Log in

View Full Version : The Diaspora is a lie. Zionism is a lie.



khad
18th February 2010, 15:24
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html


Shattering a 'national mythology'
By Ofri Ilani
Tags: Palestinians

Of all the national heroes who have arisen from among the Jewish people over the generations, fate has not been kind to Dahia al-Kahina, a leader of the Berbers in the Aures Mountains. Although she was a proud Jewess, few Israelis have ever heard the name of this warrior-queen who, in the seventh century C.E., united a number of Berber tribes and pushed back the Muslim army that invaded North Africa. It is possible that the reason for this is that al-Kahina was the daughter of a Berber tribe that had converted to Judaism, apparently several generations before she was born, sometime around the 6th century C.E.

According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen's tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish - and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem - is just one element of the far- reaching argument set forth in Sand's new book.

In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century).

Unlike other "new historians" who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years. He tries to prove that the Jewish people never existed as a "nation-race" with a common origin, but rather is a colorful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking: "There were times when if anyone argued that the Jews belong to a people that has gentile origins, he would be classified as an anti-Semite on the spot. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world ... have never constituted and still do not constitute a people or a nation - he is immediately condemned as a hater of Israel."

According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, "who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland," is nothing but "national mythology." Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, "so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David."

So when, in fact, was the Jewish people invented, in Sand's view? At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people. From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace.

Actually, most of your book does not deal with the invention of the Jewish people by modern Jewish nationalism, but rather with the question of where the Jews come from.

Sand: "My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period - what they wrote about conversion."

Sand, an expert on 20th-century history, has until now researched the intellectual history of modern France (in "Ha'intelektual, ha'emet vehakoah: miparashat dreyfus ve'ad milhemet hamifrats" - "Intellectuals, Truth and Power, From the Dreyfus Affair to the Gulf War"; Am Oved, in Hebrew). Unusually, for a professional historian, in his new book he deals with periods that he had never researched before, usually relying on studies that present unorthodox views of the origins of the Jews.

Experts on the history of the Jewish people say you are dealing with subjects about which you have no understanding and are basing yourself on works that you can't read in the original.

"It is true that I am an historian of France and Europe, and not of the ancient period. I knew that the moment I would start dealing with early periods like these, I would be exposed to scathing criticism by historians who specialize in those areas. But I said to myself that I can't stay just with modern historiographic material without examining the facts it describes. Had I not done this myself, it would have been necessary to have waited for an entire generation. Had I continued to deal with France, perhaps I would have been given chairs at the university and provincial glory. But I decided to relinquish the glory."

Inventing the Diaspora

"After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom" - thus states the preamble to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. This is also the quotation that opens the third chapter of Sand's book, entitled "The Invention of the Diaspora." Sand argues that the Jewish people's exile from its land never happened.

"The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it," Sand explains. Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel.

"I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land - a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled."

If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

"No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"
And how did millions of Jews appear around the Mediterranean Sea?

"The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others. The Hasmoneans were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. The conversions between the Hasmonean Revolt and Bar Kochba's rebellion are what prepared the ground for the subsequent, wide-spread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the fourth century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions - pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all."

How did you come to the conclusion that the Jews of North Africa were originally Berbers who converted?

"I asked myself how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina's Jewish Berber kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism."

Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria - a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.

Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

"At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe - three million Jews in Poland alone," he says. "The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward."

'Degree of perversion'

If the Jews of Eastern Europe did not come from Germany, why did they speak Yiddish, which is a Germanic language?

"The Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the East, and thus they adopted German words. Here I base myself on the research of linguist Paul Wechsler of Tel Aviv University, who has demonstrated that there is no etymological connection between the German Jewish language of the Middle Ages and Yiddish. As far back as 1828, the Ribal (Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinson) said that the ancient language of the Jews was not Yiddish. Even Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as 'the mother of the diasporas' in Eastern Europe. But more or less since 1967, anyone who talks about the Khazars as the ancestors of the Jews of Eastern Europe is considered naive and moonstruck."

Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

"It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist."

Is there no justification for this fear?

"No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens."

In effect you are saying that there is no such thing as a Jewish people.

"I don't recognize an international people. I recognize 'the Yiddish people' that existed in Eastern Europe, which though it is not a nation can be seen as a Yiddishist civilization with a modern popular culture. I think that Jewish nationalism grew up in the context of this 'Yiddish people.' I also recognize the existence of an Israeli people, and do not deny its right to sovereignty. But Zionism and also Arab nationalism over the years are not prepared to recognize it.

"From the perspective of Zionism, this country does not belong to its citizens, but rather to the Jewish people. I recognize one definition of a nation: a group of people that wants to live in sovereignty over itself. But most of the Jews in the world have no desire to live in the State of Israel, even though nothing is preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they cannot be seen as a nation."

What is so dangerous about Jews imagining that they belong to one people? Why is this bad?

"In the Israeli discourse about roots there is a degree of perversion. This is an ethnocentric, biological, genetic discourse. But Israel has no existence as a Jewish state: If Israel does not develop and become an open, multicultural society we will have a Kosovo in the Galilee. The consciousness concerning the right to this place must be more flexible and varied, and if I have contributed with my book to the likelihood that I and my children will be able to live with the others here in this country in a more egalitarian situation - I will have done my bit.

"We must begin to work hard to transform our place into an Israeli republic where ethnic origin, as well as faith, will not be relevant in the eyes of the law. Anyone who is acquainted with the young elites of the Israeli Arab community can see that they will not agree to live in a country that declares it is not theirs. If I were a Palestinian I would rebel against a state like that, but even as an Israeli I am rebelling against it."

The question is whether for those conclusions you had to go as far as the Kingdom of the Khazars.

"I am not hiding the fact that it is very distressing for me to live in a society in which the nationalist principles that guide it are dangerous, and that this distress has served as a motive in my work. I am a citizen of this country, but I am also a historian and as a historian it is my duty to write history and examine texts. This is what I have done."

If the myth of Zionism is one of the Jewish people that returned to its land from exile, what will be the myth of the country you envision?

"To my mind, a myth about the future is better than introverted mythologies of the past. For the Americans, and today for the Europeans as well, what justifies the existence of the nation is a future promise of an open, progressive and prosperous society. The Israeli materials do exist, but it is necessary to add, for example, pan-Israeli holidays. To decrease the number of memorial days a bit and to add days that are dedicated to the future. But also, for example, to add an hour in memory of the Nakba [literally, the "catastrophe" - the Palestinian term for what happened when Israel was established], between Memorial Day and Independence Day."

Uppercut
19th February 2010, 20:32
If I posted something like this, I would be labeled an anti-semite, probably.

And yeah, most of today's Jews are Kahzars of Turkish descent.

9
20th February 2010, 01:51
If I posted something like this, I would be labeled an anti-semite, probably.

Yeah, well, thankfully you didn't; it is a shame when crackpots (such as those who argue that Trotsky and Zinoviev were operating on behalf of an international Masonic conspiracy to present both the "thesis" and "antithesis" of every ideology - i.e. you) repeat this information because it simply serves to discredit both the information - which is sound - and legitimate researchers, scientists, and anti-Zionists as well.



And yeah, most of today's "Jews" are Kahzars of Turkish descent.

The Jews (why the quotation marks?) in question are specifically Eastern Ashkenazim, although not all of them; some did come from Central Europe and settle in the East. Those thought to be descended from Khazars are not of "Turkish" descent, but of Turkic descent; these are not the same thing.

Uppercut
20th February 2010, 03:28
Yeah, well, thankfully you didn't; it is a shame when crackpots (such as those who argue that Trotsky and Zinoviev were operating on behalf of an international Masonic conspiracy to present both the "thesis" and "antithesis" of every ideology - i.e. you)

Yeah, I'm a bastard, aren't I?:rolleyes:
And for the record, I never said it was specifically masonic. There's involvement from a number of different people and organizations. Buuut I'm not gonna talk about any of that.



(why the quotation marks?)

Usually people associate today's Jews with the Jews of Biblical times. It's just for differentiation.

EDIT: *drops dead*

Glenn Beck
20th February 2010, 03:32
Yeah, I'm a bastard, aren't I?:rolleyes:
And for the record, I never said it was specifically masonic. There's involvement from a number of different people and organizations. Buuut I'm not gonna talk about any of that.




Usually people associate today's Jews with the Jews of Biblical times. It's just for differentiation.

Maybe you could just say "Hebrews" then. The scarequotes around "Jews" look a little, uhh... yeah

RED DAVE
20th February 2010, 04:43
Just one quibble (to begin with). Genetic studies have shown that the Eastern European Jews are not descendants of the Kazars.


A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[49] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[50]

A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Haplogroup R1a chromosomes (called Eu 19 in the paper), which are very frequent in Eastern European populations (54%-60%), at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow into Ashkenazi populations from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews in Haplogroup R1a, and to a greater extent all Eastern European populations in general, might have some partial Khazar ancestry.[51]

A 2003 study of the Y-chromosome by Behar et al. found that among Ashkenazi Levites, who comprise approximately 4% of Ashkenazi Jews, the prevalence of Haplogroup R1a1 was over 50%. This haplogroup is uncommon in other Jewish groups, but found in high frequencies in eastern European populations. They argued that "it is likely that the event leading to a high frequency of R1a1 NRYs within the Ashkenazi Levites involved very few, and possibly only one, founding father." They postulated that one likely source of the gene was a "a founder(s) of non-Jewish European ancestry, whose descendents were able to assume Levite status", and that an alternate "attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century." The concluded that "[a]lthough neither the NRY haplogroup composition of the majority of Ashkenazi Jews nor the microsatellite haplotype composition of the R1a1 haplogroup within Ashkenazi Levites is consistent with a major Khazar or other European origin, as has been speculated by some authors (Baron 1957; Dunlop 1967; Ben-Sasson 1976; Keys 1999), one cannot rule out the important contribution of a single or a few founders among contemporary Ashkenazi Levites."[52]

A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their local neighbouring populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to Haplogroup R1a1 (R-M17), the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[53]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

RED DAVE

9
20th February 2010, 10:07
Just one quibble (to begin with). Genetic studies have shown that the Eastern European Jews are not descendants of the Kazars.


A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[49] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[50]

A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Haplogroup R1a chromosomes (called Eu 19 in the paper), which are very frequent in Eastern European populations (54%-60%), at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow into Ashkenazi populations from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews in Haplogroup R1a, and to a greater extent all Eastern European populations in general, might have some partial Khazar ancestry.[51]

A 2003 study of the Y-chromosome by Behar et al. found that among Ashkenazi Levites, who comprise approximately 4% of Ashkenazi Jews, the prevalence of Haplogroup R1a1 was over 50%. This haplogroup is uncommon in other Jewish groups, but found in high frequencies in eastern European populations. They argued that "it is likely that the event leading to a high frequency of R1a1 NRYs within the Ashkenazi Levites involved very few, and possibly only one, founding father." They postulated that one likely source of the gene was a "a founder(s) of non-Jewish European ancestry, whose descendents were able to assume Levite status", and that an alternate "attractive source would be the Khazarian Kingdom, whose ruling class is thought to have converted to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century." The concluded that "[a]lthough neither the NRY haplogroup composition of the majority of Ashkenazi Jews nor the microsatellite haplotype composition of the R1a1 haplogroup within Ashkenazi Levites is consistent with a major Khazar or other European origin, as has been speculated by some authors (Baron 1957; Dunlop 1967; Ben-Sasson 1976; Keys 1999), one cannot rule out the important contribution of a single or a few founders among contemporary Ashkenazi Levites."[52]

A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their local neighbouring populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to Haplogroup R1a1 (R-M17), the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[53]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

RED DAVE

Man. From the link you gave:



The theory that all or most Ashkenazi ("European") Jews might be descended from Khazars (rather than Semitic groups in the Middle East) dates back to the racial studies of late nineteenth century Europe, and was frequently cited to assert that most modern Jews are not descended from Israelites and/or to refute Israeli claims to Palestine. It was first publicly proposed in lecture given by the racial-theorist Ernest Renan on January 27, 1883, titled "Judaism as a Race and as Religion."[34] It was repeated in articles in The Dearborn Independent in 1923 and 1925, and popularized by racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard in a 1926 article in the Forum titled "The Pedigree of Judah", where he argued that Ashkenazi Jews were a mix of people, of which the Khazars were a primary element.[18][35] Stoddard's views were "based on nineteenth and twentieth-century concepts of race, in which small variations on facial features as well as presumed accompanying character traits were deemed to pass from generation to generation, subject only to the corrupting effects of marriage with members of other groups, the result of which would lower the superior stock without raising the inferior partners."[36] This theory was adopted by British Israelites, who saw it as a means of invalidating the claims of Jews (rather than themselves) to be the true descendants of the ancient Israelites, and was supported by early anti-Zionists.[18][35]
In 1951 Southern Methodist University professor John O. Beaty published The Iron Curtain over America, a work which claimed that "Khazar Jews" were "responsible for all of America's — and the world's — ills beginning with World War I". The book repeated a number of familiar antisemitic claims, placing responsibility for U.S. involvement in World Wars I and II and the Bolshevik revolution on these Khazars, and insisting that Khazar Jews were attempting to subvert Western Christianity and establish communism throughout the world. The American millionaire J. Russell Maguire gave money towards its promotion, and it was met with enthusiasm by hate groups and the extreme right.[19][20] By the 1960s the Khazar theory had become a "firm article of faith" amongst Christian Identity groups.[18][21] In 1971 John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha) also took up this theme, insisting that Palestinians were more closely related to the ancient Judeans than were Jews. According to Benny Morris:

Of course an anti-Zionist (as well as an anti-Semitic) point is being made here: The Palestinians have a greater political right to Palestine than the Jews do, as they, not the modern-day Jews, are the true descendants of the land's Jewish inhabitants/owners.[24]



Honestly, I stopped reading there. I would think the overwhelmingly apparent political bias of that Wikipedia entry would have compelled you to find a different source for an attempted refutation. Getting your information on the most acutely politicized issues regarding Zionism/Israel from Wikipedia.com is the defining feature of ComradeManism.

In any case, I don't see where anything you've quoted actually corroborates your claim that the Khazar theory has been disproved anyway.

Reuben
20th February 2010, 12:59
RED DAVE is basically correct as regards to genetics - the influence of the Kazars on the jewish community is very minor and there is strong genetic evidence of connections between ashkenazim and say palestinians and assyrians. But i really woudl question the significance of all this. All nations and peoples have questionable or qualifiable myths of origin.

freepalestine
22nd February 2010, 19:05
Just one quibble (to begin with). Genetic studies have shown that the Eastern European Jews are not descendants of the Kazars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

RED DAVE
also the wikipedia story of the Palestinian people,largely from pro-zionist sources..etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#Ancestral_origins

Devrim
23rd February 2010, 08:38
As interesting as this maybe historically I don't see what its political relevance is. The idea that their is importance in whether or not the Jews are descended from the original population of geographical Palestine completely concedes to the Zionist argument that being descended from the native population of an area 2,000 years ago in some way entitles you to set up a state and murder and ethnicly cleanse the current inhabitants.

Devrim

9
23rd February 2010, 09:20
As interesting as this maybe historically I don't see what its political relevance is. The idea that their is importance in whether or not the Jews are descended from the original population of geographical Palestine completely concedes to the Zionist argument that being descended from the native population of an area 2,000 years ago in some way entitles you to set up a state and murder and ethnicly cleanse the current inhabitants.

This is a fair point. It has occurred to me as well before, when having the argument with people in a political context, because I suddenly find the discussion having veered exclusively onto the course of whether or not modern Jews are the blood descendants of the Biblical patriarchs which can sometimes seem, as you say, to accept the terms that the Zionists lay down - that if this nonsense myth were true, that Zionism and the actions of the state of Israel would somehow be justifiable. It is complicated, though, because the myth is such an instrumental component of the present ideological justification for Zionism/Israel; I would even say the idea of an international Jewish people is central to Zionism (and often to anti-Semitism as well, which tends to view Jews racially - the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws, for instance, which interestingly are the same guidelines for Israel's Law of Return). So in that sense, I think it is important to make a case against it - in order to chip away at the ideological foundations. And the argument against the existence of a world Jewish people isn't contingent upon whether these specific theories (in this case, the Berbers and the Khazars) are or aren't correct because there is enough solid evidence without them that Judaism was, in fact, a proselytizing religion and that there was never a mass exodus from the Kingdom of Judea in the first place.
The obvious point, and where I agree with what you're saying, is that it is necessary to make clear that arguments regarding the peoples from whom modern Jews are descended are not the central arguments comprising the case against Zionism, but simply additional details which strengthen the case against it by weakening the ideological justification for it.

RedStarOverChina
26th February 2010, 00:13
Makes sense.

Kibbutznik
3rd March 2010, 01:55
While this all very interesting from an anthropological standpoint, it really doesn't nor should it have any bearing on the political issue of Zionism.

Like Devrim said, it concedes the blood and soil argument of modern Zionism. Similarly, being dismissive of the very real concerns of European anti-Semitism that drove the original Labor Zionist movement impoverishes our discourse on this. I agree whole heartedly that Israeli imperialism is an abomination.

But it seems that too often the modern left flirts dangerously close with anti-semitism, and as a person of Ashkenazi decent, that is most troubling to me.

9
3rd March 2010, 05:26
While this all very interesting from an anthropological standpoint, it really doesn't nor should it have any bearing on the political issue of Zionism.
The bearing is this: integral to the ideology of Zionism is the myth of an unified international Jewish people. So it is not those disputing this myth who are politicizing the issue - the issue is already political. The importance of these specific theories is another question - and certainly the specifics are in no way central to the case against Zionism. But whether they are presented as political arguments or not, they are inherently political because they fly in the face of an important part of Zionist national mythology.


Like Devrim said, it concedes the blood and soil argument of modern Zionism. Similarly, being dismissive of the very real concerns of European anti-Semitism that drove the original Labor Zionist movement impoverishes our discourse on this. I agree whole heartedly that Israeli imperialism is an abomination.
If you think Zionism arose, not as the colonialist movement of a section of the European Jewish bourgeoisie wanting to acquire its own slice of the imperialist pie, but as a response to anti-Semitism, you are truly misinformed on the subject I’m afraid. The revolutionaries among the European Jews were anti-Zionist from the get-go - as was most of European Jewry initially - and where the former wanted and tried to fight anti-Semitism in their own homelands, it was the Zionists who told them to withdraw. So I think you are very misinformed about the history of the movement, let alone it's relationship to anti-Semitism (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/ch06.htm).



But it seems that too often the modern left flirts dangerously close with anti-semitism, and as a person of Ashkenazi decent, that is most troubling to me.
How is this flirting with anti-Semitism? At this point, it is really hard for me to imagine that word being emptied of substance any further than it already has been; anymore, it is really just a meaningless political slur.

A freilichn Purim.

Sendo
4th March 2010, 13:42
right on Apikoros. Zionism was always an imperialist dream and the idea was pitched to anti-Jew leaders in Europe for several decades before WW2. In effect, the Jewish state is anti-worker because it distracts Jewish workers for fighting for justice in their countries. (If you're born an bred in Poland or wherever, that's your country, and you share customs with other Jews, but you don't have to live on the same piece of land speaking the same dead language) Israel has essentially de-Jewified what Jewish presence was left in Europe after the Holocaust. Anti-semite imperialists are free to be Zionists because the Jews ruling Israel are somewhere they don't have to see them and will obey the orders of Christian nations.

~Spectre
4th March 2010, 14:22
But it seems that too often the modern left flirts dangerously close with anti-semitism, and as a person of Ashkenazi decent, that is most troubling to me.


How does the "modern left" flirt with anti-semitism? IMO what really flirts with anti-semitism is how cheaply the phrase gets thrown around. Actual anti-semites are probably thrilled.

Kibbutznik
5th March 2010, 11:44
The bearing is this: integral to the ideology of Zionism is the myth of an unified international Jewish people. So it is not those disputing this myth who are politicizing the issue - the issue is already political. The importance of these specific theories is another question - and certainly the specifics are in no way central to the case against Zionism. But whether they are presented as political arguments or not, they are inherently political because they fly in the face of an important part of Zionist national mythology.
You're not a Jew, so I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but here goes anyway.

The self understanding of being Jew, whether Zionist or not, has very little to do with a shared blood. People have been adopting into the Jewish community for centuries; we all know that.

A shared identity as part of a cultural group is what binds together the Jewish community. Whether or not we're genetically related to the original inhabitants of Israel is entirely irrelevant. Even to an atheist Jew, it's going to make little difference. And to Jews who find their connection to the community and culture through religious faith, it means even less.

What myth are you talking about? Jews, regardless of ethnic origin, feel a sense of community with other Jews. It's how we're raised. There's nothing mythological about it. You come across as as terribly chauvinistic in this argument. There's nothing in this that calls into question any of the central cores of any form of Zionist mythology. At best, you're wasting your time preaching to the converted, and doing a pretty good job proving you have very little understanding of the Jewish people or of Zionism.

If you think Zionism arose, not as the colonialist movement of a section of the European Jewish bourgeoisie wanting to acquire its own slice of the imperialist pie, but as a response to anti-Semitism, you are truly misinformed on the subject I’m afraid. The revolutionaries among the European Jews were anti-Zionist from the get-go - as was most of European Jewry initially - and where the former wanted and tried to fight anti-Semitism in their own homelands, it was the Zionists who told them to withdraw. So I think you are very misinformed about the history of the movement, let alone it's relationship to anti-Semitism (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/ch06.htm).
Mind explaining Labor Zionism then? Which was from the beginnings of Zionism til the late 1970s the dominant strain of Zionist thinking. I'm sure those many thousands of Jews who made the original Aaliyah, and founded the kibbutzim were all Bourgeois Jews wanting to get their own slice of the pie.

Beg your pardon, but do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now? I'm fairly certain there are better ways to get your own slice of the imperial pie than packing up, moving to an underdeveloped corner of the world and founding socialist communes there. Israel, from its embryonic stages, to its founding, and its rise as an imperialist power in the Middle East has been on the political Hard Left, for better or worse.

I say none of this to make excuses for the Israeli state, or defend their patently monstrous actions. Jews have our own owning up to do with Israel. But so does the Left. To paint a picture of Israel as a bourgeois colonialist land grab is historical revisionism at best, and a shirking of our responsibility to own up to our own history.

How is this flirting with anti-Semitism? At this point, it is really hard for me to imagine that word being emptied of substance any further than it already has been; anymore, it is really just a meaningless political slur.

A freilichn Purim.
First of all, there's this dreadful tendency to turn Zionism into what it's not. Zionism is just a particular form of Western imperialism, nothing more. The average Jew or Israeli doesn't give Zionism a second thought. What people having been doing, such as Ralph Schoenman, who you linked to, is constructing elaborate conspiracy theories that feel ripped straight form the pages of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Yes, they've done valuable work examining the myths that the Israeli state perpetuates. Israeli settlers did horrible things to Palestinian settlers.

But besides that, all they've succeeded in proving is that any political organization will have snakes in it. Trot out a few examples of "Zionists" collaborating with Nazis, entirely devoid of context, and then use that as evidence of an evil Zionist conspiracy working the levers behind the Aaliyah.

The truth is not that simple, and attempting to construct such a myopic narrative is a disservice to all the victims, on both sides of the conflict.

Revy
5th March 2010, 12:01
The real basis of Zionism (as was promoted by Herzl) is not fervent attachment to history, but the emotional argument of a state to protect Jews from anti-Semitism. So it was very much grounded in their present conditions at the time. but I'm not defending Zionism I'm just correcting this idea.

9
5th March 2010, 14:29
Originally Posted by Kibbutznik
You're not a Jew, so I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but here goes anyway.

The self understanding of being Jew, whether Zionist or not, has very little to do with a shared blood. People have been adopting into the Jewish community for centuries; we all know that.

A shared identity as part of a cultural group is what binds together the Jewish community. Whether or not we're genetically related to the original inhabitants of Israel is entirely irrelevant. Even to an atheist Jew, it's going to make little difference. And to Jews who find their connection to the community and culture through religious faith, it means even less.
This is remarkable in more ways than I have fingers to count. I am not sure which comment in this first part is more absurd; your embarrassing (for you) assumption about my religious/cultural background, or the assumption that someone’s religious/cultural background dictates whether or not they are capable of comprehending a political position.
With respect to the first assumption; I am an atheist, certainly, though I was born to second generation Eastern European Jewish immigrants and raised with that cultural backdrop. There is this saying about assumptions, but I can’t seem to remember how it goes.
With respect to the second assumption, it is Jewish exceptionalism par excellence. I would have just as much of a capability to comprehend Zionism - and just as much of a right to detest it - if I’d been born to a Muslim family from Africa or a Catholic family from South America etc. etc. And I would also be no less entitled to point out to you the fact that your idea of a universal Jewish community and a singular universal Jewish identity and culture is utter folkish-mythological bullshit.


What myth are you talking about? Jews, regardless of ethnic origin, feel a sense of community with other Jews. It's how we're raised.
And more bullshit generalizations based in nothing but the worldview of Zionist nationalism and your own imagination. A Jew from Ethiopia doesn’t inherently feel any more of a connection with a Jew from Odessa than a Christian from Ethiopia feels with a Christian from Odessa. The upbringing of a Jew from Ethiopia has just as little in common with the upbringing of a Jew from Odessa as the upbringing of a Christian from Ethipia has in common with the upbringing of a Christian from Odessa.

You come across as as terribly chauvinistic in this argument. There's nothing in this that calls into question any of the central cores of any form of Zionist mythology. At best, you're wasting your time preaching to the converted, and doing a pretty good job proving you have very little understanding of the Jewish people or of Zionism
I do not speak in the language of Zionist nationalist mysticism, nor do I profess to speak on behalf of some international Jewish hivemind which does not exist; if that renders me incompetent, I am happy to be incompetent.


Mind explaining Labor Zionism then? Which was from the beginnings of Zionism til the late 1970s the dominant strain of Zionist thinking. I'm sure those many thousands of Jews who made the original Aaliyah, and founded the kibbutzim were all Bourgeois Jews wanting to get their own slice of the pie.

Are you familiar with the meaning of the term ‘settler-colonialism’? Are you familiar with the fact that a particular group of people does not have to represent “their” bourgeoisie in composition in order to represent the interests of the bourgeoisie. Take the US military, for example. Not generally bourgeois in composition, represents (and acts in) the interests of the bourgeoisie. The same was and is true of Zionist settlers.

Ugh. I do not have the patience for the rest of this right now. I’ll have to return to it when I have the time in the evening.


Beg your pardon, but do *you realize how ridiculous you sound right now? I'm fairly certain there are better ways to get your own slice of the imperial pie than packing up, moving to an underdeveloped corner of the world and founding socialist communes there. Israel, from its embryonic stages, to its founding, and its rise as an imperialist power in the Middle East has been on the political Hard Left, for better or worse.

I say none of this to make excuses for the Israeli state, or defend their patently monstrous actions. Jews have our own owning up to do with Israel. But so does the Left. To paint a picture of Israel as a bourgeois colonialist land grab is historical revisionism at best, and a shirking of our responsibility to own up to our own history.

First of all, there's this dreadful tendency to turn Zionism into what it's not. Zionism is just a particular form of Western imperialism, nothing more. The average Jew or Israeli doesn't give Zionism a second thought. What people having been doing, such as Ralph Schoenman, who you linked to, is constructing elaborate conspiracy theories that feel ripped straight form the pages of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Yes, they've done valuable work examining the myths that the Israeli state perpetuates. Israeli settlers did horrible things to Palestinian settlers.

But besides that, all they've succeeded in proving is that any political organization will have snakes in it. Trot out a few examples of "Zionists" collaborating with Nazis, entirely devoid of context, and then use that as evidence of an evil Zionist conspiracy working the levers behind the Aaliyah.

The truth is not that simple, and attempting to construct such a myopic narrative is a disservice to all the victims, on both sides of the conflict.

9
7th March 2010, 15:22
Alright, picking up where I left off with Kibbutznik the other day...

Beg your pardon, but do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now? I'm fairly certain there are better ways to get your own slice of the imperial pie than packing up, moving to an underdeveloped corner of the world and founding socialist communes there.
Actually settler colonialism is a pretty damn effective way.

Israel, from its embryonic stages, to its founding, and its rise as an imperialist power in the Middle East has been on the political Hard Left, for better or worse.
I haven’t the slightest clue what on earth you are talking about, but it sounds pretty nuts.


I say none of this to make excuses for the Israeli state, or defend their patently monstrous actions. Jews have our own owning up to do with Israel. But so does the Left. To paint a picture of Israel as a bourgeois colonialist land grab is historical revisionism at best, and a shirking of our responsibility to own up to our own history.

No it isn’t historical revisionism, it’s the reality! If recognizing that Israel is a settler-colonialist and imperialist state is indicative of “historical revisionism”, perhaps to you the historically accurate portrayal would be "a land without a people for a people without a land"?


First of all, there's this dreadful tendency to turn Zionism into what it's not. Zionism is just a particular form of Western imperialism, nothing more. The average Jew or Israeli doesn't give Zionism a second thought. What people having been doing, such as Ralph Schoenman, who you linked to, is constructing elaborate conspiracy theories that feel ripped straight form the pages of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

OK. I am not sure why you think the link I provided is reminiscent of "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" unless you are under the impression that there are not class divisions among Jews and/or you do not know that every bourgeoisie acts in its own class interests, which tend to be diametrically opposed to the interests of the masses of “its” people, particularly the working class. The Zionists have never had any apprehensions about doing things which put the Jewish masses in direct (and sometimes very fatal) danger if it will help them achieve their objectives. Pointing this out has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anti-Semitism, and the fact that you reflexively invoke one of the worst articles of anti-Semitism in history as a reaction to a summary outlining some examples of the reprehensible conduct of Zionists historically, is - consciously or not - a direct defense of Zionism and the state of Israel.

Israeli settlers did horrible things to Palestinian settlers.
I have to ask why you are talking as if this is in the past and not still going on on a daily basis, as well as why you evidently are of the opinion that Palestinians are also settlers in Israel (i.e. Palestine).

MarxSchmarx
8th March 2010, 07:30
With respect to the second assumption, it is Jewish exceptionalism par excellence. I would have just as much of a capability to comprehend Zionism - and just as much of a right to detest it - if I’d been born to a Muslim family from Africa or a Catholic family from South America etc. etc. And I would also be no less entitled to point out to you the fact that your idea of a universal Jewish community and a singular universal Jewish identity and culture is utter folkish-mythological bullshit.

I disagree. In all fairness, Apikoros, you and other people of Jewish descent have access of Israeli passports. This is a material advantage. And with that Israeli passport, you can travel and pretty much live in any non-Arabic country. This is a tangible benefit that is afforded to Brazilian, Russian or Algerian Jews but not to Brazilian, Russian or Algerian Christians or Muslims - and certainly not your fellow atheists from these and other countries. I realize most of the comrades posting here are from the Global North, and many Jewish posters are citizens of an EU or North American state or Australia/NZ, but very often we forget just how envious, rightly or wrongly, billions of people feel about some of our passports. For better or worse, Israeli passports are a ticket to a better life that is systematically unavailable to a lot of people. I agree that this state of affairs is bullshit, but it is neither mythological nor folkloric.

9
8th March 2010, 09:30
I disagree. In all fairness, Apikoros, you and other people of Jewish descent have access of Israeli passports. This is a material advantage. And with that Israeli passport, you can travel and pretty much live in any non-Arabic country. This is a tangible benefit that is afforded to Brazilian, Russian or Algerian Jews but not to Brazilian, Russian or Algerian Christians or Muslims - and certainly not your fellow atheists from these and other countries. I realize most of the comrades posting here are from the Global North, and many Jewish posters are citizens of an EU or North American state or Australia/NZ, but very often we forget just how envious, rightly or wrongly, billions of people feel about some of our passports. For better or worse, Israeli passports are a ticket to a better life that is systematically unavailable to a lot of people. I agree that this state of affairs is bullshit, but it is neither mythological nor folkloric.

I’m not actually sure what you’re talking about - let alone it's relationship to the discussion in this thread, but a few points anyway...

I don’t know anything about Israeli passports, although I’d be pretty surprised if an Israeli passport allowed me to do anything I can’t already do with an American passport. Also, I don’t have an Israeli passport, as I don’t have Israeli citizenship. I can apply for Israeli citizenship, though, and seeing that I am Ashkenazi, I imagine I would have no problem obtaining it (it is not so easy for all Jews as it is for Ashkenazi Jews, BTW).
So maybe what you are trying to say is that Jews are privileged by the fact that they can all obtain Israeli citizenship. And there is the racial caveat about ease of obtaining citizenship, but aside from that, it is basically quite true.
Which leads me to the question, now that I have said all of that: what has any of that got to do with anything I said in the portion of my post you quoted? I just don’t really see what is it’s relevance in the context of what was being discussed. It has no bearing on the fact that the notion of a singular Jewish culture and a universal Jewish cultural identity is, indeed, bullshit; mythological; and folkish (rather than "folkloric", although that is apt as well). So I’m a bit confused about exactly what you are saying.

Sasha
8th March 2010, 11:09
i havent realy followed this thread so i'll keep myself out of this but this statement:


And with that Israeli passport, you can travel and pretty much live in any non-Arabic country.

isnt really accurate, israelis belong to the people with the most dificulty getting permission to stay in the netherlands. I dont know why but is hard as fuck to get an working or study visa for isrealis

Devrim
9th March 2010, 10:33
I disagree. In all fairness, Apikoros, you and other people of Jewish descent have access of Israeli passports. This is a material advantage. And with that Israeli passport, you can travel and pretty much live in any non-Arabic country. This is a tangible benefit that is afforded to Brazilian, Russian or Algerian Jews but not to Brazilian, Russian or Algerian Christians or Muslims - and certainly not your fellow atheists from these and other countries. I realize most of the comrades posting here are from the Global North, and many Jewish posters are citizens of an EU or North American state or Australia/NZ, but very often we forget just how envious, rightly or wrongly, billions of people feel about some of our passports. For better or worse, Israeli passports are a ticket to a better life that is systematically unavailable to a lot of people. I agree that this state of affairs is bullshit, but it is neither mythological nor folkloric.

I don't think that Jews can just pop down to the local Israeli embassy, and pick up a passport. The 'right of return', is the right to settle, and gain citizenship, so you have to go and live there (for a period of one year) before you get the passport.

Added to that it is true that an Israeli passport gives you the possibility of visa free travel in 118 countries, but it does not give you the right to live there. Shengen States, for example, give 90 days to Israeli passport holders. Certainly this is an advantage, and many people are envious. This does not mean that Israeli passport holders can just go and live where they like.

Devrim

Devrim
9th March 2010, 10:36
isnt really accurate, israelis belong to the people with the most dificulty getting permission to stay in the netherlands. I dont know why but is hard as fuck to get an working or study visa for isrealis

I can't imagine that this is actually true. Possibly comparitivly difficult, but the people who have real difficulty getting working visas for the Netherlands will be the ones who you don't meet and hear the stories of how difficult it was from, precisely because they are not there.

I find it difficult to believe that it is more difficult for an Israeli to get a Dutch visa, then say a Turk.

Devrim

Sasha
9th March 2010, 12:21
I can't imagine that this is actually true. Possibly comparitivly difficult, but the people who have real difficulty getting working visas for the Netherlands will be the ones who you don't meet and hear the stories of how difficult it was from, precisely because they are not there.

I find it difficult to believe that it is more difficult for an Israeli to get a Dutch visa, then say a Turk.

Devrim

nope, a turk is more easy. it has sommething to do with visa/traveling treaty's and some espionage scandal a few decades back.
i mean offcourse an iranian or sommething would have it way more dificult to get an visa but they mostly come on an (atempted) refugee status, from the countrys here considerd "democracys" israel is the hardest to stay on a visa.

Devrim
9th March 2010, 12:35
nope, a turk is more easy. it has sommething to do with visa/traveling treaty's and some espionage scandal a few decades back.
i mean offcourse an iranian or sommething would have it way more dificult to get an visa but they mostly come on an (atempted) refugee status, from the countrys here considerd "democracys" israel is the hardest to stay on a visa.
The Turk was just an example. My point was that Israelis do not have it hardest. On the point of the comparision between Turks and Israelis, Turks need visas to visit Holland, and are often refused, Israelis don't.
Devrim

RedStarOverChina
9th March 2010, 15:14
All ethnicities are mental constructs. It's not fair to pick on the Jews specifically, I think.

freepalestine
9th March 2010, 18:42
,


Yes, they've done valuable work examining the myths that the Israeli state perpetuates. Israeli settlers did horrible things to Palestinian settlers.

.what does that mean ?or was it a typing error?