They even have amazing collections from the "Holy Land" dating back to the 1890-1900 era.
Note the unique tree in both of these postcards, from Lod (Lydda) and Mount Scopus (Jerusalem)...and please tell me one of these isn't a fake.
[View from Southwest, Lydda (Lod), Holy Land, (i.e. Israel) -- between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900]
[From Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Holy Land -- between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900]
They have a nice painting as well of Kever Rachel (Rachel's Tomb) Same era.
However, when I compared it to photos, none of them had an old olive tree to the right...only to the left. Maybe it's the angle? I guess it could be.
This is the way I remember Kever Rachel from the 1980s...
With the advent of the Olso Peace Process, the site's security had to be "upgraded"
The peace kept getting so bad, that it turned into a full concrete fortress.
(credits; here, here, here, here and here,)
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד
I support most of what you say, but come on. The angle is clearly different in the two shots. The first picture is clearly taken from the left of the olive tree and the second clearly taken from the right. You can tell because you are getting a more head-on angle of the main doors
ReplyDelete...and of course, by "taken", i mean that the artist in the first painting painted while standing to the left of the tree.
ReplyDeleteit's not even close. it's almost like you're trying to create something out of nothing. you're usually much better than that.
the tomb of rachel imenu is not fodder to be manipulated for our national aspirations. we have enough to back us up, both morally, historically, and militarily without resorting to such sacrilege.
IMHO Re the first two pictures, the first picture looks authentic. The second picture looks like the same hill, but what looks substituted is the backdrop background. Don't think at that time a mere 10 years would have produced such a difference.
ReplyDeleteIMHO Postcards at the turn of the C. were notorious for substituting backgrounds.
IMHO Kever Rochel is just a juxtaposition of the photographer/painter.
on a recent trip to kever rachel with my 11-year-old daughter, i was explaining to her how the hallway we were standing in before we entered the kever room proper used to be the outside street in my day... she was incredulous! how sad is that?
ReplyDeletePretty wild.
ReplyDeleteAt LEAST one of the first two pics is a fake.
The pics of Kever Rachel might be explained simply by a difference in the angle of the observer.
I saw the new "fortress" for the first time when I took my daughter to Kever Rachel several months ago (you can read about our visit here)
the second pic w/ the jerusalem backdrop has been modded..
ReplyDeletelook at the edge of the hill up close, they've clearly cut things out to fit it in -- the plants in the bottom right are basically cut-off..
yitz..
Regarding the first two pics of Kever Rachel - it is definitely the angle. Compare the foreshortening of the LH white wall in both shots.
ReplyDeleteIn your mind, rotate the first shot clockwise to achieve the same foreshortening.
Yup, it's the angle.
Anonymous wrote: it's not even close. it's almost like you're trying to create something out of nothing. you're usually much better than that.
ReplyDeleteThe main issue as I clearly stated above was the 2 first postcards, which one of them is definitely not an accurate representation (because the tree is copied).
After browsing through more of the pictures, I found the Rachel Imeinu one slightly odd, since I remembered the photograph. I dont think its "making something out of nothing" but an observation.
I have no clue what you meant by this: "the tomb of rachel imenu is not fodder to be manipulated for our national aspirations. we have enough to back us up, both morally, historically, and militarily without resorting to such sacrilege."
What exactly are you trying to say, and what sacrilege is there the above post?
This might be my mistake. Clearly one of the paintings of Lod or Mt Scopus is manipulated.
ReplyDeleteI was more concerned about kever+rachel.jpg and kever+rachel+1.jpg, which I can't believe are at all fake in any way. You seem to be suggesting they are fake, by writing: "when I compared it to photos, none of them had an old olive tree to the right...only to the left. Maybe it's the angle? I guess it could be."
It's pretty obvious that its the angle. The picture and the painting are pretty consistent all around, except for the angle.
Then you juxtapose that potential "conspiracy" with the current state of the Kever, which obviously and shamefully - due to our "neighbours'" activities - requires an entire security complex. I'm (maybe wrongly) understanding your reason for putting this pictoral history together in the manner you did as implying that such a "conspiracy" is what gives our "neighbours" the upper hand in "world opinion" in their claim to Beit Lehem.
maybe sacrilege is the wrong word. I just didn't think that Rachel imeinu should have been used as the subject of a "fake" conspiracy. Of course, if I've been all wrong about this interpretation of your post, then by all means ignore me.
I'll be busy preparing my costume and liver for Monday night.
Whoa, anon, I think you can untwist your panties on this one. I think his point was just that Kever Rachel has gone from a modest building on the side of the road to an armed fortress and how sad that is. I still can't make out your sacrilegious interpretation, but I doubt that's what Jameel was getting at.
ReplyDeleteJameel, maybe the comment of "Commenter Abbi" should be eliminated, because of his derisive language to a female visitor to your blog?
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? "Panties in a twist" is quite a common phrase, here's a link to help you learn more about it.
ReplyDeleteIf you're that sensitive, blogs and the internet in general probably aren't for you.
Oh, and btw, my husband and children and even Jameel, since he's met me in real life, will attest to my very female nature.
ReplyDeleteSo very NOT TZNIUS
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it's important that women be tznius in thought, word and deed.
You will learn eventually that men prefer this.
Um, I'm happily married with three children. My husband has no problem with the way I speak and I daresay he enjoys it.
ReplyDeleteI will add that I really couldn't care less what other men think of the way I speak.
ReplyDeleteactually, i've heard and used "panties in a bunch" but "twist" sounds so much more genteel. :-)
ReplyDeleteand in the not so distant past men also preferred their women to be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen...
ReplyDeleteNikki, i like the corollary phrase "put your big girl panties on" meaning "grow up and do what you need to do".
ReplyDeletethat's great! i'm going to have to include that in the repertoire!
ReplyDelete