http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/books/24jews.html?pagewanted=print
QuoteBook Calls Jewish People an 'Invention'
By PATRICIA COHEN
Despite the fragmented and incomplete historical record, experts pretty much agree that some popular beliefs about Jewish history simply don't hold up: there was no sudden expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem in A.D. 70, for instance. What's more, modern Jews owe their ancestry as much to converts from the first millennium and early Middle Ages as to the Jews of antiquity.
Other theories, like the notion that many of today's Palestinians can legitimately claim to be descended from the ancient Jews, are familiar and serious subjects of study, even if no definitive answer yet exists.
But while these ideas are commonplace among historians, they still manage to provoke controversy each time they surface in public, beyond the scholarly world. The latest example is the book "The Invention of the Jewish People," which spent months on the best-seller list in Israel and is now available in English. Mixing respected scholarship with dubious theories, the author, Shlomo Sand, a professor at Tel Aviv University, frames the narrative as a startling exposure of suppressed historical facts. The translated version of his polemic has sparked a new wave of coverage in Britain and has provoked spirited debates online and in seminar rooms.
Professor Sand, a scholar of modern France, not Jewish history, candidly states his aim is to undercut the Jews' claims to the land of Israel by demonstrating that they do not constitute "a people," with a shared racial or biological past. The book has been extravagantly denounced and praised, often on the basis of whether or not the reader agrees with his politics.
The vehement response to these familiar arguments — both the reasonable and the outrageous — highlights the challenge of disentangling historical fact from the sticky web of religious and political myth and memory.
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."
Both sides later dropped the subject when they realized it was not furthering their political goals.
(Though no final consensus has emerged on the ancestral link between Palestinians and Jews, Harry Ostrer, director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University Langone Medical Center, who has been studying the genetic organization of Jews, said, "The assumption of lineal descent seems reasonable.")
Books challenging biblical and conventional history continually pop up, but what distinguishes the dispute over origins from debates about, say, the reality of the exodus from Egypt or the historical Jesus, is that it is so enmeshed in geopolitics. The Israeli Declaration of Independence states: "After being forcibly exiled from their Land, the People kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it." The idea of unjust exile and rightful return undergirds both the Jews' and the Palestinians' conviction that each is entitled to the land.
Since Professor Sand's mission is to discredit Jews' historical claims to the territory, he is keen to show that their ancestry lines do not lead back to ancient Palestine. He resurrects a theory first raised by 19th-century historians, that the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, to whom 90 percent of American Jews trace their roots, are descended from the Khazars, a Turkic people who apparently converted to Judaism and created an empire in the Caucasus in the eighth century. This idea has long intrigued writers and historians. In 1976, Arthur Koestler wrote "The Thirteenth Tribe" in the hopes it would combat anti-Semitism; if contemporary Jews were descended from the Khazars, he argued, they could not be held responsible for Jesus' Crucifixion.
By now, experts who specialize in the subject have repeatedly rejected the theory, concluding that the shards of evidence are inconclusive or misleading, said Michael Terry, the chief librarian of the Jewish division of the New York Public Library. Dr. Ostrer said the genetics also did not support the Khazar theory.
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. From the genetic research so far, Dr. Ostrer said, "It's pretty clear that most Jewish groups have Semitic ancestry, that they originated in the Middle East, and that they're more closely related to each other than to non-Jewish groups." But he added that it was also clear that many Jews are of mixed descent.
"The ancient admixed ancestry explains the blond hair and blue eyes of Ashkenazi Jews whose grandparents and great-grandparents all lived in shtetls two and three generations ago," Dr. Ostrer said. They brought the genes for coloration with them to Eastern Europe. These genes were probably not contributed by their Cossack neighbors."
What accounts for the grasp that some misconceptions maintain on popular consciousness, or the inability of historical truths to gain acceptance? Sometimes myths persist despite clear contradictory evidence because people feel the story embodies a deeper truth than the facts. Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake," but the fictional statement captured the sense of a regime that showed disdain for the public's welfare.
A mingling of myth, memory, truth and aspiration similarly envelopes Jewish history, which is, to begin with, based on scarce and confusing archaeological and archival records.
Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine in one fell swoop in A.D. 70. Yet while the destruction of Jerusalem and Second Temple by the Romans did not create the Diaspora, it caused a momentous change in the Jews' sense of themselves and their position in the world. For later generations it encapsulates the essential truth about the Jews being an exiled and persecuted people for much of their history.
Professor Sand accuses Zionist historians from the 19th century onward — the very same scholars on whose work he bases his case — of hiding the truth and creating a myth of shared roots to strengthen their nationalist agenda. He explains that he has uncovered no new information, but has "organized the knowledge differently." In other words, he is doing precisely what he accuses the Zionists of — shaping the material to fit a narrative.
In that sense, Professor Sand is operating within a long established tradition. As "The Illustrated History of the Jewish People," edited by Nicholas Lange (Harcourt, 1997), notes, "Every generation of Jewish historians has faced the same task: to retell and adapt the story to meet the needs of its own situation." The same could be said of all nations and religions.
Perhaps that is why — on both sides of the argument — some myths stubbornly persist no matter how often they are debunked while other indubitable facts continually fail to gain traction.
While I think the historical debate is fascinating, I don't think there is much of an impact on the current situation. The conflict's real origins date to the 19th and 20th centuries, not the 1st century.
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
Whoever has the patent on Jews must be very rich.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
So who were your people killing for all those centuries?
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2009, 02:31:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
:yes:
Funny how the Europeans only get over the nationalism bug when their nations become utterly insignificant.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2009, 02:33:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2009, 02:31:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
:yes:
Funny how the Europeans only get over the nationalism bug when their nations become utterly insignificant.
funny how you Americans are still very late-19th century in your thinking, in so many ways.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fepic-fail-history-fail.jpg&hash=486a968d64a32cf4e4142af72c8504e78637dfe0)
Quote from: Syt on November 25, 2009, 02:51:18 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fepic-fail-history-fail.jpg&hash=486a968d64a32cf4e4142af72c8504e78637dfe0)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Clearly the author is an anti-Semite.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 25, 2009, 03:55:17 AM
Clearly the author is an anti-Semite.
Nope, just a self-hating Jew...
Quote from: Syt on November 25, 2009, 02:51:18 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fepic-fail-history-fail.jpg&hash=486a968d64a32cf4e4142af72c8504e78637dfe0)
Well, there must be a few, there's still a small-ish jewish community in Berlin.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2009, 02:32:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
So who were your people killing for all those centuries?
Religion, money, power, women, lands, glory, gold, more women, some boys, applauses, honors, laurel crowns, marble statues, deification, cattle, slaves... the usual suspects. History 101.
Quote
na·tion (nshn)
n.
1.
a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality.
Or
Quote
A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin.[1] The development and conceptualization of the nation is closely related to the development of modern industrial states and nationalist movements in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries,[2] although nationalists would trace nations into the past along an uninterrupted lines of historical narrative.
From the definitions of 'nation' should be auto-evident that such a thing is a human construct. One can easily define any human group as a 'nation' by careful and judicious use of available evidence (see Lettow, for example)
As in so many other fields, it's extremely useful to study the French Revolution and the use revolutionaries made of the 'Nation' as a unifying, inspiring tool. The French army didn't enter combat in 1793 shouting 'Vive la Nation' spontaneously or by sheer luck; it was the revolutionary counterpart to 'Vive le Roi'.
Regarding Jews, assuming generations of 25 years and no inbreeding (yes, I know...) a person of today would need to reach back in time only between 700 and 800 years to have one billion ancestors, Genetics and evolution do work like that. Asking for any kind of ethnic 'purity' preserved trough History is madness (and I would really prefer 'homogeneity' or 'uniformity' to a loaded word like 'purity').
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
I was about to say...everything besides our physical bodies were invented at some point...
Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2009, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
I was about to say...everything besides our physical bodies were invented at some point...
PINA COLADAS?
Quote from: stjaba on November 25, 2009, 12:18:30 AM
While I think the historical debate is fascinating, I don't think there is much of an impact on the current situation. The conflict's real origins date to the 19th and 20th centuries, not the 1st century.
Well...I think there is ample evidence of Jewish writers prior to the 19th century calling for a return to Jerusalem but yeah basically. Maimonides was pretty obsessed with it IIRC.
It's not exactly controversial that Jews are not all descended in unbroken line to the ancient people of Israel ... one only has to look at your average Polish Jew, beside your average Etheopian Jew, to realize than some conversion and/or intermarriage has occurred at some point in the past. :lol:
What's less obvious is whether Palestinian arabs are descended in unbroken line from the ancient peoples of Israel. Strikes me as - equally, or even more, unlikely. Some tiny percentage of genetic ancestry maybe, but the population of Arabs who happen to live in what is now Israel were never isolated from the rest of the melting-pot of the ME and many are recent immigrants themselves; there have been centuries of invasions, migrations, massacres etc. over the last 2000 years. It is like saying your average Turk is a direct descendant of the people of ancient Troy.
Ethnic self-identification has never been about actual genetics, but rather centres on fictive kinship. This has always been true. An Etheopian Jew is Jewish because s/he thinks s/he is, and so do others; same with a Polish Jew. They may share much less genetic material in common than with their non-Jewish neighbours, but no-one cares.
In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.
It is the same irrelevent canard the anti-Semitic crowd plays up with the Kazar connection. I guess I fail to see how being descended from the Kazars makes you a false Jew or something...but they seem to think so.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
Indeed.
If Jews or Israelis think themselves a nation, then they are one.
Quote from: Warspite on November 25, 2009, 10:09:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2009, 02:26:27 AM
Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.
Indeed.
If Jews or Israelis or Palestinians think themselves a nation, then they are one.
:yes:
Yes.
ANd for that matter, Bosnians too.
Or Scots, a particularly interesting case in some ways.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 06:05:18 AM
Regarding Jews, assuming generations of 25 years and no inbreeding (yes, I know...) a person of today would need to reach back in time only between 700 and 800 years to have one billion ancestors, Genetics and evolution do work like that. Asking for any kind of ethnic 'purity' preserved trough History is madness (and I would really prefer 'homogeneity' or 'uniformity' to a loaded word like 'purity').
That assumption is simplistic to the point of absurdity when you look that far back. So if you look back another 200 years, you'll have 256 billion ancestors? I'm pretty sure genetics and evolution don't work like that.
This assumption also fails when it comes specifically to Ashkenazi Jews as well. Ashkenazi Jews are succeptible to a number of genetic conditions tracing back to lack of interbreeding, so the assumption of no inbreeding is also contradicted by history as well as mathematics.
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
Ethnic self-identification has never been about actual genetics, but rather centres on fictive kinship. This has always been true. An Etheopian Jew is Jewish because s/he thinks s/he is, and so do others; same with a Polish Jew. They may share much less genetic material in common than with their non-Jewish neighbours, but no-one cares.
In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.
I think you are somewhat deliberately muddying the waters here. Jews on the whole don't have a common genetic link, but subsets of Jews do, especially Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are not at increased risk of Tay-Sachs because of "fictive kinship".
Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2009, 11:36:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
Ethnic self-identification has never been about actual genetics, but rather centres on fictive kinship. This has always been true. An Etheopian Jew is Jewish because s/he thinks s/he is, and so do others; same with a Polish Jew. They may share much less genetic material in common than with their non-Jewish neighbours, but no-one cares.
In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.
I think you are somewhat deliberately muddying the waters here. Jews on the whole don't have a common genetic link, but subsets of Jews do, especially Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are not at increased risk of Tay-Sachs because of "fictive kinship".
Yes; my express point was that Jews as a whole don't have common genetic kinship. Certainly some sub-groups do, as they have been genetically isolated from their surrounding populations for a long time.
This doesn't of necessity mean that their genetic ancestry traces back to Biblical times of course, as their relative genetic isolation as a sub-population may be of more receint vintage, and probably is.
Consider that Jews formed a sizable percentage of the population in some parts of Eastern Europe, it seems to me pretty probable that, at some point, Judaism was able to attract converts and expand from its base of refugees - perhaps as a result of the Khazar empire. Equally, for at least a few centuries, Jews have been relatively isolated in that part of the world.
There is also some remarkable genetic evidence concerning Jews from southern Africa, who allegedly have a rare genetic marker, indicating a line of descent from a common ancestor. But place such a Jew beside a Polish Jew, and their genetic differences are pretty clearly more significant than their similarities - one is Black and the other is White.
Not to mention there is a LOT of variation even within relatively closed groupings like the Ashkhenaz. Eg my grandmother had blue eyes. I have green.
Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2009, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 06:05:18 AM
Regarding Jews, assuming generations of 25 years and no inbreeding (yes, I know...) a person of today would need to reach back in time only between 700 and 800 years to have one billion ancestors, Genetics and evolution do work like that. Asking for any kind of ethnic 'purity' preserved trough History is madness (and I would really prefer 'homogeneity' or 'uniformity' to a loaded word like 'purity').
That assumption is simplistic to the point of absurdity when you look that far back. So if you look back another 200 years, you'll have 256 billion ancestors? I'm pretty sure genetics and evolution don't work like that.
This assumption also fails when it comes specifically to Ashkenazi Jews as well. Ashkenazi Jews are succeptible to a number of genetic conditions tracing back to lack of interbreeding, so the assumption of no inbreeding is also contradicted by history as well as mathematics.
And that's what the 'Yes, I know...' meant. When you get many generations back, some degree of inbreeding is of course unavoidable. But the existence of inbreeding doesn't negate the main point, IMHO: to expect the Jews of today to be exactly the same ethnic group that they were 2,000 years ago is madness.... in fact, if Ashkenazi do possess such susceptibility but Sefaradi don't, the division Ashkenazi/Sefaradi shows clearly that at least in Spain and Portugal interbreeding was common.
This applies to any human group (other than some very isolated groups like Amazonian and New Guinea aboriginals) but to Jews more than most due to their geographical dispersion.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 26, 2009, 02:32:53 AM
And that's what the 'Yes, I know...' meant. When you get many generations back, some degree of inbreeding is of course unavoidable. But the existence of inbreeding doesn't negate the main point, IMHO: to expect the Jews of today to be exactly the same ethnic group that they were 2,000 years ago is madness.... in fact, if Ashkenazi do possess such susceptibility but Sefaradi don't, the division Ashkenazi/Sefaradi shows clearly that at least in Spain and Portugal interbreeding was common.
This applies to any human group (other than some very isolated groups like Amazonian and New Guinea aboriginals) but to Jews more than most due to their geographical dispersion.
That would be quite a liberal "Yes, I know". Inbreeding wouldn't just be an outlier, after a certain point pretty much everyone inside the isolated group would be inbreeding, so your figure is likely to be off by a huge factor. Assumptions should simplify matters, not completely divorce them from reality.
Alatriste, if you go back far enough, your ancestors overlap in your family tree. The farther back you go, the more they overlap. If your dad and mom have the same ethnic background, chances are they are 6th , 7th or 8th cousins, from several sides of the family tree.
Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2009, 06:29:27 AM
Alatriste, if you go back far enough, your ancestors overlap in your family tree. The farther back you go, the more they overlap. If your dad and mom have the same ethnic background, chances are they are 6th , 7th or 8th cousins, from several sides of the family tree.
Oh, I agree... Actually I would say chances are you and I share some ancestors too.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 26, 2009, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2009, 06:29:27 AM
Alatriste, if you go back far enough, your ancestors overlap in your family tree. The farther back you go, the more they overlap. If your dad and mom have the same ethnic background, chances are they are 6th , 7th or 8th cousins, from several sides of the family tree.
Oh, I agree... Actually I would say chances are you and I share some ancestors too.
I have no doubt of that. There is a reason why sefaradi jews look like spaniards, or should I say, spaniards look sefaradi.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2009, 11:45:42 AM
Eg my grandmother had blue eyes. I have green.
And you call yourself a Jew :rolleyes:
Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2009, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 26, 2009, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 26, 2009, 06:29:27 AM
Alatriste, if you go back far enough, your ancestors overlap in your family tree. The farther back you go, the more they overlap. If your dad and mom have the same ethnic background, chances are they are 6th , 7th or 8th cousins, from several sides of the family tree.
Oh, I agree... Actually I would say chances are you and I share some ancestors too.
I have no doubt of that. There is a reason why sefaradi jews look like spaniards, or should I say, spaniards look sefaradi.
Yup; and Mizrai Jews look like Arabs.
The point being that actual "genetic lineage" isn't the significant factor - membership in the tribe is.
In many forms of Judaism, descent of tribal membership by inheritance is through the mother. This obviously opens the possibility that the dads will not be Jewish.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 11:52:52 AM
In many forms of Judaism, descent of tribal membership by inheritance is through the mother. This obviously opens the possibility that the dads will not be Jewish.
Is someone supposed to keep records on that, or do you go on the honor system?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2009, 11:55:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 11:52:52 AM
In many forms of Judaism, descent of tribal membership by inheritance is through the mother. This obviously opens the possibility that the dads will not be Jewish.
Is someone supposed to keep records on that, or do you go on the honor system?
Everyone knows who their mom is, generally speaking.
Not totally on topic but here is a trailer to a movie coming out soon called "Defamation (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/defamation/)" at Apple.com/trailers.
In the trailer anyways it seems to highlight some of the differences between Israeli Jews and American Jews.
The tag line:
"In the tradition of films such as Roger & Me and Sherman's March, Shamir embarks on a provocative and irreverent quest to answer the question, "What is anti-Semitism today?" Is it an immediate threat on the verge of coalescing into a second Holocaust? Or is it a scare tactic used by right-wing Zionists to discredit their critics? Speaking with the head of the Anti-Defamation League, controversial author Norman Finkelstein, and others, Yoav Shamir sets out to discover the realities of anti-Semitism today. His findings are shocking, enlightening and, surprisingly, often wryly funny."
Quote from: PRC on November 26, 2009, 12:08:18 PM
Not totally on topic but here is a trailer to a movie coming out soon called "Defamation (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/defamation/)" at Apple.com/trailers.
In the trailer anyways it seems to highlight some of the differences between Israeli Jews and American Jews.
The tag line:
"In the tradition of films such as Roger & Me and Sherman's March, Shamir embarks on a provocative and irreverent quest to answer the question, "What is anti-Semitism today?" Is it an immediate threat on the verge of coalescing into a second Holocaust? Or is it a scare tactic used by right-wing Zionists to discredit their critics? Speaking with the head of the Anti-Defamation League, controversial author Norman Finkelstein, and others, Yoav Shamir sets out to discover the realities of anti-Semitism today. His findings are shocking, enlightening and, surprisingly, often wryly funny."
I'd guess the answer to the two questions posed is "neither". :lol:
I sense an excluded middle ...
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 12:01:43 PM
Everyone knows who their mom is, generally speaking.
Not everyone knows who someone else's mom is though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2009, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 12:01:43 PM
Everyone knows who their mom is, generally speaking.
Not everyone knows who someone else's mom is though.
Until quite recently, Jews were pretty community-oriented (many of course still are). Most social community life revolved around the local synagogue. These people would know who you are, would be well aware of births etc.
Now, people's lives in some places in the West are very different; many Jews are not particularly religious, or non-religious, and do not belong to or even visit a synagogue or participate in "the community". But then, it also matters much less to them to be identified as Jews. To those whom it matters, it is basically taken on trust.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 11:52:52 AM
Yup; and Mizrai Jews look like Arabs.
To be honest Israelis look Arab to me. They're a bit more European looking though. Like a mix of Arab and Brazilian.
I've spoken with a number of people and the consensus is that Israel's the most attractive nation in the world. I think it's the national service.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 09:44:44 PM
To be honest Israelis look Arab to me. They're a bit more European looking though. Like a mix of Arab and Brazilian.
I've spoken with a number of people and the consensus is that Israel's the most attractive nation in the world. I think it's the national service.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodmeddler.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Fnatalie-portman.jpg&hash=a102c0d85c34d65117ed3159fbf5d208c76dd47a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi32.tinypic.com%2F2vkf53r.jpg&hash=a860bc65a695cdac363a4a489ce953053234f17e)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 26, 2009, 09:44:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 11:52:52 AM
Yup; and Mizrai Jews look like Arabs.
To be honest Israelis look Arab to me. They're a bit more European looking though. Like a mix of Arab and Brazilian.
I've spoken with a number of people and the consensus is that Israel's the most attractive nation in the world. I think it's the national service.
About half of Israel's population is Mizrai or Shephardic; the other half Ashkenazic. Though with intermarriage you will eventually get a mixture, right now a goodly portion of Israel's population is basically as genetically European as any other Euros.
They do tend to be good looking, and I agree that the national service has something to do with it - you don't see as much obesity. Plus, some Israelis at least have a thing for being physically active, a reaction against the stoop-shouldered scholarly/fat moneylender stereotype of days of yore.
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2009, 09:24:33 AM
They do tend to be good looking, and I agree that the national service has something to do with it - you don't see as much obesity. Plus, some Israelis at least have a thing for being physically active, a reaction against the stoop-shouldered scholarly/fat moneylender stereotype of days of yore.
Yeah. I met loads of Israelis when I was in South America (apparently they all gap year around South-East Asia and South America after national service - benefit of their army money and the desire not to be called up again for a while) and of them all I think I met on chubber. Very impressive really.