The book was published by Resling, 2008
implanted memory
Personal experiences may well determine a historian's choice of research areas, and it is likely that their presence is more prominent in him than in the professional preferences of the mathematician or physicist. However, it is a mistake to assume that they completely control the processes and methods of his work. Sometimes the system's generous budgets direct and steer the researcher to more worthwhile research fields. Sometimes, perhaps rarely, the findings actually rebel and impose a mountain on him as a new think tank and research direction.
All the other books that stimulated him to take an interest in the main issues that he wrestled with are always running around in the rooms of his imagination. There are of course other factors that take part in shaping his intellectual activity.
Beyond that, with the historian, as with all other citizens, there are layers of collective memory that were consumed by him before becoming a trained researcher. All of them are born, as we know, into a set of discourse fields already shaped by previous ideological power relations. The lessons of history, citizenship and the Bible in the education system, the national holidays, the days of remembrance, the state ceremonies, the names of the streets, the monuments, the educational television series and other and diverse scenes of memory together create an imagined universe that presents the past to the researcher's mind even before he had the tools to deal with it in a practical way. Critical. At the time when the historian begins to study and write professional writing about the history of time, a huge lump of "truth" is already planted in his head that he has no ability not to think through. If the historian is a psychological and cultural product of personal experiences, then no less than anyone else, he is the mental product of an implanted memory.
When the author, as a child, stomped his feet at Hanukkah parties in the mandatory garden and sang passionately "We have come to drive out darkness, we have light and fire in our hands", the initial images and concepts about "us" and "them" began to solidify in him. We the Maccabees - the Jews - the light, in front of the Greeks and the Greeks - the darkness. Later in Bible lessons in grades XNUMX, XNUMX and XNUMX, he knew that the heroes of the Bible conquered the land that was promised to him. He doubted the promise, since he came from an atheistic background, but quite "naturally" he justified the soldiers of Yehoshua ben Nun whom he saw as his ancestors (since he belonged to a generation for whom historical time went straight from the Bible to the Palmach - as opposed to the leap that would take years Later, from the exile to the Holocaust - he took pride in heroism and almost not in persecution). The sequel is known - the awareness of being a descendant of the ancient Jewish people became not only a certainty, but mainly a central component of his self-identity.
In order to disintegrate these "memory" crystals about the past, history classes at the university were no longer helpful, nor even becoming a historian. It must be remembered that the nation-state did indeed begin its initial steps before the rise of compulsory education for the masses, and at the same time, it was only through this education that it was able to complete its establishment and strengthening. In the upper sections of the state pedagogy it was safe to copy the memory planted and its core was the national historiography.
To create the homogeneity of the collectives in the new time required, among other things, a long-standing plot which was intended to teach about a continuous connection in time and space between the ancestors and the "ancestors" of all the members of the present community. Since such a close cultural connection, which is supposed to pulsate in the body of the nation, has never existed in any society, the agents of memory had to work hard and invent it. The diverse findings were piled up, mainly through archaeologists, historians and anthropologists, and underwent a spectacular facelift - hiding deep wrinkles carried out by authors of historical novels, essayists and journalists - thus distilling the proud and happy national portrait from the past.
If myths are present in all history writing, then in national historiography they are especially brazen. The histories of the peoples and nationalities were written as the monuments were sculpted in the squares of the state capital cities: they had to be large, lofty, powerful and imbued with heroic splendor. Until the last quarter of the 20th century, reading the national historiography resembled browsing the sports pages of the daily newspaper; "Us" and "all the others" was the accepted division, almost natural. The production of "we" has been the life's work of the national historians and archaeologists, those licensed priests of memory, for over a century.
Before the national divisions in Europe, many believed they were from ancient Troy. Since the end of the 18th century, mythology has changed in a "scientific" way. Following the imaginative work of professional historians, Greek and European, the citizens of modern Greece saw themselves as the biological descendants of Socrates and Alexander the Great, or in an alternative and parallel narrative, as the direct heirs of the Byzantine Empire. Since the end of the 19th century, with the help of effective teaching books, the people of ancient Rome have been made into typical Italians. Gallic tribes that rebelled in Rome under the rule of Julius Caesar were described in schools of the Third Republic as true French (albeit with a slightly less Latin temperament). There were also other historians who pointed to the conversion of King Clovis to Christianity in the 5th century AD as the real moment in the birth of the almost eternal French nation.
The pioneers of Romanian nationalism, on the other hand, stretched their modern identity all the way to the ancient Roman colony of Dacia, and due to their high and lofty pedigree, they even named their new language "Romanian". In the 19th century, many in Great Britain began to see Boudica, the leader of the Celtic Icaene tribe who fought desperately against the Roman conqueror, as the first Englishwoman. Indeed, her venerated image was commemorated in a statue that stands tall in London. German authors drew on the ancient composition of Tacitus in which the Harusian tribes star under the leadership of Arminius and saw him as the father of their ancient nation. Even Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson, 1743-1826), the third American president, who owned about a hundred black slaves, insisted that the figures of Hengist and Horsa, the two first Saxon leaders who invaded Britain at the same time, appear in the state seal of the United States Century in which Clovis was baptized. The reason for this original proposal was because "we see ourselves as their descendants and their political principles and forms of government we implement".
This was also the case in the 20th century. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it became clear to the citizens of the new Turkey that they were actually white and Armenian and that their ancestors were the Sumerians and the Hittites. At will, a British officer drew the borders of Iraq on the map in a fairly straight line, and those who suddenly became Iraqis soon learned from their "authorized" historians that they were both descendants of the ancient Babylonians and Arabs, descendants of Saladin's heroic soldiers. Many Egyptian citizens knew for sure that the ancient and pagan kingdom of the pharaohs was their first national state, which of course did not prevent them from continuing to be faithful Muslims. Indians, Algerians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, and Iranians still believe that their nation has always existed, and their schoolchildren memorize long-term historical narratives from an extremely young age.
In contrast to these wild mythologies, in the implanted memory of all Israelis and Israelis, of Jewish origin of course, seemingly hard and exact truths lie. Most of them all know that since the giving of the Torah in Sinai, a Jewish people has safely existed, who are his direct and exclusive descendants (except of course the ten tribes whose identification has not yet been completed). They are convinced that this nation "came out" of Egypt, settled and conquered the "Land of Israel" that was promised to it, as we know, by God, established the glorious kingdoms of David and Solomon, and then split off and founded the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
They are also sure that this nation was exiled after the moments of state glory not once, but twice: with the destruction of the First Temple in the 6th century BC, and the second time in 70 AD after the destruction of the Second Temple. Even before this event, the unique people managed to establish the Hebrew Hasmonean kingdom, which removed the influence of the evil Greeks from their country.
They believe that this people, meaning "their people" which by all accounts is the most ancient, wandered in exile for close to two thousand years and despite this long stay among the Gentiles, it was well preserved from awakening and from assimilation with them. The people dispersed widely, rowed and arrived in their tormented journeys to Yemen, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Poland and distant Russia, but always managed to maintain close blood ties between the distant communities, and thus the uniqueness of the people was not damaged.
It was only at the end of the 19th century that the conditions were ripe that gave birth to the rare golden opportunity in which the old nation was rejuvenated from its long slumber and could prepare itself for the renewal of its youth and the return to its ancient "homeland". He did indeed begin to return to her enthusiastically in droves. If it weren't for Hitler's terrible massacre, so many Israelis still believe, the "Land of Israel" would quickly be populated by millions of Jews who would willingly "immigrate" to it, because they have dreamed of it for thousands of years.
And just as the nomadic people needed their own territory, so the empty and virgin land will become available to the people who will come and make it flourish. True, a number of uninvited guests settled in this homeland, but since the people "remained faithful to it in all its scattered lands" for two thousand years it belonged only to it and not to those "few" without history who happened to stumble upon it. Therefore, his wars to conquer the land of the wandering people were just, the violent resistance of the local population was criminal, and it was only the Jewish kindness, which was very unbiblical, that allowed foreigners to continue to sit in the bosom and side of the people who returned to their biblical language and magical addiction.
Even in Israel, these piles of memory did not accumulate spontaneously, they were piled up layer after layer since the second half of the 19th century by talented past restorers who mainly collected fragments of Jewish and Christian religious memory, from which they invented through a fertile imagination a continuous genealogy for the "Jewish people" . The organization of the public "remembering" process did not exist right before this date and, surprisingly, it has not changed much since it was written. Despite the academicization of the study of the Jewish past - with the establishment of the universities in Mandatory Jerusalem and then in Israel, and with the formation of chairs of Judaism throughout the Western world - the Jewish perception of time has generally remained intact and remains unitary and ethno-national to this day.
Of course, there are different approaches in the extensive historiography on Judaism and Jews. Polemics and disagreements were not lacking in the high production field of the history of the "national" past. However, until now, almost no challengers have been found to the essential concepts that were designed and accepted at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The important processes that completely changed the history profession in the Western world at the end of the last century, and the significant changes in paradigms in the fields of nationalism and nationalities research did not reach the "History of Israel" circles in Israeli universities. Amazingly, they didn't even leave a trace in the output coming from the chairs of Judaism in the American or European universities.
If findings were occasionally revealed that threatened the continuous and linear picture of the past of Jewish history, they were hardly "mentioned", and if they nevertheless surfaced occasionally, they were "forgotten" and quickly buried in the abyss of femininity. The national needs constituted pressing jaws that prevented any deviation and deviation from the dominant narratives. Also the special frameworks in which knowledge about the Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli past is produced—that is, exclusive classes for "Israel's history" that are completely disconnected from the departments of general history and the history of the Middle East—contributed greatly to that incredible paralysis and stubborn refusal to open up to historiographical innovation that demands the origin and identity of the Jews. If from time to time the issue of "Who is a Jew?" the public arena in Israel, mainly because of the legal problems involved, the Israeli historians were not bothered by it. They always knew the answer in advance: anyone who is a descendant of a people that was exiled two thousand years ago is a Jew.
In the "new historians" polemic that began at the end of the 80s of the last century, a confrontation which seemed for a brief moment to have shaken the foundations of Israeli memory, almost no "authorized" researchers of the past participated. Most of those involved in the public debate, even if their number was small, came from other disciplines or outside academic frameworks. Sociologists, political scientists, Orientalists, linguists, geographers, literary scholars, archaeologists, and even independent essayists voiced their new misconceptions about the Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli past. There were also people with doctorates in history who came from outside the borders of Israel and still did not get jobs in Israel. The "History of the People of Israel" circles, on the other hand, which were supposed to be the main providers of research breakthroughs, heard only apprehensive and conservative reactions wrapped in apologetic rhetoric based on traditional conventions.
"
Counter-History" in the 90s revolved mainly around the actions and results of the 1948 war. The moral consequences of this war captured the best attention. Admittedly, the importance of this discussion to the morphology of memory in Israeli society is not in doubt. The "48 syndrome" which disturbs the Israeli conscience, is important for the future politics of the State of Israel and it can even be said that it is essential for its continued existence. Any meaningful compromise with the Palestinians, if ever reached, will have to take into account not only the history of the Jews but also the recent history of the "others".
However, this important polemic remained limited in its research achievements and its presence in public consciousness was ultimately relatively marginal. The older and older generation totally rejected the new findings and assessments; He was not able to bridge between them and the rigid morality that in his opinion directed his historical path. A young intellectual generation was perhaps ready to admit the "sins" committed on the way to the establishment of the state, but its more flexible and relative morality was ready to absorb the "abnormalities"; What is the weight of the Nakba compared to the Holocaust? How can the short and limited Palestinian refugee situation be compared to the exile of a people who wandered for two thousand years in a tormented exile?
Socio-historical studies that focused less on political events, i.e. on "sins", and more on the long-term processes of the Zionist enterprise received less attention, and even though they were written by Israelis they never appeared and were published in Hebrew. 4 The few works that tried to challenge the very paradigms underlying national history did not resonate at all. Among them we can name the national account, the bold composition of Boaz Evron and "History: between essence and invention" the intriguing essay of Uri Ram. In both, the professional historiography that deals with the Jewish past is challenged in a radical way, but these challenges hardly bothered the authorized producers of this past.
The present essay was written following the breakthroughs of the 80s and early 90s of the last century. It is doubtful whether without the defiant actions of Evron, Ram and other Israelis, and mainly due to the contributions of "foreign" nationalism researchers such as Ernst Gellner and Benedict Anderson, the author would have thought of questioning the roots of his identity and raising his gaze above the piles of memory that have been piled on Gabi's consciousness of his past since childhood.
In the case of the national history, the many trees bear sticky tops that prevent the creation of a wide enough field of vision to begin and frost the "meta-narrative" of the ruler. The professional specialization directs the researchers to specific pieces of the past and in its way prevents any attempt to see the forest in its entirety. Although the growing backlog of partial narratives should eventually gnaw at it, for this the fields of historical research need to exist in a pluralistic culture that is not consumed by the tension of an armed national conflict and that is not frequently afraid of the issue of its identity and origins.
This assertion may, rightly, be considered pessimistic in light of Israel's reality in 2008. In the sixty years of the State of Israel's existence, national history has matured very little and it is difficult to assume that it will immediately begin to do so now. Thus, the author has no illusions about the nature of the book's reception. His hope is that, in spite of everything, some day there will be few who are willing to take the risk of a more radical questioning of the past, a questioning that may contribute a little to the erosion of the essential identity through which almost all Jewish Israelis think and act.
The essay in front of you was indeed written by a "professional" historian, and yet, the author took risks that are usually not allowed and permitted in the areas of his work. According to the accepted academic rules of the game, the researcher of the past must always stay in the paths he is destined for and in which he is supposed to be knowledgeable. A quick glance at the heads of the chapters shows that the range of issues treated in the book goes beyond one "scientific" field. Bible lecturers, historians of antiquity, archaeologists, medievalists, and especially "experts" on the Jewish people will rise up against the invasive author who illegitimately intruded into fields of research not his.
There is truth in this claim and the author is fully aware of the problem. It would have been better if the book had been written by a team of researchers and not by a single historian. Unfortunately, this was not possible as no accomplices were found. From this it is reasonable to assume that there may be some inaccuracies in the work. The author apologizes in advance for all deficiencies and invites visitors to contribute to their correction if possible. Since he does not compare himself to Prometheus who stole the fire of historical truth for the sake of the Israelis, he also does not fear that the almighty Zeus, that is, the professional corporation of Jewish historiography, will send an eagle to peck the theoretical liver of his chained body. The writer only wishes to draw attention to a well-known fact: being outside specific fields and precisely walking on the seam lines between them may in some cases sharpen unusual angles of vision and offer surprising links. Sometimes thinking "next to" and not "within" may violate historical thinking despite the weaknesses of non-specialization and the high level of speculation.
The "experts" on the history of the Jews do not usually ask themselves basic questions, puzzling at first glance but elementary. Sometimes it is worth doing this for them and in their place: did a Jewish people really exist for thousands of years when all the other "peoples" faded and disappeared? How and why was the Bible, an impressive theological library that no one really knows when its volumes were written or edited, made into a reliable history book that outlines the birth of a nation? To what extent could the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom, whose various subjects did not speak the same language at all and most of them could not read and write, be a national state?
Did the exodus of the inhabitants of Judah take place with the destruction of the Second Temple or was it a Christian myth that was not coincidentally transformed into the Jewish tradition? And if the exile never happened, what happened to the locals, and who were those millions of Jews who appeared on the stage of history in such unexpected spaces? If the Jews of the world were indeed a "people", what would the ethnographic cultural elements of a Jew in Kiev and a Jew in Marrakesh have in common outside of their religious belief and apart from some of their ritual practices? And perhaps, despite everything we've been told, Judaism was "just" a fascinating religion, which spread before the victory of its competitors, Christianity and Islam, and despite the humiliations and persecutions it suffered, managed to survive and reach the modern era? Does the claim that identifies Judaism as having always been an important culture-faith and has never been a unified culture-people diminish its dignity, as the followers of Jewish nationalism have been repeatedly claiming for a hundred and thirty years?
If there was no cultural-secular common denominator between the Jewish religious communities, would it be possible for "blood ties" to capture and separate them? Aren't the Jews a foreign "race" as the anti-Semites imagined in their hearts and asked us to believe them since the 19th century? And that Hitler, who suffered a military defeat in 1945, ultimately won intellectually and mentally in the "Jewish" state? What are the chances of defeating his teachings that assumed and stated that Jews have unique biological characteristics - since in the past it was "Jewish blood" while today the term is "Jewish gene" - when so many residents of Israel truly believe this?
Another irony of history; There were times in Europe when if Man Dehu claimed that all Jews belonged to a people of foreign origin he was immediately classified as anti-Semitic. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world (unlike today's Jewish Israelis) never constituted and still are not a people or a nation - he is immediately denounced as a hater of Israel.
Due to the special national concept of Zionism, the State of Israel refuses sixty years after its establishment to see itself as a republic that exists for its citizens. As we know, a quarter of them are not considered Jews in it, and according to the spirit of its laws, the state is not supposed to be theirs or their property at all. From the beginning, she also avoided assimilating the local residents into the new super-culture she created, and she consciously made sure to exclude them from her closeness. In the same way, Israel refused and refuses to become an associational democracy (such as Switzerland or Belgium) or a multicultural democracy (such as Great Britain or the Netherlands). Huey says that a country that accepts its diversity is at the same time destined to serve the residents living near it. Instead, it insists on seeing itself As a Jewish state that belongs to all the Jews of the world, even though these are no longer persecuted refugees but citizens with equal rights in the countries they voluntarily choose to continue living in. The justification for this deep damage to the fundamental principle on which modern democracy is founded and for the continued preservation of a borderless ethnocracy, which severely discriminates against some of its citizens, is still It is based on the active myth about the existence of an eternal nation which is supposed to gather in the days to come in "the land of its beloved".
It is not easy to write a new Jewish history through the thick Zionist glass prism. The light refracted through her repeatedly takes on intense ethnocentric colors. Readers should pay attention: the current essay that puts forward the thesis that sees the Jews as having always been important religious communities that appeared and established themselves in different parts of the world, and not as an "ethnos" with a uniform origin that moved and migrated in constant exile, does not deal directly with the Chronicles. It is mainly intended to criticize a routine historiographical discourse and by the way is inevitably dragged into pointing out alternative narratives from time to time. The author set out when the question of the French historian Marcel Detain resonates in his head: "How can the national histories be denationalized (dénationaliser)". 7 In what way would it be possible not to continue treading the same roads that were paved mainly from materials previously melted down from national dreams?
The imagination of the nation was an important stage in the development of historiography as well as in the actual process of modernization. Since the 19th century, many historians have been his partners. Towards the end of the last century, the dreams of nationhood began to shatter and fade away. More and more researchers began to segment and dismantle the great stories of the nation and especially the myths of common origin that have so far clouded the writing of the chronicles. It is needless to add that the secularization of history was done under the blows of cultural globalization which is taking unexpected forms throughout the Western world.
Yesterday's identity nightmares are not tomorrow's identity dreams. Just as every personality is made up of fluid and diverse identities, so too is history, among other things, an identity in motion. The book offered here to readers seeks to bring to light this human-social dimension which is inherent in the intricacies of time.
The long dive into the history of the Jews presented here is indeed different from the conventional narratives, but this does not mean that it lacks subjectivity, or that the author considers himself to be devoid of any ideological bias. He deliberately seeks to present a number of outlines for a future counter-history that may contribute to the formation of a planted memory of a different kind - a memory that is aware of the relative truth it carries within it and that strives to weld emerging local identities and a critical and universal consciousness of the past in a new connection.
Website editor's note: Comments on the book and I also have comments, I will post after reading it in full.
63 תגובות
I read most of Zend's article as well as several comments on it.
I must note the pleasant spirit of the discussion here.
It is really very gratifying to find "talkbackists" at such a level.
The place here is proof of the very positive use that can be made of the internet in general and comments on articles in particular.
May the rest of our Jewish brothers (those who were born to a Jewish mother or converted 🙂 ) learn the course of things here.
I have objections to some of the opinions and yet, it is very pleasant to read that everything is written here in clean language and out of a genuine desire as well as to clarify the issues.
Liat is right.
What is there to explain? He is "Zend" and that's it.
Gave us a crushing blow in the soft and sensitive stomach.
Leiat Since you have read the whole book and in two languages, maybe you can justify your position
It is a great shame that the "Jewish" historian has arisen and is bothering to do the work for our enemies in their place.
And b. everything written in the book (I read the book in Hebrew and French), is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard.
A':
Regardless of the correctness of certain historical claims that appear in the Bible or the falsity of others - it is not a source of essential knowledge or information for me and is not a foundation of the foundations on which I live.
I have no intention of dealing with the truth of the material that appears in the Bible. And whether they are true or not, I have to collect as many external findings as possible that are not related to the sources accepted by us. Such as the study of the Sumerian-Akkadian culture, the movement of the Indian-Iranian peoples, and of course Egypt. Through this external image it is possible to form a picture and only then return to the Bible again and not deny it as a source of essential knowledge and information. Let us know that under the various layers are hidden truths that should not be dismissed.
(Don't negate the foundations we live by. Rediscover them, research and discover that the research shows how much we are connected here more than we even thought before).
The article mentions a previous study by Boaz Evron as it appears in his book "The National Account" (1988). Evron does not go as far as Zend (although Zend mentions him in his book), but he also denies many of the "facts" that emerge from the Bible. Lebron has an "agenda" - he claims that Judaism, in contrast to Canaanites or Hebrews, was born in the Diaspora and there the anti-territorial Jew was also born, because according to Halacha the Messiah and with him the return to God will come at the hands of God and we, flesh and blood, cannot postpone the end. Evron is not just secular, but anti-religious, so it is easy to attack him. But those who read "Where did we come from" by Prof. Knohl, a strictly religious person, will be surprised to find the same claims almost one by one (but without mentioning Evron at all). So you can argue about the "agenda" but not about the facts
Mostly funny. A significant part of the introduction is dedicated to the author's apologetics for not being a professional at all, as far as the disciplines he researches are concerned. Yani, it is not relevant to mention that Shlomo Zand is a historian since his field of expertise is French history, he lacks basic knowledge regarding Israel's heritage, etc. After he explains that his credibility is based only on his ability to write in a high language but he has no academic advantage, even compared to an average person from the settlement, he admits that he has an agenda - he always remembers the campaign of a French historian to reach de-nationalism. So Mr. Zand equipped himself with ignorance and an agenda and came to invent patents for us. He insists that his entire intent is academic and that he is open to hearing comments, and overall his goal is to open up a new field of research. Parable What is it similar to? For an electrical engineer to come up with an explosive headline - "Homosexuality is a mental illness", he will apologize that he is not a psychiatrist, say that his goal is to prove that there is such a mental illness, admit that there were inaccuracies and invite anyone who wants to contribute to the research. Apart from the diversification of the history profession, there is nothing new here. His work is the continuation of the work of "Palestinian" "historians" interested in erasing the identity of a people that is more than 3300 years old in order to prove ownership of the land. Zand is the helpful idiot who picked up the gauntlet to give credibility to the rants they wrote.
The main thing is that in the future people will stop demanding their ownership of the land of the earth that they do not possess at all and everyone will have freedom of movement on the globe.
Religion separates us from who we are - human beings.
And how, in your divine wisdom, did you plant some of them in the academy? According to the Zand version, we are only in a dream and soon we will wake up and discover that, in fact, we are not us and the world is not a world and everything is vanity.
The books by which you can know the roots of the Jewish people are only five Pentacles of the Torah and not any other book that people write
All the nations were destroyed except the nation of Israel because God kept them and protected them from the enemies around them
His claim is that peoples do not move and there is no such thing as "exile", meaning that most of the peoples in the same region were there 2000-3000 years ago.
So how can he explain that today's Egyptians are Arabs and those 2000-3000 years ago were black?
It has been scientifically proven that the Jews of today are the Jews of the past! :]
Title ..brilliant….
Remember?..the Jewish people..invent patents..it would be a wonder if they didn't invent everything themselves
A new day..
The book had a different title..not sure..that I at least..would have bought it in order to
To the reader..
Shloimla..do a service..to everyone..see how many twits he makes, an amazing collection of..reactions..
The truth..in the contexts..of that blown fuse..I discovered you too...don't stop
Ask...and don't forget...where does the fish pee from..say...you forgot your sense of humor
The Jew..it is in the gardens of your spirit...all thanks..
All the best.
I thoroughly read the book, as well as its appendices.
I have many comments, here and here, about the book from which I learned a lot.
I will focus on one.
Lezand's style, in my opinion, is condescending and not suitable for a scientific essay. Suitable for manifest.
Zand tends to divide grades and use what we call in Hebrew grammar, "adjectives". A 'limiting' adjective [a term we learned in elementary school].
In the "Notes" appendix alone, I found dozens of examples.
and a partial list-
brilliant essay; crisp mythologies; impressive/excellent/fascinating/important/solid/classic/empirical/pioneer book
;lame title;brilliant momentum;collection of instructive articles;outdated mechanism;absurd writing and more.
May we be healthy and know how to isolate the essential from our essential.
David Danieli, CPA
Of course, as far as the Palestinian law is concerned, the Palestinians are an artificial product that includes Arab groups of refugees/social rejects (similar to the Jews) who arrived from around the Middle East over the years. I assume that there are a negligible minority of Jewish and Arab families that have continued to exist here in succession for thousands of years, but they are not related to me and certainly not to most of the residents of Israel.
Of course, this whole thing shouldn't prevent us from fighting for the only piece of land that can really be called ours (as opposed to the lands that the Nazis expropriated from my family, and the royal family in Morocco expropriated from my second family)
As an enlightened person it is difficult for me to grasp cognitively that my ancestors are the same Jews (Kingdom of Judah) or the same Israelites (Kingdom of Israel). It is difficult for me to understand how there is even the theoretical possibility that for about 3,000 years my ancestors (some of whom are from Poland and the other from Morocco) the countless rabbis did not convert and at no point in history did they accept the religion of Moses…….
Shlomo Zand is a demagogue or a fool, and he has only come to serve the radical left who claims that there is nothing special about the Jews and that they do not need to keep separate from the Palestinians anyway
The genetics of Jewish communities has been studied in recent years and clearly shows that many Jewish communities are unique and most likely of Middle Eastern origin.
Regarding the Ashkenazim, in February of this year an article was published that compared the Ashkenazim to Europeans using 500,000 point mutations in the genome! The results are unequivocal and show a distinct and clear difference between the populations P>0.0001.
(Olshen 2008)
This is just one recent overwhelming example, see also Behar 2006 and many more. The book has no scientific basis, a beginning biologist would explain to Zand that his theory was plucked from his finger and he was building a tower on jelly. The book is not worth serious attention and it is a shame that it is given a platform in Israel, there is no doubt that this book will serve the worst of our enemies.
As mentioned, there are hundreds of genetic studies that show the differentiation of the absolute majority of the Jewish populations from their neighbors and their common Middle Eastern origin.
The multiplicity of phenotypes among the Jews stems from a number of reasons: the main one is the strong gene drift in small populations and especially in cases of bottlenecks and renewed expansion of the population, this in combination with selection resulting from environmental factors (sun radiation).
Misha's tombstone indicates the victories of the king of Moab over the kingdom of Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele
There is a translation of the stela in the Hebrew version of Wiki.
"Israel Tombstone" - the earliest mention of the name Israel!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
Dear Michael: I will refer to what you said later!)))))
What's new:
The monolith from Necessity which refers to Shalmaner's time is reminiscent of "Israeli Ahab"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurkh_Monolith
There is a translation of the monolith in the Hebrew version of Wiki.
And there are quite a few more archaeological proofs of the chronicles described in the Bible!
What's new:
Did I ever disagree with what was written in your last comment?
This is completely different from a description according to which the Torah (from the first man) is also a book of history.
Now, let me suggest a few changes to your last words as well:
1. What you read in the book "Morality" is actually a book of laws - laws that were strictly applied in certain periods - including the punishment component in them. A moral book should not include punishments at all.
2. What you described as a history book was written some time after the beginning of that history and therefore is not accurate in describing the beginning. For example - apparently David existed in reality but the size of his kingdom was different from what was described in the Bible.
And one more thing regarding the terminology: when you say that God crossed the Red Sea or that God created the world, it is not an attempt to describe physics or biology, but an attempt to describe history.
Michael,
The Bible is partly a history book but not only
It is also a philosophy book (Micheli's book) not in the modern sense,
Book of Morals (Book of Leviticus + Ten Commandments)
With regard to the creation of the world, the count should be considered as folklore or part of the heritage of the Jewish people.
What you didn't read is not a physics, chemistry, biology book
This is what ermac thinks and it is a fundamentalist Christian way of thinking.
Historical facts that originate in the book of Samuel XNUMX Samuel XNUMX Kings XNUMX Kings XNUMX
1. The "House of David" inscription was found in Tel Dan
2. The shipping hole a dedication relief with the name of King Hezekiah is found in a museum in Turkey.
3. In the conquest campaign of Sennacherib there is a relief depicting the siege of the city of Gezer.
4. A seal of a senior official of Jeroboam was found ("to hear the servant of Jeroboam")
For your information, Joseph's book Wars of the Jews was previously considered an oriental fantasy until archaeological excavations in the city of Gamla revealed that his description was accurate.
To date, this is what is more or less known. In the future, new evidence may be found.
The guards:
I don't know why you claim that I am deceiving the entire Bible.
On the other hand - in light of the many inaccuracies, I do not consider it a historical book.
In general, most of the stories in it have no archaeological confirmation and as mentioned, the number of years since the creation of the world (which itself is not part of the creation of the world) does not add up.
In other words, the book fails miserably precisely as a history book.
No one denies the glorious history of the ancient Egyptians, but no one bases their knowledge of that history on Egyptian mythology either.
In a framed and less relevant article - only because you mentioned it - you say that the story of the creation of the world is symbolic so let me ask you what it is supposed to symbolize. In general - what method do you use to distinguish what is symbolic and what is real?
Forgive me Michael! Hebrew is not my mother tongue and I don't have a Hebrew keyboard!
Regarding the first person: it is not important at all if this story is true...my reference was to the genealogy and history of the people of Israel -! This means that the Jewish people have a long history from the creation of the world to the present day. Although I see the story of the creation of the world only symbolically. The same goes for Egyptian chronicles. Just because the story of the creation of the world in Egyptian mythology does not agree with modern science, no one will dare to deny the glorious history of the ancient Egyptians!
To come and deny the entire Bible just because there is a "miracle act" and a story of creation that is scientifically incorrect is not fair!
For Christians the Bible is only a religious book. For the Jews it is also a historical book!
To the guards:
It was difficult to understand from your words what you expected me to understand.
Write there in the first person.
Is this the date from which the history in the book is supposed to be correct?
Even then it doesn't work out because calculations based on the age of the people whose lives were described give us the age of the world as the religious believe and not as science reveals.
So maybe you meant the first Jew?
I don't know, but if you write unclear things, don't expect them to understand you.
I am talking about historical events and not about the creation of the world and miracles.
This is the history of a people... and it should be respected!
After all, in Egyptian chronicles there are "miracles" and various strange stories....but does anyone doubt that the pharaohs and gods existed?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
There are no writings or archeological evidence for the people I mentioned before the Middle Ages.. There are none! Of course, according to popular opinion, Herodotus lived approximately 400500-XNUMX BC...but there is no proof of this!
PS I am not religious!
Michael
Stop confusing your brain if all kinds of bunnies….I'm talking about something completely different if you haven't noticed!
To the guards:
You recite without knowing the facts.
How exactly did the Torah pass into our hands when in the days of Josiah no one knew it?
It turns out that you don't even know the Bible because what I said is written in it - read XNUMX Kings chapter XNUMX.
Of course, many other claims that appear in the Torah or are deduced from it have also been refuted - starting with things concerning the creation process and the age of the earth and ending with the fact that the rabbit and the rabbit do not rummage, contrary to what is written in the Torah.
To write about such a hash of nonsense that has been proven is simply not serious.
You are welcome to take a tour of the Daat Emet site:
http://www.daatemet.org.il
Dear guard, you were wrong!
Herodotus and Plato exist "a little" before the Middle Ages, and even before Christ.
So hate not to underestimate Greek mythology.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The people of Israel do not have mythology in the Greek sense of the word...but a well-detailed history from the first man to the Greco-Roman period.
Almost all the historical details in the Bible are proven by archeology and the writings of other nations. I already mentioned the Tel-Dan address.
Was the Bible written or invented in the Middle Ages?…..The Dead Sea Scrolls are solid proof of the truth and accuracy of the Holy Scriptures!
Is the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt true?
Watch the film produced by James Cameron and argue that the Exodus is not an invention but a historical chronicle!
http://www.campusist.com/video/exodus-decoded
Enjoy watching!
In contrast, the writings of Greek philosophers and historians such as Herodotus and Plato and Homer exist only from the Middle Ages. There is no proof that these people existed and the authenticity of their writings is in doubt!
Shlomo Zand is a Jew who is ashamed of being a Jew.
He intentionally (even if not necessarily consciously) binds the Jew in his definition to a certain dress, appearance and lifestyle that are foreign to him, thus he distances himself from Judaism.
But of course there is nothing more than puns in his words.
Even assimilated Jews who did not feel Jewish and even served in the Nazi army, were persecuted and murdered by them.
A single person is not free to choose his national affiliation, it is the environment that chooses it for him.
Talia:
Thanks!
It is absolutely clear that the Jews (like any other people) will not let the historian
Rewrite their mythology, it is also clear that ancient history
It is so very difficult to find full proofs and refutations - and there still are
Here (albeit seemingly) a serious attempt to deal with the past with a research tool
acceptable In my opinion - an important and interesting experience.
To Michael, and also to Shlomo Zand,
The question that arose, among other things, in the book "The National Account", whether the Jewish people today is made up mostly of gentiles who converted, receives a very clear answer also from the direction of Dr. Yossi Nagar in his book "Who are we? The ancient story of the populations of Israel".
It is a particularly fascinating book, written about it: "Interesting facts are revealed in a recently published book dealing with anthropological research in Israel. The author, Dr. Yossi Nagar (who is head of the field of physical anthropology at the Antiquities Authority) writes that the anthropological findings clearly point to the origin of the ancestors of the Jewish people in Mesopotamia (Iraq) in accordance with what is also reflected in the preservation of ancient names and customs practiced in that part of the ancient world.
"Dr. Nagar points to the results of a fascinating genetic study that proves that the Jews scattered in different parts of the world are more similar to each other, than to the gentiles from their countries of origin, "this fact proves beyond any doubt that the communities of Israel share a common origin from one population group"" end quote.
Link to his article:
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_ido.asp?sec_id=17&sub_subj_id=318
Yehuda:
Good night.
I think I will also accept the opinion of the majority.
To Michael
I didn't understand, but the hour is late and I will soon join the majority of my people who have already gone to the language
so good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avi:
The resemblance to the residents of the region they came from can also result from mixed marriages.
The really interesting question is whether, as Zend claims, there were many who converted without marriage.
It seems to me that this claim contradicts another claim that is considered true in our places and that is that all Jews have certain genetic markers that are common. Such signs can be preserved when there is a certain percentage of intermarriage, but they have no chance of being preserved when there is massive religious conversion.
That's why I asked you to try to check what Behar's opinion is - he may be able to confirm or refute the claim regarding the genetic similarity of the Jews from most of the Diaspora.
In relation to the Palestinians, there is another interesting and well-known finding, and that is that there is a great deal of genetic similarity between us and them. This confirms the claim that the Palestinians are Jews who converted to Islam, but - note - this actually contradicts the claim of massive conversion because if it can be said that the Palestinians are similar in their genetics to the Jews, this means that the phrase "Jewish gene" has meaning (otherwise the question would arise as to which of the diasporas they are similar to)
Yehuda:
I marvel at you!
It was you who said that history is not important and only the myth is important (response 2), while I said that history should be studied (response 5) and here you are reversing the creation.
What I said in response 8 (which is probably the one that misled you) is that one should not rely on distant history to determine ownership of the land, but not that one should not study it.
For Gilead, the man was a guest on TV programs and was written about in all the media. In preparation for Book Week, many non-fiction books appeared, and this is one of them, you have to look at the general context of the website, which also includes a society and history section, although, as you said, it is not the main one, but in the mix of sciences there is also a place for the social sciences and the humanities. If you were to listen, for example, to Prof. Zand's interview with Dov Elboim, who made it difficult for him but respected him in a religious program.
He explained in the program that from a genetic point of view the waves of conversions that have occurred throughout history have a greater impact than thought until now. I believe that a brief look at Jews from different passports reveals that they are similar to the other residents of those countries from an external point of view, so I don't even understand what is so sensational about this statement.
However, we don't have to reach Zand's conclusion regarding the treatment of the Palestinians - even if they are partly descendants of the original Jews. As long as the Nazis killed us and the extremist Muslims want to continue killing us because we are Jews, then we have no choice but to defend ourselves.
As Michael said - we are here, we fought to live here and that is enough to make us belong. Apart from that, don't forget that those who converted are Jews for all intents and purposes and certainly we cannot recognize the rest of us after a thousand years (in the case of Ashkenaz Judaism) and therefore we suffer whether we are descendants of the original Jews or not.
To Michael
If you decided not to study history, you are really playing into Dr. Zand's hands.
Continue to study history and research. The existence of the Jewish people must not depend on any historical truth such as Zion and its culture should not be related to the correctness of Homer's writings, and the existence of Britain on the correctness of the stories about Queen Boudica.
We will learn everything but draw responsible conclusions about being a people.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
He stole the idea from me that he will come to sell with us in Kazakhstan, he will make a lot of money, as long as he translates into Kazakh and teaches them to read, we will make a parade for him
A collection of nonsense that does not fit the high level of the site here.
However, there is no evil without good: the fact that the author was not able to find researchers from other fields to cooperate with him, out of all the thousands in the academy, not even one in medicine from any field, clearly proves his failure.
And yet on the topic that caught my eye the most in the article: contrary to the popular belief that Jews were spread from point to point by persecution or in search of a livelihood, when significant parts of this movement are well documented (emigrated from Spain >> moving to Amsterdam >> emigrating to Germany >> Poland), the author claims that it is possible And a group of Christians somewhere in medieval Europe, perhaps, decided one bright day to become Jews? Despite the huge life risk? Despite the wretched social status?
I hope there is little more to the book than wretched self-loathing.
It would have been better with Dr. Shlomo Zand if he had remained a historian, it's a shame for me as his student that he decided to leave the profession.
In honor of the knowledge system
I respect and appreciate your website Bush and am disgusted by the audacity of the editor who posted hate speech against the Jewish people on your website. Can anyone with an academic degree have the "right" to have their words published by you? Don't you have a criticism? As we know, there is an abysmal difference between exact science, in which most of the content of science is concerned, and the humanities, which the spirit can carry to all winds. All philosophers of science are united in the opinion that the humanities do not meet the threshold conditions of science. Moreover, many articles have been published that confirm the conclusion that almost all spiritual scientists who have activist political views to the left and right find "scientific" justifications for their political spiritual worldview within the walls of the "academic research" on which they place their faith, and sometimes also those that are not within the scope of their training. In this case it is known that Mr. Zand The author of the book is an extreme leftist who constantly defames the State of Israel and is anti-Zionist. Is your site such a site? I am asking you to please let us enjoy the science website and the very interesting news you bring in the field of science. Leave us with the obviously unscientific theories, theses and musings of "scientists on behalf of"
The first question raised by the author which is also the title of the book "When and how was the Jewish people invented". Hypothetical and rhetorical question as it could be and completely stupid it must be said!
Until now I did not understand the connection between the Nazis seeing the Jews as a race.
After all, for thousands of years the Jews saw themselves as a people and so did their neighbors in the diaspora....and not only in Europe and not only in the 20th and 19th centuries. The Jews are of course not a race in the genetic-linguistic sense... but an ethnic group originating in the Middle East with a characteristic language, culture and religion.
After all, there were communities of Jews who were cut off from their brothers for hundreds if not thousands of years and saw themselves as Israelites not necessarily on a religious basis but also on the basis of ethnic affiliation!
The purpose of this book is completely clear... and you can also read this in the above chapter. Israel should be a multicultural country like Great Britain and the Netherlands.
It's quite strange…..because the fate of Great Britain and the Netherlands is already known as the fate of Kosovo. It would not be far today that these countries - or part of their territory - were under Sharia rule and the Muslim caliphate when most of the inhabitants were Muslim!
Already today 60% of French residents up to the age of 10 are Muslim!
Whether it is true, false or accidental, the questions raised by the author are interesting and important from a historical, sociological and political point of view.
I hope I will have the opportunity to read the book and learn what the answers are in Shlomo Zand's opinion.
Shlomo Zand is a first-rate demagogue and is probably an agent of foreign intelligence services
who spread lies in different ways to blacken the Jewish people and the State of Israel. The Arabs spread the "Khuzari" theory, that the origin of the Ashkenazim is from the "converted" Khazari people. This false hypothesis was completely rejected by many historians - the famous Soviet historian Lev Gomilov is one of them - who studied the Khazars more than anyone else and carried out many archaeological excavations.
Genealogy and DNA researchers around the world prove time and time again that almost the entire Jewish people have a common denominator!
It has already been proven that King David and the Kingdom of Israel existed!
The Tel Dan inscription - an Aramaic tombstone dating from the 7th century BC to the 9th century BC refers to the "House of David" and Israel!
In contrast, the "Palestinian" people never existed! They are no different from their brothers in Saudi Arabia...same language, same culture, same values!
Anatoly Kliosov
http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/
For many years researching the Jewish DNA and the lost tribes.
According to the results of his research, almost all Jews have a common haplotype that originated in the Middle East!
gift:
He claims that the Nazis claimed that the Jews were a race (and we all agree that the Nazis did claim this).
He claims that this claim of the Nazis is not true and that the Jews are not a race.
Among the commenters here and according to his claim as well as according to my experience, most people in the world do not accept his claim and thus agree with the Nazis that the Jews are a race.
That is why he says that the Nazi concept (of Judaism as a race) won.
Because in his opinion this is a wrong perception and because we all hate the Nazis, he believes that linking the claim to them - even though it probably existed before them - will make people accept his opinion more easily.
Avi:
You have already talked to Professor Behar about his research on genetic issues.
Can you find out what his position is on the subject of "genetic characteristics of Jews around the world" or maybe even convince him to comment here?
Can anyone explain why the author claims that the claim that the Jews have a common origin constitutes an intellectual victory for the Nazis?
negligence:
I also think he is wrong and misleading (and maybe (maybe! not sure!) even on purpose) but the fact that he was sent to Auschwitz - not only does he not deny but he says it explicitly.
Cataloging him as a holocaust denier is wrong and unfair.
The author could have been a loyal member of SS and a devoted assistant of Goebbels.
However, when they discovered his family ties to Judaism, he was immediately sent to Auschwitz
Deniers of all kinds were and will be, you will stand in line with:
Porison, Cindel, Irving, Bruno Golnish, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad……
A person:
In my opinion Zend does not do this at all and neither do any of the other people you mentioned.
They say whatever they want to say without any such declaration.
Especially regarding my father who expresses himself here a lot - have you ever seen him complain about someone trying to silence him (and not in response to such an attempt to silence)? I wonder if you could show us where in all his hundreds of comments this happened.
To Michael,
You misunderstood me.
I'm complaining about the tone, not the content.
Imagine a child standing in the street shouting "Don't shut me up".
Eventually someone will tell him to "shut up".
someone:
I repeat: one should not stand in the way of the search for truth, and if one wants to preserve some ethos, one can preserve it even if it is not the truth (or not? I do not accept any ethos in any case because only the truth is important to me, but those who desire ethos should be prepared for the fact that they will find the truth in contradiction And let him not stick sticks in the wheels of truth research).
I'm afraid, as I mentioned, that Zend is not really presenting the truth but that's another story.
For me, as mentioned, only the truth has value.
By the way, basing on the distant history to determine the ownership of the land is problematic from the definition that each of the members of the Flogta can base on a different time in history and find justification for his position.
Myth and ethos.
That's the whole story.
The myths can be tested and disproved, but the ethos exists as long as the believer exists (after all, we are dealing with beliefs).
As soon as different groups of people in all corners of the world adopted a belief in the events of the past - perhaps in some even myths - and turned them into a common ethos, they received a common identity of choice - and became a people.
It is said: One day a man gets up and decides that he is a people - and so on.
And the thing is similar in everyday practice: a woman meets a man, and they see that it is good: marriage, and there is a family!
The family unit continues to grow and exist and its eternity is in those who come after it no less than in its origins.
And another simple fact:
The other three major religions - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism have remained active for thousands of years to this day - but did not create one nation and one heritage but rather from the billions of different believers who are completely different in the ethos of their identity and are therefore divided - despite the common religion - into different peoples and nations.
And in contrast, the Jewish tradition and religion created, in short, a collection of people scattered across the globe who believe in one heritage and declare their unity and being a people - and it doesn't matter what their citizenship is.
And it is even said that the Jewish religion was adopted by different groups of people in the first centuries AD, groups that were "born" in Israel. Does this take away from the very truth and continuity of the Jewish people? And even if many Khazars (?) or tribes in Saudi Arabia during the time of Muhammad joined the ranks of the people who were persecuted for most of its years - does this take away from the general desire for one affiliation? Doesn't the heritage immediately at that moment become common to all the newcomers who choose to belong??
And as in the family unit: does a woman who joined a man to build a new family unit not have inheritance rights from the two previous families in the future???
And isn't that how most European countries are? Did kings and queens who reigned and were of completely different origin not adopt their country in which they reigned as their true country more than ever?
And in short: Is there a people in Europe or the Middle East with a uniform history of thousands of years who can claim that their land is theirs from the beginning?
No, Professor Zand, don't ruin the history of the Jewish people for us. It was not built by myths, but by people living and writing for hundreds and thousands of years - and unfortunately most of them even paid for their adherence to those ethos that were rejected by the others in their lives.
And I hope that in a few hundred years there will be no doubt at all that Israel belongs to the Jewish people - and by right - just as Egypt belongs to the Egyptians.
Israel is an ethos - not a myth - for all of us!!!
By the way, I forgot to mention that I know of a study that was published in recent years and according to which there are even common and unique genetic characteristics (on the Y chromosome - the chromosome of the family name 🙂 ) for those who are defined as the Levi tribe
A person:
Although you say that the tone bothers you, what bothers you is the content and your words, contrary to your statement, are meant to silence (personally, you even admitted that for you the writer was already silenced by not reading his words).
Yehuda:
From your words it can be understood that you see no value in studying the real history and that it is enough to study the myths.
I do not agree with you. In my opinion, knowing the truth about anything, including history, is valuable.
And now the question arises:
Are Zend's words true?
No one will suspect me of excessive addiction to the Jewish myth, but I must point out that I am not sure that his claims are true.
For example, read the chapter on mutations and Jewish communities in the following link:
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/sites/genetic/gar0028.htm
The claim of this chapter is in contradiction with Zand's claim regarding the multiplicity of origins of the Jewish people.
I do not know (at the moment, I will try to search and I will be happy if others help me in the search) on what studies exactly the claim of the above chapter is based, but it is clear that what is said in it does not agree with Zand's claim.
The author of the book is a moron on this subject. He will prefer in the name of provocation and in the name (assuming that the book presents real evidence that raises good questions regarding the historical truth (which is indeed important in contrast to what was presented in the previous response)) secularism to put forward theories that agree with the group of facts he brought but do not agree with a trillion other other facts. The people of the "humanities" are liars (meaning that the truth is not important to them and they just want to express themselves at any cost and if they were given a little attention they would be calm) who would not cross the threshold of entering the world of natural sciences and they are also completely unimaginative in relation to scientists. The author's friend had no history at all before the 19th century and of course Newton does not exist and neither do all the kings of France and in general what he did not see does not exist at all. Let's just hope that his children don't doubt his existence
Good Day
Our right to this land stems from a simple fact - we fought (unwillingly) and won
From what is written here, and I admit that I have read in the review, there is a slaying here all along the historical background of nations in general, and of the Jewish people in particular.
Is there a drastic importance to the important historical luminaries, or what is really important is the legacy of what the people - the group of people, think happened.
For example, the Swiss have a national hero named Wilhelm Tell. His legacy and his fight for freedom fueled the path of the Swiss throughout history.
Is it really important if the aforementioned Wilhelm Tal existed or what is important is the legacy left by such a figure? In other words, suppose someone proves that Wilhelm Tal did not exist and is just a legend, should that change anything about the Swiss?
What would happen if, let's say, it was revealed that the story of Masada did not exist, should that change anything for us regarding our heritage as a people from the story of Masada?
Another example - it is very possible that the monotheism was not an invention of the Jewish people but of the king of the "past" city who championed the monotheism. The "Eber" king and his kingdom passed away from the world but his believers were given the nickname "Hebrew" for example Abraham the Hebrew, or, we are Hebrews. And again the question arises, should it change for us to be the leaders of the monotheists?
And you can bring more and more examples.
In conclusion, every nation, and especially our people, should be proud of their heritage! And the exact historical background is really, really, unimportant. There is a poor attempt here to tear apart a great heritage of a people that has existed for two thousand years of history, with points of light and darkness like any other people. Attempts to cancel heritage stories such as the Exodus from Egypt or the Kingdom of David are of no importance, what is important is what the Exodus from Egypt gave us, the Kingdom of David, Masada and more in our heritage as a people. If it is historically true, it really doesn't matter!
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I couldn't get to the end.
The defensive tone reminded me, in this order:
Dr. Sorek when he tells about the rebellion in the Greeks.
My father when he talks about creationism.
The Hebrew rapper who is present when he shouts that he will not be silenced.
I say to everyone: you will not be silenced, let's move on to the next topic.