Trending Topics:

Netanyahu says Jews invented the idea of ‘honoring your father and mother’

News
on 134 Comments


In his speech last week giving former NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg a “Genesis Prize,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted that Bloomberg has honored his late parents William and Charlotte by paying for a hospital wing and an ambulance center in their names in Israel. Then Netanyahu said:

Honoring your father and mother is part of an important Jewish tradition that became universal.

Really? There are long traditions of filial piety in other cultures. Confucius surely didn’t get the idea from Jews.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

134 Responses

  1. just on May 26, 2014, 12:02 pm

    His ego and ability to lie knows no bounds. Another sick settler.

    PM– Prevaricator Maximus

    • Krauss on May 26, 2014, 1:00 pm

      It gets even more hilarious. He is trying to re-invent Jesus now, and even managed to get into a spar with the pope.

      http://news.yahoo.com/pope-netanyahu-spar-over-jesus-native-language-140042705.html;_ylt=AwrBEiG1YYNToS8A9ZLQtDMD

      Remember that book that Bibi gave Francis when they first met, on the inquisition? Really, can you actually get worse at diplomacy than Bibi?

      • just on May 26, 2014, 1:32 pm

        ROTFLMAO!

        Such incredible hubris founded in profound stupidity and egocentrism.

        (I’m still gasping for breath!)

      • Citizen on May 26, 2014, 3:38 pm

        @ just
        Nothing today compares to the hubris of US/Israel. And it’s on a dead end street under their dual command leading directly to WW3: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/26/why-war-is-inevitable/

        I ask any doubters to tell us all why the article I linked to is not reflecting the real probability, is not a most likely scenario for all of us and our children.

      • Krauss on May 26, 2014, 9:02 pm

        I ask any doubters to tell us all why the article I linked to is not reflecting the real probability, is not a most likely scenario for all of us and our children.

        The article you linked to was written by an idiot. I wasn’t surprised to see he was a Republican. War is inevitable? The West is getting weaker by day. The notion that China and/or Russia will go to war with the U.S. – in a scenario where all powers have massive amounts of nuclear weapons – is just delusional.

        Asia in the 21st century could end up looking a lot like Europe in the 20th century. We’re already seeing minor players like Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan and the like grouping together. The big unknown is India, but Modi has been pretty strident in condemning what he calls China’s aggression.

        Countries typically go to war with states in proximity with themselves and where the power of both nations are not too similar. In Asia, obviously, nobody can match China, which is why you’re seeing a slow formation of an anti-China coalition. You might get proxy wars, but they will take place in weaker nations and require very little in actual expenses, an example of which is Syria and Ukraine was heading there until recently.

        But going back to the author. He lives in a parallell universe. He claims that the constitution was destroyed by the Bush and Obama regimes, yet gives zero evidence for it. How do you even measure that? But it gets better.

        The guy was had a top position during the Reagan administration, a time when inequality massively soared and you saw extreme amounts of intervention in Latin America, particularly in places like Guatemala where Washington supported what could be seen as genocide by the regime, over 200,000 people died, this is in a country with a much smaller population than Iraq.

        And he apparently sees no problem with this kind of behaviour. That you fail to notice this, also speaks volumes on your own blindspots, Citizen.

      • Citizen on May 27, 2014, 3:11 am

        @ Krauss

        Your response to the article I linked to is very weak; it does not address the US/Israel as prime actors. Where have you been for decades? On the moon?

      • ritzl on May 26, 2014, 3:54 pm

        Netanyahu is going to put Katie Miranda out of a job.

        http://mondoweiss.net/author/katie-miranda

      • LeaNder on May 26, 2014, 8:06 pm

        “Jesus was a native Aramaic speaker,” he said about the largely defunct Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. “But he would have also known Hebrew because there were extant religious writings in Hebrew.”

        This reminds me of Richard Witty’s love for balance, and slightly of one of the most cherished who-Shakespeare-really-was-theories. A little Latin and less Greek, won’t do. He had to be a nobleman.

        Apparently theologians may disagree occasionally.

        Rabbi Jesus. An Intimate Biography. The Jewish Life and Teaching That Inspired Christianity, Bruce Chilton.

        Their [Galilean Jews] understanding of the covenant came not from the written Thorah and Prophets in Hebrew, which few could read, but from their oral targum. A targum (Aramaic for “translation”) was more than a verbatim translation of the Hebrew text: whole paragraphs were added and long sections loosely paraphrased by the meturgeman, a “translator” who handed on the local tradition of rendering scripture. (Just as a local rabbi designated ethical norms for living the Torah, a meturgeman memorized and recited the oral scripture.

      • Yitzgood on May 28, 2014, 10:23 am

        Their [Galilean Jews] understanding of the covenant came not from the written Thorah and Prophets in Hebrew, which few could read, but from their oral targum. A targum (Aramaic for “translation”) was more than a verbatim translation of the Hebrew text: whole paragraphs were added and long sections loosely paraphrased by the meturgeman, a “translator” who handed on the local tradition of rendering scripture. (Just as a local rabbi designated ethical norms for living the Torah, a meturgeman memorized and recited the oral scripture.

        An common person’s inability to understand scripture in Hebrew wouldn’t apply to a religious leader or Rabbi, would it? Aramaic was obviously the vernacular for a long time. Kaddish and some other passages in the Siddur are in Aramaic even though most of the Siddur is in Hebrew. The Aramaic passages appear in places where it is considered especially important to understand what one is saying, sometimes following and translating a verse or two in Hebrew. Look at Uva leTzion, for instance. On the other hand, the Gemara expects the student to understand a scriptural quote in Hebrew followed by analysis and discussion in Aramaic. Fine with me if you want to assume that Jesus was an Am Ha’aretz, but if Netanyahu assumed what the Pope obviously believes, that Jesus had scholarly attainments, I don’t exactly see why that calls for ridicule. Maybe I’m missing something.

      • piotr on May 26, 2014, 10:29 pm

        Can you actually get worse at diplomacy? Without looking too far, how about the Foreign Minister of the State of Israel?

  2. Tzombo on May 26, 2014, 12:03 pm

    That must be where the world got the idea that ‘killing’ is bad, too! Nobody else ever thought of that anywhere.

  3. palijustice on May 26, 2014, 12:05 pm

    The ten commandments were a great thing. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill. Thous shalt not covet what thy neighbor has. The problem is that when values are ignored, they are meaningless, and only have value for show, and not for deeds, which is probably worse than not having them at all. Obviously, Israel has no trouble stealing, killing and coveting what their Palestinian neighbors have.

    • eljay on May 26, 2014, 12:52 pm

      >> The ten commandments were a great thing.

      Some of them were/are alright; others – such as having only one god, keeping the Sabbath holy, no graven images – were/are pretty useless.

      >> The problem is that when values are ignored, they are meaningless …

      I agree.

      >> … Israel has no trouble stealing, killing and coveting what their Palestinian neighbors have.

      Zio-supremacist Jews have no trouble stealing, killing and coveting what their Palestinian neighbours have.

      • Woody Tanaka on May 26, 2014, 2:11 pm

        “others – such as having only one god, keeping the Sabbath holy, no graven images – were/are pretty useless.”

        I’d go further and say that monotheism is one of the top 5 or 10 worst ideas that humanity ever invented. Further, the “no graven images” is a evil command as it would wipe out most of the best scupture — a unacceptable loss. Finally, the notion of “no idolotry” is problematic. As an atheist, I don’t believe that praying to anything or anyone is a particularly useful or helpful thing. But if you insist, then the only thing I can recommend you worship is the sun, as it is the source of all life on Earth.

      • tree on May 26, 2014, 3:03 pm

        But if you insist, then the only thing I can recommend you worship is the sun, as it is the source of all life on Earth.

        Water would be worth worshiping as well, if you are so inclined.

      • Taxi on May 26, 2014, 3:49 pm

        Might as well worship Oxygen.

        And what a world that would make:
        Oxygen tank as holy vessel.
        His Highness, The Grand Airhead: title of the leader of The First Breath Temple.
        Oxygenarians: the mass and faithful multitude obeying the Grand Airhead.
        ‘Follow your lungs and not your heart’ as favorite cliche of the Grand Airhead.
        And this little ditty here as irrefutable proof that Oxygen IS indeed god: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmlKjO4juCo

        Yeah and we all lived lulled and happily ever after in our castles in the air.

        (… Till the monkeys outsmarted us, of course – a little like we outsmarted the Neanderthals).

      • Qualtrough on May 27, 2014, 12:32 am

        tree- why not both?

      • ToivoS on May 26, 2014, 5:19 pm

        For those of us who are lactose tolerant as adults we can reasonably infer that our ancestors worshiped cows. That genetic trait allowed the European steppe people to expand their range into grass lands. It was the advent of montheism that purged a sacred cow from our religion. Isn’t there some slanderous blasphemy in the OT against worshiping the Golden Calf?

      • piotr on May 27, 2014, 8:23 am

        Actually, pigs had some place of honor too, and most European were avid pork eaters. Why heroes of Greek mythology were hunting boars? Nevertheless, cows and bulls had a better religious position. Europa was carried to Europe by Zeus transformed into a bull.

        In general, my opinion is that monotheism was a huge mistake. Compare two myths from roughly the same period: Trojan war and conquest of Cana’an. In the first case, some gods favored the Greeks, some favored the Trojans, heroes of both sides could be noble or wicked or not wicked but wrong in particular instances, and the final slaughter was not assumed to be a “good thing”. In the second case, slaughter and dispossession are simply good because its was ordained by the Only God, so there are no inconvenient reasons to pithy the victims.

      • bilal a on May 27, 2014, 10:43 am

        Illustrations of Yahweh as a Syrian Stormcloud Bull-god and Egyptian Solar Golden Calf, Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A. Ed.

        http://www.bibleorigins.net/files/yahweh_asherah.jpg

      • Hostage on May 27, 2014, 12:53 pm

        Illustrations of Yahweh as a Syrian Stormcloud Bull-god and Egyptian Solar Golden Calf, Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A. Ed

        The author called them “grafitti drawings”. They were found at a desert rest stop used by caravans of diverse cultures. You failed to mention that those were probably intended to ridicule the God of Israel and to be deliberately blasphemous in the first place.

        The other examples he mentions also date from a period in history in which the Hebrew scriptures themselves say that the Jews and Israelites had adopted idolatrous practices and mingled them with their own. That hardly establishes the point about the origins of Judaism. The Hebrew scriptures portray a situation wherein postdiluvian civilization had a common religion and story about origins that had devolved into idolatry. The scriptures themselves say that our ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods. So the author is not telling us anything new or surprising.

      • bintbiba on May 26, 2014, 5:51 pm

        yup…

      • on May 26, 2014, 6:44 pm

        George Carlin has a brilliant (as usual) bit on the Ten Commandments wherein he pares it down to one rule

    • Taxi on May 26, 2014, 1:06 pm

      The problem with the ten commandments is that it’s missing ‘thou shalt not rape’. So if some maniac raped then killed a female (or a male), then only the killing part would be considered a ‘sin’.

      • Elisabeth on May 26, 2014, 2:06 pm

        I always thought that was a blatant omission too.

      • eljay on May 26, 2014, 2:24 pm

        Maybe that one – along with a few others, like “thou shalt not commit violence against children” and “to the utmost of your abilities, treat others with respect” – was on the tablet Moses dropped and broke.

        :-)

      • tree on May 26, 2014, 3:00 pm

        Here’s the video of the scene you are talking about, eljay. I always laugh when I view it!

      • Woody Tanaka on May 26, 2014, 3:18 pm

        I’ve always considred the inclusion of: “don’t say God damn it,” but the exclusion of: “don’t owe another person as property” to be all one needs to know there’s really nothing about morality to be learned in these books.

      • Walid on May 26, 2014, 3:09 pm

        When the 10 commandments were issued and for a long time after, rape was not considered a sin. In fact the Bible recorded several instances where it was either condoned or actually encouraged, especially in those instances of mass rapes.

      • piotr on May 27, 2014, 8:29 am

        I think there is no concept of “rape” in the Bible. Sexual intercourse can be lawful or unlawful dependent on the consent of the father of the girl. Violation of that is taking from “your neighbor”. If the father offers his daughter to strangers, he remains a good guy.

  4. LuLu on May 26, 2014, 12:06 pm

    This man either does not use much of his intellect or just pure arrogant. It is in the Torah, the scripture you know that God gave Moses? “Honoring your father and mother is part of an important Jewish tradition that became universal.” No Benji, it is NOT tradition, rather a command from God.

    • Woody Tanaka on May 26, 2014, 12:29 pm

      Not only that, but it’s nuts to claim that it originated with the Jews (be it a commandment, a tradition or anything.) It is part of human nature. It is abominable for this guy to be claiming for Judaism something that is part of human nature itself.

      • Ecru on May 26, 2014, 1:06 pm

        @ Woody

        It is abominable for this guy to be claiming for Judaism something that is part of human nature itself.

        I think you’re overlooking one thing here Woody. As a Zionist/Jewish-Supremacist he doesn’t actually believe anyone but Jews are truly human, so to him it is part of “human” nature.

      • Taxi on May 26, 2014, 11:27 pm

        Walid,

        A religion becomes redundant when the masses develop higher morals than their sacred texts. The Aztecs and their religious human sacrifices are a notable example.

        The Abrahamic religions will one day become obsolete too.

        Nothing and no one is forever: not Jesus, not Moses, not Mohamad. Not even the sun.

        In a million years (if the human race lasts that long), no one will even care what the eff happened in the 20th and 21st century. And even if them futuristics are interested in such far-back history, they’d only study us like we’re animals in a zoo.

        Yeah the future is fickle.

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 12:05 am

        “The Abrahamic religions will one day become obsolete too.”

        The sooner the better, Taxi. These 3 religions now comprise about half of humanity and they are are at the root of all the shit-disturbing going on in the world.

      • bintbiba on May 27, 2014, 7:59 am

        Aameen to that, Taxi and Walid . “The sooner the better” !

      • bilal a on May 27, 2014, 10:50 am

        That’s bigotry and ignorance.

        Orthodox Religious Jews and Christians are not droning and invading , nor are followers of authentic Islam doing the same or the alleged terrorism.

        The world order is dogmatically secularist.

      • eljay on May 27, 2014, 11:00 am

        >> Orthodox Religious Jews and Christians are not droning and invading , nor are followers of authentic Islam doing the same or the alleged terrorism.

        Curious:
        – What constitutes “authentic Islam”?
        – Who has the final say on which parts of Islam are authentic and which parts are not?

      • aiman on May 27, 2014, 11:29 am

        “The sooner the better, Taxi. These 3 religions now comprise about half of humanity and they are are at the root of all the shit-disturbing going on in the world.”

        You really need to familiarise yourself with world history, Walid. To claim these “3 religions” are the root of the world’s problems is a form of armchair denial that smarts under the prejudice that irreligion offers no responsibility and makes one an enlightened figure. You know nothing what’s going on in say India or China, on how things are so similar.

      • aiman on May 27, 2014, 11:42 am

        Well said bilal a.

      • aiman on May 27, 2014, 11:53 am

        ‘Curious:
        – What constitutes “authentic Islam”?
        – Who has the final say on which parts of Islam are authentic and which parts are not?’

        The Qur’an is its own best commentary -Muhammad Abduh. That’s authentic Islam. Illustrated by scholars: Al Beruni, Ghazali, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Asad, Yahya Emerick. In other words, the most well read members on a subject as it is with everything else

      • eljay on May 27, 2014, 12:38 pm

        >> The Qur’an is its own best commentary -Muhammad Abduh. That’s authentic Islam.

        So…authentic Islam is one man’s interpretation of / commentary on the Qur’an. Interesting.

        >> Illustrated by scholars: Al Beruni, Ghazali, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Asad, Yahya Emerick. In other words, the most well read members on a subject as it is with everything else

        Since, as you pointed out earlier, Muhammad Abduh is authentic Islam, other scholars and “well read members” (as determined by whom?) appear superfluous.

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 1:12 pm

        “You know nothing what’s going on in say India or China, on how things are so similar.”

        aiman, how many world wars were started by India or China? Of course there are conflicts in almost every part of the world; I was thinking of really big disturbances like the senselessly dropping of A-bombs on other people, what was done to the Amerindians, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Soviets and so on. Other than for Japan that was baited into doing what it did in WW II, what non-Abrahamic countries have surpassed the atrocities of the Abrahamic ones? There were the Muslim conquests, the Christian ones and now we are having the Jewish capitalistic and political one.

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 1:30 pm

        “The Qur’an is its own best commentary”

        Aiman, you need to brush up on the purely historical compilation of the Quran from a non-religious perspective.

      • aiman on May 27, 2014, 1:43 pm

        “how many world wars were started by India or China? Of course there are conflicts in almost every part of the world; I was thinking of really big disturbances like the senselessly dropping of A-bombs on other people, what was done to the Amerindians, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Soviets and so on. Other than for Japan that was baited into doing what it did in WW II, what non-Abrahamic countries have surpassed the atrocities of the Abrahamic ones? There were the Muslim conquests, the Christian ones and now we are having the Jewish capitalistic and political one.”

        Walid, the world wars were the result of Europe harnessing more industrial power than it could fruitfully yield. In fact, the mass killing of whales to light up the candles of Enlightenment was already leading them in that direction. Tolstoy has written about this. The Holocaust, of course, was the first industrial scale killing of human beings on a mass scale. The suffering turned a religious community of Jews, who were already distrusted for their religiosity (at least in Poland), and their descendants into active atheists. Europe had long turned before atheist in its academia and colonialism, which should not be confused with secularism, from which came capitalism and Marxism. It’s communist variety wreaked havoc with Pol Pot, Mao. The Japanese didn’t need that in their rape on Nanking nor did the Buddhist Mongol need monotheism when his Mongol hordes overran Baghdad in 1258. It wasn’t what you deride as the Abrahamic religions that caused all this, it was the Mongols again in Muslim guise who conquered India. And do you think paganism with its human sacrifices, Beowulf cruelty, prankish gods, and what bound human beings to earthly permanence was pretty? The transformation of agrarian societies and man’s access to destructive technology has what’s led him to walk in arrogance. Do you think, if Europe or later Arabs were pagan, they wouldn’t have wielded this power?

        “Bereft of religion, men possessing enormous power over the forces of nature are like children to whom powder or explosive gas has been given as a plaything. Considering this power which men of our time possess, and the way they use it, one feels that considering the degree of their moral development men have no right, not only to the use of railways, steam, electricity, telephones, photography, wireless telegraphs, but even to the simple art of manufacturing iron and steel, as all these improvements and arts they use only for the satisfaction of their lusts, for amusement, dissipation, and the destruction of each other…. Man has no choice; he must be the slave of the most unscrupulous and insolent amongst slaves, or else the servant of God, because for man there is only one way of being free—by uniting his will with the will of God. People bereft of religion, some repudiating religion itself, others recognizing as religion those external, monstrous forms which have superseded it, and guided only by their personal lusts, fear, human laws, and, above all, by mutual hypnotism, cannot cease to be animals or slaves, and no external efforts can extricate them from this state; for only religion makes a man free. And most of the people of our time are deprived of it.” (Tolstoy)

      • aiman on May 27, 2014, 1:46 pm

        “Aiman, you need to brush up on the purely historical compilation of the Quran from a non-religious perspective.”

        You didn’t understand the point of that statement. It has nothing to do with how something was compiled or not.

      • aiman on May 27, 2014, 1:51 pm

        “Since, as you pointed out earlier, Muhammad Abduh is authentic Islam, other scholars and “well read members” (as determined by whom?) appear superfluous.”

        You misunderstood me perhaps. The statement was a quote from a scholar which basically says read the Qur’an if you want to know what authentic Islam is. It has nothing to do with that scholar as an absolute authority, in fact he is calling the Quran “the best commentary” on Islam. No Muslim would disagree. Then, I gave you a list of scholars who are well-read. As for who is well-read, well in the same way William Blake would be considered more well-read than Pamela Geller. You are free to ask: determined by whom.

      • Woody Tanaka on May 27, 2014, 2:03 pm

        “Other than for Japan that was baited into doing what it did in WW II,”

        Oh, baloney. Don’t get so wrapped up in your own thesis that you start talking nonsense. Japan was not “baited” into anything. It chose its path. Sure, in reaction to the world around it, as does every country, but it chose and is responsible for its choice.

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 3:06 pm

        “Oh, baloney. Don’t get so wrapped up in your own thesis that you start talking nonsense. Japan was not “baited” into anything. It chose its path. ”

        Some here can’t take disagreement without reacting with insults.

        … In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under Taft and secretary of state under Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

        Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

        An Untenable Position

        Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]
        Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief … that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.[6]

        http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

      • eljay on May 27, 2014, 3:13 pm

        >> You misunderstood me perhaps.

        Perhaps I did.

        >> The statement was a quote from a scholar which basically says read the Qur’an if you want to know what authentic Islam is. … Then, I gave you a list of scholars who are well-read.

        OK, so:
        – The Qur’an is authentic Islam.
        – It correctly can be – and is – read and understood in myriad different ways by different people.
        – The list of scholars remains superfluous.

      • Woody Tanaka on May 27, 2014, 4:36 pm

        “Some here can’t take disagreement without reacting with insults.”

        What insult? I was simply describing the wrongness of the notion that the Japanese were “baited” in the pre-War period.

        Well, anyway, the article you quote and link to is a bit of a mess (unless “mess” is too harsh an insult to use…) Aside from the reliance on the likes of George Morganstern and Robert Stinnett, the primary thesis — that Roosevelt and his cabinet sought to goad Japan into attacking the US in order to get Germany to join in — is nonsense. First, it’s based on the false premise that the Tripartite Pact obligated Germany to join in such a war. It didn’t. Germany was only obligated if the US attacked Japan.

        Second, the disingenuousness of the analyis (or perhaps it is sheer ineptitude on the part of the author) is shown by the author ignoring everything that happened in Japan and the East Asian region since the the Mukden incident of 1931. (Likening the foreign policy of Japan in this era to what the US was doing in Latin America was particularly obtuse [not that the US’s record in Latin America has ever been good, but it wasn’t ever 1930’s-Japan-in-China bad]).

        Further, ignoring the Japanese assertions of the New Order in East Asia and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperty Sphere and the actions that accompanied those declarations in China and the Western Pacific, not to mention the Japanese invasion of Indochina in September of 1940, show that the author was trying his hardest to support a theory that simply does not withstand scrutiny.

        But, at the very least, it simply does not support the notion that Japan was “baited” into doing what it did in the Second World War.

      • RoHa on May 27, 2014, 8:48 pm

        Walid, by 1940 Japan had been at war, and committing atrocities, for many years. And whatever the motives for going to war, the Japanese were not baited into committing those atrocities. They chose to do so.

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 11:24 pm

        I didn’t say that the Japanese were the good guys of the story. Maybe I should have elaborated that it was leaders from those Abrahamic groups that did the shit-disturbing. Some real nasty things have been done in the name of religion and this includes mostly all religions.

      • Taxi on May 27, 2014, 11:29 pm

        I agree with Walid. So much bloodshed in the name of Abraham and his one god.

        But I’m impressed with Aiman’s overview – not convinced, but impressed.

  5. Citizen on May 26, 2014, 12:23 pm

    Everything good has been invented by the Jewish people, and enhanced by the nuclear-armed state of Israel. Since that’s the case, what the hell was the Jew, Jesus, all about? Just asking.

    • just on May 26, 2014, 12:31 pm

      Netanyahu and his ilk clumsily co-opt everything/anything good in a vain attempt to obscure their own evildoing.

  6. joemowrey on May 26, 2014, 12:32 pm

    I think the Jews came up with the idea of honoring mothers and fathers around the same time they invented the falafel.

    • Ecru on May 26, 2014, 1:03 pm

      And the cherry tomato, irrigation, writing, sleeping, eating, breathing. The list of Jewish (ahem) invention is endless…….

      • just on May 26, 2014, 1:38 pm

        Don’t forget fire and the wheel…

        Music and math and the alphabet, too. Oh yeah, and art.

      • Taxi on May 26, 2014, 1:56 pm

        Don’t forget sex – they invented that too apparently. (Not the oral kind though: the pagans invented that one).

      • just on May 26, 2014, 2:01 pm

        lol, Taxi!

        LOL.

      • Dutch on May 26, 2014, 9:34 pm

        I am pretty sure the taxi is a Jewish invention, too – came in a package with Greek culture. And hey – you mention the pagans. Guess who invented them? Basically they invented everything except the Palestinians; these do not exist.

      • amigo on May 26, 2014, 2:52 pm

        Didn,t invent Guiness/Hurling or River Dance.

      • just on May 26, 2014, 2:55 pm

        You just wait amigo– he’ll force it some way, some how, should the need arise.

      • oldgeezer on May 27, 2014, 2:49 am

        Hurling is something that people in my region of the world do when we drink far too much Guinness. River dancing (as well as skating) is possible for 6 months of the year. Oh…. You meant Ireland.

      • ritzl on May 26, 2014, 7:48 pm
    • bintbiba on May 26, 2014, 2:24 pm

      joemowry…… that IS funny !!

      • bintbiba on May 26, 2014, 2:26 pm

        + just, Taxi, ecru,….. All of you, Funny. Couldn’t get my bit in fast enough.

  7. Ecru on May 26, 2014, 1:01 pm

    Obviously Nutteryahoo’s confused his speech writer with a script writer. Just a pity all he can do is copy other people’s superior material….

    Goodness Gracious Me

  8. libra on May 26, 2014, 1:03 pm

    I’m rather surprised Netanyahu didn’t mention the fact that the very first Genesis Prize was won by Eve for the apple pie she baked Adam.

  9. Taxi on May 26, 2014, 1:10 pm

    Netanyahu’s a-holeness knows no end…

    Pope, Netanyahu spar over Jesus’ native language:
    http://news.yahoo.com/pope-netanyahu-spar-over-jesus-native-language-140042705.html

    • Xpat on May 26, 2014, 2:48 pm

      When Netanyahu says Jesus spoke Hebrew, he means, just like modern Israelis. Actually, Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, while sharing vocabulary and using the same alphabet, are quite different languages to Israeli Hebrew – as Zuckerman himself has shown. Good for the pope for slowing Netanyahu down.

      • lysias on May 26, 2014, 3:56 pm

        The extent to which Jesus knew Hebrew depends on the extent to which he was familiar with biblical texts. The gospels have him disputing with learned Jews on the meaning of some of those texts, but that is probably fictional. Like most lower-class Galileans (Joseph was a tekton, which is probably better translated “workman” than “carpenter”), Jesus probably knew next to no Hebrew.

        Because it is likely that both Joseph and Jesus worked in the nearby city of Sepphoris, the Herodian capital of Galilee, it is very likely that they both knew some Greek.

    • wondering jew on May 26, 2014, 4:02 pm

      The linked article has a Zuckerman who contends that the lower classes spoke Hebrew, something I never heard before. In the New Testament when Jesus says, eli, eli, lama azavtani or lama sabachtani, which would be Hebrew, the crowd did not understand his Hebrew, (a quote or a play on a Biblical verse from Psalms), and this seemed to indicate that the crowd did not understand Hebrew.

      The text of the Bible existed at the time of Jesus and he was a rabbi and so he knew Hebrew. Modern Hebrew is a perfectly apt tool for reading the Bible and reading the Bible is a perfectly apt means for studying modern Hebrew. They are not one and the same, but they are parallel and they can be helpful tools for each other.

      • RoHa on May 26, 2014, 9:02 pm

        “The text of the Bible existed at the time of Jesus and he was a rabbi and so he knew Hebrew.”

        If Jesus existed, he would almost certainly have spoken Aramaic. He might or might not have known a bit of Greek. If he was a rabbi, he would have known Hebrew. But we do not know whether he he was a rabbi or not. We do not know whether he was crucified, whether he said anything while on the cross, and whether the spectators heard or understood anything.
        The Gospels tell us these things, but there is no good reason to regard them as anything but fiction.

      • Hostage on May 27, 2014, 11:00 am

        What does Hebrew have anything to do with reading the Bible to get a better understanding of it when it was originally written in Greek?

        If you guys are going to engage in textual criticism, then you need to realize that Hebrew texts, like the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls, contained some Aramaic words or idioms. There are scholars, like David Flusser, “Jewish Sources in Early Christianity”; Robert L. Lindsey, “Jesus Rabbi & Lord”; and David Biven & Roy Blizzard, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus” who demonstrate evidence that the texts of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were originally written in Hebrew or by a person who spoke Hebrew. They contain literal word for word translations of Hebrew idioms or figures of speech that make no sense at all in the resulting Greek or English. In addition, these scholars say the syntax used in the texts is not good Greek, but translates back into good Hebrew.

      • LeaNder on May 27, 2014, 4:25 pm

        Hostage, no intention to get into New Testament scholarship way over my head. But it seems that the scholars you cite ultimately lead me into a debate about what language Jesus spoke. The general consent still seems to be Aramaic but these scholars seem to lead towards Hebrew:

        pdf.file: Weston W. Fields on David Bivin and Roy Blizzard:

        Certainly Aramaic was used, but not as much as it was four or five centuries earlier by the returning captives from Aramaic-speaking Babylon. Aramaic was the language of the upper class and was well-known and used among scholars for certain purposes.

        Well if that is true, then the historical Jesus should have spoken Hebrew, as Nethanyahu suggested. Which makes Netanayhu more informed then the pope. ;)

        I was witnessing a H-Net debate at the time of the release of Gibson’s movie The Passion of Christ. I remember being a little irritated by a swarmy Christian lady, I till recently thought was a scholar. There was no question about language at the time. Only the repetition that all Christians consider “the Jews” as killers of Christ, and this makes the movie dangerous and antisemitic. Even if they all think this anyway? The lady later was influential in the purging of my favorite editor of the list. For a year the list went dead, then it was taken up again from Israel.

        Today I discovered a pastor that apparently wrote about the movie’s use of language. I only looked at the article very shortly.

        What Language Did Jesus Speak? Why Does It Matter?

        he vast majority of readers did not contact me, which is just fine. They had no particular reason to do so. A few dozen people emailed me to thank me for what I had written.

        And then there were the others, those who were not happy with me and what I had written. Sometimes they wrote nasty notes, criticizing my scholarship and even my Christian character. Sometimes they wrote extensive treatises, arguing at length for a position different from the one I had taken in my series. Among those who wrote, a few referred to credible scholars who have argued that Hebrew and/or Greek were commonly used by Jews in Judea during the time of Jesus. Some who contacted me seemed to believe that because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, Jesus must have spoken Hebrew, otherwise somehow his mission as the Messiah would have been deficient. Some were worried that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, this would contradict passages in the Gospel of John that refer to Hebrew being spoken (though not by Jesus, actually).

        In the last couple of years, I have run into a new reason why some people dispute the notion that Jesus spoke Aramaic. It has to do with the passion among some Muslims for an Aramaic-speaking Jesus. Presumably, and I have not followed these arguments carefully, certain Muslims use the idea that Jesus spoke Aramaic as a support for the truth of Islam. In response, some Christians have taken up arms in favor of the Hebrew-speaking Jesus. Those who fight this battle have accused me of giving aid and comfort to the “opponents of Christianity” by suggesting that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. (Note: If you are aware of other reasons why the language(s) of Jesus matter so much to some people, please let me know by leaving a comment below.)

        Is there no way out of politics, ever?

      • Hostage on May 28, 2014, 12:23 am

        The general consent still seems to be Aramaic but these scholars seem to lead towards Hebrew: pdf.file: Weston W. Fields on David Bivin and Roy Blizzard:

        That’s a good article from an expert. Fields has been the Executive Director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation since 1991 and helped supervise the completion of the work on the “Discoveries in the Judaean Desert” series. Those texts illustrate that Hebrew was in common usage for both mundane and ritual purposes in the Second Commonwealth era.

        His article provides citations to some of the more technical sources that support the thesis in the footnotes. He too supports the proposition that the Greek texts of the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and letter to the Hebrews reflect evidence of Hebrew originals and preserve Mishnaic Hebrew syntax. He also points out that many Hebrew speaking scholars working and studying in Israel have accepted the view that Hebrew was the common vernacular.

        Well if that is true, then the historical Jesus should have spoken Hebrew

        If you let the texts speak for themselves, they indicate that he did. Fields points out that translators have removed explicit references to the Hebrew language from several verses of the modern editions of the Christian scriptures (e.g. NIV John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14) and substituted “Aramaic” instead. They’ve even altered the texts of Mark 15:34, when it makes no sense to do so from the context, i.e. the bystanders would not have thought he was calling for Elijah if he had spoken the phrase in Aramaic, only the use of Hebrew could have led to their confusion.

      • RoHa on May 28, 2014, 1:25 am

        Interesting article. Maybe Jesus did speak Hebrew. But I would like to see more than just arguments from the Gospels to pin down the common language of first century Palestine.

        The idea of a Hebrew or Aramaic document as substratum to the Gospel stories is not new, but since no copy of such a document is extant, it has to be (as so much of this topic is) a speculation. Could Q, also a speculation, have been that document?

        Howard’s edition of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew might, perhaps, be a good approximation to the Gospel referred to by the Early Church Fathers, but I have some doubts about it. According to Papias as quoted by Eusebius, Mark gathered together sayings (λογια) of Jesus in no particular order,
        “But about Matthew he says these: Matthew therefore in the Hebrew dialect ordered together the oracles, and each one interpreted them as he was able.”
        Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16
        So even in ordered form, the “Hebrew Matthew” does not sound like a narrative, but a collection of sayings (oracles) to be studied. The Gospels clearly are narratives.

        (Mind you , Eusebius thinks Papias was a thicko full of weird beliefs.)

        On the other hand, later writers, and especially Jerome, refer to something that seems to be a gospel like the ones we know. Was that the same thing as Papias was referring to? Was it a translation from a Greek version?

        The idea of a Hebrew text underlying the letters is a bit more of a stretch.

        Lukan priority is a minority view, but that does not mean it is wrong. It is clear that Luke had a fair knowledge of Greek literature but that does not exclude him from using a Hebrew source as the basis for his story.

        Here is a helpful listing of some major guesses about Gospel sources and priorities.

        Of course, none of this suggests that the Gospel stories are true.

      • LeaNder on May 28, 2014, 10:18 am

        Thanks, Hostage.

        That doesn’t quite fit into the usual range of topics on my reading list. Well you already triggered excursions into law. But that is closer to the range really. But I tried to get a basic impression of the larger debate and I guess, I’ll give David Flusser’s Jesus portrait a try. Apparently targum are contained in the larger matter (Dead Sea Scrolls). Actually I already was a bit surprised about myself when I read Chilton’s Rabbi Jesus. But why not sage. And strictly it makes sense to read the gospels from the Jewish background. To be quite honest, I mainly bought a bible as a protest that it did not surface in my Catholic religion classes, but never really spent much time over it. ;)

        Only “Judaistik”/Jewish studies offer Aramaic here in Cologne, Babylonian Talmud.

        In any case Aramaic still seems the dominant view. Check Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia even has an article on the language of Jesus, if I recall correctly. Yes – link

        I will keep a critical distance to Nethanyhu never the less. .

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 1:25 am

        “They are not one and the same, but they are parallel and they can be helpful tools for each other.” (Yonah)

        What does Hebrew have anything to do with reading the Bible to get a better understanding of it when it was originally written in Greek? Maybe he was actually calling out to Elijah. This prophet figures very prominently in Christianity even though he predates it by about 800 years. Matthew wrote that people at the cross asked why Jesus called out to Elijah; after all, he was important enough to have taken part along with Moses in the transfiguration of Jesus.

        For Elijah-watchers, this important prophet that was the Rambo of his day made his mark in Lebanon when fleeing the wrath of Jezebel and Ahab found shelter during 3 years at the house of a poor widow just outside of Saida at Sarafand in Lebanon. There, he accomplished 2 miracles, that of multiplying the widow’s provision of oil and wheat when they were running out of food and bringing back to life her son that had just died (by lying on him 3 times, which I could never understand, which sure doesn’t sound kosher).

        Interestingly, the story says that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire by God; taking into account the feast of Saint Elias that’s celebrated on July 20th, it’s said by Elias fans that the NASA scientists that are very much into reading the Bible arranged to have Apollo with Armstrong and Aldrin on board land on the moon on July 20, 1969, thus duplicating man’s first journey away from Earth by Elijah. 7 years later on July 20, 1976, Viking I landed on Mars. Bible and Quran readers can make any story blend in with what they want to believe. There’s hardly a Christian family in Lebanon that doesn’t have a son named “Elias” in it.

      • RoHa on May 27, 2014, 3:40 am

        My edited version of the above post got lost. Here is what I wanted it to say. Could moderators please replace the first version with this one?

        The New Testament was originally written in Greek. (The Old Testament was mostly written in Hebrew, with a bit in Aramaic.*)

        Matthew 27:46 says
        “περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐννάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων, Ηλι ηλι λαμὰ σαβαχθανι τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν Θεέ μου θεέ μου ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες.”

        Now “Ηλι ηλι λαμὰ σαβαχθανι” is certainly not Greek. It is taken from Psalm 21.

        Mark 15:34 has it as “Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι”. This is, allegedly, Aramaic. The difference suggests that, while taking the story from Mark, Matthew changed it to look more like the OT original. However, it is still partly Aramaic.
        This is interesting because Matthew’s references to and interpretations of the Old Testament otherwise seem to be based on the Septuagint, which leads many to wonder how much Hebrew he knew, and the imperfect “correction” suggests that he was not overly skilled at Hebrew.

        (He knew more than me. I do not know either Hebrew or Aramaic, and I am relying on the linguistic determinations of others.)

        Of course, referring to the authors as Matthew and Mark does not mean that I think they were the disciples and hangers-on with those names.

        (*This is incontrovertible proof that the Bible is not of Divine Origin. God would have sensibly written it in British English.)

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 4:02 am

        RoHa, there’s nothing divine in any of the writings claimed so by the Abrahamic cults. It’s picking and choosing, twisting, interpreting and extrapolating left and right, up and down, diagonally and zig-zaggingly to adapt them to the desired final message. Smoke signals proved to be more accurate.

      • Woody Tanaka on May 27, 2014, 7:23 am

        “(*This is incontrovertible proof that the Bible is not of Divine Origin. God would have sensibly written it in British English.)”

        Sensible?? With all those random vowels tossed in there? (foetus, colour, etc)

      • wondering jew on May 27, 2014, 11:56 am

        Walid- The old testament was in Hebrew not Greek. Some of the old testament was in Aramaic. (Daniel most notably).

        RoHa- Our topic was the discussion between the pope and Netanyahu.
        They are assuming that Jesus lived.

      • Walid on May 27, 2014, 12:49 pm

        Yonah, we were discussing understanding Jesus’ sermon on the mount so when I mentioned the Bible was in Greek, it went without saying that I was referring to the New Testament.

        It was only a small section of Daniel that was written in a peculiar Aramaic dialect that was often miscalled Chaldee, a mistake which arose from a misconception of Daniel 1:4 with Daniel 2:4. Saint Jerome perpetuated and popularized this mistake in his Vulgate. Biblical Aramaic is akin to the Aramaic of the Targums and to Syriac. Those other sections of the OT you mentioned being in Biblical Aramaic are Daniel 2:4 after the words in in the English version “in Syriac” up to ch 7:28. You also have Ezra 4:8 to 6:18 and 7: from 12 to 26. Jeremiah 10:11 is in Aramaic. The Septuagint Version including the Apocryphal Books of the OT is written in Hellenistic Greek.

  10. amigo on May 26, 2014, 1:45 pm

    The question is , whose Mother and Father is he referring to?.

    It certainly is not Palestinian mothers and fathers or Lebanese or Syrian or any of the other nations they have bombed and killed innocent mothers and fathers.Certainly no honour there.

    question/.

    If Israel,s Jewish mothers / fathers taught their children to rob , steal, murder,oppress, colonize and generally break God,s laws how do you honour such mothers and fathers???.

  11. MahaneYehude1 on May 26, 2014, 2:25 pm

    Sometimes I have the filling that in order to fill this site with “articles” you are playing with bullshit!!!

    • eljay on May 26, 2014, 2:47 pm

      >> Sometimes I have the filling that in order to fill this site with “articles” you are playing with bullshit!!!

      Bullshit is your specialty, Potato-man. And you fill this site with it very well.

      :-)

    • just on May 26, 2014, 2:54 pm

      I’m so sorry that you have “the filling”.

      Poor MY1– so myopic and faithful to his dear leader that he can’t/won’t see…

    • Ellen on May 26, 2014, 3:00 pm

      MY1,

      This is no BS.

      Israel’s leader is completely unhinged. And suffers from narcissistic and paranoid delusions. You should be very afraid of this guy.

    • Ecru on May 26, 2014, 4:06 pm

      @ MY1

      Wow! We finally agree on something. Nutteryahoo is full of bullshit isn’t he.

    • Hostage on May 26, 2014, 8:11 pm

      Netanyahu says Jews invented the idea of ‘honoring your father and mother’

      Except of course if one of your parents happens to be a Gentile.

      Sometimes I have the filling that in order to fill this site with “articles” you are playing with bullshit!!!

      Only to the extent that the authors here try to report about the bizarre utterances of the Zionist intelligentsia.

  12. MRW on May 26, 2014, 2:38 pm

    Confucius surely didn’t get the idea from Jews.

    And even that predated Confucius (500 BC) by 4,500 years, long before the Jewish Calendar.

    • lysias on May 26, 2014, 3:50 pm

      The Classic of Filial Piety (Xiao Jing) was the text used in the one semester of Classical Chinese I took in college. Unfortunately, I remember very little about it.

      But Athenian laws and customs I know a lot more about, since my postgraduate studies very much involved them (My doctoral dissertation was on Demosthenes). Failure to support parents was one of the crimes that resulted in atimia, loss of the privileges of citizenship.

  13. a blah chick on May 26, 2014, 3:06 pm

    And don’t overlook where this spiel was given, at the inauguration of the Genesis Prize. What is the Genesis Prize?

    “The Genesis Prize seeks to recognize individuals who have attained excellence and international renown in their chosen professional fields, and whose actions, in addition to their achievements, embody the character of the Jewish people through commitment to Jewish values, the Jewish community and/or to the State of Israel.”

    Because not enough Jews get to win the Nobel.

  14. The Hasbara Buster on May 26, 2014, 3:24 pm

    Honoring one’s parents is a long standing tradition in most of the world’s cultures. Tracing it to the Bible is simply a hilarious act of arrogance.

    Unfortunately, in recent times that tradition has begun to be lost, among other places in Israel itself, where elderly Holocaust survivors suffer deprivation even as their government collects the reparations that were meant for them.

  15. chuckcarlos on May 26, 2014, 3:29 pm

    You know that planned human trip to Mars? (one way)

    Netanyahu and his fascist cohorts really deserve to be first in line for that one…

    The oxygen will run out about 1/2 way there and then we’ll see just how ingenious Netanyahu is….

    just when one gets really pissed off about the goons in Israel you guys find this stuff…

    you just can’t make up this stuff…

  16. wondering jew on May 26, 2014, 3:42 pm

    Filial piety is a universal phenomenon. The Jewish emphasis on continuity, though, does contain within it a type of filial piety that deserves mention. The ten commandments are not the beginning and the end of all ethical life on this planet, though when discussing human ethical behavior, one would be remiss to omit this significant top ten list.

    Though ultimately a text I might wish to subvert, I also mention the binding of Isaac, the near sacrifice of son by father, which contains a radical obedience.

    • Xpat on May 26, 2014, 8:51 pm

      ‘Continuity’ as it is used today is a recent buzz word coming out of the demise of anti-Semitism. In the modern world, there are no external pressures (laws/social norms) that will shape a Jewish community, hence all the Jewish anxiety about ‘continuity.’ Quite different to what you find in the Bible. Anyway, I don’t know if other religions do (or do not) have a similar focus on teaching kids the stories of the ancestors. I’d hazard a guess that this is – along with filial piety – at least not uncommon, if not pretty universal.
      Jews, or their ancient forbears, didn’t invent filial piety or continuity and Jews don’t hold a monopoly on either one.

    • RoHa on May 26, 2014, 9:15 pm

      The Chinese are pretty keen on continuity of the family.

      The near sacrifice of son by father shows that radical obedience can corrupt humanity and lead people to ignore fundamental moral obligations.

      • Citizen on May 27, 2014, 3:50 am

        @ RoHa
        Good, precise comment.

  17. Woody Tanaka on May 26, 2014, 4:44 pm

    “Filial piety is a universal phenomenon. The Jewish emphasis on continuity, though, does contain within it a type of filial piety that deserves mention. ”

    LMAO. yonah, if you didn’t exist, we’d have to invent you. “Yes, everyone in the world honors their parents. But the way the Jews do it is MAGIC!!!!”

    “I also mention the binding of Isaac, the near sacrifice of son by father, which contains a radical obedience.”

    No, it contains examples of pathological psychology on behalf both father and son, who both fail in the simple task of being decent human beings.

  18. Kay24 on May 26, 2014, 5:35 pm

    These Israelis really have a bad habit of claiming land, water, resources, and whatever they lay their eyes on, as theirs.

    Claiming that they invented honoring parents, now that is ridiculous and quite a stretch.
    Strange they only “honor” their parents, and do not honor the parents of their neighbors or the occupied.

    • annie on May 26, 2014, 5:44 pm

      i still think my favorite thus far was claiming the sandwich. you can’t make this stuff up.

      • Citizen on May 27, 2014, 4:00 am

        They invented combo bread and meat, or bread and cheese?

      • annie on May 27, 2014, 11:29 am

        placing a non-bread food item between pieces of bread. if i had to take a stab at it i’d guess the first sandwich was probably ‘invented’ within a few days after mankind figured out how to bake bread ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bread ). but when it became a ‘dish’, in itself (with a name) is another story.

        there was some competition in the UK a few years back over the origin of the sandwich. and it was determined the first sandwich was… http://www.open-sandwich.co.uk/town_history/sandwich_origin.htm

        The First ‘Sandwiches’
        The 1st Century B.C. Jewish Rabbi Hillel the Elder is reported to have started the Passover tradition of putting lamb, mixed nuts and herbs between two pieces of unleavened bread. In the Middle Ages, people used thick slices of stale bread called ‘trenchers’ to double as plates on which they placed cooked meats and vegetables, a kind of ‘open sandwich’, although they probably did not eat the stale bread. The Dutch also have a long tradition of serving bread & butter with meat or fish (broodjes) or other delicious fillings & toppings.

  19. benedict on May 26, 2014, 6:56 pm

    Netanyahu is right and 2.5 billion people will probably agree with him.
    Fact is that both major religions – Islam and Christianity – borrowed a basic set of values, including ‘honor thy parents’, from Judaism. I think every believing Christian or Muslim will agree with Netanyahu in this point.
    Of course phil thinks otherwise since he isn’t a follower of any religion. He’s an atheist.

    • just on May 26, 2014, 11:10 pm

      How very wrong you are, benedict.

      Too bad.

    • mijj on May 27, 2014, 1:12 am

      lol .. “honor thy parents” is obviously an identification of natural evolved behavior which most mammals have to some degree or other.

      What Bibi is really suggesting is that this behavior wasn’t obvious to Jews, so it had to be written down as a commandment.

    • Citizen on May 27, 2014, 4:06 am

      @ benedict

      Confucius, don’t get confused, kid,
      He said, respect your parents, they’re not useless.

    • eljay on May 27, 2014, 7:33 am

      >> Netanyahu is right …

      He’s only right if the reason everyone in the world honours their parents is because they adopted the Jewish tradition. Since this is clearly not the case – since there are many cultures in which honouring your parents is a tradition that developed separately from the Jewish tradition – King Bibi is not right.

      >> I think every believing Christian or Muslim will agree with Netanyahu in this point.

      “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

    • Woody Tanaka on May 27, 2014, 7:47 am

      “I think every believing Christian or Muslim will agree with Netanyahu in this point.”

      No, they won’t. They will recognize what Netanyahoo can’t see in his narcissistic bigotry: that the command was the codification of a human norm, and not the genesis of a new moral principle. Only bigots and the ignorant, the stupid, the mentally impaired or the brainwashed would believe otherwise.

    • American on May 27, 2014, 10:51 am

      benedict says:

      May 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm

      Netanyahu is right and 2.5 billion people will probably agree with him.
      Fact is that both major religions – Islam and Christianity – borrowed a basic set of values, including ‘honor thy parents’, from Judaism.>>>>>>

      It didnt come from Judaism…it came from elephants who are known for deferring to and saving their “elder’ elephants. ..everyone knows this.

      OTOH, it appears that Israeli Judaism got it values from hyenas..hunting in packs, ravaging carcasses, etc..

    • amigo on May 27, 2014, 11:35 am

      “I think every believing Christian or Muslim will agree with Netanyahu in this point.” benedict

      Sorry to burst your bubble but I do not believe him.

      Come to think of it, how does any sane clear thinking person believe a word he say.

      Do you want a rather long list of his legendary lies.

  20. Kay24 on May 26, 2014, 7:25 pm

    Some of these claims are absurd, as if the world cannot fact check these tall tales.
    The internet can disprove the lies in seconds.

  21. Basilio on May 26, 2014, 7:46 pm

    Oh, give me a break. The Babylonians and Mesopatamians and others were associated with quite a long time ago. The Hebrews were late comers, civilization wise, in the region, and then he makes it seem as if they invented everything including windex.
    Did he watch “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”?

  22. Nevada Ned on May 26, 2014, 7:47 pm

    What are parents supposed to do with a disobedient child?

    The Bible teaches us…
    Kill the child!

    I’m a parent, and I definitely wouldn’t like it if one of my children cursed me. But death is too harsh, don’t you think?

    By the way, the ancient Hebrews in the time of Jesus spoke Aramaic*, not Hebrew, in their everyday lives. Hebrew was reserved for religious ceremonies. Like Latin in the Catholic world, until the 1960’s.

    *There are some villages in Syria that still speak Aramaic (or at least there were before the civil war).

  23. Kathleen on May 26, 2014, 9:03 pm

    Is he talking to his ring again?

  24. kma on May 26, 2014, 9:34 pm

    um… if you’re a creationist, you believe that Jews invented pretty much everything, including all forms of sexual pleasures, right???

  25. kma on May 26, 2014, 9:47 pm

    oh, by the way, whoever invented just “humoring thy father and mother” was a truly superior species. ha ha

  26. palijustice on May 26, 2014, 10:15 pm

    As I said above, these religious commandments mean diddlysquat, when Israel is stealing and coveting land, and killing with impunity. It’s all BS. The world would be better off without any religions, they all teach hypocrisy, intolerance and superiority. Religions will bring humankind to ruin. Maybe the Quakers are ok because they are really antiwar, and don’t take anything in the Bible literally.

  27. Qualtrough on May 27, 2014, 12:37 am

    At the time in question, not honoring your mother and father was pretty much a guarantee of a poor outcome in life. Society wasn’t atomized and family was critical to survival. Yes, religions and philosophies at some point codified it, but the reason for it being a good idea is pretty much a no-brainer and nothing specific to a single religion or people.

  28. mijj on May 27, 2014, 1:05 am

    did you know gravity was a Jewish invention, too? People and animals used to just aimlessly float around. True story.

  29. piotr on May 27, 2014, 8:58 am

    After much thought, I realized that Netanyahu may have a point. The reverence to both father and mother is by no means universal. For example, in Chinese history there are instances of sharp conflict between Confucian values, where women opinions basically do not count, and “northern” tradition followed by the military aristocracy and the imperial court in the period when the latter had non-Chinese descent. In that northern tradition men were monogamous and direct disobedience to mother was simply not done.

    It is a Jewish tradition (but I am not sure how universal among the Jews) that one should be polite to his mother however overbearing and insufferable she may be (and given that, she can be overbearing and insufferable). Deference of Mr. Netanyahu to Mrs. Netanyahu is a subject of much speculation and derision in Israeli press.

    My imperfect theology suggests that the writers of the Torah were strictly patriarchal and deference to the opinions of women was not considered a good thing, and the most fundamentalist Jews are treating women accordingly. Perhaps the tradition of obedience to mothers comes from Khazaria? As I discussed, it is a persistent cultural element of the Eurasian Steppe, from Amazons to Manchu emperors who deferred to their mothers.

    • Woody Tanaka on May 27, 2014, 10:20 am

      He does not have a point. Even if we grant everything that you mention, he still does not make a valid point. His point is that honoring mothers and fathers is a Jewish tradition that became universal. That is simple and absolute nonsense.

      The fact that different cultures exercise that respect to different degrees (and here we can insert examples of other cultures that do more to honor mothers than is done in the patriarchal Jewish culture) does not demonstrate that this trait originated in Jewish culture and then became universal.

      He is simply a bigot expressing his bigotry, nothing more. He is as racist as someone who claims that no peoples other than Europeans ever developed civilization and that they all copied it from the white man.

      • annie on May 27, 2014, 10:59 am

        is pleasuring ones spouse in the torah? maybe the source for that concept originated there too. i doubt it would have occurred to man/womankind without instruction from a holy source.

        and what about not coveting the neighbors wife? i’d call that another no brainer along with not murdering people. lots of this stuff in holy books is as instinctual as birds flying south in the winter. if birds had holy books they could point back to it an claim some great bird thought of that first.

  30. Cliff on May 27, 2014, 9:45 am

    Wow, so Jews invented this huh? Us gentiles must all be barbarians.

  31. palijustice on May 27, 2014, 11:19 am

    Religious people are supporting US wars in this country, and religious people in Israel are in the forefront of supporting apartheid, land theft etc. in Palestine. The nastiest settlers are the religious types. It’s hard to see where religion is a force for good in this world, except in some of the charitable work they do. They are mainly a source of conflict and aggression.

  32. weareone on May 27, 2014, 11:40 am

    Agreed, bilal a.

    “Orthodox Religious Jews and Christians are not droning and invading , nor are followers of authentic Islam doing the same or the alleged terrorism.”

    Why blame religions for the worlds problems? It seems to me that the essence of all true religions is very much the same- advising love of God and love of others.

    Perhaps human beings have perverted the teachings of religious doctrines. If people tried to model their lives on the saints or prophets of their chosen religion (ie. Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, St. Francis, Isaiah etc) would the world be different. imo, the answer is yes. So I can’t find fault with religion. imo, the fault lies with us in not adhering to the teachings of whatever path we profess to follow. We shouldn’t allow religion to be used to divide us.

  33. traintosiberia on May 27, 2014, 6:19 pm

    Netanhooooooo has definitely added some validity to this questionable claims in real life by addressing parental choices. He has killed a lot of Arabs directly and I directly and by persuading others to kill directly and indirectly as his father figured out that the lasting peace for Israel could never be achieved without killing all Arabs. Nathanhoo is pursuing the peace and killing a lot simultaneously .

  34. Yitzgood on May 28, 2014, 11:22 am

    There are long traditions of filial piety in other cultures. Confucius surely didn’t get the idea from Jews.

    The formulation “honoring your father and mother” distinctly echoes the Hebrew “Honor your father and your mother”–“Kaved es Avichicha ve’es Imecha.” That particular formulation did achieve a nearly “universal,” let’s say, currency. I don’t know how its phrased in Confucius, do you? There’s a point to be made made there if its phrased carefully. You Mondos have such a need to feel superior to “Zios” that you end up being simple-minded yourself.

    • Woody Tanaka on May 28, 2014, 11:40 am

      “The formulation “honoring your father and mother” distinctly echoes the Hebrew “Honor your father and your mother”–”Kaved es Avichicha ve’es Imecha.” That particular formulation did achieve a nearly “universal,” let’s say, currency. ”

      LMAO. Yup. Everyone does it, but how Jews say it is MAGIC!!! The deluison of you and yonah is hysterical.

Leave a Reply