An Israeli State from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea - Page 2

Az · May 5, 2003, 13:50

Well they say that it was between 1000, and 850, approximately. Our only evidence is the bible, but it's not like this is the only piece of history that's based burely on scriptures. And as the lands conquered were of the same culture ( Hebrews were basically canaanites, just as the phoencians. the same alphabet, extremely similar languages, almost identical pottery and masonery, and the religion was extremely young as well, with many polytheistic characteristics, as well), it's rather hard to pinpoint by archeological proof.

oh, and Israel is "around the dead sea?"

maybe you can scan and post it?

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 13:53

Sure the torah is a relible, unbiased, source. We might as well go for Mein Kampf to determine the rightful size of Germany.

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:00

6.59/10.

you've got two more tries left.

Kropo: the fact is, that Torah has lots of other correct historical reportings on geo-political issues of the time, like the wars between The Khaldeans and Egypt, for example, Assyria's conquests.... It tries to explain their impacts on the Hebrews through theological explanatons, but the events are generally verified.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 14:07

The Torah, as many other myths, are based on some sort of historical reality. Still, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. That it's right about one thing doesn't mean that it's right about another thing.

The problem is of cource that every damn country or nation with morons in charge will try to get the borders from when their nation/country was at it's peak....

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

The Torah, as many other myths, are based on some sort of historical reality. Still, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. That it's right about one thing doesn't mean that it's right about another thing.

You'd agree that this is not the case of parting the sea, or a miraculous myth, just a period of time in which the hebrews ruled over a rather large area.

You might as well say that William the Conquerer never landed and took over Britian, because there is no archeological evidence.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 14:17

It's more like King Arthur and the knights of the round table than the battle of Hastings in 1066. AFAIK there's a number of sources for this historical event. Also, as a question, you're saying that there's no findings from the battlefield for example?

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:19

That's EXACTLY what am I saying.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 14:21

Well, that's interesting.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 14:22

That kind of messes up my plan to move to Normandy and then claim to be the rightful holder the english throne.

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:23

The sad thing is that for some reason, this issue is highly politically volatile. The web, for example, is a lost cause.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 14:27

The internet is always a lost cause.

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:29

not always. there are always beacons of truth like www.jewwatch.com.

gsmoove23 · May 5, 2003, 14:34

I call BS on your William the Conqueror assertions. The landscape is covered with evidence of the Norman Invasion.

St Leo · May 5, 2003, 14:48

Kropo: the fact is, that Torah has lots of other correct historical reportings on geo-political issues of the time, like the wars between The Khaldeans and Egypt, for example, Assyria's conquests....

It has problems keeping track of Persian kings, though. Well, the Old Testament does and I am assuming that the Torah is basically the same thing.

oh, and Israel is "around the dead sea?" maybe you can scan and post it?

Sure thing, pal.

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:50

Such as? ( I am not disbuting the fact that William the Conqueror has indeed landed there, but doubting the fact that there is archeological evidence to the landing, the Battle of Hastings, and the existance of William the conqueror. Vikings have been landing on Britannia for many centuries. )

Az · May 5, 2003, 14:59

The only real country in the "Western world" at the time was egypt, as you see.

'Israel' was a bunch of seminomadic and agricultural tribes, loosely connected by a somewhat differrent religion. speaking of empires is somewhat wrong. Edom and Moab are tiny desert fringe kingdoms.

Assyria was a powerful citystate.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 15:03

Azazel: Re: Link: It is not often one sees and reads so much truth on one internet page, it's almost as apolyton OT.

Az · May 5, 2003, 15:06

I knew you'd like it.

Btw, S--t--rike! Another one, and you're out.

Straybow · May 5, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

According to my historical atlas:
blah, blah, blah

So just because political and military control is contested, as through the pre-Davidic era, or they exist as a vassal state, as under the Assyrians, Israel and Judah did not exist? Your atlas only shows political influence, not who populated the land.

The Egyptians and Assyrians didn't live in Israel/Palestine, neither did the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. Sure, a limited number of the conquerors may have moved in to keep control. The Assyrians deported the majority of Jews from the northern parts, and various Edomite and Syrian tribes moved in. Babylon deported most from the southern parts, but didn't allow other tribes to move in.

After the end of Babylonian captivity the Jews returned and numerically dominated the Gentile populations in the South, and gradually in areas of the North. The presence of dominant or significant population over a great length of time makes their claim to historical possession valid. In addition, there had been a significant Jewish population (~30%) in Jerusalem from 70 AD through the 19th century.

Should Greeks be able to claim any lands in the NME just because Alexander conquered them all 24 centuries ago? Can Morocco and Algeria claim Spain and France just because Moorish kingdoms once controlled those areas? What about Crusader Kingdoms in the Levant? Past political control has no validity in the present.

Should Gaelic speaking peoples be able to claim any lands in North and West Europe just because they were there before the Germanic tribes took over? No, control is a matter of the present and it is not possible to install every displaced people into some hypothetical lands of their origin. So why Israel?

Arabs were conquered by Turks, and they allowed greater numbers of Jews to settle in Jerusalem and other places. Turks were conquered by Europeans, and the NME nations that exist now do so by the borders established by the Europeans in this century. Part of that division was to existing Jewish populations in Jerusalem and other areas of the country, with the provision that refugees from Europe and Russia could emigrate to there.

We can (as the Arabs originally wanted) throw the whole thing up for grabs and see who gets shafted when the dust settles. Then Israel has legitimately conquered Golan, the West Bank, Gaza, and Southern Lebanon. If the Arabs don't like that, they are welcome to try and take it back. If the US decides to support Israel and exert pressure on others to withhold support for Arab countries, too bad.

Sirotnikov · May 5, 2003, 15:27

I imagine that soon there is going to be a thread about how ministers in the Palestinian government would like a single state from the jordan to the mediterrainian sea... :rollreyes:

gsmoove23 · May 5, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Such as? ( I am not disbuting the fact that William the Conqueror has indeed landed there, but doubting the fact that there is archeological evidence to the landing, the Battle of Hastings, and the existance of William the conqueror. Vikings have been landing on Britannia for many centuries. )

Considering he started building Battle Abbey in 1067 on the battle site...http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02350c.htm

Az · May 5, 2003, 15:31

That's not proof.

Might as well say that the fact the dome of the Rock stands where it stands, it means that Muhammad actually rode a winged horse into the sky there.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Habitation is the only valid historical claim

There are no valid historical claims.

gsmoove23 · May 5, 2003, 15:33

Considering that response I realize I have little proof that you exist and will no longer argue on this subject

Giant_Squid · May 5, 2003, 15:38

Okay, forget the "who should own the land" question, I have a better one.

What is this with Israeli tourism ministers? This is the second one I've heard of who's been a whacko hardliner leading the anti-Palestinian movement. Do they think to themselves "Hey, I'll bet if we got ourselves involved in a massive war, alienated large segments of the world population, and vastly increased the threat of terrorism, foreign tourists would flock in by the millions!" Seriously, why are these tourism ministers always trying to set policy?

Az · May 5, 2003, 15:38

I'll accept your honest admition of defeat.

Sirotnikov · May 5, 2003, 15:43

Giant Squid- they're not setting policy.

However, they do appriciate that tourism will go through the roof if we would actually control all the ancient areas there are in territories now attributed to the palestinians. It's the obvious logical conclusion.

In reality - we have a parliamentarian government - that is, knesset members who join the coalition expect to get government seats, offices and payrolls.

For some reason, Sharon has usually put the right wing hardliners (or even wackos) in such "important" offices, like the tourism ministry, (I wonder if Beny Eilon is selling some poor person a tour of "Israeli Bethlehem"

) or the ministry of sports, or the ministry of internal security (basically, ministry of police with a fancy name) or maybe ministry of health.

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 15:47

I really like the Israeli tourism slogan:
"No one belongs here more than you."

Sirotnikov · May 5, 2003, 15:48

Kropo - you've been missed

Kropotkin · May 5, 2003, 15:50

I have?