically accurate.

While certain administrators of French Algeria were nominally ruling a French Département, during some time, they were sparing with according Frenchness to Muslims, and whichever side a Muslim fell on, even if they were personally secularists, they were saying things like "l'anticléricalisme n'est pas un article d'exportation" ... both French-Algerians (or European Algerian inhabitants of French citizenship and language) and Arab and Berber Algerians were far less secularist than anyone in France. Not sure if this changed the last decade or two just before the FLN started their warfare, but this was the overall view between Bugeaud and Decolonisation.

In Morocco (which was not all French) Lyautey had gone out of his way to be even more respectful to Muslims than the administration in Algers was being.

Perhaps it is after all accurate for Tunisia, which was, if I recall correctly, taken in the time of the Church persecuting secularist Jules Ferry, who spoke about the project in very clearly racist terms.

32:17 Indeed, Protestant US and Protestant States of Canada (and partly the Canadian Union as a whole) were doing a far worse job than Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza.

Sitting Bull became a Catholic and converted Bill Cody, a k a Buffalo Bill, to Catholicism.

There was one voice in the 19th C. US which spoke out against what was done to Indians (it is even mentioned in Centennial by Mitchener), and that was Catholicism. Back then the Catholic vote was nothing like it has become since, partly due to including ex-Spanish states and partly due to certain immigrant communities, most Irish, all Poles, part of the Germans and Austrians. So, we were not heard.

33:44 I was actually more aware of the anti-Serb actions at Srebrenica ...

But here again, Muslims would have a debt of gratitude to Catholics, in this case Austria.

Francis Ferdinand was killed over Austria making Bosnia Hercegovina an Austrian protectorate, in which all three religions were protected, rather than letting the Serbs conquer it and then massacre the Muslims, or drive them to Turkey.

35:55 In France, some Catholic Trads of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (recognise but resist "John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis" as real but bad Popes) and basically all of the Sedevacantists (do not recognise the mentioned people as valid Popes even) including the ones in the redaction of Rivarol, support the Palestinians.

A caricature from a recent issue of Rivarol, by signature miège, feature a well to do Jew lecturing an obviously wounded Palestinian, and the Jew's words were "we must distinguish between terrorism and collateral effects" and the Palestinian answers "I suppose genocide is copyrighted?"