[lbo-talk] 2 fascinating talks by Prof. Shlomo Sand, (Tel Aviv U.) Thursday and Friday in NYC

[Itamar Turner-Trauring]

> Which raises, of course, the next key
> question - what happened to the Jews who were
> still in Palestine after the destruction of the
> Second Temple? Where did they go? Sand's answer
> is that they didn't go anywhere. They are today's
> Palestinians, most of whom converted to Islam in
> the early years of Islam's expansion into the
> rest of the Middle-East. These are not
> unsupported conjectures, for the great strength
> of Sand's book lies in the enormous wealth of
> evidence and careful, scholarly argumentation he offers for each of his
> claims.
>
> Where does all this leave the central idea that
> underlies the whole Zionist project - that Jews
> everywhere have not only a duty but a right to
> return to "their original homeland," Palestine? I
> can't think of a more fundamental  critique of
> Zionism and therefore of Israel too than the one
> found in Sand's book.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the conclusion here by Prof.
Ollman seemingly accepts the premises of nationalism, the right of self
determination based on some common ancestry, only saying that based on
Sand's evidence it doesn't apply in *this* case. Can he really not "think
of a more fundamental critique"? Sand may yet be proven wrong, but the
Palestinians' rights have nothing to do with whether their ancestors were
Jewish two thousand years ago. If I can prove without doubt that my
ancestors lived in Spain before being kicked out 1492 (as family legend
claims), does that give me the right to engage in a personal Reconquista
of Cordoba?