[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: question
Philip,
It seems to me that the issue is not necessarily political, but rather has
to do with the way in which we use, evaluate and unintentionally ignore
sources and their uses of language. You make a flat statement that
"Palestine is the long-established name of the territory." I don't mean to
engage in any kind of political discussion in this forum, but would you not
agree that 'Palestine" is a long-established name of the territory for those
sources (largely Christian and/or Western) that draw their terminology from
the Roman usages. The general, and remarkably consistent Jewish usages over
thousands of years refer to what is approximately that territory by terms
like: "Eretz Yisrael" (the land of Israel), "Eretz Tzion" (Land of Zion),
"Aretz" (the Land), or terms like "nakhalah" (inheritance) etc.
Illustrations of the "long established" {Jewish} name of the territory are
readily available in the Jewish prayer book, Jewish rabbinic literature like
the Talmud and commentaries on the Torah, vast and widely read (in the
Jewish world) literature spanning the last two thousand years or so. Usage
of the term "Palestine" in Jewish sources before the modern era must be very
slight. I don't think I've ever seen it. (Incidentally, the official
designation of the territory, under the British Mandate was Palestine
(E.I.). The E. I. stood for Eretz Israel.)
I think that it is important to recognize that the issue goes beyond our
justifiable annoyance with the political landmines that lie in the use of
these terms. I think that it is very important to good scholarship to
recognize just how culturally bound these terms are. It isn't that the
Jewish sources use the "correct" name and the non-Jewish sources are
"wrong." Neither is the opposite true. It seems to me that we all need to
be careful of sweeping generalizations that perhaps unintentionally
deligitimize important sources.
With best wishes, Ed
At 12:28 PM 4/14/96 +0100, you wrote:
> Am I mistaken or is
>>Herodotus' usage of Suria ey Palaistiney a rather weak basis for regarding
>>Palestine the name of Israel?
>
>>Yirmiyahu Ben-David, Pakiyd 16
>>K'hiylat Ha-N'tzarim
>>(World-wide Congregation of Nazarene Jews)
>>
>I think the point is being missed. Palestine and Israel do not refer to the
>same area. As I said before, Israel is the name of a state only since 1948
>(unless you go back to 722 BCE). Palestine is the long-estabpished name of
>te territory. Equally, of course, Palestine is not a state either. Now,
>there IS a state of Israel and citizens of it can call themselves
>Israelis.But this Israel is not Palestine; it occupies part of palestine.
> After all, if Israel = Palestine. then Israelis are Palestinians
>and Palestinians are Israelis. Neiter side seems to want that, though.
> Sorry to be political on what is an academic list, but I did not start
>this. I think that the argument over 'Israel' vs 'Palestine' as a name is
>political, and nothing else. Perhaps we can all recognize that and drop the
>subject?
>
>Philip R Davies
>Department of Biblical Studies
>University of Sheffield
>
>
>
>