17 of 83 people found the following review helpful
Fiction masquerading as scholaship,
This review is from: The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland (Hardcover)
The good news is that Shlomo Sand has become so extreme that he will convince no-one. Only a hardened antisemite could possibly find him credible, and that only because he appears to give that prejudice an intellectual underpinning.
Maybe it was Simon Schama's ridicule that pushed him to the extreme:
When he was a younger academic Sand was open about the fact that he grew up in the Communist Party and viewed himself as a Marxist. He had no criticisms of Stalinism.
Sand says Jews consider themselves a 'people' for purely selfish reasons - they want to own land and a people can own land whereas a religion cannot. Zionism and Judaism are opposed, he says. He claims there are no mentions of Israel in the Bible and there was no exodus of Jews after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. In the 19th Century, he says, Rabbis opposed Zionism, that's why the First Zionist Congress had to be in Basel and not Munich. He claims that the Talmud forbids Jews to go to Palestine; that "political public antisemitism" has disappeared; and that 'secular' Jews will diappear too because they define themselves by the Shoah and by antisemitism (cue for plug for next book which will be called "The Invention of the Secular Jew". He calls Israel a racist state.
Fortunately Sand's lies can be seen in this link:
One of the puffs he cites in the front of the book is a quote from Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg:
"I am one of many Jews who would agree with Sand that a decisive factor in the future of Israel will be its capacity to be far more attentive to the narratives and rights of its Palestinian and other non-Jewish citizens"
But of course he omits the next part of Rabbi Wittenberg's article (it's from his Guardian review of Sand's earlier book):
"But the book is a great disappointment. Its sweeping attempt to take apart the entire history of the Jewish people from its origins to present day Israel and prove it to be a wilful fabrication is marred by tendentious premises, the misreading of key events and the ignoring of central texts and institutions."
I told Rabbi Wittenberg that his Guardian article had been selectively used to plug Sand's book. He said:
"I gave the last book a very negative review and certainly would not wish the partial and out-of-context quote at the front of the new book to imply any endorsement whatsoever. I have not read the new book and have no intention of doing so"
That's Sand all over: an academic fraud who cherrypicks sources that he pretends proves his point and even takes them out of context when it suits him.....
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 1 Mar 2013 20:24:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 1 Mar 2013 20:35:37 GMT
This is tiresome. Another review where the reviewer hasn't read the book. This is illustrated by the fact that, contrary to Hoffman's claim, this book has no quote on the front, or anywhere else, from Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg and Hoffman's accusation that there is such a quote and that it is misused is simply a lie.
Posted on 5 Apr 2013 12:04:28 BDT
It may be important to point out that Jonathan Hoffman is "Co-Chair Advocacy, Zionist Federation; elected Deputy; elected member of Defence Division of Board of Deputies." In this role, he has done his best to besmirch Shlomo Sand, one of the leading historians of our time. Hoffman, who is no historian or academic and his efforts to undermine BDS and Anti-Zionist activities in the UK has led mainly to a strengthening of such actions. To read about his 'successes', refer to this link: http://www.jewdas.org/2010/08/jonathan-ho
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Apr 2013 12:43:04 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 29 Apr 2013 12:43:39 BDT]
Posted on 16 May 2013 13:41:34 BDT
Mr. Geoffrey Noble says:
Reviews should be of the contents of the book itself not a political diatribe - this review fails that measure
Posted on 30 Dec 2014 06:49:39 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Dec 2014 07:05:16 GMT
I am not anti or pro Judaism or any religion just pro-truth and the more one delves into the facts the more flimsy appears the whole edifice you support ie Judaism with its 'Chosen People',' The Promised Land' and so on Eminent Archaeology does not support the story you tell mainly so of course scientific analysis of your religion's origins will frighten and anger Hoffman. If nothing to hide then no need to attack I would have thought.
Posted on 22 Aug 2015 01:14:17 BDT
This reviewer has obviously not read the book
Posted on 25 Mar 2016 17:07:52 GMT
"When he was a younger academic Sand was open about the fact that he grew up in the Communist Party and viewed himself as a Marxist."
So did most of the founders of the State of Israel. I'd lay money this 'reviewer' has not read the book.
Posted on 25 Mar 2016 17:13:27 GMT
Jonathan Hoffman says:
yes I have read the book
‹ Previous 1 Next ›