It is funny but I think that what you see of me here and on Ornery is who I really am. I tend to just "listen" on Hatrack because much of the discussion tends towards pop culture, or issues that I simply don't follow very closely like movies or current music. In real life if you start talking about this type of stuff, my eyes glaze over and it becomes obvious pretty quickly that I really am not listening too well. I simply don't care about Brittany Spears or whatever happens to be the latest cover-page of People magazine. Mostly however, it is just that I know so little about popular culture that I essentially have nothing to say. People ask who is your favorite actress and I am thinking Greta Garbo or Vivian Lee or some long gone actress instead of the latest starlet that played the blonde bimbo in the latest Hollywood movie. I constantly need to be reminded by my wife who is who in the latest shocking celebrity scandal.
I also tend not to engage much in a large group in real life. I have a huge problem keeping names matched with faces, so often times I need to meet someone several times before it becomes permanently ingrained. Needless to say that is a really embarrassing problem in real life. On Hatrack no one realizes that I even have such a problem. I'm not timid or afraid of large groups of people, it is just that I seldom have anything to say which would be of much interests to anyone else. Unless of course you happen to hit subjects I do know something about.
Bring up Anthropology, history, football, Formula One, or politics and you will wish you hadn't because I'll talk your ear off. But in real life, aside from football, not many people willingly talk about history, anthropology, or even know about Formula One. And politics is simply not polite conversation at a cocktail party.
I think who I am on Hatrack, in real life, and on Ornery are the same person. It hasn't been a deliberate decision to make it that way, but that is how it turned out. In fact in real life, my nickname really was/is Redskull.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Real Space vs. Cyber Space
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Electric Light Orchestra
Zoom was pretty good 2001 release.
There are three different types of ELO songs. The first are the songs where the orchestra tends to be joined by 1950's/60's era rock musical instruments. Try "Roll Over Beethoven". Then there is the pop style songs they do where the format is certainly top 40 radio. The difference is that these songs are also piled on with Jeff Lynn's re-mastering and editing. The result is technically flawless music. Songs like "Mr. Bluesky" or "Bluebird is Dead" represent this type. Think of these songs as a what-if version of what would have happened had the Beatles never broken up, kept making studio concept albums, and left it all to Sir George Martin to splice together. A lot of these ELO songs could have fit in very well on SPLHCB or Yellow Submarine. You know it is ELO but if you were just a bit less musically educated, you could swear ELO is the Beatles.
Some argue that that was intentional on Jeff Lynn's part. The fact that he worked with Ringo and George a lot, and Sir Martin kinda backs that up.
The best songs by ELO are the ones that tend to be long, and a cross between a honky-tonk band and a drunk classical orchestra. "Ma Ma Ma Bell" and "Four Little Diamonds" are good examples. The songs seem unforced like the other two types of ELO songs. Catchy, good playing, and more importantly that they just sound inventive.
ELO vastly better than most admit.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
How to get into College
1. In general, high-school guidance counselors really do not know much about colleges and universities, except for the local and state schools. And possibly their Alma Mater. Take advantage of senior skip days, and in some cases junior skip days set aside explicitly to visit college campus or university facilities. If your child does not get any visitation days officially from his high-school, then write him a note for a medical excuse. I cannot stress enough just how important visiting a campus is. Whether it is simple preference or even finding out glaring differences between reputation and reality, a campus visit with parents-in-tow can be a real eye opener. Try to schedule visits during the Fall or at least when a college is running at full steam with a maxed out student body bustling to and from classes and activities.
Send applications to as many schools as you can, even those where you have very little interest in attending. The reason for this is that going through the application process multiple times will help you key in on what is deemed important universally as far as the college admittance review processes go. Also if you expect to need financial aid, begin the process now. Fill out all the federal forms. It can sometimes take 24 months to adequately complete the process. Private lending processes are somewhat shorter, however their loan costs tend to be higher.
If you envision your child working even part time to help defray tuition costs, and you will need even moderate financial help from federal sources, by all means DO NOT CLAIM YOUR CHILD on either your state or federal income taxes as a dependent after they turn 15. Because of federal and state laws regarding Perkins Loans and Pell Grants, even if a child is fully emancipated from his parents at age 18, if they have been claimed as a dependent by either parent the previous three years, eligibility for federal Student Loans and Grants is determined by parental income and resources instead of the actual resources of the student. After age 24, the Federal Loan and Grant determinations assume any student is solely responsible for his our her tuition costs and they no longer care what the parents make.
This issue repeatedly causes problems for students coming from divorced parents, where one parent claims the child as a dependent, yet the non custodial parent provides financial support. When the child goes to apply for Federal Aid, he assumes only his custodial parent's income will be used to determine eligibility, yet when all is said and done, both parent's household incomes get added together, usually resulting in a denial of aid because it is assumed the incomes of both divorced households can pay for the tuition costs. So if your child is headed to college, and you claimed them as a dependent, and you will need financial aid, help your child get the aid as grants instead of loans, or deferred loans instead of delayed loans. Go back and re-file your previous three years of tax returns without your child as a dependent, and have them re-file theirs as individuals, claiming themselves. The difference to your eventual cost can be staggering if you follow this advice.
2. You go to a liberal arts or university to do one thing; LEARN HOW TO LEARN. You go to junior colleges and technical schools to learn specific skill sets or trades. It is a big difference. If you go to college expecting it to simply be a punch card process where you go for 4 years and then graduate to an office cubicle or other such guaranteed job, then you are going for the wrong reasons.
3. My personal advice? Take Latin in high-school or Advanced Trigonometry, but not both. If you are more attuned to vocabulary than arithmetic, then you would take the Latin. And if the reverse is true, take Trig. Realize that an extremely good score on one half of the SAT can buoy up a mediocre score on the other. As to the optional written test, it isn't optional. Get "The Elements of Style" by White
4. Financial aid, see point 1 above. But I cannot stress enough that if you plan or expect to need any grants or loans at all during their education process, IMMEDIATELY CEASE claiming them as a dependent. MAKE SURE THE FILE A TAX RETURN. Your goal is to be able to prove by Federal Financial Aid standards that your child was and is fully emancipated from your support. This means they handle what limited financial income they have had independently from yours. That you have allowed them to claim themselves for their own tax purposes. If you follow my advice, even if you find that you have to pay a difference in taxes paid by re-filing previous years, you will still be more likely to get full grants. IE. Your child fully emancipated financially from you would likely get the full Pell Grant, vs your child as a tax deduction for you, while he gets a minimal Pell Grant or none at all. Sure you get $2000 by claiming him as your dependent, but by doing so you totally screw yourself out of enabling him to get $7000.00 in Pell Grants a year.
5. Scholarships often get tied to what school he attends. Aside from an athletic or an artistic performance scholarship, most scholarships that are merit based will become apparent once they are already students. Needs based scholarships are usually made part of the offered financial aid package. You don't need to waste time surfing the Internet for secret scholarships devoted to Irish left-handed dyslexics. If you are going to get a performance based scholarship, the colleges will come to you with the offer. If once you are at college, you decided to go after a scholarship, your department professor or such will be more than willing to make you aware of their existence. To be honest, on most mid-sized college's quads, you will often see flyers advertising scholarships all the time.
6. Course-load. Take the number of classes that everyone else does per semester once you are in college. And for your freshman year NEVER take the Freshman Trifecta 101 English, 101 Math, 101 Biology/Chemistry/Physics. These are weeder classes. Taken in combination they can be deadly. Take instead the first 2 semesters or quarters any 100-300 level class that sounds interesting to you. Ignore what your academic advisors say the first few semesters. They see every freshman as a variable to be plugged into a pre-determined road-mapped formula. Part of their perspective is that they should encourage weak students to bow out of college quickly. Therefore they hit freshmen up with a couple of quarters of trifecta, resulting in many students giving up and going home.
As for high school, well that depends on if you have any flexibility at all in the coursework. Often the choice is between college bound vs not college bound. If you are college bound you take X number of English, X number of Math etc. It pretty much leaves you very little free space. In terms of A.P. coursework, some colleges acknowledge them with full credit, some allow you to substitute them for pre-requisites, and a growing number are offering nothing at all for your A.P. work other than a check mark on the application process. In general, take the hardest courses offered from the teachers everyone thinks is the hardest. If all his friends are taking a really popular, yet easy course with the favorite teacher, see if there is a harder course taught by a teacher everyone else fears because she rides students into the dirt.
My popular teachers in high-school I can no longer remember, but my Latin and AP History teachers still appear in my nightmares.
7. Remain UNDECLARED for at least 1 year. What 18/19 year old kid really has a clue as to what interests them enough to last the remainder of their life? It could take a couple of years to even figure it out. Make the process organic. Take what interests you first to see if you really like it. Only then get on a pre-determined Major field of study.
Other advice.
Choose schools suited to your child's learning style. If he is not quite ready for the freshman class that numbers in the thousands and has classrooms taking place in huge auditoriums featuring lectures by desktop video, then by all means do not encourage him to go to the state polytechnic university with a student body of 50,000. Whatever school he goes to, ask the admissions office for alumni contacts so that he can interview people who went there. Ideally once he has finalized what school he can afford financially and academically, the best addition to an application is a letter of introduction written by an alumni from his target school.
Leia Mais…Friday, June 2, 2006
Replacing a Computer
Well my two pennies worth. I can concur on the Compaq=dirt evaluation. It was my wife's Compaq Presario laptop that finally solidified that opinion. It cost around $2000.00 in 1999/2000? I cant remember when she bought it exactly. It popped keys, crashed repeatedly and simply couldn't do much of anything except run AOL. And it didn't do that too good either. I got so sick of having to reinstall her software with recovery disks that I switched it to Windows 2000. It became stable after that, but it never really let her do what she wanted to, when she wanted to, and how she wanted to. When the keyboard finally went totally bonkers on it she decided to go out and buy a new one.
In spite of the fact that I ran several Windows 2000 custom desktops and laptops, I suggested she buy an Apple because I had always found them to be the most bang for the buck, if you could afford the initial cost. She decided on a G3 iBook an also snagged one of the 10 gig iPods early 2003. She has ever again had to ask me a computer related question and the iPod is still functioning flawlessly long after the predicted end of life for the battery.
The only issue she ever had was the logic board went out. But it was part of a manufacturing defect. Apple provided DHL shipping to and from our front door with a three day turn around. The repair and shipping were completely free.
I returned to the Apple fold tepidly with a purchase of a 1 gig iPod Shuffle. I had forgotten just how well designed Apple products were. Then over the past few months I began relegating my Windows systems to the trash heap. The final straw was when a mirrored drive set completely crashed without any warning, taking with it both the original and backups of all my personal correspondence going back to 1998. Let us just say having not one but three drives burn out at the exact same time left a bad taste in my mouth. Having worked on Windows systems for years I was sill amazed at how total the crash was.
Anyway my wife told me she would buy me a computer on one condition. I had to get rid of all my white-box systems and my laptops. They currently sit in huge pile in the corner of my office.
I could have gotten a G5 Dual Processor tower system. But I thought it was a bit foolish since I really will only be using a computer for the next few years for personal use instead of work. So I came down to earth and decided to go for something simple. I decided on a Mac Mini and was leaning towards an Intel Duo system. But a few things held me back. One was the cost is pretty steep considering it is Apple's first venture into the world of Intel. Second was the price differential between the old Mac Mini, the Intel Solo, and the Intel Duo systems. Its hard for me to admit it, but at this point in my life I am definitely unable to justify being a power geek computer user.
So I decided I'd just get a Mac Mini G4 system. Luck would have it that Costo has a huge consignment of Mac Mini G4 systems in bundle packages that include the computer and Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, as well as a three year Applecare extended warranty. I bought a really nice flat panel monitor to go with it as well. All told, the bill was just south of $700 tax included. I have to say getting used to using a Apple computer took all of 30 seconds after having not used one on a regular basis in years. Its also so darn cool sitting on my desk. What once was a wall of Windows computers and a nest of cables is now a vast open space where I can put a footstool and stretch my legs out. Plus I can type from anywhere in my office, or even in an entirely different room.
Considering that the rest of our family has been on the "buy a system every three years because the last one simply becomes too overwhelmed with viruses or incapable of upgrade" plan and spends an average of $1200 a pop on each one, our costs associated with the iBook and now the Mac Mini have been a bargain. I miss having a secondary context button on my mouse, but seeing as I don't have to spend half my time inspecting property pages of programs anymore, it really isn't a major complaint on my part.
As to Dells, "you get what you pay for" has never been a more valid statement. If you are a corporation buying high end Dell custom built systems, you seem to do OK. But if I was smart and had charged a fee for every single Dell system I have had to repair, instead of just normal on site charges, I would be a rich man. And as for HP's the blade servers and Proliant systems seem to be fine. But as you drop down into the more consumer grade systems they kinda turn out to be slightly more expensive Dells.
If it were me, I'd get a Mac mini. If that was too costly, Id check out a local independent computer builder and see what he could build as a custom system based on your budget. I'd go with a Dell or HP as a last resort.
Then again there is always Ebay. I just saw a G3 iBook with OS X Panther installed going for $39 bucks. It comes with everything it is supposed to except the power cable/recharger pack. Having more than a few dogs around, I have had to buy more than a few Apple iBook power cables. They were running for $109.00 at CompUSA a year ago. So it is possible that you could equip yourself with a very nice system for under $200.00. Then again I have an unnatural distrust of Ebay so take it for what its worth.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Roman & Jewish Politics
Two thousand years ago, the Senate and the People of Rome commanded general Titus who would soon become emperor to reduce the rebellious client kingdom of Judea to include destroying the Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple, which had been rebuilt in 516 B.C. following the conquest twenty years after Cyrus of Babylon, was reduced to ashes and left in the condition we see it in today. What is important to note about this event is that Roman handling of the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem was an incomplete resolution unique among those peoples the Romans conquered. Titus, fresh from his victory in Jerusalem, returned triumphant to Rome and became an Emperor, and did not see to the final subjugations that normally followed the crushing of a vassal state. Surely many Jews were sent to die fighting gladiatorial deaths in Caesarea, or languish in the mines of the Sinai, but for the most part, the Jews were left to their own devices, limited only by edicts against practicing their religion overtly in public. Unlike most people conquered by Rome, there was not the systematic disintegration of the Jewish culture and society that would erase both their cultural identity and cohesion as an ethnic group.
It would be a harsh judgment against Rome to place sole responsibility for an historical act, which reached through history to dog modern times. Cyrus and his subjugation had resulted in the first dispersal of Jews to ancient metropolitan centers. These outposts of Jewish culture served as havens for Jews in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s conquest after the rebellion of 66 A.D. Unlike most ancient people conquered by Rome, the Jews had far flung places to escape to continue their culture. Moreover, from a Roman perspective, the less Jews in Judea, regardless of why, was simply better to administrate. By the time of the last revolt against Rome in 115 A.D., far more Jews lived outside the province’s borders than those who were rebelling against Rome did. Following the last Jewish revolt, so few Jews were left in the decimated province that the Roman administrators tried to put a fresh face on the problematic province by renaming it Syria Palestina and expand the administrative boundaries that reduced the Jews to a minority in their own lands.
After 115 A.D., Jews found themselves in a position of strange equilibrium in the Roman state. Outside of their ancestral lands, Jewish communities held political and economic influence that assured them the freedom to continue their cultural identity. Inside Syria Palestina, they were a mere footnote to the concerns of the Roman administrators. Lacking the economic and political influence needed to behave independent of Roman control, the Jews in their homeland found themselves reduced to being allowed to approach the former site of the Temple only on the anniversary of its destruction. Otherwise, Roman administrators had no further concerns about the Jews living in the province. What the Jews remaining in the homeland were able to do is exert a profound control of the religious life of the Jewish people worldwide. Talmudic interpretations and teachings all originated in Jerusalem’s Jewish community. Exporting religious dogma to the far-flung centers of the Roman Empire, the religious leadership in Jerusalem provided the far-flung members of their culture with a guidance, which did not necessitate the need for a secular state. While Jerusalem remained a strong center of importance for acts of faith, the dispersed Jewish culture uniquely divorced itself from the need to share a centralized geography centered on Jerusalem and the former boundaries of the ancient Jewish kingdoms. By removing political power from the Jews and providing a peaceful cosmopolitan secular environment, the Romans had in effect allowed the Jews to flourish in spite of the fact that they were now officially a conquered and stateless people.
Jewish political power would continue in this manner far after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire. Strong in places such as Spain, Greece and Babylon, weak in the ancestral homeland. Even the conquest by the Muslims in the 700’s of much of the former Roman lands did little to change Jewish life. The official governments that the Jews lived under changed, but their cultural identity continued to flourish secularly, and the flow of religious intangibles from Jerusalem continued unabated. For hundreds of years, the Jewish worldview was one, which did not require a homeland. Because their homeland existed more as an ideal of faith, bolstered by the fact that the Jews who had remained in Jerusalem provided the religious faithful with an imperative which focused on the long view of fully controlling Jerusalem and rebuilding the Temple, the urgency for Jews to return from far flung geographies did not exist.
As the centuries passed, Jews would suffer localized pogroms and expulsions. Nevertheless, through it all, many more Jews prospered than declined. By the time of the Twentieth century, Jews in many parts of the world had begun to self identify themselves as being dual citizens. The first was being a citizen of the secular nation and countrymen they existed with, and the second was a trans-national identity as a Jew. Events of the century would eventually challenge this modern Jewish perspective.
While Christianity and Islam had at times attacked Judaism, by the start of the Twentieth Century, most Jews found themselves in a world, which largely tolerated the cultural and religious practices of Jews. The rise of modern secular politics and statecraft however would place the historical pattern of Jewish life since Roman conquest into question. Nationalism in Europe would finally place the existence of Jews as a cohesive culture dispersed throughout many nations into the question of political loyalties. How could a Jewish community be considered loyal to a national identity when they still also held a trans-national identity focused on a city and a long lost Temple? Nationalist began taking the ancient Jewish phrase, “Next year, Jerusalem!” as evidence of an inherent disloyalty. Czarist Russia and Eastern Europe states resorted to the time honored practices of pogroms and deportations. However, even Western European states began to take actions against Jews. Episodes such as the French Dreyfus case had become an increasingly more common event. The frequency became so pronounced that faced with pogroms in the east, and governmentally sanctioned discrimination in the west, many Jews began asking the valid question of whether it was time for Jews to not only hold Jerusalem as its spiritual homeland, but also the secular homeland for all Jews.
Theodor Herzel convened a Jewish congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. The aftermath of the conference was that the congress declared that Jews should begin to adopt the policy of Zionism. Zionism was officially declared to “... establish for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine.” What Zionism was was simply monumental. After 1837 years, some Jews had placed into question the strategy of dispersal, which had served them so well since the Roman conquest. The contention was that the world, having become less tolerant of Jews, could not be depended on to not engage in Thirteenth century reactions such as pogroms. If the dawn of the Twentieth century still was an environment ripe for such actions against Jews, only a modern Jewish secular state could shield the Jewish people from deprecations by non-Jews.
Not surprisingly, Jews around the world responded to the 1897 declaration with ambivalence. From an historical perspective, Jews looked at the world and by comparative judgment found that while deprecations against Jews still happened, it paled in scope and ferocity. The post Roman conquest strategy of secular and economic integration with independent religious identity seemed to still offer the best survival strategy for the Jewish culture and people. In an age of ultra-nationalism, Zionism was quickly identified by both many Jews and non-Jews as reactionary and extreme. Zionism would require the Jewish peoples from around the world to return to a land that was lacking in almost all respects. While many Jews said “Next year, Jerusalem!” aloud, most silently added “God forbid!” The very idea of returning to their ancestral homeland was also looked down upon by the Jews who already lived there. If all the Jews returned to Jerusalem, the poverty of the land would be magnified to such an extent that no one could possibly survive.
Unlike the other ancient peoples of the world conquered by Rome, the Jews had managed to do the unthinkable. Instead of advancing as a military force, they had invaded Rome and its far-flung provinces with thousands of independent communities, which excelled at exploiting the relative freedom that resulted from the Pax Romanum and maintain an unique cultural cohesion. Maintaining a separate cultural identity encamped in multiple geographies had enabled Jews to weather any temporary storm. To adopt Zionism seemed to offer a path that would result in such a weak country that hostile acts against Jews would affect all the Jews because they had foolishly chosen to concentrate in one spot on the globe. Zionism’s goals seemed incompatible with reality because it seemingly would result in the creation of an impoverished people and abandon the survival strategy, which had assured Jews a reasonable protection against mass hostility.
By the start of World War I, Jews were finding it increasingly difficult to balance their secular loyalties to their individual nation states, while still embracing the Jewish culture and religious identity. For some, especially those in the Western democracies, being Jewish mattered only when they were in their synagogue. However, once the war broke out, being Jewish could have unforeseen consequences. Most armies had either written regulations or unwritten practices, which prohibited Jews from equally serving their countries. While other religious faiths found no boundaries to contributing to the war efforts, Jews were often barred from service, or so restricted in performance of their service that the end result was that a Jew was seen first as a potential traitor to a Jewish conspiracy, and only secondly as a potential countryman. Modern warfare had brought to the forefront the issue of Jewish loyalty in a way that nationalism had only hinted at previously. Cheated of rank and right to advancement, many Jews in the conflict began to question their own loyalties with good reason. Many Jews realized that their countrymen determined Jewish loyalty and patriotism solely by whether the Jew in question was alive or dead. A living Jew was suspected. A dead Jew in a trench had proven with a bullet his patriotism.
While it is hard for many people today to recognize the importance of nationalism and self-identity concepts during the First World War, the post war impact on Zionism was immense. Jews had recognized that across the trench lines of combat, they had in effect committed fratricide against their religious brethren. For a culture and society, which had always maintained the primacy of their religious self-identity, this was a troubling sacrilege. A worse indignity was the realization that not only did your fellow countrymen distrust you while in the trenches or working at a factory for the national cause, they were very likely to distrust your national patriotism and your true intentions. For the Allies, Jews were war mongerers responsible for the set backs they suffered at the hands of the Central Powers. For Czarist Russia, the blame was placed on the Bolshevik and Jewish menace. For the fall of Palestine, the Ottomans blamed the Jews. For the humiliation of the Armistice, the Germans blamed Jewish junior officers failing Prussian generals. The collapse of Austro-Hungary was blamed in part on Jewish advisers and bankers. The obvious trend to any Jew was that if there was some sort of national setback, Jews were likely scapegoats. Moreover, despite facts and reality, non-Jews thought such conspiracies at best possible and at worst Zionism writ large.
Zionism’s cause was given a huge boost to legitimacy by the United Kingdom’s Balfour Declaration in 1917, and the establishment of the British Mandate in the Trans-Jordan. In it’s most important part the Balfour Declaration made it official Imperial policy to establish “... a National Home for the Jewish people...” and that this new National Home would be created “... in Palestine...” and this is where the question of ownership of the Trans-Jordan and Palestine in particular became a modern concern. What had been viewed justly as a wasteland inhabited by a mongrel mix of descendants of various occupiers and die hard Jews now became important because it now had the potential of becoming the secular nation for all Jews.
Post war popular opinion among Jews about their security living dispersed across many nations, Zionism’s stated purpose, and Imperial Britain’s declaration of a favorable policy concerning Jews leads to a radical change of heart. Jews began to return to Jerusalem. Between 1929-1935, the British Administration gave legal permits to 159,820 Jews. By some accounts between 1918 and 1929, both legal and undocumented Jewish immigration had been as high as 800,000 people. Whatever the actual number, it was significant for two reasons. First, it was significant because it provided tangible evidence that Zionism’s stated goal was in harmony with modern Jewish actions. People were voting with their feet in a substantial way. The second reason for significance is that the sudden return of the Jews took non-Jews living in the Trans-Jordan by surprise.
For want of a better phrase, “Who do these Jews think they are?” probably sums up the non-Jewish inhabitant’s thoughts of the immigrants now flooding British Mandate. While the Jews had always been a large number of the overall population, they had always been the minority group that had no political potential, let alone economic. The Jews that lived in Palestine were just as impoverished as everyone else and seemed more preoccupied with the spiritual rather than the temporal realms of politics and economics. Having been washed in an impressive series of tides of war, the only constant of the region that could be depended on was the Jews weathering whomever the latest occupier was while they went about keeping largely to themselves and dreaming of a rebuilt Temple. This might strike the reader as a trite statement, but the reality is that although most Jews lived outside their ancestral homeland, Jews as a minority had maintained a presence in their homeland, which survived while all other groups, which tried to occupy Palestine, faded away to obscurity. For further consideration, refer to the following list;
135 A.D. Romans citizens were given the lion’s share of the Jewish lands.
330 A.D. Byzantine Christians were given the Latin Roman’s lands.
614 A.D. Persians briefly took the lands from the Byzantine Christians.
628 A.D. Byzantine Christian Heretics took the lands back from Persians.
636 A.D. Moslems from the Arabian Peninsula took the lands.
661 A.D. Umayyads from Syria took it from the Arabian Moslems.
750 A.D. Abbasids, ethnic Persians from Baghdad take over, occasionally loosing control off and on until 1258 A.D.
868 -969 A.D. Tulunids from Syria & Ikhshids from Egypt swap control with the Abbasids.
969-1171 A.D. Fatimids from first Egypt, and then Tunisia wrangle with the Abbasids.
1171-1250 A.D. Ayyubid Syrians and Khurds wrangle with the near terminal Abbasid Persians for control.
1250-1517 A.D. Turkish Bahri pretty much strangle the other ethnic groups and keep it until their decedents loose it in 1918 to Great Britain.
Also, consider this list of occupiers who were less successful but still managed to claim part of Palestine for a time;
1055-1092 A.D. Seljuk Turks held some of the land while fighting both the Abbasids and Fatimids.
1097-1291 A.D. Crusaders from Catholic Europe, including English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian etc.
1258 A.D. Mongolian Tartars swept through destroying anything Abbasidian in nature, but left the Jews alone.
1402 A.D. Tamerlane’s Mongols swept through and like their cousins, destroyed anything related to the Turkish Bahri, but left the Jews alone.
Not counting the various European nationalities that had occupied Palestine; at least seventeen different ethnic groups had wrangled over the Palestinian land for 1884 years, yet not one had managed to exert any kind of parlance in terms of social continuity. The exception of course being the Jews. When the British government attempted to conduct a census in 1936 to figure out who was who and where they were, they were faced with an impossible task. The Jews in the region were easy to census and were estimated at 600,000. The Christians, although self-identifying as Roman Catholic, Byzantine, Coptic, and Ethiopian and even further differentiated by national origin, were lumped together and amounted to 150,000. When the British began to census, the adherents to Islam the frustration only grew. Faced with large sects of Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi adherents, not to mention a score of other obscure sects of Islam such as Wahhabism, and national origins from every single Islamic land, the administrators declared anyone who was Islamic living in the Palestinian mandate to be a Palestinian. Having lumped them all together, the British found they had 1,090,000 copies of the newly coined nationality. To further complicate matters they found themselves having to figure out what to do with an additional 15,000 people who claimed no religious affiliation. One can sense the British frustration, which resulted in these non-religious people also being declared to be Palestinians.
The census was part of an attempt by the government to figure out how to create an ethnically segregated and administered federal system for Palestine. The problem was that the overly simplified results of their census ignored the fact that far from being a monolithic block of citizens with common cause, the so-called “Palestinian” simply did not exist. When realistically broken down along religious factions and national origins, the Palestinian majority was in fact a series of ideologically different groups geographically scattered across the mandate that shared almost no common interest. What had been created by the stroke of a pen was a coalition of minorities masquerading as a super-majority of the population. The British were faced with the reality that while Jews had been dismissed for centuries as a minority in their ancestral homeland, they really represented the single largest cultural, ethnic, and religious group. Moreover, unlike their neighbors, the Jews were a cohesive group, well concentrated across Palestine’s geography, and shared common political, cultural, and economic goals.
By having presumed that the Jews were a minority, the British had found it initially easy to allow Jewish immigration in 1918. In fact they had promoted it and increased the allowed yearly quota substantially as the years passed. It had never occurred to them that Jews, though numerically a minority on paper, were actually a majority in function due to their social cohesion. While non-Jewish immigration quotas far surpassed the Jewish quota, the non-Jewish immigrants represented more than thirty other cultural and ethnic groups with little if any common interests. An immigrant from Syria for example would already be dissimilar to one from Tunisia in secular terms, not to mention possible differences in theology. This dissimilitude made the idea of a federalized Palestine unworkable. The Jews were everywhere, in strong-networked communities across the entire Palestine Mandate. The so-called Palestinians were sporadically concentrated; divided by ethnic origins, cultures, and language; and further distanced from each other due to religious beliefs. Having opened the floodgates to Jews at only a trickle compared to the allowed immigration of non-Jews into the Palestinian mandate, the actual impact of the Jewish immigration was as if a dike had burst during a flood.
While many historians debate the conduct of Great Britain during its administration of the Trans-Jordan in general, and Palestine in particular, the only lasting shortcoming the British exhibited in my estimation was not facing the reality that their census confirmed in 1936 what should have been obvious to anyone walking around Palestine. Palestine was Jewish, and had always been. Creating a federal state would have required the extraction of Jews to artificially create zones for the non-Jews exclusive rights, and that the zones would have had to have been further divided to take into account the thirty odd combinations of ethnic, cultural and religious affiliations of the non-Jews. They privately realized this, yet publicly continued to pursue the policy of federalized equality.
Having nothing in common, appeals to “Arab” and “Islamic” leadership to be part of the process were doomed to failure. The British found themselves often-inviting Jewish leaders and the “Palestinian” leaders to conferences, only to have the Jews simply send a letter stating Palestine already is a Jewish state, while no “Palestinian” leadership even appeared or said anything at all. English dogged determinism probably allowed them to ignore the pre-existing reality of Jewish presence in Palestine and ignore the obvious lack of a Palestinian leadership because Palestinian people were an artificial English creation that simplified a census report. It was in bad faith that Britain conducted a policy it knew could not bear fruit during the interim years between the World Wars. The Jews were not about to accept a federal system, which would require their forced removal. In addition, the Palestinians, being an artificial pen-stroke, had neither the cohesion to produce a central leadership nor the common cause to believe a federal system was even possible. About the only thing the non-Jews could agree on was that the Jews were not to be allowed to immigrate, and that the non-Jews would not have to deal with a created, independent Jewish state. The United Kingdom basically ignored the whole issue by dictating it’s famous series of White Papers, each one even more disagreeable than its predecessor as far as Jew and non-Jew alike was concerned.
The United Kingdom probably could have continued its process of unilateral declarations and un-attended conferences aimed at solving what to do with Palestine for decades. However, ultra-nationalism, a World War, a genocide of proportions unimagined, and a post war aggression against what was left of Europe’s Jews all conspired to compress a process that might have lasted for decades into events that snowballed into a handful of years. The post World War II situation in Europe was one of particular devastation for Jews. The horror of the Genocide by the Nazis, the Soviet purges of Jews during and after the war, and the inexplicable reactions of countless towns across Europe, which were expelling what Jews remained, created an environment of refugees unable to find any relief.
The United Kingdom, warn out from six years of global combat, still found itself dealing with the problematic inheritance of 1918. Palestine and the White Paper solution unilaterally declared by the British could not have been more distorted reflections of each other. Perhaps many decades of British administration of the Palestinian Mandate might have resulted in the development of a true Palestinian identity mature enough to enter into a dual federal state with the Jews. However, the harsh reality of hundreds of thousands of Jews with refugee status in Europe placed statehood for Jews at the forefront of Zionist political diplomatic efforts. The Biltmore Declaration by Zionist activists in the United States, President Trumann’s call for the United Kingdom to allow 100,000 Jews to immigrate, and the British final federal plan being declared dead on arrival by the British themselves meant that the impetus for a Jewish state achieved a critical mass among the Jews to return to Palestine.
The results of the United Kingdom returning the responsibility for the Palestine Mandate to the League of Nations’ successor, The United Nations, opened a window of opportunity for Zionists both inside and outside Palestine to make their own political choices for the first time in nearly 2000 years. British indifference and its concerns with other Commonwealth nations created a power vacuum. Palestinian leadership was still in its infancy and was no credible force that might prevent the formation of a Jewish state, or even prevent the change of the status quo. The influx of European Jews, with their economic resources, education, and commitment to forging a secular state for Jews overwhelmed any last ditch diplomatic moves made by either the departing United Kingdom nor the still infant United Nations. By 1948, the Jews declared the statehood of Israel.
Since Israeli actions are currently offered in historical perspective nightly on cable and network news, let alone the reams of paper that are currently devoted to discussions about Israel, the author of this paper will allow the reader to find out the historical events which soon followed. What interests this author is the reality of the Jews having shrugged off nearly 2000 years of political behavior and shed the Roman solution for a permanent nation state. Closely associated with that is the reality of the Palestinian people as refugees unwilling or unable to grasp statehood.
To say that the creation of Israel was a monumental turning point in the Jewish world is still an understatement. For a people to avoid having a nation state to call their own and still exist for so long a period of time is virtually unheard of. Other nomadic peoples had existed without a geographically ridged notion of nation state. However, they had also never approached the cultural developments or success of the stateless Jews. Mongols, Goths and Huns may have made a splash on the histories of other nations, but all faded to nothing. The abandonment by Jews of their unique strategy for cultural survival and sudden reversal of centuries of habit makes the creation of Israel spectacular.
The post war lethargy of the United Kingdom and desperate conditions of Jews outside of Palestine are the most readily apparent causes for the Jewish change in political tendencies. What is more important however is the fact that the Jews were already in Palestine long before any Palestine Mandate was created by a pen stroke. There was no other place on earth where a Jewish state could have been created. Simply put, there was no other place available where Jewish culture was already as prevalent and already practiced, that also had the resources available to absorb the return of the Diaspora. Zionist goals became reality in Palestine only because the Jewish cultural traditions had never forgotten where the people had come from, and it had always maintained a close association with the Jews who had never left Palestine. By remembering the dual facts that Jews had once all lived in Palestine and that some had kept the candle lit by remaining behind, the recreation of a Jewish state was possible. Had their ancestral origins become mythic or had the remaining Jews of Palestine been exterminated by one of the many military invasions of Palestine, even the calamities visited on the Jews during World War II probably could not have compelled Jews to abandon the Roman strategy of survival. However, unlike the past when the land’s limitations had been seemingly insurmountable, having immigrant Jews with high levels of education, economic resources, and improved technological abilities from Europe made the creation of an independent Jewish state plausible.
The nation of Israel was a plausible solution from a Jewish perspective because it had endured ex-corporal as a nation removed from Palestine, but left a ready-made skeleton behind in Palestine. This is why the traditionally reluctant Jews adopted the Zionist goals as their own. Zionism, as a radical ultra nationalistic movement had been seen by most Jews as too radical just a generation before. However, the new generation was able to flesh out the skeleton in Palestine because the concept of return was as strong as it had always been and still repudiate the ultra nationalistic Zionism that had moved beyond the original goals of 1897. The Jews recognized the logic of Zionism concerning nationhood yet also saw the obvious, Palestine was already Jewish. Israel came to reflect Jewish cultural history rather than the radical Zionist policies, which were reactionary and viewed the whole world as enemies. Had there not been an immediate war conducted by contingents of every single Islamic nation against the new nation of Israel, Zionism very likely would have died in 1948. Instead, Islamic forces, both internal and external contributed to the continuation of some of the worst aspects of Zionism resulting in a polarization of Jewish opinion both inside and outside Israel’s borders immediately following the creation of the state.
This polarization of Jewish modern thought is also reflected in the aftermath of 1948 on the non-Jewish population of Palestine. Throughout this paper, there has been an emphasis on the concept that outside the Jewish population of Palestine, there have been waves of peoples who have come to Palestine and ultimately vanished as an identifiable group. The British census of 1936 was provided as the definitive reality concerning who lived in Palestine before the creation of Israel. But for the frustration of British Administrator’s pen, “Palestinian” had no meaning as a defining term for the population. The only qualification to be declared “Palestinian” was to not be a Jew. Before 1948, “Palestinian” was meaningless. Israel’s formal declaration of nationhood and the resultant attack by the Islamic states hardened Jewish resolve for political independence while also having unintended results for the non-Jews of the now truncated Palestine Mandate.
Jewish political development after the statehood declaration was faced with a reality of aggression by Islamic nations. It is not surprising that Zionism, and its contention that the world was set on destruction of the Jews, gained some legitimacy beyond the idea of a secular Jewish state. Specific concessions and adoption of militancy and distrust of non-Jews were some examples immediately after the state was founded. While it could be argued that Zionism was adopted simply due to the environment of politics and military aggression against Israel, the mainstream adoption of Zionism as state policy would complicate Israel’s interactions with its neighbors. The chief complication was the view by non-Jews that Israeli political goals were ultra national and embraced the militaristic components of Zionism.
The non-Jews of Palestine were exhorted both inside and outside Palestine to support the destruction of the Jewish state. Having had little in common except the desire to prevent any Jewish state from being created, this appeal was largely supported. Expecting the combined Islamic forces to easily destroy the Israeli military and liquidate the infant Jewish government, many non-Jews removed themselves from the battle zone. The crushing defeats of the Islamic forces suddenly left hundreds of thousands of non-Jews with refugee status. The defeats of the Islamic forces were explained to be the result of careful Zionist plans after decades of British collusion. However, the most surprising outcome of the creation of Israel was that the non-Jews of Palestine were disowned by the Islamic governments. Having done what they had been asked to do by their erstwhile liberators, the Palestinian peoples found themselves left holding an empty bag of unfulfilled promises.
The non-Jews found themselves between two hostile forces. On the one hand, they faced Israel and the defacto Zionism that was helping shape the new nation. On the other hand, the non-Jews found themselves blockaded from entrance into the neighboring Islamic countries. What was worse was the Islamic governments denying some refugees from even returning to lands still controlled by Islamic forces in the former Palestine Mandate. The appeals for the elimination of the Jewish state by the refugees were deflected by the Islamic governments that were unwilling to risk another defeat. Having called for non-Jews to clear the battlefield, they Islamic governments refused responsibility for the refugees. What had been created was a class of people not able to return to their native lands due to the existence of Israel and the Islamic governments that had attacked Israel.
Until 1948, the term Palestinian had been an empty descriptor, but now the refugees were legitimizing the use of the term. Denied emigration into the lands now controlled by Israel, nor into the lands still controlled by Israel’s neighbors, the refugees began using the term Palestinian to identify themselves. The refugees found that their stateless situation required at the very least a political identification. Palestinian interests chiefly concerned themselves with the Right of Return to their abandoned homes, and a repudiation of the Israeli state. Like the Jews hundreds of years before, the Palestinian, people found themselves disposed by a military force. The interesting development is that the Palestinian political development resulted in the growth of an actual cultural system.
The Palestinian refugees, like their Jewish predecessors, had no political power over their territorial situation. They also had a problem combating Israeli control of religious sites holy to other religions. The access to Islamic sites, as well as the Christian sites in Jerusalem was completely permitted by the Israeli government. This removed the religious component of a cause for action against the Israeli state. The radical improvement and development of the lands and resources of Israel also flew in the face Palestinian claims that the now occupied lands had worth only to Palestinians since the land was impoverished and resource less. Like the census of 1936, the Palestinian identity was still artificial because the identification was still an exclusionary term. If you were a Palestinian, you were not a Jew and were a refugee isolated in encampments bordering the battle lines between Israel and its aggressive neighbors. What was needed was an alternative focus to galvanize the refugees.
The focus turns out to be anti-Zionism. The attacks by Islamic nations against Israel would repeatedly reinforce this focus. On the Israeli side, each act of Islamic aggression would reinforce Zionism as a motive factor in Israeli governmental actions. For the Palestinians, each Israeli success created evidence of worldwide conspiracy. Zionism was responsible for the support of Israel economically and politically. Zionism was responsible for the inexplicable defeats of the Islamic forces. Zionism was responsible for the unwillingness of Islamic states to support the refugees in their demands for settling alternate lands until the ultimate Islamic victory. Without Zionism to act as glue to focus the Palestinian cohesion, the Palestinians would have eventually been dispersed by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. Nevertheless, by using anti-Zionism as its reason for identification, the Palestinians became a solidified and culturally distinct people.
This brings us back to the Roman solution of Jewish survival. Eighteen centuries of habit are hard to overcome. The decline of Islamic military aggression since the 1970’s has also removed the impact of Zionism as a motive force in Israel’s political process. The original goal of Zionism, the creation of Israel, has been met. Now, the need for an exclusively Jewish state for all Jews has become less strong. Jewish communities worldwide have a level of security unthinkable even fifty years ago. Zionism in terms of being a radical Jewish universal goal has again become what it was at the start of the Twentieth century, a splinter movement among radicals. Jews worldwide have accepted the Israeli state, but feel no particular compulsion to return. Having achieved Zionism’s goal, Jews in the remainder of the world have again reverted to the Roman solution. An Israeli Jew is as much a dual national as an American Jew or a French Jew. The importance of Zionism now only matters to the Palestinians.
Having conquered by force multiple territories of the former Palestinian Mandate from Islamic nations, Israel finds itself not needing them for two reasons. The first reason is that the Israeli state does not have to deal with waves of immigrants seeking to fulfill Zionism’s original goal. Secondly, having the continued existence of an impoverished refugee nation on its borders threatens the stability and safety of Israel. If the Jewish population worldwide had not begun to again adopt the Roman solution, the idea of giving back Palestinian territories would not be feasible. Moreover, far from being a benefit to Israel, the perception of Zionism is actually now a threat because it has emboldened radical elements among Palestinians.
Palestinian demands for statehood and Right of Return have been at the forefront of their demands for decades. Just as the British found a federal solution unfeasible in the 1930’s and 1940’s, the artificial solution of a federated state is still unworkable today. The political leadership of the Palestinians recognizes this, but has been unable to compromise on these two issues because it is one of the few reasons for their political power. Further evidence of this problem is the existence of the proxy aggression of the Islamic world through radical Palestinian groups. Even in the most idealistic and perfect environment, the Palestinian demands could not be met. What the Palestinian leadership is left with is a falsehood to champion and Zionism to blame. It has also left Israel holding on to more than it can handle, since having held on to the captured territories it has provided an excuse for Palestinian aggression and intransigence.
If the Jews of the world were still returning enmass to Israel, the state of Israel could justify its continued holding of the territory because the augmentation of its population would outweigh the aggressions of the Palestinians. The territorial possession by Israel is an historical fait accompli. The standing of Israel’s army has ensured its continued existence and ownership of the territories. There is no readily apparent military force in the region, which could likely change this situation. Moreover, while the stateless situation of the Palestinians is lamentable, it is not the responsibility of the Israeli government to concern themselves with what happens with refugees that owe their existence to an hostility to Israel and its people. What responsibility the Israeli government does have however, is the long-term security of its citizens.
Without any sudden change in Jewish habits regarding returning to Israel, holding on to the territories would result in a continuation of the hostile situation on the borders of Israel. Having fought wars, and conducted diplomacy for decades, Israel has determined the goals and commitments of its enemies. With justification, Israel is secured militarily against aggression by its immediate neighbors. The likelihood of an attack by Jordan and Egypt are remote. The newly democratic Lebanese government is also unlikely to attack either. This has left Israel with only diplomatic concerns and solutions for the aggressions still aimed against it mostly from Palestinian sources. Having negotiated in good faith, Israel found that its offer to meet almost 90% of the Palestinian demands was still not enough to guarantee Israeli security. Palestinian intransigence over any sort of compromise means that Israeli policy must be dictated by its own interests. Being the victor traditionally means that a negotiated diplomacy goes at least 51% in your favor. Having been willing to accept only a 10% favorable diplomatic solution and still be denied, Israel is justified in choosing to act unilaterally in solving the Palestinian demands.
For the Palestinian leadership, being stateless, holding Zionism as the root of all problems they face, and demanding a return of all properties after fifty-seven years, has been their reason for existence and unification. Having faced a displacement similar to that suffered by the Jews centuries before, the Palestinians have simply resorted to claims of poverty and unjust treatment at the hands of Zionists. In spite of the massive global aid and gifts that are showered annually upon the Palestinian peoples, their leadership choose to live in squalid refugee camps and funnel much of the aid into clandestine military purchases. Having not proven themselves willing to improve their people’s plight except by use of force, they have in essence forced the decision of the Israeli government. The irony is that the Palestinians are about to benefit from the collapse of Zionism as a political force in Israel.
Even a decade ago, the idea that Israel might willingly give up the captured territories for the benefit of the Palestinians would have been unthinkable. However, while the enemies of Israel have rallied around the evils of Zionism, Israel itself had never truly adopted anything remotely resembling the zeal of radical Zionism. While the adoption of militarism was deemed Zionism during Israel’s birth, Zionism never became part of the other social and political structures of Israeli life. Cosmopolitan in nature, Arab and Christian citizens of Israel find equality in the political and economic processes alongside Jews. The idea of a Jew only citizenry was never adopted. Though Zionism had developed into demands for an ultra-nationalist Jewish state, it never happened. So never having gotten much more than lip service from the leaders of Israel, Zionism had not been a factor in policy. What is more, Zionism failed to remain a strong force in Israel’s development because world wide Jewry failed to return that would have made Zionism necessary. When faced with this reality, no one should be surprised that Israel acting unilaterally has chosen to implement a policy that makes sense only if one recognizes that Zionism has not been the motive force behind Israeli policy for many years.
It must be a horrible shock to the Palestinian leadership to realize that one of their chief complaints against Israel has ceased to be a factor. If anyone needs Zionism, it is the Palestinians. However, the growth of democratic institutions world wide as well as the recognition of the inhumanity of discrimination based on race and creed snuffed out Zionism as a consideration among Jewish leadership. Today the Palestinians are left without support politically that they had depended on. Having called for a homeland and independent governance, the Palestinian leadership is about to be handed the territories. This retreat by Israel will remove the excuses Palestinians have relied on to remain impoverished and stateless in their camps. The Palestinian diplomatic stand on territories and Right of Return has been skewered by the fact that they now have the territories free and clear of Israeli control. While they might still declare Israeli actions to be motivated by Zionism, it will be hard to make the claim stick anymore because no Zionist would ever consider turning over any portion of Palestine.
The next few years will see the likely magnification of the Jewish historical trait of dispersal vs. statehood. In spite of Israel’s existence, far more Jews still live outside Israel than inside it. Having existed for centuries without a homeland, Jews worldwide can be comfortable in not returning to Israel because of the marked decline of hostility aimed at them. It is therefore a possible and feasible path of Israeli governmental policy not to aggressively hold every square mile of Palestinian territory for the sake of Israeli security. The Palestinians are facing the reality that their reason for existence, i.e. stateless, poverty stricken, and anti-Zionists, can now be controlled by their own actions. They will have the land and official governmental organs that are due any self-governing people. Having the Israeli example of development of resources and economics to live up to, the Palestinians will either have to duplicate the results or fail. Without Zionism as a rally point, Palestinians will have to figure out a way to live up to their potential without excuse. What has happened is that a people who did not exist before 1948, will have been granted their independence in spite of their own hostile acts.
The Jewish experience could be a library of example for the Palestinians to follow. In less than a century, the Palestinians are being given back their independence. They still have freedom to access their holy sites. About the Dome of the Rock, they have the remarkable gift of a Jewish state, which declined the opportunity to rebuild its most holy site. They have a hand of friendship offered to them by an enemy, which has placed Palestinian interests before their own. The Palestinians should grab this gift and make a success of all it offers. The resulting outcome can be measured by what the Palestinian government chooses to focus on. If they continue to demand a Right of Return, Jerusalem as the Palestinian capitol, permit terror groups to attack Israel, and keep their people impoverished then the world may question legitimately if the Israeli government’s choice to treat Palestinians as equal is wrong. The Palestinians owe a significant debt to the Jews of the world who did not respond to Zionism and return. However, they should not presume that appeals to Zionism, as reason for Palestinian failures will reach receptive ears.
Posts
