The Invention of Shlomo Sand
As Humor Editor of America’s Longest Running Jewish Sight Gag, Jewdar is not unaccustomed to being accused of providing ammunition to the enemies of Israel, the Jewish people and good taste in general. In those rare occasions where such charges have any basis (okay, so maybe the last one isn’t so rare), we can sleep easy knowing that the writings we generate tend to be true, and/or clever. That is, while we at times focus on the Jewish demimonde, that stuff is true, and when we make stuff up, at least its funny.
Although we haven’t read it, from what we’ve read of it (and sometimes you can judge a book by it’s cover), The Invention of the Jewish People, by Israeli professor Shlomo Sand, can claim neither verite nor virtuousity as a defense.
From what we gather, the book "demolishes the myths and taboos that have surrounded Jewish and Israeli history." Powerful stuff. And how does it do that? Apparently, by trotting out a variety of claims, none of which are new, some of which are already disproven, all of which are irrelevant. Again, we haven’t read it, but it seems apparent from the review, that Sand himself makes no claim to be presenting new material.
So what does he have to offer?
1) That many Palestinians are descended from Jews who lived there before the Muslim invasion?
Not really disputed.
2) That Ashkenazis are descended from Khazars?
Not true, and pretty thoroughly disproved. Although there may be a significant Khazar component (we say "may," because the genetic marker that suggests it is also found in Middle Eastern populations in smaller numbers), it’s just as clear that there is also Middle Eastern antecedence.
3) That the Jews weren’t expelled en masse from Judea in 70 AD?
Well, duh, because there was another rebellion 60 years later that resulted in the Jews being expelled from the newly renamed Aelia Capitolina, main city of the newly renamed Syria Palestina, and the depopulation of much of the land.
4) That Jews don’t share a common ancestry with one another?
Well, just like with the business of the Khazars, Sand’s earth shattering historical revelations have been rendered irrelevant by genetic testing which demonstrates pretty clearly that, in fact, if the Jewish nation is an invention, its ancient inventors had the foresight and rather remarkable science necessary to give its unrelated members a common genetic heritage. Somehow, despite being an "invented nation," Ashkenazim share more in common genetically with Sephardim than they do with the European populations they’ve live among for a thousand plus years.
As for that non-Jewish heritage that many Jews also seem to have, for a progressive and leftist, Sand, a professor of French history, seems to have a view of nationhood not terribly different from that of Jean-Marie Le Pen, and believes that a nation is only about race. There’s no question that Jews have blended with other populations. There’s also no question that most Jews today can legitimately claim some type of common genetic heritage. And more importantly, there’s no question that all Jews today can claim a common national heritage, because the Jewish nation is not just about blood, but about belief. Not the belief in God and the Torah, but simply, the belief that they are part of a nation.
From what we understand, Sand grew up in a Communist family, so he may not be aware of some interesting details of Jewish tradition. Although Rachel and Leah were kinswomen of Jacob, their handmaids—and his concubines, and mothers of many of his sons—Bilha and Zilpa, were not (or at least weren’t clearly so). Joseph’s wife—and hence the mother of Ephraim and Menashe—was an Egyptian. Moses’ wife was from Midian. King David—and by default, the entire Judean royal dynasty—was descended from a Moabite woman. Herod’s family was originally Idumean, product of one of several mass conversions (this one forced) in the ancient and medieval world. Onkelos, the translator of the Torah into Aramaic, was allegedly the nephew of the Roman emperor. Other Talmudic figures were also descended from converts. Even a descendant of Haman was a Torah scholar.
In other words, right from the start, the Jewish nation has been made up of people from lots of nations, and it’s hardly been a secret. But here’s the thing—that’s the nature of the Jewish nation. Much as we may look down on outsiders, we’ve always been pretty accepting of those who’ve actually chosen to join the Tribe. And we’re hardly unique in this regard. By Sand’s logic, there is no French nation, because before the French Revolution, the people living there spoke a variety of languages and dialects, and descended from a variety of ethnicities. How could a descendant of a Gaelic-speaking Breton and German-speaking Alsatian claim some common nationality? Because they choose to, and because they belong to a nation that allows them to.
If the Jewish nation is an invented one, we are hardly alone.
Ultimately, Sand’s argument is irrelevant, as irrelevant as those on the Right who try to argue that the Palestinian nation is invented. It really doesn’t matter how many Palestinians or Jews lived in the land of Israel in 1880—the fact is, there are millions of both of them who still live there. Israelis have a right to self-determination, not because God gave them the Land, or because thousands of years ago, we had a Temple on the Temple Mount, or because in the 19th century, the land of Israel was a land without a people for a people without a land. Israelis have a right to self-determination because they live there now, and they aren’t going away. The sooner that schmucks like Sand accept that two nations exist on the land, and neither one is going away, the sooner some kind of solution—one fair enough to leave no one satisfied—can be reached.
comments
submit a comment11.27.09 at 11:11 am
I am thankful for Jewdar.
11.27.09 at 11:11 am
“Much as we may look down on outsiders, we’ve always been pretty accepting of those who’ve actually chosen to join the Tribe.”
?????
Not so sure about this…
11.27.09 at 12:11 pm
Nice.
11.27.09 at 3:11 pm
Whatever the current narishkeyt of the Israeli rabbinate, historically, halachic converts have been accepted, and, as the above list suggests, have even risen to prominence (the current view on Khazars even suggests that the members of the Khazar elite who converted were given an instant promotion to Leviim—sort of like Rajputs being considered Kshatriya in the caste system). On occasion, even non-halachic converts might be embraced. “You know, Arthur, your mother’s very upset that you’re marrying that shiksa, Marilyn, but between you and me, nice catch.”
11.27.09 at 4:11 pm
Brilliant piece but I think the issue is the first part of that statement, “Much as we may look down on outsiders” – doesn’t do justice to your otherwise lucid response to Sand.
11.28.09 at 8:11 pm
Okay Lara, you’ve called my work “brilliant,” so I’m open to any suggestions you make. Was my comment too critical, or not critical enough?
11.29.09 at 12:11 am
Too critical on the “we” (and here I think you mean Jews) and not critical enough in the thought itself. In other words, I think the statement is too swooping and doesn’t do justice to your own otherwise critical thoughts.
11.29.09 at 8:11 pm
I hate to get al technical in what is, after all, a humor column. but, you do know that “A land without a people for a people without a land,” is a pretty notorious bogus quote – right? As in, it was coined by Christians and not used by Zionists unless we count the eccentric Israel Zangwill who used it just before quitting Zionism because almost noboby else wanted to go settle Uganda with him. You should google it, but you should also avoid using bogus quotes, even though it is easy to be duped by this one.
11.29.09 at 11:11 pm
Thanks for the heads up, and feel free to be technical—Jewdar strives not to be just funnier than most smart people, but also smarter than most funny people. I actually did know that Zangwill didn’t come up with it, and I had some vague association with it and Lord Palmerston. But I used it less for the notion that it was Zionist Written Torah than Zionist Oral Torah, meaning not that this was literally the word of Zionism, than the attitude of much of the movement which has been passed down from generation to generation, and an attitude I’ve certainly encountered ad nauseum in the Orthodox world. Certainly, there are no shortage of right-wing Zionists who believe the sentiment expressed, and, as for its being bogus, here’s Weizmann:
“In its initial stage Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks?] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves”. From Wikipedia
Given that, and poetic license, I claim fair use.
11.30.09 at 8:11 am
You have to be really careful about citing Wikipedia, and this is a good example of the way it can mislead the unwary.
The key is the phrase “a people.” Palmerston and the other Christians who used this phrase were not arguing that there were no people in the land, they were arguing that there was no people in the sense of nation, “a people” with a political movement identified with that land. There is a Palestinian people today; but no one, not even Rashid Khalidi argues that a Palestinian people existed in 1914, the date Weizman gave that speech.
But you really do have to read the Weizman speech. Weizman is citing the phrase as something Zangwill said. And Zangwill was viewed by the the Zionist Movement at this point in history as a mortal enemy. Weizman’s use of this phrase is like Ari Roth citinng citing some phrase Joe Lieberman is notorious for having used as a way of dismissing everything Lieberman stands for. Remember, this is 1914, Zangwill is one of the most popular writers in English, and one of the best-know Jews in the English-speaking world, and perhaps the man most hated at that moment by committed Zionists.
Here, in 1914, Weizman is making a speech to a Zionist club in Paris in the wake of the murder of Moshe Barsky at Degania Alef. Weizman’s argument in that speech is more or less this: Don’t be like that fool, Zangwill, who thought building Zion would be easy. It is going to be hard. People are going to die as Moshe Barsky died. Building Zion is the hard, dangerous path that we must be brave enough to follow.
Even Zangwill, however, knew that there were lots of Arabs in Israel. He had to know because he was there in the 1890’s and because his father had made aliyah.
According to several reputable scholars, Zangwill was the only Zionist who used this phrase, although lots and lots of Christian retorationists used it.
What they used it for was to assert that there was no people there in the sense of a nation. Therefore the Jewish nation should go home. Lots of these Christians, after all, wished that the Jews would go somewhere else. Zionism was to some of them a way to bring Jesus back, and to others a way to send the Jews away – from England, New York and Chicago. Lots of Jews similarly wished that the Arabs would go away, go somewhere other than Palestine. What else is new?
But I think you are on shaky ground asserting that Zionists in the pre-1948 period thought the land was empty. They all wished the land was empty , but they knew perfectly well that there were a good many Arabs there ready and willing to defend the place by killing olim as they had killed Moshe Barsky.
The Zionist hope was either that these undesired Arabs would persuaded to go away, or that they would be outnumbered by olim and live as a minority in the Jewish State, much as Jews lived as minorities in Christian and Muslim states. Which fate you wished for the Arabs of Palestine depended on where you stood in the Zionist movement.
11.30.09 at 4:11 pm
Mea Culpa, but I still have 12 years teaching Jewish high school students who believe that nobody was living in Eretz Yisroel before the Zionists arrived on the scene, and they must have picked it up from someone.
11.30.09 at 5:11 pm
Well, some of them also believe in vampires. Still, the question of why we believe what we believe is interesting. As is the question of when we believe what we want to believe even against all evidence.
11.30.09 at 8:11 pm
I’m not sure if that was a dig at me. As I said, mea culpa. Happy to admit my error, but then, I never actually said “This is a common Zionist statement.” I simplly offered it as a common Zionist sentiment, which it certainly is.
11.30.09 at 10:11 pm
Not at all. And I am sorry if it appeared so. I meant only that a good many teenagers appear to “believe” in vampires, and that the question of what we choose to believe in despite the evidence is genuinely interesting.
As far as what we believe about the land of Israel, I suspect that contemporary American Jews, high school students included, are a good deal less well informed than Jews were on the whole a century ago, when the details of the Zionist project were followed so avidly that even Bundists could hardly avoid knowing about them.
I also think that what we “know” is heavily influenced by the contemporary conversation. In this case, the idea that Zionists once believed that the land was empty has been repeated so often that we have come to accept it. The reality of pre-1948 knowledge of the land is far more complex.
12.01.09 at 10:12 am
On that I agree wholeheartedly. At the beginning of the year, I show the kids anonymous quotes from Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky regarding, respectively, the nature of the conflict and the attachment of the Palestinian Arabs to the land, and ask their opinions of who the speakers were, and, overwhelmingly, the responses are along the lines of “antisemite,” “self-hater,” “anti-Israel,” and “Arab.” Its fascinating how Jabotinsky would make comments that would get him heckled at the Israel Day parade in New York.