Shlomo Sand on Al Jazeera

by on December 2, 2009 56
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Al Jazeera joins the list of foreign media outlets that is treating an Israeli anti-Zionist, Shlomo Sand, better than American media are. (Sand is also featured on CNN international, below.) I am reading Sand’s book now and loving it. A lot of people say the Khazar genetics stuff is crackpot, well I haven’t gotten to that, I’m reading his analysis of nationalism and of the birth of Biblical mythistory that was so foundational for Zionism, and that is brilliant, important, and revolutionary.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 56 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Chaos4700 says:
    December 2, 2009 at 10:03 am

    That’s really no surprise. I think at this point we’re all painfully aware of how the sausage is made in US media, even if some of the commenters here refuse to acknowledge it and seek refuge in false accusations of anti-Semitism.

  2. Richard Witty says:
    December 2, 2009 at 10:26 am

    There clearly IS a Jewish people.

    I haven’t read the book. I’ve only read reviews and seen this and one other interview. It is clear that part of the message that is used by anti-Zionists quoted from the book, is a DIFFERENT message than Sand is stating.

    I support the effort to make Israel democratic, and in similar terms to Sand, in the sense that I endorse the Fayyad statement “what difference does it make to us how Israel defines itself. That is their business”. And, in contrast to Netanyahu’s assertion that the Arab world recognize Israel as “the Jewish state”, I prefer the terms “recognize Israel as Israel”.

    Anti-Zionists insist on the form as important, rather than the substance of the relationships. I don’t see it. I see reformers harrangued and boycotted because they still call themselves Zionists.

    The important effort is the substantive reform, not the posture. The posture is only useful in the WAR against Israel.

    It again illustrates the difficulty with the BDS movement, in not distinguishing whether its goal is reform or revolution.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      December 2, 2009 at 10:29 am

      I haven’t read the book.

      And that, as always, is just about the most relevant thing you have to say, so we can probably stop reading after that.

    • Citizen says:
      December 2, 2009 at 10:38 am

      The important effort is the ever-expanding land grabs, not the posture. The posture is only useful to mask the effort so as to milk US UN Veto power and US taxpayers.

      • Richard Witty says:
        December 2, 2009 at 10:47 am

        The posture gives cover to anti-Zionists, to harrangue, rather than mobilize.

        You have a litmus test as a basis of trust. You speak of the Israeli formula “AND democratic” as an enemy, rather than as an ally. As 2/3 of American sympathizers with Zionism, adopt the “AND democratic” as important, you alienate the majority of your prospective supporters among Jews and Israelis at least.

        It causes me to wonder whether you mean what you say about what you support and your goal.

    • Cliff says:
      December 2, 2009 at 10:42 am

      Witty, do you even know what you’re saying? Are you incapable of speaking plainly?

      You haven’t even read the book. You have no argument to make.

    • VR says:
      December 2, 2009 at 11:18 am

      “There clearly IS a Jewish people. “…and the loch ness monster

      • MRW says:
        December 2, 2009 at 11:35 am

        I laughed out loud reading this, VR.

        • VR says:
          December 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm

          The fact of the matter MRW is that I am in the middle of the book, but long before this there is a train of critical literature that is just as relevant. Reading critical literature is anyone’s duty on a subject that they think they have some “expertise” in, my reading goes all the way back to the minimalists schools, those which Sands stands on the shoulders.

          Anyone who even does the slightest bit of study of “traditions or antiquities” runs head long into the obvious borrowing of lore from other traditions in Hebrew literature (as well as Christian, etc.). Either you make the stupid assertion that they all copied the deity’s original in the texts (Masorite as an example, etc.) which is patently ridiculous, and argue for historicity like an imbecile, or you face the truth. There is nothing original.

          Now, it would follow that any text which is obviously a copy of ancient lore in a given region (written from another region), that gives this as a base of Judaic history regarding a “people,” is either gullible or a lunatic. If you move forward from there you must have some historical records above this obvious story of convenience (god’s people, etc.), otherwise you are given to forms of grandeur and excuse yourself for “divine” design, etc. (and even than if it is taken form the obvious rabbinical interpretations which are diverse as the papal bulls!).

          So I find all the weight being laid upon this one volume (Sands) a bit much, and the cry that it is merely the “new historians,” to just be a apologetic of ignorance. I do not think I need to develop this further, unless someone wants to press their “expertise” ignorance.

        • MRW says:
          December 2, 2009 at 1:53 pm

          VR,

          Couldn’t agree more. Your short comment just amused me….and trust me, for you, it was short. :-)

          I’m halfway through the book too. Getting through his first chapter is the hard part, because he sets up all that ‘who is a people’ stuff. I just need a day in bed to finish the rest of it. I watched that Al Jazeera interview. Sand is a marvelous character. If I lived in Tel Aviv, I would definitely want that guy for a friend.

    • matter says:
      December 2, 2009 at 11:55 am

      Oh yes, because wittless CAPITALIZED it, that MAKES IT SO.

      No, there is no “jewish people.” There are jews, and they are people, but they are not distinct from everyone else. They are just another cult; one that has gained tremendous notoriety due to an ultranationalist separatist splinter movement that practices racism, colonialism, land theft, and jewish supremacism.

  3. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells says:
    December 2, 2009 at 11:53 am

    I’d be interested on some conclusive information regarding the genetic stuff, by it’s very nature it seems ‘off’ (I think the initial claim was made by an author who sought to absolve Jews from the whole ‘Christ killer’ business) but I’ve only ever seen vague dismissals of it.

  4. Howard says:
    December 2, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    To DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells and interested others:

    An very interesting, academic analysis of Jewish DNA (with an focus on Ashkenazi Jews) can be found at link to jogg.info
    It supports the Khazar theory. I have been looking for a critique of this article but have not found one yet. Author’s summary paragraphs below:

    A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE
    Ellen Levy-Coffman

    The Jewish community has been the focus of extensive genetic study over the past decade in an attempt to better understand the origins of this group. In particular, those descended from Northwestern and Eastern European Jewish groups, known as “Ashkenazim,” have been the subject of numerous DNA studies examining both the Y chromosome and mitochondrial genetic evidence.
    The focus of the present study is to analyze and reassess Ashkenazi results obtained by DNA researchers and synthesize them into a coherent picture of Jewish genetics, interweaving historical evidence in order to obtain a more accurate depiction of the complex genetic history of this group. Many of the DNA studies on Ashkenazim fail to adequately address the complexity of the genetic evidence, in particular, the significant genetic contribution of European and Central Asian peoples in the makeup of the contemporary Ashkenazi population. One important contribution to Ashkenazi DNA appears to have originated with the Khazars, an ancient people of probable Central Asian stock that lived in southern Russia during the 8th-12th centuries CE. Significant inflow of genes from European host populations over the centuries is also supported by the DNA evidence. The present study analyzes not only the Middle Eastern component of Ashkenazi ancestry, but also the genetic contribution from European and Central Asian sources that appear to have had an important impact on Ashkenazi ancestry.

  5. MRW says:
    December 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Watch Sand discuss it himself on his book’s Web site. (Phil was at this talk.)
    link to inventionofthejewishpeople.com

    • Richard Witty says:
      December 2, 2009 at 3:52 pm

      Not an endearing presentation to those guided by reason.

      “The exodus didn’t happen” as evidenced by “I couldn’t find any references”.

      • Chaos4700 says:
        December 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm

        This from the guy who ignores this sort of statistical data rather blatantly:
        Reigniting Violence: How do Ceasefires End?

      • VR says:
        December 2, 2009 at 4:53 pm

        Just wait long enough, and sure enough someone will commence to amke a fool out of themselves (like Witty) in regard to subject like the Exodus, etc. His “expertise” comes to the surface again – are you a glutton for punishment?

        The first probelm with the “Exodus” is when, from 1250 to 1570 BCE. Essentially you have the exodus of the Hyksos people who migrated in the 12 and 13th dynasties, but no record of mass exodus. There was no evidence of Jewish enslavement (but note how early the persecution complex begins in the writing…LOL). There is no proof of conquering Canaan. All of the plagues are mentioned in the ancient Egyptian documents and are associated with the Hyksos who worshiped Baal which was associated with the Egyptian god Seth.

        The Exodus bears striking resemblance to he Indian Mahabarata. Moses himself has been equated with various of the Egyptian Pharoes and (like Jesus) with the mythical Osiris. Along with this there is no evidence of monotheism in the Jewish people till 800 BC. It repeats all of the Egyptian stories and can’t be trusted as a valid history.

        Carry on Witty…

  6. VR says:
    December 2, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    The last sentence (outside of earlier typos) should have said –

    It repeats all of the OLDER Egyptian stories and can’t be trusted as a valid history.

  7. Richard Parker says:
    December 2, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    Arthur Koestler’s ‘Thirteenth Tribe’ told the story of the Khazars and the Ashkenazi quite well, considering he had no genetic studies to back him up.

    The Ashkenazim are the dominant group of Israelis; the source of every single Israeli leader. They treat real Semitic Jews, the Sephardim, as second-class citizens.

    And they are the loudest criers against anti-Semitism, while not being the least bit Semitic themselves.

    The solution to the ‘Problem of Israel’ would be for the Ashkenazim to migrate (to America) and leave the Sephardim that they so consciously brought in from around the Arab world to keep their own ‘State’ and get on with their neighbours.

    The very last thing anyone needs is second-hand Jew Ashkenazim to colonise ‘Judaea’ and ‘Samaria’.

    Which is what we have now (American Ashkenazim as colonisers).

    Bring them home!

  8. Rehmat says:
    December 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Dr. Shlomo Sand’s views and be read here:
    link to wariscrime.com

    For further info. on this subject – read my post “Israel – Occupation based on myths”
    link to rehmat1.wordpress.com

  9. Richard Witty says:
    December 3, 2009 at 2:56 am

    I was a bit upset by Sand’s comments, which I’ve described here as to my understanding, abysmal scholarship (at least as indicated from his videos presented here).

    I told my wife about it, and summarized my impression of Sand’s approach as a essentially an emotional political statement, that was willing to adopt an unverifiable but authoritative description of history, in the effort to question an unverifiable but authoritative myth of history.

    In this case, the myth is more true than the assertions contradicting the myth.

    Neither are perfectly true.

    • Shingo says:
      December 3, 2009 at 5:17 am

      It all comes back to the fact you haven’t read a word of Sand’s book Witty, so how can you have an understanding of the veracity of his scholarship?

      Sand’s thesis is actually consistent with countless studies and historical evidence. Sand’s thesis was preceeded by this article which appeared in Haaretz i 1999.

      Deconstructing the walls of Jericho

      “Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs’ acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it”

      link to mideastfacts.org

      • Richard Witty says:
        December 3, 2009 at 6:52 am

        You don’t get that “not finding evidence” is DIFFERENT than “it didn’t happen”.

        And, the issue is not that x fact is untrue so therefore “there is no Jewish people”.

        Does Phil call himself Jewish? Do I? Do es Richard Silverstein? Does Uri Avnery? Does Perez (sephardic)?

        There IS a Jewish people. There are questions of what migrations actually occurred, precipitated by what. Those are fine questions, but DIFFERENT ones than the assertion “there is no Jewish people”, and if there is a group that calls itself Jewish now, “there is no historical link of that people to the region”.

        • Donald says:
          December 3, 2009 at 10:49 am

          I have my own religious reasons to be interested in the historical accuracy of various portions of the Bible, having nothing to do with the I/P conflict. Unfortunately, as best I can tell, there’s no historical evidence that the exodus occurred. No archaeological evidence and no historical records except for the biblical claims. And there ought to be, if the event was anywhere near as big as it was depicted in Exodus (600,000 men plus their families means millions of people). The same for the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. (In a way, that part is good news, since God is depicted as ordering genocide. I’d just as soon find out this was fiction, and apparently it is.) If there was an exodus of any sort, most likely the Biblical numbers are wildly inflated, but so far there’s no evidence of one.

          I haven’t read the Sand book and don’t have much interest in it–I tend to agree with you (one of those rare moments) that a “people” exists as group X if a group of people self-identify as members of group X. But it may be that his claims regarding Biblical history simply reflect the state of the evidence.

        • matter says:
          December 3, 2009 at 1:42 pm

          Once again CAPITALIZING doesn’t MAKE IT SO.

  10. Richard Witty says:
    December 3, 2009 at 6:59 am

    Another question that Sand may approach or not, depending on his political motivations is the question of whether there is a distinct Palestinian people, if there is historical basis to claim “they were always there”, or is constructed of a myth, or myths.

    And, if some of the formative stories turn out to be not true, would that dismiss the present identity of the Palestinians as Palestinian.

    I would assert that there IS a Palestinian people, that self-identify as Palestinian, remain so even in diapora as evidence of the firmness of their identity, that that identity is undeniable even with some of the cultural diversity and inter-marriage that occurs.

  11. Shingo says:
    December 3, 2009 at 7:04 am

    “You don’t get that “not finding evidence” is DIFFERENT than “it didn’t happen”.”

    Um, yeah right Witty. That’s like saying the fact we’ve never found the Loch Ness monster proves that it exists. Wow, just…wow.

    You remind me of Rumsfeld. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence right Witty?

    The concept of a Jewish people is based on a premise that certain historic events took place. That’s how the identity is created and upon which it is based. There are Jewish people, not “a Jewish people”.

  12. VR says:
    December 3, 2009 at 9:50 am

    Argument from the absence thereof is no argument in trying to establish fact to the positive, but argument contrary to evidence is even more skewed – it is in this instance ideological tripe. Argument from the apperance and claim with no foundation is like the old views of the universe, where everything revolves around the earth or a flat earth.

    Your arguments are not merely arguments from the absence thereof Witty, they are contrary to all physical evidence an even reason. Your need to “take a leap” is the bankruptcy of your position (which is having your feet firmly planted in the air). You have (as usual) answered none of the solid evidence to the contrary of the undeniable evidence presented, especially in the realm of borrowing from equally spurious religious myths. In essence you have no argument, which is not unusual for you, it is just more of the same. You hold no expertise in any of this, and try to dismiss years of scientific study, you are no better than the creationists, and it would be just as silly except for the fact that the embellishments from nothing are murderous to the indigenous population of the region. No validity at all, worthless.

  13. Nevada Ned says:
    December 3, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Sand’s book was discussed in New Left Review recently by Gabriel Piterberg.
    link to newleftreview.org

    The reviewer took the book seriously, didn’t think the book was the work of a crank. But it is controversial. The book was a best-seller in Israel, and sold well in France.

    Some of what Sand says has been discussed for a long time among specialists: e.g., ancient Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt. The Egyptians kept records, and have no record of 400,000 slaves escaping. On this topic, Sand is backed up by two Israeli archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein and Neal Silberman, in The Bible Unearthed. (They mean the Hebrew Bible).

    Sand also says that the modern Palestinians are, at least in part, descended from the ancient Hebrews. They never left the middle East, and converted to Christianity or Islam. Way back in the 1920′s or 1930′s, Ben Gurion was of the same opinion.

    The DNA evidence is pretty clear: modern Israeli Jews are closely related to Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. The National Academy of Sciences had a report about it a few years ago.

    Some people are not surprised: a couple of years ago, I saw Ali Abunimah interviewed on television. He was asked, “Are you disturbed to find out that you might be partly Jewish?” And he said, dismissively, “of course not.” Abunimah is an advocate of the one-state solution.

    One controversial assertion that Sand makes is about the Khazar kingdon. Here is what Piterberg says:

    …”the Khazar kingdom, which ruled the region between the Black and Caspian seas from around the 7th to the 12th or 13th century. There are almost no direct documentary sources from the Khazar kaganate itself. But from references in Arab chronicles and in works by medieval Jewish writers, it seems that the Khazar rulers and elite, at least, converted to Judaism during the 8th century; the most plausible motivation being that of preserving a certain geopolitical independence vis-à-vis Byzantium to the west and the Muslim caliphates to the south and east.”

    The net effect of the book will be to knock holes in the ideology of a “pure” Jewish people, with an unbroken line stretching from today back to ancient times. This will disturb the official Israeli narrative.

    Some will say: “well, so what?” Nobody is racially pure: if you go back enough generations, everybody is related to everybody. Modern humans descended from around people who evolved in Africa 100,000 years ago. We’re all of African descent.

  14. MHughes976 says:
    December 5, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Reference has been made to A.Silow-Carroll’s praise of Patricia Cohen’s review of Sand, though the review turns out to accept many of Sand’s points, though remarking that they are not original. But a lively summary of an increasingly accepted view, which those who developed that view had never got around to making widely known, has many merits if even it’s not too original.
    Sand raises questions of many kinds – philosophically, what is it to belong to a nation and what rights come from genetic descent? (Am I British because I say I am? If it turned out that one of my ancestors was a Huron would I have some moral claim on lands in Canada?) In the history of ideas, why did the narrative of what Christians call the Old Testament retain such uncritical acceptance for so long when it is open to so much scientific doubt? Why do two claims that have no biblical foundation, that the Philistines somehow went away and that the Jews were expelled by the Romans, gain so much credence? Perhaps Sand should have laid stronger emphasis on the role of scholars and archaeologists whose roots were in fundamentalist Christianity.
    If you consult the Oxford History of the Biblical World, the Oxford Bible Commentary or L.Grabbe’s ‘Ancient Israel’ you will see that the time for uncritical acceptance is long gone. Sand adds little to the conclusions to be found in these sources.
    That’s only the beginning of genuine historical reconstruction, of course. To my mind we can see from the Bible that in the ancient world there were always many national groups in Palestine. Their definition was open to debate and change, as the definition of national groups commonly is. The post-exilic campaign for the divorce of foreign wives (I find the Oxford BC commentary on Ezra 9 worth reading, though it causes some distress) illustrates how this kind of debate can break out and what sad terms it can take. On the other hand we might say that the most successful regimes – including the Herodian, perhaps – were those that accepted some diversity. And there are passages in the ‘Old Testament’ that recognise that non-Israelites have some rights, for instance where (Gen.20) Abraham, having mistreated the Philistines, swears (provided they confirm his water rights) to treat them well – an oath which is to last for the future. Note that the Bible (with whatever accuracy or inaccuracy at this point) shows the Philistines as in place even before Abraham. The first non-Biblical reference to the Philistines is often held to be by Rameses III in approx. 1175 ‘BC’, coming not that long after the first reference to Israel, by Merneptah in approx. 1205.
    Sand does show how much official Israeli statements have from 1948 onwards rested on some form of the claim that we can infer from the Bible the existence of ancient rights which we should still recognise and which modern Israel is in a position to reclaim. I think we can infer from the Bible that it is and always has been very hard, perhaps impossible, to avoid multiculturalism in the Biblical lands. So the Zionist contention that only Jews have a rightful share of sovereignty in those lands doesn’t appeal to me.
    The philosophical questions about the nature of national belonging raised by Sand are worth very serious attention as well. It’s a really good book.

Leave a Reply