Shlomo Sand: the heresy of dismantling the Jewish national myth
In 2009, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand published 'The Invention of the Jewish People', a book that became a bestseller in Israel despite arguing that Jews share no common ethnic origin, that the exile of 70 AD is a myth, and that most of today's Jewish communities descend from converts, not exiles. Israelis, against all odds, bought en masse a work that blew apart Zionism's founding narrative.
Sand's thesis: an invented people
Sand argues that the idea of a Jewish people exiled and scattered after the destruction of the Second Temple is a nationalist construction of the nineteenth century. The Khazars, the Berbers and other groups that converted to Judaism make up the true origin of many communities. The book was an intellectual earthquake, and its author received everything from praise to death threats. Sand has now published a second volume, 'The Invention of the Land of Israel', which applies the same critique to territorial claims.
The debate over Abraham and the sources
The discussion addresses the figure of Abraham as a pillar of the narrative. While some defend his historicity based on the Bible, others point out that the patriarchal era is a late literary construction, composed during the Persian period (6th century BC). The debate over Abraham's origin (Ur of the Chaldees, in present-day Iraq) serves to illustrate how founding myths are used politically. One strand of the analysis holds that Zionist nationalism took the biblical story and politicized it to create a narrative of continuity and historical right, while another argues that the bond with the land is real, documented by millennia-old traditions.
The Israeli paradox: sales success and official rejection
Sand's success in Israel reveals a society torn between attachment to the myth and the demand for historical truth. His harshest critics, inside and outside Israel, accuse him of undermining the foundations of the Jewish state. Yet, as Sand himself points out, the only defensible legitimacy for a state is the will of its citizens, not the myths of its ancestors. The question remains open: can a modern state stand on narratives that critical historiography dismantles?
Related debates in the forum