#Israël history

[secular-jew]

The land of Israel has been populated by the Jewish people since 2000 BCE. Here's the timeline, in case you didn't realize that it is their homeland.

1900 BCE:

- Abraham chosen by G-d as the Father of the Jewish Nation.

1900 BCE:

- Isaac, Abraham's son, rules over Israel.

1850 BCE:

- Jacob, son of Issac, rules over Israel.

1400 BCE:

- Moses leads the people out of Egypt and back to Israel.

1010 BCE:

- King David unites the 12 tribes into one nation.

970 BCE:

- King Solomon, son of David, builds the first temple structure in Jerusalem

930 BCE:

- Israel is divided into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.

722 BCE:

- Kingdom of Israel is conquered by Assyrians.

605 BCE:

- Kingdom of Judah is conquered by the Babylonians.

586 BCE:

- Solomon's Temple is destroyed by the Babylonians.

539 BCE:

- Persians conquer the Babylonians and take control of Israel.

538 BCE:

- The Jews return to Israel from exile.

520 BCE:

- The Temple is rebuilt.

432 BCE:

- The last group of Jews return from exile.

333 BCE:

- The Greeks conquer the Persian empire.

323 BCE:

- The Egyptian and Syrian empires take over Israel.

167 BC:

- Hasmoneans recapture Israel, and the Jews rule independently.

70 BCE:

- Romans conquer Israel.

70 CE:

- Romans destroy the temple.

After that, the Jewish people were captives to the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Crusaders. Through all of these events, the Jewish people continued to live in Israel. There were more or fewer of them, depending on the centuries, but there was never a time when the Jews didn't live in the land.

They stayed, they built their communities, they raised their families, practiced their faith and they suffered at the hands of many outside rulers, but they always kept their faith. It is what sustains them, even now.

May 1948 CE:

- the UN established the State of Israel, the sovereign nation of the Jews.

Don't buy the Palestinian lies that they are entitled to the land. It simply is not true. HaShem will also provide a way for his chosen people to live in Israel, as He has for thousands of years.

Based off of a post by Raymond García of Julesburg, Colorado USA

[frida-kahl-of-the-rocky-horror]

1963: "White only" = Jim Crow Segregation

1993: "Afrikaner only" = apartheid

2023: "Israeli only" = its complicated

[david-goldrock]

עם ישראל חי

(He/They/She) (gender is in your mind, go wild mate)

Born in the year of your lord 2006

A proud Israeli Jewish Zionist! glory to the lions of Zion!

Asks are open and welcome! please ask a lot! I will block and report hate mail so don't even try

A DND player for since 2014, a GM since 2017

Fandoms: Percy Jackson, arcane, stranger things, ender's sagas

Loves politics, come and argue anytime! as long as you're civil

Programmed on the FRC team BumbleB #3339! Now an alum :(

My blog is overrun because of the war, but when it's calmer, I like to blog about art, DND, memes, and general conversations

this is the second time I make this blog, I accidentally deleted it a while ago

All NSFW things I reblog will be tagged as such

Thank you and welcome!

[oiqedjwd]

Remember to keep talking about Palestine, as currently Gaza is going through a genocide.

We have to stay strong for those who keep fighting and the ones that are currently helping by donating, boycotting and spreading information

Protest and never let your spirit down!

[dutchjan]

March 12, 2023

[atlastv]

"Palestine: The Samaritans' Struggle I ARTE.tv Documentary"

[firespirited]

There's a barrage of takes today and some of them are well informed and knowledgeable about that area. There's a lot of junk but there are people who can enlighten you on the history of both sets of refugees, the ancient feuds, the recent agressions, the horrific end games of the political parties currently in power...

I'd like to offer a take I haven't seen at all today:

What if this wasn't about jews and muslims at all? Not to those affected of course (there's so much going on it'd take hours to unpack!), but to the ones who've made and will be making decisions about how to proceed. What if religious and racial differences were just a pretext for other countries to test tactics, weapons, surveillance, propaganda in a handy dandy sandbox? What if it was about warmongers playing with an ancestral blood feud for money and power?

This summer many folks discovered that the atomic bomb wasn't about Japan or American troops at all. Maybe it's time to look at our own arms manufacturers and policy makers: did any of them want peace in the middle east or just temporary peace to observe and test "peacekeeping"?

What if taking sides was obscuring the other players? Israël and Palestine: not even the main characters, both dependent on their usefulness to other countries.

I'm not saying that what people are pointing out has happened since the 1940s aren't very important issues.

I will say that all *you*, random person on the internet, can do is teach the people around you to recognise antisemitism and islamophobia and build longterm protection under the law for them, if only so that both Palestinians and Israelis have safe countries to immigrate to and rebuild community in if they want to flee being players in extremist and meddler wargames.

Protesting will probably get us about as far as we did protesting the war in Iraq. We the people don't get a say, the arms dealers and DoD will go ahead with whatever they find most lucrative from a business sense and a political one. The best thing we can do is make sure laws are passed locally that protect the jews and muslims of our communities or incoming immigrants/refugees in the longterm.

[chansonsinternationales]

Un historien du génocide face à Israël - Omer Bartov

[pebblysand]

"L'enquête de l'ONU ne pourra malheureusement pas éradiquer le négationnisme des crimes qu'elle a documentés, et ne pourra sortir du déni ceux du camp progressiste qui y voient un refuge. Les viols n'ont pas eu lieu, diront certains, ou pas tous, ou en tout cas moins que l'autre camp; d'autres acceptent les faits mais font preuve d'un mépris glaçant à l'égard des victimes israéliennes, comme si reconnaître leur statut rendrait la mort d'innombrables Palestiniens moins épouvantable. Il est toujours possible, même après ce rapport, de nier ce qui est maintenant une évidence; mais cela n'effacera pas ce que les victimes ont enduré dans leurs derniers instants, et cela ne libérera pas la Palestine."

Violence against women is a weapon of war. It has been used for centuries, by forces of all ethnicities, religions, and origins as a way to terrorise, humiliate, and assert dominance over its victims. In recent History, its use has been documented anywhere from American soldiers in Vietnam, to Russian soldiers in Ukraine, to now, Palestinian fighters in Israel. There is and surely will be additional evidence of it being used by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian women.

The problem isn't the point of origin, the problem is our understanding of the phenomenon. We think of sex as an expression of desire - here, an expression of male desire. We think of rape as the expression of a pulsion that men cannot properly "control". Back in the day, I used to have comments on castles saying: "I don't believe Amycus would do this, he'd be disgusted by Ginny, she's a blood traitor." And, frankly, I will die on this hill: do you really think Russian soldiers were so "attracted" to Ukrainian women they couldn't resist? Do you really think that the Palestinian men who raped Israeli women, as featured in this report, were not repulsed by them?

Sex, in this context, isn't desire, it's a weapon. It is control, coercion, humiliation. Of both the women who fall victim, and by proxy, of the men who love them. Recognising that doesn't mean we shouldn't support Palestine - the crimes committed by Israel are pretty obvious at this stage - it just means that this is a war that is sadly being fought like every other war in History, and isn't that unique. Because just like catcalling isn't done to attract women (it's done to express control over public spaces), rape isn't the expression of attraction, it's the expression of power and possession. And, there is no way to prevent this from happening until we consider violence against women as the weapon it is. Until the perpetrators (of all sides) are tried for war crimes. Until we treat this weapon as seriously as other biological or mass-destruction weapons, for the sheer extent of irreversible damage it causes.

And, as the quote says, ignoring this won't free Palestine.

[whencyclopedfr]

Asherah

Asherah est un mot hébreu pour ce qui était soit une déesse, soit un objet de culte, ou peut-être les deux. Bien que beaucoup voient des preuves qu'Asherah était une déesse individuelle des Israélites, certains chercheurs pensent que le contexte du mot le désigne principalement comme un objet de culte, comme le suggère Mark Smith dans The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israël. La Bible parle fréquemment d'asherah (singulier) et d'asherim (pluriel) comme des symboles de culte depuis l'époque des juges israélites jusqu'à juste avant la destruction du royaume de Juda au début du 6ème siècle av. J.-C. D'autre part, certains passages de la Bible font clairement référence à Asherah comme étant une déesse. Dans la Bible, le texte de l'âge du Fer de 1 Rois 18:19 déclare qu'Asherah avait des prophètes à Tyr, tout comme le dieu cananéen Baal en avait. De plus, 2 Rois 23:6 déclare que les prêtres du Temple de Salomon sortirent "tous les objets faits pour Baal, Asherah et toute l'armée des cieux". Ce verset semble également indiquer qu'Asherah était au moins parfois considérée comme une divinité.

Lire la suite...

[catboyrightsdefender]

Hi! Id been interested to hear more about your thoughts on " bauhaus style " ! It's not a subject I know much about but I recently read black city white city (not sure if that's an ick or a win in your book!) So I'm curious about your opinion - if you don't mind! :)

ok so i'll start by warning you that since im not a native english speaker my thoughts might end up not being super well worded and articulated and im really sorry about that. also i'm putting it under a cut because i did get kinda Long (sorry about that)

I'm wary of the term 'style' in general (but that's just something i got from my studies), and since Im kinda specializing in bauhaus-related things im not fond of the term bauhaus style. That term is often used to talk about 1. objects and design and 2. architecture, and refers mostly to things such as furniture produced by the bauhaus during the dessau and berlin eras, and generally speaking after 1923, such as marcel breuer's chairs, wagenfeld's lamp, brandt's tea sets etc etc. But the Bauhaus didn't start in 1923, and produced more heterogenous things during it's first years in Weimar, when it's artistic 'ideology' wasn't as definite as it was once the school opened itself to constructivist influence from 1923. The productions commonly used to illustrate the "bauhaus style" mostly result from that constructivist influence. So talking about one single unified bauhaus style seems a bit too generalizing and reductive to me, and puts emphasis on one specific aspect of the Bauhaus' production rather than on its whole history, which shows a lot of aesthetical and ideological evolution. And on a simpler scale, why use the term 'style' when we could just say 'bauhaus productions' ?

Hearing the term 'bauhaus style' used in talks about architecture kinda annoys me even more, but that's probably because hearing people talk about the Bauhaus as if it was only an architecture school drives me mad in the first place haha. Architecture in itself wasn't a discipline at the school until 1927, and the architectural projects done at the school differed greatly between Hannes Meyer's and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's directorships. Again, there isn't one specific "style" of architecture that was done at the Bauhaus. It was modern, avant-garde architecture in the same vein as what could be seen in other parts of Europe and in the Soviet Union. Even if I personally don't like the term 'style', I prefer using the term 'International Style'.

I haven't read the book you're mentioning, but since it's about architecture in Tel Aviv it allows me to add a little bit of nuance to what I just said. I'm not at all well versed in that subject, but from what I know there were Bauhaus students who went to Israël to do architectural work. There is clearly an influence from the type of architecture that was being done at the Bauhaus in the twenties, but again, the term 'International style' would suit those works better. It's worth noting that the terms 'bauhaus style' and 'international style' are often used as synonyms, which to me is problematic. International style would include what was being done at the Bauhaus, but it cannot be reduced to that. There was definitely an influence from the Bauhaus in Tel Aviv, and I think in many cases that word is better than style. And that goes not only for the Bauhaus but also for various other styles.

Realizing as I'm typing this that this is definitely not well articulated lmao. In short what my opinion is is that the word style in itself is often problematic, because it implies an unified, definite concept, which isn't often a thing. I don't think it is in the case of the Bauhaus. I think it's better to talk, on one hand, about Bauhaus productions (for the things that were produced at the school ; there's no need to talk about bauhaus style while talking about marianne brandt's teapot since it was done at the bauhaus) and, on the other, about Bauhaus influences. And even there I think it would be even better to be more precise and talk about the individual influences. For example, regarding architecture, Gropius, Meyer and Mies van der Rohe were all part of the Bauhaus, but their ways of creating are all different. In short (for real this time skdsdj) I think it's best to be precise and not use too generalistic and reductive terms. But honestly in the grand scheme of things this isn't really important, it all only matters to me because I'm an art historian haha.

God that was so long. I hope it makes sense and it answers your question anon ! I think it's a super interesting topic to debate about, but sadly it's not easy to give an extensive answer here. Brevity doesn't allow for a lot of nuance sadly. Also this is just my own opinion and I could be very wrong tbh. But I do like to think that I know enough on the subject to not be totally wrong ksddsksd. Also its 1 am so I'm again sorry if its poorly worded or badly written. Feel free to hmu if you want to chat more about this :)

[bremont]

(via (80) GÉNÉRAL COUSTOU : L'ENNEMI DE LA FRANCE N'EST PAS POUTINE ! - YouTube)

George Orwell comes to Canada: Is our history heading for a 1984-style memory hole/ 1984 is 1776/1789/ in 1789 🥐🥂🍾🍮 France ceased to exist as an independent nation kingdom 👑 became FRENCH 🕎🥨 Israël under the Roman 🍟🍔 Finacial 🌎 Empire reason for Reign of terror to Napoleon 💲🌎🗽by 1913 the final test gave Europe ww1 ww2 IBM and the ISRAELI EUROPE client statute 🥨🍟💲💪 accomplished two ends one stone ISRAEL- PALESTINE india Pakistan 1947 /1974 Petrodollars 💲💪🕎 the other MARSALL PLAN dollar king 💲🌎🕎😂 an exact repeat of roman empire under HEROD 🕎 REIGN / The church collapsed in 1939 Hitler another side of the IBM/FORD 🏦 financial Washington deal and 1945 holocaust the final blow Marshall plan dollar king 👑 Russia was the only hindrance of the AIPAC 🕎💪💲🍟 Washington Empire Ceasar had the same problem 2024 same situation France a nation under occupation Obeys black rock Mc Kinley 💲💪🕎🥨 NATO WASHINGTON OTAN no different than November 1942 coming soon version 2024. way out you do might need a king 👑 to save you from the past 🛸 the guardian 👽 angles might just move a ✍️ finger 👽🛸🪐

[frida-kahl-of-the-rocky-horror]

Israelis: omg we are so oppressed and scared for our lives because of rockets

If you were actually oppressed and fearful of your lives, you wouldn’t be going to concerts and having raves

I don’t think a Jew in Nazi Germany was having Raves in Concentration Camps. I don’t think an Irishman while the Black and Tans were attacking held House Parties with blaring music. I don’t think Armenians during the long walk or Black Americans during Slavery or American Indians during the colonization of the continent were going to boisterous concerts with fireworks while the Turks/WASPs brutalized them. I don’t think Haitians were having raves while France was hanging their people for decrying Revolution, and in the Battle of Valley Forge, no American Revolutionary was making TikToks

During these events, Jews, the Irish, Armenians, Black Americans, American Indians, Haitians, American Revolutionaries, Romani, Muslims in Spain, Native Mexicans, Native Liberians and so on and so forth were mourning the destruction of their homes, the loss of their kids, and becoming revolutionary as a result of their victimhood.

Aka what Palestinians are doing.

I acknowledge that antisemitism is bad, but GENOCIDE AND ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS IS CLEARLY WORSE

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @loortth

[jurjenkvanderhoek]

RIVALEN IN HET BELOOFDE LAND, EEN VUISTDIK GESCHIEDENISBOEK

Wat is dat toch met die Joden en Palestijnen, dat ze elkaar maar niet kunnen uitstaan. De een en de ander niet kunnen dulden op elkaars en eigen grondgebied. Die ongeschreven vete duurt eigenlijk al zolang de landstreek daar bewoond is. Want waren de Israëlieten naar Egypte getrokken omdat er hongersnood heerste in wat eens het Beloofde Land zou zijn? We schrijven een periode ver voor de jaartelling, in de tijd na de aartsvaders op het moment dat Jozef een hoge post had bij de farao. Maar het volk werd onderdrukt in het buurland en besloot terug te keren naar huis en haard, naar daar waar de grootouders geboren waren. Echter verbleven ze zolang elders dat 'hun' grondgebied door anderen werd bewoond inmiddels. Met harde hand en onder Gods leiding werd stad en streek weer ingenomen. Eigenlijk vergelijkbaar met wat er in de 20e eeuw speelde.

De ruzie en onvrede tussen de volken in het stroomgebied van de Jordaan heeft wortels. Maar waar deze geaard zijn is niet eenvoudig te doorgronden. De wrok en haat schijnt van alle tijden en de oorsprong voert in eeuwen al ver terug. Het is te gemakkelijk te zeggen dat de Joden in Israël thuis horen omdat de Bijbel dat voorschrijft. En dat zij om die reden elk ander volk dat het land heeft ingenomen mogen uitmoorden en verdrijven. Historicus Jan-Auwke Diepenhorst heeft als specialist op het terrein van het Midden-Oosten en de Koude Oorlog een grote belangstelling voor het thema Israël en Palestina. Hij schreef over de kwestie een boek dat het formaat heeft van een bijbel. Voor zijn onderzoek naar het hoe en waarom is hij diep in de materie gedoken. Hij spit het beloofde land om vanaf de oudste oudheid tot het recente heden, uit de greppels en groeven haalt hij de redenen voor de eeuwige strijd naar boven. Hoewel Diepenhorst het conflict van beide kanten bekijkt om begrip van en voor de partijen te bepleiten, komt hij niet met een oplossing. In die positie zit hij niet, maar wel kan hij aangeven hoe het zover heeft kunnen komen.

Antisemitisme is van alle tijden. Op diverse plekken wereldwijd zijn Joden door de eeuwen heen onderdrukt. Hitler blijkt niet de enige tiran die zijn haat omzette in vernietiging. Hij zal geleerd hebben van de geschiedenis en probeerde het werk dat voor hem anderen hadden aangevangen af te maken. De Jood was altijd ondergeschikt en werd onderdrukt, waarvoor de verklaring dat deze Jezus aan het kruis hebben genageld een plausibele is. Vanuit de oudheid tot in het heden voert Diepenhorst een achttal figuren ten tonele die de hoofdrolspelers in de onenigheid zijn. Spelers die in beide kampen hun sporen hebben gezet. Met hun ideeën en handelingen hebben bijgedragen aan heersende onrust en een mogelijke vrede in het gebied.

Door het boek probeert de schrijver mij het verleden te laten begrijpen om zo beter over het heden en de toekomst te kunnen spreken. “Voor een uiteindelijke oplossing van het conflict gaat het niet om het vaststellen van de historische waarheid en wie gelijk heeft”, houdt hij mij voor. “Maar om begrip voor elkaars levensverhalen en situaties en om te beseffen hoe diep het trauma van de Holocaust zit bij Israëli’s en hoe dit nog steeds meespeelt bij allerlei beslissingen. Maar tevens hoe diep het trauma van de Nakba, de catastrofe, de vlucht van ruim 700.000 Palestijnen bij het ontstaan van Israël, is bij Palestijnen en hoe dit van invloed blijft op hun besluiten en acties.” Diepenhorst beseft dat de Nakba niet te vergelijken is met de Holocaust. Maar beide partijen zijn getraumatiseerd, wat hun handelingen over en weer verklaren.

Echter vindt het probleem de oorsprong op een veel eerder tijdstip dan die van de 20e eeuw. Het verhaal begint bij de Oudheid en de verspreiding van de Joden over de wereld. Vanuit een biografisch perspectief van de hoofdpersonen wordt de geschiedenis van het conflict door Diepenhorst beschreven. En net als ieder treffen en elke wrijving waar ook ter wereld een historie heeft, voor de rivalen in het beloofde land is dat al niet anders. Alleen heeft dit verhaal bijzondere en daardoor scherpe kantjes. Speelt er meer dan enkel landjepik of opgestaan plaats vergaan. Spelen er de trauma’s mee. Maar ook de nauwelijks geheelde wonden van de Joden uit een ver verleden. De eeuwenlange wereldse Jodenhaat snijdt diep in hun vlees en daardoor is het volk weerbaar en strijdbaar geworden. Met de Bijbel in de hand kan gesteld worden dat de jood Saulus, die tot christen Paulus wordt, niet alleen medestichter is van het christendom, maar ook aanzet geeft tot een christelijk geïnspireerd antisemitisme. En zo openen mij de ogen op meerdere plekken in het boek en krijg ik een heldere kijk op het hoe en hoezo, het waarom en waardoor.

De Joodse diaspora is zo oud als de weg naar Rome. Maar juist in de 20e eeuw wil men daar een einde aan maken door een eigen plek voor het volk te creëren, een nieuw thuis. Daar hebben vooraanstaande figuren zich hard voor gemaakt. En zelfs werd hen een plek toegewezen in Oeganda, tevens een kolonie van Engeland evenals zij Palestina als wingewest zich hadden toegeëigend. In verschillende landen werden Joden achtergesteld en onderdrukt, maar de Tweede Wereldoorlog vormt hierin een triest hoogtepunt. Met de Holocaust is geprobeerd het volk uit te roeien. Daarom vonden de geallieerden het daarna niet meer dan logisch dat de Joden konden terugkeren naar het gebied waar ze volgens Bijbelse overlevering thuis horen, het Beloofde land. Probleem was dat dit land inmiddels terecht door anderen in gebruik was genomen. Het was niet braak blijven liggen wachten tot de oorspronkelijke bewoners er zouden terugkeren. Dus moest er voor de Palestijnen een nieuw land komen. Een probleem met twee verliezers was geschapen, want tot nu toe is uit de strijd nog geen winnaar opgestaan.

Het is niet aan mij om op deze plek de geschiedenis van Joden en Palestijnen in het kort nog eens te herhalen. Jan-Auwke Diepenhorst heeft daarvoor al te lang de boeken doorvorst en de geschriften nagespeurd. Zijn verhaal geeft een compleet beeld van het vraagstuk. Het geeft niet de uitkomst, want nog telkens duurt de strijd voort en nog steeds is er geen voor beide partijen leefbare oplossing. De rivalen blijven tot de tanden toe bewapend tegenover elkaar staan en het blijft een smet op het blazoen van de wereldvrede. Het boek “Rivalen in het beloofde land” is een aanrader voor de lezer die meer wil weten over verleden, heden en toekomst van dit conflict. En zeker voor lezers die willen leren van dat verleden om begrip te hebben voor het heden en verlangend uitzien naar een vredige toekomst.

Diepenhorst kiest geen partij, is niet voor of tegen de een dan de ander. Na het lezen van de verhalen hoef ik ook geen kant te kiezen, maar kan ik meer begrip opbrengen voor de manier waarop het zover is gekomen en waarom het nog langer voortduurt. Zoals er in geen enkele oorlog winnaars zijn en alleen de verliezers de wonden likken, zo is dat in de strijd om het beloofde land tevens het geval. Het land is beloofd, maar niemand geloofd daar nog in. De vuistdikke uitgave die daarover vertelt telt 528 uiterst interessante pagina’s. Een leerzame aanvulling op de bibliotheek met historisch verantwoorde en geschiedenis verdedigbare boeken.

Rivalen in het beloofde land. Een geschiedenis van Joden en Palestijnen. Jan-Auwke Diepenhorst. Uitgeverij Omniboek, 2023.

[prophet-one]

Balfour: or how the mess in Gaza was created.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia

To unravel a mess like Gaza, it helps to understand the full history of how Gaza became Gaza. A lot of news articles are focused on the history of Hamas and the relationship with Netanyahu. I am more fascinated by what happened before Hamas ever existed.

Israël was basically created through the Balfour declaration. Which is a story of double, triple, quadruple betrayals by the British Government in order to gain US support during WWI. Yes, in 1917 the British caused the mess we see in Gaza today. The Wikipedia link has the "known" story of this betrayal.

The are a few interesting tidbits that I get out of the Balfour story.

Turkey ruled most of the middle east for over 400 years, before the British drove them out during WWI; which is why the Turks still take an active interest in the region. I suspect many Turks feel the entire region still belongs to Turkey.

The countries of Lebanon, Israel, Jordon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Yemen are artificial entities created to satisfy political expediency. The people in these areas had no say in what their "country" would be, what the borders were, or how they would be governed. They were pawns in the European game of Conquest.

The borders of all of these "countries" were arbitrarily drawn up by the British with zero comprehension of what that looked like "on the ground". These borders were later rubber stamped by the UN to give the countries some "air" of authenticity. We can see the problems this creates today, with the Kurds. The Kurdish "nation" is divided up between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran instead of being consolidated into one country (another total fail of the UN).

The Zionist movement used the Balfour Declaration as motivation to colonize Palestine. This is a principle that is still at work today, with the West Bank settlements. The settlements colonize the West Bank, creating the justification to incorporate the West Bank into Israel as per the Balfour Declaration.

The borders of Israel are pure fiction; even though the UN ratified certain borders, those borders were based on nothing... or rather the assumption that the Jewish population in Palestine would be eradicated by the Arabs and the whole "Jewish" problem would go away. The Israelis kyboshed that plan by not being eradicated in 1948.

There was never any plan for a two state solution; the British plan was for an Arab state with in which there would be a Jewish minority. The Zionist interpreted the British plan as there would be a Jewish state within the Palestine region (which at that time included what is now Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon). The reality seems that the Brits had no actual plan, they were just playing the Arabs and Zionist off each other to undermine the Turks. At some point the British Cabinet realized what a mess they had made (after WWI was over) and zigged and zagged all over the place to try and make it right... which both the Arabs and Zionist made sure the "new plan" never happened.

So here we are today. Palestinians "assumed" the Zionist would be wiped out in 1948 and the whole of Palestine would be theirs once again, with not a single living Jew in sight. But, the British did beat the Turks and take over Palestine. The British did "promise" a "home" for Zionists. The Zionists did colonize a portion of Palestine. The Zionists did create the state of Israel. The Israelis did survive the 1948 war. The Israelis did survive every subsequent war. And Hamas is still "living the dream" that 1948 never happened.

[taruntravell]

A Journey Through Time: Rijksmuseum's Historical Collections

The Rijksmuseum tours in Amsterdam is renowned for its extensive and impressive collection of art and artifacts that span centuries of Dutch history. The museum, opened in 1885, is a national museum of the Netherlands and is dedicated to the arts, crafts, and history of the country. Let's take a journey through time by exploring some key highlights from the Rijksmuseum' tickets historical collections:

Medieval Art (1200-1600):

The Rijksmuseum houses an array of medieval art, including illuminated manuscripts, religious artifacts, and sculptures. Notable works include intricately detailed altarpieces and religious paintings that provide insight into the religious and artistic practices of the time.

The Dutch Golden Age (17th Century):

This period, known as the Dutch Golden Age, was a time of economic prosperity and cultural flourishing in the Netherlands. The Rijksmuseum features masterpieces from renowned Dutch painters such as Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Frans Hals. Rembrandt's famous painting "The Night Watch" is one of the highlights, showcasing the artist's mastery of light and shadow.

Delftware and Decorative Arts:

The museum boasts an extensive collection of Delftware, the distinctive blue and white pottery that originated in the city of Delft. These ceramics were highly prized during the 17th century and remain iconic examples of Dutch craftsmanship. Additionally, the museum displays exquisite examples of decorative arts, including furniture and silverware.

Maritime History:

Given the Netherlands' rich maritime history, the Rijksmuseum has an impressive collection of maritime artifacts. This includes scale models of ships, navigational instruments, and maritime paintings. The collection reflects the nation's seafaring prowess during the Age of Exploration.

Asian Art and Artefacts:

The Rijksmuseum's collection isn't limited to European art alone. It also houses a diverse array of Asian art and artifacts, reflecting the Dutch East India Company's trading connections with Asia during the 17th and 18th centuries. This section includes ceramics, textiles, and sculptures from various Asian cultures.

19th-Century Romanticism:

The 19th century saw a shift in artistic styles, and the Rijksmuseum captures this transition with works from the Romantic period. Paintings from artists like Jozef Israëls and Johan Barthold Jongkind are featured, depicting landscapes and scenes that evoke emotion and introspection.

Modern and Contemporary Art:

The Rijksmuseum is not solely focused on historical art; it also has a collection of modern and contemporary works. This includes pieces by artists like Vincent van Gogh and Piet Mondrian, showcasing the evolution of Dutch art into the 20th century.

Visiting the Rijksmuseum is like embarking on a visual journey through the rich tapestry of Dutch history and culture. The diverse collections offer a comprehensive view of the artistic and historical developments that have shaped the Netherlands over the centuries.