Jewish History: The Lion and the Gazelle
|
||
|
||
|
By Uri Avnery Tonight the Jews all over the world will celebrate the Seder, the unique ceremony that unites Jews everywhere in the defining Jewish myth: the Exodus from Egypt. Compared to the power of this myth, does it really matter that the Exodus from Egypt never took place? Thousands of Egyptian documents deciphered in recent years leave no room for doubt: the exodus of masses of people, as described in the Bible, or anything remotely like it, just never happened. These documents, which cover in the finest detail every period and every part of Canaan during this epoch prove beyond any doubt that there was no "Conquest of Canaan" and no kingdom of David and Solomon. For a hundred years, Zionist archeologists have devoted tireless efforts to finding even a single piece of evidence to support the Biblical narrative, all to no avail. But this is quite unimportant. In the competition between "objective" history and myth, the myth that suits our needs will always win, and win big. It is not important what was, the important thing is what fires our imagination. That is what guides our steps to this day. The biblical narrative connects up with documented history only around the year 853 BC, when ten thousand soldiers and 2000 battle chariots of Ahab, King of Israel, took part in a grand coalition of the kingdoms of Syria and Palestine against Assyria. The battle, which was documented by the Assyrians, was fought at Qarqar in Syria. The Assyrian army was delayed, if not defeated. (A personal note: I am not a historian, but for many years I have reflected on our history and tried to draw some logical conclusions, which are outlined here. Most of them are supported by the emerging consensus of independent scholars around the world.) The kingdoms of Israel and Judea, which occupied a part of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, were no different from the other kingdoms of the region. Even according to the Bible itself, the people sacrificed to various pagan deities "on every high hill and under every green tree". (1 Kings 14:23). Jerusalem was a tiny market town, much too small and much too poor for any of the things described in the Bible to have taken place there at the time. In the books of the Bible that deal with that period, the appellation "Jew" (Yehudi in Hebrew) hardly appears at all, and where it does, it clearly refers simply to an inhabitant of Judea, the area around Jerusalem. When an Assyrian general was asked "talk not with us in the Jewish language" (2 Kings 18:26), what was meant was the local Judean dialect of Hebrew. The "Jewish" revolution took place in the Babylonian exile (587-539 BC). After the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, members of the Judean elite were exiled to Babylon, where they came into contact with the important cultural streams of the time. The result was one of the great creations of mankind: the Jewish religion. After some fifty years, some of the exiles returned to Palestine. They brought with them the name "Jews", the appellation of a religious-ideological-political movement, much like the "Zionists" of our time. Therefore, one can speak of "Judaism" and "Jews" - in the sense accepted now - only from then on. During the following 500 years, the Jewish monotheistic religion gradually crystallized. Also at this time, the most outstanding literary creation of all times, the Hebrew Bible, was composed. The writers of the Bible did not intend to write "history", in the sense understood today, but rather a religious, edifying and instructive text. To understand the birth and development of Judaism, one must consider two important facts: (a) Right from the beginning, when the "Jews" came back from Babylon, the Jewish community in this country was a minority among the Jews as a whole. Throughout the period of the "Second Temple", the majority of Jews lived abroad, in the areas known today as Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Cyprus, Italy, Spain and so on. The Jews of that period were not a "nation" - the very idea did not yet exist. The Jews of Palestine did not participate in the rebellions of the Jews in Libya and Cyprus against the Romans, and the Jews abroad took no part in the Great Revolt of the Jews in this country. The Maccabees were not national but religious fighters, rather like the Taliban in our days, and killed many more "Hellenized" Jews than enemy soldiers. (b) This Jewish Diaspora was not a unique phenomenon. On the contrary, at that time it was the norm. Notions like "nation" belong to the modern world. During the period of the "Second Temple" and later on, the dominant social-political pattern was a religious-political community enjoying self-government and not attached to any specific territory. A Jew in Alexandria could marry a Jewess in Damascus, but not the Christian woman across the street. She, on her part, could marry a Christian man in Rome, but not her Hellenist neighbor. The Jewish Diaspora was only one of many such communities. This social pattern was preserved in the Byzantine Empire, was later taken over by the Ottoman Empire and can still be detected in Israeli law. Today, a Muslim Israeli cannot marry a Jewish Israeli, a Druze cannot marry a Christian (at least not in Israel itself). The Druze, by the way, are a surviving example of such a Diaspora. The Jews were unique only in one respect: after the European peoples gradually moved on to new forms of organization, and in the end turned themselves into nations, the Jews remained what they were - a communal-religious Diaspora. The puzzle that is occupying the historians is: how did a tiny community of Babylonian exiles turn into a worldwide Diaspora of millions? There is only one convincing answer to that: conversion. The modern Jewish myth has it that almost all the Jews are descendents of the Jewish community that lived in Palestine 2000 years ago and was driven out by the Romans in the year 70 AD. That is, of course, baseless. The "Expulsion from the Country" is a religious myth: God was angry with the Jews because of their sins and exiled them from His country. But the Romans were not in the habit of moving populations, and there is clear evidence that a great part of the Jewish population in the country remained here after the Zealots' Revolt and after the Bar-Kochba uprising, and that most Jews lived outside the country long before that. At the time of the Second Temple and later, Judaism was a proselytizing religion par excellence. During the first centuries AD it fiercely competed with Christianity. While the slaves and other downtrodden people in the Roman Empire were more attracted to the Christian religion, with its moving human story, the upper classes tended towards Judaism. Throughout the Empire, large numbers adopted the Jewish religion. Especially puzzling is the origin of "Ashkenazi" Jewry. At the end of the first millennium there appeared in Europe - apparently out of nowhere - a very large Jewish population, the existence of which was not documented before. Where did they come from? There are several theories about that. The conventional one holds that the Jews wandered from the Mediterranean area to the North, settled in the Rhein valley and fled from the pogroms there to Poland, at the time the most liberal country in Europe. From there they dispersed into Russia and Ukraine, taking with them a German dialect that became Yiddish. The Tel Aviv University scholar Paul Wexler asserts, on the other hand, that Yiddish was originally not a German but a Slavic language. A large part of Ashkenazi Jewry, according to this theory, are descendents of the Sorbs, a Slavic people that lived in Eastern Germany and was forced to abandon its ancient pagan creed. Many of them preferred to become Jews, rather than Christians. In a recent book with the provocative title "When and How the Jewish People was Invented", the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues - like Arthur Koestler and others before him - that most of the Ashkenazi Jews are really descended from the Khazars, a Turkic people that created a large kingdom in what is now South Russia more than a thousand years ago. The Khazar king converted to Judaism, and according to this theory the Jews of Eastern Europe are mostly the descendants of Khazar converts. Sand also believes that most Sephardi Jews are descendents of Arab and Berber tribes in North Africa that had converted to Judaism instead of becoming Muslims, and had joined in the Muslim conquest of Spain. When Jewry stopped proselytizing, the Jews became a closed, ethnic-religious community (as the Talmud says: "Converts are hard for Israel like a skin disease"). But the historical truth, whatever it is, is not so important. Myth is stronger than truth, and it says that the Jews were expelled from this land. This is an essential layer in modern Jewish consciousness, and no academic research can shake it. In the last 300 years, Europe turned "national". The modern nation replaced earlier social patterns, such as the city state, feudal society and the dynastic empire. The national idea carried all before it, including history. Each of these new nations shaped an "imagined history" for itself. In other words, every nation rearranged ancient myths and historical facts in order to shape a "national history" which proclaims its importance and serves as a unifying glue. The Jewish Diaspora, which - as mentioned before - was "normal" 2000 years ago, became "abnormal" and exceptional. This intensified the Jew-hatred that was anyhow rampant in Christian Europe. Since all the national movements in Europe were - more or less - anti-Semitic, many Jews felt that they were left "outside", that they had no place in the new Europe. Some of them decided that the Jews must conform to the new Zeitgeist and turn the Jewish community into a Jewish "nation". For that purpose, it was necessary to reshape and reinvent Jewish history and turn it from the annals of a religious-ethnic Diaspora into the epic story of a "nation". The job was undertaken by a man who can be considered the godfather of the Zionist idea: Heinrich Graetz, a German Jew who was influenced by German nationalism and created a "national" Jewish history. His ideas have shaped Jewish consciousness to this day. Graetz accepted the Bible as if it were a history book, collected all the myths and created a complete and continuous historical narrative: the period of the Fathers, the Exodus from Egypt, the Conquest of Canaan, the "First Temple", the Babylonian Exile, the "Second Temple", the Destruction of the Temple and the Exile. That is the history that all of us learned in school, the foundation upon which Zionism was built. Zionism represented a revolution in many fields, but its mental revolution was incomplete. Its ideology turned the Jewish community into a Jewish people, and the Jewish people into a Jewish nation - but never clearly defined the differences. In order to win over the religiously inclined Jewish masses in Eastern Europe, it made a compromise with religion and mixed all terms into a one big cocktail - the religion is also a nation, the nation is also a religion, and later asserted that Israel is a "Jewish state" that belongs to its (Jewish?) citizens but also to the "Jewish people" throughout the world. Official Israeli doctrine has it that Israel is the "Jewish nation state", but Israeli law narrowly defines a "Jew" as only a person who belongs to the Jewish religion. Herzl and his successors were not courageous enough to do what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did when he founded modern Turkey: he fixed a clear and sharp border between the Turkish nation and Islamic religion and imposed a complete separation between the two. With us, everything remained one big salad. This has many implications in real life. For example: if Israel is the state of the "Jewish people", as one of our laws says - what is there to stop an Israeli Jew from joining the Jewish community in California or Australia? Small wonder that there is almost no leader in Israel whose children have not emigrated. Why is it so important to differentiate between the Israeli nation and the Jewish Diaspora? One of the reasons is that a nation has a different attitude to itself and towards others than a religious-ethnic Diaspora. Similarly: different animals have different ways of reacting to danger. A gazelle flees when it senses danger, and nature has equipped it with the necessary instincts and physical capabilities. A lion, on the other side, sticks to its territory and defends it against intruders. Both methods are successful, otherwise there would be no gazelles or no lions in the world. The Jewish Diaspora developed an efficient response that was well suited to its situation: when Jews sensed danger, they fled and dispersed. That's why the Jewish Diaspora managed to survive innumerable persecutions, and even the Holocaust itself. When the Zionists decided to become a nation - and indeed did create a real nation in this country - they adopted the national response: to defend themselves and attack the sources of danger. One cannot, therefore, be a Diaspora and a nation, a gazelle and a lion, at the same time. If we, the Israelis, want to consolidate our nation, we have to free ourselves from the myths that belong to another form of existence and re-define our national history. The story about the exodus from Egypt is good as a myth and an allegory - it celebrates the value of freedom - but we must recognize the difference between myth and history, between religion and nation, between a Diaspora and a state, in order to find our place in the region in which we live and develop a normal relationship with the neighboring peoples. -Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com |





Good article!
Lions are in trouble for a number of reasons, but gazelles are bouncing along just fine.
quote: A cynic might see it as a perfect example of brain-washing. Compared to the power of this myth, does it really matter that the Exodus from Egypt never took place?
To believers the truth IS releveant: The “Christian” Zionists are a brainwashed bunch. A deranged batch of believers, wouldn’t you say?
They spew this myth [as they see it to be reality] from their mighty pulpits everyday.
But to other believers yes, it does matter that the Exodus from Egypt never took place.
Why wouldn’t it?
It exposes one of many zionist lies, the foundation being the protocols.
Just like the myth of Ahmadinejad demanding that “israel” be "pushed into the sea!" - or - "wiped off the map!” A conjured bit of fiction spread by the zionist press.
This is a good article. Especially coming from a zionist such as uri avnery.
Who records history? Were they right?
Nice place! i'd bet you'd do anything to keep it.
Nice suit! You a salesman?
Is that an Aberdeen Terrier?
What is YOUR conclusion MR.scientist?
I am not sure who records history. I have noticed that history is not about facts but about interpretations of events. My personal view is that we are involved in the evolutionary process to a degree that most people are oblivious too. I think that various groups have developed evolutionary stratagems over the last 100,000 years and have culminated into the current culture today. Unfortunately, several predatory groups have developed over that time and today they stand virtually alone in terms of power. Zionist are certainly a problem but really no different from the group which will eventually dethrone them. The real unseen cause of all this crap is competition over resources. From the this conflict develops a hierarchy which forms the basis for power groups and the structure for oppression. Anyway that is a summary of my position.
Yes that was my old house. And the doggies are my boys church and ode. German schnauzers.
The worst that will ever be. face it; anything worse means we're all dead, and it is them.
As for our mastery of evolution, and being alone in the journey.. believe whatever you want, 'cause only the^truth matters: 1^Love.
Let's get back to the facts.
How about this:
Two girls have been friends for many years. Girl A is feeling out of sorts one day and asks Girl B, “Do you think I’m pretty? Do you think I am attractive?” Girl B says, “Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.”
What’s your opinion of Girl B's answer?
[anyone can answer if they want]
A while back AZ put up a post originally entitled DOES ISLAM MISTREAT WOMEN?
Islam Services commented first:
“The title of this article is inappropriate. A religion cannot have hate. People have hate and love. The title should have been either "Does Islam discriminates against women" or "Do Muslim men hate women" Suggest you correct this Thanks”
So AZ changed the title to DO MUSLIMS MISTREAT WOMEN?
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
I told fahim knight that it was incorrect to say that Muhammad is the founder of Islam.
His answer: “ Everything I have read points to the fact that Islam was revealed by Allah (God) to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) via the angel Jabril (Gabriel) a process that took approximately 23 years.”
And then many comments down in the middle of a long comment:
“You mandated that I change the part that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the founder of Islam, which he was.”
What do you suppose is the difference between the two reactions?
Let us look at the clues. The girls are friends and given the intimate nature of the question and the emotional state of girl A asking the question- I think girl B's answer is a bit stand offish or diplomatic. I don't think that girl A is asking to be validated as a beauty queen but rather seeking comfort in her time of need. If any thing girl B's answer most likely feed Girl A's insecurities.
The second part of the question is a bit more philosophical. Is beauty objective or subjective? I happen to think that beauty is subjective. I am fully aware the latest research shows that there are certain features which are universally seen as beautiful, such as a coke bottle figure or the chiseled chin but I personally don't delve deeper into this subject. If we were to analyze the whole thing we run the risk of missing out on everyday beautiful people.
Years ago a friend of mine asked me if she was beautiful. She had gained a few pounds and had just recently broke up with her boyfriend. She wanted to know if any man would find her attractive? I replied "You don't need to be beautiful. Plenty of overweight people find love. When a man falls in love with you, he'll think you're the most beautiful woman on the Earth." She found love and now has a couple of kids. Boy, those kids are beautiful!
You have it partly right.
The EXACT answer is that Girl B is jealous/envious of Girl A.
As for being “insecure”, it is Girl B who is insecure, not really so much Girl A.
Girl B has just insulted Girl A.
This was her INTENTION. It can be quite easy to hide an insult by disguising it with a sweet Godly expression, wouldn’t you agree?
Obviously, there is a hidden disdain for Girl A.
If Girl B truly valued the friendship with Girl A and truly cared about Girl A and her feelings, Girl B would have told her she was, indeed, attractive - and even beautiful. And she would have definitely left out the Creator in her answer.
When I said make it clear I meant:
Both of the girls are attractive.
So I wasn't fair to you by not adding that.
There really is no need for any deep-rooted insecurities. Girl A may NOT have been testing Girl B to see how she would answer, but that kind of answer certainly got Girl A's attention! Wouldn't you agree?
As for the next scenarios I am not looking for the obvious answer, I am looking for the REASONS for the reactions of Fahim and AZ.
tact is for liars. white lies are for the weak.
BEAUTY is an illusion; & exactly what she said as well.
REAL 'BEAUTY' is LOVE; NOT ENVY.
"Compared to the power of this myth, does it really matter that the Exodus from Egypt never took place?"
From that fairy tale has sprung the modern day Israel that uses this myth and the myth of the Holocaust™ like weapons to intimdate or use outright force to make others believe Jewish myths or else.
The Jews use these two myths as the foundation for legalizing the theft of Palestine and their genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the inidigenous Palestinians.
Their lame ass cry of "Never Again" is used as an excuse to commit horrific crimes against non-Jews around the world, but especially, in the ME.
Their bellyaching "Never Again" is repeatedly stuffed into the collective consciousness of mankind, based on these myths that the Jews won't be kicked out of Palestine.
It's a never ending "pity-party" for this group of people and you damn sure better join along and BTW, while we're feeling sorry for ourselves, how about a couple hundred of billion of dollars to take away the sting?
What? You won't give us what we demand? Why, then you're "Anti-Semitic."
With their almost absolute monopoly on all forms of media, including entertainment, they can brainwash the masses with these myths, making generation after generation of people useful pawn of Jewish schemes.
So, hell yes, it matters.
My argument was that once you believe then the truth does not matter. Sure it matters to us but we are not part of the brainwashed group of supporters. They have very little power over our beliefs when it comes the "Jewish Question."
believe in the truth or die.
Oh great sage of wisdom, what is the truth? Break it down for us idiots!
illuminate us oh wise one.
tell us how the scientists know all.
tell us about the prophets you infidel.
Remind you of anything?
Grim you should know better. Check out one of the Seven Deadly Sins: ENVY / JEALOUSY. Bad Grim Reaper! LOL.
Have you ever had someone compliment you in a way that wasn’t really a compliment but more of an insult? Fahim knight is no different than Girl B.
Look very closely:
He says - ”points to the FACT that Islam was REVEALED by GOD to Muhammad via Gabriel.” [That’s correct. Therefore Muhammad is His messenger. GOD is the FOUNDER.]
If Fahim looks down on scripture via organized religion so contemptuously, then why even bother saying the above at all?
Because he wants to get away with being right while being insulting and - [therefore NOT right] - at the SAME TIME.
His reaction doesn’t even make sense if he holds religion in such high disregard. Why bother paraphrasing a passage from the Quran? Why include God and the Angel Gabriel?
He doesn't seem to care if he is insulting Muslims and the Faith they follow.
Fahim’s attitude is based on 3 of the deadly sins: Pride, Anger, and Sloth.
Girl B says something that is true which appears to be a complimentary answer: Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.
If that is so, then why doesn’t Girl B just get off her general remark and be specific by telling Girl A she has a beautiful personality, in addition to her attractiveness?
Girl A isn’t asking God the question! Girl B is insulting Girl A by saying: Yeah I suppose you are attractive but I'm not going to tell you so, nor am I going to tell you that you have a lovely personality - I'll just leave that to God.
Girl B attitude is based on the Deadly Sin: Envy .
I happen to know the girls. Their “friendship” broke up many years ago due to other circumstances. The situation I illustrated was just a symptom of their problematic frienship.
Really Lav, it doesn’t MATTER if you don’t believe in God or the prophets or the scriptures - although it gives most people comfort to do so - like your mother - which is another reason for God's Word - to offer comfort in harsh times.
God [the Source, the Force, whatever you want to call IT] just threw down a bunch of rules to make it easier for us.
WE are the ones who complicate the rules.
God is not affected.
The sun will give off its heat as it always has and you will not affect it, but the sun affects you. The earth turns on its axis and rotates and you will not affect it, but the earth affects you.
The only thing that matters on earth is how we relate to each other. Because every single thing that we do in this life is based on our relation to each other. We affect each other. Those are the memories you take with you when you die. This is how the game is played.
As far as the founders and supporters of “israel” and zionism are concerned – the basis for all their actions are based on ALL the Seven Deadly Sins:
Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, Greed, Lust and Anger.
Too bad zionist Uri Avnery didn't mention that.
About girl b's envy, because you know them, it's your best judgement. Her envy being a sin, is not what came out her mouth: THE TRUTH, which is based in Love; because a part of her still cares for her old friend. (so there)
Yet the best things she could have done is return the question, remained silent, or tell the truth.
The return would be; why are you asking me a loaded question? or; Are you sure you really want an answer? or; You should know!! (lol)
I prefer to silent look for total assholes, and the truth for those you love (technically should be all).
Since the time of Gregory my dear, the one who ran away from the Vatican; so as not to take the deadly throne of political power, the cardinal sins have ravaged the land.
He was captured and FORCED to be pope, and managed to salvage what was left of Rome and the church; for all it was worth. Through PEACE; THE ONLY WAY TO ACTUALLY WIN A WAR.
http://thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/GregGreat.html
Next time anyone asks you "Don't you think my / that baby is so cute." Or if anyone should ask you about their own looks, whoever they may be:
Just say "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder."
SEE what reaction you get!
Those girls were in their late teens at the time so young people tend to ask such a question. But you would be surprised! I have had guys ask me about their looks while on dating throughout the years and they were in their 20s, 30s and 40s. I wonder what their reaction would have been if I had answered the Beholder way? Damn! I missed an opportunity.
You're right. We shouldn't be asking a loaded question and we should be secure enough with our own looks.
BUT THAT WASN'T MY POINT, GRIM!
My point was about being kind, gracious and supportive, after all they were friends - not strangers.
It doesn't even matter if I knew them or not.
..it's all about the TONE and exact wording/explanation of the question AND answer, but you know that.
THEY JUST WANTED TO FIGHT. FACT IT (in the mirror)
My question to you is: Am i not worthy of an answer?