Discussion:
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
(too old to reply)
J
2011-06-01 05:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Some how, I'm not surprised







http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/23/1831057/moscow-museum-puts-lenins-jewish.html






MOSCOW — For the first time ever, ordinary Russians can now see documents
that appear to confirm long-standing rumors that Vladimir Lenin had Jewish
heritage.

In a country long plagued by anti-Semitism, such heritage can be a
significant taint, especially for the founder of the Soviet Union who is
still revered by many elderly Russians.

Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State History
Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna Ulyanova, saying
that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew who converted to
Christianity to escape the Pale of Settlement and gain access to higher
education.
--
J Young
***@live.com
PaxPerPoten
2011-06-01 06:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Some how, I'm not surprised
http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/23/1831057/moscow-museum-puts-lenins-jewish.html
Just another Murdering Jew.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
W.T.S.
2011-06-01 09:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Some how, I'm not surprised
Neither am I. We've always known you're a racial and religious bigot
"J", you don't have to remind us.
Post by J
http://www.thestink.com
<snip> Usual propaganda and disinformation, why repost? </snip>
Summary: "J" is still a hateful bigot, so what else is new>
--
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
W.T.S.
2011-06-01 09:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Some how, I'm not surprised
Neither are we, "J". You've always been a sick, degenerate religious
and racial bigot. So what else is new?
<snip> Usual "J" spew of hate and bigotry, why should he be allowed to
have a repost? </snip>
Summary: "J" is a filthy bigot, always has been and always will be.
But, he still wants to dictate how others should behave and live their
lives. Go figure!
Hint: Keep "J" and his lies and disinformation out of your life. If
it's a "J" post and/or response, it's lies and propaganda. You don't
want anything that comes out of "J" in your life!
--
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
HHW
2011-06-01 10:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Some how, I'm not surprised
Neither are we, "J".  You've always been a sick, degenerate religious
and racial bigot.  So what else is new?
<snip> Usual "J" spew of hate and bigotry, why should he be allowed to
have a repost? </snip>
Summary:  "J" is a filthy bigot, always has been and always will be.  
But, he still wants to dictate how others should behave and live their
lives.  Go figure!
Hint:  Keep "J" and his lies and disinformation out of your life.  If
it's a "J" post and/or response, it's lies and propaganda.  You don't
want anything that comes out of "J" in your life!
--http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
You in effect advocate censorship. The 'Jewish People' don't exist. It
is an invented concept. Think now, There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century. Today's Jews are mostly descended
from converts to Judaism whose native lands are spread across the
Middle East and Eastern Europe. As "people" they aren't Jewish. They
aren't 'natives' of Palestine, period. This central justification for
Zionism is conconcted, invented, mostly when it was politicized by the
early Zionists. (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)

Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
Colanth
2011-06-01 17:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
He was of Russian, German, Ukrainian, Kalmyk (western Mongolian) and
Swedish descent. At least.
--
"Nothing so immunizes the brain to evidence as ideology." - O.W.Holmes
HHW
2011-06-04 20:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by HHW
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
He was of Russian, German, Ukrainian, Kalmyk (western Mongolian) and
Swedish descent.  At least.
--
"Nothing so immunizes the brain to evidence as ideology." - O.W.Holmes
But I said, Lenin was an *ethnic* Russian. Do you deny it?
_ G O D _
2011-06-04 20:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Lenin was an *ethnic* Russian. Do you deny it?
I would. Because, from listening his speeches,
a Russian-speaking person can easily identify
a thick accent, attributed to German-speakers...
--
_____________________________________________________
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
Colanth
2011-06-05 19:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by Colanth
Post by HHW
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
He was of Russian, German, Ukrainian, Kalmyk (western Mongolian) and
Swedish descent.  At least.
--
"Nothing so immunizes the brain to evidence as ideology." - O.W.Holmes
But I said, Lenin was an *ethnic* Russian. Do you deny it?
He was an ethnic Russian German Ukrainian Kalmykian Swede. Maybe
about 10-15% Russian. If that makes him "ethnic Russian", I'm
"ethnic" just about any European country for the last 3,000 years. So
is someone who can trace his ancestry back to the Mayflower. And
Native Americans are ethnic Indians (from India).

Living in Russia doesn't make one an "ethnic Russian".
--
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.
But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have
been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made
them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams
Joe Bruno
2011-06-06 05:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by Colanth
Post by HHW
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
He was of Russian, German, Ukrainian, Kalmyk (western Mongolian) and
Swedish descent. At least.
--
"Nothing so immunizes the brain to evidence as ideology." - O.W.Holmes
But I said, Lenin was an *ethnic* Russian. Do you deny it?
He was an ethnic Russian German Ukrainian Kalmykian Swede.  Maybe
about 10-15% Russian.  If that makes him "ethnic Russian", I'm
"ethnic" just about any European country for the last 3,000 years.  So
is someone who can trace his ancestry back to the Mayflower.  And
Native Americans are ethnic Indians (from India).
Lenin was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Colanth
2011-06-06 12:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by HHW
Post by Colanth
Post by HHW
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
He was of Russian, German, Ukrainian, Kalmyk (western Mongolian) and
Swedish descent. At least.
But I said, Lenin was an *ethnic* Russian. Do you deny it?
He was an ethnic Russian German Ukrainian Kalmykian Swede.  Maybe
about 10-15% Russian.  If that makes him "ethnic Russian", I'm
"ethnic" just about any European country for the last 3,000 years.  So
is someone who can trace his ancestry back to the Mayflower.  And
Native Americans are ethnic Indians (from India).
Lenin was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church
That doesn't make him ethnically Russian.
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
--
If god doesn't like the way I live, let him, not you, tell me.
Joe Bruno
2011-06-06 13:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by HHW
Post by Colanth
Post by HHW
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
He was of Russian, German, Ukrainian, Kalmyk (western Mongolian) and
Swedish descent. At least.
But I said, Lenin was an *ethnic* Russian. Do you deny it?
He was an ethnic Russian German Ukrainian Kalmykian Swede.  Maybe
about 10-15% Russian.  If that makes him "ethnic Russian", I'm
"ethnic" just about any European country for the last 3,000 years.  So
is someone who can trace his ancestry back to the Mayflower.  And
Native Americans are ethnic Indians (from India).
Lenin was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church
That doesn't make him ethnically Russian.
I never said it did, jackass.
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????

Forgotten the subject, moron???

Here it is again

"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"

DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
Colanth
2011-06-06 19:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.

"Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State
History Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna
Ulyanova, saying that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew "

Having a Jewish grandfather gives one Jewish roots. DAMN, YOU ARE
STUPID, ARTIE!
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature,
and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
Joe Bruno
2011-06-07 00:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
I said nothing about roots.Lenin was not a Jew.
Roots are for trees, not people.
Post by Colanth
"Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State
History Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna
Ulyanova, saying that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew "
Having a Jewish grandfather gives one Jewish roots.  DAMN, YOU ARE
STUPID, ARTIE!
There is no such term in Jewish law. We'll decide who is a Jew and not
you.

Roots are for trees and plants, which are dumb and stupid like you
are.
Colanth
2011-06-07 14:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
I said nothing about roots.
Sure you did -
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
Lenin was not a Jew.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
Post by Joe Bruno
Roots are for trees, not people.
Intelligence is for people, not for you, you functional illiterate.
(Remember? That's what your psychiatrist diagnosed?)
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
"Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State
History Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna
Ulyanova, saying that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew "
Having a Jewish grandfather gives one Jewish roots.  DAMN, YOU ARE
STUPID, ARTIE!
There is no such term in Jewish law. We'll decide who is a Jew and not
you.
Roots are for trees and plants, which are dumb and stupid like you
are.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID

But you really shouldn't be so hardon yourself, Artie-Joe.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we
can solve them." - Isaac Asimov
Joe Bruno
2011-06-08 15:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
I said nothing about roots.
Sure you did -
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
Lenin was not a Jew.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
Post by Joe Bruno
Roots are for trees, not people.
Intelligence is for people, not for you, you functional illiterate.
(Remember?  That's what your psychiatrist diagnosed?)
Functional illiteracy is not a medical condition, idiot and I don't
have a Psychiatrist.
The term is used by educators, not physicians.
You are, beyond any doubt, the most ridiculous, ignorant jackass on
this forum.
Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee M.D.
2011-06-08 15:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
I said nothing about roots.
Sure you did -
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
Lenin was not a Jew.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
Post by Joe Bruno
Roots are for trees, not people.
Intelligence is for people, not for you, you functional illiterate.
(Remember?  That's what your psychiatrist diagnosed?)
Functional illiteracy is not a medical condition, idiot and I don't
have a Psychiatrist.
The term is used by educators, not physicians.
You are, beyond any doubt, the most ridiculous, ignorant jackass on
this forum.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I am a Psychiatrist. I’ve found Colanth to be a deeply
disturbed individual. He suffers from bouts of sexual frustration
where he manifests his psychotic behavior in long and unprosperous
masturbatorial sessions. He is also a common deviate that fantasizes
that he is royalty when in fact he is nothing more than a common
mongrel. While off his medication and in the state he is in now he is
not only a danger to himself but he is a very real threat to the good
people he attempts to demean through vulgar language and slanderous
posts to the USENET. I suggest he be confined to a mental facility
where his brain can be dissected and repaired.

Yours Truly,
Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee M.D.
Joe Bruno
2011-06-08 16:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
I said nothing about roots.
Sure you did -
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
Lenin was not a Jew.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
Post by Joe Bruno
Roots are for trees, not people.
Intelligence is for people, not for you, you functional illiterate.
(Remember?  That's what your psychiatrist diagnosed?)
Functional illiteracy is not a medical condition, idiot and I don't
have a Psychiatrist.
The term is used by educators, not physicians.
You are, beyond any doubt, the most ridiculous, ignorant jackass on
this forum.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, I am a Psychiatrist.  I’ve found Colanth to be a deeply
disturbed individual.  He suffers from bouts of sexual frustration
where he manifests his psychotic behavior in long and unprosperous
masturbatorial sessions.  He is also a common deviate that fantasizes
that he is royalty when in fact he is nothing more than a common
mongrel.  While off his medication and in the state he is in now he is
not only a danger to himself but he is a very real threat to the good
people he attempts to demean through vulgar language and slanderous
posts to the USENET.  I suggest he be confined to a mental facility
where his brain can be dissected and repaired.
Yours Truly,
Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee  M.D.
I would prescribe a less technical treatment. It's what Navy Chief
Petty Officers call
"A size 14 boot in the ass".
Colanth
2011-06-09 14:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
I would prescribe a less technical treatment. It's what Navy Chief
Petty Officers call
"A size 14 boot in the ass".
You sound very familiar with the treatment. It's no wonder. Is that
lump in your throat the toe of my chief's boot?
--
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not
understanding the world.” - Richard Dawkins
Colanth
2011-06-09 14:19:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:47:43 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee M.D."
Post by Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee M.D.
Yours Truly,
Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee M.D.
You forgot to add alt.usenet.kooks to the list you posted this to.
Mustn't allow your audience to forget who you are.
--
"There's a word that's on the tip of their tongues and they're just
dying to say it. It starts with an 'N' and ends with an 'R' and it's
not 'nation-builder'" - Bill Maher
Colanth
2011-06-09 14:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
I said nothing about roots.
Sure you did -
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
Lenin was not a Jew.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
Post by Joe Bruno
Roots are for trees, not people.
Intelligence is for people, not for you, you functional illiterate.
(Remember?  That's what your psychiatrist diagnosed?)
Functional illiteracy is not a medical condition
It can be. People who are stupid for medical reasons can be
functionally (and actually) illiterate for the same reason. You, for
instance.
Post by Joe Bruno
You are, beyond any doubt, the most ridiculous, ignorant jackass on
this forum.
I'm not the one here who accused someone else of not remembering the
topic when I didn't remember the topic, Artie - that would be you.
Stop projecting.
--
"Hoked on foneks wokd fur mi" - seeker on Usenet
Joe Bruno
2011-06-07 00:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
"Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State
History Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna
Ulyanova, saying that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew "
Having a Jewish grandfather gives one Jewish roots.  DAMN, YOU ARE
STUPID, ARTIE!
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature,
and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
Judaism is not hereditary, ignoramus.
Jews are not a race.

We accept converts.

For that reason, this entire thread is meaningless and all your inane
babble is useless.
Colanth
2011-06-07 14:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Colanth
Post by Joe Bruno
and his Mother was
not Jewish, which means he isn't and never was a Jew.
Which is irrelevant.
Irrelevant????????????????????
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
I'm not the one who thinks "roots" means "descended on his mother's
side", YOU are.
"Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State
History Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna
Ulyanova, saying that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew "
Having a Jewish grandfather gives one Jewish roots.  DAMN, YOU ARE
STUPID, ARTIE!
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature,
and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
Judaism is not hereditary, ignoramus.
Jews are not a race.
We accept converts.
For that reason, this entire thread is meaningless and all your inane
babble is useless.
Forgotten the subject, moron???
Here it is again
"Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display"
DAMN, YOU ARE STUPID
--
"Do you have blacks, too?" - George Bush, to Brazilian President
Fernando Cardoso
dsharavi
2011-06-01 18:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
You in effect advocate censorship. The 'Jewish People' don't exist. It
is an invented concept. Think now, There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century. Today's Jews are mostly descended
from converts to Judaism whose native lands are spread across the
Middle East and Eastern Europe. As "people" they aren't Jewish. They
aren't 'natives' of Palestine, period. This central justification for
Zionism is conconcted, invented, mostly when it was politicized by the
early Zionists. (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
As regards the foregoing, this last is true. The first paragraph is
nothing but a dizzying display of arglebargle.

Deborah
Turenne
2011-06-01 19:33:12 UTC
Permalink
'J' seems to have cross-posted to Alt Talk Royalty by mistake. I'm
sure that if he has a look round Google Groups he'll find Alt
Gibberish...

RL
HHW
2011-06-04 20:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsharavi
Post by HHW
You in effect advocate censorship. The 'Jewish People' don't exist. It
is an invented concept. Think now, There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century. Today's Jews are mostly descended
from converts to Judaism whose native lands are spread across the
Middle East and Eastern Europe. As "people" they aren't Jewish. They
aren't 'natives' of Palestine, period. This central justification for
Zionism is conconcted, invented, mostly when it was politicized by the
early Zionists. (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
As regards the foregoing, this last is true. The first paragraph is
nothing but a dizzying display of arglebargle.
Deborah
Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of the Jewish
People" (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
dsharavi
2011-06-06 05:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by dsharavi
Post by HHW
You in effect advocate censorship. The 'Jewish People' don't exist. It
is an invented concept. Think now, There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century. Today's Jews are mostly descended
from converts to Judaism whose native lands are spread across the
Middle East and Eastern Europe. As "people" they aren't Jewish. They
aren't 'natives' of Palestine, period. This central justification for
Zionism is conconcted, invented, mostly when it was politicized by the
early Zionists. (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
As regards the foregoing, this last is true. The first paragraph is
nothing but a dizzying display of arglebargle.
Deborah
Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of the Jewish
People"  (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Sand's Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehud [When and How was the Jewish
People Invented] is a grander, dizzying display of "baseless",
"bizarre and incoherent," "embarrassing and humiliating,"
"sensationalist""pure fantasy" stretched "to the outer limits of logic
and beyond," replete with "deplorable" "misrepresentations and half-
truths to adapt it to the needs of a political discussion," and
arglebargle. It was debunked several years ago, and not only in these
forums.

Deborah
HHW
2011-06-08 13:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsharavi
Post by HHW
Post by dsharavi
Post by HHW
You in effect advocate censorship. The 'Jewish People' don't exist. It
is an invented concept. Think now, There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century. Today's Jews are mostly descended
from converts to Judaism whose native lands are spread across the
Middle East and Eastern Europe. As "people" they aren't Jewish. They
aren't 'natives' of Palestine, period. This central justification for
Zionism is conconcted, invented, mostly when it was politicized by the
early Zionists. (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
As regards the foregoing, this last is true. The first paragraph is
nothing but a dizzying display of arglebargle.
Deborah
Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of the Jewish
People"  (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Sand's Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehud [When and How was the Jewish
People Invented] is a grander, dizzying display of "baseless",
"bizarre and incoherent," "embarrassing and humiliating,"
"sensationalist""pure fantasy" stretched "to the outer limits of logic
and beyond," replete with "deplorable" "misrepresentations and half-
truths to adapt it to the needs of a political discussion," and
arglebargle. It was debunked several years ago, and not only in these
forums.
Deborah- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bullshit not worth a response but I'll do it anyway. To the people
reading this I say read the Shlomo Sand book carefully to its end. If
you're not inclined to read about the history of nationalism in the
early chapters you can profit well nevertheless from the debunking of
Israeli nationalism in the latter parts. The book is devastating. It
hasn't been debunked by anyone. The Zionist arguments for a claim to
Palestine are simply nonsense. The mere epithets paraded above by
sharavi are without argument much less basis in historical fact.
mirjam
2011-06-09 04:41:00 UTC
Permalink
mr HHW
Post by HHW
Bullshit not worth a response but I'll do it anyway. To the people
reading this I say read the Shlomo Sand book carefully to its end. If
you're not inclined to read about the history of nationalism in the
early chapters you can profit well nevertheless from the debunking of
Israeli nationalism in the latter parts. The book is devastating. It
hasn't been debunked by anyone. The Zionist arguments for a claim to
Palestine are simply nonsense. The mere epithets paraded above by
sharavi are  without argument much less basis in historical fact.
There is no need to debunk that Fictional work , it is enough to read
who is praising it, what about it they praise and where .....
mirjam ..
HHW
2011-06-23 21:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
mr HHW
Post by HHW
Bullshit not worth a response but I'll do it anyway. To the people
reading this I say read the Shlomo Sand book carefully to its end. If
you're not inclined to read about the history of nationalism in the
early chapters you can profit well nevertheless from the debunking of
Israeli nationalism in the latter parts. The book is devastating. It
hasn't been debunked by anyone. The Zionist arguments for a claim to
Palestine are simply nonsense. The mere epithets paraded above by
sharavi are  without argument much less basis in historical fact.
There is no need to debunk that Fictional work , it is enough to read
who is praising it, what about it they praise and where .....
mirjam  ..
People with principles address the merits if they can and keep their
mouth's shut if they can't.

dsharavi
2011-06-11 23:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by dsharavi
Post by HHW
Post by dsharavi
Post by HHW
You in effect advocate censorship. The 'Jewish People' don't exist. It
is an invented concept. Think now, There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century. Today's Jews are mostly descended
from converts to Judaism whose native lands are spread across the
Middle East and Eastern Europe. As "people" they aren't Jewish. They
aren't 'natives' of Palestine, period. This central justification for
Zionism is conconcted, invented, mostly when it was politicized by the
early Zionists. (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Lenin was an ethnic Russian. That is all that matters.
As regards the foregoing, this last is true. The first paragraph is
nothing but a dizzying display of arglebargle.
Deborah
Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of the Jewish
People"  (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
Sand's Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehud [When and How was the Jewish
People Invented] is a grander, dizzying display of "baseless",
"bizarre and incoherent," "embarrassing and humiliating,"
"sensationalist""pure fantasy" stretched "to the outer limits of logic
and beyond," replete with "deplorable" "misrepresentations and half-
truths to adapt it to the needs of a political discussion," and
arglebargle. It was debunked several years ago, and not only in these
forums.
Deborah- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bullshit not worth a response but I'll do it anyway. To the people
reading this I say read the Shlomo Sand book carefully to its end. If
you're not inclined to read about the history of nationalism in the
early chapters you can profit well nevertheless from the debunking of
Israeli nationalism in the latter parts. The book is devastating. It
hasn't been debunked by anyone.
It most certainly has been debunked -- most thoroughly by Anita
Shapira, Simon Schama, Sir Max Hastings, and others. -- H's wishful
thinking equals facts for H, if only in his mind.

Deborah
mirjam
2011-06-12 04:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Deborah have you read
`A Mediterranean Society` By Shlomo Dov Goitein Revised and edited by
Jacob Lassner
About the Gniza
you may like it and it is relevant to the discussion , as it shows us
the archive of documents of the lives of a Jewish community During
the Middle Ages in Egypt ...
mirjam
Dr. Edwin Kilroy Wemee M.D.
2011-06-12 16:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
Deborah have you read
`A Mediterranean Society` By Shlomo Dov Goitein Revised and edited by
Jacob Lassner
About the Gniza
you may like it  and it is relevant to the discussion , as it shows us
the archive of documents of the lives of a  Jewish community During
the Middle Ages in Egypt ...
mirjam
Mirjam I'd like to read this book. If I return to Israel, will you
feed me grapes and other fruits while beautiful young virgins fan me
while I lay on a couch reading the book in sexual bliss? I'm terribly
handsome and most women find me so sexually attractive that I have to
carry many towels when I’m in service mode. I’ve already had 18
virgins and most Muslim men attribute me as the most prolific Jew on
earth. I’m very modest however and in a generous and kind manner, I
never reveal my nakedness to women whom are not my wives or
concubines. Therefore let it be noted that I have not hired you for
any purpose that can be construed and a sexual liaison because you are
married.
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-06 23:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of the Jewish
People"  (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
I'll once again take a line from Anita Shapira:
"Sand bases his arguments on the most esoteric and
controversial interpretations, while seeking to undermine
the credibility of important scholars by dismissing their
conclusions without bringing any evidence to bear."

(Shapira will never be as famous as Sand, but she is
a much better historian. She is very good in quoting
primary sources to support her conclusions.)
mirjam
2011-06-07 14:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"Sand bases his arguments on the most esoteric and
controversial interpretations, while seeking to undermine
the credibility of important scholars by dismissing their
conclusions without bringing any evidence to bear."
(Shapira will never be as famous as Sand, but she is
a much better historian. She is very good in quoting
primary sources to support her conclusions.)
2 weeks ago i heard Prof`Anita Shapira, in a conference in Haifa Univ.
she spoke very interesting and well researched about her subject .
mirjam
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-07 20:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
2 weeks ago i heard Prof`Anita Shapira, in a conference in Haifa Univ.
she spoke very interesting and well researched about her subject .
Shapira's book about Allon ("אביב חלדו") was a great
reading materials. Finally I understood what my
parents' generation found in Allon. She cited
primary sources to justify almost every claim, and
yet the writing had literature quality. The name of
the book was an excellent choice, taken from
Tchernichovsky's poem about King Saul in En Dor.
The point was that, like Saul, Allon's great successes
were in his younger days. But he was a better man
than Saul and a good loser. And that was his tragedy.
(As the Americans say: "Show me a good loser
and I'll show you a lose".)
dsharavi
2011-06-07 20:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by mirjam
2 weeks ago i heard Prof`Anita Shapira, in a conference in Haifa Univ.
she spoke very interesting and well researched about her subject .
Shapira's book about Allon ("אביב חלדו") was a great
reading materials. Finally I understood what my
parents' generation found in Allon. She cited
primary sources to justify almost every claim, and
yet the writing had literature quality. The name of
the book was an excellent choice, taken from
Tchernichovsky's poem about King Saul in En Dor.
The point was that, like Saul, Allon's great successes
were in his younger days. But he was a better man
than Saul and a good loser. And that was his tragedy.
(As the Americans say: "Show me a good loser
and I'll show you a lose".)
I read Shapira's book on Alon a while ago. It was very well written
(as usual), but contained no great revelations. Sharon wrote that Alon
never reached the top spot because he was too nice. "He lacked the
killer instinct."

Deborah
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-07 21:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsharavi
I read Shapira's book on Alon a while ago. It was very well
written (as usual), but contained no great revelations.
To me the revelations were not so much in the data but
in careful separation of fact and myth and in the explanation
of the significance. E.g. I had not known that Ben-Gurion
had to get the Histadrut permission to break the Palmach.
Shapira made clear how unusual it was for the prime
minister, who was also the defense minister, to go to the
workers' union to try to convince the union to approve
changes in the internal organization of the army.
Shapira explained very well that there has never been
anything like this in any democratic state. (I grew up
in that crazy system, so I did not realized that it
was pretty crazy.)
Post by dsharavi
Sharon wrote that Alon
never reached the top spot because he was too nice.
"He lacked the killer instinct."
True.
But without Alon there was a real probability that the
Palmach would kick Ben-Gurion out. Because Alon
"lacked the killer instinct" it had not happened. He
put the good of the country ahead of his personal
ambitions. A very rare case between smart and
successful people in positions of power.
dsharavi
2011-06-08 01:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by dsharavi
I read Shapira's book on Alon a while ago. It was very well
written (as usual), but contained no great revelations.
To me the revelations were not so much in the data but
in careful separation of fact and myth and in the explanation
of the significance. E.g. I had not known that Ben-Gurion
had to get the Histadrut permission to break the Palmach.
That surprised me too.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Shapira made clear how unusual it was for the prime
minister, who was also the defense minister, to go to the
workers' union to try to convince the union to approve
changes in the internal organization of the army.
Shapira explained very well that there has never been
anything like this in any democratic state. (I grew up
in that crazy system, so I did not realized that it
was pretty crazy.)
I guess it's true that to know your country you need to live in a
foreign country for a while.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by dsharavi
Sharon wrote that Alon
never reached the top spot because he was too nice.
"He lacked the killer instinct."
True.
But without Alon there was a real probability that the
Palmach would kick Ben-Gurion out. Because Alon
"lacked the killer instinct" it had not happened. He
put the good of the country ahead of his personal
ambitions. A very rare case between smart and
successful people in positions of power.
I'll say. He did the same after Eshkol died, and again in 1979-1980. A
shame. It might have been better for the country if he hadn't put the
good of the country ahead of personal ambitions.

Deborah
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-08 21:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsharavi
E.g. I had not known that Ben-Gurion had to
get the Histadrut permission to break the Palmach.
That surprised me too.
People were afraid of Ben-Gurion's "killer instinct",
and so they try to put checks and balances on him.
Post by dsharavi
I guess it's true that to know your
country you need to live in a
foreign country for a while.
My big culture shock of the US was "Memorial
Day Sale". When I grew up in Israel Memorial Day
was a time to talk about the wars, mostly 1948, and
the people who died in them. Shops were closed.

I told an American friend about my reaction and
got a long explanation that women were supposed
to wear white only after Memorial Day, and so
Memorial Day was a perfect time to shop for
summer/white clothes. I don't think that either
one of us really understood the other's point.
Post by dsharavi
But without Alon there was a real probability that the
Palmach would kick Ben-Gurion out. Because Alon
"lacked the killer instinct" it had not happened. He
put the good of the country ahead of his personal
ambitions. A very rare case between smart and
successful people in positions of power.
I'll say. He did the same after Eshkol died, and again in 1979-1980. A
shame. It might have been better for the country if he hadn't put the
good of the country ahead of personal ambitions.
The generation before Alon, e.g. Ben-Gurion, Eshkol,
Golda, was hard as rock. It was needed, at least in
those time, and Alon just did not have it. People
from that generation who did not have that hardness,
e.g. Moshe Sharett were grounded by the rocks.

Only after this generation was gone the younger one
had a chance. When the people got tired of the elders
of The Party, the king makers put Rabin because he
was not as strong as Alon. IMO had Alon lived longer
he could win the 1981 elections. Too bad that it
did not happen.
mirjam
2011-06-09 04:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
The generation before Alon, e.g. Ben-Gurion, Eshkol,
Golda, was hard as rock. It was needed, at least in
those time, and Alon just did not have it. People
from that generation who did not have that hardness,
e.g. Moshe Sharett were grounded by the rocks.
Only after this generation was gone the younger one
had a chance. When the people got tired of the elders
of The Party, the king makers put Rabin because he
was not as strong as Alon. IMO had Alon lived longer
he could win the 1981 elections. Too bad that it
did not happen.
Hillel you have an interesting look at people , but forget that these
people were swept by history into places where they had to take hard
decisions , and they dared!!!. I do not think they were hard people ,,
they were realistic, and knew how to work with whatever they had. They
turned almost no chances in life to possibilities ..
It is like driving a car, in hard road in the dark , you have to know
how to drive and when and how trust your instincts to pass the hard
road.
mirjam
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-09 10:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
Post by h***@yahoo.com
The generation before Alon, e.g. Ben-Gurion, Eshkol,
Golda, was hard as rock. It was needed, at least in
those time, and Alon just did not have it. People
from that generation who did not have that hardness,
e.g. Moshe Sharett were grounded by the rocks.
Hillel you have an interesting look at people , but forget that these
people were swept by history into places where they had to take hard
decisions , and they dared!!!. I do not think they were hard people ,,
they were realistic, and knew how to work with whatever they had.
They turned almost no chances in life to possibilities ..
The same can be said about Alon.
He was the commander of the Palmach, an army that
lost a quarter of its members is 1948 and Alon knew
all of them. Alon was not as hard as Ben-Gurion and
so he burned out.

Ben-Gurion was much harder. He sent Brigade 7 to
the lost battle of Latrun, lost, and 5 days later
sent Brigade 7 to that meat grinder again. It was
like WWI stupid attacks against well fortified forces.

Alon was a different commander. The Palmach
lost the first battle of Malkiyah because the
Lebanese armored cars stood 200 meters away
and just shot everything with their guns; a PIAT
could not reach them. In the second battle the
Palmach took those cars out early on. He just
did not have what it took to send soldiers to a
pointless attack.

But those elders were rocks in the way they
grounded each other. Just think about the
elders of Mapai putting Ben-Gurion on trial
and kicking *the* founding father of Israel
out of the party. Alon could never do
that, Eshkol and Golda could.
mirjam
2011-06-08 03:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Shapira's book about Allon ("אביב חלדו") was a great
reading materials. Finally I understood what my
parents' generation found in Allon. She cited
primary sources to justify almost every claim, and
yet the writing had literature quality. The name of
the book was an excellent choice, taken from
Tchernichovsky's poem about King Saul in En Dor.
The point was that, like Saul, Allon's great successes
were in his younger days. But he was a better man
than Saul and a good loser. And that was his tragedy.
(As the Americans say: "Show me a good loser
and I'll show you a lose".)
Yigal Alon was one of the best Education Ministers in Israel.
I remember him well , He was an interesting person.
mirjam
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-08 20:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
Yigal Alon was one of the best Education Ministers in Israel.
I remember him well , He was an interesting person.
I've seen Alon, live, only one time - in the Palmach
veterans meeting in 1978 near Ein Harod. The
meeting itself was interesting, I met a couple of
"legends" face to face, and I felt the connection
between all those people '25 years after".

But Alon was a disappointment. Unlike *most*
veterans he was over dressed for the occasion.
In his speech he criticized Begin for giving up
all of the Sinai Peninsula in Camp David.
dsharavi
2011-06-07 20:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"Sand bases his arguments on the most esoteric and
controversial interpretations, while seeking to undermine
the credibility of important scholars by dismissing their
conclusions without bringing any evidence to bear."
(Shapira will never be as famous as Sand, but she is
a much better historian. She is very good in quoting
primary sources to support her conclusions.)
2 weeks ago i heard Prof`Anita Shapira, in a conference in Haifa Univ.
she spoke very interesting and well researched about her subject .
 mirjam
What was the topic?

Deborah
mirjam
2011-06-08 04:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsharavi
Post by mirjam
2 weeks ago i heard Prof`Anita Shapira, in a conference in Haifa Univ.
she spoke very interesting and well researched about her subject .
 mirjam
What was the topic?
Deborah
It was the 2nd conference of
"Educational Challenges :of the `New Anti-Semitism"
She opened one of the sits with an eye opening lecture.
mirjam
dsharavi
2011-06-08 01:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
Shlomo Sand, "The Invention of the Jewish
People"  (ISBN-13:978-1-84467-623-1)
"Sand bases his arguments on the most esoteric and
controversial interpretations, while seeking to undermine
the credibility of important scholars by dismissing their
conclusions without bringing any evidence to bear."
(Shapira will never be as famous as Sand, but she is
a much better historian. She is very good in quoting
primary sources to support her conclusions.)
To go on from there, Shapira addresses Sand's (and H's) notion that
the "exile was a myth!" Simon Schama, Hillel Halkin, and Sir Max
Hastings also take Sand to task for his shoddy scholarship.

The excerpts are long, but worth it.

Anita Shapira, from "The Jewish people deniers":

[...]
"Another topic Sand likes to punch holes in is the myth of exile: the
Jews (were there any or weren’t there any?) were not expelled from the
land of Israel, not exiled from it; most of them remained there and in
the end adopted Islam, and they were the forefathers of today’s
Palestinians. On the other hand, the Jewish diaspora in the Second
Temple period and later originated mainly with Jewish converts who had
no ties to the land of Israel. This is the obverse of the conversion
claim: not only were the Jews not forced out of the land of Israel,
not only were Jews in the diaspora unconnected to the land of Israel,
not only do diaspora Jews not belong to the land of Israel, but those
who do belong to the land of Israel are, rather, the Palestinians, the
land’s inhabitants since antiquity. Again, he uses the words of Dinur
and his colleagues, who questioned the concept of expulsion: they
often stressed that a significant Jewish community had remained in the
country until the seventh century, remnants of whom, according to
current research, lingered on until the conquest by the crusaders of
the eleventh century. The Zionist movement sought to show that Jews
cleaved to the country; from its point of view, the question of
expulsion was less important than showing that Jews had stayed in the
land. Again, Sand erects a phantom – exile – and “proves” that it
never happened, something historians do not deny. On the other hand,
he ignores the fact that even if Jews were not exile from their land,
and many of them did scatter all over the Roman Empire of their own
free will, the very loss of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel,
the Romans’ change of its name to Palestine out of a desire to erase
all trace of Jews from it, and the establishment of an idolatrous
Roman colony on the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt was
crushed, went down in Jewish collective memory as traumatic. This is
true even if the Jewish community in the land of Israel, particularly
in Galilee, did continue to flourish, at least until Christianity
became predominant in the Roman Empire in the fourth century.

"The awareness of exile was deeply ingrained in Jews, and their sense
of humiliation at having lost sovereignty over the land of Israel only
heightened with the rise of Christianity and Islam – unrelated to the
question of whether or not they had been forced into exile. Sand
flaunts the assumption of one historian that the myth of the
“wandering Jew,” which interprets the sojourn of Jews in the diaspora
as retribution rather than free choice, came down to the Jews via
Christian sources. Even if we take this assumption to be true, it does
not detract from the importance of the self-image of Jews as a
suffering collective pushed from pillar to post in exile. In this
matter as in others Sand presents, there is also another
interpretation for the founding of the myth of exile: the expression
“because we sinned we were exiled from our land” appears in Hebrew
prayer and was documented in writing as early as the ninth century and
apparently dated back much further: it is not necessarily a Christian
concept, but a Jewish one, that sees the distancing from the land of
Israel as divine retribution, a wretched state in quest of tikkun –
repair. Since there were no Zionist historians for the first thousand
years AD it appears that the “implanted memory” Sand speaks of was not
created by them, but has belonged to the self-image of Jews since the
Temple’s destruction. Ideas about the end of days were connected to
dominion over the land of Israel. “There is no difference between this
world and the days of the Messiah except [that in the latter there
will be no] bondage of foreign powers,” said the Babylonian Amora
Shmuel.4 Maimonides explains that in the messianic era, “Except for
the fact that sovereignty will revert to Israel, nothing will be
essentially different from what it is now.”5 The messianic belief
certainly contained universal elements, but the Messiah was also meant
to be a particularistic Jewish Messiah. In other words, the concept of
exile is not necessarily related to expulsion but to the self-
awareness of a people that had lost control over itself and its land.

"The Jews were no less “a people” than the Romans or Greeks, which is
how their contemporaries saw them. The sense of exile and yearning for
messianic redemption lent the sojourn in the diaspora a sense of
transience that has nationalist connotations. Indeed, these are found
in the letter of Khazar King Joseph to Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, asking for
the latest news about the coming of the Messiah in advent of the
return to Jerusalem. The “implanted memory,” it transpires, was
already very firmly lodged by the end of the first millennium, and
even Jews by conversion, like the Khazars, felt a sense of exile
though they lived in independence on their own soil. On the other
hand, for Hasdai Ibn Shaprut and everyone else who wrote about the
Khazars, the very fact of a Jewish kingdom even outside of the
boundaries of the land of Israel was a source of encouragement and
pride against all the humiliation and degradation heaped on Jews
stripped of power and sovereignty. These are not religious emotions.
They are an expression of collective memory bound up with national
heritage, ancient memories, a culture of life, and day-to-day customs
that foster a consciousness of religious and national
separateness....These were not “implanted” by Zionism. They were
integral to the consciousness of the Jewish collective up to the Jews’
encounter with the various forms of modernism, which unraveled the
fabric of Jewish identity."

Full essay review:
http://www.isracampus.org.il/Extra%20Files/Anita%20Shapira%20-%20Shlomo%20Sand%20book%20review.pdf.

From Simon Schama,

[...]
"Sand’s point is that a version of Jewish national identity was
written in the 19th and early 20th centuries – by historians such as
Heinrich Graetz and Simon Dubnow – which took as its central premise a
forced dispersion of the Jews from Israel. But, he argues, there
actually was no mass forced “exile” so there can be no legitimate
“return”. This is the take-away headline that makes this book so
contentious. It is undoubtedly right to say that a popular version of
this idea of the exile survives in most fundamentalist accounts of
Jewish history. It may well be the image that many Jewish children
still have. But it is a long time since any serious historian argued
that following the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans
emptied Judea. But what the Romans did do, following the Jewish revolt
of AD66-70 and even more exhaustively after a second rebellion in
AD135, was every bit as traumatic: an act of cultural and social
annihilation – mass slaughter and widespread enslavement. But there
was also the mass extirpation of everything that constituted Jewish
religion and culture; the renaming of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina,
the obliteration of the Temple, the prohibition on rituals and
prayers. Sand asserts, correctly, that an unknowable number of Jews
remained in what the Romans called Palestina. The multitudes of Jews
in Rome had already gone there, not as a response to disaster but
because they wanted to and were busy proselytising.

"All this is true and has been acknowledged. But Sand appears not to
notice that it undercuts his argument about the non-connection of Jews
with the land of Palestine rather than supporting it. Put together,
the possibility of leading a Jewish religious life outside Palestine,
with the continued endurance of Jews in the country itself and you
have the makings of that group yearning – the Israel-fixation, which
Sand dismisses as imaginary. What the Romans did to the defeated Jews
was dispossession, the severity of which was enough to account for the
homeland-longing by both the population still there and those abroad.
That yearning first appears, not in Zionist history, but in the
writings of medieval Jewish teachers, and never goes away.

"There are many such twists of historical logic and strategic evasions
of modern research in this book. To list them all would try your
patience. Scholarly consensus now places the creation of the earliest
books of the Old Testament not in the 6th or 5th centuries BC, but in
the 9th century BC, home-grown in a Judah which had been transformed,
as Israel Finkelstein has written “into a developed nation state”. The
post-David kingdom of the 10th century BC may have been a pastoral
warrior citadel, but the most recent excavations by Amihai Mazar have
revealed it capable of building monumental structures. And the Judah
in which the bible was first forged, its population swollen with
refugees from the hard-pressed northern kingdom of Israel, was a
culture that needed a text to bring together territory, polity and
religion. It was a moment of profound cultural genesis. And don’t get
me started again on the Khazars. No one doubts the significance of
their conversion, but to argue that the entirety of Ashkenazi Jewry
must necessarily descend from them is to make precisely the uncritical
claim of uninterrupted genealogy Sand is eager to dispute in the wider
context of Jewish history."
[...]

Full review from the Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b74fdfd2-cfe1-11de-a36d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ONYt1qSc

Hillel Halkin's Indecent Proposal in The National Review:

[...]
..."The notion that Jews share a lineage going back to biblical times
is, he [Sand] claims, a false one. Not only was much of ancient Jewry
never exiled from Palestine, in which it remained and converted to
Christianity and Islam in antiquity or the early Middle Ages, but
large numbers of non-Jews in the Diaspora entered the Jewish fold in
the same period--in at least some cases, it would seem, without
undergoing the formal conversion process required by rabbinic Judaism.
Sand dwells at length on the better known of these episodes, all
partially or wholly ignored by rabbinic literature: the Edomites of
southern Palestine, forced to convert by the Hasmonean King John
Hyrcanus in 125 B.C.E.; the numerous “God-fearers” of the Roman
Empire, gentiles attracted to Judaism who often slipped unobtrusively
into its ranks; the inhabitants of Yemen who became Jews under the
Judaizing Himyarite kings of the fourth and fifth centuries; the
Jewish Berber tribes of North Africa before its seventh-century Muslim
conquest; the Khazars, a Turkic people living between the Caspian and
Black seas, whose royal house embraced Judaism in the eighth century;
and so on. Far from having common biblical ancestors, he argues, most
contemporary Jews would discover, if they could go far back enough in
time, that they have diverse non-Jewish ones.

"But in fact we can go far back in time, with the help of historical
DNA studies, which have burgeoned in the last twenty years, and the
most disgraceful pages in Sand’s book are those in which he displays
an ignorant disdain for the work that has been done in this field by
serious investigators. Without the least apparent understanding of how
historical genetics works or what it can tell us, he attacks some of
its most distinguished practitioners, such as Batsheva Bonné-Tamir of
Tel Aviv University, Karl Skorecki of the Haifa Technion, and Doron
Behar of the Rappaport Institute, for “internalizing the Zionist myth”
and “seeking at all costs to discover a biological homogeneity” in
order to create a “new discipline” designed to confirm “the Zionist
idea of the Jewish nation-race.” Having myself worked for many years
on a research project with Skorecki and Behar, I can testify that this
impugning of their scientific integrity is libelous.

"The irony is that the genetic studies that Sand dismisses lend him a
measure of support. Overall, they show that while there is a high Y-
chromosome correlation with an eastern Mediterranean profile among
Jewish men from most parts of the world, indicating that many of them
do have common Palestinian ancestors, the mitochondrial DNA
correlation of Jewish women is much lower. Or, in less technical
terms: while male gentiles have on the average entered Diaspora Jewish
communities in only small percentages per generation over time, female
gentiles --presumably because they were local inhabitants taken for
wives by Jewish men in places like Yemen or North Africa--have done so
more significantly.

"But again: so what? There is nothing explosive about this. Judaism
has always made it clear that the Jewish people is not biologically
exclusive and can be joined by outsiders. And taking Sand on his own
terms, what does any of this have to do with Jewish peoplehood, or
with Zionism? ...Sand, who studied at the École des hautes études in
Paris and has written a book on Georges Sorel, would snort derisively
if told that Sorel’s fellow Frenchmen were not a people because some
of their progenitors were indigenous Celts while others were Germanic
or Roman invaders. Yet when it comes to the Jews, he asks us to take a
similar proposition seriously."
[...]
"...A revival of historical interest in how, in certain times and
places in the past, non-Jews have been successfully integrated into
the Jewish people in large numbers, and without too many questions
asked, might be a contribution to such a process. Shlomo Sand’s call
for it is commendable. This is the best that can be said for an
otherwise deplorable book."

Full review:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/indecent-proposal

Evan R Goldstein in the Wall Street Journal:

"What should we make of Mr. Sand's radical revisionist history? There
is reason to be very skeptical. After all, we have been here before.
In 1976, Arthur Koestler published "The Thirteenth Tribe," which
argued that Diaspora Jews were a "pseudo-nation" bound by "a system of
traditional beliefs based on racial and historical premises which turn
out to be illusory." The genetic influence of the Khazars on modern
Jews is, he wrote, "substantial, and in all likelihood dominant."
Koestler's speculations were not novel. The connection between the
Khazars and the Jews of Eastern Europe had been debated by both
scholars and conspiracists (the two are not mutually exclusive) for
centuries.

""The Thirteenth Tribe" was savaged by critics, and Mr. Sand's
repackaging of its central argument has not fared much better. "A few
Jews in Eastern Europe presumably came from the Khazar kingdom, but
nobody can responsibly claim that most of them are the descendents of
Khazars," says Israel Bartal, a professor of history at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. We simply don't know enough about the
demographics of Eastern European Jews before the 13th century to make
such an assertion, Mr. Bartal says, adding, "Sand has not proven
anything." According to Peter B. Golden, a professor of history at
Rutgers University, the Khazars are likely one of a number of strains
that shaped the Jewish population in Eastern Europe. But, he stresses,
DNA studies have confirmed that the Middle Eastern strain is
predominant.

"In "The Invention of the Jewish People," Mr. Sand suggests that those
who attacked Koestler's book did so not because it lacked merit, but
because the critics were cowards and ideologues. "No one wants to go
looking under stones when venomous scorpions might be lurking beneath
them, waiting to attack the self-image of the existing ethnos and its
territorial ambitions." But Koestler was himself uneasy about
scorpions. The Khazar theory, he knew, was an article of faith among
anti-Semites and anti-Israel Arab politicians. Just a few months
before "The Thirteenth Tribe" was published, the Saudi Arabian
delegation to the United Nations declared Zionism illegitimate because
it was conceived by "non-Semitic Jews" rather than "our own Arab Jews
who are the real Semites." (An Israeli ambassador, wrongly, countered
that Koestler's book had been secretly subsidized by the
Palestinians.) Perhaps more disconcerting, the neo-Nazi National
States Rights Party in the U.S. declared "The Thirteenth Tribe" to be
"the political bombshell of the century" because "it destroys all
claims of the present-day Jew-Khazars to any historic right to occupy
Palestine." Members of Stormfront, a self-described "white
nationalist" Internet community, have predictably reacted to Mr.
Sand's book with glee."
[...]

Full review
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574464023091024180.html?


HTH

Deborah
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-01 20:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!

have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?

Have you read about Bar Kochva?

Even Wikipedia is much better than you, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified
towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans,
moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the
Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the
emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and
the army are in health.'"
..................................
"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars."

A couple of issues are well established:
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.

2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.

When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".

As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
dsharavi
2011-06-01 23:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?
Have you read about Bar Kochva?
Even Wikipedia is much better than you, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified
towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans,
moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the
Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the
emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and
the army are in health.'"
..................................
"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars."
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.
2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.
When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".
As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
Hunter is merely doing what he usually does: pick up on silly
meshugas -- in this case, that of a French film history prof -- and
run his own sillier version.

Deborah
for Nicolai
2011-06-02 08:06:02 UTC
Permalink
TACHELES
"who is the bigot?"

"mostly" true, meaning a extremely high percentage......

- Business is done among only yourselves
- most anti "other religions" comes from them,
look at the credits, and experts of these propagandas and movies
- most marriages are among yourselves
.......................................................................................
.....................................................................................etc.
by the way,
- due to Stalin and Lenin more people were killed than by anybody else
- you stole the land from Palestine and now you "cry" and kill,
because you have to give back the stolen land!

ts ts ts :(
-
HHW
2011-06-04 21:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently reading Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
Post by h***@yahoo.com
have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?
It's all dealt with in Sand's book. The central tenet of Zionism, the
expulsion of 'the Jews', 'the Jewish people', from Palestine is simply
untrue. There was no exile of the Jewish people by the Romans. It
never happened. It's a concocted, unhistorical non-event.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Have you read about Bar Kochva?
He's also dealt with by Sand. Protect your reputation by reading him.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Even Wikipedia is much better than you, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified
towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans,
moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the
Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the
emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and
the army are in health.'"
What have Jews killed in insurrections against the Romans to do with
the alleged exile of THE JEWISH PEOPLE from Palestine.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
..................................
"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date.
You can't assume the historicity of the 'the exile'. That's your
problem.

They note that, unlike the
Post by h***@yahoo.com
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars."
The exile is a myth! It is the foundation of the 'right of return' and
it simply isn't true. Today's Jews are mostly the decendents of
converts. There is no 'Jewish People'. Buy the Shlomo Sand book, The
Invention of the Jewish People.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.
2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.
When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".
As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
You shouldn't be talking about it at all without having read the book,
and the last source you should use for this contentious issue is
Wikipedia.
mirjam
2011-06-05 04:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently reading Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Rudolph Erich Raspe
Is a much better book to read ,,,,
mirjam
HHW
2011-06-05 07:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently readingShlomoSand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
 The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Rudolph Erich Raspe
Is a much better book to read ,,,,
mirjam
Address the book, Mirjam. No one in this thread is serious---excepting
yours truly.
dsharavi
2011-06-06 06:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently readingShlomoSand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
 The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Rudolph Erich Raspe
Is a much better book to read ,,,,
mirjam
Address the book, Mirjam. No one in this thread is serious
The Shlomo Sand twaddle isn't.

Deborah
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-07 00:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
 The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Rudolph Erich Raspe
Is a much better book to read ,,,,
Address the book, Mirjam. No one in this thread is serious---excepting
yours truly.
The rest of us understand the difference between
fiction and non-fiction books.
mirjam
2011-06-07 14:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
 The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Rudolph Erich Raspe
Is a much better book to read ,,,,
Address the book, Mirjam. No one in this thread is serious---excepting
yours truly.
The rest of us understand the difference between
fiction and non-fiction books.
Hag Sameach Hillel
mirjam
dsharavi
2011-06-06 06:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently reading Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
 The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen by Rudolph Erich Raspe
Is a much better book to read ,,,,
mirjam
What about Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? That's lots more
factual than Shlomo Sand's nonsense, but then, so is Noddy Meets
Father Christmas.

Deborah
mirjam
2011-06-06 13:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by dsharavi
What about Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? That's lots more
factual than Shlomo Sand's nonsense, but then, so is Noddy Meets
Father Christmas.
Deborah
What about the fables of the Brothers Grim ???
mirjam
dsharavi
2011-06-06 19:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by mirjam
Post by dsharavi
What about Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? That's lots more
factual than Shlomo Sand's nonsense, but then, so is Noddy Meets
Father Christmas.
Deborah
What about the fables of the Brothers Grim ???
mirjam
That may have been Sand's inspiration.

Deborah
HHW
2011-06-05 08:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently readingShlomoSand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
Post by h***@yahoo.com
have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?
It's all dealt with in Sand's book. The central tenet of Zionism, the
expulsion of 'the Jews', 'the Jewish people', from Palestine is simply
untrue. There was no exile of the Jewish people by the Romans. It
never happened. It's a concocted, unhistorical non-event.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Have you read about Bar Kochva?
He's also dealt with by Sand. Protect your reputation by reading him.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Even Wikipedia is much better than you, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified
towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans,
moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the
Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the
emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and
the army are in health.'"
What have Jews killed in insurrections against the Romans to do with
the alleged exile of THE JEWISH PEOPLE from Palestine.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
..................................
"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date.
You can't assume the historicity of the 'the exile'. That's your
problem.
 They note that, unlike the
Post by h***@yahoo.com
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars."
The exile is a myth! It is the foundation of the 'right of return' and
it simply isn't true. Today's Jews are mostly the decendents of
converts. There is no 'Jewish People'. Buy theShlomoSand book, The
Invention of the Jewish People.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.
2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.
When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".
As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
You shouldn't be talking about it at all without having read the book,
and the last source you should use for this contentious issue is
Wikipedia.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Credible arguments against the Land of Israel myth have been surfacing
for a long time. This one is from 2007:

Saturday, 20 October 2007The 'Land of Israel' Myth
In Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty about 1300BC, Habiru nomadic tribesmen
were taken to Egypt as forced labor on building projects. During the
reign of Ramesses II (1304-1237BC), Moses led twelve tribes--each
believed to be descended from a great-grandson of Abraham--back to the
Levant.

This became a revered tradition--the Exodus--among the Israelites,
Moses's chosen people. While wandering they forged a collective faith
and identity, and received Mosaic Law on Mount Sinai.

They then invaded the peaceful land of milk and honey, Canaan, with
great slaughter.

Another map from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shows the
supposed extent, some few hundred years later, of the Kingdoms of
David and Solomon.

Their description: "King David ruled Israel from 990 BCE to 968 BCE;
and his son Solomon ruled after him until 928 BCE. David enlarged his
kingdom and brought it to the peak of political and military power.
Solomon "ruled over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River from
Tiphsah to Gaza; he was at peace with all his neighbors" (I Kings,
4:24)."

The entire 'David/Solomon Empire' lasted just 62 years.

Note that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers that
'Modern Israel' fills the entire area of British-Mandated Palestine.

This rather more realistic map of the southern Levant, c.830 BC, shows
the multitude of small states that actually ruled the area.
The Philistine and Phoenician city-states, the kingdoms of Aram-
Damascus, Ammon, Moab and Edom all existed during the time of David
and Solomon, and for a long time after, but an Israeli propaganda map
always has to show the wishful thinking of an aggressive state that
then, as now, invaded all its neighbours.

With the rise of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires in Mesopotamia,
some of the inhabitants of Judah and Israel were taken into captivity
in Mesopotamia, to the East.

The two separate nations of Israel in the north with capital at
Samaria, and Judah in the south with capital at Jerusalem, went
downhill at separate rates.

Israel went into paganism first and God allowed them to be taken
captive in two separate waves by the Assyrians.

The Israelites never returned.

I'm sorry, I'll read that again....

The Israelites never returned.

Judah worshipped God a little longer, but God sent the Babylonians to
take them into captivity about 120 years after Israel. Some Jews
returned after 70 years to rebuild Jerusalem.

But enough remained in Mesopotamia for Flavius Josephus, the Jewish
historian, to say, 700 years later, about 100AD: "The ten tribes are
beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not
to be estimated by numbers."

Around 200 BC some of the returned Jews lived as an autonomous people
in the land of Israel, referred to, by most, as Judea, which at that
time was controlled by the Seleucid king of Syria. The Jewish people
paid taxes to Syria and accepted its legal authority, and by and large
were free to follow their own faith, maintain their own jobs, and
engage in trade.

By 175 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes ascended to the Seleucid throne. At
first little changed, but under his reign, the Temple in Jerusalem was
looted, Jews were massacred, and Judaism was effectively outlawed. In
167 BC Antiochus ordered an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple.
The king may have been intervening in an internal civil war between
the traditionalist Jews in the country and the Hellenized elite Jews
in Jerusalem. These competed violently over who would be the High
Priest, with traditionalists with Hebrew/Aramaic like Onias overthrown
by Hellenizers with Greek names like Jason and Menelaus. As the
conflict escalated, Antiochus took the side of the Hellenizers by
prohibiting the religious practices the traditionalists had rallied
around. This may explain why the king, in a total departure from
Seleucid practice in all other places and times, banned the
traditional religion of a whole people.

Antiochus' actions provoked a large-scale revolt. Mattathias, a Jewish
priest, and his five sons Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and
Judah led a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah became known as Judah
Maccabee ("Judah the Hammer"). There's an almost drinkable Israeli
beer, and a football tem, named after him.

By 166 BC Mattathias had died, and Judah took his place as leader. By
165 BC the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy was successful.
The Temple was 'liberated'.

The festival of Hanukkah was instituted by Judah Maccabee and his
brothers to celebrate this event. After recovering Jerusalem and the
Temple, Judah ordered it to be cleansed, a new altar to be built in
place of the polluted one and new holy vessels to be made. According
to the Talmud, oil was needed for the menorah in the Temple, which was
supposed to burn throughout the night every night. But there was only
enough oil to burn for one day, yet miraculously, it burned for eight
days, the time needed to prepare a fresh supply of oil for the
menorah. An eight-day festival was declared to commemorate this
miracle. Nowadays, Hannukah is about as religious a festival as
Christmas, and just about as holy.

By Jesus Christ's time, the Holy Land had become the Kingdom of Herod
(30 BCE to 70 CE).
King Herod, an Edomite, was Rome's puppet king of Israel from 40 BCE
to 4 BCE. He conquered the kingdom from the Hasmoneans. When Augustus
became Caesar in the year 30 BCE, Herod convinced him of his loyalty,
and Augustus rewarded him by adding Jericho, the coastal region south
of Dor and the region east of the Sea of Galilee. In 23 BCE, he was
given the Bashan, Horen, and Tarchon regions, and three years later,
the Golan Heights.

Herod, of course, was the bloke who massacred the innocents and
rebuilt the Temple. The foundations of that grandiose scheme are those
worshipped by modern Jews at the Wailing Wall.

Then the Romans took over. In 70AD, the Jews revolted against them,
and were treated like any other colonised people who ever became
revolting.

The remaining Jews tried again. In 132, a revolt led by Bar Kokhba
quickly spread across the country, cutting off the Roman garrison in
Jerusalem.
Simon Bar Kokhba took the title Nasi Israel (ruler or prince of
Israel) - a century earlier a certain JC was crucified with INRI -
King of Israel above his head.

The Bar-Kokhba Revolt was of decisive historic importance. The massive
destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some
scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date.
They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War
chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea
was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba
Revolt, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed
far more brutally. After the revolt the Jewish religious center
shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars.

Judea would not be a center of Jewish religious, cultural, or
political life again until the modern era, though Jews continued to
live there and important religious developments still occurred there.

Although: in Galilee, the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the 2nd–4th
centuries. Eventually, Safed became known as a center of Jewish
learning, especially Kabbalah in the 15th century.

So the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs comes up with yet another
map, showing Jewish presence in the intervening centuries before
modern times.

Their description says:
"Jewish Communities in the Land of Israel (7th - 11th Centuries)
After the death of Emperor Julian II, in 363 CE, most of the Jewish
settlements in the south were destroyed. The Jews remained mainly in
the Galilee and in the larger cities.

This is pure propaganda, designed deliberately to make you feel that
poor Jews were persecuted in their own ancient homeland.

What a bunch of absolute codswallop.



Thousands of Jews were the intellectual stars of Andalucia, in Spain,
fully adopted by the sympathetic Moslems.


They were just about as persecuted as Presbyterians or Mormons in the
USA.

Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, Uri Avnery, M. Klien and Bernard Lewis
opine that antisemitism in pre-modern Islam is rare, and did not
emerge until modern times. Lewis argues that there is little sign any
deep-rooted emotional hostility directed against Jews, or any other
group, that can be characterized as antisemitism. There were, however,
clearly negative attitudes, which were in part the "normal" feelings
of a dominant group towards subject groups (which exists in virtually
any society). More specifically, the contempt consisted of Muslim
contempt for disbelievers. Wikipedia


Al-Andalus (Arabic: الأندلس al-andalus) was the Arabic name given to
those parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Muslims, or Moors, at
various times in the period between 711 and 1492. It refers to the
Umayyad Caliphate province (711-750), Emirate of Córdoba (c. 750-929)
and Caliphate of Córdoba (929-1031) and its "taifa" ("successor")
kingdoms.
The first period of exceptional prosperity took place under the reign
of Abd ar-Rahman III (882-942), the first independent Caliph of
Cordoba. The inauguration of the Golden Age is closely identified with
the career of his Jewish councillor, Hasdai ibn Shaprut (882-942).
Originally a court physician, Shaprut's official duties went on to
include the supervision of customs and foreign trade. It was in his
capacity as dignitary that he corresponded with the kingdom of the
Khazars, who had converted to Judaism in the 8th century.
With Hasdai as its leading patron, Cordoba became the "Mecca of Jewish
scholars who could be assured of a hospitable welcome from Jewish
courtiers and men of means"
During this period the achievements of Sephardic culture, which were
in large measure a synthesis of different Jewish traditions, in turn
enriched those other cultures to which it was indebted. Perhaps most
notable of Sephardic achievements which occurred during and following
Hasdai's time were in the literary and linguistic fields.
Hasdai brought a number of men of letters to Cordoba, including Dunash
ben Labrat (innovator of Hebrew metrical poetry), Menahem ben Saruq
(compiler of the first Hebrew dictionary, which came into wide use
among the Jews of Germany and France), and philologist Dunash ben
Labrat. Celebrated poets of this era include Solomon ibn Gabirol,
Yehuda Halevi, Samuel Ha-Nagid ibn Nagrela, and Abraham and Moses ibn
Ezra.


Jews also formed large respected and influential groups in Baghdad,
Cairo, Tripoli, Tunisia, and Morocco, besides Spain, and began to move
eastwards through Europe, towards the Rhine, the westward limit of
Mittel-European barbarian tribes.

That's as far as Sephardi Jews ever went. They were met, around there,
by Ashkenazi 'Jews' but that's a different story altogether.
dsharavi
2011-06-06 06:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently readingShlomoSand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
Post by h***@yahoo.com
have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?
It's all dealt with in Sand's book.
Actually, it isn't at all. But Hunter has never let facts get in the
way of his cherished little fictions.
Post by HHW
The central tenet of Zionism, the
expulsion of 'the Jews', 'the Jewish people', from Palestine
This is NOT the "central tenet of Zionism". As usual, H h
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Have you read about Bar Kochva?
He's also dealt with by Sand. Protect your reputation by reading him.
H maintains his reputation for holding forth on books he has NOT read.
Sand doesn't mention Bar Kochva.
Post by HHW
The exile is a myth!
Bah.
Post by HHW
It is the foundation of the 'right of return'
Bah and humbug.
Post by HHW
Today's Jews are mostly the decendents of
converts. There is no 'Jewish People'.
According to the last decade of DNA analyses, there most certainly is.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.
2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.
When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".
As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
This is as true as always.
Post by HHW
You shouldn't be talking about it at all without having read the book,
Why not? That's SOP for Hunter.
Post by HHW
Credible arguments against the Land of Israel myth have been surfacing
Saturday, 20 October 2007The 'Land of Israel' Myth
In Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty about 1300BC, Habiru nomadic tribesmen
"Habiru"??? rotflol

This "credible argument" against the "Land of Israel" was concoted by
one Richard Parker, who writes on his blog: "I'm an old fart who now
lives on Siargao Island, in the Philippines, a 'paradise island'. I
realised, in a sudden epiphany on my first visit to Palestine in 1973,
what a duplicitous and evil state Israel really was, and I haven't
much changed my views since."

That's Hunter's notion of a "credible source". The thoroughly debunked
Shlomo Sand is another.

Deborah
dsharavi
2011-06-06 05:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently reading Shlomo Sand's "The Invention of
the Jewish People".
Awesome. And two or three years ago, he was quoting the book he hadn't
yet read, and, as usual, pretending that he had.
Post by HHW
You shouldn't be talking about it at all without having read the book,
Why not? H always does.
Post by HHW
and the last source you should use for this contentious issue is
Wikipedia.
Not quite.

Deborah
h***@yahoo.com
2011-06-07 00:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently reading Shlomo Sand's
"The Invention of the Jewish People".
Have I asked you to recommend for me some
fiction books to read?
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?
It's all dealt with in Sand's book. The central tenet of Zionism,
Josephus Flavius wrote in the first century.
Zionism started in the 19'th century.
What one has to do with the other?

Anyway, Sand's theory does not have a base in reality.
You can read the argument in l
www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Jewish_Origins.htm

I asked you about Flavius' because the quote they
bring from The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, 9:3
"Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole
war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of
those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand,
the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the
citizens of Jerusalem]"
Post by HHW
the
expulsion of 'the Jews', 'the Jewish people', from Palestine is simply
untrue. There was no exile of the Jewish people by the Romans. It
never happened. It's a concocted, unhistorical non-event.
You may think that Sand's knows better than Flavius
about the Jewish Great Rebellion. It just shows how
clueless you are about the importance of primary sources.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Have you read about Bar Kochva?
He's also dealt with by Sand. Protect your reputation by reading him.
I prefer either primary sources or historians who
use primary sources to support their findings.

Sources closer in time describe quite a massacre
when the Romans took the last city, see in the Midrash
(any clue what midrash is?) Rabbah Lamentations
www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/bk02.html
"They slew the inhabitants until the horses waded in blood up to the
nostrils, and the blood rolled along stones (with the size of 284
liters) and flowed into the sea, staining it for a distance of six
kilometers. (In case you think that Bethar is close to the sea: was it
not in fact sixty kilometers distant from it?)"

While I doubt if it was that bad, there is no
doubt that the Romans were a cruel people
who liked to kill and destroyed their defeated
enemies. What is Sand's opinion?
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Even Wikipedia is much better than you, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified
towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans,
moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the
Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the
emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and
the army are in health.'"
What have Jews killed in insurrections against the Romans to do with
the alleged exile of THE JEWISH PEOPLE from Palestine.
The harder the war had been , the more cruel the Romans
were after victory. Do you want me to bring some
examples to make my point?

The war was pretty hard. At least 2 legions were
totally destroyed and Rome needed 12 Legions
to put the rebellion down. If you think that most
civilians just stayed around to suffer from the
Romans then you are clueless.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date.
You can't assume the historicity of the 'the exile'.
That's your problem.
And your problem is that you think that civilians
just wait to be killed by the Roman Legions
instead of running to the closest anti-Rome
country (Parthia). In addition, while the importance
of Jerusalem went down, Judaism centered in
Babylon. The most important religion text in
the next centuries was the Babylonian Talmud.
Does Sand explain how so many great Jewish
scholar suddenly showed up in Babylon?
(No, Khazar is not the answer. Check time line.)
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
 They note that, unlike the
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars."
The exile is a myth!
So explain Flavius.
Explain the religion quotes on the wars between
Rome and Judea. Explain the rise of Babylon as
a Jewish religious center. Explain all the data that
does not fit into your theory.
Post by HHW
It is the foundation of the 'right of return' and
it simply isn't true. Today's Jews are mostly
the decendents of converts.
There are two problem with your claim:
1) You don't explain why people would convert
into a class with fewer rights.
2) Genetic. See for example
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html
"Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes
inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the
Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also
carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it
lives."
Post by HHW
There is no 'Jewish People'.
The Jews decide if they are a people.
You have *NO* say about that.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.
2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.
When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".
As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
You shouldn't be talking about it at all without having read the book,
and the last source you should use for this contentious issue is
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a fine source *IF* you know the
subject and can screen the bullshit. People in
Israel argued about Flavius Josephus when I
was a kid, and they still argue about him today.
But even those who saw him as a traitor had
to admit the quality of his historical research.
dsharavi
2011-06-08 01:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
There was no forced Jewish exile by
the Romans in the first century.
Ha?!
It's not funny. I'm currently reading Shlomo Sand's
"The Invention of the Jewish People".
Have I asked you to recommend for me some
fiction books to read?
Now THAT is funny. And also true.

The rest of the post is of the usual excellence.

Deborah
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
have you read Josephus Flavius?
Do you realize how many archeological diggings
fit his descriptions very well?
It's all dealt with in Sand's book. The central tenet of Zionism,
Josephus Flavius wrote in the first century.
Zionism started in the 19'th century.
What one has to do with the other?
Anyway, Sand's theory does not have a base in reality.
You can read the argument in lwww.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Jewish_Origins.htm
I asked you about Flavius' because the quote they
bring from The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, 9:3
"Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole
war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of
those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand,
the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the
citizens of Jerusalem]"
Post by HHW
the
expulsion of 'the Jews', 'the Jewish people', from Palestine is simply
untrue. There was no exile of the Jewish people by the Romans. It
never happened. It's a concocted, unhistorical non-event.
You may think that Sand's knows better than Flavius
about the Jewish Great Rebellion. It just shows how
clueless you are about the importance of primary sources.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Have you read about Bar Kochva?
He's also dealt with by Sand. Protect your reputation by reading him.
I prefer either primary sources or historians who
use primary sources to support their findings.
Sources closer in time describe quite a massacre
when the Romans took the last city, see in the Midrash
(any clue what midrash is?) Rabbah Lamentationswww.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/bk02.html
"They slew the inhabitants until the horses waded in blood up to the
nostrils, and the blood rolled along stones (with the size of 284
liters) and flowed into the sea, staining it for a distance of six
kilometers. (In case you think that Bethar is close to the sea: was it
not in fact sixty kilometers distant from it?)"
While I doubt if it was that bad, there is no
doubt that the Romans were a cruel people
who liked to kill and destroyed their defeated
enemies. What is Sand's opinion?
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Even Wikipedia is much better than you, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
"According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified
towns and 985 villages razed. Cassius Dio claimed that "Many Romans,
moreover, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the
Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the
emperors: 'If you and your children are in health, it is well; I and
the army are in health.'"
What have Jews killed in insurrections against the Romans to do with
the alleged exile of THE JEWISH PEOPLE from Palestine.
The harder the war had been , the more cruel the Romans
were after victory. Do you want me to bring some
examples to make my point?
The war was pretty hard. At least 2 legions were
totally destroyed and Rome needed 12 Legions
to put the rebellion down. If you think that most
civilians just stayed around to suffer from the
Romans then you are clueless.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date.
You can't assume the historicity of the 'the exile'.
That's your problem.
And your problem is that you think that civilians
just wait to be killed by the Roman Legions
instead of running to the closest anti-Rome
country (Parthia).  In addition, while the importance
of Jerusalem went down, Judaism centered in
Babylon. The most important religion text in
the next centuries was the Babylonian Talmud.
Does Sand explain how so many great Jewish
scholar suddenly showed up in Babylon?
(No, Khazar is not the answer. Check time line.)
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
 They note that, unlike the
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars."
The exile is a myth!
So explain Flavius.
Explain the religion quotes on the wars between
Rome and Judea. Explain the rise of Babylon as
a Jewish religious center. Explain all the data that
does not fit into your theory.
Post by HHW
It is the foundation of the 'right of return' and
it simply isn't true. Today's Jews are mostly
the decendents of converts.
1) You don't explain why people would convert
into a class with fewer rights.
2) Genetic.  See for examplewww.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html
"Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes
inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the
Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also
carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it
lives."
Post by HHW
There is no 'Jewish People'.
The Jews decide if they are a people.
You have *NO* say about that.
Post by HHW
Post by h***@yahoo.com
1) There had been a large number of Jews in Israel.
Rome needed 12 Legions to put the rebellion down.
Compare that to the four Legions that took Britain.
2) When the Romans were done, not much of
a province left. They managed to turn a
prosperous province into a wasteland.
When the Romans started to win the war
many civilians run for the their lives.
You call that "no forced Jewish exile".
As usual, you have no idea what you
are talking about.
You shouldn't be talking about it at all without having read the book,
and the last source you should use for this contentious issue is
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a fine source *IF* you know the
subject and can screen the bullshit. People in
Israel argued about Flavius Josephus when I
was a kid, and they still argue about him today.
But even those who saw him as a traitor had
to admit the quality of his historical research.
Joe Bruno
2011-06-01 19:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J
Some how, I'm not surprised
http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/23/1831057/moscow-museum-puts-lenins-...
MOSCOW — For the first time ever, ordinary Russians can now see documents
that appear to confirm long-standing rumors that Vladimir Lenin had Jewish
heritage.
In a country long plagued by anti-Semitism, such heritage can be a
significant taint, especially for the founder of the Soviet Union who is
still revered by many elderly Russians.
Among dozens of newly released documents on display at the State History
Museum is a letter written by Lenin's eldest sister, Anna Ulyanova, saying
that their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew who converted to
Christianity to escape the Pale of Settlement and gain access to higher
education.
--
J Young
All that crap is irrelevant. Jewish law provides that a Jew is either
the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism.
Who his other ancestors were is irrelevant.

It's our group and we will decide who belongs in it.Understand, moron?
Don Martin
2011-06-02 14:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
Considering how long they have had his mummy lying around, they can
even put his circumcised putz on public display.
Ben Kaufman
2011-06-03 10:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
Considering how long they have had his mummy lying around, they can
even put his circumcised putz on public display.
Has anyone ever seen Harold Camping and Lenin's mummy in the same room?

Ben
Colanth
2011-06-03 12:20:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:46:45 -0400, Ben Kaufman
Post by Ben Kaufman
Post by Don Martin
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
Considering how long they have had his mummy lying around, they can
even put his circumcised putz on public display.
Has anyone ever seen Harold Camping and Lenin's mummy in the same room?
Camping *does* look a bit mummified, now that you mention it.
--
Choose heaven for climate, hell for society. - Mark Twain
Don Martin
2011-06-03 22:51:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:46:45 -0400, Ben Kaufman
Post by Ben Kaufman
Post by Don Martin
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
Considering how long they have had his mummy lying around, they can
even put his circumcised putz on public display.
Has anyone ever seen Harold Camping and Lenin's mummy in the same room?
Great Scott! you're right! the resemblance is uncanny!

-

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Apostate
2011-06-03 23:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:46:45 -0400, Ben Kaufman
Post by Ben Kaufman
Post by Don Martin
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
Considering how long they have had his mummy lying around, they can
even put his circumcised putz on public display.
Has anyone ever seen Harold Camping and Lenin's mummy in the same room?
Does anyone even know Lenin's mummy's name?
Post by Colanth
Great Scott! you're right! the resemblance is uncanny!
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 OBWAG #1
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass

"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia


e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Colanth
2011-06-04 02:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 19:15:06 -0400, Apostate
Post by Apostate
Post by Colanth
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:46:45 -0400, Ben Kaufman
Post by Ben Kaufman
Post by Don Martin
Moscow museum puts Lenin's Jewish roots on display
Considering how long they have had his mummy lying around, they can
even put his circumcised putz on public display.
Has anyone ever seen Harold Camping and Lenin's mummy in the same room?
Does anyone even know Lenin's mummy's name?
Mummy Lenin, of course.
--
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -
George Bernard Shaw
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...