As Humor Editor of America’s Longest Running Jewish Sight Gag, Jewdar is not unaccustomed to being accused of providing ammunition to the enemies of Israel, the Jewish people and good taste in general. In those rare occasions where such charges have any basis (okay, so maybe the last one isn’t so rare), we can sleep easy knowing that the writings we generate tend to be true, and/or clever. That is, while we at times focus on the Jewish demimonde, that stuff is true, and when we make stuff up, at least its funny.
Although we haven’t read it, from what we’ve read of it (and sometimes you can judge a book by it’s cover), The Invention of the Jewish People, by Israeli professor Shlomo Sand, can claim neither verite nor virtuousity as a defense.
From what we gather, the book "demolishes the myths and taboos that have surrounded Jewish and Israeli history." Powerful stuff. And how does it do that? Apparently, by trotting out a variety of claims, none of which are new, some of which are already disproven, all of which are irrelevant. Again, we haven’t read it, but it seems apparent from the review, that Sand himself makes no claim to be presenting new material.
So what does he have to offer?
1) That many Palestinians are descended from Jews who lived there before the Muslim invasion?
Not really disputed.
2) That Ashkenazis are descended from Khazars?
Not true, and pretty thoroughly disproved. Although there may be a significant Khazar component (we say "may," because the genetic marker that suggests it is also found in Middle Eastern populations in smaller numbers), it’s just as clear that there is alsoMiddle Eastern antecedence.
3) That the Jews weren’t expelled en massefrom Judea in 70 AD?
Well, duh, because there was another rebellion 60 years later that resulted in the Jews being expelled from the newly renamed Aelia Capitolina, main city of the newly renamed Syria Palestina, and the depopulation of much of the land.
4) That Jews don’t share a common ancestry with one another?
Well, just like with the business of the Khazars, Sand’s earth shattering historical revelations have been rendered irrelevant by genetic testing which demonstrates pretty clearly that, in fact, if the Jewish nation is an invention, its ancient inventors had the foresight and ratherremarkable science necessary to give its unrelated members a common genetic heritage. Somehow, despite being an "invented nation," Ashkenazim share more in common genetically with Sephardim than they do with the European populations they’ve live among for a thousand plus years.
As for that non-Jewish heritage that many Jews alsoseem to have, for a progressive and leftist, Sand, a professor of French history, seems to have a view of nationhood not terribly different from that of Jean-Marie Le Pen, and believes that a nation is only about race. There’s no question that Jews have blended with other populations. There’s also no question that most Jews today can legitimately claim some type of common genetic heritage. And more importantly, there’s no question that allJews today can claim a common national heritage, because the Jewish nation is not just about blood, but about belief. Not the belief in God and the Torah, but simply, the belief that they are part of a nation.
From what we understand, Sand grew up in a Communist family,so he may not be aware of some interesting details of Jewish tradition. Although Rachel and Leahwere kinswomen of Jacob, their handmaids–and his concubines, and mothers of many of his sons–Bilha and Zilpa, were not (or at least weren’t clearly so). Joseph’s wife–and hence the mother of Ephraim and Menashe–was an Egyptian. Moses’ wife was from Midian. King David–and by default, the entire Judean royal dynasty–was descended from a Moabite woman. Herod’s family was originally Idumean, product of one of several mass conversions (this one forced) in the ancient and medieval world. Onkelos, the translator of the Torah into Aramaic, was allegedly the nephew of the Roman emperor. Other Talmudic figures were also descended from converts. Even a descendant of Haman was a Torah scholar.
In other words, right from the start, the Jewish nation has been made up of people from lots of nations, and it’s hardly been a secret. But here’s the thing–that’s the nature of the Jewish nation. Much as we may look down on outsiders, we’ve always been pretty accepting of those who’ve actually chosen to join the Tribe. And we’re hardly unique in this regard. By Sand’s logic, there is no French nation, because before the French Revolution, the people living there spoke a variety of languages and dialects, and descended from a variety of ethnicities. How could a descendant of a Gaelic-speaking Breton and German-speaking Alsatian claim some common nationality? Because they choose to, and because they belong to a nation that allows them to.
If the Jewish nation is an invented one, we are hardly alone.
Ultimately, Sand’s argument is irrelevant, as irrelevant as those on theRight who try to argue that the Palestinian nation is invented. It really doesn’t matter how many Palestinians or Jews lived in the land of Israel in 1880–the fact is, there are millions of both of them who still live there. Israelis have a right to self-determination, not because God gave them the Land, or because thousands of years ago, we had a Temple on the Temple Mount, or because in the 19th century, the land of Israel was a land without a people for a people without a land. Israelis have a right to self-determination because they live there now, and they aren’t going away. The sooner that schmucks like Sand accept that two nations exist on the land, and neither one is going away, the sooner some kind of solution–one fair enough to leave no one satisfied–can be reached.
I am thankful for Jewdar.
“Much as we may look down on outsiders, we’ve always been pretty accepting of those who’ve actually chosen to join the Tribe.”
?????
Not so sure about this…
Nice.
Whatever the current narishkeyt of the Israeli rabbinate, historically, halachic converts have been accepted, and, as the above list suggests, have even risen to prominence (the current view on Khazars even suggests that the members of the Khazar elite wh
Brilliant piece but I think the issue is the first part of that statement, “Much as we may look down on outsiders” – doesn’t do justice to your otherwise lucid response to Sand.
Okay Lara, you’ve called my work “brilliant,” so I’m open to any suggestions you make. Was my comment too critical, or not critical enough?
Too critical on the “we” (and here I think you mean Jews) and not critical enough in the thought itself. In other words, I think the statement is too swooping and doesn’t do justice to your own otherwise critical thoughts.
I hate to get al technical in what is, after all, a humor column. but, you do know that “A land without a people for a people without a land,” is a pretty notorious bogus quote – right? As in, it was coined by Christians and not used by Zionists unless
Thanks for the heads up, and feel free to be technical–Jewdar strives not to be just funnier than most smart people, but also smarter than most funny people. I actually did know that Zangwill didn’t come up with it, and I had some vague association with
You have to be really careful about citing Wikipedia, and this is a good example of the way it can mislead the unwary.
The key is the phrase “a people.” Palmerston and the other Christians who used this phrase were not arguing that there were no people
Mea Culpa, but I still have 12 years teaching Jewish high school students who believe that nobody was living in Eretz Yisroel before the Zionists arrived on the scene, and they must have picked it up from someone.
Well, some of them also believe in vampires. Still, the question of why we believe what we believe is interesting. As is the question of when we believe what we want to believe even against all evidence.
I’m not sure if that was a dig at me. As I said, mea culpa. Happy to admit my error, but then, I never actually said “This is a common Zionist statement.” I simplly offered it as a common Zionist sentiment, which it certainly is.
Not at all. And I am sorry if it appeared so. I meant only that a good many teenagers appear to “believe” in vampires, and that the question of what we choose to believe in despite the evidence is genuinely interesting.
As far as what we believe abou
On that I agree wholeheartedly. At the beginning of the year, I show the kids anonymous quotes from Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky regarding, respectively, the nature of the conflict and the attachment of the Palestinian Arabs to the land, and ask their opini
But he’s dug himself a partisan hole with this big bill, and it’ll be interesting to breitling watches see him try to dig his way out. On the one hand, an Academy Award is nothing to sneeze at. Bullock has Reply
It’s almost as bad when you ask tag heuer watches voters how the law will affect them personally. There is lots of doubt and some considerable belief or hope that the new law won’t affect them
Since the iPhone first launched in 2007, AT&T has had tag heuer watch he exclusive contract to offer it in the U.S. Details of the agreement have never been made public. But AT&T has hinted in recent months that it is preparing for
There has been no confirmation from Apple or Verizon about the launch of this device. That said, there was never a question that AT&T’s exclusivity deal with Apple would end replica watches o
Engadget pegs the date of the fourth-generation rolex watches iPhone announcement for June 22. Engadget also reports that the fourth-generation GSM iPhone will have rolex watches an enhanced screen that will be made for HD video with double the resolution
Make that a long, deep breath. It could be at cartier watches least five months to nearly a year before a Verizon version of the iPhone is available. The original Journal cartier watches article reported that production of a CDMA version of the iPhone wou