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 concerns about the author's ,motivations simply because these biases are being challenged rather than the potential myth of the Diaspora. Once my "bias alert" is triggered, I begin to scrutinize, and then I want to know what they mean by comments like "there is little or no evidence of a mass forced relocation"? Is it little evidence, or no evidence? If little, what evidence is there. And by the way, isn't there "little evidence" of most things that happened two millennia ago? And how much is the author relying on the adjective "forced" to assert the existence of "little evidence"? If we took the word "forced" out, is there still little or no evidence of a mass relocation? I hate to nit-pick, but once an author shows bias toward a particular end result, I want to know how much they had to massage the data to arrive there. That Strong later defines faith as "an unshakable belief in something that taken by itself cannot be proven" seems to further expose this author's biases. "Faith" is not necessarily (or even commonly) "unshakable." And then when this author starts the next paragraph with "This faith – or delusion – ..." he removes all doubt about his biases. Clearly he sees and wants to suggest all faith is an irrational delusion. (Though I would agree that *unshakable* faith is irrational. Belief in anything that cannot be proven should involve uncertainty.) I, likewise, will not be at all surprised if the facts overwhelmingly suggest that the Diaspora was a myth. But I want the evidence to do that, and not the author's possible misrepresentation of the evidence. What I find disconcerting after reading this article are both authors' willingness to insert their own "myths" or (mis)perceptions in with the facts in the hope the readers don't distinguish between what they are factually proving and what they are merely asserting.