How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
This is sort of an odd question, since I'm Jewish. I was watching a History Channel documentary called Battles B.C. over the weekend, and it detailed how Moses militarized the Hebrews after fleeing from Egypt.
According to the documentary, starting with the Levites as sort of his Praetorian Guard, the highly charismatic Moses trained and equipped every able-bodied male from 20-35 years old and charged Joshua with commanding them. He made his way to the land of Canaan, slaughtering several tribes on the way, including a tribe that took he and his people in when they fled Egypt. Moses ordered that all women and children were to be killed as well. When other Hebrew tribes started to revolt, he ordered the Levites to slaughter his own people to send a message. Moses had created a highly trained and well-equipped army capable of standing up to almost any military force in the Middle East at the time.
This doesn't sound like the peaceful, oppressed Jewish slaves as suggested in the Torah -- more invaders and occupiers. How do modern-day Jews view (and defend) Moses and the Hebrews? Is the anger and violence coming from modern-day Palestine justified?
In my view, I felt the taking of the Promised Land by the Hebrews was a case of saying, "Our God, who you don't worship, told us that this land is now ours. Get out." Pretty much your standard conquering, no different than what Europe did to the Americas in the 17th century. As a Jew, I find it extremely hard to defend them.
What's your take?
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by Agent Foxtrot
In my view, I felt the taking of the Promised Land by the Hebrews was a case of saying, "Our God, who you don't worship, told us that this land is now ours. Get out." Pretty much your standard conquering, no different than what Europe did to the Americas in the 17th century. As a Jew, I find it extremely hard to defend them.
Why does it have to be defended? The strong conquered the weak. That's what conquerors do. Caesar didn't say "I came, I saw, I conquered, I felt really bad about it."
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by silenus
Why does it have to be defended? The strong conquered the weak. That's what conquerors do. Caesar didn't say "I came, I saw, I conquered, I felt really bad about it."
Damn silenus, I am word for word, on your first sentence.
It is history. It is what man did to man.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
It only has to be defended if it is being brought up as relevant in some modern context.
If the behaviour involved is specific to a time and place, let's leave it there, along with any other 'unnecessary baggage'.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by silenus
Quote:
Originally posted by Agent Foxtrot
In my view, I felt the taking of the Promised Land by the Hebrews was a case of saying, "Our God, who you don't worship, told us that this land is now ours. Get out." Pretty much your standard conquering, no different than what Europe did to the Americas in the 17th century. As a Jew, I find it extremely hard to defend them.
Why does it have to be defended? The strong conquered the weak. That's what conquerors
do. Caesar didn't say "I came, I saw, I conquered, I felt really bad about it."
Understood, but in our modern age, Jews still feel the Promised Land is rightfully ours, even though we took it by force (killing women and children as well)? How do we justify that considering we present our people as a peace-loving race?
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
[quote=Agent Foxtrot]
Quote:
Originally posted by silenus
Quote:
Originally posted by "Agent Foxtrot":3kwat3p0
In my view, I felt the taking of the Promised Land by the Hebrews was a case of saying, "Our God, who you don't worship, told us that this land is now ours. Get out." Pretty much your standard conquering, no different than what Europe did to the Americas in the 17th century. As a Jew, I find it extremely hard to defend them.
Why does it have to be defended? The strong conquered the weak. That's what conquerors
do. Caesar didn't say "I came, I saw, I conquered, I felt really bad about it."
Understood, but in our modern age, Jews still feel the Promised Land is rightfully ours, even though we took it by force? How do we justify that considering we present our people as a peace-loving race?[/quote:3kwat3p0]
Why justify it. I feel OK with the USA holding onto the lands of the USA. The Jews have the misfortune to be a people that are staking claim to a very disputed piece of real estate, but it is not like the Palestinians had a better claim. (Not worse either, but not better.)
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
The educated people involved with the setting up of the state must have realised their actions were not going to go uncontested though, so why would such a deeply spiritual people have tied themselves to such a material obligation as defending 'holy sites' etc? Couldn't they have worshipped their god just as well from a different part of the world? What is written in the scriptures that dictates god is especially present in specific locations or objects?
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
The educated people involved with the setting up of the state must have realised their actions were not going to go uncontested though, so why would such a deeply spiritual people have tied themselves to such a material obligation as defending 'holy sites' etc? Couldn't they have worshipped their god just as well from a different part of the world? What is written in the scriptures that dictates god is especially present in specific locations or objects?
Maybe I am missing something here, but I thought that the UK with some pressure from the US gave Israel to the Jews to create a homeland and that many Jews flocked there after the atrocities and pogroms of Europe.
Where else but I guess the US did they feel fairly safe at that point. In Israel they could be fairly sure the government would not crack down on them at least. Even the US & UK could not guarantee that.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by Agent Foxtrot
Understood, but in our modern age, Jews still feel the Promised Land is rightfully ours, even though we took it by force (killing women and children as well)? How do we justify that considering we present our people as a peace-loving race?
I repeat my previous. So what? The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. There isn't a country on earth that wasn't founded or expanded or solidified on the blood and bones of the less strong, less quick or less lucky. Why should people today, who had no hand in whatever happened, be the least bit concerned or apologetic about what their remote ancestors did? Do I need to hug Will Smith because it's likely my great-great grandfather killed a black man in a dispute over an unpaid debt?
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
The History of Humanity can perhaps very easily be summed up as "Group A was driven out of or decided to move out of Location 1. They moved into Location 2 and either slaughtered or conquered Group B."
Still happening today.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Maybe I am missing something here, but I thought that the UK with some pressure from the US gave Israel to the Jews to create a homeland and that many Jews flocked there after the atrocities and pogroms of Europe.
Someone 'giving it to them' would seem to invalidate their claim to the land even more. What right did the UK or USA have to do that?
Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Where else but I guess the US did they feel fairly safe at that point. In Israel they could be fairly sure the government would not crack down on them at least. Even the US & UK could not guarantee that.
Well, considering Israel's relationship with the US now, perhaps it would have been better in the long run had the USA set up a 'homeland' for them within the USA. It's not like you haven't got the room.
And I'm sure it'd have been cheaper to box up all the jewish holy artifacts, etc, and have them relocated, than it has cost them to defend themselves from their next-door neighbours.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Florida
New York City
Hollywood
And we needed to give them a homeland???
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by Chimera
Florida
New York City
Hollywood
And we needed to give them a homeland???
Why not? You built one in the desert for worshippers of Mammon!
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Someone 'giving it to them' would seem to invalidate their claim to the land even more. What right did the UK or USA have to do that?
The UK owned the area. They had for a while. They had the best claim to the land at the time.
Quote:
Well, considering Israel's relationship with the US now, perhaps it would have been better in the long run had the USA set up a 'homeland' for them within the USA. It's not like you haven't got the room.
And I'm sure it'd have been cheaper to box up all the jewish holy artifacts, etc, and have them relocated, than it has cost them to defend themselves from their next-door neighbours.
Right, that would have worked. How do you box up the land and the wailing wall and whatever else they consider sacred?
I think it is all fairly silly, but they treat it seriously enough to fight over, like the religious of most creeds do.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
[quote=What Exit?]
Quote:
Originally posted by "ivan astikov":1nnf3anm
Someone 'giving it to them' would seem to invalidate their claim to the land even more. What right did the UK or USA have to do that?
The UK owned the area. They had for a while. They had the best claim to the land at the time.
Quote:
Well, considering Israel's relationship with the US now, perhaps it would have been better in the long run had the USA set up a 'homeland' for them within the USA. It's not like you haven't got the room.
And I'm sure it'd have been cheaper to box up all the jewish holy artifacts, etc, and have them relocated, than it has cost them to defend themselves from their next-door neighbours.
Right, that would have worked. How do you box up the land and the wailing wall and whatever else they consider sacred?
I think it is all fairly silly, but they treat it seriously enough to fight over, like the religious of most creeds do.[/quote:1nnf3anm]
Didn't Jesus once pick up a pebble and say "Here is God."? I doubt he meant God resides in inanimate objects and that they were more important than the people themselves.
I just know that if someone were to blow up one of the holy sites in Jerusalem, the Israeli's would want to destroy somebody for it. Aren't they just setting themselves up for a catastrophic loss at some point?
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Didn't Jesus once pick up a pebble and say "Here is God."? I doubt he meant God resides in inanimate objects and that they were more important than the people themselves.
. . . undoubtedly, an argument the Jews would find most compelling.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
Quote:
Originally posted by ivan astikov
Didn't Jesus once pick up a pebble and say "Here is God."? I doubt he meant God resides in inanimate objects and that they were more important than the people themselves.
I just know that if someone were to blow up one of the holy sites in Jerusalem, the Israeli's would want to destroy somebody for it. Aren't they just setting themselves up for a catastrophic loss at some point?
No clue, find someone that believes in God for the theological side. Also the Jews don't really follow Jesus last I checked.
All endeavors of man are but temporary, who do you think should hold the land of Israel?
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
[quote=What Exit?]
Quote:
Originally posted by "ivan astikov":1tadu76c
Didn't Jesus once pick up a pebble and say "Here is God."? I doubt he meant God resides in inanimate objects and that they were more important than the people themselves.
I just know that if someone were to blow up one of the holy sites in Jerusalem, the Israeli's would want to destroy somebody for it. Aren't they just setting themselves up for a catastrophic loss at some point?
No clue, find someone that believes in God for the theological side. Also the Jews don't really follow Jesus last I checked.
All endeavors of man are but temporary, who do you think should hold the land of Israel?[/quote:1tadu76c]
I feel so silly at forgetting the Jewish weren't big fans of that Jesus fella! :smack
Who should hold the land? If it can't be shared peacefully, nobody should have it.
As I am free of bias in the matter, I wouldn't care if it was turned into a Holy Theme Park.
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
[delurking]
- If your question is historical, you can relax: the 'Conquest of Canaan' never happened. (Saying that doesn't make the History Channel much money, though, hence the generally extremely dodgy quality of everything 'Biblical' there and on National Geographic.) Ze'ev Herzog summarised the basics in an article in Haaretz in 1999, 'Deconstructing the walls of Jericho', which you can find here: http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarci ... erzog.html (I don't know anything about the site, but they had it in a readable format). His opening paragraph:[/*:1dfu1lpd]
Quote:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.
- If you feel uncomfortable about a religion which constructed such stories, that's another matter. Being an atheist, I'm not going to say much there.[/*:1dfu1lpd]
- If you feel uncomfortable with how the Conquest of Canaan has been used to justify the ethnic cleansing of settler-national projects, e.g., the U.S., South Africa, and Israel, then that depends on what ethical responsibility you feel towards the Native Americans, the Blacks of South Africa, and, last but not least, the Palestinians.[/*:1dfu1lpd]
Re: How do modern Jews feel about the militarization of Moses' Hebrews?
[quote=What Exit?]
Quote:
Originally posted by "ivan astikov":1rha594l
Someone 'giving it to them' would seem to invalidate their claim to the land even more. What right did the UK or USA have to do that?
The UK owned the area. They had for a while. They had the best claim to the land at the time.
Quote:
Well, considering Israel's relationship with the US now, perhaps it would have been better in the long run had the USA set up a 'homeland' for them within the USA. It's not like you haven't got the room.
And I'm sure it'd have been cheaper to box up all the jewish holy artifacts, etc, and have them relocated, than it has cost them to defend themselves from their next-door neighbours.
Right, that would have worked. How do you box up the land and the wailing wall and whatever else they consider sacred?
I think it is all fairly silly, but they treat it seriously enough to fight over, like the religious of most creeds do.[/quote:1rha594l]
Britain did not own Palestine. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Britain held a League of Nations mandate, i.e., the British Mandate of Palestine. What they could do there was limited by the terms of the LoL mandate. One of demands of the mandate was the local population, in line with the doctrine of Wilsonian nationalism, would proceed in an orderly fashion to express their inalienable right to self-determination.
Secondly, the Zionists were mostly not particularly religious, and the local Jews who had been part of the Ottoman Jewish millet in Palestine considered them blasphemers. From Ilan Pappe's history of modern Palestine:
Quote:
That there was no single Jewish community is shown by the constant struggles and small wars
between the newcomers and the veterans. Also, the intricate relations between the Zionists
and the authorities complicated life for the existing Jewish community…. The veteran Jews saw
Zionism as heresy, and a threat to the ethical code of Judaism in that it cherished secularization
as the means of salvation. Secularization for the Old Jewish community in Palestine, however,
represented an immoral development. They therefore looked for any signs of moral degradation
in the newcomers…. [They] decided that the appearance of Jewish prostitutes, in their eyes for the
first time in history, could only be attributed to Zionism.
In Jaffa, the constant fights between Ashkenazi Jews (newcomers from Eastern Europe) and
Sepharadi Jews (veterans of the Ottoman Jewish millet) were barely containable…. Orthodox Jews
Must now go to bed, methinks. May come back with more. (Considering the subject of this post, I think I might have to end with this smilie: :hoj:)
