It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Controversial Bestseller Shakes the Foundation of the Israeli State

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+3 more 
posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:07 AM

Controversial Bestseller Shakes the Foundation of the Israeli State

What if the Palestinian Arabs who have lived for decades under the heel of the modern Israeli state are in fact descended from the very same "children of Israel" described in the Old Testament?

And what if most modern Israelis aren't descended from the ancient Israelites at all, but are actually a mix of Europeans, North Africans and others who didn't "return" to the scrap of land we now call Israel and establish a new state following the attempt to exterminate them during World War II, but came in and forcefully displaced people whose ancestors had lived there for millennia?

What if the entire tale of the Jewish Diaspora -- the story recounted at Passover tables by Jews around the world every year detailing the ancient Jews' exile from Judea, the years spent wandering through the desert, their escape from the Pharaoh's clutches -- is all wrong?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:07 AM
As is to be expected, the book in the article came in for some fierce criticism when it was first released in Israel - but it raises some very valid and logical arguments that contradict a lot of the traditional arguments and thoughts of the jewish religion, and which shape official policy in the Israeli government - especially those policies concerning palestinians.

It throws into question the whole notion of the jews being thrown out of their land by the romans - and raises a vital point:

Were the original jews simply integrated into Islam.

The article also questions the origins of the current state of Israel and puts forth a thesis that it was in fact a zionist conspiracy "hatched in the 19th century by Zionist scholars and advanced by the Israeli academic establishment. It was, argues Zand, an intellectual conspiracy of sorts. Segev says, "It's all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State of Israel."

Needless to say the JEWISH scholar who wrote this has come in for a lot of stick - but I for one look forwards to reading this when it is translated to other languages.

The question is, will it be available in certain countries given the control the Israeli lobby exerts - or will it be quietly discreditted and buried.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:30 AM
well, i will certainly read it. the jewish scholars are the best to write between the lines - one should only read them carefully!

but by the description you posted, i can already tell you that it maybe a wild speculation based on contradiction to blow up minds of the unprepared audience, that is the audince that lacks in-depth knowledge.
The first sentence can be accepted as grounded on truth. the arabs do belong to the semitic race. the term "anti-semitic" contradictsits its use in reality. it refers to the arabs as well.
the jews and the arabs are related!
and yes, the jewish people are heterogeneous... (e.g.just look into problem of eastern jews)
And for you i would strongly advise to read about 13 tribes of israel, 12+1
and their dispersion in the four quarters of the earth.
After this preliminary research you may be more prepared to analyze this book and the assumptions there presented.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Russi]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:37 AM
reply to post by Russi

I appreciate the input, but before casting doubt on this, it may be wise to view the credentials of the books author:

Shlomo Sand (Hebrew: שלמה זנד‎, born 10 September 1946; sometimes transliterated as "Shlomo Zand") is Professor of History at Tel Aviv University in Israel. His main areas of teaching are Cinema and History, French Intellectual History, and Nation and Nationalism.[1]

Sand was born in Linz, Austria, to Polish Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. His parents had Communist and anti-imperialist views and refused to receive compensations from Germany for their suffering during the Second World War. His father was active in the Israeli Communist Party.[citation needed] Sand spent his early years in a displaced persons camp, and moved with the family to Jaffa in 1948. He was expelled from high school at the age of sixteen, and only completed his bagrut following his military service.[2] His military experience during the 1967 war, and his boredom following its end, led him to leave the Union of Israeli Communist Youth (Banki) and join the more radical, and anti-Zionist, Matzpen in 1968. Sand resigned from Matzpen in 1970 due to his disillusionment with the organisation.[3][4]

He declined an offer by the Israeli Communist Party Rakah to be sent to do cinema studies in Poland, and in 1975 Sand graduated with a BA in History from Tel Aviv University. From 1975 to 1985, after winning a scholarship, he studied and later taught in Paris, receiving an MA in French History and a PhD for his thesis[5] on "George Sorel and Marxism". Since 1982, Sand has taught at Tel Aviv University as well as at the University of California, Berkeley and the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris.[1]


It appeasr as though this scholar is actually one of the few objective jewish scholars, and for that reason alone, I would give weight to his words.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:42 AM
Well, the facts of biography certainly give him credit.
berkley though is the place of pro-zionist thinking...
What i meant by my post above is that criticial thinking supposes the knowledge of the subject to be able to analyze the contents of the new ideas presented..
To have a big telescope doesnt mean to have a correct conception!

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Russi]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:45 AM
Agreed, but that in turn may colour judgement in reading and assimilating "new" material and prejudice the critical thinking process if one has predetermined a conclusion.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:11 AM
Palestinians has been saying this from day one. They have been saying that they are directly connected to the ancients and can trace their lineage back to all the peoples of Palestine.

Any social anthropologist will tell you that the modern Jews of today are descendants of converts from North, East, West Africa, Europe, India and China. These disparate races can not be one people; biologically speaking.

[edit on 013131p://pm3145 by masonwatcher]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by masonwatcher

Yes, and how great that this is entering the mainstream.

With any luck, this will lead to greater awareness and understanding.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
Hmm. First of all - it is a theory. I cannot say anything about it since i did not read the book - but it was released in Israel (this is where Israeli lobby is most powerful as you can clearly realize) and no foundation shook. There are lot of critiques on this book/research, there are supporters.
But i find one thing strange - did YOU read the book? And if not- how can you agree with that book if you did not read it? Only because it can hurt Israel somehow?

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:20 PM
I read some time ago that DNA testing proved that the Jews and Arabs living in the middle east are very closely related.

So, all this bloodshed that is occurring in the middle east, is actually distant relatives killing each other.

Pretty sad.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:20 PM

If you are directing that statement at me, then I suggest you re-read my posts.

I didn't say I agreed with it - only that it was interesting.

I will reserve judgement until I actually HAVE read it.

Which brings me to the point of the currently "accepted" history of jewish people and their origins - this isn't even a theory, it's folklore based on the alleged orders of a being no-one can prove exists.

Whereas if a gene study of the current inhabitants of Israel and palestine were done, I'm fairly sure it would contribute to the theory in the OP article.

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:20 PM
Looking very forward to reading this as well, however, "one man's opinion does not the truth make"...

The title"Jewish scholar" should hold no more weight than Muslim scolar or Christian scholar...there a ton of great research done by various "scholars" on this subject and many of them come to completely different conclusions..

Just for the record, I don't have a dog in this far as I see it, the Zionists aren't gonna leave and neither are the matter what the truth is about who was there first...there will be only one end to this situation, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by RolandBrichter

Looking very forward to reading this as well, however, "one man's opinion does not the truth make"...

One man's opinion is different to one man's learned opinion, otherwise we are wasting money on academia.

It is a person's learned opinions that designs aircrafts, buildings, paintings....

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by budski

.. one of the few objective Jewish scholars..
... it raises some very valid and logical arguments ...

Well i understand that pulling phrases out of context is not most correct thing to do, but this gave me impression that you kind of lean toward his conclusions. Whatever they might be.
As for:

Which brings me to the point of the currently "accepted" history of Jewish people and their origins - this isn't even a theory, it's folklore based on the alleged orders of a being no-one can prove exists.

True, it is a folklore, without any archaeological or even historical proof (as of now, at least) until Second Temple period. Then there is all cross-reference,multiple sources and archaeological data you need. Origin of Jewish people was argued upon already then by the way and those arguments also exist. But if you dig deep enough you will find in any nation layer beyond which its history is only a folklore tales.
By the way - don't you see the irony that if DNA tests will point toward OPs theory they would also (in case of Y chromosome at least) might support folklore tale with the same objective "amount" of proof - aka Avraham, Sara and Hagar story? Ironic ha?

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:01 PM
well it's interesting but hardly earth shattering, as masonwatcher said, the palistinians have been saying just that for years.

it makes sense to a degree but it's worth pointing out that traditional jewish scholarship is quite reliable. i think it'll take more than one book to make a reassessment of the traditional version necessary.

i would be quite slow to accept the high level of conversion into the jewish faith that would be required for this to be true, there is very little incentive to do so, historically, due to the level of oppression jews had to face in the various civilisations. there is also a degree of insularity in judaism traditionally.

i don't agree with isreal's position in modern times but i don't think it is a good idea, nor is it necessary, to start attempting to rewrite history.

[edit on 28/1/09 by pieman]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by masonwatcher


One man's opinion is different to one man's learned opinion, otherwise we are wasting money on academia.

For the most part, I would say we ARE wasting money on academia..but back to my one is purely objective, and in this case, it is impossible to truly know all the facts needed to make an objective, yes, it is indeed just his learned as it may be..

edit for sp

[edit on 28-1-2009 by RolandBrichter]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by RolandBrichter]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

Not true - the reason I stated he seemed like one of the few objective jewish scholars is because that's what he seems to be.

He doesn't seem to toe the accepted party (or state) propaganda line - and I think that makes it worth a read.

After all, if I want to read propaganda, I'll just go to the fox website.

It appears to raise many questions that go against israeli "thinking" of israeli origins, and gives a fresh perspective from the eyes of an israeli.

Seems pretty objective to me....

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:05 PM
This isn't a major shock to anyone who reads and believes the Bible. Abraham's first born son, Ishmael, was essentially the father of the Islamic religions and people.

"He will be a wild ass of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

(Genesis 16:12)

So, in essence, Palestinians are "children of Israel" as they most likely decended from Ishmael. Likewise, in today's modern world, not everyone in any nation can lay claim to being an original inhabitant of that region if you trace their lineage back far enough. Technically speaking, if we applied the logistics of the Holy land property rights wars to the rest of the world, we'd all be fighting over some scrubland savanah in central Africa.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:36 PM
Funny thing is, despite historical texts, archeological evidence, genealogical/chromosomal surveys, and of course steaming piles of propaganda, we are still engaged in a roiling furor over reasons to kill each other.

Like imaginary boundaries and ancient tribal disputes are actual 'justifications' for what people do to each other.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:23 PM
I lol'd pretty hard at the part about the circumcision.

This guy should be put on TV, but of course, nobody would allow that.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in