John Heller's Catechism-22 (Book review of Walter McCrone's Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin)

Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin by Walter C. Mccrone (Author)

"In order to get a supernatural explanation out of the "Shroud", one must be Scientist. But if someone gets a supernatural explanation out of the "Shroud", then one is not Scientist. But in order to..."

*Walter, I'm glad to see that my work was not in vain and that the Pursuit of Truth has finally overtaken perceived truth. The title alone, "Judgment Day For The Shroud Of Turin", is worth the price of the book (30 pieces of silver). The fact that Heller's book, arguing for the authenticity of the Shroud has long since fossilized in the Apologist's Hall Of Fame and gone out of print while your book remains popular kind of says it all.*

The beauty of the book is that while McCrone puts the "Shroud" under the microscope, in a typology which ironically is so crucial to many Church doctrines, McCrone at the same time puts the faith of a Church which believes its leader is infallible but couldn't even tell you if it was going to rain tomorrow under the microscope as well. So, in addition to presenting overwhelming and then some evidence that the "Shroud" is really a shroud the book becomes a wonderful illustration of the nature of Apologetics. Ignore/deny superior tests for supporting conclusions and create/cling to inferior tests supporting assumptions thus placing the usual scientific process backwards (isn't this evidence of Satan?).

If McCrone is guilty of anything it was baiting the Church into thinking that he was exactly the type of scientist wanted by the Church, top credentials but sympathetic to the cause of the Church and determined to prove the Shroud authentic. In his initial letters to Father Rinaldi, offering his services to research the Shroud, McCrone titled his letters, "Authentication Of The Turin Shroud" and wrote, "The provenance for the Shroud is known dependably for more than 600 years with considerable evidence extending this date back to the time of Christ...The protection of this information through proper channels must remain uppermost in our minds...I sincerely hope we may be able to work on this most interesting project and hope that we will be able to obtain data supporting the conclusion that this linen was indeed the one used as Christ's Shroud after the cruxifixion."

As a scientist McCrone should have known before he started his testing that the Shroud was 14th century as he was familiar with the extant letters from the Bishops of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") to the then Pope stating that the creator of the Shroud had confessed that it was a painting (this fact more than any other illustrates the absurdness of the necessity to even test the Shroud for authenticity as the situation is that we have second and third hand evidence that the "Shroud" is a fraud while we have no hand or even foot evidence that there even was a burial shroud of Jesus). Even the supporters of the "Shroud" generally agree that these letters are authentic but they claim that they refer to some other burial Shroud of Jesus near Lyons at the same time (ignore/deny). McCrone had also studied the results of testing by the 1973 Italian Commission, the first group of Scientists, hand picked by the Church, to test the Shroud whose results strongly implied that the Shroud was a 14th century painting. Aside from the conclusive evidence that McCrone found indicating the Shroud was a fraud the Church and Christian scientists involved in the study of the Shroud also came to hate McCrone because they felt that his initial portrayal of being sympathetic to the Church was a false appearance to induce the Church to use him and hid his true belief that the Shroud was a fraud and he wanted to prove that it was to feed his ego and build his reputation as a great scientist.

The bulk of the book consists of McCrone explaining the necessity, procedures, analysis and conclusions of scientific testing of the Shroud in terms easily understandable to the non-scientist and this is where McCrone excels as in addition to superior scientific skills he displays supreme communication skills as a teacher as well. McCrone proves through the use of state of the art microscopic technology that the Shroud image consists almost entirely of paint pigments popular in the 14th century. While generally conceding that there is some paint pigment on the Shroud, supporters of the Shroud deny that the image is a painting because there is no evidence of brushstrokes when examined microscopically. To answer this objection McCrone demonstrated that if the paint was sufficiently diluted in a water base there would be no detectable brushstrokes. McCrone recreated shrouds using the same paint materials used on the Shroud and reported that there were no visible brushstrokes on the recreations and that under the microscope the particles were identical between the recreations and the Shroud and challenged any Shroud supporter to try and tell the difference (a challenge which is still untaken). McCrone next demonstrated that there is no actual blood in the "blood" image areas of the Shroud. Dried blood under the microscope is always black but the blood areas of the Shroud were red. Chemical analysis of the blood image areas also indicated that they lacked major chemical components of blood such as potassium. Shroud supporters, such as Heller, conclude that the blood image areas are blood because they contain some chemical components of blood such as calcium and iron but they ignore that paint pigments also contain calcium and iron. When asked to explain why the usual tests for the presence of blood fail here, such as black color and existence of potassium, they explain that the explanation is some unknown process (ignore/deny).

These then were the two significant conclusions of McCrone, the image is a painting and there is no evidence of blood. McCrone wrote up the results of his testing in articles for peer reviewed and accredited scientific journals and his results are largely accepted by the scientific community at large. McCrone also deals with claims of Shroud supporters who are then forced to rely on inferior issues to support their beliefs. Regarding the common supporter claim that the "Shroud" is a perfect negative image McCrone points out that the hair and blood images of the Shroud are positive, not negative images. The other popular supporter claim is that the Shroud contains a collection of pollens which support a journey from the Middle East, to Turkey and then to Europe. McCrone notes that his examination of the Shroud indicated that the majority of these pollens were concentrated in one extremely limited area of the Shroud and recognizing that he is not a pollen expert provides a special section in his book detailing the report of a pollen expert who has serious doubts as to the credibility of the Scientist (Frei) who reported the pollen findings. McCrone builds such a strong case for the Shroud being a 14th century painting that when McCrone reports towards the end of his book the results of carbon dating showing a 14th century date (surprise) it's actually anti-climactic.

McCrone also describes his impressive credentials, tools and talent for such a project and is quite merciful in describing the lack of corresponding qualifications of his Christian "scientist" opponents instead limiting himself to objectively describing their limited qualifications and use of inferior equipment. John Jackson for instance, perhaps McCrone's biggest critic, had the main qualification for studying the Shroud of being a captain in the U.S. Air Force. Generally, the Christian scientists supporting the Shroud have not had peer reviewed articles published in accredited scientific journals.

McCrone's reward for his work was to be ostracized and shunned by the Church and fellow Christian scientists who in addition to obviously not liking his results were incensed that unlike some predecessors who had similar findings McCrone had the courage to make POSITIVE conclusions ("The Shroud is a 14th century painting") rather than play the Church's game and avoid positive conclusions indicating the Shroud was not authentic ("I did not find evidence that the Shroud is from the 1st century").

In the face of this persecution McCrone displays a timely and welcome sense of humor during his book giving appropriate placed applicable quotes such as Ambrose Bierce's "Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

*Walter: Did you ever know you are my hero? You are the cleaning solution beneath my microscope slide. By golly, you and your microscope were right all along. You've convinced me and I hope your book will convince others. With best wishes and keep up the good work.*

Sincerely and free at last, Galileo

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

Poetry recital by Hatem Bazian at "Mein Kampfeehouse", 

Berkeley, California, April 30, 2001.

"To mein furkengroovin fuhrer. Man, I really dug the way you

were swingin through Poland. Barbarossa was so heavy, that it

blew my mind. You restated the negativeness of the universe.

The hideous, lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness.

The predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless

eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with

nothing but waste, horror and degradation forming a useless,

bleak, straight-jacket in a black, absurd, cosmos.

Mein furkengroovin fuhrer, to me you'll always be the

coolest of the fritz cats and the biggest daddio of the

daddio-land."

Hatem Bazian

Berkeley, California

April 30, 2001.

The Question:

 

Perhaps the only thing Israel and the Palestinians agree on is that the Palestinians demonize Israel as Naziish. From Palestinian Media Watch:

PMW Bulletins Israeli PM Netanyahu is a Nazi with a swastika tattoo - in Fatah cartoon 

PMW Bulletins Fatah: All Israelis are Nazis

PMW Bulletins Fatah posts Nazi children's book: Don’t trust a fox or a Jew

Perhaps the only thing the rest of the world agrees on though is that the Palestinian Media is not credible. So, if we are forced to make a comparison to Nazis here, which side, Israeli or Palestinian, is more Naziish?

When There Were Real Nazis:

 

Once  upon a time there were real Nazis and it really was not that long ago. The Israeli/Arab Conflict first went from simmer to boil during:

1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine 

The military leaders on the Palestinian side were Fawzi al-Qawuqji and Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni. The political leader was Amin al-Husseini:

Fawzi al-Qawuqji 

"Fawzi al-Qawuqji (Arabic: فوزي القاوقجي‎‎; 19 January 1890 – 5 June 1977) was a leading Arab nationalist military figure in the interwar period,^[1] based in Germany, and allied to Nazi Germany during World War II, who served as the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) field commander during the 1948 Palestine War." 

"awarded the German Iron Cross"

"After suffering serious wounds fighting the British in Iraq, al-Qawuqji was transported to Vichy French-held Syria, and then made his way to Nazi Germany.^[8][17] He remained in Germany for the remainder of World War II, recuperated from his wounds, and married a German woman.^[18] Al-Qawuqji's sojourn in Germany has been the subject of considerable controversy.^[19] Gilbert Achcar recounts stories of conflicts during his Berlin period:"

"He was awarded the rank of a colonel of the Wehrmacht (German Army), and given a captain to act as his aide, along with a chauffeured car, and an apartment near the clinic at Hansa. His expenses were paid by Wehrmacht High Command and by Rashid Ali's Foreign Minister. The Germans used al-Qawuqji's name and reputation extensively in their propaganda.^[22]"

So among Fawzi al-Qawuqji's Naziish credentials:

1) Colonel in the Nazi army

2) Actively fought against the Allies

3) Healed and married a German in Nazi Germany

4) Was used for propaganda purposes by the Nazis

In addition, famously said:

"In August he threatened that, should the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish"<sup>[29]"

"I have come to Palestine to stay and fight until Palestine is a free and united Arab country or until I am killed and buried here," ... His aim, he declared, borrowing the slogan that was becoming the leitmotiv of the Arab leadership, was "to drive all the Jews into the sea."[34]

Sounds pretty Naziish. 
Amin al-Husseini</sup> 

You know who

<sup>Just from the picture above you can already tell this is not going to be pretty -

"In 1921 the British High Commissioner appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.[12][13] During the period 1921-36 he was considered an important ally by the British Mandatory authorities.[14] His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge successively in the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Italy and Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS (on the ground that they shared four principles: family, order, the leader and faith)."</sup>

Himmler

"Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.^[160]"

Bosniak soldiers of the SS 13 Division, reading Husseini's pamphlet Islam and Judaism

 ^"Subsequently, the Mufti declared in November 1943:

It is the duty of Muhammadans [Muslims] in general and Arabs in particular to ... drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries... . Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.^[178]"

 

November 1943 al-Husseini greeting Bosnian Waffen-SS volunteers with a Nazi salute.^[216] At right is SS General Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig.

"Throughout World War II, al-Husseini worked for the Axis Powers as a broadcaster in propaganda targeting Arab public opinion. He was thereby joined by other Arabs such as Fawzi al-Qawuqji^[208] and Hasan Salama. The Mufti was paid "an absolute fortune" of 50,000 marks a month (when a German field marshal was making 25,000 marks a year),^[209] the equivalent today of $12,000,000 a year.^[129] Walter Winchell called him "the Arabian Lord Haw-Haw".^[210]
The Mufti also wrote a pamphlet for the 13th SS Handschar division, translated as Islam i Zidovstvo (Islam and Judaism) which closed with a quotation from Bukhari-Muslim by Abu Khurreira that states:"The Day of Judgement will come, when the Muslims will crush the Jews completely: And when every tree behind which a Jew hides will say: 'There is a Jew behind me, Kill him!".^[211]" ...
On 1 March 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husseini said: 'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.'<sup>[213][214][215]"

"Husseini helped organize Arab students and North African emigres in Germany into the "Arabisches Freiheitkorps", an Arab Legion in the German Army that hunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front.[189]"</sup>

Amin al-Husseini's Naziish credentials:

1) Protected by the Nazis during the War

2) Assisted with Nazi propaganda

3) Recruited Muslims for the Waffen-SS

4) Issued policy statement that the Arabs had the right to solve the "Jewish question" in the same way the Nazis solved theirs.

5) Wrote approvingly of the Nazi effort to eliminate the problem of Jews in the world.

6) Wrote propaganda encouraging the destruction of all Jews.

7) Helped organize an Arab legion in the Nazi army.

8) Met with Hitler, Himmler and numerous top Nazi officials to discuss official policy against the Jews.

Impressive credentials.


<sup>Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni

"Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni (Arabic: عبد القادر الحسيني‎‎, also spelled Abd al-Qader al-Husseini) (1907 – 8 April 1948) was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and fighter who in late 1933 founded the secret militant group known as the Organization for Holy Struggle (Munathamat al-Jihad al-Muqaddas),[1][2] which he and Hasan Salama commanded as the Army of the Holy War (Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas) during the 1936–39 Arab revolt and during the 1948 war."

Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world</sup>  

"The Mufti sent Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni to Germany in 1938 for explosives training."

<sup>Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni's Naziish credentials: 

1) Received military training in Nazi Germany.

Unimpressive compared to the high standards of Naziishim already demonstrated here. You could even say the most Naziish thing about him was his affiliation with the others here testing heil for Naziishim. His co-commander was Hasan Salama. Maybe he can help bring up the average:

Hasan Salama

"the Mufti arranged for Salama and other Arab fighters to be flown to Germany for military training. The Germans trained Salama to be a paratrooper.[3]"

"Salama was as a member of a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini."

Hasan Salama's Naziish credentials:   

1) Received military training in Nazi Germany.

2) Was a member of the Waffen SS (the armed wing of the Nazis notorious for war crimes even by Nazi standards). That'll manheim up the average.</sup> 
  
So in summary, for what looks like the four most important Palestinian leaders, they met with Adolf Hitler and other top ranking Nazis to discuss Nazi strategy, spent time in Nazi Germany, were trained by Nazis, assisted with Nazi propaganda, were in the Nazi army including the Waffen-SS and married Nazis. 

In our comparison here it's going to be difficult for their Israeli counterparts to top but that doesn't mean that many will still try. Do a search on the Internet for "Israel Palestinians Nazi". Every hit on the first page will be comparing Israelis to Nazis. 


David Ben-Gurion was the leader of Israel at the time. I can practically guarantee that he never met with Adolf Hitler. So what were his Naziish credentials? At his Wikipedia site most of the quotations are like this:

"This is our native land; it is not as birds of passage that we return to it. But it is situated in an area engulfed by Arabic-speaking people, mainly followers of Islam. Now, if ever, we must do more than make peace with them; we must achieve collaboration and alliance on equal terms"

Not much competition. We need to move to a source apparently more motivated than Wikipedia to demonize Ben-Gurion:

Neil Godfrey's Vridar: Expulsion of the Palestinians: Caution and Discretion during the War Years and the worst we can find there:

"We will propose to Iraq P£10 million in return for the resettlement of 100 thousand Arab families from Palestine in Iraq. I do not know whether Iraq will accept this proposal. If this business was only with Iraq — she might listen to us. Iraq needs a larger Arab settlement and of course it would not be adverse to receiving millions [of pounds]."

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion. There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighbouring countries, such as the Druzes, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Shi’ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about the resettlement of other sections of the Arab populations such as the fellahin and also urban populations in neighbouring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them."

The context of Ben-Gurion here is that it is an idea and not policy. It would also require agreement with the Arabs as a whole and only some Palestinians would have force used against them. Note also the attempt to provide compensation. This is a long way from the Palestinian leaders of the time possessing every Nazi quality except for being German. 

So who's more Naziish now? Beowitch.
 
 

Star Of David Trek

It’s the year 2,025. Israel has recently achieved final peace with all of its Arab neighbors culminating in the opening of the Benjamin Netanyahu Academy of Acting in Cairo and the Yassir Arafat Institute For Reformed Terrorists in Tel Aviv. Thanks to the new peace Israel has replaced its policy of mandatory military service with mandatory graduation from medical school. Also, because of key military  secrets given to Israel by super spy Jonathan Pollard, Israel has become the world leader in science and technology.

Through the conversion of its resources from military applications  to scientific applications Israel has become the first country to develop a ship, the “USS Enteraplea Pollard,” which is capable of going back in time. The “USS Enteraplea Pollard” has been sent on a secret mission to go back in time and remove Chapter 53 from the writings of Isaiah.

To Be Continued :

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939

An official picture from The London Conference - 1939. The astute blog reader will notice the Aranomily of the absence of any Jews in the picture.

1. Introduction of the Issue

 

Israel Before The British Mandate 
The question than, is if there has never been a country approximating Israel that was a Muslim/Arab country, and the original usage of the word for a geographical area "Palestine" by the British explicitly provided for a Jewish State, than why are Arabs in Israel now and since the British Mandate referred to as "Palestinians" as if they are the original citizens of a country called "Palestine"? 


The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence - 1916
"1. By allying with the British and helping to defeat the Ottomans, the Arabs did earn a national Arab State in the Middle East. 
2. The British promise/agreement to the Arabs for an Arab State preceded any such agreement with the Jews for a Jewish State in Israel.  
3. The British were clear that not all of the Middle East would be an Arab State and never formally communicated to the Arabs that Palestine would be part of an Arab State. 
4. While there never has been an Arab and or Muslim State approximating the area of Israel and under the Ottomans there was no "Palestine" entity or governing area approximating Israel, the British did use the name "Palestine" to refer to the area." 

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Balfour Declaration - 1917 
"Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time. We will also see in subsequent posts here that the position of the two sides regarding Jewish and Arab states in Israel has not changed since 1917:

Jewish position - Has always been in favor of and offered Two-State solution.

Arab position - Has always opposed and rejected offer of Two-State solution."

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Peel Commission - 1937 
Even though the Peel Plan was the first specific partition plan it became the basis for all subsequent partition plans. The Plan favored the Jewish side because of British financial reasons and the thinking that the Jewish need for a State was much greater than the Arab need. From an Arab standpoint the Plan was unfavorable because they would receive the less developed land (even though the Jews were responsible for most of the development), they would receive proportionately less land based on relative populations (even though this would benefit both sides from a budget standpoint), most transfers would be of Arabs and they would not have an independent State but become a part of Jordan. 
 

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Woodhead Commission - 1938
Because the predecessor Plan, The Peel Commission, was accepted in principle by the Jews but not only rejected by the Arabs but created an Arab position of refusing to accept the creation of any Jewish state, Britain tried to create a new Partition Plan which would be much more favorable to the Arabs. The Woodhead Commission Plan was much more favorable to the Arabs as they would have an independent Palestinian state for Arabs, Jews would be required to contribute substantially to this Arab state and the Jewish state would be one fifth the size of the Palestinian state. As a result though, the Arab position did not change. They would not accept and would violently oppose the creation of any Jewish state.

Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time and was the primary Arab reaction to The Woodhead Commission.

2. Discussion

 

 The London Conference - 1939

 

"The London Conference (1939), or St James Palace Conference, was called by the British Government to plan the future governance of Palestine and an end of the Mandate. It opened on 7 February 1939 in St James's Palace after which the Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald held a series of separate meetings with an Arab and a Jewish delegation, because the Arab delegation refused to sit in the same room as the Jewish delegation. When Maconald first announced the proposed conference he made clear that if no agreement was reached the government would impose a solution. The process came to an end after five and a half weeks with the British announcing proposals which were later published as the 1939 White Paper" 

Britain's proposals were:

"A limit to Jewish immigration over the following five years after which numbers would be set by agreement with the Palestinian Arabs; restrictions on what parts of the country Jews could buy land.

Gradual introduction of Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, into senior administrative posts.

After a period of ten years the British would transfer all powers to a representative Government."

Key related points -

1) Motivation - Britain's motivation here was to favor the Arab side. The biggest current problem was violent Arab rejection of any Jewish state. Also, World War II was looming and all existing Middle Eastern countries were Arab. 

2) Expectation - Britain's proposal did look like a stalling for time, at least until the War was over. There was a ten year transitional plan before Britain gave up any control and was conditional on an end to the violence. 

3) Limitation - Britain's plan had no specifics.

4) Development - Disproportionate current and future development of Israel by Jews, which benefited/would benefit all inhabitants, was no longer any kind of consideration.

Jewish reaction -  

To the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence of 1916 promising the Arabs that most of Palestine would be an Arab state = None. 

To the Balfour Declaration of 1917 = Acceptance. Hope was turned into possibility and preparations were started for a Jewish State. The emphasis was on the creation of a Jewish State with little thought as to the extent of the Jewish State and whether there would also be a Palestinian state in Israel. 

To The Peel Commission of 1937 = Acceptance of the Plan in general but rejection of the specific borders as too small. Created committee to negotiate specific borders.

To the Woodhead Commission of 1938 = Rejection. Since the recommended Plan would give the Jews one fifth the area of the previous plan and they would be required to provide significant financial assistance to the Arab state which would be five times larger, the Plan was summarily rejected with no offer of negotiation. 

To The London Conference of 1939 =  "

• no minority status for the Jewish community in Palestine
• the Mandate to remain in place
• Jewish immigration to continue, governed by the capacity of the country to absorb the incomers
• investment to speed up development in Palestine^{[34] "} 

Arab reaction -

To the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence of 1916 promising the Arabs that most of Palestine would be an Arab state = Acceptance.

To the Balfour Declaration of 1917 = Rejection. The Arabs were clear that not only would they reject the creation of any Jewish state in Israel but they would be violently opposed. 

To The Peel Commission of 1937 = Rejection. The primary specific complaint was that it would give the Jews the best land. The Arabs rejected the granting of any land to the Jews under any form of administration and demanded an end to Jewish immigration. 

To the Woodhead Commission of 1938 = Ignored. The Woodhead Commission spent three months in Israel, had fifty-five evidence receiving meetings, and no Arabs participated. This even though the proposed Arab state would be five times larger than the Jewish state and receive significant financial assistance from the Jewish state. If instead of having simply a demand that there be no Jewish State the Arab position had been to just minimize the Jewish state and maximize the Arab one, historically, this would have been the best opportunity for the Arabs to do so.

To The London Conference of 1939 = "

• Independence
• No Jewish National Home in Palestine
• Replacement of the Mandate by a Treaty
• End to Jewish immigration^{[23] "}

 3. Conclusion

The conflict for Britain was that the Jews had a much greater need for a homeland than the Arabs because of persecution and the larger the Jewish State the smaller Britain's related financial problem's would be, while the Arabs had a much greater demand than the Jews, that there would be no Jewish State. The imminence of World War II though made the British plan look like a stalling tactic to avoid giving up any control until the War was over. 

The biggest current problem for the British was violent Arab protest over the possibility of creating any Jewish State. The attempted British solution was to propose a one State solution here, similar to what was accepted for Lebanon, with Arabs and Jews holding senior government positions.

The London Conference also exposed another serious obstacle to negotiations, the Arab refusal to meet directly with Jews. This implied an Arab attitude of Jewish inferiority even though everyone would agree that the Jews in general were economically superior. 


Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time and continued to be the primary Arab reaction to subsequent Plans. We will continue to see in subsequent posts here that the position of the two sides regarding Jewish and Arab states in Israel has not changed since 1917:

Jewish position - Has always been in favor of and offered Two-State solution.

Arab position - Has always opposed and rejected offer of Two-State solution.  

In hindsight, the greatest tragedy regarding the failure of a Two-State solution was not that the Arabs still don't have a related State but that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by a Country with the same main religion as Britain in a Continent with the same religion because there was no Jewish State at the time. 

Critics of Israel will try to demonize Israel by posturing and only looking at The Jews/Zionists/Israel's supposed eternal goal of wanting it all. But we need to distinguish between wanting and accepting. It's normal to want more than you are willing to accept but in negotiations what is most important is what you are willing to accept. And that is the difference between Israel and the Arabs and has always been the difference. Regardless of what both sides supposedly want, Israel has always been willing to accept a two-State solution and the Arabs have not.

 

Sudden Incarnation!

Starring:

Dan Patrick as "Dirty Mary"

Nihad Awad as Captain Dagg

JoeWallack as the Street Pagan

And

Donald Sutherland as "Shades"

Special guest appearance by Yeshua courtesy of Warning Brothers
Studios.

Sunglasses generously provided by the Swiss Banking Association
Holocaust Survivors Reparations Fund.

Jointly presented by the National Association of Sunday Schools
and Judas Ford Dealership, where our motto is "The Customer Is
Always Righteous" and the guaranteed lowest prices in Heaven,
Earth or Hell, starting at just thirty pieces of silver.

Narrator: The Streets of Babylon are filled with the cowardly,
unbelieving, vile, murderous, sexually immoral, magicians,
idolaters, liars and Methodists. Whenever there's a dirty little job
to do, one man is called upon to set things right. That man, whose
name is Immanuel, is named Dirty Mary.

Dirty Mary : (Showing up at the Captain's office) You called me?

Captain Dagg : Depravity is natural to man; it is born with him, and
not acquired in the progress of life. It is not to be ascribed to
evil habit, or evil example. Evil habits are formed by evil doing;
and evil doing would not be, if there were no evil propensity. Evil
example would not everywhere exist, if human nature were not
everywhere corrupt; and the tendency to follow evil example would not
be so common, and so much to be guarded against, if it were not
natural to man. The Scriptures clearly teach this doctrine. "Behold,
I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."[16]
The psalmist did not mean to charge his mother with crime in these
his humble confessions, but manifestly designs them to be an
acknowledgment that his depravity was in-woven in his nature,
and bore date from the very origin of his being. The Saviour taught,
that which is born of the flesh, is flesh.[17] The term flesh, which
is here opposed to spirit, signifies, as it does in other places, our
depraved nature. It traces human depravity up to our very birth.

Dirty Mary : So?

Captain Dagg : In concluding this brief inquiry into the origin of
the Bible, we may admire and adore the wonderful providence of God,
which has made his enemies the preservers and witnesses of his
revelation. The Jews, who killed the prophets and crucified the Son
of God himself, have preserved and transmitted the Scriptures of the
Old Testament, and are now witnesses to the world of its divine
origin, and the truth of its prophecies. The Roman Catholic Church,
the great Antichrist, or man of sin, drunk with the blood of
the saints, has transmitted to us the Scriptures of the New
Testament, and now gives, in the same two-fold manner, its testimony
to this part of the Sacred Volume.

Dirty Mary : I see. (Goes to office, turns on computer and starts
cruising the message boards. Sees following message: "Dear Christian
friend, my Hebrew/English dictionary translates "almah" as "young
women". Of course, it is a 1997 dictionary so it could be out of date
and one of my fellow congregates at Temple Beth I Hear You Calling
owns stock in the publishing company so there could be some bias in
favor of the Jews. Anyway, this is all just my opinion, I could be
wrong. Sincerely, JoeWallack."

Dirty Mary flies off into a rage determined to find JoeWallack and
bring him to justice for his blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.)

Collage of Dirty Mary combing the streets trying to find JoeWallack.

New Orleans - knocks on door of "Just Sleezing Through Motel". Shows
post to Jimmy Swaggert. Swaggert shakes his head "no".

Airplane - sits down next to Reverend Schuler who is bound and gagged.
Shows post and removes gag. Schuler shrieks at the top of his
lungs, "I want a soufflé!!!". Covers ears and puts gag back on
Schuler.

Rome - ushered into small, dark backroom of Vatican where Pope is
playing poker with some Bishops. Shows post to Pope who
takes a quick glance, gives an even quicker "no" shake and
looks at hand which contains three kings (all hearts). Puts
hand in pocket which comes up empty. Takes off crucifix
around neck and throws it into pot.

A dejected Dirty Mary walks back to office when he notices that Temple
Beth I Hear You Calling is located next door to his office building.
Further, he sees a young man walking out holding a prayer book in one
hand and "Groucho" glasses in the other.

Dirty Mary : (With menacing sneer). You JoeWallack? (JoeWallack
freezes, then puts on Groucho glasses and tries to get away. Dirty
Mary closes the distance like O.J. Simpson during a "blackout" while
JoeWallack takes two steps and then trips over his own feet. Dirty
Mary takes out large Bible, cocks it in arm and aims it threateningly
at JoeWallack's head.) I know what yer thinking Pagan. Just how many
gods are there in Christianity, five or six? There's the Father, the
Son, the Holy Spirit, Satan, the Counselor and if Jesus died but was
resurrected and will return, should he be counted twice? To tell you
the truth I kind of lost track myself during two thousand years of
theological excitement, changes inspired by the Holy Spirit and
redactions. But seeing as Christianity is the most powerful religion
in the world and will blow your soul clean off if I'm right and
you're wrong, you have to ask yourself one question. "Do I feel
lucky?". WELL PAGAN, DO YA?! (Moves Bible closer to JoeWallack's head
with increasingly menacing sneer.)

JoeWallack : Okay, okay, don't throw the book at me. I accept Jesus as
my personal lord and savior. (Dirty Mary slowly turns and starts to
stoically walk away.) Wait a minute. I gots to know. Which version of
the Bible is that?

Dirty Mary: (sneer on face gradually changes to a grin). KJV, 1954. It
has so many mistranslations even I don't use it anymore, but I was in
a hurry this morning and it was all I could find on the way out.
(Throws Bible into nearby dumpster and starts whistling to self).

Star Of David Wars

A short, short time ago, 16-06-06 08:21:08 EST to be exact, in a galaxy very, very near (actually our own galaxy I think), there is a Jewdie Knight named "Luke" Skyworker, leader of the Rebellion, who fights to unite the galaxy under one religion. His adversary is the evil emperor who believes that "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. For happily the government of the Empire, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens."

Our story starts out in a small deli on the lower east side. Their prices are a little high, not too high, just a little high, their food is ok, it's not great, what do I know?

Be with us next week when "Luke" meets the spiritual leader of the Rebellion, Yodayahwahwho?, and learns about the "Verse".

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Woodhead Commission - 1938

 

1. Introduction of the Issue

 

Israel Before The British Mandate 
The question than, is if there has never been a country approximating Israel that was a Muslim/Arab country, and the original usage of the word for a geographical area "Palestine" by the British explicitly provided for a Jewish State, than why are Arabs in Israel now and since the British Mandate referred to as "Palestinians" as if they are the original citizens of a country called "Palestine"? 


The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence - 1916
"1. By allying with the British and helping to defeat the Ottomans, the Arabs did earn a national Arab State in the Middle East. 
2. The British promise/agreement to the Arabs for an Arab State preceded any such agreement with the Jews for a Jewish State in Israel.  
3. The British were clear that not all of the Middle East would be an Arab State and never formally communicated to the Arabs that Palestine would be part of an Arab State. 
4. While there never has been an Arab and or Muslim State approximating the area of Israel and under the Ottomans there was no "Palestine" entity or governing area approximating Israel, the British did use the name "Palestine" to refer to the area." 

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Balfour Declaration - 1917 
"Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time. We will also see in subsequent posts here that the position of the two sides regarding Jewish and Arab states in Israel has not changed since 1917:

Jewish position - Has always been in favor of and offered Two-State solution.

Arab position - Has always opposed and rejected offer of Two-State solution."

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Peel Commission - 1937 
Even though the Peel Plan was the first specific partition plan it became the basis for all subsequent partition plans. The Plan favored the Jewish side because of British financial reasons and the thinking that the Jewish need for a State was much greater than the Arab need. From an Arab standpoint the Plan was unfavorable because they would receive the less developed land (even though the Jews were responsible for most of the development), they would receive proportionately less land based on relative populations (even though this would benefit both sides from a budget standpoint), most transfers would be of Arabs and they would not have an independent State but become a part of Jordan. 

Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time and was the primary Arab reaction to The Peel Commission.

 

2. Discussion

 

 The Woodhead Commission - 1938

 

"The Woodhead Commission (officially the Palestine Partition Commission^[1]) was a British technical commission established to propose "a detailed" partition scheme for Mandatory Palestine, including recommending the partition boundaries and examination of economic and financial aspects of the Peel Plan.^[2][3]
The Commission was appointed at the end of February 1938 and conducted its investigations from April to early August 1938. It rejected the Peel Commission's plan mainly on the grounds that it required a large transfer of Arabs, and considered two other plans. It preferred a modification of the partition, which forms a satisfactory basis of settlement, if the United Kingdom government accept "the very considerable financial liability involved,"^[4] that balances the Arab state budget.^[5] In this plan, the entire Galilee and a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem would remain under British mandate.
It published its conclusions on November 9, 1938, after which the British government rejected the imminent partition of Palestine as involving insurmountable "political, administrative and financial difficulties".^[6] Britain called for a conference in London for all relevant parties to work out a compromise."

The Commission developed three plans with the following the recommended plan:

Key related points -

1) Motivation - Britain rejected the Peel Plan because it required a large transfer of Arabs and the Arabs refused to negotiate the Plan.

2) Expectation - Britain was now increasingly aware of the difficulties involved in creating any plan which was acceptable to both sides and thus had much lower expectations now regarding being able to create any currently successful plan.

3) Limitation - Since estimated tax revenue was significantly less among Arabs, if significantly less Arabs were transferred to a Jewish state, then Britain would have to provide significant financial assistance to the Arab state. Britain's related problem was that the smaller the Jewish State, the fewer Arabs would have to be transferred but the fewer the Arabs transferred, the greater Britain's related financial problem. In order to try and accomplish this, the proposed Jewish state would be one fifth the size as that under the Peel Commission, in order to minimize Arab transfer, and this Jewish state would have a significant tax imposed in order to help balance the budget of the Arab state.


4) Development - Disproportionate current and future development of Israel by Jews, which benefited/would benefit all inhabitants, was no longer a key consideration.

Jewish reaction -  

To the previous McMahon–Hussein Correspondence of 1916 promising the Arabs that most of Palestine would be an Arab state = None. 

To the Balfour Declaration of 1917 = Acceptance. Hope was turned into possibility and preparations were started for a Jewish State. The emphasis was on the creation of a Jewish State with little thought as to the extent of the Jewish State and whether there would also be a Palestinian state in Israel. 

To The Peel Commission of 1937 = Acceptance of the Plan in general but rejection of the specific borders as too small. Created committee to negotiate specific borders.

To the Woodhead Commission of 1938 = Rejection. Since the recommended Plan would give the Jews one fifth the area of the previous plan and they would be required to provide significant financial assistance to the Arab state which would be five times larger, the Plan was summarily rejected with no offer of negotiation. 



Arab reaction -

To the previous McMahon–Hussein Correspondence of 1916 promising the Arabs that most of Palestine would be an Arab state = Acceptance.

To the Balfour Declaration of 1917 = Rejection. The Arabs were clear that not only would they reject the creation of any Jewish state in Israel but they would be violently opposed. 

To The Peel Commission of 1937 = Rejection. The primary specific complaint was that it would give the Jews the best land. The Arabs rejected the granting of any land to the Jews under any form of administration and demanded an end to Jewish immigration. 

To the Woodhead Commission of 1938 = Ignored. The Woodhead Commission spent three months in Israel, had fifty-five evidence receiving meetings, and no Arabs participated. This even though the proposed Arab state would be five times larger than the Jewish state and receive significant financial assistance from the Jewish state. If instead of having simply a demand that there be no Jewish State the Arab position had been to just minimize the Jewish state and maximize the Arab one, historically, this would have been the best opportunity for the Arabs to do so.

3. Conclusion

 

Because the predecessor Plan, The Peel Commission, was accepted in principle by the Jews but not only rejected by the Arabs but created an Arab position of refusing to accept the creation of any Jewish state, Britain tried to create a new Partition Plan which would be much more favorable to the Arabs. The Peel Commission Plan was much more favorable to the Arabs as they would have an independent Palestinian state for Arabs, Jews would be required to contribute substantially to this Arab state and the Jewish state would be one fifth the size of the Palestinian state. As a result though, the Arab position did not change. They would not accept and would violently oppose the creation of any Jewish state.

Violent Arab rejection of The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the start of the Israeli/Arab conflict which has continued to the present time and was the primary Arab reaction to The Woodhead Commission. We will also see in subsequent posts here that the position of the two sides regarding Jewish and Arab states in Israel has not changed since 1917:

Jewish position - Has always been in favor of and offered Two-State solution.

Arab position - Has always opposed and rejected offer of Two-State solution.  

In hindsight, the greatest tragedy regarding the failure of a Two-State solution was not that the Arabs still don't have a related State but that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered by a Country with the same main religion as Britain in a Continent with the same religion because there was no Jewish State at the time. 

Critics of Israel will try to demonize Israel by posturing and only looking at The Jews/Zionists/Israel's supposed eternal goal of wanting it all. But we need to distinguish between wanting and accepting. It's normal to want more than you are willing to accept but in negotiations what is most important is what you are willing to accept. And that is the difference between Israel and the Arabs and has always been the difference. Regardless of what both sides supposedly want, Israel has always been willing to accept a two-State solution and the Arabs have not.