Monday, June 6, 2011
"60 Minutes" Reports on Jerusalem
I was pleasantly surprised to see this coming from the mainstream U$ media. It's not perfect (for example, it doesn't mention that every single one of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank violates international law) but this is much better than the usual pro-zionist garbage you normally see.
I highly doubt a "King David" existed at all. Chances are, the Biblical David was based on a combination of historical people. Shlomo Sand already proved that most Jewish history was fabricated anyway for nationalist ends, so yeah.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In "The Bible Unearthed", Mssrs. Finklestein and Silberman present archaeological evidence that there was never a united Israel under David or anyone else. Israel and Judah were always two separate kingdoms. Most biblical stories about the importance of Jerusalem are mythical, according to these authors, a creation of King Josiah.
Nice selection. I agree that these acts are illegal and immoral.
I would argue that the Old Testament of the Bible is most likely 10% history mixed with 90% mythology and legend. It's the same way with Greek mythology or the religious stories of any culture. For example, I'm sure that a Trojan War may have very well happened, but the idea that it was caused by three goddesses fighting over a golden apple is complete horseshit.
As far as Jewish history goes, I think Sand's book has a good amount of *historical* value (though I believe it has very very little to no *political* value but I'll get to that in a sec). When I was at CSUN (which is something like 15-20% Jewish) I knew Jewish students of Eastern European/Ashkenazi descent and students of Persian/Mizrachi descent and they were extremely different from each other in terms of culture, language, how they practiced Judaism, etc. Somehow, these two very different groups are supposed to be parts to one homogenous "nation"?
I'm actually reading a book called "Nations and Nationalism Since 1780" which PROVES that the concept of a "nation" is a totally artificial one. There's really no such thing as a "Jewish nation" or "Arab nation" or "French/Russian/German/Italian/British/American nation" beyond social constructs, i.e. there's no god that tells you who is what nationality or who draws lines in the dirt denoting states.
As for why I think Sand's book should be used as history and not as a political device: I don't even think it matters really whether or not the Israelis or Palestinians are the direct descendants of Israelites, because regardless of whose ancestors were "there first" the Palestinians are still under military occupation. Instead of playing with this ideological claptrap (i.e. trying to "end zionism") we should be focused on the institution of the State in general and find ways to erode it. The roots of this conflict, as is the case with all others, stems from inequalities of power (people have an undemocratic social relationship with the State) and the fact that whomever is in control of the State will ultimately go bad because of the amount of power he/she/they hold (funny how the Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun hit this nail right on the head centuries before Proudhon and Bakunin did).
Sorry for ranting. I just do this when there's a lot on my mind. Thanks again for the comments and many thanks to whomever posted this post to informationclearinghouse.
Okay, I'm watching 'The Bible Unearthed' right now and it is mindblowing. Kind of confirms what I suspected about the Old Testament, only I would now argue that it is 98% myth as opposed to a mere 90% myth.
Post a Comment