The Revolt began in 66 CE or thereabouts. It was “the time of Christ”, pretty much.
AFAIAA, pre-Revolt Roman treatment of Jews was not notably better or worse than their treatment of any of the other people they conquered.
The diaspora was initially a result of the Roman suppression of the revolt, not the consequence of some irrational Roman antisemitic bias. Jerusalem was smashed because it rebelled against Rome, not because it was Jewish.
Given that I’ve been talking about classical and medieval history, I thought my understanding of that point was obvious.
History doesnt begin with Rome. Nor was Rome particularly interested in killing us off entirely or eliminating our faith. Nor the Assyrian Greeks, nor the Babylonians (1) nor the Persians. I’ll also go as far as nor Saladin.
And yet, each of those empires subjugated, exiled, mocked or otherwise reduced our self determination, etc.
C.F. Psalm 137 regarding forced exile and mocking of our religion which followed the destruction of the first Temple. The last time I mentioned Ps 137 here a regular member accused me specifically of being a baby killer. Blood libel never gets old!
On if I’m a bastard for not not groveling or if Hertzl was right? Personally I dont see a difference between the two.
Perhaps you are forgetting the exiles and diasporas which pre-dated Rome?
So again, selective application/double standard or are you willing to extend that to most of Europe, all of North Africa, most of North and South America and wide swaths of the Asian continent?
Also how far back do you set that threshold? In the specific case of Israel does the archeological evidence that we’ve been there over 2,500 years not “count”? Or perhaps because another group displaced us after that their newer claim is better? How exactly does it work pray tell?
OTOH if you have a double standard, why not just come out and say so clearly? Plenty of others here are willing to own their double standards, you can too!
To be fair, its not like self-determination was in fashion in those days. The purported elimination of the Canaanites didnt really consider their self-determination much. Me personally Im not sure Joshua really did commit genocide, and that might not have been literally trumpets which brought down Jericho’s walls. But lets not blame the ancients for anti-semitism when really they were just doing what everyone did.
As for Rome, well thats a great subject. Yeah, my reading of Josephus suggests the problem wasnt Rome’s intolerance but Israel not knowing when they were beat. In some respect there is a lesson here for the Gazans. Not that “Flavius” Josephus is an entirely reliable source. That story about taking lots in the cave with the other fanatics suggests he was a totally slippery character (I would have done the same if I had the smarts). But the main point is that there wasn’t one Jewish revolt but three. In the case of revolt number 3, the Roman’s appeared to lose two complete legions. Impressive!!!
But you can hardly be surprised that they decided to totally fuck up the guys who wouldnt lie down. What amazes me is that they didnt take it personally - and they left the sizable Jewish populations in Italy and Greek Asia Minor alone. Otherwise well I guess we wouldnt be having this conversation!
Anyhoo, I was just saying that you are right on the bastard thing. Nobody likes pushy Israelis. When Jews stand up and demand their rights accompanied by the potential use of arms, they experience serious and unreasonable push back.
I meditate on it because I suspect there is something else there in the back of my mind about this. Consider the case where you have say, heavily armed African Americans who start to demand their rights and do it without apology. This development is not going to be welcomed and is not going to be considered attractive. We as humans are tribal. It is always threatening when what is perceived as another tribe is heavily armed and not conciliatory. Its naturally threatening. The other thing, is that demanding ones rights is not really consistent with negotiating, where sometimes both sides have valid points. Let me continue thinking about this. What’s in my head is not coherent.
Finally, with regard to “deserving” a homeland - I dont agree. “Homelands” are not “deserved”. Same as inheritances are not “deserved” - its an orthogonal concept. However you/we have one now and I do not agree with violently moving people. Its done - regardless of right or wrong - and I see no moral way to undo it, were that even to be desirable. Blessings upon Israel, may he/she live in peace with her neighbors.
True, for many in the west there can never be enough Jewish blood spilled. But honestly I think its not just about pushy Israelis. See also the recent kerfuffle about the Women’s March and Farrakhan. Theres plenty who dont like it in western society when we stand up for ourselves. As before, its a problem when we dont “know our place”.
Have you read much about Marcus Garvey? His story is really compelling to me, that here is this contemporary of Hertzl saying the same kind of things and making effort to prepare for repatriation by developing a professional class and so on and so on.
In light of recent news I sometimes finding myself wondering if Marcus Garvey was right after all. But then I soon return to the idealism I was raised on that somehow in the US, there really is a something for everyone. All of us who dont know our place can have our fair share.
Oseh shalom bimromav
Hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu
V’al kol Yisrael
V’imru, v’imru amen.
Its not as entirely bad as the headline would lead you to believe but some of those results are still quite unpleasant. The fact that there are seeming contradictions there is best understood as people are in fact complicated and can hold contradictory ideas in their heads.
Again, the problem isn’t just on Twitter, its not just in the English speaking world.
