A little moderation please

All comments are interesting, but nobody talks about the first part of the book: what a people in terms of history? This is in my opinion the only really new and interesting object of this book. A people is it made up of people of the same origin "organic" or is it rather the amalgam populations that lived either on the same ground, having spoken the same language and wanting to have the same culture (I including religion)? In the first case, no nation can claim as a people, given the mixing of populations (especially in recent decades). In the other case, a people is a construction necessarily "ideological" because based on a consensus among necessarily fluctuating population.

In French Republic can one speak of French people then? Shlomo Sand I think no, there is no French people, because it was designed in the nineteenth century by the historians of the Third Republic (Michelet, etc.) which were quite unify heterogeneous populations. Yes I think because the original "ethnic" is not a problem, but adherence to a "charter" Town: Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, ignoring all backgrounds to brew in the same crucible of populations speaking different languages, with different cultures, different religions. So if we follow the author, no "people" actually exists: no English, Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. All are ideological constructions of nation states. And therefore necessarily also the "Palestinian people", which either has no historical existence proved him if not to be the people who lost the wars against the Israelis. A ball over the center! The "people-nations" do not exist! So the United Nations lack of legitimacy facing the population. Continuing the author's reasoning, it would therefore dissolve the UN that does not make sense (she founded the two states of Israel and Palestine in 1948)!

The young state of Israel did as all other states, he took an old story and handed it up to date to unify populations that also were dicriminées because if wishing to remain Jewish in a country non-Jewish majority.

The origin of Zionism is there. We must not forget that the world Jewish Zionism has been a resounding failure. In 1930 only 300,000 out of 13 million have left their country to settle in Palestine after 40 years of propaganda and Zionist prospecting (barely 2% or 98%! Failure) Despite the difficulties, the Jews of the world So deeply felt citizens of their countries. It is only under enormous pressure antisemitic they emigrated (very gradually) in Israel.

Whether exile took place or not, if Europe's Jews are descendants of the Khazars and those of North African descendants of Berbers, why not? The idea is refreshing because today we willingly Oubie that Judaism was a religion really attractive and innovative, converting many people in antiquity. The Christian anti-Judaism finally being only a "security system" very violent of the Church to guard a very effective enemy in the realm of faith ...

We must not forget that Judaism as we know it today is the result of a long evolution, and has particular what we could call "dogma" very powerful: no return in the Land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah. That is virtually never ... All state nationalism was erradiqué of rabbinic Judaism after the close of the Talmud in the fifth century. So bring back people on this earth is a religious aberration and it took the dramas of the twentieth century that the rabbis permitted to emigrate again (Rav Kook). From there to think that the Messiah has arrived ...

So thank you to the author for putting itching powder in single contemporaire Jewish thought, even if it makes the bed of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist who see in this book the triumph of their ideas.

This book is to read and understand moderation. Everything is perhaps true, but in small doses (as indeed all reality facing a fantasy).