A film about Christian Zionism in the USA and its implications for Palestine

by Anti-Semanticism Mon Nov 01, 2010 17:13

The Christian "Zionist" or" literal" Judeo-Christian followers were fed a diet of altered text (Scofield bible) via the televangelist movement of the 70's, as is explained on the http://whtt.org/ site. (click in the left column to the green bar that says' Christian-Zionism root's.) It is a very enlightening examination of the roots of 'Christian Zionism' in the US, from a Non-Zionist actual real Christian, as opposed to 'Judaic Christian', perspective.

'Christian Zionism' is not Christian at all - 'Christian Zionism' with it's emphasis on the old testament, is more like a sect of Judaism, since the old testament is in essence a work of Jewish origin. All Old Testament canons are related to the Jewish Bible Canon (Tanakh)

There is almost no 'Christianity' in 'Christian Zionism' - it's 'Christian' nature is a complete fraud. It is obsessed with the old Testament which is Judaic, which is not based on the words & teachings of the character known as Jesus Christ.

The teachings of the character known as Jesus Christ were meant as a rejection of that Judaic way of thinking. That these people call themselves 'Christian' is a curious travesty given the fact they almost completely ignore the words of Christ in favour of the the Judaic teaching rejected by Christ.

Having watched GW Bush get elected, it would be almost impossible not to have noticed how the 'religious' are controlled by the Political class.

There was no 'Christian' teaching of a “rapture” before an Anglo-Irish nutcase named John Nelson Darby began preaching about it in Britain in the 1830s. Darby started in the 1830's and by 1838 the British had established a consulate in Jerusalem, the first diplomatic appointment to Palestine - the 'coincidence' in timing is remarkable, no?

Zionist Imperialism would probably have remained simply a religious ideal were it not for the intervention of a handful of influential aristocratic British politicians who claimed to share the theological convictions of Darby and his colleagues and helped translate them into political reality. One in particular, Lord Shaftesbury, believed that with sympathetic Jews controlling Palestine, British imperial and commercial interests as far as India, Arabia and Africa could be secured.

So the rise in 'Christian Zionsim' just happened to coincide with the Shaftesbury's remedy to secure the strategic interests of Britain’s foreign policy.

By August 1840, the British government was considering Jewish 'restoration' [In fact an Imperialist Colonisation] - all within a few years of Darby inventing the notion of 'rapture' - for 'the rapture' to occur, all Jews must return to the so-called 'Land of Israel', as supposedly prophesied by . . . . .. John Nelson Darby. Again. the 'coincidence' in timing is remarkable, no?

Dispensationalism was first introduced to North America by John Inglis (1813–1879) There was a big revival in Dispensationalism in the 1930's : so while Europeans were being directed towards Fascism and Communism by those who might profit from a war, at the same time a Judaic form of 'Christianity', which emphasised a Jewish 'return' (in actual fact a colonisation by Non-Semitic Ashkenazi Jewsih population) was being encouraged in the US.

From 1880-1930 evangelicals allied themselves with big business, turned to a pessimistic, premillenial theology, and became increasingly hostile to social reform, which suited big business just fine.

American historians and political commentators seems to have an weird inability to fit religion into the narrative of modern America. This weird inability is a liability in any attempt to understand the current situation with regard to Zionism, and how it came to about.

Personally I think it is all nonsense but unfortunately there are somewhere in the region of 58 million of these believers of nonsense in the United States at present. These people have a lot of power politically. So I guess merely dismissing their agenda as 'nonsense' is a dangerous thing to do. Ignoring the fact that they seem to be victims of not only their own gullibility but also victims of some very shrewd political manipulation means that one is missing the bigger picture

Since it is US military and financial might upon which Israel bases it's 'untouchability', and since this manipulated (since 1830) group of religious believers currently hold a lot of political power in the US, this long ignored narrative of modern America is highly relevant.

by Ciaron - London Catholic Worker Tue Nov 02, 2010 06:16

The U.S. is the only church going part of the 1st. world.
44% of (U.S.) Americans claim to be regular church goers.....in England it is 4%.
So the political significance of theological debate in the U.S. cannot be underestimated.

Roughly, there are 100 million evangelicals and 50 million Catholics in the U.S.

Before WW2 cultural (at least) Catholics ( Irish, Polich, Italians, Latinoes) along with Jews were the basis of the left in U.S. Catholicism was mainstreamed by WW2 (Notre Dame turned over to the military) and the Kennedy presidency (the only Catholic to be president in U.S. history). Back in the day, right wing U.S. nationalists would treat Catholics as suspect and unpatriotic as they would treat Jews and Communists because they were internationalists had allegiences beyond the nation state.

As there is a political spectrum in U.S. Catholicism from the anarchist Catholic Worker www.catholicworker.org to the liberal Democrat Kennedy dynsaty etc to old style Republicans and right wing extremists....there are is also a spectrum in evangelicalsm from the christian anarchist Shane Clayborne and the Jeus Radicals to liberals Sojourner magazine types to lefty African American churches to the "right wing" Tea Party participants.

For secular Euro lefties it is worth keeping up to speed on these tendencies within in forms of U.S. christianity (as itis globally with debates within Islam) as they are based in the centre of the empire.
There are a billion Muslims and 1.2 billion Catholics....that's a big chunk of the world population!

by Atheist Tue Nov 02, 2010 17:35

2.2 billion people who believe in an invisible man in the sky and talk to him. We're all so screwed

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Tue Nov 02, 2010 17:52 At Large in London

I doubt that they believe in the God you don't believe in. Have yet to meet anyone believing in "the big man in the sky". Most poor people in God. I live with 15 Iranians, Africans and a Mongolian. They all believe in God. (the name that cannot be spoken or defined in Judaism.)

If you want to relate to poor people you have to try to understand the discourses of belief. If you don't wanrt to relate to poor people (hardly surprising in fortress Europe) don't bother. It's a choice whether you want to be expansive/inclusive in who you relate to or exclusive...whether in a lefty subculture or whatever !st. privileged bubble you want to inhabit I guess.

It's important to understand t hese christian zionists and to be able to argue scripture (their terms of reference) as it is important to understand the Koran....you've got to be able to speak people's language (their terms of reference) if you want to communicate and challenge them in this case...their support for the apartheid Israeli state. There is a lot of debate wihin Judaism about the present state of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians. It's pretty visible around the corner in Stamford Hill

by Atheist Tue Nov 02, 2010 19:59

Ciaron. It's all very well suggesting we take lots of time out to study all shades of made up stories that gullible people choose to fall for so we can understand their lack of a firm grip on reality, but isn't that somehow missing the point that religion and the afterlife concept have been cynically exploited for thousands of years to control poor people and keep them focussed on the after life so they are more pliant and willing to let the rich man exploit them for his own gain in this life?

You act like folks like me are the enemy for trying to wean poorer people off the illusion / drug of religion and the after life so they will take this life a bit more seriously and maybe not let the rich man trample on them as much in the here and now because maybe just maybe this is all there is.

Surely the real enemy are the cynical manipulative elite forces deliberately spreading ideas like the rapture to cloud people's thinking and manipulate them into supporting crazy political stances that result in great suffering and inequity (but great profits for their corporate friends)

I don't think we should encourage religious thinking and the dangerous kind of ideas it enshrines. i.e. that unquestioning belief is a good thing. critical thinking open discussion and questioning is a bad thing.

We do the poor and oppressed no favours in pandering to whatever insidious and manipulative religious ideas they have been indoctrinated with by virtue of their geography / media

I respect your activism, your dedication and your decency as a person Ciaron, but I truly don't understand how such an otherwise clear thinking and rational human being like yourself can actually believe in a god and an afterlife. It's a nice thought but really....

by Anti-Semanticism Tue Nov 02, 2010 22:17

You appear to be completely (willfully) missing the point that Ciaron was trying to make. Which is (I'm sure he will correct me if I am wrong) that within various religious groupings there are many shades of opinion and nuances concerning the nature of belief and the nature of 'God'/The Divine.

It appears you just want to make some point about what YOU believe/think concerning the existence/nonexistence of 'God'

So ok - we now all know that YOU think there is no such thing. Well, good for you. But this ain't about YOU. It tells us nothing about how to try to communicate with or understand the so-called 'Christian' Zionists, eg: what they believe, how they came to be mislead in the first place, who is misleading them and to what end etc etc

It appears that rather than allowing a discussion of these issues to develop, you'd just rather listen to yourself rant against anyone who might have some sort of interest in, that which may be loosely termed, 'Spirituality'.

You ranting that 'There is no God!!!' does nothing to inform anyone of anything.

by Atheist Wed Nov 03, 2010 04:26

religion and the concept of an afterlife is a pathological manipulative lie foisted on the poor and we should refuse to pander to and make special allowances for it any more. I will no longer apologise for stating this in no uncertain terms. Religion has had an easy ride for far too long. Produce some decent evidence and I'll respect it. Otherwise it goes in the box alongside the tooth fairy.

Stop pushing this nonsense and attacking anyone who dares to dissent with your PC weasel words. There is little need to discuss how these christian zionists became christian zionists. It is mainly because they were born in a geographical location where the people around them acted as if christian zionism had merit.Also their parents likely believed in it. The solution is for people everywhere to stop having such respect and deference for religion and hence for children to see that there is serious doubt about the validity of these religious ideas that they are getting from their environment and hence it's ok to question it.

By continuing your tacit support and reverence for these belief systems, you are helping to perpetuate them whilst purporting to be trying to understand them. Understanding is all very well but what we really want is to get rid of them. Being deferential to them is not the way. Young people need to see that they are not rational belief systems and it is all right to question them. For that to happen, more people need to openly stand up and be counted and openly and publically reject religious nonsense. Not roll over and show deference and cowering respect as people such as yourself would have them do

In the spirit of dissent and disrespect
Tim minchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3frpGMmd7u8
militant atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker/Ploughshares Wed Nov 03, 2010 06:48 London

I think we risk going off thread topic here. So I'll try to stay focussed on the theme.

"Ciaron. It's all very well suggesting "we take lots of time out to study all shades of made up stories that gullible people choose to fall for so we can understand"

I too haven't got a lot of time to read the stuff I'd like to. In this case I assume the christian zionists are coming out of the evangelical tradition/ movement in the U.S. Fortunately I have christian anarchist evangelical friends involved in the Catholic Worker (who know more about this tradition/movement than I do) I can ask questions about the tradition and the christian zionists....and understand it better. Know your enemy at least.

I have a "Conservative Quaker" (there are apparently three traditions of Quakerism) who has explained to me how such a tradition could produce someone like Richard Nixon! (it's not a perfect approach to self-education but saves me a lot of reading and is better than nothing!)

We are having a teach-in our house soon on Islam so we can understand our homeless guests from Iran, Algeria etc. better as well as some of our burkahed neighbours and the people our government are killing in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan better...again not perfect but we'll get people in with expertise on the subject who know more about the tradition than we do)

"their lack of a firm grip on reality, but isn't that somehow missing the point that religion and the afterlife concept have been cynically exploited for thousands of years to control poor people and keep them focussed on the after life so they are more pliant and willing to let the rich man exploit them for his own gain in this life?"

I don't see the athiesm of Stalinsim as any better than the thiesm of facists. I don't think if someone is an athiest or a thiest it is going to make them a more likely anarchist or necessary a better person to relate to. In the last couple of daze i met a Pagan teenager at a youth centre, a Muslim guest at our house, an Anglican woman dropping off a donation to our work and last night I attended our local neghborhood anarchist Haringey Solidarity Group meeting (my hunch was that the other 11 people at the meeting are athiests)....at no point did cross my mind that these people would be better people or activists if I could convert them to Catholicism.

Over 33 years of activism on what is described as "the left", and in the anarchist scene, I've seen so much energy wasted and grief over people being uptight about each other's thiest or nonthiest beliefs....that's personal territory leave people to it. How they make sense of their existence and soon to be non-existence, spirituality etc. is up to them (this is a much bigger problem on the left in Europe and Australia than it is in the U.S. where it doesn't really relate as an issue or problem in my 4 year experience there!)

"You act like folks like me are the enemy for trying to wean poorer people off the illusion / drug of religion and the after life so they will take this life a bit more seriously and maybe not let the rich man trample on them as much in the here and now because maybe just maybe this is all there is."

There is a lot of raging against the rich man in Christian and Judaic scripture and probably in the others....I don't regard you as an enemy. I wouldn't try to sonvert to Catholicism I would hope that you have a radical humanist position that arrives as similar politics as I arrive at from my radical Catholic starting point and we can work together.

"I respect your activism, your dedication and your decency as a person Ciaron, but I truly don't understand how such an otherwise clear thinking and rational human being like yourself can actually believe in a god and an afterlife. It's a nice thought but really...."

I believe because I have a relationship with something I can't define. You've posted anonymously so I don't know if I know you but I have a lot of respect for the work of athiest activists who put some of the beolievers I know to shame. I also realise that your first post was probably a little flippant

At last night meeting with the my neighborhood anarchist athiests - they seemed to respect the work the Catholic Worker is doing in their area and religious belief didn't seem to be much of an issue in regards to us working together politically One of the campaigns they are running is against an exploitative Brazilian church which has a base here - "Universal Church of the Kingdom of God"....my participation in that campaign will probably be debating scripture with those church folks and pointing out the contradictions with the teachings of Jesus and how their pastors are ripping them off. But there's nothing stopping the athiest anarchists arguing some scripture with these folks too

The development of christian zionism needs to be understood to be opposed. It sounds like a new development different form the evangelical christianity of the KKK who were (and I assume still are) very anti-semetic. Anyways good luck with the film night! Hope it comes to Harringey!

by Anti-Semanticism Thu Nov 04, 2010 16:52

It is rare that the Big media companies allows someone like Ciaron to speak - but always seems to have air-time and column inches to spare for each and every moronic utterance of a Sarah Palin.

The big media companies are owned by the same people who own the big Arms companies - it is in their interest to convince people that all religious are nutters or that Islamists are Fundamentalist or that Jewish and Zionist are interchangable. They need to set people against each other so that they can exploit the weaknesses in order to continue with their profitable power-lust and war crimes.

See here: http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html

AND Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_own...rship

AND Here: http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/m....html

AND Here: http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/

for resources relating to Media Ownership

Christian Zionism did not exist prior to the 1830's.

How it came into existence and how it came to be the dominant form of 'Christianty' practiced in the US, is a subject I find fascinating, and is in fact very relevant to the original posting in the comment thread.

Especially when one takes into account that it is fairly un-Christian in nature and would be far more accurately described as being a Judaic sect. It is obsessed with the Old Testament, which is a work of Jewish origin, and almost completely ignores the New Testament which is based on the teachings of the character known as Christ.

As I said earlier all Old Testament canons are related to the Jewish Bible Canon (Tanakh) which Christ rejected. That is why the Sanhedrin wish him to be put to death, if we are to accept what is written in the New Testament.

So how the dominant US form of Christianity came to be based on the works sacred to Sanhedrin, rather than on the words of Christ who rejected those Sanhedrin and their holy books, is a subject worthy of discussion

by The Truth will out Thu Nov 04, 2010 18:13

Anti-Semanticism, where did you get the notion that Jesus rejected the Old Testament?, Jesus was brought up as an Orthodox Jew, lived the life of an Orthodox Jew, went to the cross as an Orthodox Jew and said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and th Prophets (the Old Testament). I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matthew 5:17)

As for Christian Zionism not existing before the 1830s, apart from all the apostles being Jewish and zionist, in the early 1700s, a Christian theologian Matthew Henry wrote " Tremendous judgements appear to be foretold, to be sent upon those who should oppose the settlement of the Jews in their own land". He was commenting on Zechariah chapter 14 in the Old Testament. Sounds Zionist to me.

by Anti-Semanticism Thu Nov 04, 2010 20:18

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of most of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. There descendants are now known as Ashkenazim.

In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called Kazhar Ashkenazi "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words,

1. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
— Matthew 23:27

20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
— Matthew 5:17-20

44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

— John 8:44

there are many instances in conversation and action, when Jesus directly opposes the teachings of the Pharisees, and opposes even Mosaic law.

15. And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16. And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.******
17. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
18. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

— Mark 11:15-18

The full text of the book "The Thirteenth Tribe - The Khazar Empire and its Heritage"
By Arthur Koestler, is available on-line at - http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/

This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in A.D. 740 converted to Judaism. Khazaria, a conglomerate of Aryan Turkic tribes, was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Han, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the craddle of Western (Ashkenazim) Jewry...

Mr. Koestler concludes:

"The evidence presented in the previous chapters adds up to a strong case in favour of those modern historians - whether Austrian, Israeli or Polish - who, independently from each other, have argued that the bulk of modern Jewry is not of Palestinian, but of Caucasian origin. The mainstream of Jewish migrations did not flow from the Mediterranean across France and Germany to the east and then back again. The stream moved in a consistently westerly direction, from the Caucasus through the Ukraine into Poland and thence into Central Europe. When that unprecedented mass settlement in Poland came into being, there were simply not enough Jews around in the west to account for it, while in the east a whole nation was on the move to new frontiers" ( page 179, page 180).

"The Jews of our times fall into two main divisions: Sephardim and Ashkenazim.The Sephardim are descendants of the Jews who since antiquity had lived in Spain (in Hebrew Sepharad) until they were expelled at the end of the fifteenth century and settled in the countries bordering the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. They spoke a Spanish-Hebrew dialect, Ladino, and preserved their own traditions and religious rites. In the 1960s, the number of Sephardim was estimated at 500,000.

The Ashkenazim, at the same period, numbered about eleven million. Thus, in common parlance, Jew is practically synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew." ( page 181).

In Mr. Koestler's own words,

"The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated."

by Ridiculous Thu Nov 04, 2010 20:30

apart from all the apostles being Jewish and zionist,

Pure unadulterated nonsense

As for Christian Zionism not existing before the 1830s . . . . in the early 1700s, a Christian theologian Matthew Henry

You claim to have found ONE person who said something which you interpret to mean which you want it to mean - and from this you conclude that there was a movement known as 'Christian Zionism existing at that time? Really?

Sounds Zionist to me.

Perhaps English is not your first language?

by Ciaron - "Giesuppe Conlon House" - London Catholic Worker Fri Nov 05, 2010 05:24

Just to clarify my last comment (and embarassing typo) and allay any concerns....

"I have a "Conservative Quaker" (there are apparently three traditions of Quakerism) who has explained to me how such a tradition could produce someone like Richard Nixon! (it's not a perfect approach to self-education but saves me a lot of reading and is better than nothing!) "

I DON'T "have a Conservative Quaker"....its not like a conservative Quaker gimp in the cellar at the Catholic Worker or anything like that, I have a conservative Quaker FRIEND...he wears braces, plays the banjo, has a family, lives on the other side of town and is happily auronomous and informs me about Quakerism when I ask.

I was also concerned that I may be confusing evangelicals and fundamentalists (along with pentecostals - these seem to be the three major streams in U.S. protestantism outside those more familiar to Europeans...Anglicans/Episopalians, methodists. Presbyerians etc etc).

But my Malaysian Methodist Catholic Worker housemate assured me over dinner last night that fundamentalism is a subset of evangelicalsm. So that's a relief!

I was just interviewed for a U.S. documentary "Hit and Stay" about the origins and legacy of what in the sixties in the U.S. was called the "Catholic Left" which had a major impact/influence on the more older Catholic Worker tradition (1933) and which later (in 1980) gave birth to the Plowshares movement.

The filmmaker has done a good jobin tracking down participants from those draft board raids (J.Edgard Hoover/F.B.I. describing the Catholic Left as "a bigger threat to America than organised crime!"....but we all know about Edgar J's relationship with the mafia and for a long time his denial that the mafia existed while being on their payroll....if you don't there looks like a good Holllywood biopic in the making on that)

The "Hit and Stay"filmmaker not only interviews particpants of the "Catholic Left" but also interviews people fomr the time outside themovement the late Howard Zinn (who was involved in hiding out Fr. Dan Berigan SJ while he was on the run), Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman and Bill Ayers from the Weather Underground.

Check it out (trailer 7 minutes)....

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/934604446/hit-and-stay

by Jewish Fri Nov 05, 2010 08:40

Anti-Sematicism

"Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew"

Oh grow up. Where do you think the word 'Jew' came from? It originates from 'Judea'. Dah!

A Judean was a Jew from the tribe of Judah. The name for Judea comes from the the tribe of Judah. Jews were from the tribe of Judah. You can argue technically that any of the other tribes can't be Jews, but Judeans were Jews.

by sean Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:24

how many jews today can prove they are descendents from some alleged tribe such as the tribe of judah? all the others were scattered so the story goes and most modern jews are late russian converts to judaism with no links to the land of palestine. the term 'jew' 'israeli' actualy predates the ' jews' and was a religious spiritual title. the so called jewish people is really a fiction i'm afraid .

by Anti-Semanticism Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:42

but Judeans were Jews.

BUT the majority of those alive today who call themselves 'Jewish' are Ashkenazim.
The Ashkenazim are not, nor ever were, Judean.

They are descended from Khazars, NOT Judeans. And it is Ashkenazim who invented the word 'Jew'

by sean Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:02

for a real understanding of these terms jude. judean,, israeli, i suggest people read 'The Bible- an irish book' by the great irish scholar conor mac dairi. they will then understand where all this has originated and how the 'jews' mutilated an ancient tradition

by Noreen Byrne - Sadaka Tue Nov 16, 2010 09:32

Surely, the whole point about Christian Zionism is its impact on US foreign policy in the Middle East. Lets have a debate about how this can be changed rather than indulging ourselves criticising each other about who is the most religious or the most athiest.

by A Freeman Fri Nov 19, 2010 19:56

I see the ignorance of Sean here is not being censored by Israel-hating indymedia, genetic testing has shown that the majority of Israelis share DNA that is exclusive to Jews and unlike Russian or any other Indo-European DNA. There may have been a small number of Khazar (a Turkic tribe in what is now Ukraine) converts in medieval times but the Jews have been a distinct community wherever they lived with very little intermarriage or conversion over the centuries. Jews whose ancestors lived in Mid East or N.Africa who form half the Israeli population could not of course have European DNA anyway, stop telling lies Sean.

by Me Fri Nov 19, 2010 23:27

"genetic testing has shown that the majority of Israelis share DNA that is exclusive to Jews and unlike Russian or any other Indo-European DNA

UNTRUE

ONE Study - partly conducted by not-exactly-'independent' individuals from a university in Zionist controlled territory (financed by Zionist money) has claimed this - but there are many other, peer-reviewed studies which completely contradict the result of this ONE study (partly carried out by biased individuals from a university in Zionist controlled territory (financed by Zionist money))

One Study partly conducted by not-exactly-'independent' individuals does not in any way constitute reliable proof of what you have claimed, especially since there are many other Studies, conducted by individuals who actually were really independent observers, which completely contradict that ONE study partly carried out by not-exactly-'independent' individuals from a university in Zionist controlled territory (financed by Zionist money)

"There may have been a small number of Khazar (a Turkic tribe in what is now Ukraine) converts in medieval times "

There's no MAY about it - there definitely WERE Khazar-converts - lots of them - the present day Ashkenazi ARE descended from them. There's plenty of historical evidence to prove it. Simply denying it doesn't make it dissappear

Israeli Professor Shlomo Sand recently wrote a book about this very subject - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2009...ewish

" The Israelites were never exiled from the Promised Land -- and therefore have no right to return. And the present-day Palestinian Arabs are the true heirs of the biblical Jews. So finds Professor Shlomo Sand in the book that sent shock waves across Israeli society.

"I could not have gone on living in Israel without writing this book. I don't think books can change the world -- but when the world begins to change, it searches for different books." Shlomo Sand

After nearly two years on Israel's bestseller list, its translation into more than a dozen languages and winning France's coveted Aujourd'hui Award -- given by journalists to the best work of historical or political non-fiction -- The Invention of the Jewish People is finally available in English."

"“A nation is a group of people united by a common mistake regarding its origin and a collective hostility towards its neighbours."

“The Invention of the Jewish People" 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.

Sand traces how Zionist ideology drove the project of Jewish nationalism by turning Judaism "into something hermetic, like the German Volk.

He argues that history and biology were enlisted to bind together the frangible secular Jewish identity. Together, these engendered an "ethnonationalist historiography" which was typified by the mid-19th century German Jewish historian Heinricht Graetz and his friend Moses Hess, who "needed a good deal of racial theory to dream up the Jewish people"

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.

Just learn to live with the fact that you have been lied to, and get over it, eh?

by A Freeman Sat Nov 20, 2010 18:48

Usual peddling of anti-Israel lies quoting the anti-Zionist Shlomo Sand and actually stating that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Biblical Jewish people, this is ridiculous! The Palestinians are Arabs and largely follow the religion of the Arabs- islam, why would they be the only Jews in history to have given up their religion and culture so easily? Clearly, this hypothesis is nonsense.

Ethnic Makeup of Jewish Population of Israel as of 2008:
TOTAL 5,818,000 100%
Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews 2,921,000 50.2%
Morocco 800,000 15.2%
Iraq 404,000 7.7%
Yemen 295,000 4.9%
Iran 236,000 4.0%
Algeria/Tunisia 224,000 3.8%
Other Asia 150,000 2.5%
Turkey 147,000 2.5%
Libya 136,000 2.3%
Egypt 112,000 1.9%
Other Asia 200,000 1.7%
India/Pakistan 76,000 1.3%
Latin America 25,000 0.04%
Other Africa (Not South Africa) 3,000 0.05%
Beta Israel 130,000 2.2%
Ethiopia 130,000 2.2%

Ashkenazi Jews 2,767,000 47.5%
Russia 1,018,000 20.9%
Poland 400,000 8.3%
Romania 351,000 7.6%
Other Europe 168,000 3.7%
North America 165,000 2.8%
Germany/Austria 160,000 2.7%
Latin America 82,000 1.4%
Bulgaria/Greece 97,000 1.9%
Hungary 63,000 1.3%
Czechoslovakia 60,000 1.2%
South Africa 20,000 0.4%

The Ashkenazi (or Jews of German & East European origin form less than 50% of Israel's Jewish population). This shows the deceitful nature of these calls by Israel-haters for the Jews to "return to Europe" when less than 50% of Israel's Jewish population have a connection to Europe to begin with. I don't think Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania are demanding the Holocaust survivors and their Israel-born descendants return to Europe asap anyway?

If only Hitler had known that all the E. European Jews were Khazars, he could've saved himself the trouble of ordering 'a Final solution to the Jewish problem' and concentrated on fighting the Russians (or are they Khazars too?). The Sephardic Jews could've pretended to be Arabs and everything would be hunky-dory, isn't it great to live in the fantasy world of the Israel-hater?

by me Sat Nov 20, 2010 19:52

Simply ranting that 'this is ridiculous!' and screaming 'Nonsense' does not in anyway disprove anything.

Lists of the origin population groups which make up the current Israeli population will never hide the fact that Israel was founded by Eastern European colonialists descended from the Khazars, a Turkic People who CONVERTED to Judaism

Given that Mizrahi and Sephardic Israeli populations-groups have always had a much higher birth-rate than Ashkenazi Israelis, the fact that Ashkenazi now make up ever so slightly less than 50% of the Israeli population is not at all surprising.

But it still does not change the FACT that Israel was founded by Eastern European colonialists descended from the Khazars, a Turkic People who CONVERTED to Judaism.

by me Sat Nov 20, 2010 20:06

"This shows the deceitful nature of these calls by Israel-haters for the Jews to "return to Europe" when less than 50% of Israel's Jewish population have a connection to Europe to begin with."

No one here has said anything about a 'return to Europe' - the fact that you feel the need to make up such lying charges is very telling indeed.

also . . .. The Irony of any supporter of the racist Zionist state calling anyone else 'deceitful' is hilarious

And throwing 'Hitler!!!' (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries...usage) into your rant was a masterstroke in diversionary tactics. I doubt he cared who the Ashkenazi were descended from, - he appears to just have wanted rid of them no matter where they came from.

The funny thing is that the people that founded Israel, the murderous child-killers you love so much, The fascist Zionists, were quite happy to collaborate on the side of Hitler. See: 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html - I'm sure you'll post again ranting about how the Israeli historian Lenni Brenner is also an 'Israel hater', which should give me a good laugh at the cognative dissonance you display. Given the recent depressing economic news, any opportunity for a good laugh is not to be missed

So your use of 'Hitler!!', as a distraction attempt is even doubly ironic

by Anti-Semanticism Tue Nov 23, 2010 17:29

Israel’s ashkenazi elite, not Russian immigrants, are responsible for the Israel’s ever increasing racism - http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/israels-ashkenazi-elite-n....html

by Gabriel Ash

. . . Israel exists by virtue of Jews arriving from Europe and expelling the native population. Granted that what Lieberman is proposing is loathsome, how is it exceptionally loathsome relative to the very foundation of Israel and its continuing refusal to allow the return of the expelled Palestinians? Were not the Palmach troops composed of and led by émigrés? Isn’t the very expression of “exceptional” outrage here a mean to normalize and naturalize the original outrage?

The expulsion of 1948 is not only the foundational act of Israel’s creation. Crucially, it is the foundation of the distribution of wealth in Israel. By and large, Israelis possess wealth to the extent that they or their families were close to this act of original dispossession. The wealthiest, most powerful, most connected Israelis, which Gurvitz identifies, following Kimmerling, as “ahusalim” (secular Ashkenazi veteran socialist nationalists), were those whose families directly profited from the expulsion. The domination of this group over other subordinated groups was and is based on the control of the resources primarily grabbed through that expulsion. . . . "