The idea of a Jewish nation – whose need for a safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of Israel – is a myth invented little more than a century ago.
HHW
by Jonathan Cook
Global Research, October 8, 2008
thenational.ae
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Idea of a Jewish people invented, says historian
No one is more surprised than Shlomo Sand that his latest academic
work has spent 19 weeks on Israel’s bestseller list – and that success
has come to the history professor despite his book challenging
Israel’s biggest taboo.
Dr Sand argues that the idea of a Jewish nation – whose need for a
safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of
Israel – is a myth invented little more than a century ago.
An expert on European history at Tel Aviv University, Dr Sand drew on
extensive historical and archaeological research to support not only
this claim but several more – all equally controversial.
In addition, he argues that the Jews were never exiled from the Holy
Land, that most of today’s Jews have no historical connection to the
land called Israel and that the only political solution to the
country’s conflict with the Palestinians is to abolish the Jewish
state.
The success of When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? looks
likely to be repeated around the world. A French edition, launched
last month, is selling so fast that it has already had three print
runs.
Translations are under way into a dozen languages, including Arabic
and English. But he predicted a rough ride from the pro-Israel lobby
when the book is launched by his English publisher, Verso, in the
United States next year.
In contrast, he said Israelis had been, if not exactly supportive, at
least curious about his argument. Tom Segev, one of the country’s
leading journalists, has called the book “fascinating and
challenging”.
Surprisingly, Dr Sand said, most of his academic colleagues in Israel
have shied away from tackling his arguments. One exception is Israel
Bartal, a professor of Jewish history at Hebrew University in
Jerusalem. Writing in Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper, Dr Bartal
made little effort to rebut Dr Sand’s claims. He dedicated much of his
article instead to defending his profession, suggesting that Israeli
historians were not as ignorant about the invented nature of Jewish
history as Dr Sand contends.
The idea for the book came to him many years ago, Dr Sand said, but he
waited until recently to start working on it. “I cannot claim to be
particularly courageous in publishing the book now,” he said. “I
waited until I was a full professor. There is a price to be paid in
Israeli academia for expressing views of this sort.”
Dr Sand’s main argument is that until little more than a century ago,
Jews thought of themselves as Jews only because they shared a common
religion. At the turn of the 20th century, he said, Zionist Jews
challenged this idea and started creating a national history by
inventing the idea that Jews existed as a people separate from their
religion.
Equally, the modern Zionist idea of Jews being obligated to return
from exile to the Promised Land was entirely alien to Judaism, he
added.
“Zionism changed the idea of Jerusalem. Before, the holy places were
seen as places to long for, not to be lived in. For 2,000 years Jews
stayed away from Jerusalem not because they could not return but
because their religion forbade them from returning until the messiah
came.”
The biggest surprise during his research came when he started looking
at the archaeological evidence from the biblical era.
“I was not raised as a Zionist, but like all other Israelis I took it
for granted that the Jews were a people living in Judea and that they
were exiled by the Romans in 70AD.
“But once I started looking at the evidence, I discovered that the
kingdoms of David and Solomon were legends.
“Similarly with the exile. In fact, you can’t explain Jewishness
without exile. But when I started to look for history books describing
the events of this exile, I couldn’t find any. Not one.
“That was because the Romans did not exile people. In fact, Jews in
Palestine were overwhelming peasants and all the evidence suggests
they stayed on their lands.”
Instead, he believes an alternative theory is more plausible: the
exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the
new faith. “Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe
that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God.”
So if there was no exile, how is it that so many Jews ended up
scattered around the globe before the modern state of Israel began
encouraging them to “return”?
Dr Sand said that, in the centuries immediately preceding and
following the Christian era, Judaism was a proselytising religion,
desperate for converts. “This is mentioned in the Roman literature of
the time.”
Jews travelled to other regions seeking converts, particularly in
Yemen and among the Berber tribes of North Africa. Centuries later,
the people of the Khazar kingdom in what is today south Russia, would
convert en masse to Judaism, becoming the genesis of the Ashkenazi
Jews of central and eastern Europe.
Dr Sand pointed to the strange state of denial in which most Israelis
live, noting that papers offered extensive coverage recently to the
discovery of the capital of the Khazar kingdom next to the Caspian
Sea.
Ynet, the website of Israel’s most popular newspaper, Yedioth
Ahronoth, headlined the story: “Russian archaeologists find long-lost
Jewish capital.” And yet none of the papers, he added, had considered
the significance of this find to standard accounts of Jewish history.
One further question is prompted by Dr Sand’s account, as he himself
notes: if most Jews never left the Holy Land, what became of them?
“It is not taught in Israeli schools but most of the early Zionist
leaders, including David Ben Gurion [Israel’s first prime minister],
believed that the Palestinians were the descendants of the area’s
original Jews. They believed the Jews had later converted to Islam.”
Dr Sand attributed his colleagues’ reticence to engage with him to an
implicit acknowledgement by many that the whole edifice of “Jewish
history” taught at Israeli universities is built like a house of
cards.
The problem with the teaching of history in Israel, Dr Sand said,
dates to a decision in the 1930s to separate history into two
disciplines: general history and Jewish history. Jewish history was
assumed to need its own field of study because Jewish experience was
considered unique.
“There’s no Jewish department of politics or sociology at the
universities. Only history is taught in this way, and it has allowed
specialists in Jewish history to live in a very insular and
conservative world where they are not touched by modern developments
in historical research.
“I’ve been criticised in Israel for writing about Jewish history when
European history is my specialty. But a book like this needed a
historian who is familiar with the standard concepts of historical
inquiry used by academia in the rest of the world.”
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel.
His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq,
Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and
“Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed
Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National
(www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
Jonathan Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
Research Articles by Jonathan Cook
Tell it like it is.
There is a lot of information on the internet. Also a lot odf
bullshit. I have to remain true to my Catholic upbringing. The Muslims
worship the God of Abraham as do Catholics and all Christians and
Jews. Unfortunately some people won't accept the other fellows
cultural ways and worship.
That's why the U.S. is such a great country. We allow secular jews to
express hatred for muslims, and jews believe that a jew hating a
middle eastern muslim is not in anyway an antisemite. Of course the
jews of secular Israel do not believe the indegenous people of the
region called Palestine are a people with a history in the Holy land.
Ancient Israel was a theocracy. But the Christ they killed was the
wrong one. So they have come back as a secular state for jews. That
way they don't have to assimilate in the various countries in which
they live. Excuse me.
An act of war is called a preemptive strike according to the great
Alan Dershowitz. The only requirement is that no diplomacy be allowed.
It is disturbing to watch Israel justifying their actions by saying
"The U.S. has said Hamas is a terrorist organization". We've also said
the "JADL is a terrorist orgANIZATION". So what's new?
I use to think Palestine would be a district of Israel, but a few days
ago I was reading over the 'net about a bi-state called Palestine-
Israel! Wouldn't that be awful? It would preserve the historical
legitimacy of the Holy Bible every word of which was written by the
ancient Jews of religious Israel. Wouldn't that be awful?
I knew a guy in Boston, Massachusetts who spent five years in prison
for refusing the draft. I'll refrain from using Joe's surname, but his
face was the image of the Irish face that was very commonly used for
images of Christ. Air strikes from the air doesn't make you brave when
the target is a police station. They were Hamas police. A terrorist
organization!
DoD
> Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
prince andy
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e008893f-078d-4a44...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
Dud trying to peddle crap again.
Anti semitic simply because it sp[eaks true. Old fart is only comfortable
with the old lies he and his clique have pushed so hard.
prince andy
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e008893f-078d-4a44...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
Dud trying to peddle crap again.
Anti semitic simply because it sp[eaks true. Old fart is only comfortable
with the old lies he and his clique have pushed so hard.
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35282912-726a-4a2e...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
by Jonathan Cook
Global Research, October 8, 2008
thenational.ae
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Idea of a Jewish people invented, says historian
No one is more surprised than Shlomo Sand that his latest academic
work has spent 19 weeks on Israel's bestseller list - and that success
has come to the history professor despite his book challenging
Israel's biggest taboo.
Dr Sand argues that the idea of a Jewish nation - whose need for a
safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of
Israel - is a myth invented little more than a century ago.
An expert on European history at Tel Aviv University, Dr Sand drew on
extensive historical and archaeological research to support not only
this claim but several more - all equally controversial.
HHW
Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
This issue is pretty fundamental. It goes to the very center of
Zionist ideology. You, for example, hate the Palestinian Resistance as
a result have having bought into Zionism. Tell us, oh Zionist, do the
descendants of Khazars, whose ancestors seem never to have lived
anywhere near Palestine, have the "right" to take it from its native
people? An objective person will address the issue critically. Here is
another Israeli scholar, a Jewish history specialist, who criticizes
Professor Sand's work. You will note as does Jonathan Cook that this
scholar does not really deny Sand's central thesis. What he does is
defend the Israeli historical profession's standards from claims of
distorting the historical record. That may be telling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha'aretz Books
Last update - 18:46 06/07/2008
Jewish History
Inventing an invention
By Israel Bartal
Tags: Khazars, Israel Bartal
According to Shlomo Sand, everything you ever thought you knew about
the Jewish people as a nation with ethno-biological origins is false.
Israel Bartal, however, says Sand didn't do his homework
Mattai ve'ekh humtza ha'am hayehudi?
(When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?), by Shlomo Sand
Resling (Hebrew), 358 pages, NIS 94.
The first sentence of "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?"
reads: "This book is a historical study, not a work of pure fiction.
Nevertheless, it will open with a number of stories rooted in a
collective memory that has been adulterated with a considerable degree
of imagination." I recalled these words when I found myself utterly
astounded by the statements of the author of this learned, fascinating
study, concerned with the "period of silencing" in the "Jewish-Israeli
collective memory," a period that, to quote Sand, gave rise to a total
avoidance of "any mention of the Khazars in the Israeli public
arena."
This assertion, according to which an entire chapter in Jewish history
was deliberately silenced for political reasons, thrust me back to my
days as a ninth grader, in the late 1950s. I recalled the Mikhlal
Encyclopedia, an almost mythological reference text that nearly every
Israeli high school student relied on in those years, the flagship of
what is termed "mainstream Zionism," in the lean Hebrew of 21st-
century Israel. My ears still reverberate with the introduction to the
encyclopedia's entry on "Khazars": "A source of consolation and hope
for the scattered Jewish communities of the Diaspora during the Middle
Ages, the story of the Khazar kingdom today has the ring of pure
mythology. Nonetheless, that story is one of the most wonderful
chapters in Jewish history."
Sand suggests that it was "the wave of decolonization of the 1950s and
1960s [that] led the molders of Israeli collective memory to shield
themselves from the shadow of the Khazar past. There was a profound
fear that, should the Jews now rebuilding their home in Israel learn
that they are not direct descendants of the ?Children of Israel,' the
very legitimacy of both the Zionist enterprise and the State of
Israel's existence would be undermined."
With considerable trepidation, I returned to my yellowing copy of
volume IV of the Mikhlal Encyclopedia. Could I perhaps have been
mistaken and could it be that my teachers in the Socialist-Zionist
city of Givatayim wanted to brainwash me with an ethno-biological
perception of my parents' origin?
When I reread the entry on the Khazars, my mind was put at rest. It
was not the Zionist education to which I, as an Israeli teenager, was
exposed that tried to make me forget the fact that the members of
gentile tribes converted to Judaism in the Khazar Kingdom; instead, it
is the author of this book about the "invention of the Jewish people"
who has invented an ethno-biological Zionist historiography.
Here is what was written about the conversion of the Khazars, a nation
of Turkish origin, in the Zionist Mikhlal Encyclopedia that the State
of Israel's Zionist Ministry of Education recommended so warmly during
that "period of silencing": "It is irrelevant whether the conversion
to Judaism encompassed a large stratum of the Khazar nation; what is
important is that this event was regarded as a highly significant
phenomenon in Jewish history, a phenomenon that has since totally
disappeared: Judaism as a missionary religion.... The question of the
long-term impact of that chapter in Jewish history on East European
Jewry -- whether through the development of its ethnic character or in
some other way -- is a matter that requires further research.
Nonetheless, although we do not know the extent of its influence, what
is clear to us today is that this conversion did have an impact."
Sand, a professor of modern European history at Tel Aviv University,
comments further on the silence of the historians: "Israel's academic
community developed a violent attitude toward this issue.... Any
mention of the Khazars in the public arena in Israel was increasingly
considered eccentric, a flight of fancy, even an open threat."
Zionist historiography, he claims, concealed the possibility that the
millions of Yiddish-speaking Jews were actually descendants of the
Khazars and that even today Israeli historians deny the existence of
an early Jewish nucleus that was augmented by immigrants who moved
from Ashkenaz (present-day northern France and western Germany) to
Eastern Europe.
These claims are baseless. Sand, for example, does not mention the
fact that, from 2000 onwards, a team of scholars from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem labored on a monumental task: the production
of a three-volume study on the history of the Jews of Russia.
In the first volume, which will shortly be published in Hebrew by the
Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History (another "Zionist"
institution), considerable attention is devoted to the question of the
origin of the East European Jews and to their link with the history of
the Khazar kingdom.
Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars
in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well,
presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the
writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his
ideological position is. Like him, I am not one of those who support
the injustices committed by a number of Israeli government agencies
against minority groups in this country in the name of arguments
pretending to represent "historical values." However, critical readers
of Sand's study must not overlook the intellectual superficiality and
the twisting of the rules governing the work of professional
historians that result when ideology and methodology are mixed.
Sand's desire for Israel to become a state "representing all its
citizens" is certainly worthy of a serious discussion, but the manner
in which he attempts to connect a political platform with the history
of the Jewish people from its very beginnings to the present day is
bizarre and incoherent.
Descendants of pagans
What is Sand trying to prove in this study? In his view, the homeland
of the Jewish people is not Palestine, and most Jews are descendants
of the members of different nations who converted to Judaism in
ancient times and in the medieval period. He claims that the Jews of
Yemen and Eastern Europe are descendants of pagans.
According to Sand, this historical truth was concealed by Zionist
thinkers, who developed an ethno-biological ideology, and the so-
called "Jewish people" was invented as late as the 19th century.
Furthermore, he argues, the idea of a "nation" that was exiled from
its homeland in ancient times and which is destined to return to it in
the modern age so as to rebuild its independent state is merely an
invented myth.
Sand also maintains that, in the era preceding the emergence of
European nationalism, the Jews were an ethnic group, not a nation. In
his eyes, the argument promulgated by the Zionists and by their
successors in the Israeli political arena concerning our "right to
this land" rests on a biological-genetic ideology; that argument
became the "narrative of the ruling group" thanks to the fact that the
"authorized scholars of the past" have concealed the truth concerning
the real, impure origin of the Jews.
My response to Sand's arguments is that no historian of the Jewish
national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the
Jews are ethnically and biologically "pure." Sand applies marginal
positions to the entire body of Jewish historiography and, in doing
so, denies the existence of the central positions in Jewish historical
scholarship.
No "nationalist" Jewish historian has ever tried to conceal the well-
known fact that conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish
history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages. Although
the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist
in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish
historical discussions. Important groups in the Jewish national
movement expressed reservations regarding this myth or denied it
completely.
Sand's references to "authorized" historians are absurd, and
perpetuate a superficial pattern of discussion that is characteristic
of a certain group within Israeli academe. The guiding principle in
this pattern of discussion is as follows: "Tell me what your position
is on the past and I will tell you the nature of your connection with
the agencies of the regime."
The kind of political intervention Sand is talking about, namely, a
deliberate program designed to make Israelis forget the true
biological origins of the Jews of Poland and Russia or a directive for
the promotion of the story of the Jews' exile from their homeland is
pure fantasy.
Sand points to three components in the structuring of the Jewish
national past. First, the national historical narrative, especially
the Zionist narrative, emphasizes the "ethno-biological" identity of
those who belong to the imaginary Jewish nation.
Second, this identity is directly connected with a nationalist
ideology that is a substitute for the religious link between Jewish
communities in the Diaspora that has considerably weakened in the
present era of secularization. Third, an aggressive political
establishment that controls the dissemination of knowledge is
concealing vital information on what really happened in the past,
preventing the publication of sources that can serve as an alternative
to the recommended national narrative, and censoring dangerous
passages in published texts.
The central book of the Zionist "Jerusalem School," "Toldot am
yisrael" ("History of the Jewish People," published in 1969), speaks
extensively of the Jewish communities that existed in the Diaspora
before the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and whose
total population exceeded that of the tiny Jewish community in
Palestine. As one would expect from a work that reflects a profound
knowledge of scholarly studies in the field, the Zionist "Toldot am
yisrael" explains that the number of Jews in the Diaspora during the
ancient period was as high as it was because of conversion, a
phenomenon that "was widespread in the Jewish Diaspora in the late
Second Temple period .... Many of the converts to Judaism came from
the gentile population of Palestine, but an even greater number of
converts could be found in the Jewish Diaspora communities in both the
East and the West."
Choosing to ignore all this, Sand categorically states in his book
that, "the mass conversions that created such huge Jewish populations
throughout the Mediterranean region are scarcely mentioned in Jewish
national historiography." Apparently, he is obsessed with the idea of
proving that the Zionist historians (including Nahum Slouschz, who
wrote about the North African Jewish warrior-queen Dahia
al-Kahina) were "ethnocentric nationalists." It is irrelevant to Sand
what these historians actually wrote: To hell with the facts -- the
argument is what really counts!
Sand bends over backwards to prove that the great Jewish historians
(such as Simon Dubnow, Salo Baron and Benzion Dinur), who, in their
works, linked Jewish nationalism with liberalism, radicalism and
socialism, were simply racists. Here's what he writes, for example,
about Israeli historian Haim Zeev Hirschberg (1903-1974), who studied
the Jews of North Africa: "His continual attempts to prove that the
Jews were a race of people that had been displaced from its ancient
homeland and which had been condemned to wander from country to
country as an exiled nation ... dovetail beautifully with the
directives of mainstream Zionist historiography." According to Sand,
Hirschberg never managed to liberate himself from a "purifying
substantive ideology." Does this sound familiar? When and where did
you last read that Zionism was a racist movement?
Scattered communities
I will now refer briefly to the connection between the book's
conceptual underpinnings and the author's main historical argument,
namely, that, prior to the modern period, the Jews constituted only a
group of "scattered religious communities." Sand defines national
identity in the spirit of the ideas of the French Revolution. Not only
does he reject the concept of an ethnic identity that is not dependent
on the existence of a political entity confined within clearly defined
borders, he even rejects an identity whose possessors' claim is
founded on a cultural or political entity that is not subject to
control or management by the agencies of the central regime. In his
view, such identities are merely "invented identities" and he does not
believe that pre-modern identities can survive in the modern era. In
fact, Sand advocates the position that was heard in the French
National Assembly in December 1789: "The Jews must not be allowed to
constitute a special political entity or to have a special political
status. Instead, each Jew must on an individual basis be a citizen of
France." However, whereas the champions of the Emancipation in Paris
did recognize the non-religious essence of the pre-modern Jewish
nation, Sand does not.
I was unable to find in Sand's book any innovations in the study of
nationalism. The author is stuck somewhere between historians such as
Eric Hobsbawm, Benedict Anderson and Ernest Gellner -- a generation
behind what is happening today in the field. As far as I can discern,
the book contains not even one idea that has not been presented
earlier in their books and articles by what he insists on defining as
"authorized historians" suspected of "concealing historical truth."
"When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" is a marvelous blend of
clearly modernist arguments, drawn from the legacy of 18th-century
European Enlightenment, with a moderate, but disturbing (because of
its superficiality), pinch of Foucaultian discourse from a previous
generation.
Moreover, the author's treatment of Jewish sources is embarrassing and
humiliating. What serious reader who knows the history of modern
Hebrew literature can take seriously the views expressed in a book
that defines "Bohen tsadik" (Investigating a Righteous Man), a
satirical (fictional!) work by the Galician intellectual and supporter
of the Haskalah Yosef Perl (1773-1839), as something that was written
by a person named Yitzhak Perl and which "contains 41 letters from
rabbis that relate to various aspects of Jewish life"? Who would
attest to the accuracy of facts in a research study where it is stated
that historian Joseph Klausner (1874-1958) -- a scholar who never was
(despite his burning ambition to do so) a professor of history at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem and who, instead, served there as a
professor of Hebrew literature -- "was in fact the first official
historian of the ?Second Temple period' at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem"? Does such sloppiness reflect the author's attitude to the
subject of his research? Or, perhaps, because everything is an
invention anyway, it does not really matter whether the "imagined
object" is black or white?
The lugubrious Israeli combination of aggressive one-dimensional
conceptuality and blatant disrespect for details (a characteristic mix
among writers at both ends of the political spectrum) will undoubtedly
captivate the hearts of the public relations executives of the
electronic media. However, we, the skeptical historians, who are
buried between mountains of books and piles of archival files, can
only continue to read what has really been written and to write about
what has really been read.
Prof. Israel Bartal is dean of the humanities faculty of the Hebrew
University. His book "Cossack and Bedouin: Land and People in Jewish
Nationalism" was published by Am Oved in its Ofakim series (Hebrew).
Haaretz Books, July 2008
Sheldon Liberman
How many Middle East countries have freedom of religion?
> That's why the U.S. is such a great country. We allow secular jews to
> express hatred for muslims, and jews believe that a jew hating a
> middle eastern muslim is not in anyway an antisemite.
You may find that an anti-Muslim posture is hardly the domain of just
the Jewish community.
> Of course the
> jews of secular Israel do not believe the indegenous people of the
> region called Palestine are a people with a history in the Holy land.
What? Of course they do.
> Ancient Israel was a theocracy. But the Christ they killed was the
> wrong one. So they have come back as a secular state for jews. That
> way they don't have to assimilate in the various countries in which
> they live. Excuse me.
Excuse me. What are you talking about?
> An act of war is called a preemptive strike according to the great
> Alan Dershowitz. The only requirement is that no diplomacy be allowed.
> It is disturbing to watch Israel justifying their actions by saying
> "The U.S. has said Hamas is a terrorist organization".
Hamas--which happens to be the Hebrew word for violence--was founded
with the raison d'etre to destroy Israel. No U.S. affirmation
required.
> We've also said
> the "JADL is a terrorist orgANIZATION". So what's new?
> I use to think Palestine would be a district of Israel, but a few days
> ago I was reading over the 'net about a bi-state called Palestine-
> Israel! Wouldn't that be awful? It would preserve the historical
> legitimacy of the Holy Bible every word of which was written by the
> ancient Jews of religious Israel. Wouldn't that be awful?
No, it wouldn't.
> I knew a guy in Boston, Massachusetts who spent five years in prison
> for refusing the draft. I'll refrain from using Joe's surname, but his
> face was the image of the Irish face that was very commonly used for
> images of Christ. Air strikes from the air doesn't make you brave when
> the target is a police station. They were Hamas police. A terrorist
> organization!- Hide quoted text -
???
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sheldon Liberman
> On Dec 28, 4:54 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
>
> > Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
>
> Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
>
> This issue is pretty fundamental. It goes to the very center of
> Zionist ideology. You, for example, hate the Palestinian Resistance as
> a result have having bought into Zionism. Tell us, oh Zionist, do the
> descendants of Khazars, whose ancestors seem never to have lived
> anywhere near Palestine, have the "right" to take it from its native
> people? An objective person will address the issue critically. Here is
> another Israeli scholar, a Jewish history specialist, who criticizes
> Professor Sand's work. You will note as does Jonathan Cook that this
> scholar does not really deny Sand's central thesis. What he does is
> defend the Israeli historical profession's standards from claims of
> distorting the historical record. That may be telling.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> deliberate program designed to make Israelis forget the true ...
>
> read more »
danski...@gmail.com
> On Dec 28, 4:54 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
>
> > Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
>
> Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
No... It is obvious that you are prone to push any and every anti-
Jewish conspiracy.
You started off by saying that you are not against Israel and you
believed that it is a worthy
state, that you are commited to its protection. You originally said
that you wanted it to just
get out of the W.B. Now you are pushing forth the notion that Jews are
not really Jews...and the
Jewish state is not really neccessary. You really are a dick and a
slimey POS.
drahcir
As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense, this guy seems
wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
below.
john...@gmail.com
> On Dec 28, 12:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense, this guy seems
> wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> below.
>
john...@gmail.com
Hear, I meant to say.
HHW
Certainly not Israel. It oppresses its religious minority.
> > That's why the U.S. is such a great country. We allow secular jews to
> > express hatred for muslims, and jews believe that a jew hating a
> > middle eastern muslim is not in anyway an antisemite.
>
> You may find that an anti-Muslim posture is hardly the domain of just
> the Jewish community.
True, indeed, but the intense demonization of the Muslim tradition in
general and the Palestinians in particular in recent decades has been
generated by Jewish interests in the U.S. in an effort to promote the
interests of Israel. Read Mearsheimer & Walt's "The Israel Lobby and
American Foriegn Policy".
> > Of course the
> > jews of secular Israel do not believe the indegenous people of the
> > region called Palestine are a people with a history in the Holy land.
>
> What? Of course they do.
Surely they don't disagree with Deborah Sharavi!?
> > Ancient Israel was a theocracy. But the Christ they killed was the
> > wrong one. So they have come back as a secular state for jews. That
> > way they don't have to assimilate in the various countries in which
> > they live. Excuse me.
>
> Excuse me. What are you talking about?
A good question.
> > An act of war is called a preemptive strike according to the great
> > Alan Dershowitz. The only requirement is that no diplomacy be allowed.
> > It is disturbing to watch Israel justifying their actions by saying
> > "The U.S. has said Hamas is a terrorist organization".
>
> Hamas--which happens to be the Hebrew word for violence--was founded
> with the raison d'etre to destroy Israel. No U.S. affirmation
> required.
Forgive us, Mr. Liberman, but should that determine American Middle
Eastern policy? Israel was founded in a vast ethnic cleansing, one of
the 20th Century's monstrous crimes against humanity.
>
> > We've also said
> > the "JADL is a terrorist orgANIZATION". So what's new?
> > I use to think Palestine would be a district of Israel, but a few days
> > ago I was reading over the 'net about a bi-state called Palestine-
> > Israel! Wouldn't that be awful? It would preserve the historical
> > legitimacy of the Holy Bible every word of which was written by the
> > ancient Jews of religious Israel. Wouldn't that be awful?
>
> No, it wouldn't.
Maybe not, but that too is off the subject, i.e., the American
national interest.
>
> > I knew a guy in Boston, Massachusetts who spent five years in prison
> > for refusing the draft. I'll refrain from using Joe's surname, but his
> > face was the image of the Irish face that was very commonly used for
> > images of Christ. Air strikes from the air doesn't make you brave when
> > the target is a police station. They were Hamas police. A terrorist
> > organization!- Hide quoted text -
>
> ???
That's not enough question marks.
HHW
> On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 4:54 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
>
> > > Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
>
> > Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
>
> You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
> Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
I understand that the DNA analysis pursued back to the level of four
maternal founders of the line but the analysis did not fix the
location of these seminal events. I also understand that Khazar
origins of most of the Ashkenazi are not in dispute. When Dr. Sand's
book is printed in English by Verso here in the United States will you
read it? It is already a best seller elsewhere and looks to become one
world-wide.
> ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
" The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
(Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
and E.
" Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
Kevin Allan Brook
The Jews of Khazaria
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
But of course, you don't.
drahcir
Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
(Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
and E.
" Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
Kevin Allan Brook
The Jews of Khazaria
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
The Khazar Myth and the New Anti-Semitism
http://tinyurl.com/2nsbj9
• "Israelis have no history in the Land because they are Khazars, who
are not connected to the land" - Al Hayat Al Jadida, June 16, 2003
•"Oddly, the Zionists were mostly non-Jews whose ancestors had
themselves converted to Judaism around 800 AD in a place called
Khazaria, in the Caucasus Mountains between the Caspian and Black
Seas. They were quite literally Caucasians." - Judicial-inc. website
•"In 1917 the Khazar Jews passed a major milestone towards the
creation of their own state in Palestine. The same year they also
created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. There followed a Christian
holocaust, the likes of which the world has never seen. The Khazar
Jews were once again in control of Russia after more than 900 years,
and they set about the task of destroying the Russian Christians -
over 100-million of them, at the same time over 20-million religious
Jews also died at the hands of the Khazar Jews." - Aljazeerah.info
website
It is one of the great ironies of the 21st century that anti-Zionists
and anti-Semites on both the Left and the Right, have returned to
racialist arguments against Jews that most of us thought had died out
after World War II.
One of the most bizarre aspects of this "re-racializing" of anti-
Semitism is the role played by the Khazar myth.
The newly fashionable Khazar mythology holds that modern day
Ashkenazim, and especially the European leadership of the Zionist
movement, are not Jews at all in the racial sense, but rather
descendents from non-Jewish Khazars; therefore, the Khazar "theorists"
claim, Zionists and Israelis have no legitimate claims to the Land of
Israel.
It would be hard to exaggerate how widespread the misuse of the Khazar
myth is among those seeking to delegitimize Israel and Jews today. A
recent investigation showed nearly 30,000 websites using the Khazar
"theory" as a bludgeon
against Israel and Zionism.
Advertisement
LeisureTours
Some two hundred websites claim to describe a cabal known as the
Khazarian Zionist Bolsheviks (KZV). Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial
organizations and websites are particularly fond of the Khazar myth.
It is also growing in popularity among left-wing anti-Zionists.
Arab and Islamofascist propagandists have long bandied about the
Ashkenazim as Khazars theory and Iran's genocidal leaders adore it. Al-
Jazeera has been using the Khazar story to urge a worldwide Christian
religious war against the Khazar pseudo-Jewish imperialists.
Groups promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion often cite the
nefarious role of Khazars as "proof" of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy
(I counted 700 such websites). And even Jewish anti-Zionist cranks
like Alfred M. Lilienthal and the Swedish "Israel Shamir" have used
the Khazar myth to attack Zionism.
Why are these various groups suddenly interested in a rather esoteric
and archaic group of people in Central Asia that disappeared nearly a
millennium ago?
The answer is very simple.
According to the Khazar theory of the new anti-Semites, most Jews
today, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, are not racially Jews at all but
descendents from the Turkic tribe of Khazars, whose ruling class and
parts of its rank and file population converted to Judaism in the 8th
or early 9th
century CE. Hence, argue the racialists, Ashkenazi Jews have no rights
to live in the racially Semitic Middle East and especially not in the
Land of Israel.
Fact and Legend
For Jews, the history of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism is
best known from essays in The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised
Faith, a medieval book composed by the great Spanish poet and
philosopher Judah Ha-Levi.
Only part of the book actually deals with the Khazar kingdom, about
which little was known, and the historic claims about them in the book
are not considered fully reliable.
In any case, The Kuzari purports to report the debates at the Khazar
royal court that supposedly led to the Khazar elite's conversion to
Judaism. Other senior Jewish officials in the Spanish Muslim regimes
actually corresponded with the Khazar kingdom - most notably Cordova
Rabbi Hasdai ibn Shaprut (whose letters have survived). And the great
Iraqi sage Saadia Gaon is believed to have maintained correspondence
with Jews in the Khazar kingdom.
It is commonly thought that part of the motivation for the Khazars'
conversion was to establish political neutrality for the Khazar
kingdom, which faced potential threats from the powers of both
Christendom and Islam.
The Khazars themselves left no documentary records. The Arab historian
ibn Fadlan wrote about them, but he did so two centuries after the
conversions to Judaism had occurred. Some Jews, having sought refuge
from Byzantine persecutions, probably lived in the Khazar kingdom long
before the conversion of the royalty there.
One ironic historical twist is that the Khazars contributed to the
Cyrillic alphabet, in which Russian and some other Slovak languages
are written. Saint Cyril came to Khazaria in 860 in an attempt to
convert the Khazars to Christianity. Since the Hebrew of the Khazars
and Greek were the main alphabets known to St. Cyril and the early
Slavs, they borrowed from both.
Western interest in the Khazars was stimulated largely by the 1976
book The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler, a writer better known
for his lifelong battles against totalitarianism in all its forms.
Koestler's book
was largely based on the earlier book The History of the Jewish
Khazars, by the historianD.M. Dunlop.
Dunlop rejected the idea that large numbers of Ashkenazi Jews could
trace their origins to the Khazars, but not so Koestler. By grossly
and sensationally exaggerating the role and numbers of Khazar
descendents among European Jewry, Koestler - who was a strong Zionist
- inadvertently provided today's racialist anti-Semites with all the
ammunition they could want, and many of them frequently cite his book
as the basis for their racialist denunciations of Israel.
A number of more serious books about Khazars are now on the market,
including The Jews of Khazaria by Kevin Alan Brook. Rabbi Bernard
Rosensweig was one of the leading figures in debunking the Khazar
theory of Ashkenazi Jewish origins. Writing in Tradition (16:5, Fall
1977, pages 139-162), he dismissed it as "wobbly scholarly foundations
without historical support."
Likewise, the Swedish archaeologist Bozena Werbart, an expert on the
Khazars, wrote: "In the Khazar kingdom, Koestler wanted to see the
origin of the eastern European Jewry. Nevertheless, all the historical
and linguistic facts contradicted his theories."
As The Encyclopedia of Judaism (1989) emphatically states, "The notion
that Ashkenazi Jewry is descended from the Khazars has absolutely no
basis in fact."
What Became of the Khazars
The actual Khazar kingdom was partly subjugated by the early Russians
in the 10th century, and whatever was left was annihilated as a result
of the Mongol invasions of Central Asia.
What exactly became of the Khazar Jews is simply not known. Those who
retained their Judaism probably integrated themselves into other
Jewish communities around the world. Some groups of Khazars joined the
Magyar invasion into what became Hungary and may have merged with
local Jews already living in those lands; indeed, archeologists have
found Jewish stars in the remains of Hungarian Khazar villages.
Small groups of Khazar mercenaries probably found refuge in other
places. Most likely the largest integration of Khazar Jews among other
Jews took place in Iran and Iraq, the large communities closest to the
Khazar kingdom and with whom close ties had been maintained.
(An urban legend holds that red-haired Jews are descended from
Khazars, though that could hardly explain King David, not to mention
Esau. Arthur Koestler claimed many were blond with blue eyes.)
In any case, Khazar political existence ended a thousand years ago.
So what are we to make of the Khazar myth concerning Ashkenazi Jews
and their supposed lack of legitimate claims to Israel due to their
Khazar origins? The greatest irony is that even if the entire Khazar
theory of Ashkenazi Jews were correct - and virtually none of it is
correct - it would be entirely irrelevant. Judaism has never defined
Jews on racial grounds. Anyone from any race is welcome as a convert
to Judaism as long as he or she is sincere.
The biblical Israelites themselves were already a racial hodgepodge.
They absorbed the "mixed multitude" that left Egypt together with them
at the time of the Exodus. There are biblical references to Jews of
different racial features, including the black-skinned Shulamit
mentioned in the Song of Songs.
Jews always defined themselves in religious, ethnic-national and at
times linguistic terms, but never along racial lines. If all Ashkenazi
Jews were indeed converted Khazars, as the racial anti-Zionists claim,
they would be no less legitimately Jews - and, as such, would have the
same legitimate claims to the Jewish homeland as any other group of
Jews. (Given the traditional Jewish deference to righteous converts,
maybe more so.)
Pseudo-History and Poppycock
The actual details of the Khazar theory concerning European Jewry are
simply pseudo-history and crackpot poppycock.
Jews already lived in Europe a thousand years before the Khazar
kingdom was formed. There are no genetic markers or indicators at all
showing that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Turkic tribes. In fact,
there exists considerable genetic evidence showing that European Jews
are closer to Levantine and Syrian Arabs than to Central Asians.
After the Mongol invasion most Khazars probably assimilated into the
Jewish communities of Iran and Iraq, which of course eventually
emerged as important Sephardic centers, formed mainly of Jews with
Semitic racial characteristics, descended from migrants and exiled
Jews from the Land of Israel. In any case, there are more "Semitic"
Sephardic Jews in Israel today than there are European Ashkenazi Jews.
And if the Khazars looked Turkic, how on earth could they give
Ashkenazi Jews a European complexion?
There are other problems. If all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from
converted Khazars, why are there Cohens and Levis among them? One
inherits the status of a Cohen (priest) or Levite from one's father.
Descendants of converts through the male line can never be a Cohen or
a Levite.
And why are there no Khazar surnames among Ashkenazim, or Khazar names
for towns in Europe where Jews lived? And why did most Ashkenazi
communities speak variations of Yiddish rather than Turkic?
As mentioned, the popularity of the Khazar myth among anti-Semites
represents a return of modern anti-Jewish bigotry to the racialism of
the 1930's and earlier.
Nearly every anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi website denounces Zionists and
Israelis as "Khazars." Web chat lists in which Jews defending Israel
are dismissed as "Khazar usurpers" are too numerous to count.
The racialism once again in vogue holds that Jews would only have
legitimate claims to the right of self-determination in their homeland
if they were appropriately Semitic from a racial point of view.
Palestine is part of the Semitic racial lebensraum and those who do
not possess the correct pure racial markings have no business being
there. Racial purity is suddenly the new basis for national rights.
I discovered scores of neo-Nazi websites claiming that "Khazar
Zionists" were really behind the 9/11 attacks. I found thousands of
websites claiming that "Khazar Jew-pretenders" are in a conspiratorial
league with Freemasons, the Vatican, the Illuminati and others to
control the world.
Khazar conspiracists get nuttier by the day; a widely cited Ku Klux
Klan website claims that the pro-Israel evangelist Pat Robertson is
really a Khazar Jew. The neo-Nazi American Patriots Friends Network
claims Khazars are themselves descended from the Magog race and
secretly control America.
If we take the racialist argument to its logical conclusion,
Palestinian Arabs have the right to exercise all claims to sovereignty
in Israel due to their being true racial Jews, while Zionists are non-
Jewish Khazars - racial imposters and usurpers.
To make things even sillier, Arabs themselves are, of course, a mix of
racial strains, with a particularly large Caucasian component thanks
to Arab intermixing with Spanish and Italian Europeans, Caucasian
Berbers, Vandals, Goths, and even some Vikings.
The racialist delegitimizing of Zionism as "Khazar imperialism" is
smack inside the same insane asylum with the "Jesus was a Palestinian"
theory and the claim that all real Jews (from a racial point of view)
converted to Islam after the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th
century and so became Palestinian Arabs.
One can also find countless websites claiming those things.
drahcir
from Tunisia and Morocco), eighty-three Ashkenazim (mostly from Russia
and Poland), and 105 non-Jews from Czechoslovakia, and made
comparisons to non-Jews from Lebanon. They found strong genetic
affinities between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, almost no relationship
with non-Jews from Czechoslovakia, and a very close relationship
between Sephardim and Lebanese non-Jews. They found about 23.4% to
28.6% non-Jewish Y-chromosomes in the Ashkenazim, and concluded that
this represented about one percent or less of admixture per generation
for the centuries the Ashkenazim had lived in Central or Northeastern
Europe (p. 63).
In 2000, Hammer et al compared seven Jewish groups (Ashkenazim, Roman,
North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern [Iran and Iraq], Yemenite, and
Ethiopian) with sixteen non-Jewish groups from similar geographical
locations. They concluded that most Jewish groups were similar to each
other, and had experienced little genetic admixture with non-Jewish
groups. They found a strong genetic similarity between most Jews and
Middle Eastern non-Jews. The Palestinians and Syrian non-Jews were
most closely related, but Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze also
were close. The authors attributed the genetic closeness to ancient
common Middle Eastern origins. They estimated the admixture rate of
Ashkenazim (for all haplotypes) to be 22.7% plus or minus 7.8% over a
period of about eighty generations (p. 6773). Interestingly, Ethiopian
Jews and the Lemba did not match closely with the cluster of Jewish
groups (p. 6774).
In 2001, Nebel et al compared three Jewish and three non-Jewish groups
from the Middle East: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Kurdish Jews from
Israel; Muslim Arabs from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area;
Bedouin from the Negev; and Muslim Kurds. They concluded that
Sephardim and Kurdish Jews were genetically indistinguishable, but
that both were slightly significantly different from Ashkenazim (who
were most closely related to the Muslim Kurds). Nebel et al had
earlier (2000) found a large genetic relationship between Jews and
Palestinians, but in this study found an even higher relationship of
Jews with Iraquis and Kurds. They conclude that the common genetic
background shared by Jews and other Middle Eastern groups predates the
division of Middle Easterners into different ethnic groups (p. 1106).
Interestingly, Nebel et al (2001) also found that the Cohen Modal
Haplotype (CMH), considered the most definitive Jewish haplotype, was
found among 10.1% of Kurdish Jews, 7.6% of Ashkenazim, 6.4% of
Sephardim, 2.1% of Palestianian Arabs, and 1.1% of Muslim Kurds. The
CMH and the most frequent Muslim Kurdish haplotype (MKH) were the same
on five markers (out of six) and very close on the other marker. The
MKH was shared by 9.5% of Muslim Kurds, 2.6% of Sephardim, 2.0% of
Kurdish Jews, 1.4% of Palestinian Arabs, and 1.3% of Ashkenazim. The
general conclusion is that these similarities result mostly from the
sharing of ancient genetic patterns, and not from more recent
admixture between the groups (p. 1099). Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman has
suggested that the CMH is “likely the marker of the Jews’ and Arabs’
shared Patriarch, Abraham” (2004: 20), but much more analysis is
needed on the CMH in populations throughout the world.
In 2004, Behar et al compared data from Ashkenazi groups in ten
different European areas (France, Germany, the Netherlands; Austria-
Hungary, Byelorussia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and
Ukraine ) with data from non-Jewish groups in seven different
countries (France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and
Russia). They found that nine of the Jewish groups were similar, with
low rates of admixture with non-Jewish groups, but that these
Ashkenazi groups were closely related to non-Ashkenazi Jews and to
some non-Jewish Near Eastern groups. Within Europe, these authors
suggested an admixture rate of 5-8% for all the Jewish nationality
groups except Dutch Jews who had an admixture rate of 46.0% plus or
minus 18.3%. This supposedly resulted from a long history of relative
tolerance from non-Jews, with Jewish women marrying non-Jewish men (p.
362).
Researchers frequently have used haplogroups to measure the genetic
distance between various groups in the world, and combined data allows
the comparison of these three Jewish groups–Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and
Kurdish Jews–with sixty-nine non-Jewish Eurasian populations. The
lower the number, the less genetic distance there is between the
groups, i.e., the closer the groups are related genetically. The
lowest number for the Jewish groups (closet relationship) was 18, and
the highest number (least relationship) was 88. It is important to
note that these relative average genetic distances will differ as more
samples are added, as data from different methodological techniques
are evaluated, and as different judgments are made on adjusting
different studies to make them comparable to each other. Genetic
research is a relatively recent, and rapidly evolving, area of
research, and there will be constant refinements and adjustments as
more research is added.
Of all the groups, the Ashkenazim are most closely related, in order,
to Palestinian Arabs (18), Muslim Kurds (21), Cypriots (22), Greeks
(23), Kurdish Jews (25), Bedouin (26), Sephardi Jews (27), Egyptians
(27), Turks (28), and Pakistani Parsi (31). Sephardim are most closely
related to Italians (18), Turks (20), Ossetians, Georgia (20), Kurdish
Jews (22), Muslim Kurds (24), Greeks (24), Armenians (26), Cypriots
(26), Ashkenazi Jews (27), and Pakistani Parsi (28). Kurdish Jews are
most closely related to Sephardi Jews (22) and Muslim Kurds (22),
Pakistani Parsi (23), Ashkenazi Jews (25), Turks (26), Palestinian
Arabs (28), Ossetians (30), Cypriots (31), Greeks (32), and Armenians
(35). On the other hand, for nineteen Central and Eastern European
populations, the Ashkenazim averaged 55.1, the Sephardim averaged
48.2, and the Kurdish Jews averaged 55.5. The Georgia Ossetians
(X=29.7) and the Romanians (X=33.0) were the closest to all three of
the Jewish groups. For thirteen western European populations, the
Ashkenazim averaged 71.6, the Sephardim averaged 47.9, and the Kurdish
Jews averaged 63.0. The Sephardim were most closely related to the
Southern Portuguese (33), Dutch (36) and French (36), and Northern
Portuguese (40). None of these were particularly close, but they were
much closer than they were for Ashkenazim or Kurdish Jews.
The genetic distances shown in the previous paragraph are in general
agreement with the studies reported in this article, showing that all
three Jewish groups are relatively closely related to each other. The
close relationship between Sephardim and Kurdish Jews is possibly at
least partly a result of the significant interaction between the Jews
of Iraq and the Jews of Spain and North Africa, especially from the
eighth to the tenth centuries CE. The three Jewish groups differ in
their rankings with their closest ten groups, but generally the
differences in rankings for the closet ten groups are small and
subject to changes in ranking as more samples are added. All three
Jewish groups are closely related to Kurdish Muslims, the closest
neighbors of the Kurdish Jews. Kurdish Jews were close to Muslim
Kurds, but so were Ashkenazim and Sephardim, suggesting that much if
not most of the genetic similarity between Jewish and Muslim Kurds is
from ancient times. Considering their physical closeness, however, it
is reasonable to believe that there has been some genetic admixture
not picked up because the two groups started with similar genetic
patterns.
*********************Ashkenazim are not closely related to their
Central and Eastern European neighbors or to any group outside the
Middle East or Near East. ***************************
Sephardim are more closely related to their neighbors than are the
Ashkenazim, but the Sephardim still are much more closely related to
the other two Jewish groups, the other Middle Easterners, and the
Mediterraneans than they are to their western European neighbors. The
Jewish community in the Netherlands is the most obvious example of
genetic admixture, a pattern which will be seen more often due to
major increases in intermarriages. The other side of the coin, the
extent to which Jewish genetic patterns have entered non-Jewish
groups, is also a topic which needs much more specific
research.
http://www.cryptojews.com/Comparing_DNA.htm
Get it now, you lying lowlife? I tried to help you with the asterisks,
but of course, you can't even follow a thread in a newsgroup post, so
I can't expect much, can I?
HHW
> Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel.
> His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq,
> Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and
> “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed
> Books). His website iswww.jkcook.net.
>
> A version of this article originally appeared in The National
> (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
>
> Jonathan Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
> Research Articles by Jonathan Cook
Some may be interested further in Jonathan Cook's work:
Welcome to the Jonathan Cook website
My new book is "Disappearing Palestine"
Click here for more information about this and my other books
Archive
I am a British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. This site
includes my articles on the Middle East published in international
newspapers, English-language Arab publications and specialist
magazines since 2001.
Click here for my full Index of Articles
My most recent articles can also be found in
Latest Articles
or search this website
Subscribing to my latest articles
Because of unexpected demand from readers to join my mailing list, I
have been forced to close it to new subscribers. Instead I have made
it possible to subscribe in a different format called RSS, or "Really
Simple Syndication", used by many of the big media websites, including
the New York Times and the BBC. To learn more about RSS and how you
can use it, please click here.
To go straight to my news feed click on the RSS icon above
Newspapers, Websites and Journals
My articles have been published in:
The Guardian, Observer, Times and New Statesman (London)
The International Herald Tribune and Le Monde diplomatique (Paris)
Al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo)
The National (Abu Dhabi)
Al-Jazeera English language website (Doha)
The Daily Star (Beirut)
The Middle East Report and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
(Washington)
Przekroj (Warsaw)
The Irish Times (Dublin)
Electronic Intifada
Counterpunch
Websites with links dedicated to my stories include:
Palestine: Information with Provenance, ZNet, Selves and Others and
Anti-War
Translations of some of my articles can be found on
Rebelion (Spanish)
Tlaxcala (French, Spanish, Italian)
ISM-France (French)
Books
In ‘Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair’,
published by Zed Books in autumn 2008, I examine the enduring themes
of Zionist colonisation of Palestine. I argue that Israel has
developed and refined policies to disperse, imprison and impoverish
the Palestinian people in a relentless effort to destroy them as a
nation. The West Bank and Gaza have been transformed into laboratories
for testing the infrastructure of confinement, creating a lucrative
'defence' industry by pioneering technologies for crowd control,
surveillance, collective punishment and urban warfare. The goal of
these ever more sophisticated systems of curfews, checkpoints, walls,
permits and land grabs is the disappearance of Palestine.
'Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to
Remake the Middle East', published by Pluto Press in January 2008, has
been praised as 'superb' by John Pilger and 'compelling' by veteran
Middle East reporter David Hirst. In it, I argue that Israel's desire
to be the sole regional power in the Middle East has shaped the Bush
Administration's objectives in the 'war on terror'. The book examines
a host of inter-related issues, from the ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians and the Second Lebanon War to the role of Big Oil and the
demonisation of the Arab world. The current chaos in the Middle East,
far from being a disastrous mistake, is the true goal of the neocons
and Israel.
My first book, entitled 'Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the
Jewish and Democratic State', was published by Pluto Press in spring
2006. It concerns Israel's treatment of its Palestinian citizens
during the second intifada, and the real reasons for the policies of
territorial separation evident in the Gaza disengagement and the
building of the West Bank wall. It argues that, threatened by
predictions that the combined Palestinian population inside Israel and
the Occupied Territories will soon outnumber the region's Jews, Israel
decided to create an expanded fortress state, where only Jewish blood
and Jewish religion count
To find out more about my books, click here
Why my reporting is different
I have chosen to position myself in the region in two ways - one
professional, the other geographical - that distinguish me from
colleagues. This approach gives me greater freedom to reflect on the
true nature of the conflict and provides me with fresh insight into
its root causes.
Professionally, I am one of the few journalists regularly writing
about the region who work as an independent freelancer. I choose the
issues I wish to cover, so I am not constrained by the ‘treadmill’ of
the mainstream media, which require an endless flow of instant copy
and analysis. I am also not tied to the mainstream agenda, which gives
disproportionate coverage to the concerns of the powerful, in this
case the Israeli and American positions - in the US media to a degree
that makes much of their Israel/Palestine reporting implausible. I
also rarely accept commissions, restricting myself to topics that I
consider to be the most revealing about the conflict.
Geographically, I am the first foreign correspondent to be based in
the Israeli Arab city of Nazareth, in the Galilee. Most reporters
covering the conflict live in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, with a handful of
specialists based in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The range of
stories readily available to reporters in these locations reinforces
the assumption among editors back home that the conflict can only be
understood in terms of the events that followed the West Bank and
Gaza’s occupation in 1967. This has encouraged the media to give far
too much weight to Israeli concerns about ‘security’ - a catch-all
that offers Israel special dispensation to ignore its duties to the
Palestinians under international law.
Many topics central to the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians,
including the plight of the refugees and the continuing dispossession
of Palestinians living as Israeli citizens, do not register on most
reporters’ radars.
From Nazareth, the capital of the Palestinian minority in Israel,
things look very different. There are striking, and disturbing,
similarities between the experiences of Palestinians inside Israel and
those inside the West Bank and Gaza. All have faced Zionism's appetite
for territory and domination, as well as repeated attempts at ethnic
cleansing. These unifying themes suggest that the conflict is less
about the specific circumstances thrown up by the 1967 war and more
about the central tenets of Zionism as expressed in the war of 1948
that founded Israel and the war of 1967 that breathed new life into
its settler colonial agenda.
Short Biography
Born in Buckinghamshire, England in 1965
Education
BA Honours in Philosophy and Politics from Southampton University in
1987
Postgraduate diploma in Journalism from Cardiff University in 1989
Masters degree in Middle Eastern studies, with distinction, from the
School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, 2000.
Work Experience
Reporter and editor of regional newspapers, 1988-94
Freelance sub-editor with national newspapers, 1994-96
Staff member of The Guardian and Observer newspapers, 1996-2001
Freelance writer, based in Nazareth, Israel, covering the Middle East
since September 2001
Founder of the Nazareth Press Agency in February 2004 (00) 972 54
637 5592
HHW
> On Dec 28, 5:08 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 28 Dec, 20:14, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 28, 12:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense, this guy seems
> > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > below.
>
> > Let's here it then. Uncontroversial is it?
>
> Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
> People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
> " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
> and E.
>
> " Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
> Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
>
> Kevin Allan Brook
>
> If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
> thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
> But of course, you don't.
===========================
Palestine Think Tank
Free Minds for a Free Palestine
Home
Contact
PTT TV
RESISTANCE & STRATEGY
About
Gilad Atzmon - "The Wandering Who?"
By Gilad Atzmon • Sep 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 • Category: Analysis,
Education, Gilad Atzmon, Gilad's Choice, Israel, Newswire, Our
Authors, Palestine, Religion, Zionism
Tel Aviv University historian, Professor Shlomo Sand, opens his
remarkable study of Jewish nationalism quoting Karl W. Deutsch:
A nation is a group of people united by a common mistake regarding its
origin and a collective hostility towards its neighbours” [1]
As simple or even simplistic as it may sound, the quote above
eloquently summarises the figment of reality entangled with modern
Jewish nationalism and especially within the concept of Jewish
identity. It obviously points the finger at the collective mistake
Jews tend to make whenever referring to their ‘illusionary collective
past’ and ‘collective origin’. Yet, in the same breath, Deutsch’s
reading of nationalism throws light upon the hostility that is
unfortunately coupled with almost every Jewish group towards its
surrounding reality, whether it is human or takes the shape of land.
While the brutality of the Israelis towards the Palestinians has
already become rather common knowledge, the rough treatment Israelis
reserve for their ‘promised soil’ and landscape is just starting to
reveal itself. The ecological disaster the Israelis are going to leave
behind them will be the cause of suffering for many generations to
come. Leave aside the megalomaniac wall that shreds the Holy land into
enclaves of depravation and starvation, Israel has managed to pollute
its main rivers and streams with nuclear and chemical waste.
“When And How the Jewish People Was Invented” is a very serious study
written by Professor Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian. It is the most
serious study of Jewish nationalism and by far, the most courageous
elaboration on the Jewish historical narrative.
In his book, Sand manages to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that
the Jewish people never existed as a 'nation-race', they never shared
a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at
various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion.
In case you follow Sand’s line of thinking and happen to ask yourself,
“when was the Jewish People invented?” Sand’s answer is rather simple.
“At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish
origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German
nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people
‘retrospectively,’ out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish
people.” [2]
Accordingly, the ‘Jewish people’ is a ‘made up’ notion consisting of a
fictional and imaginary past with very little to back it up
forensically, historically or textually. Furthermore, Sand - who
elaborated on early sources of antiquity - comes to the conclusion
that Jewish exile is also a myth, and that the present-day
Palestinians are far more likely to be the descendants of the ancient
Semitic people in Judea/Canaan than the current predominantly
Khazarian-origin Ashkenazi crowd to which he himself admittedly
belongs.Khalid Amayreh and many others regard as the “Nazis of our
time”.Astonishingly enough, in spite of the fact that Sand manages to
dismantle the notion of ‘Jewish people’, crush the notion of ‘Jewish
collective past’ and ridicule the Jewish chauvinist national impetus,
his book is a best seller in Israel. This fact alone may suggest that
those who call themselves ‘people of the book’ are now starting to
learn about the misleading and devastating philosophies and ideologies
that made them into what Khalid Amayreh and many others regard as the
“Nazis of our time”.
Hitler Won After All
Rather often when asking a ‘secular’ ‘cosmopolitan’ Jew what it is
that makes him into a Jew, a shallow overwhelmingly chewed answer
would be thrown back at you: “It is Hitler who made me into a Jew”.
Though the ‘cosmopolitan’ Jew, being an internationalist, would
dismiss other people’s national inclinations, he insists upon
maintaining his own right to ‘self determination’. However, it is not
really he himself who stands at the core of this unique demand for
national orientation, it is actually the devil, master-monster anti-
Semite, namely Hitler. Apparently, the cosmopolitan Jew celebrates his
nationalist entitlement as long as Hitler is there to be blamed.
As far as the secular cosmopolitan Jew is concerned, Hitler won after
all. Sand manages to enhance this paradox. Insightfully he suggests
that “while in the 19th century referring to Jews as an ‘alien racial
identity’ would mark one as an anti-Semite, in the Jewish State this
very philosophy is embedded mentally and intellectually” [3]. In
Israel Jews celebrate their differentiation and unique conditions.
Furthermore, says Sand, “There were times in Europe when one would be
labelled as an anti-Semite for claiming that all Jews belong to a
nation of an alien type. Nowadays, claiming that Jews have never been
and still aren’t people or a nation, would tag one as a Jew hater”.
[4] It is indeed pretty puzzling that the only people who managed to
maintain and sustain a racially orientated, expansionist and genocidal
national identity that is not at all different from Nazi ethnic
ideology are the Jews who were, amongst others, the leading targeted
victims of the Nazi ideology and practice.
Nationalism In General and Jewish Nationalism In Particular
Louis-Ferdinand Celine mentioned that in the time of the Middle Ages
in the moments between major wars, knights would charge a very high
price for their readiness to die in the name of their kingdoms, in the
20th century youngsters have rushed to die en masse without demanding
a thing in return. In order to understand this mass consciousness
shift we need an eloquent methodical model that would allow us to
understand what nationalism is all about.
Like Karl Deutsch, Sand regards nationality as a phantasmic narrative.
It is an established fact that anthropological and historical studies
of the origins of different so-called ‘people’ and ‘nations’ lead
towards the embarrassing crumbling of every ethnicity and ethnic
identity. Hence, it is rather interesting to find out that Jews tend
to take their own ethnic myth very seriously. The explanation may be
simple, as Benjamin Beit Halachmi spotted years ago. Zionism was there
to transform the Bible from a spiritual text into a ‘land registry’.
For that matter, the truth of the Bible or any other element of Jewish
historical narrative has very little relevance as long as it doesn’t
interfere with the Jewish national political cause or practice.
One could also surmise that the lack of clear ethnic origin doesn’t
stop people from feeling an ethnic or national belonging. The fact
that Jews are far from being what one can label as a People and that
the Bible has very little historical truth in it, doesn’t really stop
generations of Israelis and Jews from identifying themselves with King
David or Terminator Samson. Evidently, the lack of an unambiguous
ethnic origin doesn’t stop people from seeing themselves as part of a
people. Similarly, it wouldn’t stop the nationalist Jew from feeling
that he belongs to some greater abstract collective.
In the 1970’s, Shlomo Artzi, then a young Israeli singer who was bound
to become Israel’s all-time greatest rock star, released a song that
had become a smash hit in a matter of hours. Here are the first few
lines:
All of a sudden
A man wakes up
In the morning
He feels he is people
And he starts to walk
And to everyone he comes across
He says shalom
To a certain extent Artzi innocently expresses in his lyrics the
suddenness and almost contingency involved in the transformation of
the Jews into people. However, almost within the same breath, Artzi
contributes towards the illusionary national myth of the peace-seeking
nation. Artzi should have known by then that Jewish nationalism was a
colonialist act at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian people.
Seemingly, nationalism, national belonging and Jewish nationalism in
particular create a major intellectual task. Interestingly enough, the
first to deal theoretically and methodically with issues having to do
with nationalism were Marxist ideologists. Though Marx himself failed
to address the issue adequately, early 20th century uprising of
nationalist demands in eastern and central Europe caught Lenin and
Stalin unprepared.
“Marxists’ contribution to the study of nationalism can be seen as the
focus on the deep correlation between the rise of free economy and the
evolvement of the national state.” [5] In fact, Stalin was there to
summarise the Marxist take on the subject. “The nation,” says Stalin,
“is a solid collaboration between beings that was created historically
and formed following four significant phenomena: the sharing of
tongue, the sharing of territory, the sharing of economy and the
sharing of psychic significance…” [6]
As one would expect, the Marxist materialist attempt to understand
nationalism is lacking an adequate historical overview. Instead it
would be reliant upon a class struggle. For some obvious reasons such
a vision was popular amongst those who believe in ‘socialism of one
nation’ amongst them we can consider the proponents of a leftist
branch of Zionism.
For Sand, nationalism evolved due to the “ rapture created by
modernity which split people from their immediate past” [7]. The
mobility created by urbanisation and industrialisation crushed the
social hierarchic system as well as the continuum between past,
present and future. Sand points out that before industrialisation, the
feudal peasant didn’t necessarily feel the need for an historical
narrative of empires and kingdoms. The feudal subject didn’t need an
extensive abstract historical narrative of large collectives that had
very little relevance to the immediate concrete existential need.
“Without a perception of social progression, they did well with an
imaginary religious tale that contained a mosaic of memory that lacked
a real dimension of a forward moving time. The ‘end’ was the beginning
and eternity bridged between life and death.” [8]In the modern secular
and urban world, ‘time’ had become the main life vessel which
illustrated an imaginary symbolic meaning. Collective historical time
had become the elementary ingredient of the personal and the
intimate. The collective narrative shapes the personal meaning and
what seems to be the ‘real’. As much as some banal minds still insist
that the ‘personal is political’, it would be far more intelligible to
argue that in practice, it is actually the other way around. Within
the post-modern condition, the political is personal and the subject
is spoken rather than speaking itself. Authenticity, for the matter,
is a myth that reproduces itself in the form of symbolic identifier.
Sand’s reading of nationalism as a product of industrialisation,
urbanisation and secularism, makes a lot of sense when bearing in mind
Uri Slezkin’s suggestion that Jews are the ‘apostles of modernity’,
secularism and urbanisation. If Jews happened to find themselves at
the hub of urbanisation and secularisation it shouldn’t then take us
by surprise that the Zionists were rather creative as much as others
in inventing their own phantasmic collective imaginary tale. However,
while insisting on their right to be ‘like other people’ Zionists have
managed to transform their imagined collective past into a global,
expansionist, merciless agenda as well as the biggest threat to world
peace.
There Is No Jewish History
It is an established fact that not a single Jewish history text had
been written between the 1st century and early 19th century. The fact
that Judaism is based on a religious historical myth may have
something to do with it. An adequate scrutiny of the Jewish past was
never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the
reasons is probably the lack of a need of such a methodical effort.
For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there
was enough in the Bible to answer most relevant questions having to do
with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Shlomo Sand puts it,
“a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that
was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah".
However, in the light of German secularisation, urbanisation and
emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical
leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the
awakening Jewish intellectuals. The emancipated Jew wondered who he
was, where he come from. He also started to speculate what his role
might be within the rapidly opening European society.
In 1820 the German Jewish historian Isaak Markus Jost (1793-1860)
published the first serious historical work on Jews, namely “The
History of the Israelites”. Jost avoided the Biblical time, he
preferred to start his journey with the Judea Kingdom, he also
compiled an historical narrative of different Jewish communities
around the world. Jost realised that the Jews of his time did not form
an ethnic continuum. He grasped that Israelites from place to place
were rather different. Hence, he thought there was nothing in the
world that should stop Jews from total assimilation. Jost believed
that within the spirit of enlightenment, both the Germans and the Jews
would turn their back to the oppressive religious institution and
would form a healthy nation based on a growing geographically
orientated sense of belonging.
Though Jost was aware of the evolvement of European nationalism, his
Jewish followers were rather unhappy with his liberal optimistic
reading of the Jewish future. “
From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the
history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a
‘kingdom’, expelled into ‘exile’, became a wandering people and
ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace.” [9]
For the late Moses Hess, it was a racial struggle rather than a class
struggle that would define the shape of Europe. Accordingly, suggests
Hess, Jews better return and reflect on their cultural heritage and
ethnic origin. For Hess, the conflict between Jews and Gentiles was
the product of racial differentiation, hence, unavoidable.
The ideological path from Hess’s pseudo scientific racist orientation
to Zionist historicism is rather obvious. If Jews are indeed an alien
racial entity (as Hess, Jabotinsky and others believed), they better
look for their natural homeland, and this homeland is no other than
Eretz Yizrael. Cleary, Hess’s assumption regarding a racial continuum
wasn’t scientifically approved. In order to maintain the emerging
phantasmic narrative, an orchestrated denial mechanism had to be
erected just to make sure that some embarrassing facts wouldn’t
interfere with the emerging national creation.
Sand suggests that the denial mechanism was rather orchestrated and
very well thought out. The Hebrew University decision in the 1930’s to
split Jewish History and General History into two distinct departments
was far more than just a matter of convenience. The logos behind the
split is a glimpse into Jewish self-realisation. In the eyes of Jewish
academics, the Jewish condition and Jewish psyche were unique and
should be studied separately. Apparently, even within Jewish academia,
a supreme status is reserved for the Jews, their history and their
self-perception. As Sand insightfully unveils, within the Jewish
Studies departments the researcher is scattering between the
mythological and the scientific while the myth maintains its primacy.
Yet, it often gets into a stalling dilemma by the ‘small devious
facts’.
The New Israelite, the Bible and Archaeology
In Palestine, the new Jews and later the Israelis were determined to
recruit the Old Testament and to transform it into the amalgamate code
of the future Jew. The ‘nationalisation’ of the Bible was there to
plant in young Jews the idea that they are the direct followers of
their great ancient ancestors. Bearing in mind the fact that
nationalisation was largely a secular movement, the Bible was stripped
of its spiritual and religious meaning. Instead, it was viewed as an
historical text describing a real chain of events in the past. The
Jews who had now managed to kill their God learned to believe in
themselves. Massada, Samson and Bar Kochva became suicidal master
narratives. In the light of their heroic ancestors, Jews learned to
love themselves as much as they hate others, except that this time
they possessed the military might to inflict real pain on their
neighbours. More concerning was the fact that instead of a
supernatural entity - namely God - who command them to invade the land
and execute a genocide and to rob their ‘promised land’ of its
indigenous habitants, within their national revival project it was
them as themselves, Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weitzman, Ben Gurion, Sharon,
Peres, Barak who decided to expel, destroy and kill. Instead of God,
it was then the Jews killing in the name of Jewish people. They did it
while Jewish symbols decorate their planes and tanks. They followed
commands that where given in the newly restored language of their
ancestors.
Surprisingly enough, Sand who is no doubt a striking scholar, fails to
mention that the Zionist hijacking of the Bible was in fact a
desperate Jewish answer to German Early Romanticism. However, as much
as German philosophers, poets, architects and artists were
ideologically and aesthetically excited about pre-Socratic Greece,
they knew very well that they were not exactly Hellenism’s sons and
daughters. The nationalist Jew took it one step further, he bound
oneself into a phantasmic blood chain with his mythical ancestors, not
before long he restored their ancient language. Rather than a sacred
tongue, Hebrew had become a spoken language. German Early Romanticist
never went that far.
German intellectuals during the 19th century were also fully aware of
the distinction between Athens and Jerusalem. For them, Athens stood
for universal, the epic chapter of humanity and humanism. Jerusalem
was, on the contrary, the grand chapter of tribal barbarism.
Jerusalem was a representation of the banal, non-universal,
monotheistic merciless God, the one who kills the elder and the
infant. The Germanic Early Romantic era left us with Hegel, Nietzsche,
Fichte and Heidegger and a just a few Jewish self-haters, leading
amongst them, Otto Weininger. The Jerusalemite left us with not a
single master ideological thinker. Some German Jewish second-rate
scholars tried to preach Jerusalem in the Germanic exedra, amongst
them were Herman Cohen, Franz Rosenzveig and Ernst Bloch. They
obviously failed to notice that it was the traces of Jerusalem in
Christianity, which German Early Romanticists despised.
In their effort to resurrect ‘Jerusalem’, archaeology was recruited to
provide the Zionist epos with its necessary ‘scientific’ ground.
Archaeology was there to unify the Biblical time with the moment of
revival. Probably the most astonishing moment of this bizarre trend
was the 1982 ‘military burial ceremony’ of the bones of Shimon Bar
Kochva, a Jew rebel who died 2000 years earlier. Executed by the chief
military Rabbi, a televised military burial was given to some sporadic
bones found in a cave near the Dead Sea. In practice suspected remains
of a 1st century Jew rebel was treated as an IDF casualty. Clearly,
archaeology had a national role, it was recruited to cement the past
and the present while leaving the Galut out.
Astonishingly enough, it didn’t take long before things turned the
other way around. As archaeological research become more and more
independent of the Zionist dogma, the embarrassing truth filtered out.
It would be impossible to ground the truthfulness of the Biblical tale
on forensic facts. If anything, archaeology refutes the historicity of
the Biblical plot. Excavation revealed the embarrassing fact. The
Bible is a collection of innovative fictitious literature.
As Sand points out, the Early Biblical story is soaked with
Philistines, Aramaeans and camels. Embarrassingly enough, as far as
excavations are there to enlighten us, Philistine didn’t appear in the
region before the 12th century BC, the Aramaeans appears a century
later and camels didn’t show their cheerful faces before the 8th
century. These scientific facts lead Zionist researchers into some
severe confusion. However, for non-Jewish scholars such as Thomas
Thompson, it was rather clear that the Biblical is a “late collection
of innovative literature written by a gifted theologian.” [10] The
Bible appears to be an ideological text that was there to serve a
social and political cause.Embarrassingly enough, not much was found
in Sinai to prove the story of the legendary Egyptian Exodus,
seemingly 3 million Hebraic men, women and children were marching in
the desert for 40 years without leaving a thing behind. Not even a
single matzo ball, very non-Jewish one may say.
The story of the Biblical resettlement and the genocide of the
Canaanite which the contemporary Israelite imitates to such success is
another myth. Jericho, the guarded city that was flattened to the
sounds of horns and almighty supernatural intervention was just a tiny
village during the 13th century BC.
As much as Israel regards itself as the resurrection of the monumental
Kingdom of David and Salomon, excavation that took place in the Old
City of Jerusalem in the 1970’s revealed that David’s kingdom was no
more than a tiny tribal setting. Evidence that was referred by Yigal
Yadin to King Solomon had been refuted later by forensic tests made
with Carbon 14. The discomforting fact has been scientifically
established. The Bible is a fictional tale, and not much there can
ground any glorifying existence of Hebraic people in Palestine at any
stage.
Who invented the Jews?
Quite early on in his text, Sand raises the crucial and probably the
most relevant questions. Who are the Jews? Where did they come from?
How is it that in different historical periods they appear in some
very different and remote places?
Though most contemporary Jews are utterly convinced that their
ancestors are the Biblical Israelites who happened to be exiled
brutally by the Romans, truth must be said. Contemporary Jews have
nothing to do with ancient Israelites, who have never been sent to
exile because such an expulsion has never taken place. The Roman Exile
is just another Jewish myth.
“I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land”
says Sand in an Haaretz interview [11], “but to my astonishment I
discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled
the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they
could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have
trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics
did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole
book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not
dispersed and was not exiled.”
Indeed, in the light of Sand’s simple insight, the idea of Jewish
exile is amusing. The thought of Roman Imperial navy was working 24/7
schlepping Moishe’le and Yanka’le to Cordova and Toledo may help Jews
to feel important as well as schleppable, but common sense would
suggest that the Roman armada had far more important things to do.
However, far more interesting is the logical outcome: If the people of
Israel were not expelled, then the real descendants of the inhabitants
of the Kingdom of Judah must be the Palestinians.
“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years” says
Sand. [12] “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.’”
In his book Sand takes it further and suggests that until the First
Arab Uprising (1929) the so-called leftist Zionist leaders tended to
believe that the Palestinian peasants who are actually ‘Jews by
origin’ would assimilate within the emerging Hebraic culture and would
eventually join the Zionist movement. Ber Borochov believed that “a
falach (Palestinian Peasant), dresses as a Jew, and behaves as a
working class Jew, won’t be at all different from the Jew”. This very
idea reappeared in Ben Gurion’s and Ben-Zvi’s text in 1918. Both
Zionist leaders realised that Palestinian culture was soaked with
Biblical traces, linguistically, as well as geographically (names of
villages, towns, rivers and mountains). Both Ben Gurion and Ben-Zvi
regarded, at least at that early stage, the indigenous Palestinians as
ethnic relatives who were holding close to the land and potential
brothers. They as well regarded Islam as a friendly ‘democratic
religion’. Clearly, after 1936 both Ben-Zvi and Ben Gurion toned down
their ‘multicultural’ enthusiasm. As far as Ben Gurion is concerned,
ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians seemed to be far more appealing.
One may wonder, if the Palestinians are the real Jews, who are those
who insist upon calling themselves Jews?
Sand’s answer is rather simple, yet it makes a lot of sense. “The
people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a
converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism
there was a great thirst to convert others.” [13]
Clearly, monotheist religions, being less tolerant than polytheist
ones have within them an expanding impetus. Judaic expansionism in its
early days was not just similar to Christianity but it was Judaic
expansionism that planted the ‘spreading out’ seeds in early Christian
thought and practice.
“The Hasmoneans,” says Sand, [14] “were the first to begin to produce
large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of
Hellenism. It was this tradition of conversions that prepared the
ground for the subsequent, widespread dissemination of Christianity.
After the victory of Christianity in the 4th century, the momentum of
conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep
drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared
around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started
to permeate other regions - pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen
and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage
and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we
would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at
all.”
The Jews of Spain, whom we believed to be blood related to the Early
Israelites seem to be converted Berbers. “I asked myself,” says Sand,
“how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw
that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who
conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers.
Dahia al-Kahina’s Jewish Berber Kingdom had been defeated only 15
years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian
sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts.
The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was
those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism.”
As one would expect, Sand approves the largely accepted assumption
that the Judaicised Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish
communities in Eastern Europe, which he calls the Yiddish Nation. When
asked how come they happen to speak Yiddish, which is largely regarded
as a German medieval dialect, he answers, “the Jews were a class of
people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the east, and thus they
adopted German words.”
In his book Sand manages to produce a detailed account of the
Khazarian saga in Jewish history. He explains what lead the Khazarian
kingdom towards conversion. Bearing in mind that Jewish nationalism
is, for the most part, lead by a Khazarian elite, we may have to
expand our intimate knowledge of this very unique yet influential
political group. The translation of Sand’s work into foreign
languages is an immediate must. (It is forthcoming in French, as
reported in Are the Jews an invented people?, by Eric Rouleau).
What Next?
Professor Sand leaves us with the inevitable conclusion. Contemporary
Jews do not have a common origin and their Semitic origin is a myth.
Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever and therefore, their act
of so-called ‘return’ to their ‘promised land’ must be realised as an
invasion executed by a tribal-ideological clan.
However, though Jews do not constitute any racial continuum, they for
some reason happen to be racially orientated. As we may notice, many
Jews still see mixed marriage as the ultimate threat. Furthermore, in
spite of modernisation and secularisation, the vast majority of those
who identify as secular Jews still succumb to blood ritual
(circumcision) a unique religious procedure which involves no less
than blood sucking by a Mohel.
As far as Sand is concerned, Israel should become “a state of its
citizens”. Like Sand, I myself believe in the same futuristic utopian
vision. However, unlike Sand, I do grasp that the Jewish state and its
supportive lobbies must be ideologically defeated. Brotherhood and
reconciliation are foreign to Jewish tribal worldview and have no room
within the concept of Jewish national revival. As dramatic as it may
sound, a process of de-judaification must take place before Israelis
can adopt any universal modern notion of civil life.
Sand is no doubt a major intellectual, probably the most advanced
leftist Israeli thinker. He represents the highest form of thought a
secular Israeli can achieve before flipping over or even defecting to
the Palestinian side (something that happened to just a few, me
included). Haaretz interviewer Ofri Ilani said about Sand that unlike
other ‘new historians’ who have tried to undermine the assumptions of
Zionist historiography, “Sand does not content himself with going back
to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back
thousands of years.” This is indeed the case, unlike the ‘new
historians’ who ‘unveil’ a truth that is known to every Palestinian
toddler i.e., the truth of being ethnically cleansed, Sand erects a
body of work and thought that is aiming at the understanding of the
meaning of Jewish nationalism and Jewish identity. This is indeed the
true essence of scholarship. Rather than collecting some sporadic
historical fragments, Sand searches for the meaning of history. Rather
than a ‘new historian’ who searches for a new fragment, he is a real
historian motivated by a humanist task. Most crucially, unlike some of
the Jewish historians who happen to contribute to the so-called left
discourse, Sand’s credibility and success is grounded on his argument
rather than his family background. He avoids peppering his argument
with his holocaust survivor relatives. Reading Sand’s ferocious
argument, one may have to admit that Zionism in all its faults has
managed to erect within itself a proud and autonomous dissident
discourse that is far more eloquent and brutal than the entire anti-
Zionist movement around the world.
If Sand is correct, and I myself am convinced by the strength of his
argument, then Jews are not a race but rather a collective of very
many people who are largely hijacked by a late phantasmic national
movement. If Jews are not a race, do not form a racial continuum and
have nothing to do with Semitism, then ‘anti-Semitism’ is,
categorically, an empty signifier. It obviously refers to a signifier
that doesn’t exist. In other words, our criticism of Jewish
nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as
a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.
Once again I may say it, we are not and never been against Jews (the
people) nor we are against Judaism (the religion). Yet, we are
against a collective philosophy with some clear global interests. Some
would like to call it Zionism but I prefer not to. Zionism is a vague
signifier that is far too narrow to capture the complexity of Jewish
nationalism, its brutality, ideology and practice. Jewish nationalism
is a spirit and spirit doesn’t have clear boundaries. In fact, none of
us know exactly where Jewishness stops and where Zionism starts as
much as we do not know where Israeli interests stop and where the
Neocon’s interests start.
As far as the Palestinian cause is concerned, the message is rather
devastating. Our Palestinian brothers and sisters are at the forefront
of a struggle against a very devastating philosophy. Yet, it is
clearly not just the Israelis whom they fight with rather a fierce
pragmatic philosophy that initiates global conflicts on some gigantic
scale. It is a tribal practice that seeks influence within corridors
of power and super powers in particular. The American Jewish Committee
is pushing for a war against Iran. Just to be on the safe side David
Abrahams, a ‘Labour Friend of Israel’ donates money to the Labour
Party by proxy. More or less at the same time two million Iraqis die
in an illegal war designed by one called Wolfowitz. While all the
above is taking place, millions of Palestinians are starved in
concentration camps and Gaza is on the brink of a humanitarian crisis.
As it all happens, ‘anti-Zionist’ Jews and Jews in the left (Chomsky
included) insist upon dismantling the eloquent criticism of AIPAC,
Jewish lobbying and Jewish power posed by Mearsheimer and Walt. [15]
Is it just Israel? Is it really Zionism? Or shall we admit that it is
something far greater than we are entitled even to contemplate within
the intellectual boundaries we imposed upon ourselves? As things
stand, we lack the intellectual courage to confront the Jewish
national project and its many messengers around the world. However,
since it is all a matter of consciousness-shift, things are going to
change soon. In fact, this very text is there to prove that they are
changing already.
To stand by the Palestinians is to save the world, but in order to do
so we have to be courageous enough to stand up and admit that it is
not merely a political battle. It is not just Israel, its army or its
leadership, it isn’t even Dershowitz, Foxman and their silencing
leagues. It is actually a war against a cancerous spirit that
hijacked the West and, at least momentarily, diverted it from its
humanist inclination and Athenian aspirations. To fight a spirit is
far more difficult than fighting people, just because one may have to
first fight its traces within oneself. If we want to fight Jerusalem,
we may have to first confront Jerusalem within. We may have to stand
in front of the mirror, look around us. We may have to trace for
empathy in ourselves in case there is anything left.
[1] When And How The Jewish People Was Invented? Shlomo Sand, Resling
2008, pg 11
[2] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
[3] When And How The Jewish People Was Invented? Shlomo Sand, Resling
2008, pg 31
[4] Ibid pg 31
[5] Ibid pg 42
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid pg 62
[8] Ibid
[9] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
[10] When And How The Jewish People Was Invented? Shlomo Sand, Resling
2008, pg 117
[11] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid
[15] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
HHW
> On Dec 28, 5:08 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 28 Dec, 20:14, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 28, 12:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense, this guy seems
> > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > below.
>
> > Let's here it then. Uncontroversial is it?
>
> Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
> People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
> " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
> and E.
>
> " Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
> Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
>
> Kevin Allan Brook
>
> If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
> thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
> But of course, you don't.
==========================
Last update - 16:53 01/03/2008
An invention called 'the Jewish people'
By Tom Segev
Tags: Israel
Israel's Declaration of Independence states that the Jewish people
arose in the Land of Israel and was exiled from its homeland. Every
Israeli schoolchild is taught that this happened during the period of
Roman rule, in 70 CE. The nation remained loyal to its land, to which
it began to return after two millennia of exile. Wrong, says the
historian Shlomo Zand, in one of the most fascinating and challenging
books published here in a long time. There never was a Jewish people,
only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened - hence
there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-
identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and,
most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua. It's
all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of
the State of Israel, he asserts.
According to Zand, the Romans did not generally exile whole nations,
and most of the Jews were permitted to remain in the country. The
number of those exiled was at most tens of thousands. When the country
was conquered by the Arabs, many of the Jews converted to Islam and
were assimilated among the conquerors. It follows that the progenitors
of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews. Zand did not invent this thesis;
30 years before the Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by
David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and others.
If the majority of the Jews were not exiled, how is it that so many of
them reached almost every country on earth? Zand says they emigrated
of their own volition or, if they were among those exiled to Babylon,
remained there because they chose to. Contrary to conventional belief,
the Jewish religion tried to induce members of other faiths to become
Jews, which explains how there came to be millions of Jews in the
world. As the Book of Esther, for example, notes, "And many of the
people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon
them."
Advertisement
Zand quotes from many existing studies, some of which were written in
Israel but shunted out of the central discourse. He also describes at
length the Jewish kingdom of Himyar in the southern Arabian Peninsula
and the Jewish Berbers in North Africa. The community of Jews in Spain
sprang from Arabs who became Jews and arrived with the forces that
captured Spain from the Christians, and from European-born individuals
who had also become Jews.
The first Jews of Ashkenaz (Germany) did not come from the Land of
Israel and did not reach Eastern Europe from Germany, but became Jews
in the Khazar Kingdom in the Caucasus. Zand explains the origins of
Yiddish culture: it was not a Jewish import from Germany, but the
result of the connection between the offspring of the Kuzari and
Germans who traveled to the East, some of them as merchants.
We find, then, that the members of a variety of peoples and races,
blond and black, brown and yellow, became Jews in large numbers.
According to Zand, the Zionist need to devise for them a shared
ethnicity and historical continuity produced a long series of
inventions and fictions, along with an invocation of racist theses.
Some were concocted in the minds of those who conceived the Zionist
movement, while others were offered as the findings of genetic studies
conducted in Israel.
Prof. Zand teaches at Tel Aviv University. His book, "When and How Was
the Jewish People Invented?" (published by Resling in Hebrew), is
intended to promote the idea that Israel should be a "state of all its
citizens" - Jews, Arabs and others - in contrast to its declared
identity as a "Jewish and democratic" state. Personal stories, a
prolonged theoretical discussion and abundant sarcastic quips do not
help the book, but its historical chapters are well-written and cite
numerous facts and insights that many Israelis will be astonished to
read for the first time.
The mosquito from Kiryat Yam
On March 27, 1948, a meeting was held in Hiafa concerning the fate of
the Bedouin of Arab al-Ghawarina in the Haifa area. "They must be
removed from there, so that they, too, will not add to our troubles,"
Yosef Weitz, of the Keren Kayemeth (Jewish National Fund), wrote in
his personal diary. Two months later, Weitz reported to the
organization's director, "Our Haifa Bay has been evacuated completely
and there is hardly a remnant of those who encroached our border."
They were probably expelled to Jordan; some were allowed to remain in
the village of Jisr al-Zarqa. The fate of the Arab al-Ghawarina
Bedouin has recently made the headlines thanks to Shmuel Sisso, mayor
of the Haifa suburb of Kiryat Yam. He has filed a complaint with the
police against Google. The reason is the addition that one of the
site's surfers, a resident of Nablus, attached to the center of Kiryat
Yam in the world satellite photo, stating that the city is built on
the ruins of a village that was destroyed in 1948, Arab al-Ghawarina.
Sisso's complaint says that this is slanderous.
The facts are as follows: The lands of the Zevulun Valley were
purchased in the 1920s by the JNF and by various construction
companies, among them one called Gav Yam. The Zionist Archives have
the plan for the establishment of Kiryat Yam, dated 1938, and a letter
from 1945 states that there were already 100 homes there. Government
maps from the British Mandate period identify the territory on which
Kiryat Yam was built by two names: Zevulun Valley and Ghawarina. Thus
it appears that this was not a settlement but an area in which Bedouin
resided.
The Web site of the Israeli organization Zochrot (Remembering) states
that there were 720 people at the site in 1948 and that the area was
divided among three kibbutzim: Ein Hamifratz, Kfar Masaryk and Ein
Hayam, today Ein Carmel.
This story has been making the rounds on the Internet and drawing
responses, which can be summed up as follows: "If Sisso is suing
Google because they stated that he is living on a destroyed Arab
village, the implication is that he thinks this is something bad."
Sisso, a lawyer of 57 who is identified with Likud and was formerly
Israeli consul general in New York, says, "I don't think there is
anything bad about it, but other people might think it is bad,
especially people abroad, and that is liable to hurt Kiryat Yam,
because people will not want to invest here. Since we are not sitting
on a Palestinian village, why should we have to suffer for no
reason?"
Moroccan-born, Sisso arrived in Israel in 1955. "I wandered around the
whole region and I saw no trace of anyone's having been here before us
and supposedly expelled." He asked an American law professor how, if
at all, Google could be sued for slander or for damages. This, he
says, is the contribution of Kiryat Yam to the struggle against the
right of return (of the Palestinian refugees).
It could turn out to be the most riveting trial since Ariel Sharon
sued Time magazine, but mayor Sisso has no illusions: "Me against
Google is like a mosquito against an elephant," he said this week.
Who America belongs to
Two professors, Gabi Shefer and Avi Ben-Zvi, were guests this week on
Yitzhak Noy's "International Hour" current events program on Israel
Radio. The anchor, sounding slightly concerned, asked whether the
achievements of Barack Obama show that the United States no longer
belongs to the white man. Prof. Shefer confirmed this: Obama is an
immigrant, he said. Prof. Ben-Zvi asked to add a remark: Gabi Shefer
is right, he said. They are both wrong. If Obama were an immigrant, he
would not be eligible to be elected president. He was born in
Honolulu, some two years after Hawaii became the 50th state of the
union.
john...@gmail.com
> > Let's here it then. Uncontroversial is it?
>
> Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
> People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
I must admit I do have a little bit of a bias against implausible old
myths. But I am open minded. You know perfectly well I am not
disputing DNA only your assertion of what is supposed to have been
proved.
> " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
> and E.
>
> " Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
> Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
>
> Kevin Allan Brook
> The Jews of Khazariahttp://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
>
> If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
> thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
> But of course, you don't.
Why of course? I'm out for the truth, unlike you who just want
evidence for all your ancestral bullshit. I searched just as you said
and this came up
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries
A collection of abstracts and reviews of books, articles, and genetic
studies
This section is the most comprehensive summary of Jewish genetic data.
In recent years, advances in genetic technology and the broadening in
scope of genetic studies to encompass more ethnic groups have allowed
scientists to come to more accurate conclusions. Nevertheless, not all
questions have been answered fully, and followup studies are
necessary. At the present time, it is known that Eastern European Jews
have a significant Eastern Mediterranean element which manifests
itself in a close relationship with Kurdish, Armenian, Palestinian
Arab, Lebanese, Syrian, and Anatolian Turkish peoples. This is why the
Y-DNA haplogroups J and E, which are typical of the Middle East, are
so common among them. At the same time, there are traces of European
(including Western Slavic) and Khazar ancestry among European Jews.
Ethiopian Jews mostly descend from Ethiopian Africans who converted to
Judaism, but may also be related to a lesser extent to Yemenite Jews.
Yemenite Jews descend from Arabs and Israelites. North African Jewish
and Kurdish Jewish paternal lineages come from Israelites. Additional
research is necessary, and it will certainly take several more years
to sort it all out. What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA
tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into
account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to
neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally. All existing studies fail to
compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA and
medieval Khazarian DNA, but in the absence of old DNA, comparisons
with living populations appear to be adequate to trace geographic
roots.
try it yourself
drahcir
so, state it concisely. If not, stop wasting bandwidth.
drahcir
show is precisely, if not, please stop wasting bandwidth.
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 02:54, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let's here it then. Uncontroversial is it?
>
> > Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
> > People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> > when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> > something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> > have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
> I must admit I do have a little bit of a bias against implausible old
> myths.
Precisely what in your opinion is an "implausible old myth"? Be
specific.
But I am open minded. You know perfectly well I am not
> disputing DNA only your assertion of what is supposed to have been
> proved.
>
>
>
> > " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> > Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> > Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> > (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> > is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
> > and E.
>
> > " Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> > such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
> > Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
>
> > Kevin Allan Brook
> > The Jews of Khazariahttp://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
>
> > If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
> > thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
> > But of course, you don't.
>
> Why of course? I'm out for the truth, unlike you who just want
> evidence for all your ancestral bullshit. I searched just as you said
> and this came uphttp://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
Please answer two questions honestly. First, are you aware that your
below quote confirms "all of my ancestral bullshit", i.e. the middle
east origin of ashkenazim? Second, are you aware that your below quote
comes from the exact same website as mine above?
> http://www.google.com/search?q=DNA+ashkenazi+jewish+israelite&sourcei...
drahcir
Descendants of pagans
movement expressed reservations regarding this myth or denied it
completely.
Sand's references to "authorized" historians are absurd, and
perpetuate a superficial pattern of discussion that is characteristic
of a certain group within Israeli academe. The guiding principle in
this pattern of discussion is as follows: "Tell me what your position
is on the past and I will tell you the nature of your connection with
the agencies of the regime."
The kind of political intervention Sand is talking about, namely, a
john...@gmail.com
>
> Please answer two questions honestly. First, are you aware that your
> below quote confirms "all of my ancestral bullshit", i.e. the middle
> east origin of ashkenazim?
"What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA
tends to come from the Middle East,"
That all you claiming?
You wrote:-
" As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense,
when was that?
You thinkiing of this?
> this guy seems
wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
below. "
I suspect 'your ancestral bullshit' includes the historicity of much
of the Old Testament, including Moses, the Temple of Solomon, King
David, the exile... etc etc
> Second, are you aware that your below quote
> comes from the exact same website as mine above?
>
Didn't actually check, but I suspected it might well do.
john...@gmail.com
> On 29 Dec, 12:57, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Please answer two questions honestly. First, are you aware that your
> > below quote confirms "all of my ancestral bullshit", i.e. the middle
> > east origin of ashkenazim?
>
> "What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA
> tends to come from the Middle East,"
>
> That all you claiming?
>
> You wrote:-
>
> " As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense,
>
> when was that?
>
> You thinkiing of this?
>
> > this guy seems
>
> wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> below. "
http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
Ben Cramer
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5a7272d-c5c7-4ce3...@r2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Whining snipped.
Shut the fuck up RATner, you obsessed freak.
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 12:57, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Please answer two questions honestly. First, are you aware that your
> > below quote confirms "all of my ancestral bullshit", i.e. the middle
> > east origin of ashkenazim?
>
> "What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA
> tends to come from the Middle East,"
>
> That all you claiming?
Yup. That's all that's necessary to completely contradict Sand.
>
> You wrote:-
>
> " As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense,
>
> when was that?
Did you forget that that statement was not directed to you, but to
HHW? If not, why is "when" important?
>
> You thinkiing of this?
>
> > this guy seems
>
> wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> below. "
>
> I suspect 'your ancestral bullshit' includes the historicity of much
> of the Old Testament, including Moses, the Temple of Solomon, King
> David, the exile... etc etc
I suggest you limit suspecting to the absolute minimum. Archaeology
supports the existence of Solomon's temple as well as David, but of
the exodus and Moses there is no evidence. Try this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
>
> > Second, are you aware that your below quote
> > comes from the exact same website as mine above?
>
> Didn't actually check, but I suspected it might well do.
I see, you were suspecting again.
john...@gmail.com
> > "What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA
> > tends to come from the Middle East,"
>
> > That all you claiming?
>
> Yup. That's all that's necessary to completely contradict Sand.
>
How so?
>
>
>
> > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > below. "
>
> > I suspect 'your ancestral bullshit' includes the historicity of much
> > of the Old Testament, including Moses, the Temple of Solomon, King
> > David, the exile... etc etc
>
> I suggest you limit suspecting to the absolute minimum. Archaeology
Bogus archaeology.
> supports the existence of Solomon's temple as well as David, but of
> the exodus and Moses there is no evidence. Try this:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
>
>
>
> > > Second, are you aware that your below quote
> > > comes from the exact same website as mine above?
>
> > Didn't actually check, but I suspected it might well do.
>
> I see, you were suspecting again.
I was right there too.
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 14:34, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA
> > > tends to come from the Middle East,"
>
> > > That all you claiming?
>
> > Yup. That's all that's necessary to completely contradict Sand.
>
> How so?
My impression at this stage is that you are simply in over your head.
You had better stick to things you have at least a prayer of
comprehending.
>
>
>
> > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > below. "
>
> > > I suspect 'your ancestral bullshit' includes the historicity of much
> > > of the Old Testament, including Moses, the Temple of Solomon, King
> > > David, the exile... etc etc
>
> > I suggest you limit suspecting to the absolute minimum. Archaeology
>
> Bogus archaeology.
Yes, you, a usenet poster with an IQ apparently below your age, are
willing to condemn "archaeology" with a few keystrokes. You do it for
one reason: you don't like its findings. As I said when we first met,
> > People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> > when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> > something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> > have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
to which you replied
I must admit I do have a little bit of a bias against implausible old
myths. But I am open minded.
An open-minded person does not condemn an entire science as you did
above. In fact, an intelligent closed-minded person doesn't, either.
Only a dolt could do such a thing.
>
> > supports the existence of Solomon's temple as well as David, but of
> > the exodus and Moses there is no evidence. Try this:
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
>
> > > > Second, are you aware that your below quote
> > > > comes from the exact same website as mine above?
>
> > > Didn't actually check, but I suspected it might well do.
>
> > I see, you were suspecting again.
>
> I was right there too.
You were right about what? that your quote is from the same site as
mine? Wow, you impress yourself quite easily.
john...@gmail.com
> On Dec 29, 10:31 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > How so?
>
> My impression at this stage is that you are simply in over your head.
> You had better stick to things you have at least a prayer of
> comprehending.
Hold my hand then and show me precisely what it completely
contradicts.
>
>
>
> > > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > > below. "
>
> > > > I suspect 'your ancestral bullshit' includes the historicity of much
> > > > of the Old Testament, including Moses, the Temple of Solomon, King
> > > > David, the exile... etc etc
>
> > > I suggest you limit suspecting to the absolute minimum. Archaeology
>
> > Bogus archaeology.
>
> Yes, you, a usenet poster with an IQ apparently below your age, are
> willing to condemn "archaeology" with a few keystrokes.
I condemn bogus archaeology, bullshit, false archaeology, archaeology
misapplied to try and prove a lot of old garbage
Refer instead to reputable archaeology:-
http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
"Recent scholars have disputed the idea that the ancient Jewish
tradition ever belonged to a different cultural world from Hellenism.
The Bible in History, by Thomas L Thompson, Cape, 1999. a
distinguished Old Testament scholar, argues that the Old Testament
shouldn't really be thought of as much older than 200 BC. He holds
that it was an attempt to bring some sense to the lives of groups of
people rather randomly settled in Palestine by the Persian government.
Such older sources as it used are of far less significance than
'higher criticism' has generally maintained.
Thompson brings to a wider public the 'changes in our approach to the
Bible and its relationship to archaeology that have come about over
the past twenty-five years'. On page 15 he writes:- 'We can say now
with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of
anyone's past. The story of the chosen and rejected Israel that it
presents is a philosophical metaphor of a mankind that has lost its
way. The tradition itself is a discourse about recognising that way.
In our historicizing of that tradition, we have lost sight of the
Bible's intellectual centre, as well as of our own. "
>You do it for
> one reason: you don't like its findings. As I said when we first met,
>
> > > People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> > > when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> > > something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> > > have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
> to which you replied
>
> I must admit I do have a little bit of a bias against implausible old
> myths. But I am open minded.
>
> An open-minded person does not condemn an entire science as you did
> above.
Your methods of argument are as shabby as they could be. Your
concussions are not supported by 'an entire science' as a little
research will easily shsw.
>In fact, an intelligent closed-minded person doesn't, either.
> Only a dolt could do such a thing.
>
>
>
> > > supports the existence of Solomon's temple as well as David, but of
> > > the exodus and Moses there is no evidence. Try this:
>
> > >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
>
> > > > > Second, are you aware that your below quote
> > > > > comes from the exact same website as mine above?
>
> > > > Didn't actually check, but I suspected it might well do.
>
> > > I see, you were suspecting again.
>
> > I was right there too.
>
> You were right about what? that your quote is from the same site as
> mine? Wow, you impress yourself quite easily.
You seemed to be suggesting there was something wrong with my
suspicions, barmitzvah boy..
kangarooistan
> Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
>
>
> Global Research, October 8, 2008
> thenational.ae
>
> Email this article to a friend
> Print this article
>
> Idea of a Jewish people invented, says historian
changes , as it clearly must
There can never be a solution that satisfies everybody , like in a
failed marriage one party must leave or both will suffer
Clearly there will never be a solution unless there is a complete
separation of jews christians and Muslims in the Middle East
The war will continue until one group eventually destroys the others,
western taxpayers and jews will eventually run out of money and
leave , Muslims are growing very fast and very angry , they will
eventually win the wars in the Middle East and western taxpayers will
LOSE eventually when they can no longer afford to fight on
Muslims will increase over the next few decades and bleed western
taxpayers and Israel to death , it is not a matter of religion or
right and wrong
it is a simple mathematical reality , Muslims will win the war in the
end , GOD does not come into the debate , he will not do a thing to
help jews or christians why should we help their mythical helpless
gods
IF there is a GOD he is clearly helping the Muslims as they are
winning , and will eventually restore Palestine and ban ALL jews and
ALL Christians forever this time , so as it is inevitable WHY destroy
the planet first , why not simply remove jews and christians
Jews and Christians were offered rights to live in Palestine for 1000
years in peace , and proved they are untrustworthy guests
You can NEVER fool a Muslim twice
There will be a Muslim victory eventually , and they will NEVER ever
let a single jew or christian near Palestine EVER again
GOD will not save jews or christians , as he failed to help them in
the first Crusades or Nazi POW camps GOD wont play a part in the
results
Jews and Christians wont like it but it is inevitable
As it is inevitable , the only question is how much suffering the
Jews and Christians will choose to force on the world and their
children
GOD will not help them
If GOD ever chooses to act he wont need our help
Everybody on earth will suffer until Palestine is AGAIN ruled by and
for Muslims , like it was for over 1000 years very successfully and
will AGAIN soon be
Crusaders and Jews failed every time they tried and run the middle
East , GOD did not help them then and clearly is not now
Muslims always won in the end ,once western Christians and Jews were
crushed , the best thing we can all do is help the war end quickly
by forcing jews and Christians to pay for their own funerals and
hope they all die quickly
WHY should non jews and non Christians pay to murder Muslim babies
for war criminals
Refuse to pay for jews and christian war crimes and let the war end
quickly so jews and christian nutters can see how useless their gods
are
Why drag it out for ever
Let the jews and christians die if they want , why waste your money
and lives dying for a god who does not want to help his worshipers
The entire world will die unless this war ends fast
There is only one possible victor in the end it will be an Islamic
country AGAIN
YOU need to choose if you want your children to live or die
If you really love your children you will do all in your power to end
this ever escalating war as quickly as possible
GOD does not need your help or your taxes if he wants he can wave
his hand and create whatever he chooses , he wont lift a finger to
help jews or christians so if left up to men , the MUSLIMS will
eventually win
Why not help end the war ASAP , kick out all jews and ALL christians
ASAP
problem solved
kanga
======
HHW
> On Dec 28, 5:08 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 28 Dec, 20:14, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 28, 12:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense, this guy seems
> > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > below.
>
> > Let's here it then. Uncontroversial is it?
>
> Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
Absolutely false. You still haven't learned. DNA data is a tiny part
of the mosaic of data necessary to come to the conclusion you want.
There is something inherently incompetent about the operation of your
mind. You instinctively leap at what you think is an opportunity to
proclaim the *certainty* of the "Israelite origin of Jews from all
over the world". In the first place scholars don't believe that that
even may be true, much less that it could be proved by DNA analysis.
Characteristically you haven't even absorbed the review of the Sand
book by the hostile Israeli scholar Dr. Israel Bartal, the specialist
in Jewish History. He *admits* you're wrong.
DNA studies simply can't do what you think they have done because of
the nature of the scientific method. They lend themselves to temporary
assessments regarding degrees of probability of certain propositions.
They neither can nor in my estimate ever will yield such certainty,
especially with reference to critical geographical questions which are
separate questions altogether. History and archaeology have collected
nowhere near the data necessary to chronologically map population
flows over the surface of Eurasia for the last 4,000 years, much less
10,000 which in human history is more or less the modern era.
> People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
> " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
> and E.
>
> " Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
> Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
>
> Kevin Allan Brook
> The Jews of Khazariahttp://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Dec-2008, john...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
> > thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
> > But of course, you don't.
>
> Why of course? I'm out for the truth, unlike you who just want
> evidence for all your ancestral bullshit.
Thanks for publicly contradicting yourself.
Susan
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 15:53, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 10:31 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > How so?
>
> > My impression at this stage is that you are simply in over your head.
> > You had better stick to things you have at least a prayer of
> > comprehending.
>
> Hold my hand then and show me precisely what it completely
> contradicts.
Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
or do you need further hand-holding?
>
>
> > > > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > > > below. "
>
> > > > > I suspect 'your ancestral bullshit' includes the historicity of much
> > > > > of the Old Testament, including Moses, the Temple of Solomon, King
> > > > > David, the exile... etc etc
>
> > > > I suggest you limit suspecting to the absolute minimum. Archaeology
>
> > > Bogus archaeology.
>
> > Yes, you, a usenet poster with an IQ apparently below your age, are
> > willing to condemn "archaeology" with a few keystrokes.
>
> I condemn bogus archaeology, bullshit, false archaeology, archaeology
> misapplied to try and prove a lot of old garbage
Who the hell are you top condemn? Some moron on usenet who can't even
comprehend how saying that jews come from the middle east contradicts
the idea that jews are descended from khazars? I had you pegged from
the start - no interest in objectivity.
This site has a very good compilation of the latest findings:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/
You wouldn't be interested since it does not support your agenda.
>
> Refer instead to reputable archaeology:-
>
> http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
>
> "Recent scholars have disputed the idea that the ancient Jewish
> tradition ever belonged to a different cultural world from Hellenism.
> The Bible in History, by Thomas L Thompson, Cape, 1999. a
> distinguished Old Testament scholar, argues that the Old Testament
> shouldn't really be thought of as much older than 200 BC.
The second sentence does not follow logically from the first. "Ancient
Jewish tradition" is irrelevant to the Old Testament as a finished
product:
The spread of literacy and origins of biblical literature
The invention of alphabetic writing was a pivotal development in the
history of writing, but it alone did not encourage the spread of
writing beyond the palace and the temple. Recent discoveries at Wadi
el-Hol in Egypt date the invention of the alphabet back to 2000 B.C.,
and for centuries after, writing likely remained the province of the
elite. So what allowed the alphabet to spread beyond religious and
literary elites to be used by soldiers, merchants, and even common
workmen? It was the urbanization and globalization of society. This
process began in the eighth century B.C. with the rise of the Assyrian
Empire, which encouraged urbanization as part of a plan for
economically exploiting its growing territory.
I believe that the formative period for the writing of biblical
literature also began at this time and stretched roughly from the
eighth through the sixth century B.C., when the social and political
conditions for the expansion of writing in ancient Israel flourished.
With the rise of the Assyrian Empire, ancient Palestine became more
urban, and writing became critical to the increasingly complex
economy. Writing was important to the bureaucracy of Jerusalem. It
also continued to serve as an ideological tool projecting the power of
kings. At the end of the eighth century in both Mesopotamia and Egypt,
rulers were collecting the ancient books, and ancient Judeans followed
their model—collecting the traditions, stories, and laws of their
ancestors into written manuscripts.
The evidence of archeology and inscriptions suggests a spread of
writing through all classes of society by the seventh century B.C. in
Judah. This allowed for a momentous shift in the role of writing in
society that is reflected in the reforms of King Josiah at the end of
the seventh century; writing became a tool of religious reformers who
first proclaimed the authority of the written word. This new role of
the written word is particularly reflected in the Book of Deuteronomy,
which commands the masses to write down the words of God, to read it
and treasure it in their hearts, and to post the written word on the
entrance to their homes.
To be sure, this shift in the role of writing encroached on groups
with a vested interest in the authority of the oral tradition or the
prophetic word. The rise of authoritative texts in the late Judean
monarchy was accompanied by a critique of the written word.
Dark years of exile
The composition of biblical literature continued into the period of
the Babylonian exile (586-539 B.C.), after the Babylonians overthrew
the Assyrians in the north and invaded the Kingdom of Judah. However,
it was hardly a time when biblical literature could flourish. The
exile resulted in a massive depopulation of the land of Israel.
Archeological surveys suggest the region was depopulated by as much as
80 percent, and in Babylon the situation was grim for the exiles—with
the exception of the royal family.
It is hardly credible that Jewish exiles working on Babylonian canal
projects wrote or even valued literature. However, the royal entourage
of the last kings of Judah were living in the southern palace of the
Babylonian kings, and they retained their claim to the throne in
Jerusalem. They collected literature from the royal and temple
library, as well as wrote and edited literature that advanced their
claims and standing. But the high status of the royal family and its
role in the formation of biblical literature seems to disappear by the
end of the sixth century B.C.
The region of Palestine, especially in the hills around Jerusalem,
continued to be sparsely populated and impoverished in the fifth and
fourth centuries B.C. These were dark times for Jerusalem and the
Persian province of Yehud. In past scholarship, it was "dark" simply
because we knew so little about this period of history. Increasingly,
archeology has filled in the void but painted a bleak picture.
Most biblical literature was written long before this dark age.
However, the priests who took over the leadership of the Jewish
community during this period preserved and edited biblical literature.
Biblical literature became a tool that legitimated and furthered the
priests' political and religious authority.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/written.html
He holds
> that it was an attempt to bring some sense to the lives of groups of
> people rather randomly settled in Palestine by the Persian government.
> Such older sources as it used are of far less significance than
> 'higher criticism' has generally maintained.
>
> Thompson brings to a wider public the 'changes in our approach to the
> Bible and its relationship to archaeology that have come about over
> the past twenty-five years'. On page 15 he writes:- 'We can say now
> with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of
> anyone's past. The story of the chosen and rejected Israel that it
> presents is a philosophical metaphor of a mankind that has lost its
> way. The tradition itself is a discourse about recognising that way.
> In our historicizing of that tradition, we have lost sight of the
> Bible's intellectual centre, as well as of our own. "
I repeat, there is archaeological evidence for, e.g. David:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/mazar.html
but none for the exodus. Here, I'll state it so that even you can
understand: some things in the bible appear to be historically valid,
and some don't.
>
> >You do it for
> > one reason: you don't like its findings. As I said when we first met,
>
> > > > People who want to claim DNA is "controversial", like Barry Scheck
> > > > when he was defending OJ, or you when you want to see Jews as
> > > > something other than the descendants of ancient Israelites, always
> > > > have a motive other than impartially searching for truth.
>
> > to which you replied
>
> > I must admit I do have a little bit of a bias against implausible old
> > myths. But I am open minded.
>
> > An open-minded person does not condemn an entire science as you did
> > above.
>
> Your methods of argument are as shabby as they could be.
whatever that's supposed to mean.
Your
> concussions are not supported by 'an entire science' as a little
> research will easily shsw.
My "concussions"?? "bogus archaeology" - your words. Why did you state
them? Because you don't like what the archaeology shows, for instance,
that David existed. Why don't you want David to have existed? Because,
like many with a low IQ, you're an antisemite. It seems to go with the
territory.
>
>
> >In fact, an intelligent closed-minded person doesn't, either.
> > Only a dolt could do such a thing.
>
> > > > supports the existence of Solomon's temple as well as David, but of
> > > > the exodus and Moses there is no evidence. Try this:
>
> > > >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/program.html
>
> > > > > > Second, are you aware that your below quote
> > > > > > comes from the exact same website as mine above?
>
> > > > > Didn't actually check, but I suspected it might well do.
>
> > > > I see, you were suspecting again.
>
> > > I was right there too.
>
> > You were right about what? that your quote is from the same site as
> > mine? Wow, you impress yourself quite easily.
>
> You seemed to be suggesting there was something wrong with my
> suspicions, barmitzvah boy..
I didn't suggest. I proved.
Sheldon Liberman
That's just one more construct of a delusion mind desparate to see
reality as he'd like it to be.
>
> > > That's why the U.S. is such a great country. We allow secular jews to
> > > express hatred for muslims, and jews believe that a jew hating a
> > > middle eastern muslim is not in anyway an antisemite.
>
> > You may find that an anti-Muslim posture is hardly the domain of just
> > the Jewish community.
>
> True, indeed, but the intense demonization of the Muslim tradition in
> general and the Palestinians in particular in recent decades has been
> generated by Jewish interests in the U.S. in an effort to promote the
> interests of Israel. Read Mearsheimer & Walt's "The Israel Lobby and
> American Foriegn Policy".
You mean the rag piece that Harvard dissassociated it's name from? I
found the rebuttal publications foar more compelling. However, one
need read neither to know that to point out the Israel lobby's
possible disproportionate influence in Washington is simply to blame
it for its own success. Such is typically the act of an underacheiver.
>
> > > Of course the
> > > jews of secular Israel do not believe the indegenous people of the
> > > region called Palestine are a people with a history in the Holy land.
>
> > What? Of course they do.
>
> Surely they don't disagree with Deborah Sharavi!?
Surely they've never heard of her. And Israel is must less secular
than you might think. Only 20% identify themselves as such.
>
>
>
> > > Ancient Israel was a theocracy. But the
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sheldon Liberman
> On Dec 28, 1:45 pm, SheldonLiberman<shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 4:54 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
>
> > > > Low watson goes even deeper in his anti-Jewish depravity.
>
> > > Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> > > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
>
> > You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
> > Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
>
> I understand that the DNA analysis pursued back to the level of four
> maternal founders of the line but the analysis did not fix the
> location of these seminal events. I also understand that Khazar
> origins of most of the Ashkenazi are not in dispute. When Dr. Sand's
> book is printed in English by Verso here in the United States will you
> read it? It is already a best seller elsewhere and looks to become one
> world-wide.
The study you refer to is a different one than the one I do. See:
Hammer, M. F.; A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T.
Karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T.
Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir (May 9 2000). "Jewish and
Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-
chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
It was also a common belief amongst the Khazars that converted that
they were in truth one of the lost tribes of Israel. Even if this were
not the case, if Ashkenazic Jews were all descendent of converts,
there should not be any kohanim (priests) among them, a status that
follows a paternal link. I am one myself. The same series of DNA tests
show that the kohanic claim, supported by tradition alone, is highly
likely.
As for reading Dr. Sand's book, no thanks. I have no more time for
such as I do for the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Irving. I'll
read the critiques from sources I trust.
Sheldon Liberman
> > with the raison d'etre to destroy Israel. No U.S. affirmation
> > required.
>
> Forgive us, Mr.Liberman, but should that determine American Middle
> Eastern policy? Israel was founded in a vast ethnic cleansing, one of
> the 20th Century's monstrous crimes against humanity.
>
American policy has always been to support those countries which
shares it's values. As for ethnic cleansing, that's pure fantasy.
>
>
> > > We've also said
> > > the "JADL is a terrorist orgANIZATION". So what's new?
> > > I use to think Palestine would be a district of Israel, but a few days
> > > ago I was reading over the 'net about a bi-state called Palestine-
> > > Israel! Wouldn't that be awful? It would preserve the historical
> > > legitimacy of the Holy Bible every word of which was written by the
> > > ancient Jews of religious Israel. Wouldn't that be awful?
>
> > No, it wouldn't.
>
> Maybe not, but that too is off the subject, i.e., the American
> national interest.
I didn't raise that point, you did.
>
>
>
> > > I knew a guy in Boston, Massachusetts who spent five years in prison
> > > for refusing the draft. I'll refrain from using Joe's surname, but his
> > > face was the image of the Irish face that was very commonly used for
> > > images of Christ. Air strikes from the air doesn't make you brave when
> > > the target is a police station. They were Hamas police. A terrorist
> > > organization!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > ???
>
> That's not enough question marks.
I agree, given the complete incomprensible the statements to which
they were attached.
drahcir
> On Dec 28, 8:54 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 5:08 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Dec, 20:14, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 28, 12:49 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As I replied the last time you posted this nonsense, this guy seems
> > > > wholly ignorant of DNA evidence proving Israelite origin of Jews from
> > > > all over the world. That invalidates all of the useless verbiage
> > > > below.
>
> > > Let's here it then. Uncontroversial is it?
>
> > Yes. DNA is not controversial. It's either indicative, or it's not.
>
> Absolutely false. You still haven't learned. DNA data is a tiny part
> of the mosaic of data necessary to come to the conclusion you want.
DNA is all you need to completely contradict Sand. If Jewish DNA is
from the middle east, it's not Khazar. Simple. You don't want to see
it simply because it doesn't come out the way you so desperately want
it to. Tough.
> There is something inherently incompetent about the operation of your
> mind.
This coming from the moron who couldn't get straight the subject of a
review he himself posted, who cannot follow a simply usenet thread. H,
the operation of my mind is so far beyond your meager skill set that
your comment is ridiculous.
You instinctively leap at what you think is an opportunity to
> proclaim the *certainty* of the "Israelite origin of Jews from all
> over the world".
I didn't proclaim anything. I cited evidence. Here, I will cite it
again, just for you:
> " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J
> and E.
> " Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include
> Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)."
> Kevin Allan Brook
> The Jews of Khazariahttp://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
This is corroborated by the many other cites I have provided in this
thread.
I will condense and use capital letters so maybe it will sink in:
THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
Get it? End of story. Sand is and idiot. You are a lying idiot. I
would ask you to stop the nonsense, but since nonsense is all you are
capable of, you might asphyxiate.
In the first place scholars don't believe that that
> even may be true, much less that it could be proved by DNA analysis.
HHW bullshit holds no water. I have cited 4 separate studies, in
addition to the synopsis above. You got 4 contradictory studies? Post
them. Otherwise please shut your incredibly stupid mouth.
> Characteristically you haven't even absorbed the review of the Sand
> book by the hostile Israeli scholar Dr. Israel Bartal, the specialist
> in Jewish History. He *admits* you're wrong.
>
> DNA studies simply can't do what you think they have done because of
> the nature of the scientific method.
OK, here we go. The moron that preached about deduction and couldn't
even post a definition of a syllogism that made sense, the
insufferable dolt that had to run in terror rather than try to support
his own post, is now going to start lecturing about the scientific
method. Listen, asshole, you want to lecture, I suggest you email
Brook and the geneticists that authored the four studies I posted and
see what they have to say to a lowly, lying moron like you that is
clueless not only about genetics, but about logic and especially about
israeli history. It is their words I have used, not mine. Their
conclusions, not mine. You simply don't like it. Who cares what a
lying, proven moron likes or doesn't?
They lend themselves to temporary
> assessments regarding degrees of probability of certain propositions.
> They neither can nor in my estimate
YOUR ESTIMATE??? You don't have the right to estimate, imbecile. You
don't want to accept the opinions of those who have the knowledge and
intelligence, as the authors I cited, because they don't fit your
agenda, plain and simple.
ever will yield such certainty,
> especially with reference to critical geographical questions which are
> separate questions altogether. History and archaeology have collected
> nowhere near the data necessary to chronologically map population
> flows over the surface of Eurasia for the last 4,000 years, much less
> 10,000 which in human history is more or less the modern era.
Incredibly stupid statement. RIght now we know 2 things: we know that
the DNA of European jews is similar to present-day middle eastern
populations, and we know that it is dissimilar to the surrounding
European populations. That much is fact, indisputable fact. What the
geneticists have done is to propose hypotheses based on those facts.
What Sand has done is blow hot air without an iota of genetic support.
john...@gmail.com
> Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
> middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
> of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
> or do you need further hand-holding?
The quote does not asser that "Ashenazi DNA is primarily middle
eastern". "Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East," That's
just the Y chromosome. Jewishness is transmitted matrilinearly.
> > I condemn bogus archaeology, bullshit, false archaeology, archaeology
> > misapplied to try and prove a lot of old garbage
>
> Who the hell are you top condemn? Some moron on usenet who can't even
> comprehend how saying that jews come from the middle east contradicts
> the idea that jews are descended from khazars?
They can be descended maternally. You are the moron if you can't see
that. Maybe some middle eastern Genghis raped a lot of women.
> I had you pegged from
> the start - no interest in objectivity.
You have an agenda which is in part political.
>
>
> > Refer instead to reputable archaeology:-
>
> >http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
>
> > "Recent scholars have disputed the idea that the ancient Jewish
> > tradition ever belonged to a different cultural world from Hellenism.
> > The Bible in History, by Thomas L Thompson, Cape, 1999. a
> > distinguished Old Testament scholar, argues that the Old Testament
> > shouldn't really be thought of as much older than 200 BC.
>
> The second sentence does not follow logically from the first. "Ancient
> Jewish tradition" is irrelevant to the Old Testament as a finished
> product:
It's nearly all post platonic.
Read Thompson, it might correct some of this outdated crap.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/written.html
>
> He holds
>
> > that it was an attempt to bring some sense to the lives of groups of
> > people rather randomly settled in Palestine by the Persian government.
> > Such older sources as it used are of far less significance than
> > 'higher criticism' has generally maintained.
>
> > Thompson brings to a wider public the 'changes in our approach to the
> > Bible and its relationship to archaeology that have come about over
> > the past twenty-five years'. On page 15 he writes:- 'We can say now
> > with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of
> > anyone's past. The story of the chosen and rejected Israel that it
> > presents is a philosophical metaphor of a mankind that has lost its
> > way. The tradition itself is a discourse about recognising that way.
> > In our historicizing of that tradition, we have lost sight of the
> > Bible's intellectual centre, as well as of our own. "
>
> I repeat, there is archaeological evidence for, e.g. David:
Clap your hands if you believe in fairies.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/mazar.html
>
> but none for the exodus. Here, I'll state it so that even you can
> understand: some things in the bible appear to be historically valid,
> and some don't.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > An open-minded person does not condemn an entire science as you did
> > > above.
>
> > Your methods of argument are as shabby as they could be.
>
> whatever that's supposed to mean.
I am not attacking entire sciences only your lies about their
findings. That should be obvious.
>
> Your
>
> > concussions are not supported by 'an entire science' as a little
> > research will easily shsw.
>
> My "concussions"??
Sorry, that's my spellcheck.
>"bogus archaeology" - your words. Why did you state
> them? Because you don't like what the archaeology shows, for instance,
> that David existed. Why don't you want David to have existed? Because,
> like many with a low IQ, you're an antisemite. It seems to go with the
> territory.
>
Because it is clear that he did not exist and I don;t like being
expected to believe falsehoods, especially pious ones.
Eli Grubman
Show us your jew DNA, you th*ck Ir*sh cunt! LOL
Eli
john...@gmail.com
> On Dec 29, 11:13 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 15:53, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 29, 10:31 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > How so?
>
> > > My impression at this stage is that you are simply in over your head.
> > > You had better stick to things you have at least a prayer of
> > > comprehending.
>
> > Hold my hand then and show me precisely what it completely
> > contradicts.
>
> Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
> middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
> of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
> or do you need further hand-holding?
>
http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
But Jewish DNA presents a picture that is far more complex than just
the Cohanim results. This picture is also far more diverse than what
many genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews would suggest. Instead, many
of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results,
often downplaying the significant contribution of European and
Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of
Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain
extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture.
Diversity was present from Jewish beginnings, when various Semitic and
Mediterranean peoples came together to form the Israelites of long
ago. The genetic picture was clearly enriched during the Diaspora,
when Jews spread far and wide across Europe, attracting converts and
intermarrying over time with their European hosts. The most recent
DNA evidence indicates that from this blending of Middle Eastern and
European ancestors, the diverse DNA ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews
emerged.
Although the debate over the fate of the Khazars is far from over, DNA
research suggests that remnants of these mysterious people continue to
exist within the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, the
Levite results indicate that the Khazars became fully integrated into
the Ashkenazi communities and came to play an important role within
the Jewish priesthood.
The Cohanim results do not disprove the genetic contribution of the
Khazars. Rather, the DNA studies indicate that Jews are not entirely
Khazarian, Israelite or European in genetic makeup, but a complex and
unique mixture of all these peoples.
Genetic studies of the future will hopefully clarify many of the
remaining mysteries surrounding the origins and formation of the
Ashkenazi communities. For instance, the origins and distribution of
the most common mtDNA haplogroup among Ashkenazim – haplogroup K –
remains unexplored. Additionally, tantalizing differences in the
genetic makeup of western and eastern Ashkenazi populations remain to
be fully investigated by DNA researchers.
In addition to the Ashkenazim, many other Jewish groups are ripe for
study by genetic researchers. Examination of these groups will no
doubt help illuminate their common genetic bonds as well as their
differences with other Jewish populations. Groups such as the
Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews await study of their own unique DNA
makeup.
In conclusion, much remains to be explored regarding the DNA of
various Jewish populations. Future DNA studies will undoubtedly
provide a clearer picture of the various heterogeneous peoples who
came together over time to form the Jewish people of today.
DoD
It is interesting that people like watson, just love to call you
people the descendants of the "Christ killers" and turn around and say
that you have no connection to the Middle East.
What makes this even more irritating and insulting to those of us that
are Christian and I would assume the same for you Jews is that people
like watson support the PalArabs who just recently legalized
CRUCIFIXION.........
It is amazing how we have such depraved people like watson in the west.
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 17:41, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
> > middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
> > of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
> > or do you need further hand-holding?
>
> The quote does not asser that "Ashenazi DNA is primarily middle
> eastern". "Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East," That's
> just the Y chromosome. Jewishness is transmitted matrilinearly.
I quote:
> > " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> > Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> > Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> > (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> > is Israelite.
If we get rid of all that pesky stuff in the middle, we are left with:
THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
What about that do you not understand?
No one is denying that there was intermarriage over two thousand
years. Neither is anyone denying that mitochondrial studies show more
mixing than Y studies. Bottom line: the only thing that is important
is that THE MAIN ethnic element of ashkenazim is Israelite. That
doesn't happen by itself - it must have gotten there somehow.
Objective folks see the jews' expulsion from israel as a plausible
explanation. Lowlifes like you with an agenda want to improvise, bend,
twist, connive, lie, play dumb (of course in your case, it's not
playing), anything in order to try to escape the inescapable, simple
truth.
>
> > > I condemn bogus archaeology, bullshit, false archaeology, archaeology
> > > misapplied to try and prove a lot of old garbage
>
> > Who the hell are you top condemn? Some moron on usenet who can't even
> > comprehend how saying that jews come from the middle east contradicts
> > the idea that jews are descended from khazars?
>
> They can be descended maternally. You are the moron if you can't see
> that. Maybe some middle eastern Genghis raped a lot of women.
>
> > I had you pegged from
> > the start - no interest in objectivity.
>
> You have an agenda which is in part political.
Nope. I see the facts and have a plausible hypothesis that explains
them. You're blind to the facts because they don't fit your agenda.
You want to talk about "Jewishness" in order to muddy the water. There
is one simple fact:
THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
>
>
> > > Refer instead to reputable archaeology:-
>
> > >http://www.mith.demon.co.uk/Christianity.htm
>
> > > "Recent scholars have disputed the idea that the ancient Jewish
> > > tradition ever belonged to a different cultural world from Hellenism.
> > > The Bible in History, by Thomas L Thompson, Cape, 1999. a
> > > distinguished Old Testament scholar, argues that the Old Testament
> > > shouldn't really be thought of as much older than 200 BC.
>
> > The second sentence does not follow logically from the first. "Ancient
> > Jewish tradition" is irrelevant to the Old Testament as a finished
> > product:
>
> It's nearly all post platonic.
>
Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
This is the latest research. Thompson is 1999 from what I can see. You
call it crap for one reason - it doesn't fit your agenda. Tough.>
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/written.html
>
> > He holds
>
> > > that it was an attempt to bring some sense to the lives of groups of
> > > people rather randomly settled in Palestine by the Persian government.
> > > Such older sources as it used are of far less significance than
> > > 'higher criticism' has generally maintained.
>
> > > Thompson brings to a wider public the 'changes in our approach to the
> > > Bible and its relationship to archaeology that have come about over
> > > the past twenty-five years'. On page 15 he writes:- 'We can say now
> > > with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of
> > > anyone's past. The story of the chosen and rejected Israel that it
> > > presents is a philosophical metaphor of a mankind that has lost its
> > > way. The tradition itself is a discourse about recognising that way.
> > > In our historicizing of that tradition, we have lost sight of the
> > > Bible's intellectual centre, as well as of our own. "
>
> > I repeat, there is archaeological evidence for, e.g. David:
>
> Clap your hands if you believe in fairies.
Aw, poor little asshole doesn't like it when science produces results
that contradict his agenda.
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/mazar.html
>
> > but none for the exodus. Here, I'll state it so that even you can
> > understand: some things in the bible appear to be historically valid,
> > and some don't.
>
> > > > An open-minded person does not condemn an entire science as you did
> > > > above.
>
> > > Your methods of argument are as shabby as they could be.
>
> > whatever that's supposed to mean.
>
> I am not attacking entire sciences only your lies about their
> findings. That should be obvious.
LOL! I have only supplied cites. You, some internet moron, disagree?
Fine - you have all the information, why don't you send them an email
telling them to "read thompson" or some other erudite instruction?
>
>
> > Your
>
> > > concussions are not supported by 'an entire science' as a little
> > > research will easily shsw.
>
> > My "concussions"??
>
> Sorry, that's my spellcheck.
Spell checkers only catch words that you misspell. "Concussion" is
properly spelled, so don't blame your spell checker.
>
> >"bogus archaeology" - your words. Why did you state
> > them? Because you don't like what the archaeology shows, for instance,
> > that David existed. Why don't you want David to have existed? Because,
> > like many with a low IQ, you're an antisemite. It seems to go with the
> > territory.
>
> Because it is clear that he did not exist
Yeah, because you, some clueless internet moron, say so. Have you
provided ONE cite to support your contention? Of course not. Never
mind that people that are many times more intelligent than you and
hundreds of times more knowledgeable contradict you - as in my cite -
don't let that stand in your way. You want there to be no David
because you want to invalidate jews, and that's certainly more
important than silly old facts and silly old science.
and I don;t like being
> expected to believe falsehoods, especially pious ones.
Piety is irrelevant. Archaeology and genetics are what I'm discussing.
Of course you are off in lala land where jews are khazars and ancient
israel never existed. You call them "falsehoods", yet the evidence is
there in black and white. What a moron calls them doesn't affect them.
john...@gmail.com
> On Dec 29, 4:02 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 17:41, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
> > > middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
> > > of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
> > > or do you need further hand-holding?
>
> > The quote does not asser that "Ashenazi DNA is primarily middle
> > eastern". "Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East," That's
> > just the Y chromosome. Jewishness is transmitted matrilinearly.
>
> I quote:
>
> > > " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> > > Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> > > Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> > > (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> > > is Israelite.
>
> If we get rid of all that pesky stuff in the middle, we are left with:
>
> THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> What about that do you not understand?
It's a different quote. What counts as Israelite anyway? It is
admitted that no genetic tests have been done on ancient Judean
populations. So does it mean? Lebanese or Palestinian?
>
> No one is denying that there was intermarriage over two thousand
> years. Neither is anyone denying that mitochondrial studies show more
> mixing than Y studies. Bottom line: the only thing that is important
> is that THE MAIN ethnic element of ashkenazim is Israelite. That
> doesn't happen by itself - it must have gotten there somehow.
Seems to be misleading though, if we look at more recent research.
> Objective folks see the jews' expulsion from israel as a plausible
> explanation. Lowlifes like you with an agenda want to improvise, bend,
> twist, connive, lie, play dumb (of course in your case, it's not
> playing), anything in order to try to escape the inescapable, simple
> truth.
What is that? That you are God's chosen people?
>
>
>
> > > Who the hell are you top condemn? Some moron on usenet who can't even
> > > comprehend how saying that jews come from the middle east contradicts
> > > the idea that jews are descended from khazars?
>
> > They can be descended maternally. You are the moron if you can't see
> > that. Maybe some middle eastern Genghis raped a lot of women.
>
> > > I had you pegged from
> > > the start - no interest in objectivity.
>
> > You have an agenda which is in part political.
>
> Nope. I see the facts and have a plausible hypothesis that explains
> them. You're blind to the facts because they don't fit your agenda.
> You want to talk about "Jewishness" in order to muddy the water. There
> is one simple fact:
>
> THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
Hallefuckingllujah
>
>
>
>
> > It's nearly all post platonic.
>
> Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
> or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
I did read it and it is wrong. The earliest Biblical literature is
much later than you think it is.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > Read Thompson, it might correct some of this outdated crap.
>
> This is the latest research.
Substandard.
> Thompson is 1999 from what I can see. You
> call it crap for one reason - it doesn't fit your agenda. Tough.>
>
>
>
>
> > Clap your hands if you believe in fairies.
>
> Aw, poor little asshole doesn't like it when science produces results
> that contradict his agenda.
Not good science though, second rater.
>
>
> > I am not attacking entire sciences only your lies about their
> > findings. That should be obvious.
>
> LOL! I have only supplied cites. You, some internet moron, disagree?
> Fine - you have all the information, why don't you send them an email
> telling them to ...
>
> read more »
I am well aware that the internet is infested with pushy little Jews
like you passionate to prove their unhistorical garbage. I can only do
my own little bit.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > > My "concussions"??
>
> > Sorry, that's my spellcheck.
>
> Spell checkers only catch words that you misspell. "Concussion" is
> properly spelled, so don't blame your spell checker.
I misspelled 'conclusions' and it corrected to what you see.
>
>
>
> > >"bogus archaeology" - your words. Why did you state
> > > them? Because you don't like what the archaeology shows, for instance,
> > > that David existed. Why don't you want David to have existed? Because,
> > > like many with a low IQ, you're an antisemite. It seems to go with the
> > > territory.
>
> > Because it is clear that he did not exist
>
> Yeah, because you, some clueless internet moron, say so. Have you
> provided ONE cite to support your contention? Of course not. Never
> mind that people that are many times more intelligent than you and
> hundreds of times more knowledgeable contradict you - as in my cite -
> don't let that stand in your way.
I referred you to Thompson's book.It's a good read.
> You want there to be no David
> because you want to invalidate jews,
Wouldn't that be nice?
> and that's certainly more
> important than silly old facts and silly old science.
>
> and I don;t like being
>
> > expected to believe falsehoods, especially pious ones.
>
> Piety is irrelevant. Archaeology and genetics are what I'm discussing.
In a very crude unscholarly fashion. Clearly you are an ignorant
little prick.
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 21:41, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 4:02 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 17:41, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
> > > > middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
> > > > of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
> > > > or do you need further hand-holding?
>
> > > The quote does not asser that "Ashenazi DNA is primarily middle
> > > eastern". "Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East," That's
> > > just the Y chromosome. Jewishness is transmitted matrilinearly.
>
> > I quote:
>
> > > > " The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> > > > Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> > > > Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> > > > (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> > > > is Israelite.
>
> > If we get rid of all that pesky stuff in the middle, we are left with:
>
> > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> > What about that do you not understand?
>
> It's a different quote.
Different from what, from yours? So what? Yours said the same thing,
since it was by the same author from the same website. You like yours
better, so be it.
What counts as Israelite anyway? It is
> admitted that no genetic tests have been done on ancient Judean
> populations. So does it mean? Lebanese or Palestinian?
I did not notice Lebanese mentioned in the studies I cited, but
Palestinians were. Don't concern yourself with details -- the one
thing that is CERTAIN is that it does NOT mean Khazar.
>
>
>
> > No one is denying that there was intermarriage over two thousand
> > years. Neither is anyone denying that mitochondrial studies show more
> > mixing than Y studies. Bottom line: the only thing that is important
> > is that THE MAIN ethnic element of ashkenazim is Israelite. That
> > doesn't happen by itself - it must have gotten there somehow.
>
> Seems to be misleading though, if we look at more recent research.
What are you babbling about? I cited 4 studies spanning about 10
years, if I recall. Have you provided "more recent research" (genetic)
that somehow escaped me?
>
> > Objective folks see the jews' expulsion from israel as a plausible
> > explanation. Lowlifes like you with an agenda want to improvise, bend,
> > twist, connive, lie, play dumb (of course in your case, it's not
> > playing), anything in order to try to escape the inescapable, simple
> > truth.
>
> What is that? That you are God's chosen people?
Do you recall the word "god" in anything I have posted thus far? I
deal in empirical stuff and draw conclusions. You want to talk about
chosen, jewishness, all this vague crap to try to muddy the water. All
you need to remember is
> > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
Even you can remember that, right? Good. Now come up with some
plausible explanation as to why it is so. If you can't figure it out,
read about it, but make sure that what you read does not contradict
the above, because it is a given, at least so far as the genetic
studies I have read are concerned.
>
>
> > > > Who the hell are you top condemn? Some moron on usenet who can't even
> > > > comprehend how saying that jews come from the middle east contradicts
> > > > the idea that jews are descended from khazars?
>
> > > They can be descended maternally. You are the moron if you can't see
> > > that. Maybe some middle eastern Genghis raped a lot of women.
>
> > > > I had you pegged from
> > > > the start - no interest in objectivity.
>
> > > You have an agenda which is in part political.
>
> > Nope. I see the facts and have a plausible hypothesis that explains
> > them. You're blind to the facts because they don't fit your agenda.
> > You want to talk about "Jewishness" in order to muddy the water. There
> > is one simple fact:
>
> > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> Hallefuckingllujah
>
Whatever you say.
>
> > > It's nearly all post platonic.
>
> > Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
> > or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
>
> I did read it and it is wrong. The earliest Biblical literature is
> much later than you think it is.
You are incredibly dense. It has nothing to do with what I think. Your
own post, speaking about the bible and the 2nd century BC, speaks of
THE BIBLE, meaning the finished product as we know it today. Do you
think it just suddenly appeared like magic? My post speaks of the
antiquity of BIBLICAL LITERATURE. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE?
>
>
>
> > > Read Thompson, it might correct some of this outdated crap.
>
> > This is the latest research.
>
> Substandard.
LOL! Translation: it doesn't say what you want it to say.
>
> > Thompson is 1999 from what I can see. You
> > call it crap for one reason - it doesn't fit your agenda. Tough.>
>
> > > Clap your hands if you believe in fairies.
>
> > Aw, poor little asshole doesn't like it when science produces results
> > that contradict his agenda.
>
> Not good science though, second rater.
Total, improvised bullshit. You have not one iota of support for your
statement.
>
> > > I am not attacking entire sciences only your lies about their
> > > findings. That should be obvious.
>
> > LOL! I have only supplied cites. You, some internet moron, disagree?
> > Fine - you have all the information, why don't you send them an email
> > telling them to ...
>
> > read more »
>
> I am well aware that the internet is infested with pushy little Jews
> like you passionate to prove their unhistorical garbage. I can only do
> my own little bit.
That all anyone can expect of you.
john...@gmail.com
>
>
> > Seems to be misleading though, if we look at more recent research.
>
> What are you babbling about? I cited 4 studies spanning about 10
> years, if I recall. Have you provided "more recent research" (genetic)
> that somehow escaped me?
You probably didn't read the post where I referred you to this:
http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
>
>
>
> > > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> > Hallefuckingllujah
>
> Whatever you say.
>
> > > > It's nearly all post platonic.
>
> > > Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
> > > or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
>
> > I did read it and it is wrong. The earliest Biblical literature is
> > much later than you think it is.
>
> You are incredibly dense. It has nothing to do with what I think. Your
> own post, speaking about the bible and the 2nd century BC, speaks of
> THE BIBLE, meaning the finished product as we know it today. Do you
> think it just suddenly appeared like magic? My post speaks of the
> antiquity of BIBLICAL LITERATURE. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE?
The antiquity is not very great. The oldest bit is probably some
Assyrian king lists.
>
>
AirRaid Mach 2.5
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 22:10, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Seems to be misleading though, if we look at more recent research.
>
> > What are you babbling about? I cited 4 studies spanning about 10
> > years, if I recall. Have you provided "more recent research" (genetic)
> > that somehow escaped me?
>
> You probably didn't read the post where I referred you to this:
>
> http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
I skimmed that. It agrees with all the other studies, none of which
say that there is no khazar or european dna in ashkenazim. That's not
the issue. The issue is whether there is middle eastern (israelite)
dna, and every study says there is.
>
> > > > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> > > Hallefuckingllujah
>
> > Whatever you say.
>
> > > > > It's nearly all post platonic.
>
> > > > Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
> > > > or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
>
> > > I did read it and it is wrong. The earliest Biblical literature is
> > > much later than you think it is.
IT'S NOT WHAT I THINK. IT'S WHAT SPECIALISTS THINK. You disagree?
Write your own paper and get it published.
>
> > You are incredibly dense. It has nothing to do with what I think. Your
> > own post, speaking about the bible and the 2nd century BC, speaks of
> > THE BIBLE, meaning the finished product as we know it today. Do you
> > think it just suddenly appeared like magic? My post speaks of the
> > antiquity of BIBLICAL LITERATURE. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE?
>
> The antiquity is not very great. The oldest bit is probably some
> Assyrian king lists.
Why do you speak of "probably" - I supplied you with my reference...
>
>
drahcir
So, does "prick" make the discussion scholarly, in your opinion?
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 17:41, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 11:13 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 15:53, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 29, 10:31 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > How so?
>
> > > > My impression at this stage is that you are simply in over your head.
> > > > You had better stick to things you have at least a prayer of
> > > > comprehending.
>
> > > Hold my hand then and show me precisely what it completely
> > > contradicts.
>
> > Khazars were not from the middle east. If Ashenazi DNA is primarily
> > middle eastern, as both of our pulls suggest, then ashkenazim are not
> > of primarily of Khazarian origin, as Sand suggests. Do you get it now,
> > or do you need further hand-holding?
>
> Look at some more up to date genetic research:-
>
> http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
LOL! You conveniently skipped the part before the below "But". Here,
I'll supply it for you.
The DNA studies have revealed a high degree of genetic
interrelatedness among Ashkenazi groups, particularly among those of
Eastern Europe. This common ancestry can be attributed to a small
founding population, coupled with rapid population growth and a high
rate of endogamy over the past 500 years. The studies also indicate a
sharing of genetic ancestry between eastern and western Ashkenazim,
supporting the view that some portion of Eastern European Jewry was
founded by western Ashkenazim.
DNA research has also revealed significant genetic links between
Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, despite their separation
for generations. With the Cohanim study, researchers found a clear
genetic connection between the Jewish priests and a shared Israelite
ancestor from the past. Additional genetic results suggest that the
Ashkenazim can trace at least part of their ancestry to their
Israelite forbearers.
For the umpteenth time, the issue is not whether there is any european
or khazar dna in ashkenazim. the issue is that a large, if not
preponderant percentage of the genetic makeup is israelite. That's all
that matters.
john...@gmail.com
>
> > In a very crude unscholarly fashion. Clearly you are an ignorant
> > little prick.
>
> So, does "prick" make the discussion scholarly, in your opinion?
>
>
>
> > > Of course you are off in lala land where jews are khazars and ancient
> > > israel never existed. You call them "falsehoods", yet the evidence is
> > > there in black and white. What a moron calls them doesn't affect them.
You having called me an asshole, I thought I might be allowed to call
you a prick.
john...@gmail.com
> On Dec 29, 5:20 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 22:10, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Seems to be misleading though, if we look at more recent research.
>
> > > What are you babbling about? I cited 4 studies spanning about 10
> > > years, if I recall. Have you provided "more recent research" (genetic)
> > > that somehow escaped me?
>
> > You probably didn't read the post where I referred you to this:
>
> >http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
>
> I skimmed that. It agrees with all the other studies, none of which
> say that there is no khazar or european dna in ashkenazim. That's not
> the issue. The issue is whether there is middle eastern (israelite)
> dna, and every study says there is.
The issue has changed then has it? I thought it was to do with the
proportion?
>
>
>
> > > > > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> > > > Hallefuckingllujah
>
> > > Whatever you say.
>
> > > > > > It's nearly all post platonic.
>
> > > > > Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
> > > > > or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
>
> > > > I did read it and it is wrong. The earliest Biblical literature is
> > > > much later than you think it is.
>
> IT'S NOT WHAT I THINK. IT'S WHAT SPECIALISTS THINK.
Some specialists. No need to shout.
> You disagree?
I agree with what sounds most plausible.
> Write your own paper and get it published.
>
>
Some specialists think like Thompson. I did write a paper with
references to him, I gave you the URL.
>
> > > You are incredibly dense. It has nothing to do with what I think. Your
> > > own post, speaking about the bible and the 2nd century BC, speaks of
> > > THE BIBLE, meaning the finished product as we know it today. Do you
> > > think it just suddenly appeared like magic? My post speaks of the
> > > antiquity of BIBLICAL LITERATURE. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE?
>
> > The antiquity is not very great. The oldest bit is probably some
> > Assyrian king lists.
>
> Why do you speak of "probably" - I supplied you with my reference...
We can't know for sure.
>
>
john...@gmail.com
>
> For the umpteenth time, the issue is not whether there is any european
> or khazar dna in ashkenazim. the issue is that a large, if not
> preponderant percentage of the genetic makeup is israelite. That's all
> that matters.
>
I thought the issue was: that " THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM
IS ISRAELITE "
You have now backpedalled quite considerably. Now roll over and admit
defeat.
>
drahcir
> On 29 Dec, 22:46, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 5:20 pm, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 22:10, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Seems to be misleading though, if we look at more recent research.
>
> > > > What are you babbling about? I cited 4 studies spanning about 10
> > > > years, if I recall. Have you provided "more recent research" (genetic)
> > > > that somehow escaped me?
>
> > > You probably didn't read the post where I referred you to this:
>
> > >http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
>
> > I skimmed that. It agrees with all the other studies, none of which
> > say that there is no khazar or european dna in ashkenazim. That's not
> > the issue. The issue is whether there is middle eastern (israelite)
> > dna, and every study says there is.
>
> The issue has changed then has it? I thought it was to do with the
> proportion?
I don't believe your cite says anything specific about proportion, but
as I say, I only skimmed it. My cites certainly speak of proportion.
If yours contradicts them, pull the relevant data and paste it in your
reply. If not, then so far as this discussion is concerned, the
majority of Ashkenazi dna is israelite, as per my cite.
>
>
> > > > > > THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM IS ISRAELITE.
>
> > > > > Hallefuckingllujah
>
> > > > Whatever you say.
>
> > > > > > > It's nearly all post platonic.
>
> > > > > > Either you didn't read what I posted in my last reply, quoted below,
> > > > > > or you are clueless as to when Plato lived. Which is it?
>
> > > > > I did read it and it is wrong. The earliest Biblical literature is
> > > > > much later than you think it is.
>
> > IT'S NOT WHAT I THINK. IT'S WHAT SPECIALISTS THINK.
>
> Some specialists.
Exactly. Not all specialists. Only the ones cited in this discussion.
And not me.
> No need to shout.
Don't write stupid stuff and I won't need to.
>
> > You disagree?
>
> I agree with what sounds most plausible.
>
> > Write your own paper and get it published.
>
> Some specialists think like Thompson.
Genetic specialists? Really? Name one.
I did write a paper with
> references to him, I gave you the URL
Please supply any peer reviews. I am no specialist and don't know your
credentials.
>
> > > > > You are incredibly dense. It has nothing to do with what I think. Your
> > > > own post, speaking about the bible and the 2nd century BC, speaks of
> > > > THE BIBLE, meaning the finished product as we know it today. Do you
> > > > think it just suddenly appeared like magic? My post speaks of the
> > > > antiquity of BIBLICAL LITERATURE. DO YOU COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE?
>
> > > The antiquity is not very great. The oldest bit is probably some
> > > Assyrian king lists.
>
> > Why do you speak of "probably" - I supplied you with my reference...
>
> We can't know for sure.
>
All you know for sure is your agenda.
drahcir
nothing has yet contradicted
" THE MAIN ETHNIC ELEMENT OF ASHKENAZIM
> IS ISRAELITE "
If your cite contradicts it, paste the contradiction in your reply.
Otherwise, my cite stands.
drahcir
That's not the issue. I couldn't care less what something like you
calls me. The issue is that you are complaining about the
"scholarliness" of the discussion, and, given the context of the
term, I asked you a question about it. A question you failed to
answer.
john...@gmail.com
>
> All you know for sure is your agenda.
And a worthy one it is.
DoD
How is denigrating Jews a worthy agenda? Sounds pretty sick to me.
drahcir
In the search for truth, no agenda is worthy.
dsharavi
> Dr Sand argues that the idea of a Jewish nation – whose need for a
> safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of
> Israel – is a myth invented little more than a century ago.
Evidently Prof Sand never heard of Hirsch Kalisher, Moses Hess, or
Mordechai Manuel Noah.
> Dr Sand’s main argument is that until little more than a century ago,
> Jews thought of themselves as Jews only because they shared a common
> religion. At the turn of the 20th century, he said, Zionist Jews
> challenged this idea and started creating a national history by
> inventing the idea that Jews existed as a people separate from their
> religion.
Then there's Prof Sand's argument that Spanish Jews originate from the
Berber tribe of Warrior-Queen Dahia al-Kahina. The Queen's tribe
converted to Judaism "several generations before she was born sometime
around the 6th century C.E."; they fought off the Muslim invasion of
North Africa, then participated in the Muslim conquest of the Iberian
peninsula, and hence became the ancestors of Spanish Jews.
Lovely fantazia.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
On Dec 28, 11:45 am, Sheldon Liberman <shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
> You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
> Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
Now we've got a new "theory", Shel -- and that's that Spanish Jews
descend from a Warrior Queen Berber tribe, who converted to Judaism
sometime in the 6thC CE, the fought a losing fight against the Muslim/
Arab invasion of North Africa, then participated in the Muslim/Arab
invasion of the Iberian peninsula.
This new Khazar fantazia is brought to you by the same Tel Aviv prof
who claims that the idea of re-establishing the Jewish state in the
Land of Israel is only a century old. Clearly, the good professor
never heard of Moses Hess or Hirsch Kalisher -- and he certainly never
heard of Mordechai Manuel Noah.
What fun these loons are.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
> On Dec 28, 1:45 pm, Sheldon Liberman <shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
> > You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
> > Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
On Dec 28, 6:33 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand that the DNA analysis pursued back to the level of four
> maternal founders of the line but the analysis did not fix the
> location of these seminal events. I also understand that Khazar
> origins of most of the Ashkenazi are not in dispute.
Now how can HHW possibly "understand" that the alleged "Khazar
origins" of European Jews are not, as he claims, "in dispute" -- when
the topic isn't even a blip on the radar -- when he never heard of the
Khazars "until about a year ago"?
Deborah
dsharavi
> “When And How the Jewish People Was Invented” is a very serious study
> written by Professor Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian. It is the most
> serious study of Jewish nationalism and by far, the most courageous
> elaboration on the Jewish historical narrative.
>
> In his book, Sand manages to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that
> the Jewish people never existed as a 'nation-race', they never shared
> a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at
> various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion.
Presumably, the good professor "proves" this, just like he "proves"
his notion that Spanish Jews descend from a Warrior Queen's Berber
tribe, which converted to Judaism in the 6thC, fought against the
Muslim Arab invasions in the 7th century, then participated in the
Muslim Arab invasion and conquest of Iberia.
Deborah
Peace Power
You don't do facts, zionazi slime.
All you know is zionist propaganda.
The GAZA, CHANUKAH MASSACRE - photo slide show:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/29/updated-gaza-massacre-photo-gallery/
DoD
> On Dec 29, 4:04 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Stop screeching around here like the nutjob you are.
Peace Power
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YU76l.1787$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> On 29-Dec-2008, john...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
>> > thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
>> > But of course, you don't.
>>
>> Why of course? I'm out for the truth, unlike you who just want
>> evidence for all your ancestral bullshit.
>
> Thanks for publicly contradicting yourself.
By what measure did you arrive at that rather strange conclusion, cohen?
Ben Cramer
"Eli Grubman" <eli.g...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:j7gil41kmctsk4907...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:36:56 GMT, fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>>
>>On 29-Dec-2008, john...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> > If you did a search for [DNA ashkenazi jewish israelite] or some such
>>> > thing, I bet you could find out for yourself, if you really wanted to.
>>> > But of course, you don't.
>>>
>>> Why of course? I'm out for the truth, unlike you who just want
>>> evidence for all your ancestral bullshit.
>>
>>Thanks for publicly contradicting yourself.
>>
>
> Show us your jew DNA, you th*ck Ir*sh cunt! LOL
She has none. She's one cell shy of being an amoeba.
HHW
> On Dec 28, 9:18 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Snip
> > > How many Middle East countries have freedom of religion?
>
> > Certainly not Israel. It oppresses its religious minority.
>
> That's just one more construct of a delusion mind desparate to see
> reality as he'd like it to be.
It is actually trying to drive its religious minority, citizens no
less, out of the country. Has that escaped you?
Snip
DoD
> The GAZA, CHANUKAH MASSACRE - photo slide show:http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/29/updated-gaza-massacre-photo-...
Don't start wars.
HHW
> On Dec 28, 3:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
Snip
> Why not help end the war ASAP , kick out all jews and ALL christians
> ASAP
>
> problem solved
>
> kanga
> ======
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The problem is primarily
the American role in the mess. Fix that and the Israelis will be on a
fast track to a solution.
Ben Cramer
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6989ddc8-4eb8-4f33...@m15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 11:13 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 15:53, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 10:31 am, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > How so?
>
> > My impression at this stage is that you are simply in over your head.
> > You had better stick to things you have at least a prayer of
> > comprehending.
>
> Hold my hand then and show me precisely what it completely
> contradicts.
>Khazars were not from the middle east.
No shit Sherlock. Neither are most yids
Ben Cramer
"Sheldon Liberman" <she...@liberman.com> wrote in message
news:423bac53-e66c-43ac...@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 9:18 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>>
>> > How many Middle East countries have freedom of religion?
>>
>> Certainly not Israel. It oppresses its religious minority.
>That's just one more construct of a delusion mind desparate to see
>reality as he'd like it to be.
Is that a fact?
Try this, lying jew. I've plenty more where this came from .
CHRISTIANS BRUTALIZED IN HOLY LAND
By Mark Glenn
Some 200 Christian Zionist leaders, representing churches spread throughout
America, Europe, Africa and Asia, gathered in Israelís Knesset to "beg
forgiveness" for 2,000 years of "Christian persecution" of Jews.
The well publicized ceremony took place under the auspices of the "Knesset
Christian Allies Caucus," just one of a growing number of partnerships
springing up in recent years between organized Jewish and Christian Zionist
groups for the purpose of funneling Christian money and political support
toward Israel. Part of the statement reads as follows:
"On behalf of millions of Christians, we repent before you for crimes
committed against the Jewish people throughout history in the name of
Christianity..We have sinned against God and against you.. To you we
owe much.. Through you, God gave us the Holy Scriptures, and because of this
we have a heritage, a destiny, a hope and a compass for living..What a
treasure you are in the sight of our God! You are His chosen and the apple
of His eye.."
But despite the fact that Israel was built (and continues to live) off of
handouts from Christian countries-principally the U.S. and Germany-and for
all the inherent groveling and breast-beating that this mea culpa was meant
to convey, it obviously did not "cut the mustard" in improving
Christian/Jewish relations in Israel, the birthplace of Jesus Christ and the
2,000-year-old religion created in His name.
Besides the fact that Israel has now become a haven for international
gangsters-meaning rampant prostitution, drugs, human trafficking and money
laundering to name a few-there are other indicators surrounding Israel's
political and social character as well that show she is anything but
friendly to the morals and precepts of Christian teachings. Christian
churches that were not taxed are now being sent heavy bills. Media outlets
featuring Christian programming on television and radio are having their
license renewal applications rejected.
More telling though is the fact that physical attacks on Christians, their
symbols and institutions continue in Israel unabated, and not by
"Islamo-fascists" (so much discussed by the likes of Norman Podhoretz,
Daniel Pipes, John Hagee, Bill O'Reilly, et al.) but rather by a more
fanatical sect that has nursed a hatred for Christianity since its
inception, the people who collectively call themselves "the Israelites" and
whom Christians are told to "bless."
Pastor Hagee has been an avid supporter of the state Israel since his first
visit there in 1978. "I went to Israel as a tourist and returned home a
committed Zionist," he said. His book says that Jesus did not come to Earth
to be the Messiah. In what appears to be a growing trend these days,
physical attacks on Christians, their churches and symbols are beginning to
show a marked rise in Israel.
For nearly a century, since the invasion of Palestine began, Christians of
all denominations have suffered bombings, shootings, arsons and wanton acts
of senseless destruction of their sacred properties-and all of it by a horde
of Marxist/atheist invaders from Eastern Europe calling themselves "God's
chosen." From the moment they arrived-announcing to the world "We're
baaaack" with all the fanfare that their grip over the Western media
afforded them-they picked up where their alleged ancestors left off in
attempting to erase the name of the hated Jesus from the Holy Land.
Mimicking the same kind of behavior their Bolshevik cousins exhibited during
and after the takeover of Russia and using the "fog of war" as a smokescreen
for their actions, Christian church properties have been bulldozed, blown up
or burned down on numerous occasions, all of it chalked up to "collateral
damage." Since the Jews of Europe began reconstructing the nation that was
destroyed some 2,000 years ago following the predictions of Jesus Himself,
priests, pastors, nuns, churches,
cemeteries, Bibles, icons, stained-glass widows, all were all fair game as
far as the Zionists were concerned when it came to maintaining its
exclusively "Jewish character."
Not long after Israel declared her statehood, legislation was passed
outlawing Christians trying to convert Jews to the religion of Jesus Christ
with a 5-year prison sentence attached for good measure.
Now, no longer limited to impersonal attacks done in the middle of the night
with minimal chance of being caught, Jews (and particularly those in
Jerusalem, the city of Jesus's sham trial and murder by his enemies) are
coming out in the open now and displaying their ancestral hatred for all
things Christian without any evident fear of what kind of consequences might
follow.
Out-in the-open physical attacks on priests, pastors, statues and Christian
processions by extremist Jews is now more the norm than the exception. A
recent case involving a Greek Orthodox clergyman involved a skullcap-wearing
elderly Jew tapping on the window of the clergyman's car and when the man
opened his window, the Jew spat in his face, something becoming a daily
occurrence in Israel. Only a few days later, a yeshiva student spat at the
cross as it was being carried by the Armenian archbishop during a procession
near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and did so under the
watchful eye of his rabbi, who did nothing to impede him.
In another recent case, 13 bishops from Austria were barred from praying at
Jerusalem's Western Wall by a rabbi who oversees the site. The Christians
refused to remove the crosses around their necks, which the rabbi considered
"insulting." Other Christians who have seen the increasingly bold and
violent nature on the part of Israel's Jews toward them and their faith in a
manner up close and personal say that during Jewish religious festivals such
as Purim (celebrating the hanging of Haman and the execution of 75,000
Persians) they stay inside and lock their doors, fearing their lives are in
danger amid a band of rowdy, drunken and violent Jewish extremists.
One would think that, with all the lecturing taking place during the last
half-century by organized Jewish groups when it comes to "hatred" and
"intolerance" (not to mention the undeniable influence these groups have
wielded in getting "hate crimes" legislation passed in most Christian
countries), there would be more concern paid for this growing trend in the
"headquarters" of Jewish values in the world-Israel.
With all the fear-mongering to which Christians are subjected on a daily
basis when it comes to Islam that is inaccurately portrayed as inherently
anti-Christian by the likes of John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Joseph Farah and
other neo-cons, you would expect some attention given to this alarming
business taking place in Israel. And yet, not a peep from any of them.
Attacks on Christians by Jews Increasing in Israel, Palestine
A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn spoke at the
AFP-TBR conference on the Middle East panel. He is a prolific writer whose
provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and
their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho. His book, No Beauty
in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $28
ppd.
Ben Cramer
On Dec 28, 9:33 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:45 pm, SheldonLiberman<shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 11:49 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Israeli best seller breaks national taboo
>
>
> > > Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> > > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
>
> > Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
>
> maternal founders of the line but the analysis did not fix the
> location of these seminal events. I also understand that Khazar
> book is printed in English by Verso here in the United States will you
> read it? It is already a best seller elsewhere and looks to become one
> world-wide.
>The study you refer to is a different one than the one I do. See:
>Hammer, M. F.; A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T.
>Karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T.
>Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir (May 9 2000). "Jewish and
>Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-
>chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
>It was also a common belief amongst the Khazars that converted that
>they were in truth one of the lost tribes of Israel.
Of course they do. They need this lie.
Ben Cramer
On Dec 28, 9:18 pm, HHW <
> > with the raison d'etre to destroy Israel. No U.S. affirmation
> > required.
>
>> Forgive us, Mr.Liberman, but should that determine American Middle
>> Eastern policy? Israel was founded in a vast ethnic cleansing, one of
>> the 20th Century's monstrous crimes against humanity.
>>
>American policy has always been to support those countries which
>shares it's values.
What values do Ersatz israel and the Jewnited States share?
Enlighten me.
HHW
Mythical and irrelevant. What you presume certain people might have
thought on that subject 1,500 years ago can not be known with any
reliability.
Even if this were
> not the case, if Ashkenazic Jews were all descendent of converts,
> there should not be any kohanim (priests) among them, a status that
> follows a paternal link.
Only drahcir is silly enough to make assertions of that sort. His
version is that all the world's Jews of today are descendants of
"Israelites".
I am one myself. The same series of DNA tests
> show that the kohanic claim, supported by tradition alone, is highly
> likely.
All tribes have priests.
> As for reading Dr. Sand's book, no thanks. I have no more time for
> such as I do for the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Irving. I'll
> read the critiques from sources I trust.
I can't speak for Irvinig, not having read anything by him, but you're
missing a lot by not experiencing Chomsky and Finkelstein. Of course
it may be the form of hiding characteristic of Ratner.
Snip
HHW
> On Dec 28, 9:18 pm, HHW <
>
> > > Hamas--which happens to be the Hebrew word for violence--was founded
> > > with the raison d'etre to destroy Israel. No U.S. affirmation
> > > required.
>
> > Forgive us, Mr.Liberman, but should that determine American Middle
> > Eastern policy? Israel was founded in a vast ethnic cleansing, one of
> > the 20th Century's monstrous crimes against humanity.
>
> American policy has always been to support those countries which
> shares it's values.
America is not ZIonist. Therefore we don't share Israel's central
ideological values.
As for ethnic cleansing, that's pure fantasy.
It was called the Nakba, Mr. Liberman. It began in late 1947 and
wasn't actually concluded until the early 50's Read Pappe's "The
Ethnic Cleansing of Pallestine".
snip
DoD
> On Dec 29, 1:05 pm, Sheldon Liberman <shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 9:18 pm, HHW <
>
> > > > Hamas--which happens to be the Hebrew word for violence--was founded
> > > > with the raison d'etre to destroy Israel. No U.S. affirmation
> > > > required.
>
> > > Forgive us, Mr.Liberman, but should that determine American Middle
> > > Eastern policy? Israel was founded in a vast ethnic cleansing, one of
> > > the 20th Century's monstrous crimes against humanity.
>
> > American policy has always been to support those countries which
> > shares it's values.
>
> America is not ZIonist. Therefore we don't share Israel's central
> ideological values.
You are a real creep. You certainly don't represent America... From a
poll earlier this year..
"Only 6 percent of Americans think the United States should stand
behind the Palestinians in Middle East peace talks."
Ben Cramer
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90b13c1d-d176-4782...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>Don't start wars.
That should be addressed to the yids. It's they who start all the wars,
stupid.
Ben Cramer
I'm surprised it's that high doodoo, given the jew owned media have been
beating up on Arabs for decades.
drahcir
mitochondrial issue:
New Light on Origins of Ashkenazi in Europe
Article Tools Sponsored By
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: January 14, 2006
A new look at the DNA of the Ashkenazi Jewish population has thrown
light on its still mysterious origins.
Until now, it had been widely assumed by geneticists that the
Ashkenazi communities of Northern and Central Europe were founded by
men who came from the Middle East, perhaps as traders, and by the
women from each local population whom they took as wives and converted
to Judaism.
But the new study, published online this week in The American Journal
of Human Genetics, suggests that the men and their wives migrated to
Europe together.
The researchers, Doron Behar and Karl Skorecki of the Technion and
Ramban Medical Center in Haifa, and colleagues elsewhere, report that
just four women, who may have lived 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, are the
ancestors of 40 percent of Ashkenazis alive today. The Technion team's
analysis was based on mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element that is
separate from the genes held in the cell's nucleus and that is
inherited only through the female line. Because of mutations - the
switch of one DNA unit for another - that build up on the
mitochondrial DNA, people can be assigned to branches that are defined
by which mutations they carry.
In the case of the Ashkenazi population, the researchers found that
many branches coalesced to single trees, and so were able to identify
the four female ancestors.
Looking at other populations, the Technion team found that some people
in Egypt, Arabia and the Levant also carried the set of mutations that
defines one of the four women. They argue that all four probably lived
originally in the Middle East.
www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/science/14gene.html
Here's a link to the complete study, which I am just absolutely
certain you will read with bated breath:
I guess that'll wrap up your pitifully weak "jewishness" argument. Go
get yourself a few beers, relax, and think about the incredible story
of the Jewish people, unique in all of human history. Isn't it simply
amazing?
P.S. I did a bit of research into the author of your cite, Levy-
Coffman. She is an attorney in private practice - family law - not a
geneticist. She got her J.D. in 1993. I imagine her specialty is
paternity suits.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
fla...@verizon.net
On 29-Dec-2008, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It was also a common belief amongst the Khazars that converted that
> > they were in truth one of the lost tribes of Israel. Even if this were
> > not the case, if Ashkenazic Jews were all descendent of converts,
> > there should not be any kohanim (priests) among them, a status that
> > follows a paternal link. I am one myself.
Me, too - ok, a *daughter* of one :-)
> > The same series of DNA tests
> > show that the kohanic claim, supported by tradition alone, is highly
> > likely.
> >
& the studies further show a suprisingly high degree of
marital fidelity on the part of the wives (I remember this
from a television program on the subject: I freely admit
to not know what particular quality proves this)
> > As for reading Dr. Sand's book, no thanks. I have no more time for
> > such as I do for the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Irving.
Good analogy. Very good analogy; fitting.
> > I'll
> > read the critiques from sources I trust.
>
> It is interesting that people like watson, just love to call you
> people the descendants of the "Christ killers" and turn around and say
> that you have no connection to the Middle East.
>
When have bigots ever been logical?
> What makes this even more irritating and insulting to those of us that
> are Christian and I would assume the same for you Jews is that people
> like watson support the PalArabs who just recently legalized
> CRUCIFIXION.........
>
OMG. You are not kidding about this - I know you better than that.
I am absolutely astounded.
> It is amazing how we have such depraved people like watson in the west.
It's a sickness.
Susan
Ben Cramer
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:V%h6l.1930$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> On 29-Dec-2008, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > It was also a common belief amongst the Khazars that converted that
>> > they were in truth one of the lost tribes of Israel. Even if this were
>> > not the case, if Ashkenazic Jews were all descendent of converts,
>> > there should not be any kohanim (priests) among them, a status that
>> > follows a paternal link. I am one myself.
>
> Me, too - ok, a *daughter* of one :-)
Also the daughter of a Catholic nun. You don't qualify as a real yid, cohen.
Sorry to have rained on your parade.
Eli Grubman
>
>On 29-Dec-2008, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > It was also a common belief amongst the Khazars that converted that
>> > they were in truth one of the lost tribes of Israel. Even if this were
>> > not the case, if Ashkenazic Jews were all descendent of converts,
>> > there should not be any kohanim (priests) among them, a status that
>> > follows a paternal link. I am one myself.
>
>Me, too - ok, a *daughter* of one :-)
Except for the fact that your father (whom you refer to as an a"h)
changed his name to KKKohen from something else.
Eli
Kosher Cunny
ben Murphy
KC
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
<BG> Watch our poor psychopathic sod's interest in other people's lives! He
doesn't have one himself! Absolutely NONE!
In case someone is still in doubt about that, check this:
Just so that everyone gets a clue of the MISERY our village idiot, aka
psychopath Grabmen, is going through:
this sick psychopathic swine was trolling and spamming yesterday from 02:27
a.m. (MID: <v8dgl4l0t11q5hhgn...@4ax.com>) till 22:51 p.m.
(MID: <r1lil49ln6jnps4pv...@4ax.com>)! That is, for more than
TWENTY HOURS, again! LOL
And it started trolling and spamming today again at 03:27... after not even
a FIVE HOUR break!!! ROTFLOL
Now lets watch how many hours this sick, degenerate, psychopathic swine with
ABSOLUTELY NO LIFE OUTSIDE USENET will hold out today! LOL
Such utter MISERY was never seen on the Usenet before!
Doctor Panta
--
Everyone check this: psychopath Grabmen glued to his computer today as from
3:27 a.m. again (MID: <l65jl4hgggf11q7qn...@4ax.com>).
Watch the poor psycho with no life AT ALL making a complete ass of himself,
AGAIN, for the next FOURTEEN to TWENTY HOURS (and more) at a stretch!
AirRaid
Sheldon Liberman
It hasn't escape me. It simply doesn't exist.
Sheldon Liberman
> "SheldonLiberman" <shel...@liberman.com> wrote in message
Thanks for the laugh, clown. Maybe the "author" would be so kind as to
point out some examples.
Tell it like it is.
I agree, but a secular jewish state means an Israel without the sermon
on the mount.
Sheldon Liberman
> "SheldonLiberman" <shel...@liberman.com> wrote in message
Sorry, fella, but you're unenlightenable. As for values....hmmm...this
is toughie, unless you want to count democracy, freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, capitalism.....
Sheldon Liberman
> > > > Do you mean I'm anti-Khazar? As I hadn't heard of them until about a
> > > > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
> > > You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
> > > Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
>
>
> > I understand that the DNA analysis pursued back to the level of four
> > maternal founders of the line but the analysis did not fix the
> > location of these seminal events. I also understand that Khazar
> > origins of most of the Ashkenazi are not in dispute.
>
> origins" of European Jews are not, as he claims, "in dispute" -- when
> the topic isn't even a blip on the radar -- when he never heard of the
> Khazars "until about a year ago"?
>
> Deborah
I doubt he's even heard of a fork until a year, if even.
Tell it like it is.
>
> - Show quoted text -
What doesn't exist, Sheldon? That Israeli law is exclusive of Muslims
and Christians? THAT does exist. A Holy Land in the Middle East
without Muslims and Christians and religious Jews is an oxymoron.
After the Muslims, what are you going to do: declare open season on
religious jews and Christians. No tele-evangelist wants to believe
he, a Christian Zionist, is not welcome in a secular jewish state
calling itself by the religious and holy name of Israel.. Sephardim
are second class citizens even though Messianic are the native jews
of the region (Sephardim) and they alone gave so-called jews the
legitimacy to found the SECULAR state based solely on religious
promises contained in the Torah.
Putting Talmud above Torah is the distinguishing
characteristic of a secular jew. It is what got Christ killed in 33
A.D., and brought the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem when the
Romans realized after a generation had passed that they had been used
by the high priest Caiiphas and the Sanhedrin to kill the jewish
Christ. As a result, as you know, Christ became the Roman God.
Understand Sheldon, Israel was a theocracy in
ancient times, as was the entire Middle Eastern world, and though the
leaders of the people in Jerusalem did not accept Jesus from the town
of Nazareth as the Christ, they did agree to kill the man according to
the prophets in the Jewish Books. Doublethink.
dsharavi
<DanielAlbertDesfos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What doesn't exist, Sheldon? That Israeli law is exclusive of Muslims
> and Christians? THAT does exist. A Holy Land in the Middle East
> without Muslims and Christians and religious Jews is an oxymoron.
> After the Muslims, what are you going to do: declare open season on
> religious jews and Christians. No tele-evangelist wants to believe
> he, a Christian Zionist, is not welcome in a secular jewish state
> calling itself by the religious and holy name of Israel.. Sephardim
> are second class citizens even though Messianic are the native jews
> of the region (Sephardim) and they alone gave so-called jews the
> legitimacy to found the SECULAR state based solely on religious
> promises contained in the Torah.
> Putting Talmud above Torah is the distinguishing
> characteristic of a secular jew. It is what got Christ killed in 33
> A.D., and brought the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem when the
> Romans realized after a generation had passed that they had been used
> by the high priest Caiiphas and the Sanhedrin to kill the jewish
> Christ. As a result, as you know, Christ became the Roman God.
> Understand Sheldon, Israel was a theocracy in
> ancient times, as was the entire Middle Eastern world, and though the
> leaders of the people in Jerusalem did not accept Jesus from the town
> of Nazareth as the Christ, they did agree to kill the man according to
> the prophets in the Jewish Books. Doublethink.
Except for these NGs, one seldom sees such an outpouring of utter
ignorance.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > > > year ago that's unlikely, don't you think?
> > > On Dec 28, 1:45 pm, SheldonLiberman<shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
> > > > You apparently don't. The idea that the Jews descended from the
> > > > Khazars was done away with years ago by DNA analysis.
> > On Dec 28, 6:33 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I understand that the DNA analysis pursued back to the level of four
> > > maternal founders of the line but the analysis did not fix the
> > > location of these seminal events. I also understand that Khazar
> > > origins of most of the Ashkenazi are not in dispute.
> > Now how can HHW possibly "understand" that the alleged "Khazar
> > origins" of European Jews are not, as he claims, "in dispute" -- when
> > the topic isn't even a blip on the radar -- when he never heard of the
> > Khazars "until about a year ago"?
On Dec 30, 9:00 am, Sheldon Liberman <shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
> I doubt he's even heard of a fork until a year, if even.
<chuckle> One might say the same of the author of the tripe HHW
posted. And the guy's a professor? It's sad to see to what depths
academic standards have declined these past years.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > > Certainly not Israel. It oppresses its religious minority.
> > > That's just one more construct of a delusion mind desparate to see
> > > reality as he'd like it to be.
On Dec 30, 8:46 am, Sheldon Liberman <shel...@liberman.com> wrote:
> It hasn't escape me. It simply doesn't exist.
Well, it does in Middle Eastern countries of the Muslim countries
persuasion--with the exception of those Muslim countries which have
driven out their religious minorities altogether, of course.
Deborah
Tell it like it is.
> On Dec 28, 10:09 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > “When And How the Jewish People Was Invented” is a very serious study
> > written by Professor Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian. It is the most
> > serious study of Jewish nationalism and by far, the most courageous
> > elaboration on the Jewish historical narrative.
>
> > In his book, Sand manages to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that
> > the Jewish people never existed as a 'nation-race', they never shared
> > a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at
> > various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion.
>
> Presumably, the good professor "proves" this, just like he "proves"
> his notion that Spanish Jews descend from a Warrior Queen's Berber
> tribe, which converted to Judaism in the 6thC, fought against the
> Muslim Arab invasions in the 7th century, then participated in the
> Muslim Arab invasion and conquest of Iberia.
>
> Deborah
When you secular Zionists do not accept the Hebrew books as inspired
of God you prove what is to the world an ashkenazi jew as
differentiated from the religious jews who are DNA related to Abraham
and all Arabs. Your words "Notion" Proves" typically Gdless
ashkenazim. Doesn't rate any credibility with those who recognize the
legitimacy of the Hebrew books. Even though I am a Catholic by birth I
have enough sense to know a Pope has not more right than a religious
jew, Sephardim, to determine the intended meaning of Hebrew words by
the original authors of the Torah. Which is the only part of the
Hebrew prophets most ashkenazim recognize, since it was used to get
them [back] to the Holy Land..
Ashkenazi Jews know sin. The Day of
Atonement being used currently by ashkenazim to justify jewish sins
rather than condemn sin is a grave mistake, in my Catholic opinion..
When a jew imputes knowledge of sin, which, in his case, is extensive,
onto innocence, he exposes himself. "forgive us our trespasses". "As
we forgive".