You write that the narrative of exile and return is a myth and then you write “These weren't contradictions to be resolved but the normal state of diaspora existence.”
In referring to the DIASPORA, your use of that word deeply belies the belief that exile and return is a myth.
You’re conflating two different concepts. “Diaspora” is simply a descriptive term for Jews living outside the Land of Israel, which is a geographical fact. The “myth of exile and return” that Sand identifies is the specific Zionist narrative that claims: 1) all Jews were forcibly expelled by Romans in 70 CE, 2) maintained racial purity for 2,000 years, and 3) have an inherent political right to return and establish sovereignty.
Using the word “diaspora” doesn’t validate the Zionist interpretation of what diaspora means. Christians speak of Armenian or Greek diasporas without implying those populations are in unnatural exile requiring territorial return. For most of Jewish history, diaspora wasn’t understood as a problem requiring political solution but simply as the condition in which Jews lived.
The mythmaking Sand describes is the transformation of diaspora from a neutral geographical reality into an ideological narrative of displacement and return. Pre-Zionist Jews in Baghdad or Krakow didn’t see themselves as temporarily displaced people waiting to reclaim sovereignty. They were Babylonian or Polish by nationality and Jewish by religion, living in diaspora but not defining their existence as exile.
The word “diaspora” predates Zionism by millennia. What Zionism did was weaponize it, turning a descriptive term into an ideological claim. That’s precisely the myth-making process Sand documents. Taking historical realities and reconstructing them into a nationalist narrative that would have been unrecognizable to most Jews throughout history.
So no, using the term “diaspora” doesn’t contradict the argument. It’s actually essential to distinguish between the historical fact of dispersion and the modern political mythology built around it.
Yes, "next year in Jerusalem" goes back centuries. That's precisely the point.
For over 500 years, Jews said these words as a spiritual expression, not a political program. They weren't organizing militias or lobbying governments for territorial conquest. They were expressing religious longing, like Christians speaking of the Second Coming or Muslims dreaming of Mecca.
The phrase coexisted perfectly with Jews being loyal citizens of their actual countries. A Jew in 15th century Spain saying "next year in Jerusalem" wasn't declaring himself a foreign national or planning armed return. He was expressing spiritual hope while living his actual life as a Spanish subject.
This is exactly what the Zionist movement corrupted. It took spiritual metaphors and religious longing and weaponized them into territorial claims. It transformed "next year in Jerusalem" from a prayer into a political project.
For centuries, Jews understood the difference between religious yearning and political action. They could say "next year in Jerusalem" at Passover and then go back to their lives as Polish merchants or Moroccan craftsmen without any contradiction. The idea that this phrase meant Jews were sitting with packed bags waiting to colonize Palestine is pure retrospective Zionist projection.
The historical record is clear. The vast majority of Jews, including religious leaders, opposed Zionism when it emerged precisely because it perverted spiritual concepts into nationalist politics. They understood that religious connection to a place doesn't equal political claims to sovereignty over it.
You write that the narrative of exile and return is a myth and then you write “These weren't contradictions to be resolved but the normal state of diaspora existence.”
In referring to the DIASPORA, your use of that word deeply belies the belief that exile and return is a myth.
Thanks for the comment!
You’re conflating two different concepts. “Diaspora” is simply a descriptive term for Jews living outside the Land of Israel, which is a geographical fact. The “myth of exile and return” that Sand identifies is the specific Zionist narrative that claims: 1) all Jews were forcibly expelled by Romans in 70 CE, 2) maintained racial purity for 2,000 years, and 3) have an inherent political right to return and establish sovereignty.
Using the word “diaspora” doesn’t validate the Zionist interpretation of what diaspora means. Christians speak of Armenian or Greek diasporas without implying those populations are in unnatural exile requiring territorial return. For most of Jewish history, diaspora wasn’t understood as a problem requiring political solution but simply as the condition in which Jews lived.
The mythmaking Sand describes is the transformation of diaspora from a neutral geographical reality into an ideological narrative of displacement and return. Pre-Zionist Jews in Baghdad or Krakow didn’t see themselves as temporarily displaced people waiting to reclaim sovereignty. They were Babylonian or Polish by nationality and Jewish by religion, living in diaspora but not defining their existence as exile.
The word “diaspora” predates Zionism by millennia. What Zionism did was weaponize it, turning a descriptive term into an ideological claim. That’s precisely the myth-making process Sand documents. Taking historical realities and reconstructing them into a nationalist narrative that would have been unrecognizable to most Jews throughout history.
So no, using the term “diaspora” doesn’t contradict the argument. It’s actually essential to distinguish between the historical fact of dispersion and the modern political mythology built around it.
The phrase “next year in Jerusalem“ in the Haggadah for Pesach goes back to the 1400s or earlier.
Yes, "next year in Jerusalem" goes back centuries. That's precisely the point.
For over 500 years, Jews said these words as a spiritual expression, not a political program. They weren't organizing militias or lobbying governments for territorial conquest. They were expressing religious longing, like Christians speaking of the Second Coming or Muslims dreaming of Mecca.
The phrase coexisted perfectly with Jews being loyal citizens of their actual countries. A Jew in 15th century Spain saying "next year in Jerusalem" wasn't declaring himself a foreign national or planning armed return. He was expressing spiritual hope while living his actual life as a Spanish subject.
This is exactly what the Zionist movement corrupted. It took spiritual metaphors and religious longing and weaponized them into territorial claims. It transformed "next year in Jerusalem" from a prayer into a political project.
For centuries, Jews understood the difference between religious yearning and political action. They could say "next year in Jerusalem" at Passover and then go back to their lives as Polish merchants or Moroccan craftsmen without any contradiction. The idea that this phrase meant Jews were sitting with packed bags waiting to colonize Palestine is pure retrospective Zionist projection.
The historical record is clear. The vast majority of Jews, including religious leaders, opposed Zionism when it emerged precisely because it perverted spiritual concepts into nationalist politics. They understood that religious connection to a place doesn't equal political claims to sovereignty over it.