I mourn the deaths of the 55 Palestinians killed today, the over two thousand wounded, and those hurt and killed in recent weeks. And as a friend of Israel— who for years played a part in efforts to combat the flow of weapons to terrorists, in modesty saving Israeli lives— I am gravely concerned for the future of Israel.
This death toll could have been avoided or greatly lessened. The 70th anniversary of Israeli Independence Day was always going to be a dangerous and violent time, even before the announcement that the U.S. would open its embassy in Jerusalem today. All expected protests, and all could sadly predict that some of the protesters would be violent— and I do not condone their violence, especially that instigated by Hamas toward its own ends.
I have worked with the Israeli military, and they are among the best trained and the best equipped military forces in the world, with superior intelligence collection and surveillance capabilities. I am confident that given different orders and rules of engagement— for instance, not to use live ammunition and to use numerous specialized riot and border control tools at their disposal— they could have protected themselves, and the security of the Israeli-Gaza border, notwithstanding Hamas-directed provocateurs among the protestors.
Instead, the violence and death toll today will play a part in continuing the cycle of violence and retribution into the future.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government must instruct his forces to exercise restraint, cease the use of live ammunition except when forces are in immediate mortal danger, and launch a transparent inquiry, in collaboration with broadly respected non-government affiliated human rights groups.
Sadly, our Administration— like the current government of Israel— has only made things worse at a dangerous time, for the basest of motives which have nothing to do with improving the security of Israelis or Palestinians, let alone the United States of America.
The Administration has openly spoken of its decision to time our move of our embassy to Jerusalem as fulfilling a campaign promise. The presence of major campaign donors like Sheldon Adelson at today’s event in Jerusalem only underlines the point. Furthermore, the Administration revealed how much this moment is about pandering to certain extremist supporters by inviting Robert Jeffress to offer the prayer at the event. Jeffress has said Muslims are going to Hell (and Jews, and Hindus, and Clinton supporters too, though he did not emphasize those today), and has called the Catholic Church (for full disclosure, my spiritual home) an instrument of Satan and corruption.
Considering all the above, the actions in both substance and tone, it will be all but impossible for the United States to play any effective role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for some time to come. Furthermore, while some governments will welcome the U.S. policy shifts on display today, other public and private foreign partnerships will become more difficult, and America’s image in the eyes of the broader world will further suffer— particularly when we next want to make a critique of human rights abuses abroad, or when we need to defend our own conduct. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s government is decreasing the chances of a peace process toward a two-state solution or federative structure that protects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians while also respecting democracy.
The actions today, coupled with the Administration’s exit from the Iran Deal (over the objections of both current and former Israeli and American defense and intelligence leaders), show a dangerous short-sightedness by both the current governments of the United States and Israel. I do not claim that either government initiated the longstanding tensions that have led to the horrible loss of life today, but neither are showing the leadership that either history or the security of ordinary American, Israeli and Palestinian citizens demand.
Congress must do all that it can to show our commitment to the security and prosperity of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Congress must call on the Administration to demand accountability from the Netanyahu government for the loss of life today, while renewing our commitment to Israel’s defensive security needs, especially against the threat of terrorism— which will almost certainly increase after today. We should also appropriate emergency aid to the Palestinians to assist in the sustained medical care needs of the injured today, and assistance to the families of those killed, as well as the economic losses of their communities. Congress must show the leadership that the Administration is failing to show.
Alexandra Chandler,
Candidate for Congress, MA-3
I’ve long thought the embassy should be in Jerusalem which is after all the capital, but there was a right and wrong way to go about this and the administration of course chose the wrong way.
This critic of contemporary Israel is not opposed to the embassy being in Jerusalem at some date. Ideally, in a two state solution both the future Palestinian state and Israeli state could have their embassies in the different parts of Jerusalem they would claim as their capital. I think the other issue is that this embassy is in a disputed part of a Jerusalem and is another step in America sanctioning the illegal occupation of West Bank territories that are supposed to form the future Palestinian state.
The Palestinian people are far more rational than the West or their own leaders give them credit for being. There is a reason we are not seeing another intifada or Hamas led rocket war, and it is precisely because there are few volunteers eager to take up the cause of violent resistance. The protestors trying to cross the border were under no illusions they would get their grandfathers land back on the other side. Their needs are immediate: food, water, eletricitt, medicine, and a self sufficient economy capable of employing people. The sooner the Israeli government, United States and international community band together to solve those needs, the sooner terrorism is truly defeated. .
Yes, it should be West Jerusalem, and I suppose we could get a divided city a la Cold War Berlin. I’ve long been skeptical of two states though; a unified state with a unified capital seems more realistic.
This is a good post, even though I don’t agree with some of it. It begins with an expression of sadness at the deaths. It recognizes that the US move to relocate the embassy was imprudent, leaving aside the justice of the decision, because it was predictable that the move would spark a violent reaction. It sees Hamas clearly for what it is. It goes farther than I would go about the permissibility of the Israeli actions, but that’s because the author claims expertise and claims to know that there were non-lethal methods available to prevent the Gazans masses at the border from crossing into Israel en masse.
In short, I don’t agree with the post for the reasons I’ve been giving in the other thread, but it is a much better, much more nuanced view than others have given.
If you want nuance, watch this for an excellent response to the usual B.S. surrounding Israel’s 70-year occupation of Palestine:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/21144/Gaza-Protests-Israel-Great-Return-March-Noura-Erakat-CBS-Media
Weasel words, Ms. Chandler. I wish you had come out with an honest denunciation of the slaughter of 60 people yesterday, including 8 children. Instead, you chose to fall back upon the usual tropes about Israel. If you are the intelligence whiz you claim to be, surely you must admit the so-called Two State Solution has been dead for years. Instead you pretend it’s still an option.
You give Israel a “mulligan” when you write, “I do not claim that either government initiated the longstanding tensions that have led to the horrible loss of life today, but neither are showing the leadership…” The worst you have to say about a nation that has imposed Apartheid upon a population now greater than its own is that it is “short-sighted..”
This weird bull$41+ made me go to your campaign website — only to read more weird bull$41+. You want to give the intelligence community more money. You want a more “honest” Defense Budget. If you were the champion of honesty in the Defense Budget, you might explain (honestly) that it is already a bloated blight upon our economy. Instead you propose greater “oversight” of the trillion dollar F-35 program. Sorry, the cat’s already out of the bag.
I don’t think Democrats of any stripe ought to buy candidates like you. Yes, you’re a non-traditional candidate, but in many ways you’re the same-old, same-old. No self-respecting Progressive Democrat should buy the Moulton Formula — conservative Democrat or DINO soft on militarism but sporting a few liberal social policies. Nowhere in your prescriptions for the future did I see criminal justice reform. This is a major problem in our 21st Century Police State but people who spout weasel words will never solve it.
Thoughts and prayers from Alexandra Chandler. A candidate for Congress should whether Congress should sanction the perpetrators of this massacre. And whether the US should continue the military aid that makes these killings possible.
Considering the average Democratic leader in Congress is a shill for Likud like Sen. Schumer or Sen. Nelson, it is refreshing to see some criticism of Israel from a frontrunner for local office. Joe Kennedy would not be writing this press release. Neither will Ed Markey or Liz Warren.
Markey and Warren did sign a letter last week asking for some aid to Gaza. It was a very tame letter, and it’s not a great look that more Senators didn’t sign on. Since things have escalated in Gaza, the response from Democrats has been pitiful and disturbing. Sanders has spoken openly and Warren gave a tame statement when pushed. It’s been silence or much worse from most other Dems.
Sadly, I fear that the tame responses that you cite are about as much as we’ll get from any Democrat.
The pro-Israel lobby is as vocal and as powerful as the NRA — and increasingly seems to show approximately the same contempt for basic moral principles such as the value of life.
Just like with the gun issue, there are a host of specific common sense proposals that should be advanced. For example it makes more sense to me to ask the candidates about Betsy McCollum’s bill (concerning Israel’s incarceration of young Palestinians). It’s no great trick to be less in the tank than Senator Schumer.
I’m not sure this will change any minds in this debate, but I think this account of Israel’s actions to avoid unnecessary bloodshed in the current confrontations in Gaza is worth a read.
That said, I oppose both the Trump administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. Both of those ill-advised actions should be seen as key causes of the current situation in Gaza.
In response to your link, I get a screen that says “Sorry, this content isn’t available right now” (it’s a Facebook post).
We know that more than 50 protesters were killed (including an infant girl) and more than 2,000 injured. I’m not receptive to excuses for why Israel’s “actions to avoid unnecessary bloodshed” failed so miserably.
This massacre was not “necessary”. No way, no how.
We’ll, you’ve just admitted your mind is closed on the question of Israel’s response, but here’s the text of the post I referred to, in any case:
A post from an Israeli reservist at the Gaza border:
55 killed and over 1200 wounded.
I’m writing this post for my good friends- my moral, humane friends, and for all those who are concerned and angry over today’s deaths and injuries on the border with Gaza.
Regarding Israel’s exodus from Egypt, when the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea just before overtaking the Israelites – our sages say that God scolded the angels and prevented them from singing and rejoicing, saying “my creations are drowning in the sea and you are singing?!”
I write these words with great caution, and from a sense of mission. I can understand and identify with all of those good and moral Zionists who fear that the many Palestinian victims may be our fault, the result of mistakes made by our side.
I’m writing because I am one of the few who was there – in uniform, in the reserves, but I was there. Yes, right there on the fence where the demonstrations are happening. It was last Friday – but I saw it with my own eyes; I was on our side but I could see and hear and understand everything. I want to testify from my firsthand knowledge, not a theoretical point of view. Because I was there.
I want to testify that what I saw and heard was a tremendous, supreme effort from our side, to prevent in every possible way Palestinian deaths and injuries.
Of course, the primary mission was to prevent hundreds of thousands of Gazans from infiltrating into our territory. That kind of invasion would be perilous, mortally dangerous to the nearby communities, would permit terrorists disguised as civilians to enter our kibbutzim and moshavim, and would leave us with no choice but to target every single infiltrator.
That’s why our soldiers were directed to prevent infiltration – in a variety of ways, only using live ammunition as a last resort. The IDF employs many creative means of reducing friction with Gazans and uses numerous methods, most of which are not made public, to prevent them from reaching the fence.
In addition, over the last few weeks there have been serious efforts to save the lives of children and civilians who have been pushed to the front lines by the Hamas – who are trying to hide behind them in order to infiltrate and attack Israel.
When there is no alternative and live ammunition must be used to stop those who storm the fence – the soldiers make heroic and sometimes dangerous efforts not to kill and only to injure those on the other side.
The IDF is stationing senior commanders at every confrontation point to ensure that every shot is approved and backed up by a responsible figure with proper authority. Every staging area has an especially large number of troops in order to make sure that soldiers are not put into life-threatening situations where they will have no choice but to fire indiscriminately.
A situation where thousands of people rush you is frightening, even terrifying. It is extremely difficult to show restraint, and it requires calm, mature professionalism.
55 dead is an enormous number. But I can testify from my first-hand experience, that every bullet and every hit is carefully reported, documented and investigated, in Excel spreadsheets. Literally. I was there and I saw it with my own eyes.
This isn’t the time or place to discuss the situation in general and the desperate plight of the residents of Gaza. I’m not interested in starting a political discussion here, although I do have a clear position.
What I’m trying to do is present, for everyone who really wants to listen, the extent of the IDF’s enormous effort to protect Israel’s borders while minimizing injuries and loss of life on the other side.
And despite all this – the situation on the border with Gaza is deteriorating. I hope that we won’t be called up again soon for reserve duty to protect our country. But if we are, we will go with the knowledge that we are serving a just and morally correct cause. We do not rejoice when we must go to war, but we also don’t go like sheep to the slaughter. Not anymore.
This is all from the Apartheid playbook. You write about your fear of Gazans like the white South Africans wrote about black South Africans, like they were alien, dangerous creatures who were trying to invade.
Gaza is every bit as much of a Bantustan as anything in South Africa was.
The full text of the article reinforces my initial reaction. Elsewhere at BMG a claim was made that this conflict was about “land and resources”, not religion.
At least your comment puts that canard to rest. Any piece that leads off with references to Hebrew Scripture as historical fact is, if nothing else, religious.
Like I responded to tedf downthread, I suggest that I am not the one who’s “mind is closed”.
In my view, the very fact that “hundreds of thousands of Gazans” needed to be prevented “from infiltrating into our territory” is itself an eloquent statement of how insanely bizarre the current situation is. It needs to be said, again, that those “hundreds of thousands” people believe — with very good reason — that the territory is, in fact, THEIRS.
Israel is the occupier, not the reverse.
Scores of people were killed, thousands wounded and maimed, and the piece claims that its author serves ” a just and morally correct cause”?
Sorry, but no.
Well, if your view is that Israel is the occupier in Israel, then I’m not sure there is much to talk about.
I agree — there isn’t much to talk about.
Democrats, please do not let SomervilleTom be the future of our party. It’s a free country and we’re a “big tent” party, but, Editors, I believe it is important that Blue Mass Group treat the view SomervilleTom just expressed as beyond the pale. Just so that it’s clear, his view is that the Jews are occupiers in Israel proper, i.e., that the existence of the Jewish state is an injustice.
We all should agree, though, that a nation that rounds up and expels its inhabitants, places them behind a fence, blockades them, and then uses snipers when they come too close to the fence is behaving unjustly.
My “extreme” argument is that the US government shouldn’t subsidize this injustice.
Let me clarify my use of the word “occupier”. It is Israel that occupies the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The protesters observed the 70th anniversary of Nakba the day after this massacre. It is not coincidence that what Israel remembers as its day of independence (and of course, the day chosen by America to rub a thumb in the eye of the Palestinians) the oppressed Palestinians remember as Nakba.
When I write “Israel is the occupier”, I refer to the existential reality of the protesters storming the border. I, of course, was not making a legalistic claim about property ownership.
I note that this comment again appeals to authority. First bob-gardner, now me — each time for the offense (in the eye of the commentator) of daring to express a view held by millions of people today.
It is at least internally consistent for the author to call for the expulsion from BMG of participants he disagrees with and also defend the use of lethal force against protesters. Such appeals to authority are frequently built upon a foundation of “because I said so, that’s why”.
I leave it to the editors to determine the limits of commentary on this site.
I’m not calling for your expulsion, you are free to say what you like, and you’re a valued participant at BMG. I’m just saying your views should be repudiated. It’s a free country! I wrote my comment out of concern for the direction of the Democratic Party to the extent you represent that direction, which on this issue at least I sincerely hope you don’t.
Here is the text I responded to (emphasis mine):
I’m not sure what action the editors could take other than expulsion or perhaps removal of the commentary that offends you in order to “treat the view … just expressed as beyond the pale”.
I hope that my response has clarified the misunderstanding of my words that you express in the second part of that quote.
It does seem that we have divergent views about the direction the Democratic Party should take in respond to these acts by Israel in general and Mr. Netanyahu in particular.
Mr. Netanyahu has made no secret of his strong preference for the GOP and Mr. Trump. He publicly supported Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in 2012, he provoked the then-unprecedented GOP letter to the Iranians striving to torpedo the Iran deal. It was Lindsey Graham who chose Jerusalem as a public forum in which to announce “Mr. Prime Minister, the Congress will follow your lead”, choosing Mr. Netanyahu over our then-President (who happens to be a Democrat). You demand that we Democrats ignore the conscious and intentional decision of Mr. Netanyahu to destroy the bipartisan support that Israel enjoyed until Mr. Netanyahu’s betrayal of both American and Democratic Party values.
Perhaps it’s time for you to join we Democrats in recognizing that the Mr. Natanyahu has been betraying us and our values for years.
I hope and pray that my Democratic Party will never support the massacre of scores and wounding of thousands that took place on Monday. I hope and pray that my Democratic Party will reject Israel’s embrace of Donald Trump and Trumpism, as demonstrated by Israel’s full-throated enthusiasm for America’s abrogation of the Iranian nuclear deal.
I hope and pray that my Democratic Party — and America — will reject the path of ever-increasing violence, death, destruction, and war that Mr. Netanyahu so enthusiastically embraces.
I hope and pray that Israel will repudiate Mr. Netanyahu and his dangerously extremist vision and return to the company of civilized nations that respect and value every human life.
For my basic views on Netanyahu and the Republicans, see this old post. For what I think is a basically good, nuanced, reasonable take on the whole mess, see this post by Yair Rosenberg.
@tedf: I recall this comment from the other thread, where you say that (emphasis mine):
This text from your 2016 piece linked about jumped out at me (emphasis mine):
Once more, it seems that you adjust your argument to your audience. I suppose all of us do, but still — in the 2016 piece, you explicitly cite the Nicene Creed as an analogy to a portion of the Haggadah. Surely even you will admit that in your 2016 piece, you are citing a religious analogy (the Nicene Creed is not a secular text).
We are having these exchanges today because of Monday’s opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem — not coincidentally on the 70th anniversary of the founding of Israel. The protests that led to the massacre are similarly all about Jerusalem and the conflicting claims about it (among other things).
The plain fact — that you yourself admit in your 2016 piece — is that this endless war is, at its heart, a religious conflict. Pretending otherwise only confuses the issue.
Which views are these? That the status quo is immoral and unsustainable and the United States should be a neutral broker rather than rewarding a radical right wing nationalist government over and over and over again with blank checks? If they were still with us, Peres and Weisel would be condemning these actions and condemning Hamas. Please sir, stop using the words of Hamas to discredit opponents of Netanyahu. Stop equating criticism of a rogue right wing government with criticism of Zionism itself or its worthier impulses. The blood is on Trumps handsand Netenyahu’s-not on the Palestinians. Good Israelis recognize this and oppose the direction of their corrupt and morally bankrupt government. I think good Democrats should stand with them, J Street and the grassroots peace movement in American Jewry and Israel itself.
You are making the mistake of saying that the AIPAC party line is the mainstream when it has become the extreme.
Keep in mind that the Hebrew Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament, is a national narrative. Yes it is more infused with religious references than some such narratives, but I still say they are not fighting over theology or religious practice.
This is going from the ridiculous to the absurd.
“Yes it is more infused with religious references…”? You’ve got to be kidding. It encompasses the Torah, the most sacred of Jewish texts. It is the text that some Christians believe is “inerrant” and literally written by the hand of God.
It might a “national narrative”, but that is a circular argument — it is a “national narrative” only because Israel proclaims itself to be a Jewish state.
If these texts are not “religious texts”, then the phrase “religious text” has no meaning at all.
The Old Testament, and in particular the Torah, is the canonical religious text.
The death of the infant girl, Layla Ghandour, was awful. But it’s also shows the way that propaganda runs right over the complexity of the situation. According to the Times, “An unnamed doctor in Gaza told The Associated Press that he believed that a heart ailment, not Israeli tear gas, was the cause of Layla’s death.” That’ s not to say that we know one way or the other the truth of the matter. But the uncertainty hasn’t kept the world from focusing no the obviously upsetting death of the little girl. I mean, you mentioned it in your comment, I assume, just because it is particularly upsetting. The Times again:
Awful images and stories like Layla’s are the reasons why the Israelis have been “dropp[ing] leaflets from drones warning Gazans to stay away from the border area” while Hamas’s leader said “he hoped to see a mass breach of the Israeli border” I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier: you can’t understand what happened in Gaza without understanding who wanted to see dead Palestinians on the air and who benefits from the images. It should concern everyone that the answer to both questions is “Hamas.”
Of course the Freedom Riders of the early ’60’s were given fair warning by the local authorities that they would be in danger unless they stayed north of the Mason-Dixon line.
And the same protesters were accused of “wanting” a bloody result and using it to further their movement.
Some things never change.
The comparison is unjust. Did the Freedom Riders ever sound like this?
The comparison is completely fair, you just don’t like it.
You need to familiarize yourself with the words of Malcolm X and some of the other more militant leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
Revolutions are nearly always accompanied by extreme language. It comes with the territory.
What are you talking about? I’m no expert on Malcolm X, but …
I’ve lost track of your views—the Gazan protesters who were killed were all non-violent, right?
I cited Malcolm X as an example of a militant revolutionary who openly advocated violence — just as some of the players in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict openly advocate violence.
A great many civil rights activists were not nearly as genteel as the Freedom Riders. Most peaceful revolutions succeed only when there is a decidedly less peaceful player at the same table.
In the America of the Jim Crow era, “the table” was created by those who put the Jim Crow laws in place and those who tolerated those laws. In South Africa, the same was true for apartheid. When such a table is set up, some will come to peacefully demand that it be torn down. Others will threaten to burn it down and the building along with it.
Jim Crow America was unsustainable. Apartheid was unsustainable. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is unsustainable.
One option is for this black chapter in Israel’s history to end peaceably with a new government that recognizes and learns to live with an independent Palestinian state. A second option is for Israel to accept the Palestinians as full-fledged citizens with full voting privileges.
A third option is for Israel to continue its current path. That will result in the violent and bloody destruction of Israel. It may also result in the violent and bloody destruction of the entire middle East. It may end up in a nuclear holocaust that destroys all humanity.
The third option is the only outcome of the current Israeli government and policy. That’s why I suggest that every Democrat and every American should oppose it.
What a total crock of sand.
There’s nothing “complex” about the situation. A crowd was tear-gassed. The crowd included children and babies. A baby was killed by the tear gas.
It is you, tedf, who “can’t understand” what happened. Or who understands full well and refuses to admit it.
The Palestinian doctor who treated the girl says he disagrees, but of course you, SomervilleTom of Massachusetts, know best. No doubt or hesitation clouds your righteous moral certitude. And your mastery of the facts, from such a distance, lets you discard the doctor’s opinion and to see with perfect clarity the rights and wrongs of the situation.
I’m pretty sure “the Palestinian doctor who treated the girl” hasn’t read this exchange and therefore can’t possibly disagree.
Here are the facts:
1. There was a crowd
2. A baby girl was in the crowd
3. The crowd was tear-gassed
4. The baby girl died
That’s what we know. The felony murder rule is a long-standing principle of common law that applies here — when a person dies during a criminal act, the perpetrator is guilty of murder.
You claim to seek “nuance” — yet use it only to defend the indefensible.
There were those who claimed that the behavior of Bernard Law during the clergy sex abuse scandal required “nuance”. Similar claims were made about South Africa during apartheid. During the 19th century, analogous claims were made about slavery.
This isn’t murky. I don’t discard the doctor’s opinion, I instead put it in the context of the situation in which the event happened.
I don’t claim “perfect clarity”. I instead claim enough clarity to see that a crime against humanity was committed by Israeli authorities. You got your feelings hurt when I challenged the sincerity of your “regret” for the deaths and injuries.
Your commentary since then reinforces my perception that in fact you don’t care even a little bit about the victims. Your commentary has just one end — defending the Israeli behavior from every criticism.
That’s not how somebody who actually cares about these victims reacts.
It’s a pretty old argument.
Young David, a Bethlehemite shepherd lad from the tribe of Judah was then chosen by God. As everyone knows, he proved by his wise choices to be a man “after God’s own heart.” As a great military strategist David united the tribes and extended the national boundaries so that in his time Israel enjoyed a greater fraction of the land promised to Abraham than has ever since been the case.
David ruled as king for seven years from Hebron (2 Samuel 2:11, 1 Chronicles 3:4), then established his throne in Jerusalem after overcoming the ancient Jebusite (Canaanite) community there.
The argument is old and religious. The historical aspects of the Hebrew Scripts were secondary to their religious purpose while the texts were being assembled and redacted.
If we’re going to toss around Bible stories — especially as history — then let’s also include the stories describing the way the Hebrews treated their “enemies” (one summary of seven is at http://www.land-of-the-bible.com/Israel_Ancient_Enemies_Part_I). For those who are unfamiliar with texts, they include narratives of Hebrews who were punished by their god because they were lax in murdering all the inhabitants and even animals belonging to the inhabitants of occupied lands. These narratives describe a patriarchal authoritarian deity who rules his followers with an iron fist and demands that those followers utterly destroy the non-believers around them.
I understand the importance of understanding these texts in the context of the Bronze Age tribes and tribal contests they describe, as well as in the context of the purpose for which they were assembled and redacted.
I don’t see Monday’s massacre as having any relationship whatsoever to the mythical story of David. In my view, if we’re going to cite Old Testament scripture, then passages like Deut 7:1-2 are more appropriate (emphasis mine):
Totally agree. It’s why I feel threatened by ALL the religious mumbo-jumbo
that’s in the news.
Maybe the Amish get a pass, but I immediately distrust people who mention their religion amongst their strongest attributes.
OK, but there IS historical record independent of the Bible of the Jewish people living in that corner of the world for centuries if not millennia before the Roman Diaspora forced them out. You aren’t seriously questioning that, are you?
I invite you to offer historical evidence outside of the Bible that confirms that David killed Goliath with a stone from a slingshot, that somebody named “Samuel” chose the youngest of several brothers who was busy tending sheep on the momentous occasion of his anointing, and so on.
Similarly, I invite you to offer historical evidence that identifies a figure named “Moses” (never mind supports the biblical narratives of his birth and life). I’m not aware of any evidence outside the Bible that narrows the events to even a specific pharoah. I don’t believe there is ANY extra-biblical evidence of the parting of the Red Sea.
Are you seriously suggesting that Sarah, if such a woman ever existed, actually gave birth at NINETY years of age? Or that their son Isaac lived for 180 years?
These texts were not written as history. They were not written for an audience that cared about history. Many of these texts were maintained as an oral tradition for very long periods before being written down. Many of these texts echo similar mythology of multiple other cultures (the story of Noah and the flood, for example).
Please reread what I wrote: “The historical aspects of the Hebrew Scripts were secondary to their religious purpose while the texts were being assembled and redacted.”
You aren’t seriously questioning THAT, are you?
My understanding of Israeli history is that it starts to coalesce around a factual narrative about the time of David’s reign. Certainly once they returned from the Babylonian Exile, the event that motivated the documentation of their traditions we know that a Jewish homeland existed, albeit continually fought over by those with imperial ambitions as it was quite the crossroads. I of course am not taking the more ancient mythology literally – you ought to know me better than that by now!