Here is the response from a friend who is very involved in the Anti-Defamation League: "I cannot speak about the history but to me it is meaningless. First of all, anyone who was close enough to have had a conversation with Arafat is suspect to me. Second, Israel was granted the right to exist by the UN, not by force. Immediately thereafter they were attacked by the Arabs. Their legitimacy comes from this not whether or not God gave it to them or the origins of the Diaspora."

Or, why is this people's history of more interest than other peoples'? There's enough 'historical' evidence to dispute the founding stories of Christianity too; some Muslims are still waiting for the descendants of the Prophet to reveal themselves, and some Muslims want Spain back - etc. etc.. Or is it just that some people, including some Israelis, are upset enough about recent Israeli governments that they feel the need to prove the place shouldn't exist?

Historical myth is potent, and it can be great fun, or very bad news. I think it is very likely that the Palestinians in fact are essentially the descendants of the people who occupied the area 2000 years ago, with admixtures of various conquerors (and traders) since then. The Norman Conquest of England brought in maybe 1% of new population, that then were able in large part to supplant the native aristocracy entirely. (Some old Saxon families were able to keep their high status, ... More »

There are uncomfortable hints that both Sand and Strong carry some biases that warrant very careful reading of their authoring. The biggest of these concerns regarding Sand is that he *does* assert (or at least imply) that "the Diaspora story was created as an intentional myth by Zionists seeking to fabricate a direct genealogical connection between many of the world’s Jews and Israel." The author of this article (Strong) seems to willfully overlook what should raise serious ... More »