.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Jews as the Ultimate Underdog in Muslim Society, in particular in Jerusalem

We have shown in previous posts on this blog that the Jews were at the bottom of the pecking order in Ottoman society, in particular in the Land of Israel as demonstrated by evidence from Jerusalem. Francesco Suriano, a Franciscan monk, reports this situation even before the Ottoman conquest, towards the end of Mamluk rule in Israel [about 1500]. Chateaubriand, the French writer, reports on his trip to Jerusalem in 1806; NeoPhytos [Neophitos], a Greek monk, reports on the period between 1821 and 1841, also from Jerusalem; and Karl Marx reports as of 1854. All of these persons were actual eyewitnesses to events and doings in Jerusalem and Israel, but for Marx. Nevertheless, Marx, whatever we may think of his economic, historical, philosophical, and political theories, was a very well informed person in his time and wrote a regular column on world affairs for the very capitalist New York Daily Tribune [his piece on Jerusalem appeared 15 April 1854]. Accounts by other writers that have not yet appeared on the Emet m'Tsiyon blog are similar. We hope to soon post the account of Gerardy Santine, from the 1850s like Marx's account. These accounts were all written before Theodore Herzl was even born; hence, the State of Israel and political Zionism cannot explain them.

A series of Ottoman political reforms --the Tanzimat reforms-- undertaken mainly under Western pressure, granted near equality in the Empire to non-Muslim subjects. These reforms started in 1839. Jews too benefitted from them. Of course, to what extent the reforms were applied in practice in every corner of the Empire is another matter.

Not everyone was happy --putting it mildly-- about the Tanzimat reforms which granted the non-Muslims a status close to that of equality with the Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. These reforms were not "organic." They did not grow out of the wishes or thinking of the Ottoman governing class or of the dominant, ascendant Muslim population in the Empire. They were imposed on the Empire by the Western powers which wanted to show their peoples that they had received some return for their military efforts to defend the Ottoman Empire against Russia. Now, not only were many Muslims bitterly angry and resentful over changes which made the dhimmi peoples nearly equal to themselves by law --in violation of the Muslim shari`ah law-- but according to an Ottoman writer, some dhimmis were resentful of being placed on a level of equality with other dhimmis traditionally treated as on a lower level than themselves. And the mid-19th century writing below is additional support for our thesis that the Jews were low man on the Ottoman totem pole --certainly in the Land of Israel-- treated with disdain and humiliated by Christians too. I do not know whether the author is describing a legally formal situation of a hierarchy or ranking of dhimmi peoples, or merely a de facto situation, the situation in practice.

Bernard Lewis has translated this passage from Turkish.
"A contemporary Ottoman source remarks [BL]:

In accordance with this ferman [decree] Muslim and non-Muslim subjects were to be made equal in all rights. This had a very adverse effect on the Muslims. Previously , one of the four points adopted as basis for peace agreements (musalaha) had been that certain privileges were accorded to Christians on condition that these did not infringe the sovereign authority of the government. Now the question of specific privileges lost its significance; in the whole range of government, the non-Muslims were forthwith to be deemed the equals of the Muslims. Many Muslims began to grumble: 'Today we have lost our sacred national [milli] rights, won by the blood of our fathers and forefathers. At a time when the Islamic millet is the ruling millet, it has been deprived of this sacred right. This is a day of weeping and mourning for the people of Islam.'

As for the non-Muslims, this day, when they left the status of raya [= herd; used especially to refer to Greeks and Armenians] and gained equality with the ruling millet, was a day of rejoicing. But the patriarchs and other religious chiefs were displeased, because their apppointments were incorporated in the ferman. Another point was that whereas in former times, in the Ottoman state, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks, then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: 'The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.' [Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (London: Phoenix 2003), p 104]


The point made by this quotation is supported by published 19th century accounts written by persons who were neither Muslims nor Jews. Chateaubriand, NeoPhytos, Karl Marx, and Gerardy Santine. Marx is sometimes considered a Jew. He was of Jewish birth, but his father, ambitious to rise in Prussian society, had him converted at age six and Marx received a Christian education. The article in which he reports oppression of Jews in mid-19th century Jerusalem is the only writing by him that is in the least sympathetic to Jews. NeoPhytos was a Greek Orthodox monk who lived in Jerusalem for many years; his chronicle as published covers a period of twenty [20] years, from 1821 to 1841. He was obviously in a very good position to know what was going on in the country. Moreover, since he was a monk, there is no reason to suspect that he was trained to have pro-Jewish sympathies.

Note that the author and the Muslims whom he refers to perceive themselves as belonging to an Islamic people or nation --millet in Turkish [from the Arabic millatun]-- not as part of a Turkish or Arab nation, etc.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming soon:
The unofficial exploitation of Jews --beyond what is prescribed by Muslim law-- by Muslim officials, notables and chieftains in Jerusalem both before the Crusades and in the late 18th century. See the extortion of money for permits to do all sorts of necessary activities, etc., as documented by Moshe Gil and Jacob Barnai.
Compare with the extortion of money from the Greek Orthodox in reaction to the Greek revolt of the 1820s, presented in previous posts.

Friday, October 28, 2005

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE ARCH OF TITUS שער טיטוס & MORE PHOTOS - Part 2

The Arch of Titus in Rome is a monument to Jewish history, albeit a monument to a Jewish defeat. Yet, the very fact that Roman emperors of the Flavian dynasty built a triumphal arch to commemorate their victory over the Jews of Judea [war of 66 CE-73 CE] demonstrates that this victory was very important and significant to them and that they considered the Jews a formidable enemy. Likewise, the fact that the emperors minted various coins too --and over a period of twenty-five [25] years-- to commemorate the victory demonstrates its importance to them. This solidly refutes the attempts by certain historians today, especially "leftists" and others writing in the tradition of German philosophy (that is, of Kant, Hegel, and their followers), to belittle or even deny the Jewish role in history, as do the PLO and its academic toadies today. Now, it is true that the Romans built other victory arches, but they did not build an arch for every victory. Only when the victory was significant.

The coins too demonstrate the importance of this victory. They carry the inscriptions Judea Capta, Judea Devicta, or simply Judea, etc. Bear in mind that in Latin inscriptions, Judea was written IVDAEA. This name was applied by Greeks and Romans to the country that the Jews have traditionally called Land of Israel (also appearing in the New Testament Book of Matthew, 2:20-21). The Greek Ioudaia and the Latin IVDAEA derive from the Aramaic word Yehudaya [= "the Jews"]. Maybe a Greek traveler touring the region of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, asked a speaker of Aramaic, "Who lives over there?" And the answer was: Yehudaya (the Jews). An H sound in the middle of a word very easily drops out, in English too, and that is likely how the word changed from Yehudaya to Ioudaia. As to the coins, bear in mind that there were several coin issues commemorating this victory and that they were issued over a period of twenty-five [25] years.

The arch and the coins together attest to the antiquity of Jewish history back to the time of the Roman Empire, as well to the destruction of the Temple by Roman forces. They are a concrete refutation of the claims not only of "leftist" historians trying to belittle Jewish history, but of Arab and other pro-PLO historians who nowadays try to deny Jewish history in the Land of Israel altogether. This revolt was only the first of three major Jewish revolts against Rome. The second one occurred in the Diaspora, especially Egypt, in the years 115-117 CE, while the third began in 132 CE. This third revolt, led by Bar Kokhba, lasted four years until 135 CE. This war cost the Romans dearly took, since the Jews wiped out at least one full legion, and the Roman emperor had to replace the commander on the ground with another commander --Julius Severus-- called to Judea from far away Britain.

The Romans continued to call Israel PROVINCIA IVDAEA until they had defeated the Jews in the war [135 CE]. The war is described in earlier posts on this blog concerning its conduct and results [search for Bar Kokhba, Eusebios, Fronto, Dio Cassius, etc.]. Besides massive killing of Jews by Roman legionaries, another result, meant as an insult, punishment and humiliation for the Jews, was the name change from Judea to Provincia Syria Palaestina [apparently carried out in 135 CE].

VIEWS OF THE INNER FACES with bas reliefs, of the ARCH of TITUS



The inner face on the south side seen from the north. The trees in the background are on the Palatine Hill. Note the famous image of the Menorah looted from the Temple in Jerusalem, here being carried in a Roman victory procession. Click on photo to enlarge.

The inner face on the north side seen from the south. The arch is located in the main Roman forum. On this relief, we see "the emperor Titus in a triumphal quadriga, driven by the goddess Roma while Victory holds a crown over his head." [Joseph Fattorusso, ed., Wonders of Italy (in the Medici Art Series), (Florence: repr. ed. December 1944); p 399] Click on photo to enlarge.

The inscription below appears above the arch on the outer face on the east side facing east.

SENATVS POPULVSQVE ROMANVS
DIVO TITO DIVI VESPANIF
VESPASIANOAVGVSTO

The name Titus appears here in the form of TITO. Note that the emperor still acted in the name of the Senate, referred to here as The Roman Senate and People in the top line of the inscription. This term is often shortened to SPQR.

The inscription below appears on the west side facing west above the arch. It is not original but was engraved by Pope Pius VII who presided as pope from 1800 to 1823. The original inscription had apparently been destroyed in warfare or defaced or damaged in some way. The pope's inscription replaced the original.

Insigne religionis atque artis monumentum
vetustatque Fatiscens
Pius Septimus Pontifex max
Novis Operibus Priscum exemplar imitantibus
Fulciri Servanque ivssit
anno sacri Principatus Eius XXIIII

<>For more information on and photos of the Arch of Titus, see Part 1 on this topic.
[minor corrections of some dates made on 11-13-05]

- - - - - - -
Coming soon: A Roman military diploma showing the Roman official usage of the name Judea.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

REPERCUSSIONS OF THE GREEK REVOLT IN ISRAEL -- Part 8

The Greek Revolt continued for several years after its onset in 1821. NeoPhytos reports that "there was great unrest" in 1823 as well, in the Levant, "due to the arrival of eleven Greek ships at Beirut."

The Christians and the Catholics suffered greatly from the threats of `Abdallah Pasha, the Governor of Ptolemais [= `Akko, Acre], who believed that they were conspiring against him [and that the ships were part of the plot].

When the news of the arrival of the eleven ships reached Jerusalem, the Turks were disturbed for they believed that besides those ships, some others were coming with troops to conquer Jerusalem. They even tried to imprison the Orthodox in the church of the Holy Sepulcher as they had done in 1798 on the coming of Napoleon Bonaparte.

They abandoned their intention on being informed of the flight of the ships. Then they cursed and threatened us every day and swore: "You wrote to the Greeks to come here and capture this place. But if they appear in these parts, we will slay all of you, from the oldest to the youngest, and we will destroy your church." With God's help we kept them quiet. By borrowing money at high rate of interest and by mortgaging our property we "put silver and gold into the mouths" of the Notables.

In the same year, `Abdallah Pasha of Ptolemais caused great mischief to the Christians. He invented means whereby he imprisoned the Metropolitans of Ptolemais, Athanasios, and Benjamin of Beirut. He demanded such great sums of money that the payment left them both impoverished and in serious straits. That not sufficing, he still continued to threaten and annoy them, until they finally escaped to the mountains of the Lebanon.

This tyrannous, Christian-hating Pasha, beheaded an Orthodox pilgrim on a charge of espionage. He also imprisoned the Superior of Ramleh. This caused all the Orthodox Notables of Gaza, Jaffa and Ramleh to move, together with their wives and children, to other districts and provinces.
[Neophitos [NeoPhytos], Extracts from Annals of Palestine, 1821-1841 (Jerusalem: Ariel Pubs., 1979); pp 17-18; reprinted from Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII, 1938]

Sultan Mahmud did not have the manpower at his disposal to put down the Greek revolt, so he reluctantly brought in his rival, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, his nominal vassal.

The Sultan now realized that he must look for aid elsewhere, and his thoughts turned to his nominal vassal, the virtually independent Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt. But to invoke Mehemet Ali's help would mean paying a high price and for some time [Sultan] Mahmud remained in two minds about paying it. Since 1822 Crete had been in a state of sympathetic insurrection which had proved partly successful. The insurgents had swept the Moslems from the hilly open country and confined them to the towns. But the Hellenic victories had been followed by the usual dissenssions and divisions. The price demanded by Mehemet Ali of the Sultan would include the annexation of Crete to the pashalik of Egypt and the appointment of his son Ibrahim as Pasha of the Peloponnese. A preliminary step had been taken in 1822 when operations against Crete had been put under Mehemet Ali's command and a force of Albanians landed there. Yet little occurred until the spring of 1824, when the Egyptians mounted a violent campaign against the people of Crete, whose transient independence was slowly destroyed. In that same year Ibrahim was appointed Pasha of Peloponnese.
[Joseph Braddock, The Greek Phoenix (New York: Coward McCann & Geoghegan, 1973), pp 127-128]
Ibrahim Pasha did go to the Peloponnese [also called Morea] with an Egyptian army but did not succeed there and it was lost to the Ottoman Empire, as this area became part of the heart of the new Greece. So being Pasha of that area became meaningless for him.

Arab troops took part in suppressing the Greek freedom struggle, just as Arab auxiliary troops and Arab legionnaires had fought on the Roman side to suppress the Jewish revolts of the first and second centuries. Sounds like collaborating with imperialism, doesn't it? Muhammad Ali wanted to extend his own incipient empire to Crete and mainland Greece, as we see.

Sometimes NeoPhytos uses the name Turk for Muslims in general. Likewise, Saracen --originally the name of an Arab tribe called Sarakenoi in Greek-- later was used for Arabs in general or sometimes for Muslims in general. In Spain, the word moro [= Moor] was used for Arabs and other Muslims. When Spaniards took over the Philippines, they called the Muslims they found there moros, although the word had originally meant the Berbers of Mauretania [today, Morocco, roughly speaking]. Other ways of referring to them were Ishmaelite or son of Ishmael or son of Kedar (Qedar) [especially in Hebrew] and in Greek Hagarenes or children of Hagar [the slave mother of Ishmael]. This latter term was obviously sneering.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

REPERCUSSIONS OF THE GREEK REVOLT IN ISRAEL, 1821 -- Part 7

NeoPhytos continues his charming tale of the turmoil occasioned in the Land of Israel by the Greek Revolt, the freedom struggle of a dhimmi people. The Western powers eventually intervened in the war, thus ensuring that the Greeks would get independence in part of their homeland. However, Arab troops from Egypt, sent by Muhammad Ali, ruler of Egypt formally subordinate to the Ottoman sultan, put down the revolt on the island of Crete, which remained an Ottoman territory till the end of the 19th century. Arabs and other Muslims throughout the Empire cooperated with their government to prevent any further dhimmi revolt, particularly paying attention to the Greek Orthodox.

In the Jerusalem area, the notables and other leading Muslims accepted substantial payments from the Greek Orthodox to talk the local Muslim masses out of retaliating against the local Greek Orthodox [including Arab Christians] on account of the Greek Revolt.

By August 15th [1821] news had arrived of the daily slaughtering of Christians in Constantinople [capital of the Ottoman Empire, previously of the Byzantine Empire, now usually called Istanbul], and even in Cyprus where they massacred the Archbishop, and the Bishops and all the important Christians on the Island. The insatiable notables and especially the Mutesellim [local governor] with Musa Bey [his assistant] invented different terrors whereby they could take money and presents from us. We continued to give, until the Community treasury and the private purses of the Brethren [monks belonging to the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher] were empty. Not having more to meet their claims, with tears we began to collect from the Church, and from the other monasteries, the gold and silver ware, lamps, vases, chandeliers, belts, etc. These were broken up and smelted down into bars (gulche) which we sold at a low price for we were forced to find money immediately. The yearly tax of 60,000 piastres due to the Pasha of Damascus [governor of Damascus vilayet, which included Jerusalem] , was now raised to 100,000. Everywhere there was suffering; here from ailments, there from shock; "and there was neither medicine nor bandage to put on it."

The accursed Mutesellim, Suleiman Effendi, with the Tufekgi Bashi, was fully intent upon damaging us and persecuting us. As the days passed they captured Christians, and having flogged them, they left them in chains until money was found for their release. They also took the lime, which we had prepared for the repair of the monasteries and the shelters of the pilgrims, and used it for the repair of the Citadel [now called "Tower of David"] and the Praetorium [governor's HQ]. . . [p 16]
After the Sultan's letter had been read at the Law Courts [July 8], the Greek Orthodox paid off the local Muslim notables for a signed document.
We received from the local Notables a written testimony of our innocence, on payment of 1,125 piastres, that is 25 money bags. This testimony, with signatures and seal (arz-mahzar) was sent to Constantinople to the Patriarch Polycarpos, to be handed to the Porte in return for a firman [decree] granting us security. [p 16]
The events that transpired in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel as repercussions of the Greek Revolt --may we describe it as a freedom struggle-- form a classic case of the dhimmi experience in modern times.
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Inscription on the Arch of Titus in Rome

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

REPERCUSSIONS OF THE GREEK REVOLT in the LAND OF ISRAEL -- Part 6

Neophytos was a Greek monk living in Jerusalem during the Greek revolt that started in 1821. We continue his account of events in Israel in reaction to the revolt. We bear in mind that this was a revolt of a dhimmi people, the Greeks, against a Sunni Muslim state, the Ottoman Empire. By the way, it is misleading to call the Ottoman Empire "Turkish" since there were high officials originating from several nationalities, including Arabs. These officials were almost always Muslims, but there were exceptions. Muslim law and opinion consider it outrageous for any non-Muslim [dhimmi] people to challenge Muslim supremacy. We note that now in Iraq the Sunni Arab Muslim minority [about 20% of the Iraqi population] --who have long controlled the country-- are outraged that Shi'ite Arabs and Sunni Kurds [non-Arabs] are going to or likely to dominate the government in the future. The reaction of the "militant" sections of Sunni Arabs in Iraq, as well as of Sunni Arabs coming to Iraq from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, is to commit mass murder against Shi'ites, Kurds, and even fellow Sunni Arabs who may be helping the new government which is likely to represent the majority [Shi'ites and Kurds], at least in background of the officials, for the first time in Iraqi history. We note that the Wahhabi creed which is predominant in Saudi Arabia, considers Shi`ites not merely heretics but worthy of death, and that many Sunnis believe that the Shi`ite faith was in its origins the product of a Jewish conspiracy to weaken Islam. Given the hatred for heretic Muslims, it is no surprise that rebel dhimmis are viewed with profound hatred and contempt. Needless to say, the fact that many Sunnis view the Shi`ites as the product of a Jewish plot does not make the Shi`ites necessarily sympathetic to Jews in any way.

Late June 1821 -- Jerusalem. Local Muslims "held council and began to divide the spoils [belonging to Greek Orthodox] among themselves."

On hearing this, we, in misery and terror, with trembling lips, begged God to succour us. At last, at a meeting of the Synod, consisting of the Locum Tenens [deputy] of the Patriarch, the Archbishops and Members [of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher], it was decided to fill the mouth of all those who held power in Jerusalem, as well as all those who could bite (do any mischief [tr. S N Spyridon]). That we proceeded to do. Meanwhile the doublefaced Turks [here = Muslims generally] of Jerusalem and all the vagabonds began to cause trouble and shout that the Sultan had ordered that all the Romei should be killed. Their leaders, the Notables and others, on receiving money and many other things, kept them in check. But they would have their prey, so they clamoured for the Sultan's orders to be read in front of them that their own ears might hear. Two days previous to this the Notables had received instructions from Darwish Pasha, Governor of Damascus, concerning the Rayahs [dhimmis], wherein they were told that no Christian should be killed except with his permission. On Friday July 8, the Mullah announced in the Haram esh-Sharif [on the Temple Mount] that all Moslems should betake themselves to the Law Court to hear the Sultan's letters.
"Loyal and prudent Moslems, you have heard the orders of Sultan Mahmud --May God grant him a long life. These Romei [= Greek Orthodox] who are here in Jerusalem and in the environs have never been known as traitors, nor have they at any time plotted against you by word or action. They are poor people and harmless as you know. We have collected all the arms which they had, and if, perchance, they still have some, they are very few in number. There is scarcely one Christian to a hundred Moslems and since they are so very few it is a shame for us to say that we are afraid of them, and take this as an excuse for killing them. Behold how the Waly [governor of a wilaya or vilayet = province] of Damascus [Jerusalem was part of the Damascus vilayet], the Noble, our lord, Darwish Pasha, not only did not allow any movement against them in Damascus, but he also commands us that we should not kill any Rayah without his consent! Therefore, let each one of you return to his home in peace, and let each one continue his work in his own sphere. We shall take the necessary precautions. Do not disturb the Rayahs, for they are faithful; evil done to them is a sin and an injustice against our God and our Prophet."

Like speeches were made by the Effendis, who spoke for more than three hours.

While this speech-making was going on at the Law Courts, a rumour spread throughout the city that the Moslems were gathered at the Law Courts demanding authority (fetwa) to kill all the Romei. We moved in great fear and terror, and, disconsolate, we cried to heaven for help. The Frank monks and the Armenians gathered their adherents into their own monasteries, lest the Turks in killing the Romei might also kill them. This state of terror continued till late in the afternoon, until the Moslems, hearing the moaning and wailing of the women and children and being informed of the cause, assured us, on that they had no such intentions, and explained why they had gathered at the Law Courts. So by God's help we were delivered from the threatening danger and the Moslems were at peace for the moment. [Extracts from Annals of Palestine, 1821-1841, pp 15-16]
Note the eagerness of the Muslim populace (called "Turks" by NeoPhytos) to attack, loot and despoil the rebel dhimmis. This urge was thwarted by the Notables, economic, religious and political leaders, etc., who had been generously paid off, according to NeoPhytos. In Iraq today, Muslims are slaughtering Muslims. Defenders of those murderers in the West often explain the mass murder as the justified reaction to what Israel is accused of doing. So why are they slaughtering fellow Muslims? These justifications and explanations for mass murder are based on the Judeophobia of both certain Westerners and certain Arabs.

NeoPhytos quotes Muslim leaders as saying there was only one Christian to one hundred Muslims. The Christian proportion in Jerusalem in 1821 was probably more than one fourth, and the Jews were probably about one-fourth. The Muslims thus were slightly less than half of the Jerusalem population, although estimated to be about 75% of the country as a whole. See the discussion and estimates of the Jerusalem population in the 19th century on earlier posts on this blog [including an estimate reported by Karl Marx].

Sunday, October 16, 2005

What They Said about the Arabs [Rabbi Nathan, Cervantes, Chateaubriand]

The Arabs have their virtues, such as hospitality, imagination, the ability to weave tales blending truth and falsehood -- or wholly imaginary-- , to conceive poetic images, and so on. However, nowadays their faults and flaws are forgotten in a mass media din of flattery and praise and justification for the most heinous acts of Arabs. Here are some reminders of how Arabs were seen in the past.

Rabbi Nathan says:
There is no love like the love of Torah
There is no wisdom like the wisdom of the Land of Israel
There is no beauty like that of Jerusalem
there is no wealth like that of Rome
there is no might like that of Persia
there is no whorishness like that of Arabs . . .

Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, chap 28. This is called one of the Minor Tractates of the Talmud and is mainly a commentary or elaboration on the Pirqey Aboth, which is part of the Mishnah.


אבות דרבי נתן, פרק כח
: רבי נתן אומר
אין לך אהבה כאהבה של תורה
ואין לך חכמה כחכמה של ארץ ישראל
ואין לך יופי כיופיה של ירושלים
ואין לך עושר כעושרה של רומי
ואין לך גבורה כגבורה של פרס
ואין לך זנות כמו זנות של ערביים


We have translated the word znut זנות as whorishness. Judah Goldin has "harlotry" and others have "depravity." [Goldin's translation is The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, Schocken, p 116]


Miguel Cervantes de Saavedra

Do not trust any Moor. Because they are all deceitful.
No te fies de ningun moro, porque son todos marfuces
.
Don Quijote de la Mancha, Parte I, cap. 40]

François-René de Chateaubriand
Everything about the Americans [= the natives of America, usually called "Indians"] denotes the savage who has not yet arrived at the state of civilization.
Everything about the Arabs denotes the civilized man who has fallen back into the savage state.

En un mot, tout annonce chez l’Américain le Sauvage qui n’est point encore parvenu à l’état de civilisation; tout indique chez l’Arabe l’homme civilisé retombé dans l’état sauvage

Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem
[many editions]



- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Repercussions of the Greek Revolt in the Land of Israel
Inscriptions on the Arch of Titus, more photos of the Arch and Roman coins
What Did Rome Call the Land of Israel?

Saturday, October 15, 2005

REPERCUSSIONS IN ISRAEL --in 1821-- OF THE GREEK REVOLT -- Part 5

NeoPhytos [Neophitos] continues his account of the repercussions in Israel of the Greek revolt of 1821. The local Muslims showed themselves loyal to the empire when it came to keeping the dhimmis in their place. The local Arab Muslims joined --arms in hand-- in suppressing the dhimmis at the Sultan's command. They were also interested in loot that they might take from the dhimmis. The notables were not especially those who went in for physical looting. They were able to extort money from the dhimmis in rather genteel ways. As a matter of fact, the Muslim notables were quite avid to extort money from dhimmis even in "normal times" [that is, normal in the terms of the Ottoman Empire or of most Muslim states, for that matter]. We shall demonstrate their habitual extortion and shakedown of Jews in Jerusalem in the pre-Crusades period and in the late 18th century. Here we continue with NeoPhytos' story of the travails of the Jerusalem Greek Orthodox after the outbreak of the Greek revolt.
On the 29th of the same month [June 1821] fatal and destructive orders came from the Sultan. He commanded that all the Moslems should be called upon to garrison the cities, and more especially he gave orders that if traitors were found, they should execute them at their own discretion. These orders were quickly rumored about the city, but with quite a different interpretation. Mob leaders and dishonest people, desiring only to seize the property of the Christians, declared that orders had come from the Sultan to massacre all the Greeks (Romei). They held council and began to divide the spoils amongst themselves. One declared that he wished to kill so and so, another that he wished to have the wife of so and so, or his daughter or his son. Regarding the treasures of the Holy Sepulchre, they spent a long time discussing to whom they should go. [Extracts from the Annals of Palestine, 1821-1841 (Jerusalem: Ariel Pubs., 1979); p 14]
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
GOOD NEWS ON THE ARCHEOLOGICAL FRONT

Everyone knows how many of the Judeophobes of academia, sometimes called the "higher antisemites," are eager to disprove the Bible, to portray it as lacking any historical credibility, to deny ancient Jewish history, etc.

They have suffered another defeat on this front, although they might not want to admit it. It has been recently announced that a stamped seal [hotam] with the name of a Biblical personality has been found in diggings around the City of David. This area is the original Jerusalem where David and Solomon were kings. However, it is just south of the southern wall of the Old City, that is, outside the Old City of today. Researchers found a stamped seal imprinted with the name Yehukal ben Shelemiyah יהוכל בן שלמיה [in the old Hebrew script, of course]. This very name with the very same Hebrew spelling is found in the book of Jeremiah 37:3. The same person is mentioned a second time in the book of Jeremiah, although with his name spelled Yukal יוכל [Jer 38:1]. In English, his name is given as Jehucal son of Shelemiah or Jucal son of Shelemiah. He was an official of King Zedekiah, just the kind of person who would have a seal stamp. Aren't the Biblical Minimalists embarassed when the name of a Biblical personality turns up in concrete form in an archeological dig? Maybe when the facts contradict their politically and hate-motivated claims, they just get angry rather than acknowledge that the theory may be wrong.

- - - - - - - - -
More on repercussions in Israel of the Greek revolt
More to come on the Arch of Titus and Roman coins celebrating victory over Judea

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Arch of Titus [שער טיטוס] in Rome - Monument to Jewish History -- Part 1

6-25-2012 Updating at bottom

The Roman Empire was the enemy of the Jews, yet Rome erected an important monument to Jewish history, which was preserved more or less intact by subsequent rulers of Rome, up to today's Italian Republic which devotes great resources to preserving, exhibiting, and sometimes restoring the many antiquities in the country. The Arch of Titus is especially important nowadays when the Arabs and the pro-Arab Nazi forces, sometimes described as "leftists" or "democrats" or some other conventionally innocuous term, are trying to deny that there is such a thing as Jewish history or that the Jews ever existed before Theodore Herzl, while they especially try to deny or minimize any Jewish history in the Land of Israel.

The Arch of Titus was built by the Flavian emperors, Titus and Vespasian, who had led the Roman armies against the Jewish freedom struggle in the province of Judea [PROVINCIA IUDAEA] and had besieged Jerusalem in the year 70 CE. This historical episode is mentioned and described by Josephus Flavius, a Jewish renegade who went over to the Roman side, in his book The Jewish War [De Bello Iudaico]. It is also described by Roman historian Tacitus in his Histories, and by other ancient writers. Tacitus points out that Arab auxiliary troops fought for the Romans against the Jews [see an earlier post on this blog for the text in Latin and English]. The ancient Arabs had this habit of collaborating with imperialists, although the current semi-scholarly orthodoxy in Middle Eastern studies would not want to give any attention to that fact. These two emperors were called Flavians from their clan or gens name. Josephus became their protege and took on their clan name Flavius.


Here is a picture of the Arch of Titus taken from the west side looking east and up, and slightly to the south, the famous menorah may be visible with difficulty (click on photo to enlarge it).



Here's another picture, from a different angle. The shot was taken from the steps leading up to the Palatine Hill, just outside the fence enclosing the main Roman Forum. This photo was taken from the south side and shows the bas relief of an award being given to the emperor for winning the war.

And here above is the bas relief on the south side of the interior showing the famous menorah. According to some, the menorah is being carried by Jewish captives, while others claim that it is being carried by soldiers.

In Latin the arch is called Arcus Titi, in Italian Arco di Tito, in French Arche de Titus or Arche de Tite, and in Hebrew שער טיטוס Sha`ar Titus.

The Arch of Titus, erected to commemorate the victories of Titus and Vespasian in the Judean War ending with the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem A.D. 70 [= 70 CE], was not completed until after the death of Titus and dedicated by Domitian A.D. 81. This splendid arch entirely faced with pentelic marble is one of the gems of the first century. The vaulting is decorated with rosettes in richly carved coffers and by splendid reliefs of the highest interest. On one side is represented a triumphal procession with captives and soldiers carrying the Jewish spoils including the table of the shew-bread and the seven-branched golden candlestick [menorah]; opposite is seen the emperor Titus in a triumphal quadriga, driven by the goddess Roma while Victory holds a crown over his head. The relief in the centre of the vault represents the apotheosis of Titus who is carried to heaven by an eagle.
[Wonders of Italy (in the Medici Art Series), edited by Joseph Fattorusso (Florence: repr. ed. December 1944); p 399]

Note: Vespasian was father of Titus and became emperor in 69 CE while leading his legions against the Jews. Titus took command when his father became emperor and unfortunately concluded the war with success, although the last Jewish fortress, Massada, was not taken until 73 CE. Domitian too belonged to the Flavian dynasty; he was a son of Vespasian and brother of Titus. Vespasian, according to the Petit Larousse, "pacified Judea, built the Colosseum . . . and erected the Temple of Peace." This temple was in fact devoted to the victory over the Jews and contained objects looted from the Holy Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. That was what "peace" meant for the Romans.

This all shows that defeating the Jews was very important for the Roman Empire, and that the imperial class considered it a great victory. Obviously, the Jews were much more important in ancient times than most standard historians would like to acknowledge, especially most of those identified as "leftists" [consider Gibbon's effort to belittle Jews]. The Romans issued several different coins in honor of their victory over the Jews, and this over a period of 25 years. The most common inscription on these victory coins is IVDAEA CAPTA, while others are IVDAEA DEVICTA or simply IVDAEA, etc. The coins were minted in gold, silver, and bronze. These coins too are signs of how important Rome considered victory over the Jews.

Some more details:
1) Several years, a large stone was dug up near the Colosseum in Rome with an inscription indicating that it was built with money looted from the Temple in Jerusalem. It was on display in the Colosseum for about a year or two. I do not know its present location.
2) Tacitus points out that Arab auxiliary troops helped the Roman legions in this war [see an earlier post on this blog]. Here we have Arabs fighting on the side of an empire against the freedom struggle of another people.
3) Judea [= IVDAEA] was the Roman name for their imperial province that more or less covered the territory that the Jews have long called the Land of Israel. In the Christian New Testament, Judea is also used in a narrow sense meaning the southern part of Israel, what the Jews call Erets Yehudah. However, in Latin and Greek usage Judea included the Golan Heights, Galilee, Samaria, northern Negev, and the east bank of the Jordan River.
- - - - - -
Next: more on the repercussions in Israel of the Greek revolt
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 6-25-2012 Scientists discover that the menorah on Arch of Titus was painted a yellow ochre color, similar to the color of gold [New York Times article]

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

ARAB REACTION in the LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE GREEK REVOLT -- Part 4

Neophytos the Greek monk attached to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, was especially upset by the news that the top leaders of the Greek Orthodox Church in Constantinople had been executed as part of suppression of the Greek revolt. What is noteworthy is that when later news came that the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Polycarpos (who regularly lived in Constantinople), was still alive, the local Muslims became angry with the Greek Orthodox in Jerusalem. When a Muslim populace becomes angry at a group of dhimmis, an opportunity is opened up --so it seems-- for the Muslim notables to extort money from the dhimmis, supposedly in order to keep their fellow Muslims calmed down, as probably occurred in this case, among other pretexts.

On May 27 [1821] came the bitter news which quickly spread throughout Jerusalem, that on Easter Sunday, April 10, all the Archbishops and the Patriarchs, Gregory of Constantinople and Polycarpos of Jerusalem, had been hanged in Constantinople. This was a source of great grief and sorrow to us, but of great joy and happiness to our enemies. About two weeks later we were assured that Polycarpos, by the mercy of God, was still alive. At this news the Turkish populace [= the local Arab Muslims, Neophytos sometimes uses the term Turk for Muslims generally] grew rabid against the Christians. The notables were growing audacious and found excuse and pretexts for wringing large sums of money from us.
Those extorting money included the mutesellim (governor), Suleiman Effendi, and his assistant, Musa Bey of Gaza.

The wicked deeds done by these two accursed against us, the Community of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Christians of Jerusalem, in order to extort money. For want of time to write everything in detail, I write the following only in order that you may know their wickedness . . . This infamous Musa Bey seized a Christian porter [load carrier] and threatened to hang him if he refused to do what he was told. He then ordered him to declare to the judge in the Law Courts that one night the monks hired him to carry twelve barrels of explosives and as many barrels of lead. Fearing death the porter promised to make this statement. On going to the court Musa Bey declared before the judge and the rest of the ench that the Greeks (Romei) had in their monasteries powder magazines, guns, etc., and he called the porter as a witness. But, by the providence of God, the judge guessed the slander and asked the porter in Turkish how many barrels of explosives he had transported. The Porter, terrified at the Judge, forgot the correct number and gave the number as fifty-two (elliki) instead of twelve (oniki). Again the Judge asked him how many barrels, and he replied twenty-two (ghirmiki). The judge thereupon, sent him away saying to those who were seated by him: "Yilan soyler, iftirader." ("He lies, it is slander"). Then he warned the Tufekgi Bashi and the rest not to try such a thing again, nor to spread stories to excite the Moslem populace against the Rayahs, for such things might cause great trouble and loss to the Government.

The above happened on June 12 [1821].

Here a Muslim judge protected the Greek Orthodox, seeing through the manipulation of the city governor's assistant. Note that the judge gave as a reason for not harassing the Greek Orthodox that way that "such things might cause great trouble and loss to the Government." He did not say that it was wrong in principle, although maybe he did think so.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
NeoPhytos' account of repercussions in Israel of the Greek Revolt will continue.

We are going to soon try to put up photos of the bas-reliefs on the Arch of Titus in Rome, physical testimony to the Great Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

ARAB REACTION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE GREEK UPRISING - Part 3

The Ottoman Empire was a political machine for --among other things-- keeping the dhimmis , the non-Muslims, suppressed. The Arab Muslims in the empire joined in defending the empire and its Muslim character when the Sultan asked them to take up arms to defend against the Greek rebels, whom some might call "freedom fighters," who rose up against their oppressors in 1821. Neophytos, the Greek Orthodox monk living in Jerusalem and member of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, which managed Greek church affairs in Israel, gave an account of the repercussions in Israel of the Greek revolt. This third installment begins after the Sultan has asked the Arabs and his other Muslim subjects, to take up arms to resist the Greek revolt and to watch over the Greek Orthodox population wherever they were settled throughout the empire.

The children of Hagar [= Arabs] had now the opportunity and the time to behave as they wished. Young men and old and even children armed themselves. First of all came those in power, the Mutesarrif [governor], the Janissaries [special troops], and the rest, who entered the Patriarchate and searched up and down, inside and outside, for the arms which we did not have. The same procedure was gone through in the rest of our monasteries, and in the houses of the Christians of Jerusalem and of the Franks (Latins). Having taken all the arms they could lay hands on in Jerusalem, they proceeded to Bethlehem, Beitjala, Ramallah, and to other Christian villages around Jerusalem and took their guns and hanjars (daggers). Then knowing that the monasteries outside of Jerusalem, such that of St Saba, St Elias and the Holy Cross, kept guns in order to protect themselves against robbers, they went and seized their weapons. That completed, they fell to inventing means whereby they could continually extort more money from us, the Brotherhood (the Community) of the Holy Sepulcher.
Then it was announced by heralds (dallal) that all the Rayahs (Christian subjects of the Sultan) should dress in black. Later the Turks began to arrest the Orthodox and imprison them. Many charges were brought against them and they had to pay a fine (jereme). They were fined for failing to blacken their fezzes or shoes, or because of something they had said. They were forced to work continuously moving cannons from place to place and clearing the moats [there is a moat around the Jerusalem citadel, usually called Tower of David] and trenches. Many other things happened which we do not wish to relate.
Some kinds of suffering may have been too shameful for Neophytos to relate. We presented his account of the 1834 Arab revolt against Muhammad Ali of Egypt in August posts.

It is clear from this post and other sources from that period of history, that the Arab Muslims in Israel saw themselves as superior to the non-Muslims and as having the duty to defend the Empire and its social system which kept the dhimmis in thrall. NeoPhytos and other 19th century authors quoted on this blog make it clear that the Jews in Israel at that time were the low man on the totem pole, more oppressed and humiliated than even the Christian subjects of Sultan. In other words, contrary to currently widespread conventional views of the pre-Zionist period in Israel, views promulgated by Arabs, by Leftists, and by Western journalists, diplomats, and statesmen, Muslims lorded it over non-Muslims, exploiting them economically, extorting money and valuables from them, often keeping them in a state of fear, and habitually humiliating them. One may contrast NeoPhytos' account --and the reports of Chateaubriand, Karl Marx, John Lloyd Stephens, etc.-- with a recent book by one Henry Laurens, who is favored by the French TV as its favorite expert on the modern history of the Land of Israel. Laurens' La Question de Palestine generally avoids the contemporary accounts that we have cited which show Muslim/Arab oppression and humiliation of dhimmis, especially when it is Jews who are being humiliated and exploited.

NeoPhytos' account [his name is also spelled Neophitos] was published in the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII, 1938. It was reprinted in Extracts from Annals of Palestine 1821-1841 (Jerusalem: Ariel Pubs., 1979).

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

ARABS IN ISRAEL AGAINST THE GREEK REVOLT - part II

The previous post on this topic [Part I] showed how the Greek Orthodox leadership in the Land of Israel was desperate to keep the news of the Greek revolt from reaching the Arab Muslim populace in the Land of Israel, out of fear of violent retaliation against their community. To cut off the news, they paid bribes ["presents"] to the local Muslim notables who appear to have fulfilled the Christian request. However, the news could not be held back indefinitely. The Sultan's official letters arrived on 25 April 1821, with instructions to all Muslims to take part in defense against the Christians. This call was answered by the Muslim populace.

. . . our hospice in Jaffa was occupied by troops from Ptolemais (Acre). The walls of the town were fortified and a strong garrison with a vigilant guard was placed inside. The Christians were compelled to transport cannons from place to place. A week later the same thing happened in Jerusalem on orders from the Pasha of Damascus [Jerusalem was then part of the Damascus vilayet or province], who sent troops to guard the Kalah (citadel)[what is now called the Tower of David]. On the 25th of April there arrived in Jerusalem royal letters from Sultan Mahmud expressly announcing the general revolt of the Greek Islands, and ordering that all Moslems should be armed immediately to guard the fortifications of the towns and the fortresses. Furthermore, he warned them that they should be careful and not believe anything from the Christians and especially from the Greeks (Romei) [this word originally meant Romans, and since the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire considered itself a continuation of Rome, Byzantine Greeks were called Romans, in Arabic Rum]. He also commanded that all arms should be collected from the Christians. Straightaway ours was a sorry plight here in Jerusalem. The children of Hagar [= Arabs, descendants of Ishmael, son of Hagar] had now the opportunity and the time to behave as they wished. Young men and old and even children armed themselves. [NeoPhytos or Neophitos, a Greek Orthodox monk in Jerusalem. More data on him and on his chronicle in previous posts]
What we see here may even indicate that traditional Arab-Muslim society was much like a colonial society. Who could possibly think such an outlandish thought? The Arab-Muslims were called upon by the emperor, the Sultan, to arm themselves in order to thwart any sedition by the Greek Orthodox, a population that preceded the Muslim Arabs in the country. Was their society really colonial or even colonialist? Just because the Muslims had special privileges denied to the dhimmis / ra`ayahs, who had to endure various humiliations and inequalities, is that enough to call Arab-Muslim society colonial or --even worse-- colonialist, or maybe an apartheid society? Who could think such thoughts?
- - - - - -
More to come on this topic

Sunday, October 02, 2005

The Bolsheviks for Jihad & Genocide -- Stalin's Appeal to MUSLIM Workers in Russia & the East

UPDATING 2-22-2009see at bottom

Why does most or much of the "Left" today support Islamic Jihad? After all, the "Left" is supposed to stand for equality, whereas Islam --even in moderate forms-- rejects equality. Indeed, that "left" that supports Islamic Jihad is demonstrating that it is in fact AGAINST equality. Without pretending to give a full and total answer to the question, here is some evidence to consider.

In late 1917, shortly after the Bolsheviks took power in the Russian Empire, Stalin's Commissariat of Nationalities issued an: Appeal to the Muslim Toilers of Russia and the East . This was an extraordinary document. It was an appeal to a particular religious group, whereas supposedly the Bolsheviks were against religion. Further, the Muslim Ottoman Empire was perpetrating the first genocide of the 20th century at the time --with the help of course of its German and Austro-German allies. The Appeal mentions none of this. Instead, it rejects promises by the Western allies to give the Armenians a state and to remove Armenian territories from the Ottoman Empire. It tells the Armenians to wait for their self-determination, while their national territory was to stay under Ottoman control. The Armenians were guaranteed self-determination after "military operations are brought to an end." Yet, the parts of their national territory under Ottoman control were areas where the massacres had taken place. Other parts had been under Russian imperial control since the 19th century. Whereas the Appeal was issued in late November-early December, several months later, in March 1918, the Bolsheviks, possibly under German pressure, agreed not only to withdraw from Ottoman territories --parts of historic Armenia and Georgia occupied during WW One-- but from historically Armenian and Georgian areas conquered from the Ottomans long before. The promise of self-determination for Armenians was not respected for those areas, whereas Soviet weapons were given to the new Turkish nationalist movement which rose out of the Ottoman Empire's defeat, but was no less anti-Armenian than the Empire. In 1922, the Turkish nationalists drove the Greek population out of Smyrna [now called Izmir], while massacring the Armenians there.

The Appeal is "a brilliant piece of political demagogy," as Serge Zenkovsky has noted [in Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1967), p 161]. It disregarded "all the atheistic and internationalist elements of Marxist and Leninist teaching," as well as the supposed working class principles and loyalties of the Bolsheviks, "and appealed to the Moslems' religious and national feelings."

At least three different translations of all or parts of this manifesto are available in English. For clarity's sake we quote from more than one version, depending on which version was clearest for the passage quoted.


SOVIET APPEAL TO THE MUSLIM TOILERS OF RUSSIA AND THE EAST
Comrades! Brothers!
. . .
The rule of the plunderers, exploiting the peoples of the world, is trembling.
. . .
The world of violence and oppression is approaching its last days. A new world is arising, a world of the toilers and the liberated. At the head of this revolution is the Workers' and Peasants' Government in Russia. . .
The toiling masses of Russia burn with the single desire to achieve an honest peace and help the oppressed people of the world to win their freedom.
. . . we appeal to you, toiling and dispossessed Muslim workers in Russia and the East. . . all those whose mosques and shrines were destroyed, whose beliefs and customs were trampled under foot by the tsars and oppressors of Russia! Henceforth your beliefs and customs, your national and cultural institutions, are free and inviolable. . .
Muslims of the Orient, Persians, Turks, Arabs. . . all those whose lives and property, liberty and land, the greedy robbers of Europe have bartered for centuries -- all those whose countries the plunderers who started the war wish to divide!
Here there are no Muslim empires (such as Persia or the Ottoman Empire). Muslim states are not guilty of oppression of the non-Muslim subject peoples or even of their fellow Muslims of the working class. Only Europe is guilty. Without whitewashing Europe, we know that the Ottoman Empire chose to join Germany and Austria in World War I; in fact the Ottomans initiated the alliance in which Germany and Austria assisted them in the Armenian massacres during the war.

Further, in this manifesto, the Communist Soviet Union announced its favoritism for Muslims against non-Muslim subject peoples --called dhimmis or ra`ayahs.

To be sure, the manifesto, prepared by Stalin's Commissariat of Nationalities, also asserted the right of peoples to self-determination, but gave the national-territorial claims of Muslim peoples pride of place over those of non-Muslims. Consider:
Constantinople must remain in the hands of the Muslims. . .
The Ottoman capital probably had a Greek majority at the start of WW I, and if not, other non-Muslims (Bulgars, Jews, Armenians, etc.) certainly made up a majority together with the Greeks. Consider next:

We declare that the treaty for the partition of Turkey and the wresting from her of Armenia is null and void. As soon as military operations are brought to an end, the Armenians will be guaranteed the right to decide freely their political destiny. Not at the hands of Russia and her revolutionary government does slavery await you [Does the "you" refer to Armenians or to Turkish Muslims?], but at the hands of the marauders of European imperialism, of those who converted your fatherland into their ravished and plundered "colony."
Hence, the Armenians had the right of self-determination too. But they should not exercise their rights against Turkish (Muslim) claims of sovereignty. They should wait till the end of "military operations." The treaty promising removal from Ottoman control of Ottoman-ruled parts of Armenia was "null and void." Further, not only did the Bolsheviks leave the areas in question to the Ottoman Empire, but after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918), the Bolsheviks ceded to the Ottoman Empire large areas of historic Armenia and Georgia which the Russian Tsars had conquered in the nineteenth century, thereby exposing Armenian subjects of Russia to a continuation of the mass murder perpetrated by the Muslim Ottoman Empire against its own Armenian population during WW One. Additional massacres naturally ensued.

Some observers saw Brest-Litovsk --with its territorial concessions to Germany and the Ottoman Empire, Germany's ally-- as Bolshevik compensation to the German Empire for helping the Bolsheviks take over the rival Russian Empire. Article IV of the Treaty states:


Russia will do all in its power to ensure the rapid evacuation of the eastern provinces of Anatolia and their restoration to Turkey. Ardahan, Kars, and Batum will be evacuated without delay by Russian troops.

The article does not mention Armenia or Georgia by name. So much for Bolshevik devotion to self-determination. This episode, like the Nazi-Soviet Pact, is one of those that Communists avoid discussing or are unaware of. Instead of bemoaning the lethal results of Brest-Litovsk, the Communists habitually advocated --in practice-- devotion to Muslim militant demands over the rights of dhimmis. We do not intend to explain why the Bolsheviks took this position. Were they acceding to pressures by the German Empire which had helped Lenin take over the Russian Empire and take it out of the war? Were they opportunists who noted the huge Muslim population in the world, at that time, compared with the small numbers of Armenians whose numbers had been halved by the massacres during the war? Did they think that the warlike nature of the Muslim peoples could be harnessed to help them fight the Western imperialists, and thus the rights of small peoples like the Armenians could be disregarded?

As said above, slightly different translations of the title and of the text as a whole or in part are available.
1) Soviet Russian Imperialism in the Anvil series edited by Louis Snyder for Van Nostrand Co., pp 118-120. [This edition presents only excerpts]
[reprinted from J Bunyan and HH Fisher, The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1918 (Stanford Univ Press, 1934); we have not seen this edition]
2) JC Hurewitz, Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East: A Documentary Record: 1914-1956, v. II (NY: Van Nostrand, 1956), pp 27-28 [this gives the full text]
3) Serge A Zenkovsky, Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1967), pp 161-162 [only excerpts]

Furthermore, three different dates are given for the Appeal:
20 November 1917 by Zenkovsky
3 December 1917 by Hurewitz
7 December 1917 by Bunyan and Fisher
However, all three versions are translations of the same document. The differences in date may derive from differences between the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar, still in use in Russia at that time.

Moreover, the Bolsheviks tolerated the presence in their state of Jemal Pasha and Enver Pasha, leaders of the Young Turk party, the Committee for Union and Progress, who ruled the Ottoman Empire during WW One and were, therefore, guilty in the Armenian massacres.

Note the convergence of Western and Bolshevik [Communist] policies --mentioned above-- in support for the Turkish nationalists of Ataturk by 1922.
The Western support for the ethnic cleansing of the Greeks and Armenians from Smyrna, on the eastern shore of the Aegean Sea, is indicated in the following two books:
George Horton, The Blight of Asia (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1926)
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
UPDATING 2-22-2009
see Seth Frantzman's article, "Islamism's Accidental Midwives", Jerusalem Post, 2-22-2009 [print version -- full version with comments]. This article tells about support by both the BritishEmpire and the Communists which built up Arab nationalism and Islamic jihad fanaticism, in Israel, Sudan, India, and elsewhere.
See post "What Do Left & Right Mean Today?" of 2-11-2009.
- - - - - - - - -
More on the repercussions of the Greek uprising of the 1820s in the Land of Israel -- the account of NeoPhytos

Labels: , , , , , , ,