Although there is probably no book too foolish to go un-admired by someone, there are subjects for which the market for foolishness is especially large. Any list of these would have to include “Jews” and “Israel” near its top, as has once again been demonstrated by the granting of this year’s prestigious Aujourd’hui Award to the French translation of Israeli academic Shlomo Sand’s book “The Invention of the Jewish People.” (This is the title of the English edition, due to appear in September from left-wing publisher Verso.)
Sand’s book, which argues that there was no such thing as a Jewish people until one was “constructed” by Zionism and Jewish nationalism in the 19th century, would have attracted little notice had it been written by a professor of history at the University of Damascus. As the work of a supposed historian at the University of Tel Aviv, it is a scandal, a fashionably phrased political screed against Zionism that cherry-picks its data while pretending to be history. Alas, it will be accepted as history by many readers who are as dutifully impressed by its 568 footnotes, as were, it would seem, the French journalists on the Aujourd’hui panel.
Not that Sand gets everything wrong. His book is full of perfectly correct and quite unoriginal observations: some elaborating why today’s Jews are not all descendants of biblical Israelites and stem in part from ancestors who joined the Jewish people by religious conversion over the ages (although Sand’s treatment of the considerable genetic research on the subject is shockingly shoddy, he is not wholly wrong about the matter); some pointing out that Diaspora Jews never shared a single spoken language or material culture, let alone territory, as do most peoples; and some dwelling on the problematic nature of the State of Israel, which aspires to be Jewish, democratic and secular while denying non-Jews certain privileges extended to Jews and defining Jewishness in terms of traditional religious law. These are all issues worthy of discussion, and there is nothing wrong with raising them.
And yet to go from there to Sand’s absurd conclusions that the Jews, who considered themselves a distinct people from their early history, were “invented” as one in modern times; that their historical connection to Palestine is “imaginary,” because they are not descended in their entirety from ancient Palestinian Jewry; or that the idea of a Jewish state is therefore less acceptable than the idea of a French or Spanish state, demands a thoroughly dishonest manipulation of the facts. Indeed, if one is talking about the “construction” of national identities, an enterprise that numerous post-modernist historians of nationalism to whom Sand is indebted have written about, it is the French and Spanish who are the parvenus, having undertaken the task only in the late Middle Ages. And if you are looking for peoples who accomplished this even later, in the last two or three centuries, say, you might consider the Italians, the Germans, the Americans, the Brazilians, the Indians and a host of others (including those latest of latecomers, the Palestinians). You would never, unless you wanted to flaunt your ignorance, mention the Jews, who had a fully developed national consciousness at least 2,500 years ago.
But of course, no one would ever write a book challenging the idea of an Italian, German or Brazilian state, much less win any French prizes for it. It is only the Jews in regard to whom it is nowadays increasingly bon ton to argue that a country of their own is not for them. And should you have the bad manners to object that it is antisemitic to deny them a right that is granted to other peoples, you can now look forward to being answered: “Ah, my friend, the Jews have only imagined they are a people! If even a Jewish professor of history says so, it must be true.”
And yet the embarrassment of Jewishness has always made certain Jewish intellectuals not the last, but the first, to seek to discredit the idea of Jewish peoplehood. From the age of the French Revolution, a time at which few European gentiles doubted for a moment that the Jews were a separate people (and on the whole, a heartily disliked one), there were plenty of Jews who insisted that they were really just Frenchmen or Germans or Englishmen of “the Mosaic faith,” with no national ties to other Mosaicists living elsewhere. And by the same token, in the 1940s, when Hitler and his legions were confident that they were exterminating a people and not a mere religious profession, the so-called Canaanite movement, born in the bohemian cafés of Tel Aviv, made similar claims for the Jews of Palestine — who, it was said, were proud, sun-bronzed “Hebrews,” not to be confused with the pale-skinned juifs, Juden and zhidi of Europe then meekly trooping off to the gas chambers.
Shlomo Sand is in this tradition, a post-modernist Canaanite who need not, he thinks, suffer the indignity of belonging to the Jewish people because — what a relief! — no such people exists. No doubt, not a few of the thousands of Israelis who helped put Sand’s book on the best-seller list in Israel experienced a similar epiphany upon reading it. Even in a Jewish state, we now know, there will always be Jews who would rather be something else. You can, to paraphrase an old Zionist witticism, take the Jew out of the non-Jewish environment into which he dreams of assimilating, but you cannot take the assimilationist out of every Jew.
Unfortunately, there are even larger numbers of non-Jews who will be happy to believe Sand’s nonsense. Once upon a time, antisemitism consisted of the belief that the Jews were an incorrigible and pernicious people who could never be absorbed by other peoples. Today, it is trendy to hold that they are a non-people masquerading as a people in order to justify stealing another people’s homeland. Le plus ça change, le plus ça reste le même chose. As discouraging as it is to see Jewish intellectuals like Shlomo Sand aiding and abetting their people’s enemies, this too is not new under the sun.
Hillel Halkin is the author, most recently, of “A Strange Death: A Story Originating in Espionage, Betrayal, and Vengeance in a Village in Old Palestine” (Public Affairs, 2005) and “Across the Sabbath River: In Search of a Lost Tribe of Israel” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002).
Zand's book was written to justify his political view about the replacement of the Jewish state with the so called "the state of all its citizens". This is the politization of history.The idea is to return the refugees to Israel and to turn the Palestinians into the majority. Then Israel will become PALESTINE by democratic vote.
Zand took 3 marginal episodes in Jewish history and turned them into the mainstream of Jewish history, thus concluding that there is no Jewish nation, but groups of converted peoples.
Another idea in his book is the Palestinians are Jews who had converted to Islam after the Arabic- Muslim conquest of the country in the 7th century. He based this idea mainly on a book written by Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi in 1918 and an article by prof' A.N Polak in 1967. I can bring 10 studies published after this date that dispove this thesis. I am an historian
as far as i know, no one has proved that a morocccan judaist, tho she being shemitic, is descendant of a judean. The same observation is valid for all mizrahic and shephardic voelken.
as for ashkenazic volk, there is much evidence that they are composed solely of slavo-germano-asian voelken. there is no shred of evidence that they are connected in any wise to israelites or judeans.
just the fact that ashk'c voelken did not speak hebrew but a dialect of german, shows strongly that they were not hebraic. one wld have been naive to evaluate that mad rabbis wld have abandoned the hebrew language that 'yahweh' used in his commands to moshe.
'zionists' having realized this mighty shortcoming, prompts them and rabbis to urge 'jews' to speak hebrew.
a 'jew' to me is a person who is connected to any judaist, judaism, yiddische sprache/culture while at the same time being wholy euroasian.
not that this matters even a tad [except to 'jews']in buttressing judeo-christian alliance's proclamation that excanaan or palestine belongs to 'jews'. and it never will belong to 'jews'; as long US/israel is out to wring a win-lose result in canaan. tnx
I'm afraid Halkin is as clueless as Sand on the genetic ties of the Jews.More studies have been carried out on the genetic history of the Jews than on most ethnic groups, perhaps because there are so many Jewish doctors to take advantage of the fabled willingness of Jews to participate in research. These studies not only show that almost all Jewish populations have origins in the Middle East, but that the DNA of Jews from almost every corner of the Diaspora is more similar to that of other Jews than to any other population. When compared with non-Jewish groups, the closest match is with the Muslims of Kurdistan, not with the European peoples alongside whom Ashkenazi Jews lived for centuries or the Arab neighbors of many Sephardi populations.
Other groups with histories of ancient migrations do not have the same degree of continuity. Hungarians are known to have originated on the Eurasian steppe and moved westward in a migration many centuries long, arriving in the Carpathian basin about 995 CE. They speak a language from the steppe, take pride in their history of migration and military conquest and expected that genetic research would demonstrate their central Asian origins. The evidence to date, however, has shown a varying but quite small element of central Asian ancestry in Hungarian populations, along with great similarities between Hungarians and their Slavic and German neighbors. This does not mean that the Hungarians with Slavic ancestry are not real Hungarians. Rather, Hungarian culture has been so powerfully attractive that for many centuries people of Slavic, Germanic and other ancestry elected to join the Hungarian people. Ironically, the genetic distinctiveness of the Jews in part may reflect the unattractiveness of joining a religious minority that was oppressed and impoverished through much of its history.
Syrians resemble Ashkenazic Jews in their manners, in their way of speaking, and even the sort of professions they gravitated to traditionally, far more than Palestinians. Any one who has ever been to Syrian, especially Damascus, who is of Ashkenazic Jewish origin will feel as if has returned to the world of his grandparents speaking Arabic.
Sand's belief that the Palestinians are the descendant of the Israelite Jews in the Bible is ideological as well. Furthermore, if there is a relationship between the Syrian Muslims and Chritians, and the Jews, then his notion is completely refuted. It suggests that either the Syrians migrated to Syria from Europe or that the Jews migrated to Europe from the Middle East. Either way, if the Jewish People is a construct and an invention, then so is Sands deconstruction of it.
I haven't read the book in question, but at least one of the arguments against its thesis is troubling, to say the least.
If one is Italian, French, German, or American, one can be of any religion - Jewish, Catholic, etc. If one is to be Jewish . . . well, one must either already be Jewish, or convert to that religion. Are we to claim that Jewish-Americans, Jewish-Italians, etc., are actually dual nationals? Should they hold two passports, one of their state of origin and a Jewish passport? Has anyone ever seen a Jewish passport - ah, yes,one stamped with a big J perhaps? If I convert to Judaism am I no longer of Italian/French/English ancestry but suddenly belong to the ancient Hebrews? And what am to tell my Grandparents. Sorry, that little village in Italy? Well, forget about it, it's been moved to Galilee. If I convert, does that make my devoutly Catholic Grandmother Jewish too? (I can hear her rolling in her grave now)
The argument that Jews (adherents to a religion) are somehow analogous to the French (citizens of a state, not adherents to a religion)is logically and historically absurd, a politically expedient notion twisted together out of religious and ethnic nationalism, the bane of the last 100 years.
In the recently-released Nixon tapes, the former president disparages Jewish resistence to America that celebrates its Christian character. Fearing an anti-Semitic response, he opines: "It may be they have a death wish. You know it's been a problem with our Jewish friends for centuries." Reading Tony Jundt and the likes of Shlomo Sand, one can't help but remember the disgraced president's observation.
Grif
I understand your confusion. In the modern world, most religions and ethnicities are mixed and matched freely.... there are Christians and Muslims of many nations all over the world.
But in ancient times, your ethnicity and your religion were often the same thing. The Babylonians followed the Babylonian religion, the Egyptians followed the Egyptian religion, the Aztecs followed the Aztec religion, etc.
Jews, like Hindus in India, and Shintoists in Japan, and a few other examples, are holdovers from that era.
There is a Jewish ethnicity/nationality, with the history of a people. and there is also a Jewish faith, with the history of a religion.
They often overlap. It is rare to find an ethnic Jew who identifies as a Jew but follows a non-Jewish religion, and it is rare to find a follower of the Jewish religion who does not express a communal/national/ethnic attachment to the Jewish People.
Just like there are American Muslims, and Italian-Americans -- there are American Jews (relig.) and Jewish-Americans (ethn.)
What is true? what is a myth? what is a marketing ploy? what is propaganda? If you know a good bagel AND a good bourek, then okay you are in the club (but not according to the bearded ones, they meet in the market place and plot the grand alliance of al-quaida and the lubavitchers.
Grif, what's so difficult to understand? If you convert, then you are a convert. Are you a member of the ancient Hebrew lineage? Of course not.
Grif
I understand your confusion. In the modern world, most religions and ethnicities are mixed and matched freely.... there are Christians and Muslims of many nations all over the world.
But in ancient times, your ethnicity and your religion were often the same thing. The Babylonians followed the Babylonian religion, the Egyptians followed the Egyptian religion, the Aztecs followed the Aztec religion, etc.
Jews, like Hindus in India, and Shintoists in Japan, and a few other examples, are holdovers from that era.
There is a Jewish ethnicity/nationality, with the history of a people. and there is also a Jewish faith, with the history of a religion.
They often overlap. It is rare to find an ethnic Jew who identifies as a Jew but follows a non-Jewish religion, and it is rare to find a follower of the Jewish religion who does not express a communal/national/ethnic attachment to the Jewish People.
Just like there are American Muslims, and Italian-Americans -- there are American Jews (relig.) and Jewish-Americans (ethn.)
Alan,
Thanks for the reply, but I still have some problems here.
Even if one is to accept your argument concerning certain ancient religions, we do not live in ancient times and the groups the author referenced above do not define themselves in an ancient manner, so for him to claim Jewish nationality (in the ancient sense, or as in ethnicity) as the same as French, American nationality, etc. (in the modern sense, as in citizenship), is still to compare apples and oranges. Those nations owe their definition of themselves to the ideals of Graeco-Roman democracy and Enlightenment principles.
France is not composed solely of Gauls, and whatever religions the Gauls followed, nor are Americans, who belong to perhaps the most polyglot, poly-religious, multi-cultural nation in the world, and were from the very start.
There is certainly an communal/ethnic attachment amongst Jewish people, several, at least, I would say. So what, in my opinion, would be the correct analogy? I don't know, certainly not the above analogy with modern citizenship. Jews themselves, down through the years, have battled over this argument, and still do.
Perhaps the problem lies in trying to define one at all. Throughout history the effort to define blood nationality has been fraught with "isms," all of which have led to disaster. The cultural and religious diversity amongst all the world's Jews perhaps speaks to a better path.
One of confusions that Grif is expressing is a common American confusion. "Nationality" is understood as a legal or a formal concept, a synonym of "citizenship". Hence, Grif asks the almost silly question if we have ever seen a Jewish passport. Oftentimes, a nationality and the existence of an independent state ("a passport") correspond very closely (one's citizenship and one's nationality are one and the same) - but not always. I don't think that Grif would cast a doubt on the existence of a Polish nationality. However, the Polish state disappeared in the 18th century, and it was re-established in the 20th. Polish nationality did not end suddenly with the loss of statehood, nor did it suddenly have a rebirth in 1918. Polish nationality is a sociological fact - defined by common descent, a shared narrative of a particular public, a language, and more. This is true of many nations in the world. There is today an Armenian state ("passport"), and yet the Armenian national identity was quite obvious since the Middle Ages, many centuries before independence.
Another confusion of Grif is "Jewish" and "Judaism". This is a confusion that many modern Jews share because of the general collapse of Jewish identity through assimilation in the Diaspora (the adoption of someone else's identity). Judaism is a religion - the religion of the Jewish people. Now, it's true that the conversion to Judaism is defined by the Jews as the entrance into Jewish peoplehood - and this is very unique in the world - yet, "Judaism" and "Jewish" are not the same. Most Jews today in the world are not religious people (most do not believe today that the Torah was given on Sinai to Moses), yet they still see themselves as Jews. One is a Jew even if he does not practice Judaism.
"Jewish" being a peoplehood, a nationhood, is obvious even in the common use of language in our modern-day political debates. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 spoke of a "Jewish" state and an "Arab" state. "Jewish" is parallel to "Arab", an ethnicity, (not Islamic or Christian). The Jews were understood to be a public that has its own collective identity based on descent, narrative, collective aspirations etc - just like the Arabs.
Grif seems to think that "Jewish" as a nation, parallel to French, is "a politically expedient notion" of the last 100 years (i.e. he is expressing opposition to the rise of modern Israel). No, that's not so. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the 20th century the Jews were regarded to be a distinct people, one of the peoples of the world. No one saw the Jews as "Frenchmen who practice Judaism" until modern times. On the contrary, the Jews were regarded as foreigners in France until the Revolution. The new nation-states founded in Europe after the First World War (Poland or Lithuania to name just two) were obligated to respect the rights of the national minorities within their territories. The Jews were a NATIONAL minority in Poland, like the Ukrainian minority, even though they had Polish citizenship.
Today, many Jews see themselves as Frenchmen or as Americans. They have adopted these identities in modern times. As such, their Jewish identities have been re-defined as "religion only" - even if they have never set foot in synagogue in their lives. This modern phenomenon doesn't change the historic reality that the Jews have always been one of the peoples of the world. The founding of the State of Israel is a chapter in the history of the Jewish people. The Six-Day War was a drama in the history of the Jewish people, etc. No one says that the founding of the state was a chapter in the history of the "Israeli people" or in the "history of Judaism". Our natural use of language is generally a good indication of how we perceive ourselves. Even Prof Sand in his natural use of language calls us the Jewish people in his book, even as he tries so hard to portray us as mere converts to Judaism.
Grif,
I think part of your confusion comes from the word "nation." There are two definitions of a nation. The one you are refering to is the common usage in the US, the UK, and France and is based on participation in publich politics of a nation state. The second definition is the one common in central european states such as Germany and is based on ethnic heritage. So for example, being born in Germany does not make you a German citizen. Germans are German ethnically. That is not to say that others cannot gain citizenship, but it is not automatic and there are some who have been living in Germany for several generations and do not have citizenship. This ethic idea of a nation is used in a number of modern states. Ireland for example will grant automatic citizenship to anyone who can prove Irish decent. In that sense, Jews were and are a nation. They share a common ethnicity a common history , and in some sense a common culture. This ethnic definition is also the definition of a nation that is used in political philosophy. See the classic works on nationalism by by Gellner, Anderson, Smith, and Hobsbawm.
It should be added that the book of Prof Sand was written in Hebrew, not English. English speakers generally use the word "people" as a plural concept, as a plural of "person". So an American might say "one person" and then "two people". Now, "people" as a singular word exists in English: "The Jewish people WAS exiled from ITS land". However, in my experience with English-speakers, "people" is used almost exclusively as the plural of person; hence, my students will say "Jewish people" and "Christian people" and "Moslem people" as parallel terms. The English language in this respect is confusing. Prof Sand uses the term "ha-'am ha-yehudi" in the title of his book. The translation, "the Jewish people", will be misunderstood by English speakers. Some are liable to think that he is referring to Jewish "persons" when in fact he is referring to a collective identity. "The Jewish people" could be understood as parallel to "Lutheran people" in English - this is how Grif understands "Jewish people" - but that is quite impossible in the Hebrew language. In Hebrew, you would say "ha-'am ha-yehudi" as a parallel term of "ha-'am ha-tzarfati" (the French people) or "ha-'am ha-yappani" (the Japanese people). You will never say in Hebrew "ha-'am ha-notzri" (the Christian people). The term "'am" in Hebrew is an ethnicity, a group of people defined by a common descent or a common language (see Genesis 11 where all the world is one people, speaking one language - and then divided in many peoples, speaking many languages).
Therefore, as Reuven pointed out, the natural use of language by Prof Sand - "ha-'am ha-yehudi" - indicates that he is sees the Jews as a people, sharing a collective identity (analogous to the peoplehood of others). He is arguing (I believe falsely) that this collective identity was "invented" in the Middle Ages by those individuals who converted to Judaism (as opposed to the general understanding that the Jews are the descendants of the ancient tribe of Judah) - but he is not denying that there is an historic collective Jewish peoplehood identity for many centuries. He is not arguing, like Grif, that this peoplehood identity was invented in the last 100 years.
Amalec is rising its head again. Judaism is a religion, with ethnic roots. Israel belongs to all Jews, and does not matter on their ethnicity. And then there are non-practicing, assimilated people with Jewish background - their opinions do not count, since they do not wish to be part of the tribe.
In response to Bozhidar Balkas' incredibly ignorant rant. Just one example will suffice: Balkas states that since Ashkenazic Jews "did not speak hebrew but a dialect of german, shows strongly that they were not hebraic" as proof of the non-peoplehood of the Jews. Perhaps Balkas ought to have a look at a Yiddish book or newspaper, at the Hebrew letters Yiddish is written in. If Balkas could read Yiddish he (she?) would immediately note that one can barely finish a sentence in Yiddish without using Hebrew vocabulary. This is but one example of the kind of ignorance born of malice that has led to the many anti-Jewish movements in history. And, the road to that hell has always been paved by Jews for whom membership in the House of Israel has been more of a burden rather than a joy.
Henry Ford once said "History is bunk" and I tend to agree to the extent that "historians" can often twist and bend facts to suit their point of view. But science is less prone to such blatant misrepresentation. The fact is that DnA analysis done over the last decade indicates that over 50% of Jews - including Ashkenazic Jews - have what scientist now refer to as "Israelite" gene. That is they are genetically linked to the Middle East. This is not so for regular Poles, Germans and Russians, but is true for many Jews who lived in those lands for centuries. Those who want to see the results of such DnA studies can go to www.khazaria.com or search for "Jewish genes." It is also true that quite a few Palestinians and Kurds and others share this gene pool called "Israelite" indicating that many are the descendants of Jewish converts after the introduction of Islam. It is true that in ancient times, some of the "samaritans" or descendants of a Kurdish people brought in by the Assyrians to replace the Israelite population of the conquered Kingdom of Israel whose capital was Samaria, also adopted, or were forced to adopt Judaism in the time of Hasmonean rule. SO the historical evidence can be misrepresented or misconstrued, but the genetic evidence of Jewish connection to the country is increasingly indisputable.
In response to Bozhidar Balkas' incredibly ignorant rant. Just one example will suffice: Balkas states that since Ashkenazic Jews "did not speak hebrew but a dialect of german, shows strongly that they were not hebraic" as proof of the non-peoplehood of the Jews. Perhaps Balkas ought to have a look at a Yiddish book or newspaper, at the Hebrew letters Yiddish is written in. If Balkas could read Yiddish he (she?) would immediately note that one can barely finish a sentence in Yiddish without using Hebrew vocabulary. This is but one example of the kind of ignorance born of malice that has led to the many anti-Jewish movements in history. And, the road to that hell has always been paved by Jews for whom membership in the House of Israel has been more of a burden rather than a joy.
Since Sand’s book argues that there was no such thing as a Jewish people until one was “constructed” by Zionism and Jewish nationalism in the 19th century, then who exactly were the Crusaders, Bogdan Chmelnitzk, and all the other pogromists killing? Just "Europeans of the Mosaic persuasion?"
splitting hairs regarding DNA tracing only serves to further complicate the issues at hand. THE way I see it, no one alive today can isolate one's lineage to a single race. We are all mixed blood thanks to wars, conquests and occupations as well as buisiness and trade. It makes sense that the Palestenians are the desendants of the true Israelites who came from Mesopatamia and settled in Palestine, who then became the christians upon the arrival of Jesus, and then became the Muslims. There is no disconnect as politics would have us beleive. The Palestinians are the only people to endure in the region and are the victime continuous occupations through out history. I look forward to reading professor Sand's book. Some people are afraid of the truth.
A lot of confusion could be avoided if we simply made the division between Judaism (religion) and Hebrew (ethnicity). Sigmund Freud was an atheist Hebrew, St. Paul was a Christian Hebrew, Sammy David, Jr. was an African-American Jew, etc. Just as Hinduism is the "national religion" of Indians, but many Indians belong to other faiths, so too may Hebrews be of the Samaritan, Rabbinical, Christian or yes, Muslim (i.e. Palestinians who are descended from converts) faiths. Israel would then become the country of the Hebrews, most of whom are Jewish, rather than the Jews, most of whom are Hebrew.
Tell me, do you also post your opinions about occipital brain surgery techniques or about the use of glottal stops in pre European contact Aboriginal languages in the Americas on internet comment boards?...no, I dont comment on these matters because I dont know anything about them. I did read Mein Kampf several times as well as the Protocols so I am an expert on the Jewish question? The juden, whether they are askenazic, spehardic, or other, must be resettled on another planet so they cannot cause anymore harm
Ben's comment is very interesting. It's an attempt to define identities through a philosophical-intellectual analysis. Indeed, wouldn't it be incredibly interesting if all those living in Israel saw themselves as Hebrew? However, identities are born and are maintained through the dynamics of sociology. Groups of people define their own identities because of a perceived history of themselves.
Let's start with the term "Jew". Ben has tried to define "Jew" as a believer in the Jewish religion; hence Freud has been defined as an "atheist Hebrew". But sociological reality doesn't match Ben's image of Jewishness. All Jews regard Freud as a Jew, and he regarded himself as such. "Jewishness" does not equal "Judaism" - an atheist such as Freud or Ben-Gurion is a Jew. There is an ethnicity called "Jewish", not merely a religion called "Judaism".
Israel's Declaration of Independence speaks of the founding of a "Jewish state in the Land of Israel..." The intention was not the founding of a state for the Jewish religion; rather, the intention was the founding of a state for a particular group that saw itself as a nation, as one of the peoples of the world. This is the reason that the state was named "Israel". Israel is the name of the Jewish people as in "mi ke-'ammekha Yisrael, goy ehad ba-aretz" ("who is like your people Israel, a unique nation in the world" - First Chronicles 17:21).
It may or may not be true that some of the Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the ancient Hebrew. This possibility is irrelevant in their own perceived identity. They are not Hebrews in their own eyes. They and we both know that "Hebrew" is only a Jewish identity. It is simply a synonym of "Jewish". Hence, we have the Hebrew Union College. There is no doubt that the intention was to define the college as Jewish (in the religious sense). The Hebrew University was named such to define the school as the university of the Hebrew-speaking Jewish nation (Jewish in the sense of ethnicity).
Identity is, first and foremost, a self-perceived quality. The Jews always saw themselves as an ancient exiled nation. The yearning to restore their perceived ancient glory by returning to their lost homeland is the very heart of Jewish public life ("Next year in Jerusalem"). Many people seem to believe that by negating the historicity of the Jewish narrative, it would be possible eventually to disestablish the State of Israel. Hence, the Palestinian narrative denies the existence of the Israelite kingdom and the ancient Temple. Hence, we hear the oft-repeated claim that Ashkenazic Jewry is descended from the Khazarian kingdom, etc. The identity of the Jewish people is simply a sociological fact - we see ourselves as the descendants of ancient Israel. I believe that this perception is very true - but it doesn't really matter. DNA or whatever is not the test of legitimacy. There is a group that defines itself as the Jewish people. Their identity and their narrative have become a driving force in their history. They have revived their ancient language, and re-established their political sovereignty that has been recognized by other sovereign nations (i.e. others also recognize this claim to self-determination) - and that is the source of legitimacy.
I find Professor Sand's pivotal text inspiring, because it liberates us from the atavistic tribal rites that have caused so much stigma. Kashrut prevents us from enjoying the seafood that makes San Francisco the culinary capital of the world. I am gratified to see the Forward place its hechsher on pork/bacon. Circumcision causes an unneccsary denial of sexual pleasure. Shabbat causes us to miss sales in oour malls and car dealerships, thus causing economic pain. Our insistance on our own land causes war and unwelcome publicity. Ritual washing of the hands contributes to desertification.
I apologize for the emotional tone of this letter but the untimely death of Michael Jackson has shaken me to the core. I hope professor Sand wins a Noble Prize
To know the truth is to be a bitter man, for the world is full of fools.
I could take this more seriously if the author had dealt with the central theme of Shlomo's book. To wit; The Khazar Conversion.
First, a ground rule. The people at issue here are the Ashekenazi European Jews. They are the wealthy politically organized ruling powerful elite of Jewry and the world at large.
The particulars of the Khazar conversion answers the conundrum of why and how it is that Ashekenazi Jews are high achievers, highly intelligent and sans a working class.
The Khazar conversion was not blanket. The Noblemen of the Land of Khazar were the ones who were converted into Judaism. Some 4000 of them. Add wife and family and one could well have a genesis population of some thirty thousand people.
To adopt Judaism one had to be literate and numerate, for one had to study and absorb the holy texts. The common man, the peasants of that day, it is easy to assume, were not literate. Therefore, the delimitation of the conversion. The Peasants were not converted to Judaism.
The notable aspect here is that there was a selection process that selected for intelligence and drive. That gene pool, under the chauvinism of Judaism, over the intervening decades and now centuries, became knit into a cohesive virtual ethnic group.
Therein we have the answer to how it is that Jews are a highly intelligent people and how it is that they do not have a working class of people.
Why is this important. Sorry! The answer to that question is quite politically incorrect. You'll have to figure that one out for yourself.
Qol has a sound argument. It is all about attitudes and self perceptions about who we are. Unfortuneately (fortunately?) this reasoning can be applied to any group looking to establish or reestablish a homeland. I am not an expert on the subject but I see a problem here when a group can reclaim a land based on ancient conquest. By this reasoning Pursia, which ruled Palestine about four hundred years in ancient times, can also reclaim it as rightfully theirs while ancient Israel only existed about one hundred years. What about the Crusaders that ruled two hundred years? Also, we can talk about the Native Americans. If any people had a right to reclaim what is rightfully theirs, it is them. The list goes on!! In the future the Arabs can rise up and present a similar argument to their claim on Jerusalem.
Facts on the ground in Israel demonstrate that here we are and here they are and no matter what is said or done, society will evolve and move forward. An example of this, I noticed that many Israelies adopted (hijacked?)Palestinian culture as their own. (notice the cuisine for example, hummus, falafil, baba ganoush ground oregano, olive oil)Perhaps a sign of how that society is evolving? My point is that at the end of the day, no matter how devestating the situation may be, in order to survive and thrive the two culture will inadvertantly combine to become uniquely one. Perhaps history repeating itself.
Some of the commenters above are knowledgeable and make sense. Others are grossly ignorant but not ashamed to display their ignorance for all that.
My comments are directed to Hillel Halkin's article, which does not go far enough in debunking Shlomo Sand. 1-- Sand is a Communist, according to reports in the Israeli press. Now somebody who is still a Communist in 2009 would have a natural inclination to take Stalin's denial of Jewish nationality or peoplehood [1915] and try to prove it or uphold it. Likewise, today's Communists still try to prove that the Communist economic system in the USSR was a good system, that the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939-1941 was the right policy at the time, etc etc. Stalin and other Communists forecast that the Zionist movement could not build a successful Jewish state. The fact that Israel has succeeded in many ways, including a successful struggle against the British Empire in the 1940s, bothers many old Communists. It was not supposed to happen. It should not have happened. The Zionist success must be a diabolic conspiracy. Israel is really only an illusion. The Jews are really Khazars and/or Berbers, etc.
Therefore, many old Communists have an emotional need to prove that Stalin was right in 1915 against all of the empirical proof of Israel's success, the correct forecasts of Zionists like Nordau, Herzl, Jabotinsky and so on that Jews could not survive in Europe [as proven by the Holocaust, etc], and to support the current fashion among certain Western politicians to demand Israeli surrender, etc.
Actually, Stalin did NOT deny that Jews had a common ancestry in ancient Israel but he wrote more or less that the Jews were no longer a nation because of geographic dispersion, lack of a common economic life, lack of a common language [as if speaking English, for example, made the Irish people "English"], etc. In denying Jewish peoplehood by going even farther than Stalin did, Sand denies the meaning of the extensive DNA research [called "genetic" by Halkin], that refutes his highly speculative theories. Halkin does not make enough of this research which he has reported on in Commentary, although I was not quite satisfied with his report there.
So my conclusion about Sand is that he is trying to vindicate Stalin's denial of Jewish peoplehood of 1915. However, when Stalin, Lenin and their Bolsheviks took power they did in fact recognize the Jews as a Soviet nationality [Yevrey]. Sand logically cannot accept even that.
2-- Halkin does not mention, as far as I could see, the problem for Sand's thesis that is posed by the ancient ban on conversion to Judaism in both Christendom and Islam. Christendom imposed a total ban on conversion to Judaism [giyur] under penalty of death for the convert and those who converted him. Islam forbids all Muslims to convert, although Jews and Christians were allowed to convert to each other's religions. However, such phenomena were rare since both Jews and Christians were heavily oppressed in Muslim states.
There was major Jewish immigration to Italy, Greece, etc. from Israel in the late Roman, Byzantine and early Medieval periods. With the triumph of Christianity, some of the Jewish communities in southern Europe were forced to convert to Christianity so some southern Europeans have some Jewish ancestry in common with today's Jews, who have in fact more ancient Jewish ancestry. Some Arabs too have some Jewish ancestry in common with today's Jews. But this ancient Jewish genetic heritage is identifiable.
What a discussion my comments set off! Very nice, but still facts are stubborn things and while Reuven's Jewish/Judaism conundrum is very interesting it still does not remove the fact that Jewish (an tribal/religious identity) is not analogous to French, Italian, American, etc. (pluralistic identities of citizenship containing many "tribes" and religions). One cannot compare an ancient tribal affiliation with the concept of the modern state and expect it to taken seriously, unless of course one is ideologically wedded to the notion.
My Jewish passport crack was of course meant to be silly, for that is where the conversation leads us.
And while one may be of Polish descent, as others are of Italian descent, one does not automatically become a Polish or Italian national because of it, or even necessarily a member of the tribe, no matter how urgent the desires for Polish independence were at one time.
And while the 1947 UN partition plan spoke of a Jewish and Arab state it was stated so merely as shorthand for the current political division the plan was attempting to resolve. It was not in any way a definitive attempt at anthropology. And by the way, "Arab" is technically a language grouping, not an ethnic one.
The notion of a Jewish state encompassing all Jews of the world merely by dint of being Jewish either by religion or blood as analogous to modern pluralistic states defined by citizenship is indeed very much a modern concept. While Reuven is correct that throughout the Middle Ages Jews were viewed as a people apart, that designation too was one largely of expediency. Money lending was viewed as a mortal sin for Christians of the time, yet it was also a profession necessary to the economies of the time . What could be more expedient than to force non-Christians into the trade by refusing them access to other professions, borrow money to fund wars, crusades, etc., and then drive them out when it came time to pay the bill? Yet, throughout all the time Jews were being driven from hither to yon (with exceptions), the only Jewish State to be yearned for was the one that would arrive with the Messiah. While "next year in Jerusalem" was indeed repeated often, damn few bothered to migrate there during any year over the past 1500 when they were quite able to do so. When political Zionism rose in the late 19th century the notion was hardly popular and was rejected by the majority of Jews. Jewish nationalism is not the same as Jewish identity or an attachment to aspects of Jewish culture, which is quite diverse and is clearly not embraced by Jews in general as some sort of seamless entity. Indeed the Zionists saw themselves as apart from the majority of diaspora Jews, as the "new Jew," not just apart but superior, and held religious and assimilated Jews in contempt. The ongoing and seemingly endless argument in Israel over who is really Jewish and who is not, along with the lines of discrimination in Israel amongst the various sorts of Jews, does not speak well in practice for the notion of Jewish Nationalism as anything more than a tenuous political notion. And why should it? Reuven's own examples speak almost as much of a unity defined by anti-Semites from without as by a cohesiveness born from within. If anti-Semitism fades away will Jewish Nationalism as well? Seems likely, as the Jewish experience in the United States indicates. And, I might add, this seems understood by the mainstream Zionist organizations who attempt to incite ethnic panic at every criticism of Israel. Israel is always facing yet another existential threat, all the better to rally the troops.
As for SAM, I say that Irish descent does not automatically grant one Irish citizenship. It only gives the Minister of Justice the option of waiving the residency requirement. He is not correct on German nationality either. Children born in Germany of non-German parents can become German citizens if one of the parents has a permanent residence permit for at least 3 years and has been residing in Germany for at least 8 years. There are no religious requirements for either state.
To Jgarbuz I can only say that the presence of the so-called "Israelite" gene in 50% of Jews and some number of Palestinians and Kurds does not of itself demonstrate that the latter were once Jews who converted. It merely indicates that at some distant point in time they shared some ancestors, the religion of those ancestors cannot be determined by genetics. The suggested idea that everyone indigenous to the environs of Palestine must either be Jewish, of Jewish extraction but converted to something else, or a parvenu is ahistorical, as is the notion that Jews have always been a people apart. Unless one is literalist in biblical matters and actually believes the story of Moses and Exodus to be true, the most likely scenario is that the Jews were first just one of any number of tribes in the neighborhood who slowly grew apart and in doing so developed their own religion, hence the genetic similarity with other groups.
bozhidar, the 'German dialect' of which you speak is almost a thousand years old and is as much a German dialect as English is. A German speaker would really only get the basic 'gist' of Yiddish, and miss most of the real meaning - if he could even read it. In the old country and for hundreds and hundreds of years it was written wholly in Hebrew characters; there is physical evidence of this. Yiddish in Roman characters is a new phenomenon. Yiddish is also about 30% Hebrew and has some Aramaic mixed in.
Wherever Jews have gone, they have learned the local language but mixed in their own language so that the non-Jews wouldn't understand. The Sephardic Jews mixed Hebrew with Spanish and got Ladino. Ashkenazim mixed it with German and Slavic languages and got Yiddish. I'm sure there are other Jewish dialects of local languages as well. And let's not forget Yeshivish, the Hebrew/English blend you hear in American yeshivas.
But in the end, the fact that the language of the eastern European Jews has a Hebrew alphabet, and has so much Hebrew content and Biblical connotations and idioms, is proof, not disproof, of Ashkenazim's Israelite origins. We never abandoned Hebrew - no matter what language we spoke, we held on to Hebrew as our holy language and the language of study and prayer. If you think speaking a language other than Hebrew somehow disproves origins, try looking at the African American population of America. They all speak English, although some have made efforts to learn African languages or take on African names. But their language is English now. Does that disprove their African roots?
And of course Jews would share genes with Palestinians. Jews and Arabs are cousins. It's in the Torah and the Quran, so why is it coming as a surprise to anybody?
The chances are high that I'm referenced in Sand's study, so I'd like to chime in.
Thanks to Jack Garbuz for mentioning that the DNA studies are available to study at my website. For around the same list price as Shlomo Sand's book, people can buy my book "The Jews of Khazaria, Second Edition" which (unlike Sand's book) discusses the genetic evidence in an accurate manner and shows how it correlates with historical evidence that Ashkenazic Jews are largely descendants of the ancient Israelites, and only 10 or 20 percent Khazar at most. The Dutch Jews appear to have the most European ancestry of the branches of Ashkenazim, due to frequent intermarriages a long time ago, but even they remain partly Israelite.
I am skeptical of traditional Jewish religious literalism on so-called events like the Exodus and Purim which seem to be partly or wholly fabricated. I have also been an advocate for telling the truth and not allowing religion to blind us to the reality of mass conversions in Jewish history. But in terms of Jews as a people, the evidence is solid that most Jewish diaspora communities have ancestry from Israel.
Many Palestinian Arabs appear to be descended from Israelites too, as Mr. Garbuz noted, but that doesn't disprove the existence of Israelites who didn't convert to Christianity or Islam. The DNA studies of the current decade settled the issue, and it is strange to find historians who willfully ignore or misconstrue the evidence showing the continuation of the Israelite people in North Africa and Europe. Just because a historian has an advanced degree and a professorship at a university doesn't make him or her a reliable source. I don't have a Ph.D. and I don't teach classes, but I give you the facts.
Grif - "Arabic" is indeed a language, but it is also an ethnicity. The UN Partition Plan proposed a "Jewish" state and an "Arab" state along the lines of national identity. The Jews and the Arabs are two different national groups, each with its own history (narrative) and each with its own group identity and aspiration for self-determination. You have negated both national identities, only because they do not fit in with your conception of nationhood and citizenship. You are obviously an intellectual, but you have a strong belief that there is only one definition of these concepts of identity - the definition of American society. So, for you "Jewish" is religion, because that's how American society has defined Jewishness. This being so, you have to redefine Jewish history: the Jews weren't really a separate peoplehood identity in the Middle Ages - "they were merely being exploited as money-changers". Sorry, your history is now being explained in accordance of your ideology. In this ideology (it's an anti-Israel ideology, I presume), the Jews are a religious community - not a nation. But it's not so. As an intellectual, you should be able to look in the world in the eyes of others.
The Jews of the Middle Ages were a people, a nation. They were regarded as foreigners in every country in which they lived. This is the famous "Jewish Question" of 19th century politics: Are the Jews locals (and therefore entitled to civil rights) or are they foreigners (and therefore not entitled)? But more importantly, have the politeness and the objectivity to view the world in the eyes of the Jews themselves. Here's an example. There was a movement called "Yiddishism", officially founded in 1908 at Czernowitz. This movement claimed that the Jews are a nation defined by their Yiddish language. Their declaration was that Yiddish is a NATIONAL language of the Jewish people (along with Hebrew). They were not using "nation" the way you are. They are not talking about statehood and passports. Quite the contrary - the Yiddishists were citizens of many different countries; yet, they were not Russians or Austrians or Americans by nationality (even though they carried such passports) - they were Jews by nationality. They wished to promote an agenda in which the Jews of all countries could produce their own culture within their own Yiddish-speaking societies.
Another group, the biggest of all Jewish ideologies before the Holocaust, were the Bundists. They and the Yiddishists objected to Zionism (which promoted the Hebrew language and immigration to the Land of Israel) - even though the Bundists and the Yiddishists all understood, just like the Zionists, that the Jews are a people (a nation). The question was only how do we express our nationality. The Bundists claimed that the Jews, as a nation (defined by their Yiddish language), must join with other nations (defined by their languages) in the struggle for world socialist revolution. The Yiddishists claimed that the Jews, as a Yiddish-speaking nation, must struggle for cultural and social autonomy as a national minority group. The Zionists claimed that the Jews, as an exiled nation, must return to the homeland and revive their ancient language.
What is the common denominator of all these movements? The vast majority of Jews (90%) were Yiddish speakers. It was obvious to them that they are a people, a nation. Simply obvious, and there was no debate. The Poles were Polish-speakers, the Swedes were Swedish-speakers, the Finns were Finnish-speakers - and the Yidn ("Jews" in Yiddish) were Yiddish speakers. That's how they saw the world - whether their perception was right or wrong, or whether you can agree with them or not. You seem to feel that Zionism has created this Jewish nationalism, as if some minority group of the Jews kidnapped the true Jewish (religious) agenda. It's not true. You don't have a picture of Jewish society at all. All of the Yiddish-speakers understood the Jews to be a nation. That's why Yiddish-speakers call everyone else "goyim" ("nations" - the other nations obviously, not our nation)! Zionism was one such group. The bigger ideology was the Bund, of course (they were anti-religious, and for them the Jews were only a nation). Unfortunately, they disappeared in the Holocaust almost entirely.
And so now, Grif, I wish to bring to your attention - as an intellectual - that there are many people in the world who do not speak American English, nor do they study political science in the USA. Others see things very differently. Many, many Jews have been Americanized, so they might see the world as you do. The Yiddish-speaking Jews before the Holocaust were a nation - in their own eyes and in the eyes of their neighbors. They were not Poles or Russians who believed in Judaism. That's the reality in today's America (i.e. Jews are "Americans who go to synagogue"). Even today, the Jews in Russia are not "Russians" - they are citizens of the Russian Federation of Jewish nationality! Polish people today, studying about the Holocaust in their school, say the same thing: the citizens of Poland of Jewish nationality were ghettoized...
One last comment about nationalism. In preparing for the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, the Zionist youth movements contacted their ideological rivals, the Bundist youth movement, to cooperate in the battle against the Germans. At first, the Bund refused, claiming (listen very carefully): "It should be an international struggle against the Germans"! International? What did they mean? They wanted the Polish underground to participate in the uprising as well. The Poles (one nationality) and the Jews (the other nationality) are international - even though they are all residents of Warsaw, all citizens of Poland! In the end, the Poles wouldn't cooperate - so it was a national rebellion in the end (Zionists and Bundists, both of whom saw themselves as fighting in the name of the Jewish nation).
"I am not Jewish!", declares a Jerusalem-based Sabra cousin of mine in her heavy Ashkenazi accent. Though she regularly signs online anti-Israel petitions (e.g., http://palsolidarity.org/2009/01/3794), she lives contentedly in a necessarily cheaply remodeled Ottoman-era house "vacated" by Arabs in 1948. With Israel surrounded by countries whose only common transcendent dream is to see Israel vanquished and her Jews dealt with the way their blood kin were dealt with wherever German-led fascism prevailed only a few decades back, both inside Europe and without, from my safer vantage point across the sea I cannot fault either her Stockholm syndrome-driven thought processes or those of Shlomo Sand. The problem with all decontructive thinking like his, though, is that it insists on not seeing the forest, but only the trees, and only one or two odd ones at a time at that. Prejudicially, the forest of Jewish peoplehood is held to be a false construct, however apparent it may be to everybody with a point of view untutored in the deconstructionist need to dismiss the apparent, facts be damned. Out in the real world, though, the national populations of the vaunted European nation-states assure their passage into history owing as much to their own declining fertility as to unchecked immigration of fertile Muslims from outside Europe, who intermarry very little so far with the ancestrally native populations. In that same real world, there continues to be high fertility in Israel among Jews and intermarriage between Jews whose immediate ancestors came from both inside Europe and outside of it. In short, there's not much hope for destroying the Jews through hostile palaver and denial, only through nuclear weaponry.
Kevin Brook - I found your DNA research to be extremely interesting. Intellectually speaking, it's really incredible to read that the Jewish narrative (of a scattered nation that had originated in ancient Israel) can be researched in a laboratory. And yet, the importance of the findings is only scientific / intellectual. There is no importance in such findings in the political sense. Descent (or even perceived descent) is only a part of one's identity. Identity is the making of one's society. It includes one language, one's sense of history, one's education and more. The Jews are a people that sees itself as the continuity of Biblical Israel. As such, throughout history, the Jews saw themselves as a nation in exile, yearning for return. This is a sociological fact, and this perspective eventually became a powerful factor in their history. Today, about five and a half million people live in their own Hebrew-language society. They see themselves as a Jewish society, continuing a collective Jewish cultural life - and they see themselves continuing the saga of the history of the ancient Jewish nation.
Is this Hebrew-speaking society a peoplehood that is entitled to its own nation-state? Prof Tony Judt would say "no", because the nation-state idea is old-fashion (from the 19th century, so the nation-state of Israel is out of step with the times). Perhaps Prof Sand is hinting in his book that the answer is "no", because the Jews are not really the descendants of ancient Israel (they are not the nation they claim to be - "nation" in the sense of common descent as in the Latin word for "birth"). Grif is hinting that the answer is "no", because the Jews are a religion (not parallel to "French" or "Italian", and besides most Jews rejected Zionism). It's all very interesting, but it's all very irrelevant. States come into existence, and that's a fact of life. In this respect, it's almost parallel to the birth of a child. Once he is born, he doesn't have to explain his background and the reasons that he breathes the air. He has the right to live his life, and protect his life, even if he is thought to be "illegitimate" (obviously, like every human being, he is very legitimate). By what right did European settlers come to America, and by what right did they found the USA? Irrelevant questions. Even if they had no rights at all, the USA was born, and it exists and will protect its continuing existence. What is the DNA make-up of Americans? Who asks such a question?
And still, I enjoyed reading (intellectually) that our ancient narrative is a topic that can be investigated.
Grif - I read your critical comment about existential threats to Israel ("Israel is always facing yet another existential threat, all the better to rally the troops"). I would be curious to understand your position. When there is a clear statement of a bleak threat against Israel ("the Zionist entity will be wiped off the map"), do you feel that this is an improper statement in the relationship between sovereign states, deserving of your condemnation? Or do you feel that Israel's fears aroused after such statements are simply ill-founded? In 1967, the Egyptian president stated that the Jews would be driven into the sea (i.e. a threat of genocide). Do you think that ambassadors should have been called home for consultations in protest of such unusual statements in international relations, or do you think that Israel was out of line for taking him so seriously? In short, do you condemn unconventional threats in this world, or do only the threatened parties have to explain their silly nervousness?
Ben Levi
Of course, I condemn all such rhetoric, whether it comes from Iran (although the statement you quote, as has been well established, was mistranslated and nowhere near a threat - but never mine that, there have been others). The problem here is that many times Israel plays the same game, yet the same rhetoric from Israel is passed over without comment.
Case in point: this recent sandbox war of words with Iran began some years ago when Israel announced in the press, several months before the Iranian popinjay began shooting off his mouth, that Israel had completed its plans to bomb Iran and to begin assassinating her nuclear scientists. Iran did not respond at all until the Israeli gov't once again, in more strident terms, announced it again. Is this not a provocative act? If Iran had announced a plan to begin bombing Israel and murdering her scientists within Israel there would have been a worldwide uproar, yet not one American newspaper picked up on the story, even though it was plain to read in both Haaretz and J Post, where I read it. Of course, when the Iranians did finally react the Israeli reaction was offended innocence, "What have we done? See, more anti-Semitism!" I believe the reason for Israel's behavior is clear, and has been repeated numerous times before. Start a ruckus then use the resulting blowback as an excuse for "self-defense" measures, for not making peace because Israel cannot commit national suicide!
Another case in point: When Sharon was PM, he and the Knesset began a public discussion over the necessity to kill Arafat, who at the time, as I'm sure you remember, was the internationally recognized leader of the Palestinian Authority. No matter what one may have thought of Arafat, who in my opinion was no more or less a terrorist than Shamir or Begin or Sharon himself for that matter, to openly plan his death at that late date was a needless threat designed only to provoke a reaction. One needs little imagination to envision the reaction if Arafat and the PA had stated the same concerning Sharon.
So, yes, such rhetoric is indeed improper and worthy of condemnation, but should be condemned equally no matter who first starts throwing the mud, and further there is great difference between an "existential threat" and rhetoric and saber-rattling. At the moment it appears when Israel engages in the latter it is to be overlooked but when Israel's adversaries engage in the same, or responds in the same coin to Israel, then it is further evidence of Arab malevolence.
Both sides should keep their big yaps shut.
Reuven,
I'm afraid your a bit off on the Arabs as a nationality or a language grouping. Arabic is indeed a language and Arabs are those whose first language is Arabic. There have been a few attempts at Pan-Arabic nationalism, but failures all for it is not a nationality but a language grouping and the differences between are greater then their similarities. Arabs are defined by three criterion: ancestry back to the original tribes of Arabia (now Saudi Arabia, the smallest grouping of those called Arabs); One whose first language is Arabic; or one who is a citizen of a country where the first language is Arabic or one of the official languages. The Arab League at its formation in 1946 defined an Arab as "a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples". UN shorthand is entirely immaterial and was never intended as an scientific definition of two nationalities. If it were, then by that criterion where would one objectively place Jewish Arabs? In between the two? In addition, the Palestinians by 1947 largely considered themselves Palestinians first and Arabs second, as had much of the Arab world for far longer. As an aside it is worth mentioning that Palestinians within the Arab speaking world were viewed much as Jews were in Europe, minus any genocidal impulses. The stereotypes were almost identical in some respects, a people apart, a people of learning, cosmopolitan, sharp and so sly at business one must keep one's eye out not to be taken and thus impossible to compete with. There was and remains a great deal of ambivalence within the Arab speaking world toward Palestinians: a great sympathy towards their plight (largely amongst the common people) mixed with an ancient mistrust (most prevalent amongst the ruling and business class). At present the populations at large drives the ruling classes, who have always preferred to wash their hands of the matter as quickly as possible.
My understanding of the Czernowitz conference is also somewhat different than yours. It appears to me more of argument than a solid movement: to win recognition of Yiddish as a modern language capable of developing high culture and not merely a vulgar slang of the ignorant masses as others within the Jewish community would have it. Nationalist aspect as well, certainly. The elevation of Yiddish was also seen as a bulwark against assimilation, for those opposed to assimilation. Yet within Jewry the conference did not universally uphold Yiddish as the national language of the Jewish people. The movement, beyond bringing forward a generation of brilliant Yiddish writers, was a failure in its nationalistic aspirations. Emanuel Goldsmith in "Modern Yiddish Culture: The Story of the Yiddish Language Movement" argues the failure was clear at the conference itself: religious Jews found the movement too secular, Bundists, too nationalistic and lacking in class content, and most staunch Jewish nationalists became Zionists and, in general, Hebraists. Yiddishism, then, fell between socialism and nationalism. Perhaps Goldsmith's assertion are wrong and far too harsh, referring to the movement as a "dogmatic illusion" doomed to failure. But it does speak to the enormous difficulties inherent in the notion of cobbling together a Jewish Nationalism when the arguments over who and what the "Jewish people" and how they are to be defined, whether within secularism or religion, by Yiddish or by Hebrew, are so diverse within the group itself.
And frankly, and you might argue with me, I reject any defining notions of "apartness" forced upon the scene by ignorant anti-Semitic bigots.
Yes, the Bundists did struggle for cultural autonomy within the diaspora and Yiddish as the national Jewish language, but as I understand the movement they did not argue for joining "with other nations (defined by their languages) in the struggle for world socialist revolution" but with the general struggle of all workers in such.
Look, my argument is not that there has never been a Jewish nationalist movement or instinct, or that Jews of any number never saw themselves as apart from the "goyim"or vice versa, but that the opposite has been true as well, which may be an artifact of a 1500 year diaspora but which cannot be ignored, and, more importantly (as this argument began), to justify the creation of a Jewish State by comparing such to the French State as one and the same just does not fly. For even if I accept the entirety of your argument the two are as different as fish and fowl. One is access to the "State" based on blood and ancient tribalism, the other a conscious rejection of such based on modern ideals of democratic pluralism and citizenship. A thousand years from now the demographics of the French state could be entirely different than it is now, in blood lines and religion, yet it will still be the French state. The same cannot occur to the "Jewish State" and it still remain the "Jewish State," thus the endless harping within Israel, the self-proclaimed Jewish State, over the "demographic threat" posed by its own non-Jewish citizens, the adamant rejection of the phrase "a state of all its citizens" as prescriptive for Israel.
There is far more than nationalist fervor to being Jewish and more ways to recognize and celebrate one's attachment to being Jewish than a march towards nationalism, as is demonstrated by the diversity of argument within world Jewry on the subject. That far too many Jews cling to an ethnic/tribal/religious (however you prefer it) nationalism in the face of the clear lessons of the past that show just how disastrous and futile a course is one of the great paradoxes of our times. There are no exceptions, the consequences of such nationalisms have always led to the same bloody ground.
grif, I'm glad that you've read at least one book relevant to the subject that you discuss [Goldsmith's book].
But you are grossly ignorant about the "palestinian people" notion. Until the early 1960s, the world did not hear about a "palestinian people." Those Arabs now called "palestinians" called themselves Arabs first, and indeed were eager pan-Arabists. When the PLO was founded in 1964, this did not change. The first article of the PLO covenant [I here refer to the still authoritative 1968 version] states clearly that: The Palestinian Arab people is part of the Arab nation and Palestine is an inseparable part of the Great Arab fatherland [watan].
If you read that self-description by the PLO of palestinian Arabs, you will note that "palestinians" are merely a subset of Arabs and "Palestine" is merely part of the Arab territory. This is not me saying so. This is what the PLO says. Hence, the PLO is defining itself as a pan-Arabist body.
You wrongly claim that: "Palestinians by 1947 largely considered themselves Palestinians first and Arabs second, as had much of the Arab world for far longer."
This is grossly wrong and gross ignorance. Both clauses of the sentence are grossly false. To wit, in 1946, at the hearings of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, Arab spokesmen claimed that there was "no Palestine in history. It's all Syria." This conformed to the traditional Arab/Muslim geographic notion of Greater Syria or Syria [in Arabic bilad ash-Sham]. The traditional Arab geography did not recognize any "palestine" or "Filastin." There was no "palestinian people" either since what later became "palestine" after the San Remo Conference [1920] was an indistinct, undefined area under the Mamluk and Ottoman empires. The term palestine was used by Westerners, not by Arabs or Turks. The Arabic-speaking population there was not aware of being "palestinians." They did not describe themselves that way until the early to mid-1960s. The very notion of a "palestinian people" was probably invented by British psychological warfare experts. Hence, you really need to read what the Arabs themselves say. Start with the PLO charter. You might also read my article on the name "palestine". See link:
http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html
Grif - It's interesting to debate if Jewish peoplehood is similar to French peoplehood. However, no one is claiming that the very point of comparison is "to justify the creation of a Jewish state". There was a particular public that wanted to found its state, it successfully waged a struggle - and that state came into existence. The State of Israel continues to exist, because there is a determined public that wishes it so. This is the nature of the political world we live in. You have raised another argument against Israel: nationalism leads to bloodshed. Throughout history, many peoples have found themselves in a situation that justified in their eyes going to war. For example, the rebellion of the English-speaking colonists in North America was a fateful decision that led to bloodshed and hardship. I would imagine that you have met quite a few people that justify that war and take pride in it even today. You don't identify with our struggle for independence and statehood, hence it is in your eyes needless suffering caused "by nationalism". You shoot the arrow, and then you draw a target around it. Interestingly, you seem to be focused only on us - not on all national conflicts. The Palestinians are also a national community in a struggle with a rival national community. You should also claim in the same breath about them "that far too many [Palestinians] cling to an ethnic/tribal/religious nationalism in the face of the clear lessons of the past..." But that statement was tailored-made only for us. You identify with the Palestinian national struggle, hence their war is justified.
Elliot,
"Until the early 1960s, the world did not hear about a "palestinian people."
This is utter nonsense. The earliest mention of Palestine and Palestinians dates to Herodotus (another book I've read). Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal consider the 1834 revolt of the Arabs in Palestine as constituting the first formative event of the Palestinian people. Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century. Even the rabidly Zionist Daniel Pipes asserts that “No "Palestinian Arab people" existed at the start of 1920 but by December of the same year it took shape in a form recognizably similar to today's. The programs of four Palestinian nationalist societies jamyyat al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf (Brotherhood and Purity), al-jam’iyya al-Khayriyya al-Islamiyya, Shirkat al-Iqtissad alFalastini al-Arabi and Shirkat al-Tijara al-Wataniyya al-Iqtisadiyya were reported in the newspaper Falastin in June 1914 by letter from R. Abu al-Sal’ud. The four societies has similarities in function and ideals; the promotion of patriotism, educational aspirations and support for national industries.
"The first article of the PLO covenant [I here refer to the still authoritative 1968 version] states clearly that: The Palestinian Arab people is part of the Arab nation and Palestine is an inseparable part of the Great Arab fatherland [watan]."
The PLO covenant was and remains a political document designed to wield together varying and quite diverse aims and of several different groups (including those with Pan-Arabist goals). The PLO was also very interested in gaining the financial support of other Arab states, many of whom had no interest in seeing an independant Palestinian state,as they were more interested in asorbing the area themselves - Syria and Jordan for two. The charter bears about as much bearing to reality on the ground as the party platforms of the Republican or Democratic parties, which is largely little. Why not look to the center of Palestinian learning, Al-Quds University, whose founding charter reads: "Palestine was conquered in times past by ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Mamlukes, Ottomans, the British, the Zionists…the population remained constant-and is now still Palestinian.”
"To wit, in 1946, at the hearings of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, Arab spokesmen claimed that there was "no Palestine in history. It's all Syria." This conformed to the traditional Arab/Muslim geographic notion of Greater Syria or Syria [in Arabic bilad ash-Sham]."
Find one Arab who wishes to grab Palestine for his own country and guys like you leap upon it as if its the word of God. Of course, he's claiming its all Syria. The Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia had the same habit. The Ukraine was theirs, so was Georgia and Uzbekistan, etc. This also fits in with the great racist notion that all Arabs think alike, act alike, are alike - one great unwashed mass. So if one Arab or Arab nation makes a claim you find amenable then, ipso facto, he or it becomes the voice of the Arab people.
"The very notion of a "palestinian people" was probably invented by British psychological warfare experts."
You are either joking or completely mad.
Reuven,
"It's interesting to debate if Jewish peoplehood is similar to French peoplehood. However, no one is claiming that the very point of comparison is "to justify the creation of a Jewish state"."
You are joking, of course. Did you not read the Opinion piece by Hillel Halkin that began all this? It's at the top, just scroll up and have a read. His argument is exactly that, " . . . or that the idea of a Jewish state is therefore less acceptable than the idea of a French or Spanish state, demands a thoroughly dishonest manipulation of the facts."
"You have raised another argument against Israel: nationalism leads to bloodshed. Throughout history, many peoples have found themselves in a situation that justified in their eyes going to war. For example, the rebellion of the English-speaking colonists in North America was a fateful decision that led to bloodshed and hardship."
The War of Independence was in essence a civil war. We did not colonize Britain, then ethnically cleanse the native Brits. The better comparison would be the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers. But of course you don't want to touch that one, it's too close to home. Apologists for Israel love to draw on "the nature of the political world we live in" or "That's the nature of war," as if the world acts in one manner then demands another standard for Israel and Zionism. But this is all very a carefully selected history viewed, like Nelson, with a hand over one eye. What you ignore is 100 years of International Law and treaty attempting to govern the behavior of nations. Almost all of which Israel is legally bound to obey, but rarely does. Most discouraging is that much of that law was agreed to in the wake of the atrocities committed by the Third Reich, yet the Jewish State seems to believe those laws should only apply to the goyim. But indeed if you insist on the comparison with our war of Independence then you might note a few things: We went to war against Britain, the most powerful military power of the time, for far less reason and grievance than the Palestinians rightfully have against Israel and Zionism. You also might read the Declaration of Independence and think of Israel's apartheid-like rule over the occupied territories and the maze of Kafkaesque laws that keep Palestinian-Israelis in third-class citizenship: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ." Consent of the governed? Created equal? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? In Israel? Sure, if you happen to be Jewish ... but, of course, not if you're an Ethiopian Jew, then you might as well be an Arab, for God's sake. The arc of American history has long been toward greater equality for all, and for the last 70 years the same can be said for the rest of the first world. Israel, the Jewish State, began pointed in the wrong direction and has been consolidating its wrong-headedness ever since. Which leads to your final point:
"Interestingly, you seem to be focused only on us - not on all national conflicts. The Palestinians are also a national community in a struggle with a rival national community. You should also claim in the same breath about them "that far too many [Palestinians] cling to an ethnic/tribal/religious nationalism in the face of the clear lessons of the past..." But that statement was tailored-made only for us. You identify with the Palestinian national struggle, hence their war is justified."
Not all "national conflicts" are created equal, neither are all narratives, despite the claims of post-modernism. Nor is poor little Israel being picked on. It was not the Zionist Yishuv who was brutally swept from their homes and lands by an invading mass of strangers but the Palestinians; it is not the Israeli Jews who have been deprived of every human right accorded the rest of humanity but the Palestinians of Gaza and the WB. Nor was that statement tailor-made for Zionists, it also includes Aryan nationalists (you remember them?), white supremacists, all varieties of Christian and Islamic nationalists who wish to drive out the "other", as well as murderous Croats, Serbs, and Hutus. The Palestinians of the OT are a conquered and occupied people striving to remove YOUR boot from off THEIR neck - and when and if you ever deign to remove that boot in a just manner, then perhaps you might consider the 1.5 million of your fellow Israelis who are not Jewish. Instead of a Zionist "Jewish State" you might consider recreating Israel as a true democracy, "a state of all its citizens," and by doing so join the rest of the modern western world, which Israel is always claiming itself to a part of. If and when that event ever occurs I will be glad to be a supporter of Israel. But at the moment, sorry, you are no different than your old ally apartheid South Africa, and the unlamented Jim Crow states of southern United States.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, apparently lives in a different world than the one imagined by Grif: "...in the West Bank we have a good reality... The people are living a normal life" (Washington Post May 29, 2009). Notice that Abbas doesn't use Grif's imagery of "foot on neck". Perhaps, Grif, you should take the trouble of actually touring around the country. We're in the midst of conflict. Since the conflict is rather permanent with no end in sight, everyday life is rather normal. It's not so strange to board an airplane, and to see for yourself. The uniqueness of the conflict is the attention it gets, the high level of emotions that it arouses, and the seemingly insolvability - not it's harshness or its level of violence.
The success of Prof. Sand makes me proud of my Jewishness and the State of Israel.
Jewish Peoplehood Denied by Shlomo Sand? Not at all. The important thing is - the Jewish people and the Jewish state exist here and now. This is the common of Mr. Halkin and Prof. Sand. Prof. Sand's definitions adds the breadth and validity to our self-determination, brings us together, make us more friendс, than enemies.
We are nation among other nations, most of them created in 19 century. This is the real Zionism. Mr. Halkin and other critics of Mr. Sand are very exclusive. The ideology of the tribe cannot serve anymore any modern nation. The Jewish people too.
The success of Prof. Sand makes me proud of my Jewishness and the State of Israel.
So, do we assume that you won't be bothering to tour the land, Grif? Too bad. It would have put reality of life more into focus. You might have discovered that even corrupted President Abbas has a picture of reality. He is, after all, just the "ra'is as-sulta" (the PA leader). Anyway, to take you up on your sarcasm, it is very much less than the "run-of-the-mill conflict" (in the sense of harshness). It's a indeed a conflict, and there is violence - but everyday life is very normal. That's the nature of living in permanent conflict. The real issue is that you reject the entire Israeli perspective. Zionism is illegitimate; there is no Jewish peoplehood; Jewish statehood is absurd, etc. So, an illegitimacy has no rights. It also has no right to conduct a conflict. Whatever is done is wrong, or stupid, or evil - or all of the above. Nothing makes sense, because there is never any legitimate context.
Criticism of Israel is very common and normal. But what is criticism? If I tell you that you're a poor driver - that's criticism. You could take some lessons, and perform better on the roads. If I tell you that you shouldn't have been born - that's not criticism. You can be a very careful and polite driver, but it'll always be bad and dangerous driving to me - because it's you behind the wheel.
Certainly, there is room for improvements. Maybe you would know how to handle an armed conflict in a milder and more reasonable manner than we do. Yet, I simply find it hard to believe.
yizhak santis, i take this opportunity to say that i do not speak yiddish. However, i have read a few times that yiddish is a gremano-slavic tongue. if yiddish contains some or lot of shemitic words then i wld stand corrected. but i need proof for that. You do not proffer any. I am aware that to be a judaist such as a rabbi one knew lotsof hebrew words. of course, languages change and with the desire of the 'jews' to show or prove that they are descendants of the judeans, there was much demand that 'jews' learn or use shemitic words. am i mistaken in saying that scholars of hebrew language had to learn arabic in order to also discover hebraic words? tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver
shira, thanks for your input. first thing first. There is no factual knowledge about what happened to israelites in 728 bc.
we do not know whether they may have scattered in mesopotamia, persia, caucusus or may have been slain or taken as prisoners and enslaved.
obviously some israelites or judeans may have reached khazarian empire and converted khazars to judaism. it seems that after khazaria had been defeated by russia, the peoples of the judaic cult [to me all religions are cults]migrated into europe. we know for a fact that lostsof ashk'm look more polish or germans than most poles or germans.
as for the long noses, it doesn't prove that euros with judaic 'faith' are shemitic. Many people have long and hooked noses in armenia, iran, kurdistan, and elsewhere.
to conclude now? We, or, rather i, don't know when 'jews' arrived in germnany. In any case, they cld have not spoken yiddish before or even a century or two after migrating into europe. so what language have these people used while living for nearly 18 centuries north of caspian sea? if a large number of israelites settled around the caspian some 2,700 yrs ago they surely wld not have abandoned their mother tongue or adopted a goy language. retainig or relearnig just 30% of the shemitic tongue to mix it with a goy language still shows they cldn't have been israelites. and even priests assert that the ten northern tribes have vanished without any trace. tnx
to sharpen one's evaluative, analytical, and predictive skills, one needs to take a long and widest look possible. the wider the look, the wiser one is. so, let us look at all salient facts that pertain to peoples of the judaic cult. clinging to one or more facts while eschewing others will not do. and it takes to omit just one salient fact to be able to present a fictive reality.
the most astounding fact about these many ethnicities with judaic cult is that we do not know whether or not all or some of their members are descendants of either israelites or judeans.
so, all other conversation with its claims and contraclaims, appears as a waste of time because we procede from not knowing and a chance of never finding out. Unless, of course, the conversation is solely conducted by world scientists in order to either shed more light on this topic or once and for all determine the best they can who was gurion, dayan, rabin. et al, as far as their genetic make up had been.
but we all know, that no scientst, if in right mind, will apply for that job. in conclusion, we don't know who 'jews' are, where/when they came or even why they came or what they want for goyim which includes arabs and palestinians. and this alone, to me, is a terrorist act. tnx
however, since 'jews' are now victimizers i'd much rather to err on victim's side. i have sympathised with 'jews' when they were victims
What a stupid book.
Not long ago, DNA was taken from Jewish men and women. 80% of Jewish men have DNA that goes back to the time of Abraham. Most anthropologists and archeaologists have said for centuries that Abraham came to Caanan 4,000 years ago and now proven. However 0nly 50% of Jewish have the gene marker mostly because Jews intermarried in the diapora.
Okay, they came from from which is is now Iraq. The word Jew comes from Judah, the southern part of now modern day Israel. What about the Hebrew Bible, or even Jewsus who was a Jew. What about the remains of the Western Wall during Herod's time. are we not a people? What a joke.
Of course life in Israel is very normal for you, Yehuda, you're Jewish. and no doubt life is very normal for the corrupt and very wealthy Mr. Abbas as well, he's hardly ever present in the WB and upon those rare occasions he's surrounded by luxury.
You state, "The real issue is that you reject the entire Israeli perspective." At this heart of this statement lies the real issue. For you Israel and the "entire Israeli perspective" is Jewish only, a sort of segregated country club with a black-ball for membership applications. Actually, I misspeak, I should say Zionist Jews only, as they are plenty of others both secular and Orthodox. The other 1.5 million or so of your fellow citizens, non-Jewish all, are largely seen as a demographic threat to be isolated, their growth curtailed, overwhelmed, or expelled. If this is your Zionism, and it certainly appears to be Israel's, then of course it is illegitimate, both morally and legally, any cool denials not withstanding.
Yes, if I am a poor driver I should take lessons. But what to do with a poor driver who refuses to take lessons? The usual remedy, after a number of warnings and convictions, is to suspend their license - the community at large taking common action for the benefit of all. Israel is such a "poor driver." There may be no license as such to revoke, but common action should and can be taken to bring a wayward state into line.
"If I tell you that you shouldn't have been born - that's not criticism."
Well, it is, of a sort. But the question is now how you should behave after your birth. There are commonly agreed upon parameters for that enshrined in law, treaty, and morality.
Your last point:
"Certainly, there is room for improvements. Maybe you would know how to handle an armed conflict in a milder and more reasonable manner than we do. Yet, I simply find it hard to believe."
I'm sorry, but well-meaning Israel is not being unfairly criticized while all the while doing the best anyone could ask for under such trying conditions. I imagine you wrote that straight, but in any case the implications are disturbing. I note you speak only of handling an armed conflict. Do I take it that you have no interest in ending it? It appears so, as you write of a conflict that is "rather permanent with no end in sight." By observing Israel's actions this appears to be the current stance, to maintain the status quo indefinitely while consolidating and expanding the settler movement in the WB, and continuing the siege of the Palestinians trapped in Gaza.
But there are no secrets to a just resolution, the parameters have been clear for decades. Yet the unyielding demands of maintaining a Jewish State have made a just resolution impossible time and again. Israel needs to end the occupation and then redefine herself in terms of modern democratic statehood in order to stand out of her own path. Do you really believe 1.5 million Israeli citizens (and growing) will continue to accept a cut-rate citizenship indefinitely?
griff, of a necessary truth there is at this time a win-win result available in expalestine. all salient facts show or even prove that US and possibly 99.99% of 'jews' fervently strive for a lopsided win-loss result.
however, of necessary truth, in centuries to come, there is also a loss for 'jews' and win for palestinians available.
we won't be around to witness the loss-win result; however, i dare predict, 'jews' will lose and even give up their cult. and mostly because 'jews' compare selves from a supernatural level with us as part of nature. tnx
Hitler said something like this concerning Jewish identity, "When I see a Jew I dont know what I see, but I know I dont see a Gërman." I am pro-Israel but that quote has stuck with me throughout the myriad arguments concerning Zionism and these so-called identity issues.
Grif - You claim that the parameters of a just solution "have been clear for decades". One of the supposed "clear" parameters that you name is the redefining of Israel. What you mean, obviously, is that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state (the nation-state of the Jewish people) - it would become another state. Sorry, but that is simply not so. Although you might think that the ending of Jewish statehood is a parameter of a just solution - this is not the parameter of the international community. You're presenting your opinion as the obvious consensus when, in fact, the State of Israel is recognized as the Jewish state. You regularly hear "two states for two peoples", or "a Palestinian state living in peace with the Jewish State of Israel". President Obama regularly says "the Jewish State of Israel". And, again (I suppose it's already boring to repeat it), the UN Partition Plan of 1947 speaks of two states - a Jewish state and an Arab state. So, the "redefining of Israel" is a "Grif parameter" - not the consensus of the international community.
I know that you have never been here, so it's hard to confuse you with the facts. Anyway, when you do finally manage to set foot on the West Bank and sit down in a nice coffee shop in Ramallah, you will be surprised to find out that Pres 'Abbas has stated the obvious. Life is good in the West Bank, and hence he has patience. He is in no hurry to accept offers of peace that do not satisfy him. There is no urgency. He knows that it's a conflict for generations. In Arabic, they say "al-'ajala min ash-shaytan" (being in a hurry is from the devil). In long-term conflicts, everyday life is tolerable. No one can live in the middle of the Second World War for 60 years. So, the conflict is complicated, and it is emotion-filled - but it's not a harsh or cruel conflict. Both sides are having a population explosion and a rather comfortable life style.
The conflict cannot be resolved. In order to solve it, the true reason of the conflict has to be correctly defined. You say that the (1967)occupation must be ended, and (1948) Israel must be redefined. Come on. The conflict was not born in 1967 or in 1948. It's almost silly to have to point out the obvious. There is no question that the birth of the Yishuv (the Hebrew-speaking community) marks the beginning of the conflict. In any settlement that you propose, you obviously imagine the continued existence of the Hebrew-speaking community in this country. The conflict will continue even if the Jewish character of the state is canceled. The expressed grievances will be different in the new political reality that you propose. They will be focused on all the changes that took place here in the last 100 years (including demography) - changes that will be perceived as illegitimate. And this political (i.e. secular) forecast doesn't even take into account the rise of radical Islam (Hamas) that defines all Jews everywhere as the enemy and wishes to establish an Islamic state from the sea to the Jordan.
In this part of the world, it is self-evident that an intellectual speaks two or three languages. In your world, an intellectual can be monolingual (i.e. he knows only his native language) - and supposedly it's not at all strange. But, obviously it is strange. It's an intellectual who can hardly imagine how someone else thinks. It's an intellectual who has no clue that others are simply very different than he is. Grif - you're an intellectual. Sometimes, it's quite impressive. You checked out the Bund, Emanuel Goldstein's book on the Yiddishist Movement, the immigration laws of Germany and more in order to conduct a friendly debate. Yet, you don't read Arabic (or Hebrew). You don't really understand their world or ours - not their aspirations nor ours. All the best to you.
Hey bozhidar bob balkas,
If you ever want to meet in Vancouver, I'll make damn sure you're sent on your merry way to another planet so that you don't have to ever set foot on ground that Jews may walk on. And don't worry, I'll also provide you with a communication link directly to the racist Gilad Atzmon's blog -where a google check of your ridiculous name reveals you to frequently show up as a commenter- so you won't be too lonely. Toodles for now, you raving racist loon.
I have been enjoying reading Grif's comments -- it is always fun to see an imaginary line created which turns the international law on the right to self-determination from the basis for states and intended states from Armenia to Finland to Greece to Tibet, into a "segregated country club", itself a fun turn of slurring phrase. Usually the anti-Zionists who flip between a crusade against the existence of the Jewish people and one against the existence of the Israeli state have trouble with consistency.
Grif is no exception -- for he quickly moves from there, on to the odd assertion that, uniquely in Israel's case, the issue of the collective rights of national minorities should somehow throw into question Israel's existence in a way it does not do for Poland, Portugal, Egypt or East Timor.
So let's be clear: the issue of how the national majority treats those national minorities which share its homeland, from Kyrgyzstan to Korea to Ireland to Iran, is certainly an important one. What it has to do with anti-Zionist phantasies of rubbing out the Israeli state is, however, somewhat mysterious.
lbnaz, i enjoyed your jokes and also your form of voodoo. You are not the only one who handles lies much better than the apodictic truth.
as a 'goy' i cannot meet at least 99.99% of the 'jews' since all of these people live mostly or solely on supernatural and i on natural level. but even tho the cultists live on supernatural level the wrath of assyrians, babylonians, romans, nazis did not bypass them.
but a new one, more terrible than all previous rages is waiting to happen unless 'jews' alight on earth. tnx
Yehuda,
You are a gem, you truly are. You ignore much of what is said, take what you wish out of context and insist it stands for the whole. Yes, the parameters for peace have been plain for decades, if you want an honest just two-state solution, which frankly I don't believe Israel has much interest in, but never mind that for the moment. There then remains a further question beyond the possibility of a two-state solution which you completely ignored, and that concerns the 1.5 million non-Jewish citizens of Israel, who strongly believe (despite your assertions to the contrary) that their life is not "normal," that they are indeed second-class citizens, widely discussed as a "demographic threat," a "fifth column," "beasts on two legs" as Begin so pleasantly put it. They are not alone in this belief, all human rights orgs, many Israeli commentators and journalists, the UN, many others vouch for the same. I take it you say that nearly the rest of world is merely biased or has somehow stumbled across the wrong facts?
My last question to you which you decided to ignore was "Do you really believe 1.5 million Israeli citizens (and growing) will continue to accept a cut-rate citizenship indefinitely?" If you answer yes, then you are kidding yourself. If you answer that they are already full and equal citizens under the Jewish State of Israel so there is no problem, then you are not only kidding yourself but whistling past the graveyard. They will sooner or later make a much louder demand for equality in actual practice and guaranteed under law, and will see themselves as the world will see them, as a full-blown Civil Rights movement. When that day comes Israel will face a number of choices: 1) to repress the movement as subversive, and only feed the movement to isolate Israel 2) abandon the concept of a Jewish State for a state of all its citizens, and most likely set off violence amongst the Jewish ultra-nationalists, or 3) seek a way to maintain its official identity as a Jewish State, but largely in name only, while making full room for its non-Jewish citizens. If you continue to insist that all is hunky-dory with non-Jewish Israelis, and if only I came for a visit then I would see it, then you are kidding yourself and feeding the potential for more strife down the road.
As to your insistence that Abbas speaks for all in his comfort zone, there is no scintilla of evidence for that. Abbas is a majority of one in this and will most likely say the opposite soon. You take his word against the rest of population because it suits your ideology.
"No one can live in the middle of the Second World War for 60 years. So, the conflict is complicated, and it is emotion-filled - but it's not a harsh or cruel conflict. Both sides are having a population explosion and a rather comfortable life style."
Considering that some 50 million died during the six years of WW2, I can only assume that if the war had continued for some 54 more years there indeed would be no one left alive. The conflict is indeed emotion-filled but hardly complicated: Israel has been illegally and brutally occupying the WB and Gaza for 42 years. The harshness and cruelty of that occupation has been well-documented by not only Palestinians but Israelis and Jews, the UN, the Red Cross, B'tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Human Rights Watch, The US State Department, and many many other groups, organizations, historians, and journalists. To blindly deny reality does not make your denials true but merely sad and futile.
Nowhere did I claim the conflict began in either 48 or 67. I agree heartily that it began long before, but so what? Zionist objectives were the same throughout, 48 and 67 were just the more overt expression of them. Nor do I believe, nor have I ever addressed, the notion you apparently claim I assert - that all violence would miraculously cease at the exact stroke of equal rights for all. I don't believe a 100 year old conflict can stop on a dime, damn few conflicts of any length ever have. The violence of our Civil War did not stop with Lee's surrender, although it could well have been stopped a lot sooner than it did. There will be bitter last-ditchers on both sides willing to fan the flames. How Israel and Palestine would decide to portray and handle that violence, from both sides, would play a large role in how long it lasts. But in in any case it would be far less than the present violence, unless of course you don't count violence against Palestinians as violence.
Your last remarks are merely patronizing. Your assumption is that I know little to nothing of the Middle East because I haven't been to Israel and don't speak Hebrew (or Yiddish, if you insist). Yet, the truth is most Israelis do not speak Arabic and know little of the Middle East beyond the confines of Israel and know little of Palestinians beyond the illegal worker who may mow their lawn. Damn few Israelis at present ever travel to Gaza or the WB, aside from settlers, soldiers, and those standing with the Palestinians. It is telling that you equate a visit to Israel with knowledge of the Middle East, as if you are the only ones there. Which accords with my experience discussing these issues with Zionists, both Israeli and American, which is to encounter an astonishing ignorance of both the Middle East in general but of Israeli and Arab history as well. It is to encounter an astonishing array of blatant stereotypes and a desperate clinging to mythology. Years ago, during the reign of apartheid South Africa I had a long conversation with a white South African supporter of the system. She insisted to me that South African blacks were indeed quite content with apartheid, that they would have it no other way, that Nelson Mandela and the ANC were outside agitators and represented few if any blacks. When I asked her how she came to this conclusion, she gave me an indignant look and responded, "My maid told me!" Whenever I find myself in hot discussion with Zionists, sooner or later that story comes back to me.
Serge,
It is good that you bring up "the right to self-determination." After all, it is the prime directive of the UN charter. It is only unfortunate that Israel so adamantly denies that same right to Palestinians. As did the 1947 UN partition plan, for there was no "self-determination" anywhere in that plan. No vote amongst the population at large, no referendum, merely diktat. Which is why it never had the votes to make it through the Security Council and actually become recognized as law.
Nor do I question Israel's existence. The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus may not exist but Israel certainly does. What is at question is how Israel is to continue to exist, not that it be "rubbed out."
Your assumption is that Israel is the national homeland and state of the Jews, that the Palestinians if they have any rights at all have only those that might be accorded strangers who have somehow stumbled into the place. That you can hold so firmly to this blind ideology in the face of international law, treaty, history, logic, and morality is the great mystery.
The solution is not redefining Israel from a Jewish state to a neutral state, but from a religiously-defined Jewish state to an ethnically-defined Jewish (or Hebrew) state that makes room for Hebrew Christians ( see http://state-of-exile.blogspot.com/2009/07/return-of-hebrew-christian.html ) and Hebrew Muslims, a.k.a. the Palestinians who are mostly Arabized Judeans ( see http://state-of-exile.blogspot.com/2009/06/unity-in-land-of-struggle.html ).
To respond to criticisms, I realize Jews have traditionally defined themselves as both religion and ethnicity. My argument is that such a model is untenable for a modern nation-state. The problem with Israeli Arabs is that they have no "in" to give them a sense of identity as Israelis. They are Muslims and Christians, and as such will always be outcaste in a "Jewish" state. Since they are not a negligible portion of the population, this is a problem that must be addressed.
So, Israel should give them an "in" by redefining itself as a Hebrew state. For Christian Arabs especially I believe this would be smooth fit. The original Christians were Hebrews after all! Many Mizrahi once considered themselves "Jewish Arabs" but embraced the Israeli nationality to become "Jewish Hebrews" so to speak. Christians and Muslims should be given the same opportunity.
Some or perhaps most Palestinians will prefer to maintain their Palestinian Arab identity versus a Hebrew identity. But at this point we are not even giving them the opportunity to do so. Make it possible to be a Hebrew and a Muslim, publicize the genetic data that links Palestinians to ancient Judeans who converted, and perhaps there can be a one-state solution after all: one Hebrew state, instead of one Jewish or Arab state.
I THANK GOD ALMIGHTY FOR THIS TIME IN HISTORY. IT I EXTREMELY INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MORTAL MAN THINKS HE CAN FIGURE ALL OF THIS OUT WITHOUT DIVINE INTERVENTION. AS I WAS READING COMMENTS ABOVE I RAN ACROSS ONE WITH A CURIOUS DEFINITION OF THE DIASPORA. I RECALL WHEN I WAS YOUNG SOMEONE TELLING US HOW MUCH TROUBLE WE WOULD HAVE HAD IF WE REMAINED IN THE LAND WE ESCAPED INTO IN THE TAKING AWAY. I HAD NO IDEA OF WHAT THEY SPOKE UNTIL LATER. WHEN I FOUND MY PEOPLE IN THE BIBLE IT AMAZED ME HOW LITTLE OF THE TRUTH THE MODERN DAY CHRISTIAN CHURCH ACTUALLY TEACHES. THE PERSON WHO WROTE A VERSION OF THE WORD DISPORA WROTE [THE ADOPTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S IDENTITY]. THE THIEVERY OF ANOTHER'S IDENTITY AND THE DISPERSING OF SAID VICTIMS IS WHAT IT IS AS FAR AS I CAN UNDERSTAND IT. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE NEED PRAYER NO MATTER WHAT DISCOVERIES WE MAKE. WE'LL HAVE TO COME TOGETHER LATER ON. IF WE STUDY WE WILL KNOW THE REASON WHY. THE APOSTLE PAUL LOOKED LIKE ME. HE HAD A DIFFICULT TIME ACCORDING TO THE BOOK. THE THING IS UNTIL ISRAEL BRINGS MORE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL'S COUNTRYMEN BACK TO THE UPPER NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE AFRICAN CONTINENT THERE WILL BE NO CHANCE OF IT TURNING OUT LIKE YOU'D LIKE IT TO. ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN WILL ALWAYS BE AT WAR.
Grif - I claimed that you should learn some Arabic in order to understand the reality of the conflict. Your strange answer is that most Israelis don't know Arabic. What does that mean? Are you saying that you have a right to be superficial because someone else is ignorant? Is that an answer of an intellectual? You don't have the tools for understanding the motivations of either side of the conflict. You can only see the conflict through the eyes of your experience. That's very normal in our world, but it's not very impressive.
You accuse me of patronizing. Yes, I do speak Arabic, read Arabic literature, watch their TV stations, socialize with Palestinians. There isn't a place in Gaza or the West Bank where I haven't been. So, you'll have to forgive me that I believe that this is a more serious awareness of reality than a monolingual observer from a distance who has never been in the living room of a Palestinian. But, now I want to accuse you in return of being busy with lowly propaganda. Your story of the South African has no connection to our debate. You often throw into our discussions comparisons with the apartheid regime. Race is not an issue in the Middle East - not for them and not for us. You will hear politicians who make nasty or stupid comments about the other community. The comments express a fear of the other, or a sense of being threatened. They express animosity and hostility against the background of a long, emotion-filled conflict. But there is no issue of race in the Middle East. When a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli bus, he didn't choose his victims because of their racial background - and, similarly, roadblocks and fences are not set up to because of some racial policy. These are acts of war. This is a conflict between two national communities. (Religion is also very important). By returning to racial issues of the American south or of South Africa, it could mean that you simply are at a loss as to what is the nature of our conflict - or, more likely, you wish to leave the impression of "illegitimacy". More extreme anti-Israel propagandists have started to evoke memories of Nazi Germany. It's simply a tool of broadcasting "illegitimacy" of the Jewish struggle.
Finally, Grif, we don't share the same dictionary definitions of vocabulary. Allow me to define my wording. Life in the Middle East is normal - for Jews, for Arab citizens of Israel, for the Palestinians. There is a conflict, and there is suffering - but it's not a very harsh conflict. You don't seem to understand what the word "harsh" means. Since the Israeli Arabs, for example, are dissatisfied - you believe that this is a type of "harshness". No. The Arabs in Israel were obviously against the founding of a Jewish state, and they did not choose to be citizens of Israel. Their public tried to prevent the founding of Israel, and they were defeated. An unwanted reality has been forced upon them. So, they are not happy, just like any defeated public. Moreover, the name of the state (Israel), its symbols (the flag, the national anthem, the name of the parliament, etc) and its aspirations ("the ingathering of the exiles" to quote the Jewish sources) are not their name, symbols and aspirations. And yet life for them is normal. Their standard of living is good, the population is healthy and growing, there is universal literacy, they participate in the political system, etc, etc. Life is good, and no one wants to emigrate. So, there is a conflict, and they are unhappy about its outcome (the founding of a Jewish state in this land) - but everyday life is absolutely fine. This is the meaning of a non-harsh conflict.
So, it makes sense to debate about what should be done tomorrow morning in order to end the conflict. It is absolute nonsense to describe the conflict in terms of cruelty. It is, indeed, a low-intensity struggle.
Ben - The Arabs love their language (and rightly so). They have no intention of becoming Hebrew Moslems or Hebrew Christians. They wish to maintain their own Arabic identity.
You claim that "many Mizrahi once considered themselves 'Jewish Arabs'". No, that's not true. The Jewish population in the Arab world (before immigrating to Israel in 1948) did not see itself as "Arabic". Today, you hear the term "Arab Jews" as a parallel term to "Arab Christian" or "Arab Moslem". The source of such an expression is in an anti-Zionist debate which is meant to negate the peoplehood of Jews, claiming that the Jews are "merely a religious community" (like the Christians). But the Jews always had a peoplehood identity. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people.
You might find it interesting to read about the Canaanite Movement. There was a handful of right-wing Jewish intellectuals in Israel many years ago that wished to re-define identities in the Middle East. They claimed that there is no connection between the Diaspora Jewish communities and the Hebrew speakers in Israel. Moreover, they felt that the Arabs of the Middle East should become Hebrew speakers (Hebrew is a Canaanite language) - and together we shall all return to the local cultural reality of antiquity beform Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Well, it's all very interesting, but pure fantasy. The Hebrew identity of Israel is Jewish, and it expresses the Jewish drama of exile and return. The Arabs have their identity which is expressed by the Arabic language. Identities are established through long sociological processes, and people are "at home" in their identities.
'67 war was waged in order to preclude establishment of the second state in ex-palestine.
we do not know whether also much of europe colluded in israel's plan to attack arab lands on '67.6.6, but US, one can educe, had approved of the aggression.
what US had not allowed was to further cleanse palestine of the indigenes. instead the plan was drawn to go slowly but surely towards establishment of palestinian counties in israel.
and once the oil is depleted or near depletion the telos is to establish a state for 'jews' only in entire palestine.
the telos cannot be obtained now because of the fact that many euro lands and empires are much dependent on ME oil. and consequences of the expulsion cannot be predicted. tnx
i have noticed that ?all people who defend israel's crimes [and thus don't do to it much good or are of any help to israel] look at this conflict from a narrowest look possibly. to render their writings even less relevant and interesting, they choose to dicuss peripheral causative factors [or actors] that cannot be proven true or false.
case in point is whether mizrahim are arabic or not! Who cares? I don't. It neither proves anything nor enlighten us. another red herring is, of course, ethnicities of the peoples with the judaic cult or peoples who s'mwhen, s'mhow, s'mwhere had a great grandfather, a cousin, uncle, etc., who had been a judaist s'mwhere.
bringig 'god' into all this, turns me off. Most of the time i read only one or two sentences of most posts that defend israeli crimes in a frivolous manner and with the intent to mislead.
the worst posters are those who take up the role of 'god's' messenger; thus rendering their own 'god' deaf, blind, and dumb. tnx
{sorry for mistakes in made in html code}
1-- bozhidar on the Yiddish language. Yiddish has a Germanic grammar, divergent from that of German. Its vocabulary has a strong admixture of Hebrew and Aramaic words [shulem, milhumeh, adaraba, lifrat] in addition to Germanic words, which are often pronounced much differently than in German [i.e., haynt in Yiddish = today, whereas in German this is heute], plus Slavic words picked up in Eastern Europe, plus an important, if small, component of Romance words reflecting the Jewish migration through Italy and France. Some Romance words and names used in Yiddish are: davenen [= pray, from devinisser in Old French], bentshn [= bless, from bendicere] plus Shprintseh [from Speranza, = hope, a woman's name] and Bunim {from bon homme, = good man, a man's name], etc. These Romance words and names are especially significant because they reflect the migration history of the Ashkenazic Jews, not descended from Khazars but from Jewish migrants to Italy who came to northern France in the Middle Ages and passed through to the German Rheinland and then to eastern Europe. These Romance words/names in Yiddish formed part of the vocabulary of the Ashkenazim before their migration into Germany was allowed by Charlemagne [circa 815], thus before Yiddish was formed. I should also point out that there were Jews in Eastern Europe, Belarus, present-day Ukraine before the arrival of the Ashkenazim. These Jews may have come through Byzantium and Persia, but were eventually absorbed by the Ashkenazi migrants from the west. Now if bozhidar wants to get into more detail he can consult a historian of Yiddish like Uriel Weinreich or Max Weinreich, and various linguistic handbooks. Bozhidar should hibernate with some real books of history or linguistics before he again comments on subjects on which he is ignorant.
2-- grif ought to study more geography and history. The Greek philosopher Theophrastos, Aristotle's leading pupil, called Jews a "genos." This word can be translated as "nation" or "race" etc. Theophrastos also called the Jews "the philosophers among the Syrians." Aristotle identified the Jews with the country of Judea [IOUDAIA], as quoted by another pupil of Aristotle, Clearchos of Soli. Now grif has a hard time accepting the reality of nation other than in the superficial sense conventional in America today. Yes, the Jews are an ethnic nation, which is what the Irish, for instance, have long considered themselves. But they are not alone. There are Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, Koreans, Japanese, Thais, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, etc etc. There are also states that define themselves strictly on religious grounds. Such a one is Pakistan which was created specifically to be a Muslim state, a state for the Muslims of India. The creation of Pakistan involved the panicky flight of millions of Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. Religious cleansing if you like.
Just by the way, the remaining non-Muslims are severely harassed in Pakistan. They are being regularly driven out. Malaysia too imposes severe discrimination on non-Muslims. All Arab states but Lebanon define themselves in their constitutions as Muslim states. The Palestinian Authority, not yet a state, also defines itself as Muslim. The Arabic-speaking Christians in the PA zones have been fleeing in recent years, especially from Bethlehem. Don't ask about the native Christians of Iraq or Egypt, also currently persecuted.
Now if grif can get his head around those facts, then he could see that Israel is not an anomaly. Before I close, I recommend to both bozhidar and grif my own article on the history of names of the Land of Israel, particularly "palestine."
http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html
elliot, tacitly you are sayng that your history of euro's 'jews' is correct because i am, in your mind, "ignorant" but i assert that no scholar or fair humna being wld ever resort to the ancient ruse.
as i have already said, defenders of israeli crimes dwell mostly or solely on events that cannot be proven true or false. this is what you have done in your hateful post. regarding the language that israelites or judeans spoke it had to be a shemitic one tho mixed with aramaic which is just another shemitic dialect. assuming that a large number [1 -10K] of israelites escaped assyrian rage against them and were able to settle in either france, italy, or caucasus, why did they give up their holy tongue in which yahweh spoke to moshe? now one can see that a small number of israelites cld have abandon their tongue onc ethey setled around caspian sea, but how about some or all of the rabbis abandoning it or letting their flock abandon it.
in liturgies, hebrew had been used. It only proves that rabbis used it in prayers; thus some od the hebrew was not lost. thruout christian world, liturgy was spoken in latin. And non-roman pop along the adriatic coast adopted many latin/italian words but they were not latin.
similarly, slavo-germano-asiatic converts have adopted some shemitic words, as for your depiction of judean migration after ad 70 or ad 130 and thru roman empire after just being possibly slain, or ousted from judea, why wld rome allow them in roman empire?
be it as it may, i can't prove anything; and neither can eve one serious historians let alone you. one caveat before i end this post: u'r allowed only one more insult.tnx
Yehuda,
Allow me to congratulate you on being one of the few Israeli Jews to seek out the Palestinians and their culture, that is, if you are telling the truth. But even taking you at your word your argument remains, nevertheless, specious in the extreme. To claim that in order to understand the situation of the Palestinians one must be fluent in Arabic is absurd. Just as it would be absurd to claim that in order to understand the plight of Eastern European Jews caught up in the pogroms of the 19th century one would have to speak fluent Yiddish. The examples one might cite carry on forever. The language of discrimination and oppression is universal. After all, there are only so many ways is which such can taker shape, and by this late date they are all readily recognized no matter what language is spoken by any of the parties involved. The logic of your argument carries into inanity - I suppose that since you do not speak any of the languages of West Africa you are not qualified to judge the harshness of the slave trade. Neither do you speak Hopi or Navajo, so in spite of any study you might wish to put to the subject I suppose you would always remain entirely ignorant of their travails as well. You claim to be an intellectual, yet you seem to forget that knowledge is plastic and transferable. No one alive has ever sat down with any ancient peoples and all others more than 100 years in the past. Your argument logically assumes all knowledge to be lost as soon as the last eyewitness passes from the scene. History is not bunk, but such arguments as yours surely are.
But if it makes you feel any better. I never said I have never been to the region or never known a Palestinian. I have sat with Palestinians (there is a Palestinian diaspora as well you know) and heard their stories from their lips and I have traveled through and lived in the Middle East. I just happen to believe that being on the scene does not - in and of itself - necessarily lead to insight. Need I elucidate that last point further, need I point out the many examples that might come to mind?
"Your story of the South African has no connection to our debate. You often throw into our discussions comparisons with the apartheid regime. Race is not an issue in the Middle East - not for them and not for us."
You labor under the misconception that any apartheid system must rest on a strict definition of race between the groups involved. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word, literally ‘separateness,’ from Dutch apart ‘separate’ + -heid (equivalent of -hood ). It does not depend upon misconceived notions of race and has common application to other forms of segregation as well, such as in the phrase "sexual apartheid," meaning segregation of the sexes. But it is amusing to watch an Israeli who has argued so assiduously for Jews as a people apart to now argue that the one people they claim not to be apart from are the Palestinians. Israel's actions toward the Palestinians does indeed fit this definition, and in fact, as many South Africans have point out, is far worse than the South African variety. Oddly enough, any number of the early Zionists would disagree with you on this issue of race, read Jabotinsky for instance, a rather influential fellow, who makes no bones about it, but I digress, as it is clearly your intention to define Zionism as it suit your argument of the day, not as it is.
"Allow me to define my wording. Life in the Middle East is normal - for Jews, for Arab citizens of Israel, for the Palestinians. There is a conflict, and there is suffering - but it's not a very harsh conflict. You don't seem to understand what the word "harsh" means."
I see now, for you "normal" means suffering, but not "harsh suffering" as you choose to define it. The Palestinians are merely "dissatisfied." Well, I suppose they are. Some 2,000 of them in Gaza and the WB were killed by Israel in the last year. That alone ought to spark some dissatisfaction, but I suppose some people are always griping about something. Of course, there is in addition the ongoing house demolitions, the continuing theft of their land, water, olive groves, the beatings and humiliation by settlers, border police, and the IDF, the complete control by Israel of the population registry and their everyday movements, etc., the list of Israeli "harshness" goes on. Yet so many Palestinians do complain, but I see the lesson you are imparting: hand a Palestinian a diamond and he'll complain it's the wrong cut, and Israel's 42 year occupation of Gaza and the WB is indeed a diamond. If only those pesky Palestinians weren't such whiners and would drop their bucket where they stand.
"And yet life for them is normal. Their standard of living is good, the population is healthy and growing, there is universal literacy, they participate in the political system, etc, etc. Life is good, and no one wants to emigrate. So, there is a conflict, and they are unhappy about its outcome (the founding of a Jewish state in this land) - but everyday life is absolutely fine. This is the meaning of a non-harsh conflict."
That you, with all your self-proclaimed expertise, make such an outlandish claim with a straight face speaks only to the rigidity of the Zionist ideology and of the enormous obstacles ahead. For you all is "absolutely fine" with the Palestinians, so what more could one do to make peace?
Elliot,
I am afraid that you and Yehuda are now officially at odds, for while you quote Theophrastos as an authority that Jews are a "race," Yehuda has just finished arguing that race has nothing to do with it and therefore any comparisons to South African apartheid are null and void. Can't you guys get together on these arguments beforehand?
"Now grif has a hard time accepting the reality of nation other than in the superficial sense conventional in America today."
What Elliot and Israel has succumbed to and the rest of the first world has long rejected is what George Orwell once referred to as "the tom-tom beat of latterday tribalism." This, as I have pointed out over and over again, is an entirely different kettle of fish from the modern version of nationhood based on citizenship which is hardly "superficial" nor peculiar to the United States, but is universal among modern states, which Israel constantly claims to be. If Elliot wishes to argue that Jews are primitive tribal nationalists, then so be it, although many Jews will not agree with him, nor is there universal agreement among world Jewry on his definition of Jewish nationalism, but no doubt those are merely, as Frank would have it, self-hating Jews and shouldn't have a say in the matter.
Your argument is a mix of factually incorrect assertions and immaterial facts. Ireland does not consider itself an "ethnic nation" and does not in any sense strive for ethnic or religious purity, or a majority of such in any sense. The Irish nationalist movement concerned freedom from British rule and a revival of Irish culture long suppressed by Britain, finis. The open process for Irish citizenship, open to all who wish to apply, is clear on this. This is opposed to Israeli citizenship, which treats all Jews in the world as citizens whether they have ever set eyes on Israel or not, or have had any connection to the place. While at the same time Israel bars nearly everyone else from becoming a citizen and threatens the citizenship of her non-Jewish population at every turn. Georgia as well, while not without its problems, is a multi-ethnic state with an open process for naturalization without reference to ethnicity or religion, again unlike Israel. Citizenship of the Azerbaijan Republic is also fully available within the modern sense, without reference to ethnic or religious requirements, but merely a five year residence and learning the language, any child born in Azerbaijan automatically acquires citizenship. Again, all unlike Israel. Every one of the other states you mention follows suit. None have a requirement for either ethnicity or religion. Israel stands alone in her insistence on primitive tribalism as prerequisite to citizenship. Interestingly enough, neither Saudi Arabia or Iran have any such obstacles to naturalization and have no religious or ethnic requirements for citizenship.
And yes, Elliot, many states do have official religions, but to infer as you do that they define citizenship rights by those "official religions" as Israel does is again a false assertion. And while Christian Palestinians have been leaving their complaints have been against Israel and not their fellow Palestinians.
And yes I read your article and find it a tiresome attempt to deny the existence of Palestine or the Palestinians. And just as an aside, to claim the Romans had a "particular hatred for Jews" is ahistorical and just plain wrong. Jews were just another conquered group and Rome was quite willing to treat them as all others they conquered, rather benignly for the times, as long as they stayed in line. They didn't even have a particular hatred for rebels as you claim. Roman history is replete with instances of rebels once defeated being offered amnesty and favorable terms, particularly during the reign of Octavian (Augustus). The Romans were consummate pragmatists when it came to empire and were expert at turning enemies into allies.
But back to the main point. It matters not to the issues of the last 100 years whether ancient Israel was a great and mighty kingdom or just a collection of mud huts, or whether it encompassed the entirety of the Levant or just the area of today's West Bank. The kingdom of whatever size and duration ceased to exist some 2,000 years ago. It has no more bearing on the legitimacy of today's Israel than the ancient Roman empire did for Mussolini's aspirations. Israel is today a legally recognized state and will remain so, but not because of some long ago kingdom. Nor does any argument concerning the ancient origins of the word Palestine have any bearing on modern Palestine and the Palestinian desire for statehood. Now if you can get your head out of the misty past of your romantic tribal nationalism and around the last 100 years of international law and treaty, particularly the many advancements in Human Rights agreements since the end of WW2 - all of which Israel is bound to obey - then you will plainly see that Israel as presently constituted is indeed an anomaly and an unworkable anachronism to boot.
Grif - Arabic is very relevant in understanding the conflict. There is a motivation for conflict that is so much clearer when articulated in Arabic. When you hear it in English, it takes on the world view of English speakers - and you have misunderstanding. You brought up the example of studying Yiddish. There's actually a very good reason why a person like you should learn some Yiddish. You would get some insight into the motivation of the Israeli Jews. You would find out that your English-based understanding of Jewish identity is quite different than the self-perceived understanding of Jews. The Yiddish speakers were a people, a nation in exile. These Yiddish-speakers were the ones who revived the Hebrew language, and our modern Hebrew continues to express the identity of a peoplehood - a nation that has returned from exile to its homeland. Your English-language perception of Jewish identity - a "religious" identity of mostly very non-religious people, carrying mere secondary importance in the lives of Americanized Jews - is irrelevant in understanding the reality of life in Israel.
The conflict is not going to end. That's a fact of life, and both sides know it. In the framework of conflict, there is suffering. At times, we go to war for a few days or few weeks. It's not an intense or unusual conflict. The hundred years of struggle don't compare in any way, shape or form to the one moment over Hiroshima - and a very cruel war decision was made to throw a second atomic bomb as well. The interesting issue is: Why is our conflict perceived as so intense. Obviously, we have to admit the incredible success of the Arab propaganda struggle in that it has succeeded in focusing such attention on a relatively mild war.
But in debating with you, the question is: Why is the conflict so intense for a person like you. Why do you perceive the one side as so cruel and evil? How is it that you can find a quote of Jabotinsky from 90 years ago (pretending that it's somehow relevant today), but you would never quote the Hamas Charter, for example? The answer is legitimacy. Zionism is illegitimate in your eyes. The successful founding of the State of Israel is illegitimate in your eyes. Obviously, an "illegitimate entity" cannot wage a legitimate struggle to maintain its "illegitimacy". That's why the one side is perceived as wrong, cruel and unreasonable. That's why the suffering of the other side is perceived as so awful - and why you perceive them as "victims", not as participants in war that they insist on waging. You have also clarified why their language is unimportant to you (you compared it to the Yiddish language of pogrom victims): The conflict is only about the "perpetrator". Your perception of the conflict is shaped by your ideology vis-a-vis Israel.
Perhaps, it will come as a shock to you - so brace yourself for what follows! There is another perception of reality. We think that our Hebrew society and the Jewish state that it founded are legitimate. We feel that we have the right to wage a struggle to maintain the historic and miraculous achievements of the Jewish nation. We understand that we are in the midst of a conflict that generally expresses itself with acts of violence, yet we know that our use of violence is reasonable. Very reasonable.
Finally, you maintain that the conflict will be solved only when Israel is turned into another state (not a Jewish state). That, too, is an ideological position (let's call that ideology "Griffism"). So, now brace yourself for another surprise. There is a non-Griffist way of seeing things: The conflict will come to its end with the acceptance of the legitimacy of the Hebrew Yishuv, with the acceptance of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.
while some people build conclussions on a mass of other conclusions, most of the salient facts are omitted. using such methodology in thinking [of building conclusions on a conclusion, such that 'jews' cause wars, are dishonest, etc] even hitler cld have been 'proven' right.
but this type of reasoning brought ruin on germany. E.g., hitler concluded that he can conquer USSR, but russia was much stronger and its winters much harsher for germany to prevail. Had hitler concluded: yes, that wld be nice, butbut, what if, maybe, etc., he may have decided otherwise and especially having brought nearly all germans in one country.
most astounding fact that defenders of israel do not see; or if they do, fail to evaluate its significance, is the fact that 'jews' have no state they so fervently want. before concluding or offering a conclusion for why is that so, another salient and much pertinent fact ought to be evaluated: that Israel is about 4th or 5th strongest military power and yet cannot now or in forseeable future 'solve' palestinian problem.
is it the IOF that is delaying or preventing israelis in obtaining a state of their own in palestine +? Is it oiless nato nations or US? How about netanyahu's party?
i conclude that it is oiless lands that fear the so-fervently-wished- for final solution. so, if 99.9% of 'jews' conclude that they are descendants of ancient hebrews, that arabs shld be expelled, that all the lands btwn two rivers -or favoring the lesser claim that wld includes parts of lebanon, syria, and jordan- are their lands given them by 'god'and then form a final conclusion that they will posses it for eternity, is still mere concluding. and darn it, s'mhow/s'mwhen most conclusions turn into an airy-eerie spook. tnx
Now I understand. On the Forward any critic of Israel can be slandered with every despicable name in the book, i.e., see Frank above. Yet if I refer to "jackboots" and point out that Nazi ideology was similar to a posted statement then I am to be censored. All this despite Forward's claim: "Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not."
Rereading Frank's tirade, I am struck by its unmitigated hatred. Frank is so sunk into his tribalism that he forgets that he does not own history, or any part of it, none of us do. History is argument. Only out of debate comes clarity.
His constant refrain of Jew-hater, anti-Semite, morally degenerate bigots, enemies, etc., speak more to Frank's state of mind than to any arguments I have read on this post.
And while I risk being censored once more, I might point out that there is a long well-documented history of the Zionist Yishuv collaborating with Italian Fascism and the Third Reich, as well as Zionist agreement with disturbing aspects of Third Reich ideology. Jabotinsky's Betar youth group were trained by Mussolini, they wore the uniform of the Black Shirts, Mussolini embraced Zionism and allowed the Zionist flag to fly alongside his party's. The German Zionist press shamefully hailed the 1935 Nuremberg Laws restricting Jewish civil liberties in Germany, arguing that its aims of segregating Jews and gentiles were Zionism's as well. Interestingly, Zionists were made exempt from the law's restrictions on youth groups; they were allowed to continue as before and wear their uniforms. The Zionist flag was also allowed to be displayed. Does this turn all Zionists of the period into Fascists and Nazis? No, although some were pretty damn close, as Ben Gurion and Einstein charged. What it does point to is a disturbing period of Zionist history during which, in order to accomplish their ends, they were quite willing to curry favor with the worst anti-semitic regime of the time.
Read "The Transfer Agreement" by the Jewish Zionist Edwin Black, a book praised on its the back panel as "striking in its dimension and scope" by Yoav Gelber of Yad Vashem. Black documents far beyond any denial the collaboration between the Yishuv and the Third Reich from 1933 to 1939 (others have taken the relationship up to 1941, but I can't comment on their work). This was the Transfer Agreement undertaken, as Black documents, to materially benefit the Zionist enterprise in Palestine with German manufactured goods while deliberately undermining the worldwide boycott of Nazi Germany which began immediately upon Hitler's rise to power in 1933. The boycott was sparked and led by the American Jewish War Veterans. It was quickly taken up by American labor unions and the Council of Churches and spread worldwide. Black argues in the 1st edition afterword (removed from later editions) that the boycott had had an "excellent chance" [emphasized in the original] of toppling the Hitler regime before the winter of '33, if not for the actions of the Yishuv and the Transfer Agreement, which the Yishuv attempted to keep secret as long as possible. Yet, Black also argues, in an apparent contradiction, that the Zionists in their anti-boycott machinations were not responsible for the regime not being toppled. Fair enough, to blame the Zionists alone would be to ignore the well-documented and cowardly refusals of many other better-placed parties to take action, but it does not get the Yishuv off the hook entirely, as Black wrote in a private correspondence, "Just writing about [the Transfer Agreement] changed me forever. Now just reading it has changed you forever. I know what you have done. You wrote your message to me in anger. Understandable. I wrote the book in anger. But also in anguish."
Anguish indeed. One cannot read the history without anguish, as well as anger. But to point or allude to parallels in word and philosophy is not anti-Semitic, any more than to ignore them can be termed philo-Semitic. To refuse the discussion entirely is merely to be obdurate.
My comments on Frank's blind hatred clearly also extends to those of "Food for Thought," who is so courageous in his "thought" that he can't even sign his own name.
to me, all 'jews' are first of all human beings and only 'jews', judaists, claimants for excanaan+ afterwards. i do not care at all what a 'jew' is! Is an eurojew genetically 20% german, 30% pole, 10% latvian or whether s/he's 10% or 90% zebulunic, reubenic, 20 to 100% judean, it makes little or know difference to me.
it does, tho, behoove them not to reverse the natural order of evaluation. If someone insists s/he's first of all a 'jew' or judaist and only thereafter human being, s/he's hoping to become or be very happy, calm, protected, etc., and not just for being a 'jew' but also having yahweh as guardian.
so, if one has his/her jewishness/judaism/god, what's the problem? Doesn't s/he have everything one needs? And yahweh is neither deaf, dumb, or blind; s/he can take care of anything except perhaps go without viagra. yet some people [they may be 'jews'] appear angry and unhappy at a godless non-hebraic person who merely writes truths/untruths. cannot yahweh or 'jewishness' prevent the evil to visit upon a 'jew'? go figure! tnx
Sand’s genetics arguments are simply silly, and his history is ignorant, but the idea of Jewish peoplehood is neither.
To understand Jewish peoplehood, one must first understand that correct statements can be made about the majority of Jews (for working purposes, those who identify themselves as Jews), but no correct statement can be made about each and every Jew.
The word peoplehood is not a Jewish term. The relevant term is Klal Yisrael. I quote Wikipedia: “Klal Yisrael ("Community of Israel") is an expression that is often used among Jews of different movements, streams, and ethnic backgrounds to describe a sense of shared community and destiny among [almost] all Jews, religious and non-religious, in Israel or in the diaspora.”
One expression of Klal Yisrael is the ancient principle that every Jew has some responsibility for the welfare of all Jews, wherever in the world they may be. Applying this principle to Israel/Palestine, almost all Jews believe that the physical survival of the Israeli Jews is of primary importance. Additional Jewish views range from the extreme belief that the expansion of Israel is more important than peace to the extreme belief that peace is more important than the continuance of Israel as a Jewish state.
Grif, you arent the only one to be censored. My objections to a Jewish state because the Jews rejected our Messiah were censored as well.I urge all of you to support Sabeel, a Palestinian Christian organization that seeks reconciliation with Islam so we can unite and fight the real enemy
Joel A. Levitt - The quote from Wikipedia ("Jews of different movements, streams, and ETHNIC backgrounds") was surprising. All Jews share a common ethnic background - or at least this is the self-perception of all Jewish communities. They all see themselves as the descendants of ancient Israel. The Greek word from which the English "ethnicity" is derived means "people". The parallel word in Latin is "nation", those sharing a common birth (a common descent).
In Israel, no one would describe the Jews from different countries as having different ethnic backgrounds. All Jews are perceived as one people. We use the term "edot" in Israel, "publics" or "communities", to differentiate between the Jews in Yemen from the Jews in Poland. All of us are 'am-yisrael (the Jewish people). I wonder why Wikipedia would raise the issue of different ethnicities when the concept is really foreign to the Jewish narrative. My guess is that the author of the article has an Americanized perspective. The Jews in America generally define Jewishness as "religion", while nationality is American. In the Jewish self-definition, we the Jews are a people (a single nation, "ethnos") that has its own religion.
Dear Saint Ambrose,
I am sorry that you, like many Orthodox Jews, are bound by the errors of the past, but my best wishes to you anyway.
Dear Mr Levitt so long as you do not accept our Savior, I cannot reciprocate your best wished. In addition, I do not appreciate being compared to the most stubborn of your people
Bozhidar, for consistency's sake you should put "Arab" in quotation marks as well. "Arabs" are not all descended from Arabia. Additionally, "humans," despite thinking of themselves as different from apes, are only so as a matter of perception. All forms of identity should hereby be put into quotation marks to show how postmodern and advanced we are.
I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli, but I think Ben has a point regarding the place of religion within the context of ethnicity/nationality. If you have Israeli people of other religious persuasions who speak Hebrew and claim cultural ancestry (not necessarily sanguinary) from the Hebrew people, then it (in my Americanized opinion) strips such individuals of the right to be considered Jews, but it doesn't strip them of the cultural ancestry that they indirectly gained from the Hebrew people (who, I assume, were the last extant ethnonational grouping of a Jewish religious majority which occupied what is now Israel prior to the more-recent Yishuv), and it most assuredly doesn't strip them of their Israeli ctizenship or their Israeli-Hebrew cultural-national identity.
It's like, for example, how a majority of Poles in Poland are Roman Catholic Christians, and a minority of Poles are Orthodox, and even-smaller minorities of ethnic Poles in Poland identify as various shades of Protestant or even Slavic Neopagan; yet a majority of Polish citizens speak the Polish language and observe the various regional shades of the Polish cultural-national identity, no matter their religion. In Germany, German descent is a plus for citizenship, and migration from another state that is associated with a non-German ethnonational grouping is a bit harder; but the majority of German citizens, despite their religious affiliations (Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Neopagan), identify with the German state, speak the German language and observe the German culture(s). Even if the cultural heritage is identified by a different name than the name of the country (as in the Hellenic cultural character of the Hellenic Republic of Greece), the ethnonational identity within any given modern ethnic nation-state (like those of Europe) transcends religious/confessional/communal allegiances...or at least, is supposed to (as some states like Russia tend, more recently, toward defining the ethnonational character of a state on additional religious grounds, shunting their religious minorities in the process).
Personally, I don't expect Israel to drop its semi-religious character, as Judaism has played an immense, emergent role in defining the national character (and attracting migrants) and resisting the irredentist efforts of both Pan-Arabism and Islamism in Israel (and particularly in Jerusalem), but I think that religious or irreligious residents who, other than Judaism, adhere to the still-evolving cultural character of the majority Hebrew-speaking population of Israel need consideration as well, at least because they play such historically active roles. I know, for instance, that Hebrew Christian Israelis can't be considered Jews in any way (Messianic Jew, Christian Jew, etc.), but they still speak the language, maintain a flavor of the culture, and are loyal to the state and its cultural character; I'm sure that there are a straggling few (and I repeat, a very insignificant population of) Hebrew Muslim Israelis who aren't attracted in any way to the Pan-Arab/Syrian-irredentist/Muslim-irredentist cause that continues to dominate the Palestinian movement. I can only say that they speak Hebrew, which places them a sight closer to the ranks of Ben's Hebrew ethnicity and cultural affinity and away from the Arab cultural identity.
This idea of a Hebrew ethnonational culture that uses religion as a courier for cultural transmission (i.e., Yiddish using the Hebrew alphabet and becoming the harbinger of Hebrew language revival in the 19th century), is not that far fetched when one sees Islam being done the same way by the Arabic language and alphabet in both the Levant/Mesopotamia and North Africa during the Islamic imperial expansion wars; but that doesn't explain why you have Arabic-speaking Christians, some of whom consider themselves "Phoenician"-Lebanese rather than Arab-Lebanese out of nationalistic religious concerns.
But ultimately, an "Arab" or a "Phoenician" can also be Muslim, Christian, or even Jewish if the person subscribes to Judaism; a "Hebrew" can be any of the above as well. A Christian can't be Jewish or Muslim or atheist, and vice-versa. Israel has reserved a paramount cultural identity for preferential treatment and denomination, which is normal and customary for most nation-states. But to say that the preferred Israeli culture is Jewish when you have such a hard time trying to tell an atheist Israeli (or a community of such individuals) from a religious, Jewish Israeli (and his or her community) is a bit confusing when the atheist Israeli is also considered an "atheist Jew" out of respect for religious-maternal descent; furthermore, to amalgamate one's religious-sanguinary descent with his/her own current religious affiliation or identification is, in any region, benignly insulting to the intelligences of both that individual and those who are the fiercest frum adherents to the religion of that individual's parents, since it says that, ultimately, you'll come back to the fold of the religion, you're only straying in your youth to the steepest edge of the religious culture (i.e., a "lapsed Catholic"), as are a large (haloni) minority of Israelis who are considered in similar fashion. If they're atheist or Buddhist or Baha'i and speak Hebrew, then they are atheist, Buddhist or Baha'i Hebrews, not atheist, Buddhist, or Baha'i Jews.
So, again, I agree with Ben's idea of a "Hebrew" identification for the ethnocultural majority of Israel, so as to be considerate of the religious diversity of the ethnic majority. As Israel was initially envisioned by its fiercest (and often atheist) nationalist "founding fathers" as an ethnoculturally-invested nation-state rather than a religious state, it only makes sense that the ethnocultural concerns are named separately from the religious concerns. This does not mean that the Arabs and Hebrews will come to peace (the conflict will continue fervently and indefinitely), but it does mean that the religious concerns and parties to such concerns, which are much more international and detached, will be named separately from the region-based ethnocultural and ethnonational concerns and parties to such concerns. It eliminates some of the confusion surrounding the peoplehood of Israel's demographic majority and its cultural investment into the state, its integrity and its legitimacy.
I want to further emphasize a few points:
1. I know that being considered ethnically "Hebrew" rather than ethnically Jewish will not result in a lessening of anti-Semitism/Hebraism or anti-Judaism/Jew-hatred. It won't result in the reduction of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and it won't abate the violent outrages of people in the West and East screaming "Jews to the gas". It will only result in one being able to ask "OK, which group are you accusing of trying to take over the world's governments, Jews or Hebrews? And aren't a few of those Hebrews also members of our own faiths as well?" It complicates the "enemies'" agendas.
2. Being considered Hebrew rather than Jewish will not result in Middle Eastern peace. Delineating, even stripping, the religious dimension from the preservation of Israel's legitimacy does not take anything away from ethnic territorial aspirations from either ethnocultural group; it only secularizes/atheisizes/de-apocalypsizes the ethnocultural conflict. So I wholeheartedly refute many of the commenters who've stated that there will be peace when Israel strips itself of its preferred ethnocultural character; such an assertion is willfully, dreadfully ignorant of why any modern nation-state is either established or demanded, and sloppily shifts the full responsibility for peace and conflict onto a numerically-inferior ethnic grouping. The very idea that blame for the conflict resides upon the existence and placement of the ethnicity and the religion in this region is laughable and comparable to the other blame-filled canards which have been lobbed against the ethnicity for millenia.
There is a rather quaint logical implication of Shlomo Sand's book that seems to have been somewhat overlooked. Does his argument not apply to practically every European (or other) peoples? If so, can we then speak of eg. a French or German peoples? At which historical point in the coming together of disparate groups did they transform themselves from mere tribes into a specific peoples? How long did they have to co-exist together before the tipping point into a specific peoples was reached? What social criteria did they use to finally reach the conclusion that they were now a "unique" grouping or "people"? Could we expect a similar tome on the so-called French people? Or will such a tome be rather "politically incorrect".