The history of the Jewish people involves many controversies and unanswered questions. There have been many attempts to find answers to these questions for centuries. While such endeavours made by historians are common, there are also less expected opinions of people not having a history as their primary subject of investigation. Shlomo Sand, a professor at Tel Aviv University, seeks to examine the issues of ancient Jewish history in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” (Cohen 2009). The book has provoked a lot of discussion in various countries, making the readers and the critics contemplate its objectives and outcomes. The author himself does not deny that he tried to undermine the Jews’ declarations to Israel land by stating that they do not form a people whose representatives have common biological or racial roots. Sand raises several major topics in his book, including the issues of religion, territory, nation, and the search for better opportunities. The book became an international bestseller and was very popular among those who supported its ideas as well as those who disagreed with the author. It gave a new life to old theories and suggested a controversial opinion of the long-existing points of view. Counter-Mythology of the Book and Its Political Context In his book, Sand demythologises the widely accepted opinion about the exile of the Jewish people. He is convinced that instead of having been sent into exile, the indigenous Jews converted to Islam (Sand 2009). Moreover, Sand considers that they did so for political and material reasons: to avoid paying taxes (Sand 2009, p. 186). As Sand (2009, p. 186) mentions, Ben-Gurion, a former Israel’s Prime Minister, considered Islam as a “democratic religion” contrary to Christianity. Islam was believed to welcome all those who converted to it as brothers. Moreover, it was considered to abrogate the civil and political limitations and eradicate social divergences (Sand 2009). Strenger (2009) expresses an opinion that Sand’s book incorporates a discussion of serious political issues. For instance, it delineates two kinds of democracies which appeared in modern Europe: East of the Rhein and West of the Rhein. In the East, the prevalent type was ethnocratic, which presupposed that the countries had to bear a particular loyalty to a concrete ethnos (Strenger 2009). The model prevailing in the West of the Rhein was the pure liberal democratic kind. According to this belief, the supreme ruler was merely the entirety of the country’s citizens. According to Sand (2009, p. 307), present-day Israel is not a democracy but an “ethnocracy with liberal features”. By expressing such an opinion, the author means that Israel is a state the core aim of which is to satisfy not a “civil-egalitarian demos” but a “biological-religious ethnos” (Sand 2009, p. 307). This ethnos, Sand remarks, is entirely apocryphal historically, but it is progressive, unique, and inequitable in its political expression. Sand emphasises that such a state, notwithstanding its pluralism and liberalism, is devoted to setting apart its ethnos via intellectual, jurisdictive, and pedagogical ways. The author is convinced that such isolation is aimed at separating the ethnos not only from its non-Jewish citizens or Israeli-born offsprings of foreign labourers but also