Historical Maps of War in the Middle East

Please check out the books Prophets in the Bible (what Christians call "the Old Testament") starting with Joshua and ending with Malachi if you would like a historical record of the Jewish state that was the ruling empire in the Land of Israel 2000-2500 years ago.

There is no independent sources for these works Yaakov. They are NOT History. More importantly there is no Historical link with the modern state of Israel, Egypt never talked of Israel or an exodus. I think if 1 million people suddenly walked off into the desert some one would have noticed, Dont you think ?

Let's not be daft. The state of Israel was certainly there in the year 67 when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans or else what is the Arch of Titus about? What about the Jew turned Roman historian Josephus Flavius? The earlier periods he covered overlap OT biblical perods but he continues his history right up to what was for him the present day, including mention of Jesus. He covers the Seleucid Greek invasion, the Hasmonean dynasty and the time of Herod in great detail.

Suggesting the first State of Israel is fictional simply does not stand up. You might be able to question the events at the very start (including the Exodus etc) on the basis of lack of historical corroboration but certainly not the latter few hundred years in the run-up to the NT period.

In fact, there are Egyptian references to Israel. A great deal of the Old Testament has been found to have a basis in archeologically verifiable fact. Don't know where you got the idea that ancient Israel never existed, but it's obviously a ridiculously biased source (and perhaps with a deeply antisemitic core).

It has been suggested that the Exodus story was codified during the Babylonian captivity - and is meant allegorically - enslavement standing in for exile. There are other better sources to verufy the Jewish history of the region. There are better uses of the Bible than as a history text.

I don't know enough one way or the other. But I did see on the history channel that beyond the OT, there is very little evidence of the Exodus. Just my 2 cents.

Well it was 3,000 years ago. We didn't have Newsvine then. It matters not a lot. The evidence for the existence of Israel in the few hundred years in the run up to Jesus's time is pretty hard to argue with.

But you don't need to go that far back to find anti-semitic blinkers when there are people who claim the holocaust never happened ...

The evidence for the existence of Israel in the few hundred years in the run up to Jesus's time is pretty hard to argue with.

Well its well documented from that time dennis I am not refering to this. I am contesting the alledged link between the Hairy Backed Troglodytes of Masada and the Modern state of Israel

This is daft too with respect. Are you suggesting Judaism sprang up in a way unconnected with Israel? Or that most Jews today came from places outside Israel but decided to convert to Judaism off their own bat because they thought it sounded like a nice religion?

Unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism is not a proselytising religion. There have never been any Jewish "missionaries". Quite the reverse. It is a largely closed religion. You get to be Jewish by being born of a Jewish mother or go through a very challenging conversion programme which places more obstacles than encouragements in your path.

Any large clustering of Jews in Europe and elsewhere would have been displaced and the displacement of Jews from Israel at various epochs is well documented. In particular large numbers were expelled from Israel following the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 67. This is what is known as the diaspora and is a much better explanation of where all the Jews in Europe came from than any suggestion of mass spontaneous adoption of Judaism by local gentiles.

All Jewish communities can be traced back to Israel.

It does not matter because even if a native title claim was put forward, it is about 1800 years to late.

I contest this notion of Israel in 1050 B.C.E. as pure speculation. The Egyptians, who recorded so much in such detail never mention Israel or a King David.

Considering the Geo position of Egypt of that time and the lack of any reference, I say that the state of Israel existed only in Someones mind.

It does not suit your world view for the 1st century Israel to have ever existed (and to have existed for some time before that) so you put up weak arguments to try to convince yourself.

No reasonable objective reviewer of the available documentary and physical evidence would come to the conclusion that Israel #1 was some kind of myth.

This is little better than holocaust denial and you should be ashamed of yourself.

1st century

?????

I said

I contest this notion of Israel in 1050 B.C.E.

Nice try Dennis. There is No Historical Link or Land rights to the area by any one except the Palestinians who have established continuous occupation and that they are an indigenous population.

Nice try yourself.

Clearly there is a historical link. That it's not "continuous" is because the majority of the Jews were exiled by the Romans. That does not destroy their rights or have you never heard of the "right to return" argument?

Further there has been a Jewish presence continuously in Israel since biblical times.

Palestinian rights? There has never been a Palestinian state. There have been arabs continuously in the area for many years but there has been no internationally recognised Palestinian identity until after Yasser Arafat played on the concept for political reasons in the aftermath of 1967.

All you can say is that there were some arabs living in what is now Israel in 1948 who ended up as refugees, and that's only because of the arab attack on the newly born Israel. Before that they had been under British rule and before that under Turkish.

As ancient Israel collapsed at least 1,700 years ago and the remaining Jews were almost entirely part of a diaspora, it's absurd to honor Israeli land claims based on prior occupation.

To be honest I'm not sure that's what Zionism is saying anyway. It is not strictly trying to invoke a legal "right of return". We'd have to be projecting the effect of modern laws and international agreements backwards to long before they came into existence.

Zionism is about establishing a homeland for the Jews, because they were once a nation with a homeland and because the persecutions they have been subjected to for 2,000 years undeline the need for one.

The ideal homeland is Israel because that is the Jews' historical heritage.

All of that is true and valid and does not rely on some kind of legal rights framework. It is right and fitting, but not enshrined in any applicable system of law.

Dennis

Clearly there is a historical link. That it's not "continuous" is because the majority of the Jews were exiled by the Romans. That does not destroy their rights or have you never heard of the "right to return" argument?

Yes the Palestinians Clearly have a Native title Claim oveer the land in question. Israeli's DONT. Any valid claim was extinguished well before the beginning of the Second Milena. On the Question of continuous occupation, Israel has No legal Claim. END of Story. If you cant deal with your own history Dennis then your small race is doomed.

Yes the Palestinians Clearly have a Native title Claim oveer the land in question

You've not established this at all. It may be clear to you but not to everyone. You are being far too simplistic.

We now live in a world of nation states. Lots of different peoples of different ethnic and geographical backgrounds can live within the same nation state. They may own private property within a particular nation state but that does not automatically carry across to the right to form or control a nation state.

I might buy a flat in Tel Aviv (good idea actually) but unless I establish myself as a citizen I have no political rights.

There has never been a Palestinian nation state. There has not (until post 1967) been anything approaching international recognition of a Palestinian people. Just a significant number of arabs who happened to be living in the area I will refer to generically as Palestine prior to 1948, along with a non-trivial number of Jews and quite a few Christians.

At the nation state level Palestine was constituted as the British Mandate. Before that, again at the nation state level, it was constituted as part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and had been for quite some time.

None of this translates into automatic rights for arabs living in Palestine to form an arab Palestinian nation state. That might well have been their aspiration but absolutely not their automatic right, as you and they like to try to make out.

Sure the individual arabs had private property rights because they owned homes there. This is the basis of the "right to return" argument. That is, though as far as it goes.

So far as nation state level is concerned, well the land has changed control, as it has numerous times in the past. Nothing new in principle. But the vehement claims of rights to Palestinian statehood only appeared, out of thin air, when control passed to the State of Israel, although the argument is no stronger now than when the British were in charge, the Turks or anyone else. It is only because the latest change happened to put the Jews in charge that the arabs in the area went ballistic.

Returning to the more pertinent question of private property rights, I do see the legal basis for the right of return. However, it is being abused for political ends. Would those refugees want to claim their old homes while they are in a continuing State of Israel? Is that their preferred type of state to live in? Or is it that if there were a 2 state solution negotiated, together with right of return, then the number of arab Israelis would increase dramatically, eventually tipping the demographic and political balance to the point that Israel as Jewish homeland would be undermined via the back door?

There is no question that that is the real motivation for invoking the right of return, and the reason why Israel continues to reject it out of hand. It would though be reasonable for the loss of property rights to be compensated monetarily.

Thankyou Yaakov

Well the Persians are not gone.

Just because the Brits went and drew lines and renamed the areas around Iran and Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't mean the people there are not Persian.

There are rather large Persian populations all over the US (Westwood, DC area, etc)

And not all Jews support the State of Israel : Rabbi against Israel

And I have just recently read about the different types of Jewish people - which I find rather interesting. I have to read and learn more, but I first learned about it reading this article by an American Jew who moved to Israel: Jack Bernstein Not all Jewish people have historical ties to the Land in Dispute......

Just some food for thought......

And I have just recently read about the different types of Jewish people - which I find rather interesting. I have to read and learn more, but I first learned about it reading this article by an American Jew who moved to Israel: Jack Bernstein Not all Jewish people have historical ties to the Land in Dispute

That Jack Bernstein link goes to a seed of an outrageously antisemitic article. Yes, there are Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews and South American Jews, even Chinese Jews. But that article about Khazar Jews who pass themselves off as Jews and control international finance is nothing but a hateful fiction. How can anyone look at this and not see antisemitism:

"Zionism is a political movement started mainly by East European (Ashkenazi) Jews who for centuries have been the main force behind communism/socialism. The ultimate goal of the Zionists is one-world government under the control of the Zionists and the Zionist-oriented Jewish international bankers."

It's not even subtle. Except for the word "Zionism" (and making distinctions between real Jews and fake Jews is hardly new) it's identical to the worst of Jewish conspiracy theories. This is Nazi bull@!$%#, and to call it "food for thought" is absurd.

Can it be an anti Semitic article if it comes from a man who is himself a Jew, moved to Israel, and married to a Semite Jew (before he was killed by the Mossad)???

What it is really about is anti-zionism and against Israel. Don't mix up anti Semitic w/ anti Zionist - and yes there is a big difference!!

It is food for thought, chew it up, research it, check it out for yourself. If its true, then your eyes have been opened a little more, if its false, speak up and say how so we can all learn, too.

Can it be an anti Semitic article if it comes from a man who is himself a Jew, moved to Israel, and married to a Semite Jew (before he was killed by the Mossad)???

Yes. If someone, even a Jew, is saying false and bad things about Jews, then they are being anti-Semitic. (In its sense of "anti-Jewish". Don't come back saying "Arabs are Semites, too.")

Can it be an anti Semitic article if it comes from a man who is himself a Jew

Yes, it can be. What matter is what is said, not who says it. He claims an international conspiracy theory. International conspiracy theories are the most prototypical forms of antisemitism. His claim is antisemitic on its face. He, not being one who has accidentally parroted such a thing, was an antisemite.

If its true, then your eyes have been opened a little more, if its false, speak up and say how so we can all learn, too.

I am speaking up. It is not true. It is absurdly false and offensive.

The Khazars did convert to Judaism, but their influence, both genetically and culturally, on European Jewry was minimal. Rumors of a Jewish kingdom to the East served as a basis for a sort-of proto-Zionism around the time (IIRC) of the Inquisitions, but that was all. Since then, with one exception that I know of, the claim that Jews (or just the Ashkenazi) are descended from the Khazars has been made almost exclusively by bigots who go way beyond any common bigotry. Mostly, these claims have been made by the Christian Identity movement, which is radically antisemitic and generally racist. It has been called the "'glue' of the racist right." That's where this idea of the Khazar Jews comes from.

"Christian Identity also believes in the inevitability of the end of the world and the Second Coming of Christ. It is believed that these events are part of a cleansing process that is needed before Christ�s kingdom can be established on earth. During this time, Jews and their allies will attempt to destroy the white race using any means available. The result will be a violent and bloody struggle -- a war, in effect -- between God�s forces, the white race, and the forces of evil, the Jews and nonwhites.

Any time you see claims of a Jewish plot to control the world - no matter what words it uses, whether it talks about Zionists or Ashkenazi - it is damnably antisemitic. I shouldn't have to spell it out. It's like asking someone to prove that cross burning is racist. Such arguments were the ideological motor of the Holocaust. The Nazis feared a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and committed genocide in a bizarre delusion of self-defense. Arguing such points really is a hair's width from arguing for genocide.

Yaakov, there is a small Zoroastrian community that observes the ancient traditions of Persia. Also, I do think Iranians are ethnic Persians. The change of name from Persia to Iran only happened around 1935 at the behest of the 1st Shah.

I especially like the end of the movie, where you see all of the different empires appear and fade within a matter of seconds

Ooh. I didn't notice that before. I like this. I have shown it to one of my archaeological colleagues who is leading the way for an interpretive archaeological framework in the middle east focused on empires, imperial projects and how these "great traditions" interact and often conflict with the "little traditions" of the indigenous. This type of visualization certainly shows the magnitude of how important this type of research could be in the region. Thanks again. And remember:

עוֹשֶֹה שָׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו, הוּא יַעֲשֶֹה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ,וְעַל כָּל יִשְֹרָאֵל וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן

נכון,
Darrell.
אתא צודק.

The plain and simple truth is that they need never have moved away from their homes at all. With one debated exception the displacement of arabs was either voluntary or postdated the immediate attack on the newly born Israel by its arab neighbours. The arabs who stayed put are now Israeli citizens with full voting rights.

As for the right of return, Israel is clearly aware that as a democratic country allowing large numbers of arabs to enter and claim citizenship would destroy Israel as a Jewish homeland. Would all those displaced arabs want to live in Israel as it is - a Jewish homeland? Or is the demand for the right to return a political ploy based on shifting the demographic and therefore the political balance?

Well Israel is invoking its right of return after 2,000 years wandering in exile with no Jewish homeland. The displaced arabs should be taken in by arab countries, of which there are plenty. 4 million are now in Jordan - some other arab countries could help out too.

The plain and simple truth is that they need never have moved away from their homes at all. With one debated exception the displacement of arabs was either voluntary or postdated the immediate attack on the newly born Israel by its arab neighbours. The arabs who stayed put are now Israeli citizens with full voting rights.

Need never move? Wrong. Both sides telling them they better leave or else - Arabs who said get out of the way when we attacked, and Jews who said we will attack you thru their gangs of terrorists (the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi) (See: Source)

The inhabitants of those homes fled to avoid getting killed and weren't allowed to return - plain and simple. Excuses about why they can't or shouldn't is just that excuses.

As for those who stayed are now citizens w/ full voting rights - please - they aren't equal in anyway. They are second class citizens at best w/ many laws and restrictions put against them based solely on that they are not Jewish.

Lets not paint Israel as this fair democractic nation - for it is not...

Arabs who said get out of the way when we attacked

Exactly. You (the arabs) attacked. That changed the ball-game completely. If Israel had been left alone all the arabs living there would now be citizens.

Attacking Israel failed on all counts. You failed to destroy Israel and your attack (not Israel) sparked off the refugee crisis. Then you left them to rot in refugee camps for years as political footballs. You compensate them for the loss of their homes.

I am not ARAB

I wasn't even alive at the time this all happened, no one in my family or kin or anything was in the area

take your "YOU" finger and shove it up where it belongs

It was YOU the English that wanted to appease a strong movement in your country - and guilt from not helping the Jews being massacred by Hitler and his gang - that decided to screw another group of people by giving a minority group ruling rights over an area that was predominately Arab and Muslim.

It was YOU Brits that screwed the area up, unfairly, and caused fighting and problems that exist there now.

Prior to YOU the Brits involvement, the Jews and Muslims of the area lived next to each other peacefully. Now because of YOU the Brits, there is war and destruction. A sad place for Jews and Muslims alike.

Since the Brits started all this mess, why don't they pay for the clean up?????

I am not ARAB

I assumed you were from your comment:

Arabs who said get out of the way when we attacked

I take back the "you" references but not anything else

take your "YOU" finger and shove it up where it belongs

There has been a misunderstanding. It is sufficient to correct it. There is no need to get shirty.

I think it was the YOU in bold that set me off, sorry if I got a little upset. I should know better than to come online before having my cup of tea in the morning.

Peace :)

I don't follow you, what historical claims are relevant then?