The Land Of Purple

Footnotes

{1 The message pertained to the vassal King Yaw (alternately rendered “Yahu” / “Jehu”) of Samaria, who ruled from 841 to 814 B.C. The House to which he is said to have belonged was named after Omri, the (Amorite) king of Samaria from 884 to 873 B.C. The House of Omri was a successor to the House of Ephraim, to which the kingdom’s founder (Jeroboam, per the Hebrew Bible) belonged. Contending that this somehow entails that Canaan is the “homeland” EXCLUSIVELY of the Hebrews is entirely spurious.}

{2 The Kingdom of Judah was named after a man who demanded that his widowed daughter-in-law (Tamar) be BURNED for becoming pregnant out of wedlock (until, that is, he discovered the father was himself). Also note that the Abrahamic deity killed Judah’s son, Onan for–no kidding–pulling out (when having sex with Tamar). It was standard Iron Age family drama.}

{3 But then again, even the southern kingdom (Judah) was ITSELF usually not Judaic. (!) More often that not, it was ruled by a pagan king–as with, say, Ahaz, who gladly allied himself with the Assyrian Empire (which, at the time, was under Sargon II: successor to Tiglath-Pileser III and predecessor to Sennacherib). It was Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah, who would temporarily bring Judah back into alignment with Abrahamic monotheism.}

{4 As early as the middle of the 2nd century B.C., the Jewish author of the third book of the “Oracula Sibyllina” addressed the Hebrew diaspora: “Every land is full of thee and every sea.” This means that even before the (Maccabean) Hasmoneans came to power in the Land of Purple (that is to say: by the time of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucids), there was a vast dispersal of Jewish people across the globe. While the Jewish diaspora originally hailed from the Land of Purple (prior to the Exilic Period), the CURRENT diaspora is primarily from Andalusia and the Maghreb (as the Sephardim) and from eastern Europe (as the Ashkenazim). The latter were descendants of a people who were predominantly [k]Hazar (Turkic peoples from central Asia), and thus not even Semitic (a point I address in a forthcoming essay). It is a perverse irony that the only diaspora to undertake a successful ingathering (the “Aliyah”) is the one that managed to establish an ethno-nationalist regime pursuant to having carried out ITS OWN program of ethnic cleansing. The theocratic ethno-State that is now “Israel” has been engaging in a campaign of lebensraum since 1947. The project is based on claims of blood and soil–an opprobrious enterprise regardless of who is doing it. Alas, it is an enterprise with which mankind has become all too familiar.}

{5 Note that the well-known trope, the “twelve tribes of Israel” is based on a discrepant taxonomy. The various lineages were all descendants of Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham–which is simply to say that “Yisra-El” was the father of the 12+1 tribes-in-question. But how did THAT come to pass? Well, King David sired Solomon who sired Rehoboam: the King who presided over the dissolution of the united “Kingdom of Israel”…and the subsequent division of the Hebrews into THIRTEEN tribes. Those were the progeny of Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi, [y]Issakhar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, and Joseph’s sons: Manasseh and Ephraim. 13 doesn’t fit well into 144,000 (the declared number of “chosen”). TWELVE tribes makes the arithmetic much easier when calculating the number of saved souls; especially when they must be from certain bloodlines in order to gain entry into heaven. The 13 tribes are resolved into 12 in three different ways. ONE: by omitting Dan (as does the New Testament, which–following Numbers 1:32-33–simply counts Ephraim as “Joseph”). TWO: by omitting Levi (as does First Kings); since the Levites were seen more a cast of priests (Kohen) than as a full-fledged tribe. THREE: by subsuming Manasseh and Ephraim under singular mantle of their father, Joseph ben Jacob.}

{6 One of the lessons here is that one should never impugn “Israel” for anything. Consequently, it is important that criticisms of the Israeli government are directed toward the GOVERNMENT–thereby making clear that the criticism is leveled at a particular set of policies / actions rather than at an entire people. Indeed, the mistake Revisionists Zionists make in their vilification of the Palestinians is holding an entire population culpable for the crimes of a fanatical subset (which is effectively collective punishment). It is crucial that advocates for Palestinian rights do not make the same mistake as those they impugn. In order for the Land of Purple to be genuinely democratic, it must be a land for ALL people (no ethno-centricity); with an unequivocal separation of church and State (no theocracy). As things now stand, Canaan is far from democratic. For more on this topic, see Shlomo Sand’s “The Invention of the Land of Israel” (esp. Chapter 2, “Mytherritory”) and Ilan Pappe’s “The Idea of Israel”.}

{7 During the Roman Empire, isolated Jewish communities coalesced in various locations–notably: Chalcis (Euboea), Cappadocia (Anatolia), Abilene / Adiabene (Syria), Iturea (the northern edge of Canaan), Alexandria and Elephantine (Egypt), as well as Mahuza and Babylon (Mesopotamia). Communities could also be found amongst the Andalusian “Sephardim” (on the Iberian peninsula), the Yemenites (spec. Himyarites) of southern Arabia, parts of Armenia, and [k]Hazaria in central Asia (primarily due to Turkic peoples converting to the Faith). (See footnote 8 below.) So it makes perfect sense that, in the 2nd century B.C., when it addressed “Beth Israel”, the third book of the “Oracula Sibyllina” stated: “Every land is full of thee and every sea.” At the time, the only Judaic kingdom had been that of Judah (i.e. NOT “Israel”). It is unsurprising, then, that when Isaiah referred to the diaspora, he referred to them as the “dispersed of Judah” (11:12).}

{8 The majority of those who came to be called the “Ashkenazim” were not predominantly Semitic; they were descendants of the [k]Hazars: a Turkic people who had migrated to northeastern Europe from the Eurasian Steppes…ending up in a region that spanned from Lithuania down to Volhynia. (Genetically, Ashkenazim are roughly 10-20% Semitic.) Samaritans, Nazarenes, Mandaeans, Assyrians, and what are now dubbed “Mizra[c]him” (Arab Jews) are more Semitic than most of the modern world’s Jewish people. Those who descended from the [k]Hazars (i.e. the Ashkenazim) are a mixture of Germanic, Slavic, and Turkic. For more on this, see my essay on the history of Ashkenazim: “The Forgotten Diaspora”.}

{9 The label “Jud[a]ea” would later be equated with the Koine Greek term for “Judean”: “Ioudaios”…which could be interpreted as “Judah-ite”. Meanwhile, Judah-ism is the Anglicized version of “Ioudaismos”, which essentially means “Judah-hood”. Hence the English term for the FAITH OF said people: “Judaism”.}

{10 It was eventually TAKEN to mean “[one who] struggles with god” in Judaic lore; hence the apocryphal tale of Jacob wrestling the god’s angel on the banks of the river Jabbok (at a place dubbed “Pen-i-El”), per Genesis 32:28. Thus the Abrahamic deity anointed Jacob as “Yisra-El” (also ref. Genesis 35:10). Be that as it may, it is important to note the moniker’s ACTUAL etymological origins. “Yisra-” derives from the verb “[y]s[a]ra[h]”, which ORIGINALLY meant “to prevail / rule over”. (This was easily adapted to the Judaic semiotic; as “Yisra-El” can be translated in an alternate way if one takes god [“El”] to be the subject rather than the object. Hence the workability of the alternate connotation: “God contends / perseveres”…and ultimately prevails / rules.) “El” / “il[ah]” (Ugaritic / Amorite / Eblaite) was the original name for the Canaanite godhead. This Semitic deity was often conceptualized as a sky-god who dwelled on a distant mountain; and was purported to be the father of mankind. Later, the Hebrews modified the moniker in various ways: “El Shaddai”, “El O-lam”, “El Bet-El”, “El Ro-i”, “El El-yon”, etc. (whilst adopting the appellation, Y-H-W-H, from the Shasu). It should come as no surprise, then, that the portrayal of Yahweh in the earliest Judaic texts is sometimes that of a storm-god, in keeping with the Canaanite god, Baal (e.g. Exodus 15, Psalm 29, Psalm 68, Psalm 74, etc.) This makes perfect sense given the genealogy of the theology-in-question. So “[y]s[h]ra-il” effectively meant “ruling god” / “god rules” in antecedent Semitic vernaculars. Considering all this, it makes sense that “[y]sra-il” was an attested theophoric GIVEN NAME in Canaanite cultures of the 2nd millennium B.C. (spec. in Ugarit and Ebla). Also note the distinction between the notion of a struggle WITH god and the notion of “jihad”: a struggle FOR god.}

{11 In the ancient world, a Jew responding to the question, “Where are you going?” with “I’m going to Israel” would not have made any sense. It would be like a Muslim saying, “I’m going to the Ummah.” Beth Israel no more has a specific homeland than does Dar al-Islam. What “Israel” DOES have, according to their own lore, is a promised land. But nobody else on the planet earth is required to honor that lore…let alone what it implies. The Mormons claim a part of Missouri as THEIR promised land. The rest of the world is no more obliged to allocate territorial sovereignty in Palestine according to Judaic lore than the United States is obliged to cede control of Jackson County to the Church of Latter-Day Saints according to Mormon lore.}

{12 The “light to nations” idiom was also used by the Roman Catholic Church to describe its own votaries (as People of God): “Lumen Gentium”. Happily, Judaic lore is no more predicated on a designated piece of real estate than is Vatican lore. Even as it was understood as a domain, Christendom was never conceived as the name of an eternally-demarcated territory. Even the Holy Roman Empire was not a specific tract of land; it was an orbit of political influence that encompassed various kingdoms in various locations at various times.}

{13 As if to make things even more confusing, the writers of Deuteronomy state that the Abrahamic deity apportioned “nations” (32:8). (See footnote 7 above.) We are told that when he divided mankind, he “fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of Israelites.” (?!) In another translation, this reads “…according to the number of gods.” (?!) Neither translation makes much sense. Either way, the terminology is less straight-forward than we might think.}

{14 “Rua[c]h ha-Kodesh” might be taken as analogous to the body of Christ, in which all Christians partake. It is comparable with a community being infused with the holy spirit, which was likewise conceptualized as the breath of god. When it comes to the notion of “kingdom”, the catch is that it can mean either a worldly kingdom (as with the “mamlakah” / “malku(t)” referenced in the Hebrew Bible) or it can mean a METAPHORICAL kingdom (as with the use of the Koine Greek term, “baseileia” in the New Testament). The latter is an abstraction–an ideal to which supplicants aspire (variously described as the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, or Kingdom Come). I explore this dualistic conceptualization in a forthcoming essay on Jerusalem. The notion of a Jewish STATE (i.e. “medinat ha-Yehudim”; conceived as a theocratic “medinat ha-halakha”) is a uniquely modern one. The ideation is misleading, as it conflates “Ahm Yisrael” (nation of Israel, qua tribe) with the institution of a theocratic / ethno-centric nation-State–per the dictates of Revisionist Zionism. (See footnote 22 below.) Of course, a political regime is not required for living by “Rua[c]h ha-Kodesh”. That is to say: Living in the spirit of the Abrahamic deity does not entail establishing a specific nation-State.}

{15 The Jebusites were likely the original residents of what came to be the City of David (a.k.a. “Jerusalem”)–a topic I explore at in a forthcoming essay on Jerusalem. Along with the Shasu, the Jebusites may well have been the progenitors of the earliest form of Judaism; as–like the first “Yehudim”–they espoused a heno-theistic theology (that is: putting one god above all the others). This proto-Judaic monolatry posited Y-H-W-H as the godhead (a re-instantiation of the Canaanite godhead, “El” / “Baal”, who’s consort was Asherah / As[h]tarte). Sure enough, in the earliest Semitic records, Yahweh was sometimes referenced in conjunction with Asherah. This is made apparent in Hosea 2:16, when the Abrahamic deity says to the mother of “Israel”: “You shall henceforth refer to me as ‘my husband’ and no longer as ‘my Baal’.” It was most likely around THEN that a novel identity was asserted for this particular tribe of people; and the “Hebrews” were thus established as a distinct ethnic group. That would have been at some point in the early first millennium B.C.; and it would have been done in order to distinguish themselves from other Amorites (who would have espoused a more traditional Canaanite theology). Note that an alternate name for “Baal” was the Old Semitic, “Adon”. Lo and behold: Another name for the Abrahamic deity in Judaic lore ended up being “Adonai”. (!) It was not until later that this new-fangled group formulated their own “Hebrew” language from the antecedent Old Aramaic…via Samaritan (which was itself based on Phoenician). And it was not until even later (during the Exilic Period, when Judaic lore was first codified by the Babylonian scribes) that said henotheism (i.e. monolatry) was translated into explicit monotheism. See footnote 16 below.}

{16 The earliest form of monotheism was likely the cult of Aten (in Egypt) in the 14th century B.C. Prior to the emergence of Judaism, Zoroastrianism (Mazda-ism in Median Persia) posited Ahura Mazda as the sole godhead. Judaic monotheist emerged during the Axial Age, around the same time as Buddhism (which was quasi-monotheistic). By that time, Zoroastrianism was already established as the official religion of Persia (under the Achaemenids). When it came to monotheism, Judaism was an also-ran.}

{17 Until c. 1800, the vast majority of Jews in Palestine were (Arab) Misra[c]him…in conjunction with a smattering of (Andalusian and Maghrebi) Sephardim who’d immigrated from the Mediterranean basin. The former spoke Levantine Arabic; the latter primarily spoke Ladino. It was only starting in the 18th century that the Ashkenazim began migrating to Palestine from Eastern Europe (mostly from the Pale of Settlement). They primarily spoke Yiddish (along with German, Polish, and Russian). Modern Hebrew was a more recent innovation–a way to assert a new-fangled (nationalist) identity.}

{18 In the Book of Daniel, there is an anecdote of Alexander encountering a Jewish priest. It is almost certainly apocryphal.}

{19 It is dismaying how many of the world’s Jewish people are still under the impression that most of their creed was formulated in Jerusalem; or that the forebears of those who now consider themselves Jewish hailed from Canaan. During the relevant epoch (the Exilic Period), virtually all of the most important activity occurred in Babylonia. Then, starting in 200 A.D., there emerged the Amora-im, the Savora-im, and the Geon-im (the Talmudic sages who were primarily NOT in Palestine). In addition to Mesopotamia, notable communities eventually emerged in Greece, Anatolia, and Egypt. Later, the most notable intellectual activity occurred in ANDALUSIA (as with Maimonides and Judah ha-Levi). In terms of “nationality” (as we understand the term today), from Late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages, none of the prominent expositors thought of the Land of Purple as their homeland. Jewish identity was about commitment to a specific LAW, not to a specific LAND. Pursuant to the Second Temple Period, virtually nothing crucial to the Judaic creed came out of Jerusalem. Indeed, since the composition of the Hebrew Bible by the Babylonian scribes, Jerusalem has never been the center of Jewish thought. The Talmudic academies were in Mesopotamia.}

{20 In addition to the concoction of the chimerical legacy of an “eretz Israel”, modern-day Zionists established a modern language “Hebrew”, which only obliquely resembles its ancient counterpart (which itself did not exist until the 7th century B.C.) The precursors to Classical Hebrew were Samaritan and Old Aramaic–both of which were based on Phoenician. For Zionists of the late 19th century, the idea was that language would be yet another overt tribal signifier; and so would serve as an additional buttress to their new-fangled nationalism. So they concocted modern Hebrew as their national language.}

{21 In his “Book of Revelation”, John of Patmos referred to the Jews alternately as “the tribe of Judah” and “the seed of David” (ref. chapter 5).}

{22  Such loaded monikers should give us pause. The notion of a State for a certain group of people is inimical to liberal democracy. It is odious whether the State is ethnically-defined or religiously-defined. (“Jewish” can mean either.)  An ethno-State would be rightly condemned by ANY civil-minded person, regardless of the designated ethnic group. (Imagine the response to the establishment of a self-proclaimed Aryan State.)  A State devoted to people of a certain religion is–by definition–theocratic; just as a Sate devoted to people of a certain racial profile is–by definition–racist.  Either is antithetical to fundamental democratic principles.  The closest we get to the ideation of a “Jewish State” in the ancient world was the moniker used by the Persians to label the “State for the Jews”: “Yehud Medinata”.  This pertained to the Persian Empire’s designated municipality for Jews in the satrap of “Abar-Nahara” [Akkadian: “Ebir-Nari”; Syriac: “Aber-Nahra”; Hebrew: “Ever-Hanahar”]–a name that simply meant “land beyond the river”.  It was located in southern Canaan (in the Judean countryside).  Clearly, the Land of Purple was not known as “Israel”; as naming a tract of land “Israel” would have made no sense.  (Yehud Medinata was where a segment of Beth Israel dwelled for the 206 years between the Declaration of Cyrus the Great and the conquest of Alexander the Great.)  In sum: Living in a Jewish State is no more required to be Jewish than living in a Salafi theocracy is required to be Muslim. One can honor Mosaic law–however one sees fit–in California just as well as in Galilee.}

{23 Says the favored group, “Things seem perfectly splendid for US; so what’s the problem?” We should be reminded that “justice for THESE, but not for THOSE” is the very definition of “injustice”. It is also the hallmark of Exceptionalism (esp. as it pertains to ethno-nationalism).}

{24 It is not for nothing that, in its earliest years, some ultra-religious Zionists and Nazis found an alignment on this matter–as demonstrated by the Heskem Haavara [Transfer Agreement] of 1933. At the time, the pact was a perfectly rational measure undertaken to seek a safe haven for Jews who found themselves in a very hostile environment. Of course, support for the pact was not unanimous on EITHER side. Indeed, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, Vladimir Yevgenyevich “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky expressed disapproval. But it was no secret that ideologues on both sides found common cause on this singular point. NEITHER wanted miscegenation; and NEITHER saw Jews belonging in Europe. See footnote 25 below.}

{25 Throughout the 1920’s and 30’s, Adolph Hitler enthusiastically endorsed the idea of establishing a reservation for the Jewish people in the Levant. The initial idea was to expunge them from the dominion of the Third Reich (see footnote 24 above).}

{26 This would be analogous to, say, the Chinese re-instituting the “feng-jian” system of feudalism in the name of resurrecting the Zhou Kingdom…or Indians re-instituting the “varna” system of feudalism in the name of resurrecting the Gandhara Kingdom. Shall Armenians start enforcing polytheism in the name of re-establishing the Kingdom of Urartu? Such zany visions are not unique to Revisionist Zionism. The present dictator of Turkey, Recep Erdogan (who is not only a Turkish Supremacist, he is a Salafi theocrat as well) longs to resurrect the Ottoman glory-days. This deranged fever-dream involves re-establishing a (Turkish) Caliphate and laying claim to vast swaths of land that were once under Ottoman dominion–an enterprise that would entail (FURTHER) ethnic cleansing of the Kurds (see footnote 28 below). We find this same mentality undergirding Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again”, whereby the United States if fashioned as a quintessentially WASP nation. For virtually any fascistic regime touting X-Exceptionalism, there emerges some variation of the mantra: “Make X Great Again”. After all, Reactionary thinking is about bringing back the (imagined) glory days of some exalted past.}

{27 Given the state of the developed “Western world” today, the requirement that a singular (self-segregated) sanctuary be established at a particular location for a designated ethnic group no longer attains, as such a sanctuary is not needed anymore. That is: The project of relocating the world’s Jews to a specified safe haven may have once been warranted, but such a drastic measure is no longer warranted. For while sporadic bigotry still persists in isolated pockets in the Occident, it does not exist nearly to the degree that it did prior to the conclusion of the second World War. Ironically, the vast majority of anti-Semitic sentiment that exists (outside of white nationalism) can be explained by resentments stemming from right-wing (Revisionist) Zionist policies in the Land of Purple.}

{28 The “Land of Karda” is mentioned in Sumerian records from the 3rd millennium B.C. This was also referred to as “Hanigalbat” in Assyrian; and was called “Mitanni” in Hittite (the lingua franca of the Hurrians and Hittites). The Kurds have continually occupied this area since the Parthian Empire; and have maintained a continuous identity ever since (pace their adoption of Islam). But beware: Making this point to Turks is like notifying the Chinese that the Tibetans have more claim to Tibet than do the Han Chinese. As for a particular land being affiliated with a particular religion, we can draw another analogy. Prior to the Muslim conquest of 651 A.D., Persia had been OFFICIALLY Zoroastrian for over thirteen centuries: starting c. 700 B.C. (during the Median Empire), through the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanian Empires, up to 651 A.D. The oldest Avestan text dates back even further (to the 14th century B.C.) Are we to suppose, then, that modern-day Iran is really supposed to be Zoroastrian? Shall we proclaim that, between the Zagros Mountains and Bactria, Zoroastrians should be able to lord it over everyone else? (Sunni and Yazidi) Kurds, (Shiite) Persians, (Yarsani) Lurs, Mandaeans, and Baha’i would rightfully take exception to such an ornery proclamation. Others who make analogous claims are guilty of mendacity; and for the same reasons.}

{29 Those who doubt whether Revisionist Zionism is predicated on a fundamentalist version of Judaism might consider the names of its flagship organizations. The jurisprudential arm of the ideology is “Shurat Ha-Din” (Strict Judgement). Other organizations include “Gush Emunim” (Bloc of the Faithful), “B’rith Ha-Birionim” (Thugs of the Covenant), “B’nai B’rith” (Sons of the Covenant), and “Otzma Yehudi[t]” (Jewish Power). To see why that last name might be problematic, one need only replace “Jewish” with “White” or any other ethic group (viz. engaged in self-exaltation).  To corroborate the nature of this nomenclature, we might note Otzma Yehudit’s website: “Ha-Kol ha-Yehudi” [The Jewish Voice]…which leaves no doubt what the ideology is based upon.  The Revisionist Zionist conception of “Israel” is explicitly grounded in a delusive Biblical worldview–as attested by “Ha-Beit Ha-Yehudi[t]” (House of the Jewish People)–a name that is usually interpreted as “Jewish Home”, in contradistinction to “Beit Yisra-El” (which would betray the origins of the onomastics: House of the Jewish people). Tellingly, THAT organization was formerly called the “National Religious Front”. (It has recently spawned yet another Judeo-fascist off-shoot: “Ha-Yamin He-Hadash”.) Meanwhile, the right-wing political party currently in power, “Ha-Likud”, means “The In-gathering”–a name with overtly religious connotations.  To illustrate that “Israel” STILL means a people more than a place, we might look to the right-wing Zionist organization, “Shavei Israel”, which means “Returners OF Israel”, not “Returners TO Israel”.}

{30 This moniker is alternately interpreted as “land of palms”. It might be noted that that was not the only land in the region named for a color. The southern part of the Levant was originally known as “Udumu” / “Udumi” by the Assyrians…which was rendered “Edom” in Old Semitic (later rendered “Idumaea” by the Greco-Romans). That meant “crimson”. During Late Antiquity, the Land of Crimson was inhabited by the Nabataeans.}

{31  The same confusion arises in Korean etiology; which was based on tales composed in the 12th century A.D. (ref. the “Samguk Sagi”). The scripture tells of events going back to 2333 B.C.  Are we to adduce from such dating that the lore-in-question was ITSELF from the 24th century B.C.?  There is a fundamental distinction to be made between the timing of events in a story and when the story itself was composed.  (Knowing about the history of the story and the story of a history are two different things.)  The national origin myth of “Go-Guryeo” is about monarchs who’d been anointed by the gods…a bit of delectable dogma that enjoins Koreans to trace a hallowed lineage (the “Go-Joseon”) back to the legendary “Dangun Wang-geom”…as well as to a line of fabled kings such as “Zhuan-xu” (a.k.a. “Gao Yang”) and Dong-myeong (a.k.a. “Seong-wang”; “Chumo-wang”; “Jumong Hae”).  Those beguiled by this myth treat it as actual history–a flight of fancy that prompts the claim that Korea (and the designated tribe) is well over four millennia old.  Sound familiar?}

{32  How is the term “Israeli” used in modern parlance?  That’s a different story.  The label now pertains to a citizen of the modern nation-State: “Israel” (currently, a theocratic ethno-State).  The appellation uses the same nomenclature as, say, “Azerbaijani” (a citizen of the modern nation-State of “Azerbaijan”) or “Afghani” (a citizen of the modern nation-State of “Afghani-stan”) or “Pakistani” (a citizen of the modern nation-State of “Paki-stan”). Each of those nations encompasses a panoply of ethnicities: Azeri, Talysh, Pashtun, Sindhi, Balochi, Punjabi, etc.  (By contrast, the nationality, “Bangladeshi” indicates a polity that is almost entirely ethnic Bengali.)  So there is a fundamental distinction to be made.  The distinction here is a specification of citizenship (as opposed to being a member of an ethnic group; a.k.a. a tribe).  Yet even “nationality” here can be misleading.  Being a member of “Ahm Yisrael” [“nation of Israel”] is an ethnic demarcation, not a designation of citizenship; whereas “Israeli” is a designation of citizenship, not an ethnic demarcation.  And “Beth Israel” is a RELIGIOUS demarcation, irrespective of race or nationality.  In sum: “Israelis” are a potpourri of ethnicities: Sephardi, Mizra[c]hi, Ashkenazi, Armenian, Samaritan, Muslim Arab, Christian Arab, etc.}

{33  The British Mandate was a travesty in virtually every way.  The Gaza strip was eventually “given” to Egypt, while what later become known as the “West Bank” was “given” to the Hashemite monarchy of Trans-Jordan (who’d been displaced from the Hijaz by the House of Saud).  NEITHER the Egyptians NOR the Jordanians (Arabs themselves) gave a wit about the well-being of this indigenous Arab population (i.e. Palestinians); as they considered Palestinian Arabs to be subalterns—more a hassle than a blessing.  And things degenerated even further from there; as a program of ethnic cleansing proceeded after the Second World War.  In a perverse twist of irony, this “Nakba” was perpetrated by those who’s brethren had just been ethnically cleansed by the Third Reich.  The justification was effectively: “Someone just did it to us; so now we have the right to do it to someone else.”  (See Footnote 35.)  Where once Levantine Arabs were welcomed as fellow citizens under Ottoman rule, they were now dispossessed Arabs in an increasingly Balkanized Arab world.}

{34  When did this alleged “sin” occur?  After they slaughtered all the men, women, and children of Jericho (at god’s behest); and before slaughtering all the men, women, and children of Ai (at god’s behest).  How did Beth Israel sin?  Well, you see, one of the men kept some trinkets and coins—recently seized from the razed city—for himself.  What was the punishment for this transgression?  The man and his entire family were stoned to death (at god’s behest).  It wasn’t the pillaging that was the problem; it was the allocation of spoils.}

{35  For humanists trying to cultivate an understanding of this horrifying phenomenon, there are many worthwhile books on the topic.  For the most prominent, see Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine”, Noura Erakat’s “Justice For Some”, Nur Masalha’s “Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History”, Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War On Palestine”, and anything written on the matter by Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Chris Hedges, Ali Abunimah, or Shlomo Sand.}

{36  Several Biblical names have Aramaic / Assyrian etymologies.  The first man, “Adam” comes from the Aramaic word, “adama”—meaning “from the red ground”.  (This is the same root as “Edom”: Land of Red…later rendered “Idumaea” by the Greco-Romans.)  The first woman, “Eve” comes from the Aramaic word, “hava”—meaning to come alive.  Also note their two sons.  “Cain” is Aramaic for “created one”: “K-Y-N”.  “Ab[e]l” comes from the Assyrian word for “son”: “Ab[e]lu”.}