Tufts Prof Thomas Abowd: Jews Colonial Usurpers in Jerusalem

Israel "has built a whole national mythology out of the City of David" in a "weaponization of myth," stated Israel-hating Tufts University professor Thomas Abowd on March 17 at Washington, DC's anti-Israel Jerusalem Fund think tank. Condemnation of "Israeli Colonial Racism" described in a Powerpoint presentation formed his lecture's central theme, which incongruously presented Jews as colonial usurpers in their own ancestral national homeland before an audience of about twenty.

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/14688

"we need solid archeological evidence" - your comment.

It seems that much of the Bible is fiction. Read "The Bible Unearthed", written by the Israeli
archaeologist Israel Finkelstein in cooperation with Neil Silberman. Finkelstein is the head of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology; Neil Silberman is a historian trained at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and contributing editor for Archaeology Magazine.Here are a few excerpts from a book review:

"A case in point is his study of the biblical account of the battle of Jericho. The notion of the historicity of the Joshuan conquests had seen some support among scholars until fairly recently. But Finkelstein and his school have conŽfirmed that the destruction implicit in the conquest text never occurred. No evidence exists that Canaanite cities, located on the coastal plain and in the valleys, were destroyed at or near the time of the supposed conquest.

Finkelstein’s views regarding the biblical account of the monarchy of David and Solomon is that it is totally incorrect. In the Bible, this period represents
the epitome of the political, economic, and military might of the people of Israel in the ancient world. According to I Kings 4:21-24, the Davidic empire extended from the Euphrates River to Gaza. But as Finkelstein notes, excavations have revealed only three inscriptions in the whole of the Middle East alluding even vaguely to Israel or the House of David. In one of them, dated 1208 BCE, the name Israel is mentioned in a document that reads, “Israel is desolated, its seed is not [i.e., its seed is destroyed].” Finkelstein concludes that David and Solomon were nothing but “mountain chieftains,” and that Judah had only poor tiny villages at the time. Thus the notion of a heroic ancient king with a vast
kingdom is a theological construct formulated by those who set the story down many centuries after the supposed events occurred."

This book contains a very chilling message for the authors of political Zionism and other practitioners of ethnic cleansing (like the Americans):

"The invocation of a persecuted past to legitimate conquest has been used by numerous nations that have seized land while rehearsing the myth of escaping from persecution (such diverse examples include the Nazis reciting their injuries in World War I, and Europeans � citing persecution while seizing land from Native
Americans.) Though we now know that the Joshuan conquest story is only a fantasy, that narrative has provided religious justiŽfication for political actions that have resulted in displacement and destruction of
other peoples, of laying claim to a land that had belonged to others, and of conducting a “conquest under the banner of divine will”. It is highly unfortunate that the biblical narrative shows no ethical accountability:

“and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them” (Deuteronomy 7:2)."

The Bible has a very uncompromising message. Like Israel in the 20th century, this violent message was used to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing in South America by the Spanish conquistadors.

Soren wrote on Apr 1^st, 2015 at 9:57am:


Why are you taking a facetious comment so seriously?
Denigrating humans?  No, but I think we have a long way to go in many respects.

Soren wrote on Mar 31^st, 2015 at 7:05pm:


You miss my point Soren.

If you were teleported under the ground, a worm would survive when you would not.  The worm would pass on genetic material while the worm would slowly devour yours.  A worm is better adapted to living under the ground in dirt, while you are not.

Levels of evolution is a pretty meaningless discussion, as evolution does not have a goal.

Stratos wrote on Mar 31^st, 2015 at 7:11pm:

But try to have a conversation about evolution with a worm.

Amadd wrote on Apr 4^th, 2015 at 11:23pm:

No they don't.

Ethics and morals are rooted in freedom, nothing else. They make sense only if you are free to choose. No animal is free. No lion can choose to go vegetarian.