A History Lesson Regarding Israel and Palestine

Not quite. "Palestine" comes from "Philistine". The Philistines were probably Greek in origin and lived mostly in what's now called Gaza.

Next you will have us believe Yasser Arafat was a decendent of Goliath the famous Philistine of the Bible :-)

Here is a scholarly context that may provide more useful information on this twist of "Pelesheth."

Just to be clear, I have no political agenda (other than just researching this topic from a historical perspective). My question was in regard to books and maps that use Palestine or Syria-Palestine territory during the ancient Egyptian period. If the word Palestine was used by the ancient Egyptians (pre Moses which is what I remember) to describe a territory where trade and war took place - it seems that it would be warranted as a mention in this discussion so that we can get an accurate history of this land.

I may be a product of being caught up in propaganda - and if that is the case I want to know. I will do some research on this and post what I find. Any light others can shed on this would be appreciated.

@topjedi - Thanks for the link. I read it and find it very informative - I just want to go back futher than Rome and see what the Egyptians called this area.

Lufbery, try this somewhat humorous teaser of the history of Israel. If you come back for the 'assignment Seth' piece that will be posted today you might enjoy the details back to the Medes.

(streaming audio - Bill Bennett)

Both the Greeks and Medes also occupied the region prior to Rome.

@Yaakov

So, even though it may have had that name some time a few thousand years ago, it is not really relevant right now

I agree that it is not relevant with regard to the current situation in Israel and the propaganda that exists to make westerners believe that Palestine is/was a nation. However, my only comment is that you are more accurate with your description in your opening remarks - if not to just remain historically correct. The term Palestine (or any of it's spellings) existed prior to Hadrian to describe a non-Arabic group of people and/or a region of land near the Mediterranean now known as the holy lands. It was referenced by the Egyptians in some of their writings prior to 1300 BCE.

In your opening remarks you said:

The term "Palestine" was introduced by Hadrian (Roman emperor) as a method to discourage Jews

This may fall under nit picking - but just like the picture of the kids in Israel being slightly mis-represented...I believe it's in everyone's interest to be as factually correct as possible when talking about this subject.

Now, saying that. Let me tell you what my understanding is of recent history with regard to the Israel / Arab conflict. You can let me know if I am on target or off the map. Here it goes.

It is a fact that this area of land was immigrated to by Jews in the 19th century (we will skip all the history of 2000 years prior). At this time the land was largely non-inhabited by Arabs, but had some Jews living there. It was a waste land with diseases and non-fertile soil. The Jews cleaned it up and built a civilized settlement. Arabs from the other countries now began to migrate there. There were not "people" at that time referred to as Palestinians and no language of Palestine. The Brits gave the Arabs a portion of the land (now called Jordon) and Israel another portion. Israel claimed the land in 48 - and the Brits and US recognized her as a nation. All is well right? Wrong - Israel is attacked by the other Arab nations because they want the land now that it's cleaned up and don't like the Jews so close (maybe also don't like the Western influence from the U.S. and Brits - but they didn't seem to mind that before). The Arab nations lose the war. Israel, through the spoils of war, legally and rightfully obtained more Arab land with Arabs on it. Now, Israel could have demanded that these Arabs leave and find other places to live (my guess is the Arab Nations would have either killed or demanded departure of the Jews...since that was the reasoning behind their attack). Instead, Israel left the Arabs stay in the now Israel occupied land. The Arabs were very surprised by this action. Israel even spent money providing welfare to the war stricken Arabs. Through time, some Arab Nations saw this as an opportunity to have a foothold in Israel and cause pain and to continue a "gorilla war" for lack of a better term. Propaganda engines from the left went into full swing around "Palestinian people" which are effectively the Arabs who migrated to this area and are now living in Israel. There were never Palestinian people prior to recent history except for the Philistines who were actually not Arab but "sea people". History has shown us that Israel made a strategic error by allowing the Arabs to remain within their new borders.

Caveats: This view point of mine, based on what historical facts exist for this subject, doesn't stop me from wanting peace for all people in that region. I would like to see the Jews prosper in Israel - their homeland and I would like to see the Arabs prosper in their countries. I am looking at this very historically and not emotionally. Israel, through strength, reclaimed land that was once theirs (which was barren anyway). Some will argue that it wasn't through strength that they took the land. My response is that your strength includes the strengths of your Allies and Israel chose some powerful Allies. Take WW1 for example. France would have likely loss that war and their country. Their Allie was the U.S. who helped to defeat the Germans. This doesn't mean that France doesn't deserve their country.