THESIS: Jews are not a race so the Zionist ideal is myth:
This article by an Israeli professor illustrates two important issues:
1. the healthiness of Jewish/Zionist self criticism.
2. the tension between radical religious Judaism and the humanistic Judaism that actually drove the Zionists.
from LeMonde
Zionist nationalist myth of enforced exileIn the excerpts below there are comments.
An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East
By Schlomo Sand
Every Israeli knows that he or she is the direct and exclusive descendant of a Jewish people which has existed since it received the Torah (1) in Sinai. According to this myth, the Jews escaped from Egypt and settled in the Promised Land, where they built the glorious kingdom of David and Solomon, which subsequently split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. They experienced two exiles: after the destruction of the first temple, in the 6th century BC, and of the second temple, in 70 AD.
I do not know if every Israeli knows this Certainly this story, along with the even more ancient story of Abraham is beoleved literally about the Jews by a huge part of the world.
Of course, having an origins story is pretty common amongst all peoples, esp our brothers tha Arabs. They believe, based on the Quran, that along with us they are a people descended from Abraham.
Is there anything to ether ancient story? There is something.
1. Hebrew and Arabic have the same lingusitc roots in ancient Northern Arabia.
2. Genetic studies show that Arabs and Jews are both descendents of po9pulationjs form the eastern Meditierranean.
Two thousand years of wandering brought the Jews to Yemen, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Poland and deep into Russia. But, the story goes, they always managed to preserve blood links between their scattered communities. Their uniqueness was never compromised.
This is more than just a story. Amazingly the genetic data, especially for the male lineage, show that Jewish "blood lines" have been transmitted for 2000 to 3000 years. The dates for certain markers are, by the way, older than 70AD so Schlomo's thesis fails.
The contemporary historical records of these societies, esp. post Christianity, includes many discussions of how Jews were to be kept separate from Christians by law. Same. post Muhamud, for Islamic countries.
At the end of the 19th century conditions began to favour their return to their ancient homeland. If it had not been for the Nazi genocide, millions of Jews would have fulfilled the dream of 20 centuries and repopulated Eretz Israel, the biblical land of Israel. Palestine, a virgin land, had been waiting for its original inhabitants to return and awaken it. It belonged to the Jews, rather than to an Arab minority that had no history and had arrived there by chance. The wars in which the wandering people reconquered their land were just; the violent opposition of the local population was criminal.
This interpretation of Jewish history was developed as talented, imaginative historians built on surviving fragments of Jewish and Christian religious memory to construct a continuous genealogy for the Jewish people. Judaism’s abundant historiography encompasses many different approaches.
But none have ever questioned the basic concepts developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Discoveries that might threaten this picture of a linear past were marginalised. The national imperative rejected any contradiction of or deviation from the dominant story. University departments exclusively devoted to “the history of the Jewish people”, as distinct from those teaching what is known in Israel as general history, made a significant contribution to this selective vision. The debate on what constitutes Jewishness has obvious legal implications, but historians ignored it: as far as they are concerned, any descendant of the people forced into exile 2,000 years ago is a Jew.
Schlomo ignores Jewish law. Conversion is NOT a new idea nor has it ever been banned. Until the Islamic and Christian eras, conversion was a normal matter in the Mediterranean.
Moreover, conversion to Judaism is an ancient principle that includes Moses wife, David's mother, Hillel's grandfather, etc.
Finally, Schlomo ignores an important distinction. In Roman times many people followed Jewish principles without joining the Jewish people. This distinction was well known to the Romans and was fundamental to the starting principles of Christianity which est abolished the formal idea that one could be a follower of Judaism without going through the rituals required for conversion.
Nor did these official investigators of the past join the controversy provoked by the “new historians” from the late 1980s. Most of the limited number of participants in this public debate were from other disciplines or non-academic circles: sociologists, orientalists, linguists, geographers, political scientists, literary academics and archaeologists developed new perspectives on the Jewish and Zionist past. Departments of Jewish history remained defensive and conservative, basing themselves on received ideas. While there have been few significant developments in national history over the past 60 years (a situation unlikely to change in the short term), the facts that have emerged face any honest historian with fundamental questions.
Founding myths shaken
Is the Bible a historical text? Writing during the early half of the 19th century, the first modern Jewish historians, such as Isaak Markus Jost (1793-1860) and Leopold Zunz (1794-1886), did not think so. They regarded the Old Testament as a theological work reflecting the beliefs of Jewish religious communities after the destruction of the first temple. It was not until the second half of the century that Heinrich Graetz (1817-91) and others developed a “national” vision of the Bible and transformed Abraham’s journey to Canaan, the flight from Egypt and the united kingdom of David and Solomon into an authentic national past. By constant repetition, Zionist historians have subsequently turned these Biblical “truths” into the basis of national education.
But during the 1980s an earthquake shook these founding myths. The discoveries made by the “new archaeology” discredited a great exodus in the 13th century BC. Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at the time. And there is no trace of either a slave revolt against the pharaonic empire or of a sudden conquest of Canaan by outsiders.
This is half truth. The literal story as in the Torah is not likely to be true. On the other hand we KNOW from history that a Semitic people with Hebrew names occupied the northern part of Egypt for hundreds of years and actually ruled as Pharaohs until expelled by a rebellion by indigenous Egyptians form the South, The "Hyksos" fled to the area we now call Israel.
There are other pieces of evidence of some sort of Egyptian origin of part of the Hebrew people including Egyptian names in the Torah (viz. Moses) and cultural references.
Bottom line, no modern historian would argue that the early Hebrews did not have contact with Egypt.
Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The general population of Judah did not go into 6th
Again, Schlomo engages in half truths. It is true that historians do no see the existence of a great kingdom. So? The lack of a great kingdom is hardly inconsistent with any kingdom and there is ample evidence, that he ignores, of a Kingdom of David long before the first exile.
As for monotheism, one of David's descendants, King Josiah, was already a monotheist long before the exile and a good deal of the Torah was completed during his reign.
And yes a lot did happen in Babylon. How is this relevant to his thesis.
Finally, if the issue here is whether there was or was not a Hebrew people at this time, nobody disputes that. The major language of the areas was Hebrew, a rules of the House of David was the major ruler before the conquest and exile. Finally, there were no non-Hebrews in the pre-exile area since by then the Canaani and Hebrews were one culture.
century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism.
True, Judaism has grown for about 3000 years.
Then there is the question of the exile of 70 AD. There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest.
Most Zionist thinkers were aware of this: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, later president of Israel, and David Ben Gurion, its first prime minister, accepted it as late as 1929, the year of the great Palestinian revolt. Both stated on several occasions that the peasants of Palestine were the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Judea (2).
Whatever Schlomo OR Ben Zvi believes, the non Jewish occupants of the area were NOT the descendants of the Judeans. By 1929 this area had been variously conquered, occupied, and colonized by Romans, Arabs, Europeans, and Turks. While one assumes that some of the older genome persevered, there is no historical record of any people in this land, other than the Jews, regarding themselves as distinct and maintaining intra marriage tradtions. The only exception may be the Beduoins and these have always been a minority.
Proselytising zeal
But if there was no exile after 70 AD, where did all the Jews who have populated the Mediterranean since antiquity come from? The smokescreen of national historiography hides an astonishing reality. From the Maccabean revolt of the mid-2nd century BC to the Bar Kokhba revolt of the 2nd century AD, Judaism was the most actively proselytising religion. The Judeo-Hellenic Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans of southern Judea and the Itureans of Galilee and incorporated them into the people of Israel. Judaism spread across the Middle East and round the Mediterranean. The 1st century AD saw the emergence in modern Kurdistan of the Jewish kingdom of Adiabene, just one of many that converted.
There is, as far as I know, no historic evidence of the Kurdish legend and modern genetics has proven that the Ashkenazi Jews have Mediterranean not Caucasian roots. As to more ancient conversions, what is Schlomo's point? Of course there were conversions.
The writings of Flavius Josephus are not the only evidence of the proselytising zeal of the Jews. Horace, Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus were among the Roman writers who feared it. The Mishnah and the Talmud (3) authorised conversion, even if the wise men of the Talmudic tradition expressed reservations in the face of the mounting pressure from Christianity.
Although the early 4th century triumph of Christianity did not mark the end of Jewish expansion, it relegated Jewish proselytism to the margins of the Christian cultural world. During the 5th century, in modern Yemen, a vigorous Jewish kingdom emerged in Himyar, whose descendants preserved their faith through the Islamic conquest and down to the present day. Arab chronicles tell of the existence, during the 7th century, of Judaised Berber tribes; and at the end of the century the legendary Jewish queen Dihya contested the Arab advance into northwest Africa. Jewish Berbers participated in the conquest of the Iberian peninsula and helped establish the unique symbiosis between Jews and Muslims that characterised Hispano-Arabic culture.
Again, Schlomo is making no real pont unless he really thinks that Zionism depends on a literal accetance of the bible. If there were Berbers who became jewish, how is that a bad thing?
The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas. The expansion of Judaism from the Caucasus into modern Ukraine created a multiplicity of communities, many of which retreated from the 13th century Mongol invasions into eastern Europe. There, with Jews from the Slavic lands to the south and from what is now modern Germany, they formed the basis of Yiddish culture (4).
Again, this myth is now known to be ..a myth.
Prism of Zionism
Until about 1960 the complex origins of the Jewish people were more or less reluctantly acknowledged by Zionist historiography. But thereafter they were marginalised and finally erased from Israeli public memory. The Israeli forces who seized Jerusalem in 1967 believed themselves to be the direct descendents of the mythic kingdom of David rather than – God forbid – of Berber warriors or Khazar horsemen. The Jews claimed to constitute a specific ethnic group that had returned to Jerusalem, its capital, from 2,000 years of exile and wandering.
This is the nub, the antisemitic core of both Palestinian propaganda and Schlomo's revisionism. "Peoples" do not arise form some sort of mythological ur-parent. Leaving aside his bazaar comments both the Khazara, OF COURSE the Jewish people have evolved over time. The idea of racial purity belongs in the Nazi portfolio, not ours. Why should Jews be different from Russians, Englishmen, Lakota???
This monolithic, linear edifice is supposed to be supported by biology as well as history. Since the 1970s supposedly scientific research, carried out in Israel, has desperately striven to demonstrate that Jews throughout the world are closely genetically related.
Research into the origins of populations now constitutes a legitimate and popular field in molecular biology and the male Y chromosome has been accorded honoured status in the frenzied search for the unique origin of the “chosen people”. The problem is that this historical fantasy has come to underpin the politics of identity of the state
of Israel. By validating an essentialist,
ethnocentric definition of Judaism it encourages a segregation that separates Jews from non-Jews – whether Arabs, Russian immigrants or foreign workers.
So, having dissed others' views of history Schlomom now wants to discard science because it agrees with history?? First of, it is nonsense that only Israeli or even Jewish scientists can read DNA. Second, HE is a racist and antisemite if he asserts that somehow Jews, among all world peoples, must only accept others if they are of pure blood.
Finally, this entire argument assumes there is a race called "Palestinians." This is certainly not true.
Sixty years after its foundation, Israel refuses to accept that it should exist for the sake of its citizens. For almost a quarter of the population, who are not regarded as Jews, this is not their state legally. At the same time, Israel presents itself as the homeland of Jews throughout the world, even if these are no longer persecuted refugees, but the full and equal citizens of other countries.
A global ethnocracy invokes the myth of the eternal nation, reconstituted on the land of its ancestors, to justify internal discrimination against its own citizens. It will remain difficult to imagine a new Jewish history while the prism of Zionism continues to fragment everything into an ethnocentric spectrum. But Jews worldwide have always tended to form religious communities, usually by conversion; they cannot be said to share an ethnicity derived from a unique origin and displaced over 20 centuries of wandering.
The development of historiography and the evolution of modernity were consequences of the invention of the nation state, which preoccupied millions during the 19th and 20th centuries. The new millennium has seen these dreams begin to shatter.
And more and more academics are analysing, dissecting and deconstructing the great national stories, especially the myths of common origin so dear to chroniclers of the past.
Shlomo Sand is professor of history at Tel Aviv university and the author of Comment le people juif fut inventé (Fayard, Paris, 2008)
The easiest response to this is to say that even if it were true of the Israeli Jews, so what? The same thing is true and even more so of the Palestinians. There is no such ethnioc group prior to tis creation in reaction to Zionism and spe post 1948.
What Schlomo refuses to understand is that we are a people, not a race and not (just) a religion. If he were not a Jew himself, this would be patent antisemtiism. Any modern view of that people, if Israel mis to exist, mustn include an understanding that some other peoples exist in the Jewish society just as Turks have conme to live in Sweden or Chinese in California.
I might get my head torn off by 
Celebrate the 22nd Anniversary of Rabbi Capers and Rabbinit Miriam Funnye
