#the happy dhimmi myth

[former-leftist-jew]

You know they speak Arabic in Morocco for the same reason they speak French in Canada, right?

Bonus points:

Nazi dumbfuck

It’s like Zionists have one strategy when their ideology manifests as genocide. Israel is a racial separatist state. It practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing, that’s why fascists like it. A two-birds (a flock of birds)-one stone scenario for fascists is that the state of Israel encourages self-deportation of Jews, has an incredibly consequential lobby in American politics, is committing an obvious yet somehow easy-to-deny genocide of Muslims, and does all of that while forcefully claiming it is nothing less than synonymous with Judaism itself.

Zionism is Jewish Mormonism.

I can’t believe I didn’t realize that until this ask. I won’t elaborate unless someone asks in good faith and gives me like a week to write an essay, but I’ll stand by that analysis.

Lmao.

[tzipporahs-well]

While OSP's videos are generally very good, they do fall a bit into the "Happy Dhimmi" myth.

Blue has an unfortunate tendency to gloss over Muslim antisemitism, and many of the wrongs of the Ottoman Empire.

Yes I would absolutely agree with that. I think some of it was addressed in the Maimonides (video made 3 years ago) and Medieval Spain and Al-Andalusia videos (5 years ago) where more fundamentalist Muslims (Almoravids and Almohads) started taking over, but there is still an overall sunny-ish outlook.

I think one of the problems is that it is a very prevalent myth that has been spread for many years where I see even history books pushing it (AP world history textbook looking at you) and academia debating if it was really that bad or if even The Pact of Umar was heavily enforced/strictly followed (it was really bad and saw variable enforcement dependent on the ruler’s whim).

Even our own history books pushed it, at least in the 19th century (see Heinrich Graetz) and/or play the comparison game (“it was not as bad as in Xtian lands.”) In the history book of A Short History of the Jews by Raymond P. Scheindlin (generally a good book; a book I had to read for my conversion), there is more about the “prosperous time” and our accomplishments in the chapter “The Jews in the Islamic World” (632 CE to 1500 CE) compared to the more negative stuff. Only later does it discuss how life for Jews severely deteriorated under Muslim rule even though dhimmi status was by in no way good. The fact that Jewish life in medieval Spain is even called the Sephardic Golden Age and a Sephardic Silver Age at all emphasizes how much our history…sucked.

I think one reason Jewish sources try to focus on “the good” is cultural. We are encouraged to look for and focus on the good even when our circumstances really suck. But when it is not based in truth, that’s where the problem lies.

We have to be willing to look our true history in the eye: the good and the bad. The way I see our dhimmi status in Muslim lands: we made the best of a bad situation where all options around us weren’t great especially by modern standards. We accomplished great things, but we still faced the yoke of oppressive dhimmitude.

The problem comes from when “not as bad as” (relative for the time period where treatment of Jews generally sucked and treatment varied dependent on state and ruler) turns into “good actually” especially in modern lenses, which is categorically untrue. If anything, the pattern of Jewish history in Muslim-ruled lands was eerily similar to the Xtian one (Aish). Jews were invited for a little bit as second class citizens under the ruler’s “protection.” Then when they got tired of us or we became too comfortable/“too big for our britches”, we got kicked out or killed…again.

At the very least, Muslim oppression of Jews was briefly touched on in the OSP summary video. It is an imperfect video while still better than certain other summary views on the topic.

Still, I do wish that the happy dhimmi myth was busted more.

[eretzyisrael]

by Eunice G. Pollack and Stephen H. Norwood

Many Arabs stressed that even before "Zionist ... pretensions" threatened the "happy relationship" between Muslims and Jews, it had been disrupted by the imposition of European colonial rule.[13] They informed their Western audiences that Jews had "enjoyed all the privileges and rights of citizenship" before colonialism introduced an "artificial separation" between Muslim and Jew. A Moroccan political leader insisted that for this reason the Jews had "welcomed" the overthrow of colonial rule and the return of "Arabization" and the establishment of the independent Muslim nation.[14]

Contrary to the Arabs' contentions, however, it was the colonial powers that had extended citizenship (e.g., Algeria in 1870), equality or near-equality (e.g., the French Protectorate in Morocco, 1912–1956) to the Jews, liberating them at last from their status as subjugated, humiliated dhimmis, and ending the oppressive jizya, the tribute always exacted by the Muslims. Thus Jews had strongly endorsed the colonial presence, generally embracing modern European education and culture.[15] It was under British occupation (1882–1922) that Jews in Egypt felt safest. Notably, under Islamic rule, it was only the Ottoman Empire that, in an effort to secure European support—and modern weapons—issued an Imperial Edict (1856) that, in theory, extended equal rights to all its subjects. In practice, however, Ottoman governors (pashas) confined themselves to collecting taxes, while local rulers and the populace—for example, the Mamluks in Egypt—continued to persecute, pillage, and impose additional "heavy levies" on the Jews. Thus most Jews not only supported European colonial rule, but feared the independence movements, with the threat of return to their earlier subordinate "social, political and economic" positions.[16]

Islamic Myths about Jews' Inherent Traits

Arab commentators readily dismissed over two centuries of travelers' accounts and investigative reports that belied their claims about the conditions and contentment of Jews under Islamic rule. They simply turned to another hoary myth in order to protect their current fable. The Arabs discarded all the testimony that contradicted their narrative, explaining that it had been derived largely from Jews, whom the Qur'an characterized as congenitally deceitful, never to be trusted.[17]

At times, political and religious leaders conceded that the Jews in Muslim lands had been relentlessly subjugated, relying on another large cache of myths, drawn or extrapolated from the Qur'an, to sanctify their abasement of those they now identified as "the dogs of humanity." Indeed, from the earliest years of Islam, Muslims had understood that "their deadliest enemies were the Jews."[19] They were the only people cursed in the Qur'an, whom Allah had promised "degradation in this world and a mighty chastisement in the next world." Muslim theologians recognized that the Jews were "like germs of a malignant disease where one germ is sufficient to eliminate an entire nation." But, they taught, "the Holy Qur'an ... constitutes the microscope through which we can see the pests and poisons that reside in their minds and hearts." Thanks to Qur'anic lessons on how to subdue the Jews, the Muslims were "the only people on earth to tolerate them" in their midst.[20]

Citing the Qur'an, prominent Muslim educators portrayed the Jews as driven throughout their history to bring "blind sedition ... and intrigue in any land or community where they happened to live." Some suggested that this was likely "why the Israelites ... were so detested by all surrounding tribes."[21] Others explained that "the Jews themselves have not changed" because, "according to ... their false Torah," they "are required to stir war with their neighbors once they have the opportunity to do so." Some added that the Jews often preferred to deploy "conspiracies, plots, intrigues [and] sedition" because they were inherently "cowards and could not openly face their enemy."[22]

Not acknowledging a contradiction, many spokesmen insisted that "the Jews have always been criminal aggressors." Jews claim that they are victims, "subjected [throughout] their long history" to "oppression and persecution" "for no other reason than their being followers of Moses." In truth, "the hatred felt by various peoples ... for Jews was not due to their belief, but their ... unchangeable behavior, always based on exploitation, ingratitude and evil-doing in return for kindness." That is, the "criminal aggressors" only deceptively identify as innocent victims.[23] Educators taught that the Jews are "avaricious, ruthless, cruel, hypocritical and revengeful. These traits govern their lives." They point out that the Qur'an warned that, if permitted, the Jews would "become great tyrants." They conclude: "No good is expected of them unless they live under the aegis of Islam as loyal and obedient subjects." Then the Muslims "will treat them ... tolerantly." "Islamic tolerance is," after all, in complete contrast to "Jewish intolerance and cruelty."[24]

[former-leftist-jew]

Arab Muslim ethnostates are fine, tho.

You know they speak Arabic in Morroco for the same reason they speak French in Canada, right?

Which makes sense, given Arab Muslims' violent, religious, colonial history.

Source: @joshmayfieldartist on Instagram

[notetaeker]

Stop promoting the "Happy dhimmi" myth.

Good morning,

I’m welcome to discussion if you provide things to discuss. Please bring some historical or legislation for us to look through and not just random unsubstantiated commands.

If someone brings evidence and can convince me about the truth, then I am willing to accept it, and I hope that you are that way too. But that is something that is more likely to happen through discussion than by telling someone to stop doing something fhfjdjdk

And if you don’t want to do research then you can always ask lol I’m happy to point you in the right direction because I have done my research. I never post or say anything about history especially without researching it first.

[socialjusticefail]

This piece talks about a myth of a group of people being happy about their situation. This focuses on Jim Crow south and Jews under Muslims in the Middle East before the Balfour Declaration.

[newnitz]

We aren't afraid of being treated like Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians. We're afraid of being treated like stateless Jews have always been treated.

I keep seeing this myth that everything was hunky dory in the Middle East before Israel showed up, and this asinine idea that the only reason anyone would have misgivings about the safety of Jews in a theoretical one-state solution is out of racism against Arabs.

This so deeply rooted in an EMBARRASSING lack of historical knowledge that it honestly makes me want to pull my hair out. I am so fucking sick of people who do not do even the barest, most basic historical understanding of the history of Israel or of Palestine, or of Jewish history broadly or specifically in the Middle East, nonetheless making wildly popular and confidently incorrect posts about what they've heard other Tumblr and TikTok dipshits spout.

[former-leftist-jew]

@rassanharas also, can you please explain the Jaffa riots of 1921 and the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and the Farhud in Bagdad of 1941?

Furthermore, do you see any parallels between Uncle Tom and the Happy Dhimmi Myth: Re-imagining Subjugation in the Islamic World and the Antebellum South?

I cannot even begin to articulate how much I want every single person on Earth to see this

[former-leftist-jew]

Nope. Try again.

Also, if we're keeping score:

Bonus points:

You don't support Arabs, you just hate Jews. That's also unfair.

You don't support Israel, you just hate Arabs. That's also unfair.

[extremely-tired-jew]

I'm not as viscerally upset about the video as some other people are, but I also don't think it was very good.

Defence of a lot of the stuff that wasn't very good is, and I don't disagree, "it's only 13 minutes" and the length of delivery necessitates skimmin and simplifications. And that's true.

But hey, you could've saved several minutes by just not talking about zionism or medinat israel, because frankly, they are not topics germane to the discussion of judaism as a religion.

Also I don't see what's so hard about leading into the topic with 'jews are a people, a tribe, a nation, an ethnicity, and judaism is the religion of this tribe' - now you've solved the 'I'm a jew, but I don't believe in god' thing that is so hecking confusing for westerners. - and then you talk about judaism, the religion of the jews, which by all accounts is what it's supposed to be about. It's Crash Course Religion, talk about the religion!

Also yeah, agreed, it's. let's say. interesting. how carefully written around and unmentioned the SWANA/MENA jewish communities were. Interesting how the only antisemitism that has ever existed was european. Why are the beta israel of note, crash course? What makes them different from the lemba and the igbo and the abayudaya communities, huh? is it perhaps the persecution that required them being airlifted out because people who are not european can also be antisemitic? happy dhimmi myth alive and well from a presenter with a bachelor's degree in religious studies focused on caliphate era islam. plenty talk of the diasporas and the expulsions, but real careful to never say from where or by whom. real interesting.

So, yesterday (well, last night to me but that does count as yesterday), Crash Course uploaded a video in their Religions series, about Judaism. Now, I haven't watched any video other than this one, but if this one is any metric to measure by.... well, it's bad. Really bad.

To start, the introduction starts with "shabbat toothbrushes", where John Green describes to us how (some) jews will brush their teeth on shabbat, while ensuring to not break any of the melachot, or prohibited actions. This, in my opinion, as an orthodox jew, is.... quite a framing to start with. Especially since immediately after that introduction, John Green let's us know that there are other jews! who don't do this! and just... sir, I'm an orthodox jew. Sure, I don't do follow that rule on the shabbat- sorry, the sabbath which you then explain is the shabbat to jews (the word Sabbath comes from the hebrew Shabbat), but I follow a lot of rules that folks find strange! And I do not appreciate a video talking about jews sidelining orthodox jews. Framing the video in that way is clearly an attempt to make Jews seem more "mainstream", but it erases, estranges, and (this happens more later on) villifies orthodox jews. Which isn't fair.

But we just started this 13 minute video. At this point last night, I sighed and figured this was going to be just your regular old "Orthodox Jews are strange and bad" sort of video, and resigned myself to that. And then I looked at the sections of the video. One of which included Zionism in it. And I immediately got more worried, because John and Hank donated through Project For Awesome to UNWRA which are.... very linked to Hamas, including there being evidence of UNWRA employees participating in the Oct. 7th Massacre. But okay. Maybe this video will be fine.

Spoiler alert: It wasn't. It was so incredibly bad. John Green admits at the start of the video that Judaism is complex, great! Now explain tha complexity correctly! no. So he starts off his history with... Ya'akov Avinu, sorry- Jacob. Who's a descendant of Avraham Avinu, sorry- Abraham (John uses the english names and not the hebrew one and it just bothers me). Which like... no, Jewish history starts with Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. In addition, a large majority of his sources are non jewish sources which is just. Why. There are so many jewish sources on Judaism!

As this is getting long, I'm gonna put a tl;dr here and then a read more cut. The tl;dr is this - the video is a horrendously western view of Judaism video, that seems to be written by non-jews who don't have any expertise in Judaism. It is filled with misrepresentation of jews, especially religious ones, is severely lacking pretty much all of jewish history, doesn't mention MENA/SWANA jews at all, and is quite frankly a disappointment. I'm mad and sad and upset and most of all disappointed with crash course for creating this video.

Still with me? great. I'm wordy and I have twelve minutes of this video to go through still. To make this a bit more organized, I'm gonna go according to the sections that John Green himself gave, and give a summary of what he said and what is wrong or misrepresented there.

The Many Versions of Judaism (aka, somehow not our history nor our story) there are a few things wrong/upsetting here. First off, as I said above, the fact that he uses the English names. Second off, the fact that he, bafflingly, starts the story with Ya'akov getting the name Yisrael, aka when Ya'akov fights with the angel. John then takes this to explain that Jews today still wrestle with Hashem in our own way, but in a... shall I say tumblr style reductionist way. Y'know, the "jews shake lemon at gd angrily behind a denny's" way. This chapter is the only one that will ever mention the ancient Israelites, and never the tie to the land of Israel itself. In addition to this, he describes Judaism as monotheistic, but that "half of religious jews today believe in some other spiritual force, and not the gd of the Hebrew Bible" which had me going what in the what. Just. No. like, sure, i'm a vaguely agnostic-atheist religious jew and uh, no? And I found his source, and well, if I had to guess - the jews who responded assumed that the god they were being asked about was the one in the xtian bible - and so answered no, while John assumed said jews meant the gd of the tanakh, aka hashem. Third, his "devil's advocate" scene is just. Once again, putting down Orthodox Jews, and compares without change Jewish Religious Institutions with Xtian ones. To quote "for a lot of jews, it's more about action than faith", I'd argue, personally, that that line is correct for most jews, as our religion is not really one of belief (orthodoxy) but of action (orthopraxy). And also, I'll paraphrase "many jewish people consider following Jewish law to be the most important thing" yes! yes we do! and not just many, most, that's! the whole! shtick! for us!! (and yes i'm aware this is a simplification). He also manages to vaguely describe Judaism as an ethnicity, and explain that some Jews are connected to the ancestral history (without explaining what that is, no connection to Israel here no sirree), which I guess is fine-ish? (it does not)

The Written Torah So here he starts off with saying that we'll focus on the torah and not the tanakh, as the torah is how we jews conceptualize our relationship to gd and each other. Except that... we also use the rest of the Tanakh for that! (minor kudos to him for saying that the tanakh was written by the ancient israelites. Just no mention of why there were ancient israelites and then we had to come back). The torah gives us most of our rules, but the tanakh expands on them, and teaches us how we choose to treat hashem, how we treat each other. When Jews say the written torah, we do oftentimes also mean the rest of the tanakh. Frankly, going through his sources, I can't figure out what source he used for this claim, except that he uses a lot of non-jewish sources (like the britannica), and very few Jewish ones which is just... why, you can clearly see these jewish sources exist, why not use them? I understand that this is meant to be lighthearted, but he compares the five books of the torah to seasons of friends, which is kinda eeeh. And added to that, his descriptor for bamidbar or numbers is "the ancient israelites wander and suffer through the wilderness" (paraphrased). First off, it was the desert, and second off this is exactly where in the torah we get all of the mitzvot and how to treat each other and hashem. This is it!! why name the book/"season" wrong?? He then continues and talks about how the themes of exile and return are common in the torah, and continue to resonate today, and yet doesn't... explain... the history of us being exiled. Instead, we take a tangent into antisemitism, specifically the plague related kind. Which... fine, I know he's got a liking for that aspect of history, but there's so much more. Of course, he also mentions that the Pope was one of the influential people who pushed back against it and... just... sigh. We're talking the catholic church here. The same catholic church WHO BLAMED JEWS FOR KILLING JESUS TILL THE NINETEEN SIXTIES. If the pope pushed back against it, it was because us jews had more value alive, not because he thought we had inherent value as people. Of course, since we're talking antisemitism, John only talks about xtian antisemitism. The "happy dhimmi" myth is alive and kicking in this video, as there is absolutely no mention of antisemitism within the non-western world. IN ADDITION, by framing the antisemitism the way he did - that the "dumb europeans" attacked the jews but their religious leaders were against it, John inadvertently erases antisemitism by non religious people, and by religious leaders. Both of which are and were alive and well.

Zionism (aka, I had to put this in here otherwise the tankies would yell at me, and I made a mess of it) And then we have this digression, which makes zero sense in the context of the story John is attempting to tell, into Zionism. There is no reason for it, and if it had to be in the video, it should have, quite frankly, gone in at the end. But that is only the start of the woes that I have to say on this section. To start, the amount of sources here are negligeble as compared to the other sections (note the numbers, all previous sources were for the other two sections)

48. Encyclopaedia Britannica | Zionism 49. University of Michigan | Zionism  50. Ben-Israel, Hedva. “Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects.” Israel Studies 8, no. 1 (2003): 91–104. 51. Ghanem, As’ad. “Israel’s Second-Class Citizens: Arabs in Israel and the Struggle for Equal Rights.” Foreign Affairs 95, no. 4 (2016): 37–42. 52. Halpern, Ben (2004) [1990]. "The Rise and Reception of Zionism in the Nineteenth Century". In Goldscheider, Calvin; Neusner, Jacob (eds.). Social Foundations of Judaism (2nd ed.). Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publ. pp. 94–113. 53. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise| Zionism: Anti-Zionism Among Jews

[copied from the source sheet]

I haven't read the sources, so I'm not going to talk about them, but the fact that only half of the sources seem to have been written by jews is... not great. At all. And then there's how John introduces and talks about the topic. John compares the themes of exile and return in the Torah and Tanakh to the narrative told by Zionists, and mentions Zionism being a political movement. All of this is correct. However, what John is very obviously missing here is the history of Jews within the land of Israel. He talks about how we wanted a state for Jews run by Jews, but doesn't explain that we wanted it in the land where we came from, a land where we have mitzvot, commandments, that are specific to it. A land that our holidays and calendar center. The fact that this is missing is one of the glaring issues in the whole video. He also mentions that Zionism views Judaism as a nationality, which is true. Judaism is viewed as a nationality in the modern sense through Zionism, but it's also a nationality, or nation, in the older sense, regardless of Zionism. In addition to that, while Zionism is the idea of having a Jewish run state for Jews, it does not preclude the existence of other, nonjewish, people in this state. Which is important for the next bit. He then adds that, quote "this is complicated for lots of geopolitical reasons, but suffice it to say, Jewish people are not the only people with roots or a current presence in the modern state of Israel." Which, I guess does mention our roots in the land, but it also completely flattens the whole story into, what feels to me, "Jews Zionists bad for wanting a state because there are other people". He then mentions the Druze and Xtian and Muslim Palestinians, which is fair but also why specifically the Druze? And if the Druze, why not also the Bedouin? Both are minority groups within Israel, and if you want to talk about minority groups, the Bedouin are equally as important for this discussion! (another friend later pointed out that the likely reason is that the pbs source John uses mentions the Druze (but as muslims, and not as their own religious group which. sigh. Druze are not Muslim), but not the Bedouin. And of course, we get a "not all jews support the zionist movement, but many do" yeah. a huge womping majority. For a reason. At the end of this section he says you can find "much much more" on the topic in the sources and I just have to raise an eyebrow, because I do not count these 6 sources as "much much more" information.

Then, finally, we're off of this ill-placed and wrongly done section, and back to actual religion things. You know. Like how John had said we'd be talking about.

The Oral Torah and the Talmud We start off strong, with an accurate description as to what exactly is the Oral Torah, and what its place within Jewish society and Judaism is. And then... John tells us that there are "two guys who started it". Huh? Who? Hillel and Shammai of course! what. so, to explain to all of you who have somehow read till here and don't know, Hillel and Shammai are just one pair in a long lineage of those who were, according to tradition, in charge of the oral torah. Even more so, they weren't the first in their generation of pairs! (this is the time known as the Zugot, or pairs). Hillel and Shammai are the seventh generation in those who lived during the time of the mishna being slowly worked on and getting codified, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the one who did all of the codification, FIVE GENERATIONS AND A TEMPLE COLLAPSE AFTER THEM. So I chose to go into the sources to figure this one out, because frankly I'm baffled. And as far as I can tell, this comes from the encyclopedia britannica (again, why) saying that Hillel and Shammai were the last of the Zugot and that they taught the Tanaim (those who ended up writing the mishna), but just. What. Why. John then continues on to explain who Hillel and Shammai are, describing them as "Shammai, the rules are rules type" and "Hillel, the gentle, caring, impossible to anger type". I just- again with the putting down of one side (the stricter side) for the not so strict side. In addition to the fact that that isn't even an accurate description. It would be more accurate to describe the divide and debate between Hillel and Shammai as realistic and unrealistic. Hillel's school of thought, also known as Beit Hillel, worked with and around torah with the understanding that those who will be following it are people, and will make mistakes and need leniency. Shammai's school of thought, known as Beit Shammai, on the other hand, wanted people to strive to following the Torah in the most idealistic way. We follow Beit Hillel nowadays because they were better at taking day-to-day realities into account, but we remember Beit Shammai's halacha because we want to be able to fulfill our mitzvot in that way, and if human life didn't get in the way, we would do so. John Green stop putting those who keep stricter (or more idealistic) halacha as "bad" challange: level impossible. John Green then says, as is correct, that at around 200ce we started writing things down, but once again, he neglects to mention why we felt we needed to shift from oral to written (the answer is the Romans wanted us no longer jewish and we had lost our Temple and were going to be expelled from our holy land again, see, that's two sentences, is that so hard to say?) John Green then correctly explains that they way the Talmud was written down was by layers upon layers, "literally circling each other" however, that's only one portion of the halachic debate, and frankly, the Talmud is definitely not the central rabbinic text today. That's the Shulchan Aruch, which is based off of the Talmud, but collates all of Halachic debate into a masterpiece of a lot of books. It, too, has the layers upon layers thing, because why waste good paper space??? There are more mistakes here, in understanding that the Talmud is The Central Halachic thing, which again - look above I corrected it. I'll also happily admit that he's correct in saying that when we refer to the torah we mean both the written and oral ones. But we still have two sections to go, and I am still as wordy as ever.

Branches of Judaism Here is where I started to go from mildly annoyed at how he treats orthodox jews, to flat out mad. See, instead of explaining the differences between branches in a neutral way, John brings up differences that will make people feel things. He gives examples of questions - can women be rabbis - which will have listeners biased towards those communities that allow it (and yes, it is an issue within orthodox communities, but guess what! these communities are also trying to work within their framework of halacha for women's equality), or "can you push an elevator button on shabbat using electricity when the law says to refrain from creating fires and sparks on that day", which is an extreme oversimplification of the whole argument and discussion about electricity on shabbat, which will lead viewers to, once again, view those who do those things as backward, strange, and weird. And trust me, there are so many other halachic questions that can be used (such as can one heat food on shabbat, considering fire and heat, or how you deal with the dietary laws of kashrut), and idk. Maybe at this point I'm nitpicking, but as an orthodox not exactly a woman, it bothers me! It alienates me from the discussion, and it's really frustrating. He comments that the options you can choose are "unwavering, flexible, or somewhere in between", which to me shows a complete lack of understanding of what the orthodox framework of working with halacha is (too long; don't have time to explain - we can't strictly disagree with stuff but we can slowly push for change that may eventually end up disagreeing with something or another). He then explains Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism. His way of explaining is, while technically correct, missing an understanding of how we different streams of Judaism practice. John describes the differences as ones of strictness vs openness, lack of change vs flexibility. In reality, the difference between the streams is one of precedence. How much weight do we put on something that was written 2000 years ago? How much weight does our current way of living have? Orthodox Judaism will answer that what was written all that time ago has significantly more weight, that they knew more about halacha than we do, to Reform halacha, which takes halachic rulings from 2000 years ago under advisement, but sees how much the world has changed, and makes the rulings accordingly. I won't touch on his specific examples, and suffice it to say that they were in line with what I said earlier about his examples. They're there to make you feel something about these strange jews he's talking about, and that something is not always particularly nice, especially to Orthodox Jews. He then mentions a few other options, which is fine (though I wish he expanded on the "people who say 'I'm Jewish' but don't identify with any particular branch" as, with everything going on, and his sorely lacking explanation in how Judaism and conversion works, may lead to people deciding to just say they're jewish). After that he says that there "are jewish atheists". Yes. There are also orthodox jewish atheists, I thought we covered the fact that Judaism prefers action over belief at the start? I'm confused as to why he felt the need to add that here near the end of the video.

Next, he talks about the different physical branches of Judaism, and mentions that due to persecution we got to many different places. Of course, he once again neglects to mention the ur-persecution, or ur-reason that we are so spread out - our expulsion from Israel, and the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora (he mentions the Diaspora by name, but not the first reason for it). It's a glaring miss, but not as glaring as what is to come. He then talks about three diasporic communities, and I quote "...unique communities emerged in each new location: Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe, Sephardic Jews in Spain and Portugal, and Beta Israel in Eithiopia". One nitpick and one incredibly important correction. Ashkenazi Jews were originally from ashkenaz, ie France and Germany and eventually got to Eastern Europe as well - the name of the general European tradition is, however, Ashkenaz. The second, and more pressing issue, is that he says that Sephardic Jews are in Spain and Portugal. Those communities haven't been there in a Hot Minute, ie since the Spanish Inquistion. They've been in the SWANA or MENA region, with some exceptions for some Dutch, American, and British Jews. I had to look at his sources, because are you kidding me. Both (all three, if we include Beta Israel) sources are from britannica. Again. My first instinct was that maybe the issue was with the source! I was wrong.

The source for Ashkenazi Judaism (emphasis mine)

Ashkenazi, member of the Jews who lived in the Rhineland valley and in neighbouring France before their migration eastward to Slavic lands (e.g., Poland, Lithuania, Russia) after the Crusades (11th–13th century) and their descendants. After the 17th-century persecutions in eastern Europe, large numbers of these Jews resettled in western Europe, where they assimilated, as they had done in eastern Europe, with other Jewish communities. In time, all Jews who had adopted the “German rite” synagogue ritual were referred to as Ashkenazim to distinguish them from Sephardic (Spanish rite) Jews. Ashkenazim differ from Sephardim in their pronunciation of Hebrew, in cultural traditions, in synagogue cantillation (chanting), in their widespread use of Yiddish (until the 20th century), and especially in synagogue liturgy. Today Ashkenazim constitute more than 80 percent of all the Jews in the world, vastly outnumbering Sephardic Jews. In the early 21st century, Ashkenazic Jews numbered about 11 million. In Israel the numbers of Ashkenazim and Sephardim are roughly equal, and the chief rabbinate has both an Ashkenazic and a Sephardic chief rabbi on equal footing. All Reform and Conservative Jewish congregations belong to the Ashkenazic tradition

As you can see, britannica does in fact mention that Ashkenazi Jews were first in the Rhineland valley (germany) and france, and later moved to Eastern Europe. I have some nitpicking on that as what I said doesn't match but regardless. Ashkenazi Jews aren't in Ashkenaz according to John, they are in Eastern Europe

The source for Sephardi Judaism (emphasis mine)

Sephardi, member or descendant of the Jews who lived in Spain and Portugal from at least the later centuries of the Roman Empire until their persecution and mass expulsion from those countries in the last decades of the 15th century. The Sephardim initially fled to North Africa and other parts of the Ottoman Empire, and many of these eventually settled in such countries as France, Holland, England, Italy, and the Balkans. Salonika (Thessaloníki) in Macedonia and the city of Amsterdam became major sites of Sephardic settlement. The transplanted Sephardim largely retained their native Judeo-Spanish language (Ladino), literature, and customs. They became noted for their cultural and intellectual achievements within the Mediterranean and northern European Jewish communities. In religious practice, the Sephardim differ from the Ashkenazim (German-rite Jews) in many ritual customs, but these reflect a difference in traditional expression rather than a difference in sect. Of the estimated 1.5 million Sephardic Jews worldwide in the early 21st century (far fewer than the Ashkenazim), the largest number were residing in the state of Israel. The chief rabbinate of Israel has both a Sephardic and an Ashkenazi chief rabbi. The designation Sephardim is frequently used to signify North African Jews and others who, though having no ancestral ties to Spain, have been influenced by Sephardic traditions, but the term Mizrahim is perhaps more properly applied.

As you can also see, the britannica also mentions that Sephardi talks about North African Jews. What is that? SWANA Jews exist? and experienced persecution? Couldn't be. Surely all Jews are actually European and are colonizers in the land of palestine (heavy sarcasm and cynicism). I've got to say, I find the fact that using where Jews ended up for Ashkenazi Jews, and where they "originated" (in quotation due to the fact that only the name originated from there) for Sephardi Jews rather disingenuous, as the story being told erases the existence of SWANA jews to an upsetting and worrying degree.

Review and Credits Almost done. Just have to get through the review. John finishes up the story with something that I have mixed feelings about. He describes Judaism as a religion, but that being Jewish doesn't require a religious identity. I find the but annoying. It's not "judaism is a religion but doesn't have to be", it's "judaism is a religion and a people, and a culture, etc etc". Judaism is older than the concept of religion, we're a people, who can also have a set of belief and behaviour, but not doing them does not preclude you from being part of the family (unless, of course, you actively leave the family but that is a nuance not for here). The rest of his review is fine in my opinion. And now, the credits, which have a list of names that don't seem to be Jewish, but I can't find that about all of them (i know at least one of the people in charge of information for either this video or the series in general is definitely not Jewish)

I don’t know how to finish this, other than… Do better, Crash Course, do better @sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog.

[weemietime]

1) some who say Arabs/Palestinians are indigenous to Israel merely mean that Palestinians have a right to consider Israel their homeland. Personally I agree with this, as I would say that WASPs in North America can call America their homeland. They've lived there hundreds of years, long enough to break any ties they could conceivably have with Europe.

But 2), more importantly, the reason why it's necessary to interrogate this rhetoric isn't because Zionists have a problem with Arab/Jewish coexistence in Israel. Like I said, I don't have a problem with Palestinians identifying Israel as their homeland. It's because other people continue to insist that Jews are not indigenous and that we are European colonizers. Which brings us to,

3) last but not least, precisely why we insist that there is a distinction between Arab and Jew, is that after the 1940s, Arabs began essentially a campaign of DARVO to paint Jews as interlopers into our home, refuse any accountability for starting constant wars, refuse to admit that they're the belligerents, and now claim they're the real indigenous group.

Things happen after other things. Arabs invaded Israel, oppressed the Jews still living there (which they continue to deny, and do not even admit Yishuv has always been populated by Jews), destroyed our monuments and built their own over top (Al Aqsa), beheaded and enslaved the Jews of Medina, etc.

Arab countries around the Middle East have a long and violent history of harming their Jewish populations (particularly Mizrahim) and only now, after we point this out, do they finally turn around and say "oh, they were Arab Jews all along." (This is if we even get to that point and don't have to dismantle the myth of the "happy dhimmi.")

Too little too late after massacring us and expelling us and relegating us to second class citizens because we are disloyal to only now say "oops, don't want to admit Arabs hate Jews and destroyed their Jewish communities across the MENA so uhhh they were Arabs all along!"

Until Arabs can actually own up to their history and commit to peace, this is the type of shit that has to be discussed even though none of it is fucking relevant to whether or not Israel exists now as a legally recognized sovereign nation and whose population will not be removed by any other way than full blown genocide.

So people keep assuring me that Palestinians are also indigenous to the southern levant and...well, I admit I'm skeptical of this. Like, I'm NOT advocating expelling them or genocide, etc. Those are all bad, just questioning the notion of indigeneity here. Mostly as a consequentialist. If Palestinians are indigenous to the Levant, that seems to imply other things. Let's think through this.

We're going to set aside the UN notion of indigenous because that's crafted to exclude Jews and often enough this is a statement by people who reject that and consider Jews to be indigenous, they're often saying both groups are. So...I guess that means something like "A group is indigenous to the region where they underwent ethnogenesis" so we'll take that as our definition of indigeneity. Jews are indigenous to the Levant, check. We're good. Arabs are indigenous to Arabia. All makes sense.

So, anyway, what's an ethnic group? From Wikipedia:

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a people of a common language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment.[

Ok, so common language, culture, traditions, history, etc.

So European American Protestants are indigenous to North America? Common history (going back to the 1600s!), identify as a group, believe they have a common culture (even if we need to break things up more finely, you can find common cultures, say, New England, or Midwest, wee American Nations), common language (English, which I will posit is part of why there's basically a moral panic about Spanish and has been almost my entire life, in much of the country). Note that an ethnicity "can include" and doesn't need ALL of these things.

So it seems pretty solid that European American Protestants are, at the least, a collection of ethnic groups unique to North America. Which means they did ethnogenesis here. Which means they're indigenous now.

So...let's be clear, to me this is a reductio ad absurdam. OF COURSE white US protestants are not indigenous to North America! But I've yet to see definitions that mark Palestinian Arabs as indigenous to the Levant without also implying that white Americans are indigenous to fucking Ohio (along with the rest of the country).

Especially when you consider that white american protestant as an identity in this sense is older than a distinct Palestinian identity. It just brings us to the eternal questions that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict brings up and that people REALLY don't want to discuss:

When, if ever, does indigeneity expire? Personally, I think it doesn't, and Jews are and will always be indigenous to the Levant, just like the Cherokee Nation is indigenous to the US Southeast, even though they've been displaced. Though I know many "Pro-Palestine" activists implicitly believe indigeneity does expire, at least for Jews, but even if I weren't Jewish, I wouldn't want that precedent set because it would fuck over EVERYONE

When does a colonizer become indigenous to the place they colonized? This is rarely discussed, but lies implicitly behind a lot of things. Again, I want to avoid setting bad precedents, but I don't see how Palestinian Arabs can have hit this threshold and white people in the US haven't, which leads me to reject the idea that colonizers can ever become indigenous, at least while holding onto the identity that did the colonization (White and Arab, respectively, hell, White Christian and Arab Muslim if we want to get more specific).

Now, I don't believe colonizers need to be killed or expelled, I'm generally against violence outside of self-defense, but I do think that the rhetoric we use matters, and I want to interrogate it.

[fdelopera]

The "Happy Dhimmi myth" (i.e. the myth that Jews were "treated so well" as Dhimmi, or third-class citizens, in the Muslim world) is a LIE that needs to be dismantled.

It is perpetuated by RACIST and ORIENTIALIST white idiots who believe in the Noble Savage myth, i.e. they literally believe that Muslims are too "simpleminded" to treat anyone poorly.

Case in point, all the RACIST Leftists who claimed that Hamas couldn't have printed out color maps of the Israeli kibbutzim where they RAPED, TORTURED, AND MURDERED JEWS, because these Leftists literally believed (get this!) that the Palestinian people are too "primitive" to own color printers!!

It boggles the mind that Leftists can be that bigoted against the Palestinians, but here we are.

It's time to dismantle this Orientalist "Happy Dhimmi" lie once and for all.

Jews in Muslim countries were subjected to the Jizya, a literal TAX FOR BEING JEWISH. If Jews couldn't afford to pay the Jizya, Muslims often used this as an excuse to MURDER JEWS IN POGROMS.

Jews were held in financial bondage in Muslim countries for CENTURIES. And yet Leftists are so bigoted that they can't acknowledge this.

Time to learn Jewish history! Because Jew-hate makes you stupid, kids! And it also makes you a fucking racist!

[thevibrantcolor]

*sighs deeply* i'm going to regret this so much but i'm picking this up.

first of, i want to begin by saying i don't 100% agree with op either. israel as it is is an apartheid state. the fact that palestinians in the wb are under military law while jewish settlers are under civil one makes it a fact. and i do support at the very least a 2 state solution, land exchange, and dismantling of all settlements. factually, according to the most recent palestine/israel Pulse survey in 2023, only 23% of palestinians support for a democratic one-state solution (i know it looks like trash, but this is the official Pulse site https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/928). so pushing for a one state solution land-for-all right now seems to me like pushing what westerners want onto a conflict in which they spoke over natives enough. you can't separate the complete disinterest in what actual palestinians want from orientalism and western-centrism.

onto your main arguements: jews have always been present in the levant generally and in palestine specifically. this isn't a debate it is a fact. look up hevron, safed, jerusalem or just generally jewish presence in the area after the roman expulsion. jews were always there, only in lower numbers, so the whole "weren't even there for 2000 years" agruement immediately falls apart.

even if you meant the majority weren't in the levant you are wrong again: according to a survey conducted in 2005, 61% of jewish israelis identified as either mizrahi or sephardi (though to be entirely fair by 1995 the israeli government stopped doing these statistics, from what i can gather bc too many households were mixed by that point). either way, that arguement falls too.

how about the "there are no genetic links anymore!!!!" even if we put aside that most arguement i see based on these are straight up race science, wrong again: 1, 2 , 3 , 4, and even this paper that focuses on the european part of the ashki genome says they are also levantine 5. two seconds of google would have shown you that. we are 10 months in to this cruel, stupid, avoidable war and the malicious wave of antisemitism that came with it. at this point you have no excuse for spreading Khazar Theory garbage.

simply put, to say that jews are not connected to the levant generally and palestine-israel specifically is ahistoric, anti-intellectual, unscientific and is based on ignorance and bigotry. specifically here, antisemitism. i could go into archiological findings but that would take an additional 2000 years, and frankly, i already put too much time and energy writing all of this.

but by far, your most malicious, ridiculous argument had to be the good ol' "if they weren't there of xyz amount of time then they are not native anymore!!1!@!" even putting aside allll that i wrote, how most jewish holidays are specifically about the land of yisrael (passover, shavu'ot, tu-bishvat, sukkot, tu-b'av) or are directly connected to it (hanukkah, l"g ba'omer, tisha b'av) what you are basically saying is that nativity has an expiration date. what, if native americans are banned from their ancestor's land for another 400 years they'll be occupiers for moving back? what, if jews were force to flee on mass into israel 400 years earlier they would have still been natives (tm)? no. the nativity of jews is unquestionable just like the cruelty of israel is now. the nativity of jews does not grant them moral immunity, neither does it inherently grant one to palestinians. it is an arguement that both pro- and anti-israelis need to throw to the nearest trash can.

final word before i go, as a half-afghan jew, there is no myth that i loath more than that of the the happy dhimmi. my family was not forced to flee afghanistan in the early 30's because of israel. iraq and surya and other muslim countries didn't create a nazi partties in the 30's and 40's and lynched jews because of israel. the expulsion of almost every single jew out of the levant, along with lynching, segregation and property theft cannot be simply placed on israel. this happened because of antisemitism embedded within the society. you are also welcome to open google about antisemitism in the arab world. in conclusion: ceasefire now, the gov of isreal belongs in jail, jews are native to the levant, nativity doesn't have much to do with morality, read about the subjects you talk about or be rightfully called an antisemite.

"Do you support Israel?"

I don't know - what do you mean by "support Israel"?

Do I support Israel's current war in Gaza? No.

Do I support Israel's right to get its citizens back? Yes.

Do I support Israel's settlements in the West Bank? No.

Do I support Israel's right to exist? Yes.

Do I support Israel's current government and leaders? No.

Do I support Israel's right to defend itself? Yes.

So I dunno, do I "support" Israel or not? What about Palestine?

Do I support reparations for Palestinians in the West Bank? Yes.

Do I support Hamas? No.

Do I support Palestinians in Gaza being free from war? Yes.

Do I support Hamas' violence against Israeli citizens? No.

Do I support Palestine's right to exist? Yes.

And then there's this...

Do I support the destruction of Israel? No.

Do I support the destruction of Palestine? No.

Do I support a world where Israelis don't fear death? Yes.

Do I support a world where Palestinians don't fear death? Yes.

The only way to achieve actual peace in the region is to support peace between Israel and Palestine. You cannot get this if you destroy Israel OR Palestine.

[former-leftist-jew]

Arabs are indigenous to Palestine.

Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine and there is zero evidence to support this. Some Arabs have Canaanite DNA due to intermixing and because Islam flowed out of Judaism.

But they all left and went to Paran and evolved into a separate ethnic and racial group there, explicitly founded on antisemitic canard. DNA doesn't make someone Jewish.

They rejected any and all ties to Judaism when they dedicated themselves to conquering us, and it is insulting and delusional to say that they are now the real indigenous peoples simply because they returned to settle on stolen land.

[anshelsgendercrisis]

yeah i think there is 100000% and argument to be made that the countries who expelled their jewish populations prior to and after the establishment of the state of israel are at least in part responsible for the current state of affairs. like. i hate the “happy dhimmi” myth because the idea that Jews And Muslims And Christians All Lived In Happiness And Harmony Side By Side For Centuries is wishful thinking at best and active historical revisionism at worst, but generally jews seemed to have an easier time integrating into the various cultures around north africa and west asia than they did in europe (wow i wonder why) and i know there were many many people who didn’t WANT to leave. hell, a ton of communities that were expelled during the latter portion of the 20th century were communities that were autonomously established before the roman expulsion, meaning there were jews who moved to those places voluntarily to form communities there! some of these communities were like three thousand years old!! and now they are GONE. and fuck it just makes me so fucking angry that people don’t understand the utter devastation and cultural destruction that this ethnic cleansing caused.

always throwing the "million jews who were violently ethnically cleansed from arab countries only a couple decades ago" argument but funny how you never mention it was because of israeli colonialism. guess what that would never have happenend if israelis didnt decide to start an apartheid racist fascist state

u can’t make this shit up y’all. apparently collective punishment is fine as long as it’s jews!