Yes, and there's a whole lot more that could be said.
The Ashkenazi who make up most of Israel's population and that of the early Zionist writers are simply a Germanic people, a European people, not a Middle Eastern people.
Good God, what’s Middle Eastern about Deli food? It’s Germanic and Eastern European. And what’s Middle eastern about the attire of ultra-Orthodox Jews? It’s from rural 18th or 19th century Eastern Europe.
Their native language is Yiddish, a derivative of German. Hebrew is adopted and related to religious study just as many Muslims study Arabic to be able to read the Koran in the original.
There may well be bits of the Hebrew people's DNA in many, after Jews have always been a relatively small population, and the need for mates undoubtedly induced travel in the past, but they are not Hebrews.
The historic period that saw Jews become somewhat evangelistic – perhaps envying the immense success of Christians who also started as a small Jewish sect – saw colonies founded in a number of places, as in Africa and the Caucasus. Later, there was undoubtedly movement and travel among these diverse places, again the search for mates in a small population playing a role.
The Ashkenazi share only the religion, although even that is vastly changed from 2000 years ago. Almost entirely different.
The Palestinians are almost certainly the nearest that we have to the genuine descendants of the Hebrews. And what a bitter irony that is. Of course, two thousand years of history and conquests have changed their nature and religion.
The Romans never removed the populations from their conquests, and those great record-keepers left no record of doing such to the Hebrews. The entire wandering Jew story is just that, a story, another way to bind a separate modern people to the ancients whose religion they practice.
In any event, nothing could be more absurd and be more of an invitation to trouble than basing modern boundaries on ancient texts. If the Greeks did that, they would have part of Turkey, where ancient Troy was 3000 years ago.
As for Friedman’s absurdities over the years, readers might enjoy:
"Bernie Sanders: Still Progressive Except for Palestine"
I don't really see that.
He's not my idea of progressive in lots of things.
His record on the military and the security state is not all that different than the main political mob.
Ditto, America's empire.
And, of course, Israel is a key part of that, America's pied-a-terre in the Middle East, a special kind of colony.
Sanders has some domestic policies he advocates that are indisputably progressive - in healthcare and education - but it is important to understand that these are literally impossible to implement in the United States.
And that's especially true given the empire-military-security establishment burning through money.
So, they are effectively little more than nice-sounding slogans. Rather safe.
Also, despite his attractive rhetoric, he would be a terribly ineffective President.
His dealings with Hillary Clinton conclusively proved that he does not have the capacity to deal appropriately with a truly hard-nosed member of the power establishment.
She literally cheated him out of the nomination, he said virtually nothing and went away with his tail between his legs… to campaign for her.
Well, when it comes the imperial-military-security establishment, all the big oak tables at meetings are surrounded by such figures.
Quite an excellent article, providing a survey of the various efforts we see at work to confuse two unrelated things, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
I like to think that a great many people do understand the distinction.
However, the constant effort to blur and conflate is one of Israel’s major weapons in getting what it wants from governments in the West.
And it does, indeed, have quite a list of wants - from the formal recognition of illegalities and outright thefts like those in the West bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan to the continuous promotion of war against any state in its region that does not subscribe to Israel's rather special idea of itself.
It succeeded in stoking up the vast and destructive Neocon Wars, and now it intensely wants something done about Iran, a country it hates, not out of fear, as it pretends, but out of competition to be the region's dominant and most influential state.
It keeps the attention and support of France and the UK and the US and some others with a non-stop campaign of influence-peddling and it works hard to make sure no one comes to power who might be less vulnerable to its influence – eg, Corbyn. In its efforts for the latter, the anti-Semitism dark-op is still a useful one.
I think the only way we can ever hope to get rid of this terrible interference in the internal affairs of Western states (Oh, my God, that Putin should ever dream of having such influence in the affairs of others!) is to do something serious about the laws governing the operations of lobbies and the role of money in election campaigns.
In the United States, the reality of the work of lobbies and the influence of money is scandalous and destructive of any sense of democracy. I'm pretty sure it's not too much different in Britain and France. After all, we see those two states do so many things that would virtually certainly not be done in the absence of such influence, from passing unfair laws to working against honest politicians to helping with such destructive projects as the Neocon Wars. These are not things in the genuine interests of their own overall populations
But who is to change the laws? The existing leaders are under heavy, intense influence, and every weapon in the arsenal is employed against potential new ones rising and displacing them.