Netanyahu gives genocidal bible story to Obama

“Book of Esther given to Obama by Bibi Netanyahu: not so hidden message, Esther stopped plan to kill Jews- Obama should be Esther, Bomb Iran,” Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights wrote to me on Monday minutes after Netanyahu made his gift.

“Then, too they wanted to wipe us out,” Netanyahu reportedly told Obama in giving him the Bible story that ends with mass-murder of Persians.

Now lots of other people are on this story. Robert Wright at the Atlantic makes an excellent point:

Why is it routine to talk about Iranian religious fanatics who are leading us toward war and so rare to acknowledge the role that religious tribalism in America–among both conservative Jews and conservative Christians–is playing in leading us to war? And why is it that when Muslim radicals use religious scripture in a way that foments belligerence we consider it primitive and vile, whereas when Bibi Netanyahu does the same thing (more subtly, I grant you) we nod politely and smile?

Yes and why do we denounced religious tribalism on the abortion issue in our politics and let it go when religious tribalists are leading a Marcus Garvey movement for Jews (Zionism)?

125 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hi Phil, you got it slightly wrong..
AIPAC is Esther and Mordechai who aim at political domination
Obama is King Ahasuerus who kills the bad Goyim on behalf of the Jews
Iran is Haman who is slaughtered with his sons..

All pretty simple..all in the open..

/Netanyahu gives genocidal bible story to Obama/

The Purim story was used for centuries in classic antisemitic propaganda
and blood libels.
You sure you want to go that way Phil ?

It sure is easy to get the correspondences wrong in these here metaphors.

Yesterday we had Bibi as Torquemada (and seemingly as Nazi) but bad old Mr. T was hard on all the Christians suspected/accused of being Jews or Muslims pretending to be Christians living in post-1492 Spain after the re-conquest (by the irredentists — and are the Israelis another gang of re-conquesting irredentists — and what has the ADA to say about that kind of dentistry?).

The Book of Esther’s historicity has often been doubted:

The book of Esther falls under the category of Writings, one of three parts of the Jewish canon.[11] Some modern scholars suggest the book of Esther to be a historical novella.[11][12] That is, while the events may not be historically accurate the book itself was written to tell a story of a time in history, in this case the origin of the Jewish holiday of Purim.[11]

There are a number of reasons some scholars question the historicity of the book of Esther. As noted by biblical scholar Michael D. Coogan, the book of Esther contains specific details regarding certain subject matter (for example, Persian rule) which are historically inaccurate. For example, Coogan discusses an apparent inaccuracy regarding the age of Esther’s cousin (or, according to others, uncle) Mordecai.[11][12] In Esther 2:5–6, either Mordecai or his great-grandfather Kish is identified as having been exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BCE: “Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jeconiah king of Judah.” If this refers to Mordecai, he would have had to live over a century to have witnessed the events described in the Book of Esther.[11] However, the verse may be read as referring not to Mordecai’s exile to Babylon, but to his great-grandfather Kish’s exile.[13][14][15]

In her article “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling,” biblical scholar Adele Berlin discusses the reasoning behind scholarly concern of the historicity of Esther. Much of this debate relates to the importance of distinguishing history and fiction within biblical texts, as Berlin argues, in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the history of the Israelite people.[16] Berlin quotes a series of scholars who suggest that the author of Esther did not mean for the book to be considered as a historical writing, but intentionally wrote it to be a historical novella.[17] The genre of novellas under which Esther falls was common during both the Persian and Hellenistic periods to which scholars have dated the book of Esther.[11][16]

There are certain elements of the book of Esther that are historically accurate. The story told in the book of Esther takes place during the rule of Ahasuerus, who has been identified as the fifth-century Persian king Xerxes (486-465). The author also displays an accurate knowledge of Persian customs and palaces.[14] However, according to Coogan, considerable historical inaccuracies remain throughout the text, supporting the view that the book of Esther is to be read as a historical novella which tells a story describing historical events but is not necessarily historical fact.[11]

On the other hand, it is an undoubted historical fact that Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire, allowed the Jews to return to Palestine from their Babylonian Exile, and that Cyrus’s program of religious toleration was continued by the later Persian emperors, most notably Darius the Great.

“”Then, too they wanted to wipe us out,” Netanyahu reportedly told Obama in giving him the Bible story that ends with mass-murder of Persians.”

Except that the genocidalist was Haman, and the story is that the Jews stood up to their enemies. Stood up. The word massacre does not appear in relation to the Jews standing up to their enemies. Are you against Jews standing up to their enemies?

But it’s very like you to point stuff like this out (predictable, really), and ignore the main themes of the story, because saying nasty things about Jewish history is part of your MO. Perhaps you would have been happier if Haman triumphed and the Jews assimilated into the Persian empire of the time.