14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

. You guys means you and Nick here for an instance when I write, but here we go. Nick doesnt admitt one wrong doing by the israeli government, discuss every matter to the dead end,

Could you yourself state the Israeli government policies that you agree with ?

Or do you comprehensively disagree with whatever Israel does?

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Oh my God, how can you be so DENSE!?!

Islam came AFTER Judaism so it was logical to address previous ABRHAMIC religions.

DUH!

Exactly, good luck with that ! I might be dense, but without any discussion about how things are in real life, how can I understand anything, especially met with hostility like this. I know I do not make it easy for myself, but as we go I might learn something.

Judaism do not accept christianity or Islam! It is a belief system som claims to be the true fact of everything about life on earth, and Judaism do not accept any other belief system, and are chosen by god! Jews are as far as I know the only ones who comit to true judeaism, and you cant be a jew without having jewish bloodline ?

Judaism is a monotheistic faith focused on a covenant between God and the Jewish people, distinct from Christianity and Islam

. It does not accept them as replacements or fulfillments. While it is a, "chosen people" religion often passed through bloodline (matrilineal descent), conversion is possible. 

Reddit +3

Key points regarding your statement:

• Rejection of Other Belief Systems: Judaism does not recognize the theological claims of Christianity (e.g., Trinity, divinity of Jesus) or Islam.

• The "Chosen" Covenant: Jews believe in a specific, direct covenant with God (Yahweh) established at Sinai, centered on following Torah laws.

• Bloodline and Conversion: While it is a, "chosen people" ethnic-religious identity, Judaism is not entirely closed; it is possible to convert, although it is not actively evangelical.

• "True" Judaism: Orthodox Judaism considers its adherence to Torah and Talmud as the true, unbroken tradition. However, other movements (Reform, Conservative) interpret this commitment differently.

• Path for Others: Judaism traditionally teaches the Noahide Laws for non-Jews, meaning they do not need to convert to be righteous, rather than claiming to be the only path for all humanity

21 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Exactly, good luck with that ! I might be dense, but without any discussion about how things are in real life, how can I understand anything, especially met with hostility like this. I know I do not make it easy for myself, but as we go I might learn something.

You should at least know the basics of the topic if you are particpating in the discussion

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You should at least know the basics of the topic if you are particpating in the discussion

I guess we are off a bit, so I think we say enough is enough for today.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Not in every culture. Sparta, National Socialism.....

If you take a tour after midnight at some neighborhood in San Francisco and NY city, you can see all the homo superiority and savagery.

Quote:

A prominent neo-Nazi and former organiser of the National Front has given up his far-right views as well as revealed he is gay and has Jewish heritage.

Kevin Wilshaw was a high-profile figure of the National Front in the 1980s and was speaking at extreme right events as recently as this year.

Speaking to Channel 4 News, he explained he had given up his violent past – which included smashing a chair over someone’s head, vandalising a mosque and being arrested for online hate race offences.

On 2/21/2026 at 3:46 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

[Opinion. As I understand it, the reason America's evangelical "Christians' revere Israel and worship Jerusalem is because... If there is not a State of Israel in the world when Armageddon comes, these Xians won't be raptured. Boo-effing-whoo, eh!]

Antisemitism?

Erika Kirk, widow of slain right-wing preacher, Charlie Kirk, doesn’t hate Jews.

She just thinks they should be Christian.

Bob Milgrim, an audience member whose daughter Sarah was killed in an act of horrific antisemitic violence in May, asked Kirk to condemn antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and anti-Zionism.

This was reasonable. Also odd. Why ask about an antisemitic hate crime when the topic is political violence, occasioned by the assassination of Kirk’s non-Jewish husband Charlie, a Christian nationalist?

“I will pray for you,” she said to Milgram. “It sucks, doesn’t it? Hate is hate.”

This discussion is nonsensical.

Is @unblocktheplanet off his meds, Mommy?

4 hours ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

AhskeNAZI Germany as AshkeNAZI America of today. I have talked to many Jews and a common thing among Jews is their hate of Arabs. Once a Jew told that 1000 Arabs were not worth a fingernail of a Jew. Oh, God's chosen people! The only good Goyim is a dead Goyim or a servant for the "chosen ones". Funny that they can get away with anything and laugh at the Goyim. The Goyim worship them and have no idea...An American Jew wrote an article a few years back where he describe his experiences living in Israel. He mentioned that if you are not trying to take advantage of someone in your daily life in Israel, you are not considered normal.

I suppose you believe the lies you invent, but it still remains rather pathetic when you toss out such nonsense. . As has been explained multiple times, goy in Hebrew means nation. It's first common appearance appears in In Genesis 12:3;

 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

 “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

The Hebrews are told that they shall become a nation and the Hebrew word goy is used."Goy"

It evolved over time to mean other nations, and people of other nations. It only has a negative term when used by ignorant people out of context as you have demonstrated. I really should not have to be teaching a Sunday school class for primary school level children.

You then offer your imagined interactions with "jews". Aside from the delusion being disturbing , it is nonsensical. The majority of jews are Mizrahi and Sephardic. This means that they have origins in the middle east. Are you even aware that the Mizrahi community was more likely to speak Arabic than yiddish because they come from the Middle east and North Africa? They do not use the term goyim. More than 80% of the population is native born and the majority traces its origins from communities forced out of Muslim dominated countries, so it is expected that some will resent the people who forced them out of their former homelands and confiscated their property.

The biblical passages which you reject are part of the Abrahamic covenant and are in the Quran, meaning that muslims, if they are actually devout, must accept the covenant, since it also applies to them.

I doubt very much that you actually know any jewish people other than those who work in social services and with the courts. Your comments are neither rational nor credible.

6 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

I suppose you believe the lies you invent, but it still remains rather pathetic when you toss out such nonsense. . As has been explained multiple times, goy in Hebrew means nation. It's first common appearance appears in In Genesis 12:3;

 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

 “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

The Hebrews are told that they shall become a nation and the Hebrew word goy is used."Goy"

It evolved over time to mean other nations, and people of other nations. It only has a negative term when used by ignorant people out of context as you have demonstrated. I really should not have to be teaching a Sunday school class for primary school level children.

You then offer your imagined interactions with "jews". Aside from the delusion being disturbing , it is nonsensical. The majority of jews are Mizrahi and Sephardic. This means that they have origins in the middle east. Are you even aware that the Mizrahi community was more likely to speak Arabic than yiddish because they come from the Middle east and North Africa? They do not use the term goyim. More than 80% of the population is native born and the majority traces its origins from communities forced out of Muslim dominated countries, so it is expected that some will resent the people who forced them out of their former homelands and confiscated their property.

The biblical passages which you reject are part of the Abrahamic covenant and are in the Quran, meaning that muslims, if they are actually devout, must accept the covenant, since it also applies to them.

I doubt very much that you actually know any jewish people other than those who work in social services and with the courts. Your comments are neither rational nor credible.

Good to hear from you Patong. I was promoted as wash room attendant. It reminds me of your tribe's man, Gene Simmons. Incredible how your tribe censures everything online.

https://archive.org/details/GeneSimmonsThatIsWhatGentilesAreForYouTube

This is from the Epstein files:

Another such email between Jeffrey Epstein and Peggy Siegal, a well-known celebrity publicist, from August 2010, shows a conversation about a party. Peggy was asking whether it was going to be “100% Jew night”. Epstein replied, “No, goyim in abundance- jpmorgan execs brilliant wasps.”

I know I am lying. I am making this stuff up.

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

Exactly, good luck with that ! I might be dense, but without any discussion about how things are in real life, how can I understand anything, especially met with hostility like this. I know I do not make it easy for myself, but as we go I might learn something.

Judaism do not accept christianity or Islam! It is a belief system som claims to be the true fact of everything about life on earth, and Judaism do not accept any other belief system, and are chosen by god! Jews are as far as I know the only ones who comit to true judeaism, and you cant be a jew without having jewish bloodline ?

Judaism is a monotheistic faith focused on a covenant between God and the Jewish people, distinct from Christianity and Islam

. It does not accept them as replacements or fulfillments. While it is a, "chosen people" religion often passed through bloodline (matrilineal descent), conversion is possible. 

Reddit +3

Key points regarding your statement:

• Rejection of Other Belief Systems: Judaism does not recognize the theological claims of Christianity (e.g., Trinity, divinity of Jesus) or Islam.

• The "Chosen" Covenant: Jews believe in a specific, direct covenant with God (Yahweh) established at Sinai, centered on following Torah laws.

• Bloodline and Conversion: While it is a, "chosen people" ethnic-religious identity, Judaism is not entirely closed; it is possible to convert, although it is not actively evangelical.

• "True" Judaism: Orthodox Judaism considers its adherence to Torah and Talmud as the true, unbroken tradition. However, other movements (Reform, Conservative) interpret this commitment differently.

• Path for Others: Judaism traditionally teaches the Noahide Laws for non-Jews, meaning they do not need to convert to be righteous, rather than claiming to be the only path for all humanity

You do not understand the Covenant. It is a requirement to be faithful and to obey the 10 commandments, to be monotheistic. It imposes additional responsibilities to be holy. That's all. Because you do not understand, does not mean it has some secret motive. The Romans did not like this requirement of a greater duty to a deity than to Rome and the sentiment carried over to the Roman empire's successor, the Church of Rome.

Just now, GoodieAfterDark said:

Good to hear from you Paton. I was promoted as wash room attendant. It reminds me of your tribe's man, Gene Simmons. Incredible how your tribe censures everything online.

https://archive.org/details/GeneSimmonsThatIsWhatGentilesAreForYouTube

This is from the Epstein files:

Another such email between Jeffrey Epstein and Peggy Siegal, a well-known celebrity publicist, from August 2010, shows a conversation about a party. Peggy was asking whether it was going to be “100% Jew night”. Epstein replied, “No, goyim in abundance- jpmorgan execs brilliant wasps.”

I know I am lying. I am making this stuff up.

My tribe? I am not a member of the Kiss Army.

He is a patriotic US national very grateful to the USA for the opportunities it gave him as an immigrant kid from Israel. Pity more immigrants were not as grateful to their host nations, especially in Europe, Australia, Canada and the UK.

13 hours ago, cdemundo said:

AS you say:

"These are theological narratives, not courtroom transcripts."

As theological narratives there is no argument, fire at will.

As to supporting any particular events, yes everything in the Gospels should ignored.

Nothing in the Gospels can be taken at face value.

They are not historical accounts.

Believe as you wish, but your beliefs are not a basis for historical claims.

The discussion here is about who killed Jesus of Nazareth.

That is unknown and unknowable as a historical question.

Again, it is unknown and unknowable who killed Jesus of Nazareth.

Again, you have admitted that the Gospels are theological narratives, not historical accounts.

Easy to agree with that.

edit: just realized that you are the... "person" who posted

"Having murdered him"

So that is far beyond a theological claim and it is not an innocent statement.

Time to agree to disagree don't you think?

Instigated his demise?

15 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

Instigated his demise?

It would seem you have not understood your own post.

AS you say:

"These are theological narratives, not courtroom transcripts."

15 hours ago, cdemundo said:

There is no historical record of any events surrounding the death of Jesus.

There are a group of inconsistent stories and you are referring to them as if they are somehow historical.

There is no historical record to support the story that Jewish leadership accused and pressed Pilate.

There is no historical record to support the story that Rome judged, sentenced, and killed Jesus.

There is actually no historical record that he was crucified.

But if he was, that was a Roman punishment.

So the original post that I responded to, that the Jews killed Jesus, is untrue.

15 hours ago, cdemundo said:

Not to belabor the point, but scholars from various fields are in broad agreement about the historical existence of Jesus, and about his crucifixion, based on some existing texts by historians contemporary with the period who mention these events, and based on other evaluative tools that professional historians utilize in piecing together events from antiquity. Wikipedia’s page on <Crucifixion of Jesus> discusses these issues, particular the “Historicity” section, and if you’re a Wikipedia skeptic, the article is heavily annotated, so you can go back to the source articles.

 

Are we absolutely certain that the Jewish Elders condemned Jesus and that the Romans then carried out the execution? No, but I think, based on centuries of research, we can be reasonably certain, which has to be good enough. Are we absolutely certain how Hitler, Eva Braun, and Blondi were killed? You tell me.

 

More pertinent perhaps is the way in which the statement “the Jews killed Jesus” has been twisted into a trope that has been effectively exploited by antisemites for centuries. Actually, if it’s true (as it likely is) that some Jews (the Jewish Elders) had a hand in killing Jesus, that’s the least antisemitic statement you can make. It demonstrates that Jewish people in power, when challenged, behave exactly the same as other people in power; and that Jews are in fact the same as everyone else.

17 hours ago, cdemundo said:

Not sure what you are trying to say.

But you posted:

"Instigation: Jewish leadership accused and pressed Pilate.

Decision & Execution: Rome judged, sentenced, and killed."

There is no historical record of any events surrounding the death of Jesus.

There is no historical record to support the story that Jewish leadership accused and pressed Pilate.

There is no historical record to support the story that Rome judged, sentenced, and killed Jesus.

There is actually no historical record that he was crucified.

There is no historical record...except the Bible, which some might characterise as hysterical.

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

If it have everything to do about the promised land? What then?

It depends on who was doing the promising. Would seem to was the Brits. They forgot there were already people living there, fellow Semites.

16 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Have you noticed all the other wars currently going on in the World ?

But honestly, couldnt you give it a rest about the war in Gaza ?

Theres plenty of threads about the Gaza war where you can go on about war crimes and genocide and concertration camps

This isn't one of them. This is about Charlie Kirk's crusade.

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Islam and Christianity came AFTER Judaism so it was logical to address previous ABRAHAMIC religions.

Judaism as the first had nothing to address in that way.

I daresay every culture coming before Judaism had codified beliefs and superstitions. Nature-worshippers, fire-worshippers, water-worshippers aso. We call these pagan or primitive in a derogatory sense. But we would be well to return to them to forestall our extinction. Judaism was hardly the first although there is no, hehe, historical record.

4 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It depends on who was doing the promising. Would seem to was the Brits. They forgot there were already people living there, fellow Semites.

Read the Prophecy

However the brits had promised the Palestinians land and complicated the process, however the Jews post war world 2 put alot more pressure on the Alliance than the arabs, so ? The results we see today. Short explanation after the promised land.

Key Aspects of the Promised Land Prophecy:

• The Covenant (Genesis 12, 17): God promises Abraham that his descendants will become a great nation and inherit the land of Canaan.

• Definition of the Land (Joshua 1:4): The land is generally defined as the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, historically stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, often referred to as Israel or Palestine.

• Conditional Possession (Deuteronomy 30): While the covenant is "everlasting," the actual occupation of the land was contingent on obedience to God. Disobedience led to exile, yet the prophecy promised a future, permanent gathering.

• Prophetic Restoration (Deuteronomy 30:3-5): Many scriptures predict that after periods of dispersion, God will gather the people back to their land, spiritually restore them, and deliver them from enemies.

• Modern Interpretation: Many see the establishment of the modern State of Israel as the beginning of the fulfillment of this ancient,, biblical, prophecy. 

  Christians for Social Action +5

Actually, the British famously made

contradictory promises to both parties during World War I: 

Al Jazeera +1

• To the Arabs (Palestinians): Through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence(1915–1916), Britain promised to recognize Arab independence in exchange for a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. While the exact boundaries were debated, Arabs understood this to include Palestine.

• To the Jews: In the Balfour Declaration (1917), Britain officially expressed support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". 

  https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/faviconV2?url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu&client=AIM&size=128&type=FAVICON&fallback_opts=TYPE,SIZE,URLYale Law - Avalon Project +5

To complicate things further, they also signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) with France, which planned to place most of Palestine under international administration. 

Al Jazeera +1

Decades later, the White Paper of 1939 did shift policy toward an independent Palestinian state within ten years, but by then, the conflicting legacy of these earlier promises was already a central driver of the conflict. 

Wikipedia +1

16 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

OK, so Jews originate from the West bank/Judea .

The West bank is the Jewish homeland

I think many Israeli Jews would have a hard time accepting relocation to the West Bank and leaving Tel Aviv aso to Palestinians.

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There you go again with using the chosen people and promised land things as a crude cudgel to obviously suggest all Jews deserve disdain.

That's not criticism. That's an ignorant agenda to rationalize antisemitism.

Personally, I am an equal opportunity joker, have you heard the one about three Zoroastrians walk into a bar or the Sikh who came home with his turban unwound...

Everybody needs to lighten up, grow a skin, take a joke. The world would be a far better place.

16 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Could you yourself state the Israeli government policies that you agree with ?

Or do you comprehensively disagree with whatever Israel does?

The Basic Law is the one I agree with.

The new Israeli state could not agree on a constitution until  its third Knesset in 1955. The first laws from 1948 dealt with the creation of the IDF, intended to unify and absorb Zionist paramilitary units operating since 1920.

Haganah was an underground Zionist army, Irgun, or Etzel, didn’t think Haganah went far enough in attacking both British authorities and Arab populations. Lehi split off from Irgun to assassinate British officials and conduct militant operations.

All these sound pretty crazy, as does the IDF today. Hashomer was the first Jewish self-defence organisation in Palestine, from 1909-1920 when it was replaced by Haganah.

During the Hashomer period, migrants mostly got along with their Arab neighbours. They also had some genuine pacifists like Joseph Abileah.

However, in 2026, Israel is not focused on self-determination but on military aggression.

Key areas of policy include: 

• Security & Defense: Under the Netanyahu government, policies emphasize "Swords of Iron" initiatives, increased demolition of Palestinian homes in Areas A, B, and C, and a strong, proactive approach to national security.

• Judiciary & Law: Pushing for a significant restructuring of the judicial system, aimed at reducing the Supreme Court's power to strike down legislation and giving the government more influence over judicial appointments.

• West Bank & Settlement: Continued, accelerated expansion of settlements and increased control over the West Bank, often described as a policy of "de facto annexation".

• Foreign Policy & Economy: Promoting foreign investment while managing a centralized screening mechanism for foreign ownership. Policies also include strengthening relations with allies, supporting the Jewish diaspora, and, in some sectors, controlling prices in designated monopolies.

• Internal Affairs & Society: Enacting policies such as bans on certain symbols (e.g., Palestinian flags) in public spaces and strengthening the Jewish character of the state as defined

Key Policy Drivers

The current administration focuses on: 

National Security: A central pillar involving strict enforcement and security cabinet decisions.

Judicial Reform: Reducing the power of the judiciary.

Economic Liberalization: Encouraging competition while managing essential services.

The analysis above and the IDF practices contradict Israel’s constitution.

Basic-Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992)

Passed on March 17, 1992, by the Twelfth Knesset.

The law determines that the basic human rights in Israel are based on the recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of his life, and his being a free person. The purpose of the law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to anchor the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, in a basic law. The law defines human freedom in Israel as being the right to leave the country and enter it, as well as the right to privacy and intimacy, refrainment from searches relating to one's private property, body and possessions, and avoidance of violations of the privacy of one's speech, writings and notes. Violations of the dignity or freedom of man is permitted only in accordance with the law. The law includes an instruction regarding its permanence and protection from changes by means of emergency regulations.

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The Mizrahi community was more likely to speak Arabic than Yiddish because they come from the Middle east and North Africa? They do not use the term goyim. More than 80% of the population is native born and the majority traces its origins from communities forced out of Muslim dominated countries, so it is expected that some will resent the people who forced them out of their former homelands and confiscated their property.

Thank you, Patong. This is a very sensible Friday School for those who know nothing about Judaism. We should also have such responsible discussions here about Islam and Christianity with the usual rancour.

What language did the original Jewish immigrants speak, say 1880s to 1920? I assume their native language was Yiddish. I really like Yiddish literature, poetry & theatre.

But they must have had to learn Arabic to communicate with their neighbours.

So why Hebrew? It is cettainly not as pleasantly euphonic as Yiddish so I assume it was a political (?) statement of some sort.

I have been reading & watching a bit about antisemitism.

Philip Roth's The Plot Against America is worth reading and the six-part TV series worth watching. The Man in the High Castle TV series is not as direct.

Okay, some knee-jerk is going to object to this book title. You should have no complaints about an author named Kaufman. Jewhooing the Sixties: American Celebrity and Jewish Identity. Sandy Koufax, Lenny Bruce, Bob Dylan, Barbra Streisand are the only celebrities discussed. I think that's too bad because there are a lot of American Jews making the rest of us happy.

We have to remember who bore the brunt of the Red Scare 1918-1920--Jewish immigrants. The McCarthy-McCarran era, the House Committee on Un-American Activities [sic] targeted American Jews in the media and entertainment industries. Some of these individuals were completely blackballed and never regained fame or status or celebrity, unable to work.

Have Jews always been persecuted, to a greater extent than any other group? We all know the answer is yes. I just can't figure out why.

3 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Not to belabor the point, but scholars from various fields are in broad agreement about the historical existence of Jesus, and about his crucifixion, based on some existing texts by historians contemporary with the period who mention these events, and based on other evaluative tools that professional historians utilize in piecing together events from antiquity. Wikipedia’s page on <Crucifixion of Jesus> discusses these issues, particular the “Historicity” section, and if you’re a Wikipedia skeptic, the article is heavily annotated, so you can go back to the source articles.

 

Are we absolutely certain that the Jewish Elders condemned Jesus and that the Romans then carried out the execution? No, but I think, based on centuries of research, we can be reasonably certain, which has to be good enough. Are we absolutely certain how Hitler, Eva Braun, and Blondi were killed? You tell me.

 

More pertinent perhaps is the way in which the statement “the Jews killed Jesus” has been twisted into a trope that has been effectively exploited by antisemites for centuries. Actually, if it’s true (as it likely is) that some Jews (the Jewish Elders) had a hand in killing Jesus, that’s the least antisemitic statement you can make. It demonstrates that Jewish people in power, when challenged, behave exactly the same as other people in power; and that Jews are in fact the same as everyone else.

There are no "existing texts by historians contemporary with the period who mention these events".

There is Josephus with a probable interpolation.

Tacitus with a description of what Christians believed to be true.

It is not in contention that Christians believed the Gospel stories to be true.

That's it.

At best on the most generous interpretation these sources may support that Jesus existed, nothing about the detailed description of his trial and execution.

If you accept Josephus that Jesus was condemned by Pilate but nothing more that I am aware of.

It was the Romans who were pagans who executed jesus ,,,, Not the local jews many of the loved him,,,,,although a small minority of greedy temple priests and politicians wanted him out of the way same as the Romans did ....

On 2/21/2026 at 4:12 PM, MIke B Bad said:

Why don't Jews love Jesus, Mommy?

Having murdered him it would take some serious spin to get to......... 'they now love him'

Are you somehow trying to claim that the Romans who's strapped Christ up onto a cross were Jewish? Or is that just a bizarre crackpot meme that you're repeating?

On 2/22/2026 at 10:40 PM, Jingthing said:

One thing about Jesus that we do know for a fact.

The Jews killed Jesus trope has been used for thousands of years to rile up people to persecute and murder Jews

I see this topic as a cynical ploy to inflame that age old excuse yet again.

They (the local Jewish populace) were given the choice between him and Barabas. He got the short straw at the vote.

Pilate washed his hands of the matter history tells us.

Hardly a trope.

4 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Thank you, Patong. This is a very sensible Friday School for those who know nothing about Judaism. We should also have such responsible discussions here about Islam and Christianity with the usual rancour.

What language did the original Jewish immigrants speak, say 1880s to 1920? I assume their native language was Yiddish. I really like Yiddish literature, poetry & theatre.

But they must have had to learn Arabic to communicate with their neighbours.

So why Hebrew? It is cettainly not as pleasantly euphonic as Yiddish so I assume it was a political (?) statement of some sort.

Of course it was a political decision.

The ideology of political Zionism is that Jews living in the diaspora for thousands of years had been a very negative experience, so thus a return to the source homeland of the Jewish people, Israel, and a nation state dominated by Jewish people where Jewish people could determine their own affairs was the only hope for improvement and survival. It wasn't a Yiddish nationalist movement. It was and is Zionism. Jews for thousands of years didn't say Next Year in Minsk, they said Next Year in Jerusalem.

Hebrew wasn't a modern spoken language before Zionists intentionally worked to make it so. Ancient Hebrew isn't modern Hebrew any more than ancient Greek is modern Greek. Modern Hebrew happens to take a lot of words from Arabic.

I'm writing this off hand, not as a scholar, but I think I've basically said the gist of it, more or less.

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course it was a political decision.

The ideology of political Zionism is that Jews living in the diaspora for thousands of years had been a very negative experience, so thus a return to the source homeland of the Jewish people, Israel, and a nation state dominated by Jewish people where Jewish people could determine their own affairs was the only hope for improvement and survival. It wasn't a Yiddish nationalist movement. It was and is Zionism. Jews for thousands of years didn't say Next Year in Minsk, they said Next Year in Jerusalem.

Hebrew wasn't a modern spoken language before Zionists intentionally worked to make it so. Ancient Hebrew isn't modern Hebrew any more than ancient Greek is modern Greek. Modern Hebrew happens to take a lot of words from Arabic.

I'm writing this off hand, not as a scholar, but I think I've basically said the gist of it, more or less.

Modern Zionism was primarily a late-19th-century European nationalist movement shaped by the political currents of Europe at the time. It emerged in Vienna, Warsaw, Odessa and Berlin - not in Jerusalem, Baghdad or Fez. Its founders were largely secular, European Jews responding to European nationalism and antisemitism.

The idea that Jews for “thousands of years” were politically oriented toward statehood in Jerusalem oversimplifies Jewish history. The traditional phrase “Next Year in Jerusalem” was religious and messianic, not a concrete political program. For most of Jewish history, the return to Zion was framed as divine redemption, not a secular nation-state built through diplomacy, colonization and war.

It’s also historically relevant that many early Zionist leaders consciously reshaped identity in European nationalist fashion. Hebraizing surnames was not incidental - it was part of a deliberate nation-building project.

• David Ben-Gurion was born David Grün.

• Moshe Sharett was born Moshe Shertok.

• Levi Eshkol was born Levi Shkolnik.

• Golda Meir was born Golda Mabovitch.

• Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, Benzion Mileikowsky, changed the family name to Netanyahu decades before his son entered politics.

These were overwhelmingly European names. The changes symbolized a conscious break from diaspora identities and an attempt to create a new Hebrew national culture. That suggests modern Zionism was not simply a timeless continuation of biblical identity, but a modern ideological project shaped by European nationalist models.

On language: it is correct that Hebrew had not been a vernacular for centuries. Its revival in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was intentional social engineering, led by figures like Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. Modern Hebrew is indeed a reconstructed language with heavy borrowing and innovation - much like other revived or standardized national languages in Europe. That reinforces the point that Zionism functioned as a modern nation-building movement, not merely the unfolding of an uninterrupted ancient political program.

None of this denies that Jewish religious tradition maintained attachment to Jerusalem. But it does challenge the framing that modern political Zionism is simply the natural and inevitable expression of a 2,000-year political consensus. Historically, it was one ideological response among several (others included religious messianism, Bundism, liberal assimilationism, etc.), and it was shaped profoundly by European history and European nationalism.

FYI, adapted by AI.

OMG -- I never said that political Zionism was an ancient ideology!

That's straw man garbage.

Zionism as a political ideology is OF COURSE relatively modern. DUH.

That said, many people false believe it's start was related to the holocaust. Nope. It started long before that.