Gordon Haber: Reviewing Shlomo Sands 'Invention of the Jewish People'
Shlomo Sand is pissed off. Sand, an Israeli historian, contends that there is no such thing as the “the Jewish people,” not now, not ever. Sure, Jews exist, but the people is an invention, a lie constructed by Zionist intellectuals in search of a national myth. But what really gets him boiling is that this myth-of an exiled people returning to their land, and of the “ethno-biological” ties between all Jews-has been used to create a country that “grossly discriminates” against its non-Jewish citizens.
Sand believes that Israel should be a liberal democracy like the United States or Britain-states without a legally dominant religion or ethnicity. But while this argument may be compelling on its own, it’s not enough for him. He must prove (or attempt to prove) that almost every story that Israelis tell about themselves is fictitious.
One of the key parts of the Israeli (and Jewish) national myth, for example, is that there is an unbroken genealogical line stretching back from the Jews of today to those exiled from the Roman province of Judea in 70 C.E. But Sand maintains that there was no exile (”the Romans never deported entire peoples”). Instead, the Jews that remained eventually became Christian or Muslim. The great communities that later sprang up in North Africa and Eastern Europe were actually the products of conversion. According to Sand, Zionist historians ignored or played down these facts for political reasons-to create an “effective myth that provides modern Jews with a pathway to ethnic identity.”
And (as Sand’s reasoning has it) if the myth is a lie-if there is no genealogical connection between today’s Jews and those of Provincia Judea-then there is no justification for a Jewish state.
This, to me, sounds like a leap. But some of Sand’s arguments are not easily dismissed. At least I thought so when I started his book, which I wanted to read with an open mind. But as the arguments piled up, I became suspicious. There is a consistent tone of outrage here: Sand comes off like the relative that corners you every Thanksgiving to harangue you about politics. But it’s not merely a matter of literary style. The tone made me question the author’s disinterest. It made me wonder if he too is distorting history for political ends.
Which, apparently, he is. Other Israeli historians, like Anita Shapira and Israel Bartal, have convincingly refuted many of Sand’s major assertions. According to Shapira, Sand has been cherry-picking-the better historians have never asserted that there was a massive exile. The intense connection to the land instead grew out of the loss of sovereignty. And Bartal writes, “Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions.”
So then why does Sand sees conspiracies, or at least ahistorical motivations, where they don’t always exist? Perhaps because his desire for a truly egalitarian Israel has destroyed his objectivity. This impression was confirmed when I watched a clip of Sand on French TV, wherein he comes off as articulate, passionate, and unhinged.
Read entire article at The Faster Times
Sand believes that Israel should be a liberal democracy like the United States or Britain-states without a legally dominant religion or ethnicity. But while this argument may be compelling on its own, it’s not enough for him. He must prove (or attempt to prove) that almost every story that Israelis tell about themselves is fictitious.
One of the key parts of the Israeli (and Jewish) national myth, for example, is that there is an unbroken genealogical line stretching back from the Jews of today to those exiled from the Roman province of Judea in 70 C.E. But Sand maintains that there was no exile (”the Romans never deported entire peoples”). Instead, the Jews that remained eventually became Christian or Muslim. The great communities that later sprang up in North Africa and Eastern Europe were actually the products of conversion. According to Sand, Zionist historians ignored or played down these facts for political reasons-to create an “effective myth that provides modern Jews with a pathway to ethnic identity.”
And (as Sand’s reasoning has it) if the myth is a lie-if there is no genealogical connection between today’s Jews and those of Provincia Judea-then there is no justification for a Jewish state.
This, to me, sounds like a leap. But some of Sand’s arguments are not easily dismissed. At least I thought so when I started his book, which I wanted to read with an open mind. But as the arguments piled up, I became suspicious. There is a consistent tone of outrage here: Sand comes off like the relative that corners you every Thanksgiving to harangue you about politics. But it’s not merely a matter of literary style. The tone made me question the author’s disinterest. It made me wonder if he too is distorting history for political ends.
Which, apparently, he is. Other Israeli historians, like Anita Shapira and Israel Bartal, have convincingly refuted many of Sand’s major assertions. According to Shapira, Sand has been cherry-picking-the better historians have never asserted that there was a massive exile. The intense connection to the land instead grew out of the loss of sovereignty. And Bartal writes, “Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions.”
So then why does Sand sees conspiracies, or at least ahistorical motivations, where they don’t always exist? Perhaps because his desire for a truly egalitarian Israel has destroyed his objectivity. This impression was confirmed when I watched a clip of Sand on French TV, wherein he comes off as articulate, passionate, and unhinged.