UNESCO Rewrite History and Deny Heritage - Petition.

Thanks for posting, I was about to do this myself.

What's this got to do with being religious? It's the history of the Jewish nation.

The corrupt and antisemitic UN, and the corrupt and antisemitic UNESCO, are vile organisations that should be disbanded. A new organisation of democratic nations should be set up to replace the UN.

UNESCO has no legitimacy and no right to make such pronouncements about anything. Nevertheless, I urge everyone to sign and to disseminate this petition, if only to draw attention to their antisemitic agenda.

Yoni and Isca, herein lies the problem. Irrespective of whether the UN is corrupt and antisemitic -- it is the former, it has been the latter -- a problem arises when two distinct and separate concepts, religion and nationhood, are mixed. Nationality is based on rational ideas, among them shared heritage, shared land, shared language and a shared stake in the nation's future.
Religion, on the other hand, isn't by and large rational. It is based on faith and on belief, neither of which is rational. People of the same religion can be of different and diverse nationalities.
Also, religion was invented as a means of social control for people who had not developed socially and economically to the extent that we have now.
I've no doubt that historians of 2000-3000 years into the future will look upon our society, its values and morals and declare it as "primitive" as we see those societies of two, three millennia ago.

Thanks Isca, signed. I think this is very important.

I wonder how much attention gets paid to these online petitions though. I think I'll write a letter to UNESCO as well. Others should do the same.

I too have signed, but just for the record the building in which the tomb -- if it is Rachel's -- resides is from the 16th century.

@Yoni - yes, I should have elaborated and said...the secular historical linkage is also clear and has been persistent and continuous over thousands of years and I do feel that aspect very relevant to me personally and is most likely thus for the majority of jews and supporters of similar world historical sites from a world human history point of view.

@T'sam - I agree and yet even from a secular view point this type of 'subjugation' of archeological and historical sites is not on. It 'wipes away' as if the links and people were and are nothing. There's too much of that in all sides of conflict as it is.

I would add that some groups within religions do endeavour to make their faith modern and relevant and this still doesn't change or negate secular historical linkage and ancestry.

I suppose I also felt a shiver, because it's made me think...so nearly every generation of jews has experienced attempts at having there existence and culture wiped away, the biggest offender being Hitler, and now we have attempts at doing so retrospectively, as if my ancestry never existed at all.

It's interesting that 'we' make strenuous efforts to protect and preserve all kinds of 'peoples' e.g. Amazonian tribes, Native American etc., (that's another debate!), and yet this action is seen as 'ok'.

@Matt - will do too.

Having been to these sites, and having joined archeological digs on others, I can't express how it felt. It gave a extra dimension to my life, a kind of extra weight or gravitas and sense of history, like I mattered somehow. Silly to some, but intrinsic to me.

I agree Isca regarding the archaeological and historical evidence and about keeping the faith modern. That's why we've got Reform and Masorti Judaism.

@T'Sam - not sure what you're meaning. The evidence for the exact location of Rachel's Tomb is of course contradictory, but it is the centuries old persitently 'traditional' place for it. Like lots of these places I s'pose and we can argue over that, but that wouldn't wash for millions of followers of all kinds of places e.g. is the rock just a rock under The Dome of the Rock?...I'm getting memories of 'follow the holy gourd....no follow the holy sandal' from "The Life of Brian"!

Whatever the true status of Rachel's Tomb, someone obviously thought it important enough to build a 16th Century building/ mosque over the top of this site to subjugate and insult its meaning to jews and that does not change or wipe away the importance of it for a lot of jews religious or secular and historians.

@T'Sam - It's funny, I used to be quite orthodox and now tell people I'm a 'Progressive-Liberal-Jew', then giggle because it sounds like pop band!

I'm at home today, hence copious input! Have found these interesting debates and information. Fascinating stuff; think I'm in the wrong job.

http://www.ritmeyer.com/2010/11/11/todd-bolens-thoughts-on-rachels-tomb/

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/140812

Machpelah
http://www.hebron.com/english/article.php?id=178

The first evidence is provided by the story which appears in several versions in both Muslim and Christian sources, which tells of the permission *Omar gave to the Jews to build a synagogue near the cave of Machpelah, as well as a cemetery.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-etsKv-4V2oC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=arch...

No, Isca, Spammo's post reveals his usual ignorance. Nationhood is not 'rational'. It is a mixture of rationaility and irrationality. Culture is not 'rational'. A shared language is a rational concept, but does it mean that someone who doesn't speak Hebrew cannot be a Jew?

Spammo doesn't understand the historical position of religion in Jewish nationhood. I am an atheist, have been one since my teenage years, but it's a historical fact that Jews have a religion that's unique to them. Call it a historical accident, or whatever. And it's not even a unique situation: the Japanese have shintoism (albeit this is not an exact equivalent), and the Sikhs have a unique religion too.

Spammo is, of course, once again promoting an antisemitic position, one of either thick lack of understanding (what is SO difficult to understand about the fact that the Jewish NATION has a Jewish RELIGION?), or that seeks to deny the Jews nationhood by claiming that it's 'only' a religion.

Ancient Jewish religious sites are historical sites, they are part of the history. Dismissing the Cave of the Patriarchs as a 'mere' religious site with no historical importance is evidence of ignorance and stupidity of quite monumental proportions.

" problem arises when two distinct and separate concepts, religion and nationhood, are mixed."

tspam reveals here how little he knows and how even less little he understands, of Judaism.

The connection between Religion and Nationalism regarding the Jewish (I should say Israeli) nation, is best demonstrated by a simple Halacha that says that a King of Israel has to receive authorisation from the Sanhedrin, before going to war.

Unlike other religions, Judaism relates to the smaller details of everyday life, and equally to affairs of state. Christianity, on the other hand, does the opposite: insists on separation of Church and State.

Thus those trying to separate the two in today's State of Israel, are merely people influenced by Christianity. This is in no way a criticism of Christianity; it points more towards a lack of Jewish education amongst irreligious Jews.

tspam, for example, couldn't even name the basic sections of Judaism's basic book of Law - the Shulchan Aruch. He wriggled and spouted excuses- but he couldn't name them.

The problem is, Avraham, that modern Zionism is a by-product of European 18th and 19th-century political thought. Herzl and Hess were more influenced by those who wanted to break the chains between Church and State, not enhance them, and base the polity on a rational basis of shared heritage, shared language and a shared future.
If and when Israel becomes an halachic state, it can have a king who receives authority from a sanhedrin. As it stands now, Israel is a parliamentary democracy without a king or a sanhedrin.
Empirically, parliamentary democracies are those which are the most successful countries in the world, socially, economically, politically. I wouldn't want to swap a parliamentary democracy with anything else. Would you?

Yes, Israel is a parliamentary democracy whose only religious remnant is the religious monopoly of marriage, although that may change in the next years, allowing at last civil marriages (bye-bye, Cyprus!).

Hence the difficulty to understand that anyone could prefer the 'Palestinian' dictatorships, one of which is openly a terrorist state supported by a Nazi dictatorship of the worst kind.

It is also true that the UNESCO has been anti-Israel since 40 years now, and not about to change while the mad Middle Ages coutries still run the asylum that it has become.

Jose: I imagine UNESCO see themselves as "protecting" these mosques from Israel?

Anything connected to the UN is an antisemitic farce.

Yoni, sorry I didn't see your post of 10.37.
The Jews are a nation who are returning to their ancient homeland in Israel. I hope that clarifies for you where I stand on Jewish nationality.
We have two problems. First, Zionism, the modern embodiment of Jewish nationalism, has been wed with the religion. Nationalism is a relatively recent concept -- by relatively recent, I mean no more than 250 years. That's a grain of sand compared to the concept of religion.
Second problem is that while Jews have every national right to live in Western Palestine/ Eretz Yisrael, we have, whether we like it or not, come into conflict with another nation which feels no less attached to the area than us.
Zionism, being pragmatic, always saw itself as sharing Western Palestine/Eretz Yisrael or if that were not possible - as has so been proved -- dividing it.
Now, by and large, the demographic map of Western Palestine/ Eretz Yisrael hasn't changed much in the 120 years of the Jewish return to the national homeland. Therefore, a redivision along the 67 lines would mean that Israel would hold 78 per cent of Western Palestine/ Eretz Yisrael and about 80 per cent of the Jewish population, while the remaining 22 per cent would be home to the Palestinian state.
It's not everything they want. It's not everything we want, but the art of Zionism is pragmatism whose main feature is compromise.
As Bibi said only this week: "Why should we be dealing with the sewage problems of Jenin?"

More ignorant drivel from Mr 5%:

"a simple Halacha that says that a King of Israel has to receive authorisation from the Sanhedrin, before going to war"

Yes, that was then. We have left those superstitious times behind us.

"Unlike other religions, Judaism relates to the smaller details of everyday life, and equally to affairs of state"

Never heard of Islam, Mr 5%?

"Thus those trying to separate the two in today's State of Israel, are merely people influenced by Christianity"

Utter bollocks. I knew very little of Christianity when I became an atheist.

"it points more towards a lack of Jewish education amongst irreligious Jews"

More silly bollocks. I grew up in a moderately religious household.

"Zionism, the modern embodiment of Jewish nationalism, has been wed with the religion"

Manifestly counterfactual. Many early Zionists were irreligious, especially the socialists.
Israel betrayed Herzlian secular Zionism when religion was allowed a foothold in Misrad ha-Pnim, an utter abomination.

"Nationalism is a relatively recent concept -- by relatively recent, I mean no more than 250 years. That's a grain of sand compared to the concept of religion."

So? See above.

"Second problem is that while Jews have every national right to live in Western Palestine/ Eretz Yisrael, we have, whether we like it or not, come into conflict with another nation which feels no less attached to the area than us"

Fabrication. This 'nation' was invented in 1964 as a racist R-E-A-C-T-I-O-N against Israel's stubborn survival.

tspam, Palestinian Arab "nationalism" has no roots at all. It grew up as a result of Zionism, not despite it.

Why no calls for a "Palestinian" state between 1948-67, when Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea, Samaria, the Old City of Jerusaelm and Gaza?

Yoni, I agree with you 100 per cent that Herzlian secular Zionism betrayed Israel when it allowed the Interior Ministry to be almost perpetually in the hands of the religious parties (wasn't Sharansky the only exception?) I take it that you voted for Shinui when it was led by the late, great Yossef (Tommy) Lapid.
We will have to regretfully and hopefully politely disagree about the source of Palestinian nationalism.

Amber, please read my comments to Yoni1 regarding the evolution of Palestinian nationalism. It dates back to about the same time as Zionism.

This yonit girl is really sick, that apart from her having a really filthy mouth"

""Thus those trying to separate the two in today's State of Israel, are merely people influenced by Christianity"
Utter bollocks. I knew very little of Christianity when I became an atheist.
"it points more towards a lack of Jewish education amongst irreligious Jews"
More silly bollocks. I grew up in a moderately religious household.
----
She was so brain-washed (what little brain she has) by the Christian society and values in which she lives, that she doesn't know she was brain-washed!

She claims to have "grown up" in a "moderately religious household" - we disagree that she has "grown up", and contend that her knowledge of judaism learned in this wonderful household approaches zero from the minus direction. A "moderately religious household" spawns an empty atheist? Yonit, it requires more knowedge that you possess or can understand, to become an athesist. Zombie would be nearer.

Like we say in Judaism: "empty vessels make most sound"
- and our yonit make sit in spades.

The pathetic little shit, Mr 5%, claims to be an Israeli. And yet he doesn't know that Yoni is a masculine name. Ergo, he is also a pathetic liar. I don't believe he has ever been to Israel.

There is very little point in responding to such deranged idiots. I will however, for the record, state that I became an atheist while living in Jerusalem, and before I had lived anywhere else (other than visits, of course).

Oh, and his constant use of 'we' when referring to him/her/itsef is a clear indicator that he/she/it needs professional help. I suspect that Napoleon suffered from a Mr 5% complex.

"Amber, please read my comments to Yoni1 regarding the evolution of Palestinian nationalism. It dates back to about the same time as Zionism"

That is a demonstrable lie.

"Herzlian secular Zionism betrayed Israel"

You really, really can't read, can you? Or else you are a deliberate charlatan and twister and misquoter, for which I have seen plenty of evidence. That's not what I said, so you can't 'agree' with me. I said that the parties responsible for this state of affairs betrayed Herzlian secular Zionism.

As to the origin of 'Palestinian' nationalism - of course we'll have to disagree, because you are simply lying about it.

More from the mouth of little Yonit, the 4-year IDF server (so she claoms) and amateur atheist:

TO telegramsam:
"You really, really can't read, can you? Or else you are a deliberate charlatan and twister and misquoter"

"Spammo's post reveals his usual ignorance"

To my good self:
"The pathetic little shit, Mr 5%, ....he is also a pathetic liar. I don't believe he has ever been to Israel."

"I suspect that Napoleon suffered from a Mr 5% complex."

"I am an atheist, have been one since my teenage years, but it's a historical fact that Jews have a religion that's unique to them. "
- ERGO, Yonit is no Jewess. Q.E.D.

telegramsam, a leaflet does not make a nationalist movement. A distict palestinian nationalism was not what was being fought for by the Arab armies in 1948, and di not get any wider support until the 1960's - as a direct result of Zionism.

What distinguishes a Palestinian Arab from a Jordanian?

Yoni1, you are absolutely right. I made a mistake. Of course it should be that the politicians -- and mainly the secular ones, unfortunately -- betrayed Herzlian secular Zionism.
As to Palestinian nationalism, I think you'll find if you check a bit further that the beginnings were in the 19th century.

Amber, in and of itself a leaflet or even a series of leaflets do not a nationalist movement make. However, going to primary sources, that is books written in Arabic at the time (or having access to decent translations into Hebrew, such as in Tel Aviv University's excellent Dayan Centre for Middle East studies), you will find quite an extensive amount of nationalist writing from Jaffa, Jerusalem and Majdal (today's Ashkelon). It's worth a check when you are next in Tel Aviv.

telegramsam, these nationalist writings are not specifically "Palestinian" - as the concept did not even exist yet (Palestine in the 19th century being part of the larger Ottoman Empire - it was not even demarcated as "Palestine" and no-one thought in such terms until the British Mandate in 1917). And there was still no separate Arab "Palestinian" identity - thus 4/5ths of Mandate "Palestine" could be made into the newly invented country of Transjordan without any problem or outcry - later Jordan, with a Hashemite King imported from Saudi Arabia.

How is a "Palestinian" distinct from a Jordanian?

Amber, just before I turn in. In these writings, which I am sure you have read, the Palestinians refer to themselves as such and to the area they inhabit as filastin. That is why the original writings were entitled Filastinana (Our Palestine).
I am glad you asked me about the distinctions between Jordanians and Palestinians. It's a bit like the distinction between Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. Indeed their languages are extremely close, but there are dialectical differences. For instance, if a Jordanian wants to ask, "How much is that?" he/she says: "Qadesh?" A Palestinian, on the other hand, would say: "Adesh?"
As another example, there is the difference between Americans and Canadians. They both speak English, but there are distinct national traits which are different.
Beyond all that, a Palestinian would describe his/herself as such while a Jordanian would say that he or she was a Jordanian. Such is the power of nationalism.

telegramsam, it's a bit like saying that someone from the West Country has a dialectical difference - hardly the basis for a nationalist movement. I'm not saying that there is no nationalist movement NOW - but the rerality is that most Jordanians are themselves "Palestinians". Additionally, I would ask: why should the Palestinian Arabs have another separate state (after Jordan)? Having spent decades trying to destroy the Jewish one, why is it automatic that they should be rewarded for their aggression with another state?

Amber, thanks for that. I am not sure if you are aware, but there is a separatist Cornish movement, the Cornish National Liberation Army, and a political party, Mebyon Kernow. Funnily enough, the very few Cornish Jews have a synagogue/community called Kehilat Kernow.
Beyond the West Country, ask any Yorkshireman/woman and they will tell you that their county is an independent country.
Why should the Palestinians have a state? Well, as a national group they are entitled to self-determination. Second, for Israel's own good -- and latest figures show that the Jews are a minority now between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea -- to maintain itself as as Jewish democratic state, which is what we all want. I hope.

"Why should the Palestinians have a state? Well, as a national group they are entitled to self-determination"

Keep on spreading the big lie and Arab propaganda. However nicely you try to speak in the next few days till you lose it, a drain painted gold is still a drain.
Goebels' policy of repeating a lie just won't work here.

J/S Arabs are ex-Jordainian, Gaza Arabs are ex-Egyptian, there is no single cohesive "national group" of Arabs. There never was. Before 1948 Jews living here were also "palestinians", so a "palestinian" state should be comprised of the same population mix - as Israel is today.

Avraham, out of respect for your position, I do not wish to get into a situation whereby it becomes una fabula, scripta iterum iterumque.
And as Peter de Villiers, the South African rugby coach, has said: "If you dwell too much on the past, you forget to move on and everyone will catch up with you." Do you want to keep on recycling old arguments or be left behind? I hope not.

telegramsam, thanks for your reply. However, you made the point yourself - Cornwall is not independent, and nor is Yorkshire. I dispute that the Palestinian Arabs are a "national group", I think it is a modern invention. But even if they were, why do they desreve independence? They have spent almost a century trying to commit genocide against the Jews - and failed. That they should be rewarded for such bigotry and terror with a state, when they continue on this genocidal quest, is morally repugnant.

Amber, you make some very good points. Indeed, Cornwall and Yorkshire (and even Scotland and Wales) are not independent. But that hasn't stopped various groups struggling for independence, however misguided their actions might be.
Why do the Palestinians deserve independence? Why does any national group deserve independence? I suspect that in today's geo-political climate, self-determination is fulfilled through statehood and independence. Of course, you could ask deeper, philosophical questions: What is independence? Is any state truly "independent" given the current globalisation?
Most national groups, from the 18th century onwards, have waged bloody wars against those they viewed as their oppressors. This does not make their fight right. It's just the way of the world. Empirically, being submissive has never gained anyone a state.

telegramsam, the Palestinians could have a had a state several times over, on one proviso - that they accept Israel as well. They have not, and are more committed to destroying Israel than establishing a state of their own.

That's why there is no Palestinian state today.

Amber, indeed the Palestinians in the past have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. However, given the political, economic, demographic and other developments in the region and the wider world, I wouldn't like it to be said that Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Or, in fact, that some future historian will write that Israel was the author of its own demise as a Jewish democratic state by keeping control of an area in which non-Jews outnumber Jews.

A walloping 54552 signatures on this petition so far.

If you haven't already signed it, please do. If you haven't already told your friends / contacts about it, please do!