Posted on 05/05/2002 8:14:09 PM PDT by WaterDragon
David Northfield, reporting Saturday morning, 04/06, on KGW-TV (Portland, OR), during tape footage of the "Palestinian" demonstration on Pioneer Square in Portland, mangled the news beautifully by just being ignorant. He didn't offer a single argument to the "Palestinian" claims. When done intentionally, this is called softball interview, and means the "journalist" favors the subject's point of view. That's called bias. When combined with a lack of interest in the facts, it's sloppy work, to boot.
I doubt if Mr. Northfield knows a single thing about the subject -- which proves he belongs in the mainstream media, where "broadcast journalist" is an oxymoron.
Here's what he should have known before airing a report on the subject. Not that he would have used it all. It's what in the news business is known as background research. Media outlets, if they are to be considered credible, must find out this sort of information before dealing with a major news topic. Just sticking a microphone in somebody's face and asking them how they feel is not enough. He could have learned what you are about to read in a half an hour on the internet, but it seems that as far as he is concerned, you aren't worth ten minutes of research.
For a long time prior to the Roman occupation adjacent to the time of Christ, the residents of the area in dispute were referred to in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (taken from the Jewish Torah) as Canaanites. They had no connection with Islam because the religion would not be created for another thirty-five centuries, give or take a few. The Romans (probably in deference ot local custom) took to calling it "Palestinia," from which we get Palestine, but it isn't in any Latin lexicon to which I have personal or internet access. Arabic is said to have a similar word, falestyn, but no dictionary of that tongue I have found includes the term. The only internet reference to it seems to be in modern documents written in the Russian language. That's a dead end, too, because Russian dictionaries I've checked don't include it, either.
My research on the broader subject indicates that before the land was called Canaan (the Promised Land of the Torah and Old Testament), the area was made up of city states with kings -- quite similar to patterns familiar to students of Athenian/Spartan Greece. Like the inhabitants of ancient Greece, classical Rome and even a great many in modern India, the people of the land to be called Canaan were polytheists. The idea of monotheism (the worship of a single god) seems to have first developed in the tribes of Iron Age Juday, which, if my information is correct, worshipped Yaweh -- the deity today called God by Christians and Allah by Moslems...(snip)
The reason why this matters is that an Arab Mr. Northfield's camera caught on tape said that "Palestinians" have a "right" to include Jerusalem in any settlement because it is their holy capitol. Jerusalem, however, was not founded by Moslems.
It was originally called Urusalim (see historical descriptive below) by the city's earliest residents, the Jebusites. Probably most of them were Semites. (With the possible exception of the lighter-skinned, blue-eyed Circassians, all Arabs are Semitic. So are Jews.) God only knows who the Jebusites prayed to. It could have been "Shalem". Maybe a god named "Jebu". It is certain that none were Moslems. When the legendary King David won the city in battle, he renamed it after himself. Sometime after that it got its current name, which is similar to the Jebusite original but in Hebrew is a word that means "city of peace". Considering its long history of warfare, it's an ironic title....(snip)
Welcome to FreeRepublic. : )
I appreciate your point of view. However, I can't tell from LostTribe's posts and links whom he believes constitutes the Tribe Of Judah.
My question for him is simple:
"Do you believe the people living in Israel today who claim to be Jews are Israelites, descended from Jacob?"
In other words, I am wondering if he believes that the people on earth today who claim to be Jews are Jews, of the Tribe Of Judah, descendants of Jacob; or, does LostTribe believe them to be imposters?
I'm not trying to smear him; I haven't prejudged him. I just want to know the answer, and it's an answer he can give me as soon as he reads my myriad posts to him on this topic.
The issue of The Lost Tribes is used by many who deny the lineage of modern-day Jews from Jacob. I want to know where LostTribe stands on this issue, and he should have no problem answering the question clearly, right here, without referring me to links or previous posts. After all, he expresses his viewpoint about (and his screen name reflects) his interest in Lost Tribe history theory with great verve and gusto. He need not shy away from my question set forth right here.
I say that it is mere semantic nitpicking over a trivial factoid which has very little, if any at all, relevance to current events. It is like interrupting every thread which mentions "Americans" to say that Mexicans, Canadians, Brazilians, Argentineans, etc. are also "Americans" because they live in North or South America.
Shut the hell up, jerk.
Well, maybe you're right. But I certainly wasn't aware of the real definition of who is an Israelite and who is a Jew (and I've read the Bible "through and through"), and I suspect most other people who think they understand the Old Testament don't understand it that well either. It is so easy to mix up Jew and Israelite, they seem to blend into the same thing, when of course we (now) know they are not.
I personally think Lost Tribe is doing a great public service by helping people better understand the basis of their faith. And if he choses to do that by pointing out those basic errors in threads, that's just fine by me.
Did you miss the part about bearing false witness?
Why yes, I have no reason to believe otherwise. Why do you ask?
While I have heard of a book on the Khazarites I have not yet read it. My primary interest is in the Northern Kingdom and it's progression through name changes to become the Lost Tribes of Israel, then the Celts, etc., and in keeping word usage accurate.
I ask in part because the issue of the Lost Tribes is agendized to the point of absurdity by anti-Semitic purveyors of the lie that the latter-day Jews in Israel (and the Jews scattered throughout the world today) aren't descended from the Jews of the Old Testament.
I invite you to run a search on Arnold Murray of The Shepherd's Chapel in Gravette Arkansas. He believes that the Kenites (decendents of Caan) are actually descended from Satan, whom he believes had sexual intercourse with Eve. From what I can gather, he believes that the modern-day Jews are Kenites...imposters...who steal the name Israelite...no better than common Claim Jumpers, thieves of the good names of others...who attempt to justify their greedy, clutching, grasping actions by subverting the word of God.
I submit that this kind of talk is highly inflammatory and will raise the hackles of observant Jews, evangelical Christians and anyone else concerned about cults, heresy and anti-Semitism.
And Jerusalem is the center of Israel.
And the Temple Mount is the center of Jerusalem. This is how I feel about it and being Jewish. Can some Christian freepers comment on this? Thanks!
"As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,
so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...
situated in the centre of the world,
and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,
and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,
and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,
and the ark in the centre of the holy place,
and the foundation stone before the holy place,
because from it the world was founded."
Midrash Tanchuma, Qedoshim.
Sure, and I agree with you about that. You should now should know quite clearly where I am. I speak for no one, and no one speaks for me. What you see is what you get, it is mine alone. Don't like it, fine. Have a nice day. Don't associate me with nuts, and I won't associate you with nuts.
As far as Celtic references, the work on the Assyrian Tablets in the British Museum linked from my Profile is excellent. Well written, inexpensive, authoritative, and stands alone. Nothing else needed. I think you will be impressed and will see that there is a real case to be made. After you have read it, come back and we'll talk some more.
I don't. I don't know who you believe has stolen the name Israelite if it isn't the latter-day Jews...I don't know who you say are no better than common Claim Jumpers, who you say are thieves of the good names of others, who attempt to justify their greedy, clutching, grasping actions by subverting the word of God...and I don't know these things because you won't tell me. Why do you prefer to leave those reading your words in the dark about these things? Those were your words. Why not explain them?
You're obviously referring to some group of people. Who are they? Who could possibly have stolen the name "Israelite?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
