Arabs Desecrate Grave of Biblical Prime Minister Joshua

[msmcghee]

* News Briefs


Published: 12/19/07, 9:22 AM
by Ezra HaLevi


Jewish worshippers Tuesday were stunned to find Arabs had desecrated the graves of the Biblical Joshua, Caleb and Nun (Joshua’s father).

Joshua served as the Jewish Nation's Prime Minister from the year 2488 until 2516 on the Hebrew calendar (1272 BCE - 1300 BCE).

Members of the One Shechem organization that organizes visits to the graves arrived in the village of Timnat (Kifl) Haress, near Ariel in Samaria, to prepare for a special prayer gathering, discovered that Arab vandals had desecrated the village’s Jewish tombs. The tombs of Yehoshua (Joshua) ben Nun, Nun, and Calev (Caleb) ben Yefuneh were covered with garbage and feces – both human and animal, and anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols had been painted in the area.

Nevertheless, worshippers gathered at the tombs Tuesday night for special prayers on the tenth of Tevet, the day Kaddish and other prayers are recited for those whose date of death is unknown, such as Calev ben Yefuneh. Organizers had cleaned up the damage and attendees reported a positive experience.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124630"><more>

[nightrider767]

1. All it takes is a few idiots....

Sadly, these acts, as others of intolerance, were probably committed by individuals who didn't even have the mental capacity to grasp the scope of what they where doing....

[henank]

3. Don't infantilize them

These people were not mentally handicapped individuals as you imply. They knew full well what they were doing, as they knew full well what they were doing when they vandalized Joseph's tomb in the last intifada. Palestinian terrorists will try and take any opportunity to vandalize Jewish sites in order to try and undermine the Jewish connection to Israel.

[nightrider767]

5. One thing that we can agree on,,,,

is that they are scumbags....

I'm far from an an expert in that area, so I can't comment too in depth on the exact implications of that particular event. But I can say that people who perpetrate such crimes are the ultimate "base" element, one tier, if that, above animals.

Sorry, didn't mean to minimize the tragedy in any way.

[azurnoir]

15. What makes you think it was Palestinians?

The fact that there were Nazi symbols suggests otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=184327

[The Magistrate]

2. Whatever The Facts Of This Case, Ma'am

Anyone referring to Joshua as 'Prime Minister' and giving precise dates for his administration needs seriously to sit down and have a bit of a rest away from the hot sun....

[LeftishBrit]

6. I tend to agree with you...

and a glance at the site made my head ache; it looks like a sort of Jewish equivalent of a Christian Right site.

Whatever the case, people should not be vandalizing ancient sites and ancient graves. Frankly, I don't see how one can prove that it's Joshua's grave, and it probably isn't IMO (but then I'm a devout atheist!) Not that this excuses the act of vandalism in any way!

[msmcghee]

8. You seem to be questioning the historical authenticity . .

. . of the religious site for some reason. The title of the article is "Biblical Prime Minister" I have no idea what the archaeological evidence says but they seem to be using a modern term that more readers would be familiar with - while placing it in a "biblical" context.

And I'm not sure why you bring it up. Are you suggesting that desecration of a site that has religious significance to someone, with feces, is not such a bad thing if the archaeological evidence is not compelling? Maybe you were just discrediting the source and not their story. (You could have been clearer I think.)

I personally don't think that the evidence that Mohammed rose into heaven from the Dome of the Rock on a small white horse that then took him back to Medina after his meeting with Allah, is that compelling. But, can you imagine what would happen if someone smeared some feces on that dome?

[The Magistrate]

9. The Anachronism Struck The Imp That Passes For My Sense Of Humor, Ma'am

Rather like a grandfather clock in MacBeth's bedroom might.

That is all.

[msmcghee]

10. Yes . . .

As an atheist I often have difficulty discussing religious faith while defending someone's right to hold such beliefs. Like LeftishBrit - it makes my brain hurt at times. Hope you have a happy holiday season. :toast:

[The Magistrate]

11. And You As Well, Ma'am

[Recursion]

25. This is just my memory from my pre-seminary days...

...but I think a better description of the Biblical Joshua's role in ancient Israel/Judah* would be "war-chief" -- his primary accomplishments being the reduction of Jericho and the killing of the Amalekites and Amorites (and IIRC the Biblical figure's status as a fairly bloodied Hebrew conqueror of Canaan is even today a cause for controversy among some residents of the Levant...) For the scripturally curious, his stopping of the Sun happened at Givon and was done so that the army would not have to stop fighting for Sabbath until the Amorites were all killed. "Priest-king" also would make sense though there are particular doctrinal arguments against that.

At any rate, I simply agree with the Magistrate that there's something a bit amusing about the article's calling Joshua a "Prime Minister", and I also agree that any attempt to assign a real historical date to his administration (since his status as a real, single, historical person is far from proven) is kind of odd. I might voice suspicions that the language points to a particular (and historically dubious) irredentism on the part of the authors, but that is just a suspicion.

* For such an allegedly Biblically-focused nation, the US seems quite blissfully unaware of the literary war between Israel and Judah for the "legitimate" inheritance of Hebrew culture -- the Kings/Chronicles duplication in particular make almost no sense without that.

[msmcghee]

27. I would wonder if any "prime minister" from those days . .

. . could be other than a war/priest/chief. I haven't seen many accounts from those times that talked of peace between nations-states - except when they were joined in fighting a common enemy.

It must have been a hell of time to be alive - and a short and brutal time to be alive. I think we can't even imagine it. You seem to have some academic background in this period. Can you fill us in a bit. I'd like to hear more about it.

I agree that the source may not necessarily be interested in fine journalism as first priority - although some sources with possible agendas go out of their way to be scrupulously objective - like the Christian Science Monitor. But, in this case I'd be surprised if the report of the desecration of this minor Jewish religious site was fabricated in any significant particulars.

[Recursion]

28. Well a prime minister implies a limited and constituted government...

...which as far as I know had not been invented yet anywhere.

It must have been a hell of time to be alive - and a short and brutal time to be alive. I think we can't even imagine it.

It would have been, in places. OTOH, people in France were making lovely cave paintings of aurochs and rhinos at the time, and the Hopewell culture was just starting to put up mounds in Ohio. The Middle East came by agriculture (and therefore war and conquest) comparatively early.

This quote is about Saul, rather than Joshua, but it's a pretty chilling description of how war worked back then:

One day, Samuel told Saul:

The LORD had me choose you to be king of his people, Israel. Now listen to this message from the LORD: "When the Israelites were on their way out of Egypt, the nation of Amalek attacked them. I am the LORD All-Powerful, and now I am going to make Amalek pay!

"Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."

(I find "even their babies" particularly disturbing...)

My other problem with calling Joshua prime minister is that to me a prime minister maintains operational control of his departments, which Joshua seems not to have done (the tribes maintained operational and logistic control of their own movements, if we are to believe the Book of Joshua).

But, in this case I'd be surprised if the report of the desecration of this minor Jewish religious site was fabricated in any significant particulars.

Yeah, I hadn't meant to imply it was fabricated, just that the choice of language struck me as a bit whimsical.

[msmcghee]

29. Whimsical? Maybe.

I still find it improbable that I could hope to understand those times using present day definitions for political terms. It would be difficult for a scholar, I think, even being very careful not to insert a modern interpretation on those events (or those translations).

I'm certainly no scholar. Thanks for your opinions which seem to be based on some actual studies.

[notadmblnd]

4. ow exactly does one determine these were "Arab" vandals

Were they caught in the act? Is there a special crap test that Israel has developed to identify what ethnic origin the vandals were?

[Doodad]

7. Maybe there's a nest of radical Amish out that way.

I wonder if they walk and quack like ducks?

[azurnoir]

16. Once again

What makes you so sure it was Palestinians?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=184327

[Doodad]

17. I suppose we can know nothing for sure but probability,

all the info I or you have right now, would point to the usual suspects. A reality based outlook says this is rational if not necessarily politically correct.

[azurnoir]

19. The info states that there were Nazi symbols

and no one has taken credit either, the Palestinians are not usually shy about these things.

[Doodad]

23. Hey I'm open to imported nazis. My opinion isn't etched in stone.

I'm just going with what I have; demography and precedent.

[bemildred]

12. There seems to be a remarkable paucity of evidence on the perps.

I suppose that to some people it is "obvious" the "Arabs" must have done it.

[msmcghee]

13. Let's get Horatio and Callaigh on this. n/t

[msmcghee]

14. Ever notice how some people's prose changes . .

. . in any thread where The Magistrate posts?

I know mine does and I try to prevent it.

Dammit Magistrate will you cast off your evil spell? :evilgrin:

Actually, I love reading your posts. If only we were all so erudite.

[Doodad]

18. That may well be because the site is in a Palestinian village

where presumably, the huge majority is Arab. Logic has to count for something sans other facts.

[bemildred]

20. There are no facts given as to the perps.

Just a bald assertion that it was done by "Arabs".

Any logic one might bring to bear would be based on one's assumptions. So it's a "garbage-in, garbage-out" sort of situation. The story stipulates that access to the site is not restricted to Palestinians, so presumably anyone can go there and anyone could have done it, for any number of motives. My money would be on teenagers (vandals) or persons with a political agenda of some sort. But as the other poster has pointed out, that could mean almost anyone.

[Doodad]

22. And you think these teenagers or vandals were imported from some

non-Arab place to do this? If they were locals they were likely Arabs, teenagers, vandals or not.

[bemildred]

26. And if they were not locals then they were likely not Arabs?

So what? That is all speculation based on nothing.

[Tom Joad]

21. Prime Minister? Israel National News????

it must be msmcghee. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Doodad]

24. Helpful hint. Your first clue would be the name in the initial post

which shows it indeed it was her. Might save you some sleuthing next time.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. That's not helpful. Now, this on the other hand will be helpful...

See those little laughing smiley icons at the end of Tom's post? They translate as 'Note to those who are sarcasm impaired and take everything literally: we are rolling round laughing coz the poster who's using us is being sarcastic.'

Now for a comment on the dross being posted in this thread where it's found totally acceptable to blame *Arabs* and take at face value an article by some weirdo in an extremist rag like Arutz Sheva who talks complete whacky nonsense about Biblical Prime Ministers and their exact date of being a Biblical Prime Minister. When vandalisation and desecration happens, since when has it been so vitally important to focus on the ethnicity of the vandals? You'd find it acceptable if an article about a little old granny being mugged was titled 'Jews Bash Little Old Granny And Steal Her Motorised Wheelchair'? Let's face some facts here. The people who carry out crimes are criminals, and those who choose to focus solely on what ethnicity they are when there's even a glimpse of a chance they could be of that ethnicity, are more likely than not probably coming from a slightly bigoted space...

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Okay, so it's acceptable to focus on Jews the same way...

Sounds a bit bigoted to me, but if you say it's okay, then who am I to argue? ;)

Putting one's head in the sand is always an option but smacks of denial. Denial seems less than an helpful way to make bad stuff go away.

Since when has pointing out that people have committed criminal acts been 'putting one's head in the sand' and denial? It sure as hell is denying bigots their moments of glory where they get to shriek and froth at the mouth about *Arabs* (though this tactic is also used by them when it comes to Aboriginals, Asians etc). Their focus is always on the ethnicity and they tend to only focus on one ethnicity while ignoring the same criminal acts when carried out by anyone not of that ethnicity. A good example of this sort of bigotry happened here when there was a spate of gang-rapes carried out by Lebanese-Australians. The Daily Telegraph (it may be too liberal for the likings of anyone who's a reader of crap like Arutz Sheva) through its articles used to try to work people up into a frenzy and introduce them to a make-believe world where the only rapists who existed were of Lebanese descent and where the entire Lebanese community was to blame. Of course those bigots never thought to mention that while they were focusing on ethnicity not once when some of the most horrific serial murders and pack rapes and murders were being reported, did they point out that the murderers were Caucasians. No prizes for guessing why...