i have been asked why i don't make a distinction between arabs and jews when i call the alleged jesus an arab, not a jew. it's partly because genetically they are the same, at least the sephardic, or original west asian jews.
the ashkenazi, or white jews, are different -- they are european whites, as opposed to west asian whites. according to this book, they are turkish converts. bloody turks, used to get around a lot, didn't they? they came to india as the mughal-types, they are in china as the uighur-types.
this book apparently talks about the arab-jew blood relationship. see quote:
Consider, for instance, Professor Sand's assertion that Palestinian Arab villagers are descended from the original Jewish farmers. Nearly a century ago, early Zionists and Arab nationalists touted the blood relationship as the basis of a potential alliance in their respective struggles for independence. Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Israel's longest-serving president, made this very argument in a book they wrote together in 1918. The next year, Emir Feisal, who organized the Arab revolt against the Ottoman empire and tried to create a united Arab nation, signed a cooperation agreement with the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann that declared the two were "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people."
also, jews used to go around forcibly converting others. that fits in with my theory: they haven't been converting others primarily because they did not have state power.
another quote:
That does not negate that conversion played a critical role in Jewish history — a proposition that many find surprising given that today's Jews tend to discourage conversion and make it a difficult process. Lawrence H. Schiffman, chairman of the Skirball department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, said most historians agree that over a period of centuries, Middle Eastern Jews — merchants, slaves and captives, religious and economic refugees — spread around the world. Many intermarried with people from local populations, who then converted.
There is also evidence that in antiquity and the first millennium Judaism was a proselytizing religion that even used force on occasion.
end quote
now, i like jews a lot, and i believe they have the right to exist, as opposed to the arab idea that they need to be exterminated.
but i also believe there's no difference between christist, mohammedan, and jewish dogma: they are all west asian desert imperialist ideologies based on violence and blind faith.
hindus and jews need to get into a tactical alliance against mohammedans and christists, but let us not deceive ourselves that they are our long-lost brothers or something. their ideology is semitic, which means it is bad.
11 comments:
u are absolutely correct. we have nothing in common with jews, except the fact that we have both been kicked around a lot by the same set of people (christians - muslims). their hatred for any sort of idol worship etch is as deep rooted as that of xtians and muslims. The Old Testament is replete with incidents of Jews massacaring idol worshippers in palestine / judea or whatever they call that god-forsaken territory --and all on God's commands. Judaism can be decribed as the root of the (poisnous) semitic tree -- the rest of the tree being xtians, muslims, and the latest offspring: communism. Its no coincidence that communism or marxism was conceived by a Jew (k mrx). He did away with God, but the rest of the shit is all their -- one party, one ideology, one book, and death to those who don't confirm.
I strongly disagree with your take on Judaism and the Jewish people. Both the topics, as well as the 4-way interrelationship between the US, India, Israel(+Israeli Jews) and American Jews warrants study/diligence, subtlety and nuance to describe, but in the overall picture, Jews as a group can be said to be rather strongly pro-Hindu and sufficiently pro-India. Sure, Kissinger was a jerk (but even that requires nuanced examination), but to offset Kissinger, I'd point to the awesome contributions of Lieutenant General JFR Jacob, an Indian Jew, to India.
I'd like to also point you and your readership to this important historical fact: India is one of the few places on the planet where the majority (Hindus in India) did not persecute the Jewish minorities, and this is widely acknowledged by various Jewish groups of individuals. See: Indian Jews and the links there.
Some similarities between the Jewish and Hindu people are:
1. Jews have been brutalized/persecuted the world over, time and again, and Hindus have been brutalized/persecuted/discriminated against in India and elsewhere (and continue to be! :() for 1400 years, running.
2. Jewish and Hindu cultures are both education and scholarship oriented, explaining why their kids generally excel in many American classrooms, and Jewish and Hindu scientists make some important/pivotal contributions in various scientific fields.
etc.
Hope you are good at taking healthy criticism, but I find your arguments for calling Jewish religion a proselytizing one to be very weak, especially in the context of the terribly violent record of proselytizing of the largest religions (by fraud, enticement, etc by Christian missionaries, by terror, intimidation, fraud and enticement by Islam.)
More later.
For a tangential take on th Jewish-Arab realation, see http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-arabs-and-jews-really-cousins-what.html
but i also believe there's no difference between christist, mohammedan, and jewish dogma: they are all west asian desert imperialist ideologies based on violence and blind faith.
There is two fundamental differences. The first is that the Jews do not put the diktats to kill into practice. The second is that Jews are at peace with people of a number of religions while ROL and ROP are at peace with exactly ZERO religions.
arvind, my assertion is that jews are peaceful because they were never in a position to oppress anybody, not because of any innate goodness of judaism. many orthodox jews are highly prejudiced: you may remember the fuss among some orthodox jewish women (who wear wigs because by their code neither their hair nor their elbows must be seen) because they got wigs from india with (yes, they said it) "hindu hair". they were upset about this because yes, they do not like non-monotheists.
i have this geography based theory about religion: those from the desert are all harsh, unforgiving and vindictive, and their gods (actually it is the same semitic fellow, more or less) is also harsh, unforgiving and vindictive. and that is because the desert is harsh, unforgiving and vindictive.
having said that, politics is the art of the possible. hindus and jews have the same enemies -- christists and mohammedans, so it makes sense to ally with them.
asdf, there are many similarities between hindus and jews. in fact, in particular, brahmins are being hounded and oppressed (eg. in tamil nadu) exactly like jews have been, and the two groups share a lot of characteristics such as love of education.
that doesn't mean you have to accept them without question.
i make the distinction between jewish people and jewish religion/dogma. i have had many jewish friends, and once my best friend was a jewish woman, so i know quite a bit about them as people. terrific people in many ways, intelligent, interesting, but also (a la woody allen) neurotic! and oh, yes, the JAP and jewish-mother stereotypes are true, too!
but the religious dogma is the problem. many jews are not so religious; but if they are, then they are no better than christist or mohammedan fundies. the yhwh of the jewish old testament is the very same violent, jealous and nasty god who reappeared as jesus's daddy and mohammed's chum. (richard dawkins has some choice epithets for him; so does christopher hitchens).
i have found lapsed christists and mohammedans to be great people: similarly secular jews. once they see through the dogma, they are great human beings.
asdf, yes, jews are aware that they were never oppressed in india. that's nice, and yes, a lot of them go to cochin's 500 year old synagogue. and yes, there has been a community of jews in kerala since 72 CE, and i personally knew some of them before they emigrated to israel of their own free will. so what?
the israeli kids who go, after their compulsory military service, to dharmsala and manali and hampi and mcleodganj are reputedly arrogant and obnoxious. so much for good tourism.
and so what, anyway?
arvind, my assertion is that jews are peaceful because they were never in a position to oppress anybody
Yes, but even if that claim is granted, it is a big difference. Christists and Mohammedans manage to oppress others even when in a miniscule minority. They get laws tweaked, and rule entire countries (e.g. Sri Lanka) although they form only a small part of the population.
interesting analysis of the diaspora of both communities in America by Koenraad Elst - http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/11/hindus-and-jews-india-and-israel.html
you are right about the tactical alliance - as long as we are clear on the fact that it is a marriage of convenience. take the example of indian purchase of israeli defense material - nice way to get around the yankee insistence on end use agreements. except israel will sell to pakistan too - so you should know what you are in for
I do not agree with the opinion on Jews.
The Jews are in a majority in Israel. Still the Arabs living in Israel have rights. Can you imagine a Jewish minority in any Arab nation having such rights?
To the best of my knowledge, Muslims living in Israel do not pay something equivalent of a "Jaziya tax"
Regarding your theory that Arab desert religions are bad, even Parsees religion is from Iranian desert but it is not so violent.
I think the attitude of the Jews is more comparable to Parsees rather than Muslims. Both lay stress on education, both have built great businesses.
The only difference is that Parsees were too peace loving for their own good.
I do not know Jewish history too well, but from what I know they did get into wars with Romans, Syrians and others but there were never any religions overtones like modern jihad. Also, maybe Judism never got in a position to torture others because they never gave incentives like freedom to mass murder and post retirement benefits like 72 virgins. Also Moses did not have sex with a 5 year old.
Considering your argument regarding fanatism among Jews, I believe that it is fine. As long as you do not destroy other people's temples and monastries; as long as you do not murder and rape because they do not believe in your god, some fanatism and snobbishness should be alright.
There are still mosques standing in Israel whereas any non Muslim found in the city of Mecca or Medina faces stoning to death penalty. There are signbards on the road to Mecca ordering Non Muslims to take a U turn.
Of course, I agree with you that we do not have much in common and its just a tactical alliance. But to compare Judism with Islam is very unfair.
i didn't actually say judaism is like mohammedanism. i just said that all the semitic ideologies are exclusive and all worship the same cruel god.
jews are a lot like christists, in fact. they have been civilized over the centuries. christists before the so-called Enlightenment were exactly like the mohammedans of today.
as for zoroastrians (parsis), their religion has the distinction of being the first to define absolute good and absolute evil, a manichean differentiation that leads to aggressive dualism. all the semitic ideologies borrowed it from them. compare this to the strict advaita (non-dualism) in hinduism.
this black and white notion leads inexorably to 'believer' and 'faithful', so my suspicion is that zoroastrians also had notions of exclusivity. of course, they are nice guys today but that may be because they have been thoroughly brutalized by mohammedans (sort of like jews have also become nicer through being oppressed esp by christists). i don't know enough about zoroastrian persian kingdoms to comment, but clearly zoroastrianism is the root font of semitic ideologies.
btw, i don't think iran is a desert.
Post a Comment