Tracing Jewish origins...Shattering a 'national mythology'

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2008

Interesting article. Ah the irony.

"As a side note. DNA testing (the results of which are banned from publication in Israel) confirms much of the above. As the history of man gets filled in using DNA, it becomes clear that the Ashkenazi are not the descendants of the biblical Hebrews. Indeed the closest direct descendants of the Biblical Hebrews appears to be the present-day Palestinians!

Religion is just comfortable myth; a set of lies mutually agreed upon by the faithful, but it should never be confused with history, science, or reality in general. People trained to believe in absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities, such as those we see in Palestine."

" The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled."

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

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

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

NoK · October 2008

Good article.. thanks for the link.

rebornFixer · October 2008

Interesting article ... On a lighter note, who uses the words "Jewess" and "Jewry"? Wow.
On a more serious note, regardless of historical origins, and this author is probably right in this regard, calling the Jewish people a "figment" is quite ridiculous. The people clearly exist as such today, regardless of whatever religious myth they use to bolster their group identity. These people are not a figment.

sponger · October 2008

Is this article actually alleging that Jews have no ethnic commonalities? If so, then how utterly ridiculous is that?

And why does it keep referring to the Jews as Zionists? Not all Jews are Zionists.

catefrances · October 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Interesting article ... On a lighter note, who uses the words "Jewess" and "Jewry"? Wow.
On a more serious note, regardless of historical origins, and this author is probably right in this regard, calling the Jewish people a "figment" is quite ridiculous. The people clearly exist as such today, regardless of whatever religious myth they use to bolster their group identity. These people are not a figment.

much like the so called white race.

rebornFixer · October 2008

sponger wrote:

Is this article actually alleging that Jews have no ethnic commonalities? If so, then how utterly ridiculous is that?

And why does it keep referring to the Jews as Zionists? Not all Jews are Zionists.

One can certainty play "sociologist with too much time of theirs hands" with this article, and attempt to catch all of the subtle racist innuendos ...
I am not referring to the book authors' conclusions ... I am referring to the tone of this piece about the book. Jewess? Come on.

rebornFixer · October 2008

catefrances wrote:

much like the so called white race.

Or the so-called any race, for that matter.

catefrances · October 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Or the so-called any race, for that matter.

indeed. i just find it amusing that race is an issue on any level and in regards to anything at all.

i remember once seeing this ku klux klanner on the tv years and years ago. the guy was hispanic. and i thought what a tool. has he any idea of his history. is he aware that the moors were in spain. and here he is spouting his hate bulllshit, when tis possible he just may well have 'tainted' blood running through his veins. and lets not get into the fact that jesus was jewish and the contempt with which the KKK hold those people whilst preaching their lords name.
there is no race except the human race. and its far from pure.

rebornFixer · October 2008

catefrances wrote:

indeed. i just find it amusing that race is an issue on any level and in regards to anything at all.

i remember once seeing this ku klux klanner on the tv years and years ago. the guy was hispanic. and i thought what a tool. has he any idea of his history. is he aware that the moors were in spain. and here he is spouting his hate bulllshit, when tis possible he just may well have 'tainted' blood running through his veins. and lets not get into the fact that jesus was jewish and the contempt with which the KKK hold those people whilst preaching their lords name.
there is no race except the human race. and its far from pure.

A hispanic Klansman? That's awesome ... Well, maybe awesome's the wrong word. More like hideously retarded.
Anyhow, race is a social construction that happens to have some minimal basis in physical/genetic reality. That's why it is such a problem. There are just enough to real differences to enable people to erect barriers and cause all sorts of bullshit in the name of "racial purity" ... Even the notion of "racial equality" can cause problems, and the intent there is fundamentally good. Race is a dangerous construct, that too many people, white and non-white, put to poor uses.

catefrances · October 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

A hispanic Klansman? That's awesome ... Well, maybe awesome's the wrong word. More like hideously retarded.
Anyhow, race is a social construction that happens to have some minimal basis in physical/genetic reality. That's why it is such a problem. There are just enough to real differences to enable people to erect barriers and cause all sorts of bullshit in the name of "racial purity" ... Even the notion of "racial equality" can cause problems, and the intent there is fundamentally good. Race is a dangerous construct, that too many people, white and non-white, put to poor uses.

welll no one said klanspeople were smart. just incredilby dangerous.

oh i agree that race is a social construct. it was a tool of exclusion. as for racial equality, that implies an inequality somewhere and we know all human are equal.

sponger · October 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

One can certainty play "sociologist with too much time of theirs hands" with this article, and attempt to catch all of the subtle racist innuendos ...
I am not referring to the book authors' conclusions ... I am referring to the tone of this piece about the book. Jewess? Come on.

I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post. I was not being sarcastic.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Interesting article ... On a lighter note, who uses the words "Jewess" and "Jewry"? Wow.
On a more serious note, regardless of historical origins, and this author is probably right in this regard, calling the Jewish people a "figment" is quite ridiculous. The people clearly exist as such today, regardless of whatever religious myth they use to bolster their group identity. These people are not a figment.

Strange choice of words, I agree. I'm not sure how far into the history thing he's going,maybe his head is buried in centuries of antiquated research and terminology, but Jewess, and Jewry sounds pretty ridiculous.

OffHeGoes29 · October 2008

This reminds me of Dave Chappelle's blind racist.......

NoK · October 2008

Its funny how people jump to attach racist insignia when it comes to Israel, pretty much distracting people from the original message which was:

"Indeed the closest direct descendants of the Biblical Hebrews appears to be the present-day Palestinians".. which pretty much shatters any justification Westerners had for the creation of Israel.

The guy doing the research is Israeli and the website publishing the article is Israeli so I am to believe they are being racist against themselves? Good one.

catefrances · October 2008

NoK wrote:

Its funny how people jump to attach racist insignia when it comes to Israel, pretty much distracting people from the original message which was:

"Indeed the closest direct descendants of the Biblical Hebrews appears to be the present-day Palestinians".. which pretty much shatters any justification Westerners had for the creation of Israel.

The guy doing the research is Israeli and the website publishing the article is Israeli so I am to believe they are being racist against themselves? Good one.

mere inconvenience my friend.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2008

NoK wrote:

Its funny how people jump to attach racist insignia when it comes to Israel, pretty much distracting people from the original message which was:

"Indeed the closest direct descendants of the Biblical Hebrews appears to be the present-day Palestinians".. which pretty much shatters any justification Westerners had for the creation of Israel.

The guy doing the research is Israeli and the website publishing the article is Israeli so I am to believe they are being racist against themselves? Good one.

The anti-Semitic bandwagon (edit: anti Jewish....Palestinians are Semitic as well) has nice plush comfy heated seats.

sponger · October 2008

NoK wrote:

"Indeed the closest direct descendants of the Biblical Hebrews appears to be the present-day Palestinians"..

It's an interesting premise. It's just too bad the author's motivation behind it is clear as day. You'd think he'd be smart enough to conceal his own prejudices against Jews so that his "findings" could pass for something worth chewing on. Turns out he's just another one of those people who believe it's possible to "objectively" hate.

NoK · October 2008

sponger wrote:

It's an interesting premise. It's just too bad the author's motivation behind it is clear as day. You'd think he'd be smart enough to conceal his own prejudices against Jews so that his "findings" could pass for something worth chewing on. Turns out he's just another one of those people who believe it's possible to "objectively" hate.

Mate.. the author is Jewish. His parents were survivors of the Holocaust.

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

You can compare him to the Americans or Australians who now accept they stole the land from its original inhabitants. Only there aren't many Israeli's who can accept that 60 years from the creation of Israel. I doubt there were any Americans or Australians who accepted this 60 years after their creation.

sponger · October 2008

NoK wrote:

Mate.. the author is Jewish. His parents were survivors of the Holocaust.

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

I can't say I know many Jews who use the words, "Jewry", "Jewess", and throw the word "Zionist" around like they have OCD about it.

Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense no matter what his background is.

catefrances · October 2008

sponger wrote:

It's an interesting premise. It's just too bad the author's motivation behind it is clear as day. You'd think he'd be smart enough to conceal his own prejudices against Jews so that his "findings" could pass for something worth chewing on. Turns out he's just another one of those people who believe it's possible to "objectively" hate.

its more than interesting. its totally plausible. and hardly the far fetched premise some would intimate it to be.

NoK · October 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The anti-Semitic bandwagon (edit: anti Jewish....Palestinians are Semitic as well) has nice plush comfy heated seats.

.. with an additional beer holder if you say it with an exclamation mark!

Tracing Jewish origins...Shattering a 'national mythology'

Comments

Categories