The Pro Palestinian protests and news thread

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes they have returned to their homeland, their rightful homeland.
And that's my entire problem with this claim. "Returning" to the land their ancestors occupied 2000 years ago isn't or shouldn't be some sort of "right". Such a world would be untenable. A lot of people have the idea (as you seem to) that they have the right to push anyone living on their ancestral homeland out even if those people have lived there for hundreds or even thousands of years.
The 20% that are non Jews don't get to determine that Isreal should be a Muslim state. Thats the point. The minority of any group in a nation doesn't get to dictate that their host nation must not exist and should completely change their culture to accommodate them.
I oppose the idea of ethno-religous states, but some fools got the idea that southern Levant should be partitioned into a "Jewish state" and an "Arab/Muslim" state. (It was a very 1919 kind of dumb idea, see the other ethnic cleansings in post-WW1 Europe.) No one is saying that the Jewish partition (the State of Israel) should be a "Muslim state" including me. What many are saying (including me) is that they should finish the partition and give proper sovereignty and self-government to the "Arab partition"
You should know if you are quoting the Babylonian capture of Judah. King Hezekiah was the King at the time who was fortifying Jerusalem from Babyloanian attacks. Even the Babylonians mention him. They also mention other Kings who come later.
I didn't "quote" the Babylonian captivity, I made reference to a historical event. The "king" is not something I would worry about. I can't keep track of such people. I know there are kings in current nations, but I don't care what there names are.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is textual and archeological evidence for King David. The Tel Dan stele mentions the House of David. So not just King David but that there was a Royal blood line just as the Bible says.

There is interesting discoveries around Abraham, Jacob and Joseph and some of Jacobs sons who made up the tribes of Isreal such as Dan, Gad and of coiurse Judah who was the most famous. All having cities named after them which have been found after skeptics said there were no such places.

Top Ten Discoveries Related to Abraham
The Hyksos: Evidence of Jacob’s Family in Ancient Egypt?
The Hyksos: Evidence of Jacob’s Family in Ancient Egypt?
The Israelites and Rameses
Then you haven't done enough research as even the Egyptians mention enslaving Asiatics.

During Amenhotep II's reign (1453-1419 BC) there is a list of prisoners that mentions 3600 'apiru, and 15,200 living Shasu that were taken as prisoners from Canaan. Some of these were probably Hebrews. In the temple of Amon in Soleb (Nubia) there is a topographical list from the time of Amenhotep III (1408-1372 BC) That gives the name "Yahweh of the land of the Shasu" (Giveon 1964, 244; Redford 1992, 272; Astour 1979, 17-34).

Therefore the best explanation for all of the archaeological evidence seems to be that Israel is a confederation of Hapiru tribes in the hill country of Canaan, that formed the nation of Israel in the Iron Age. Originally, Abraham was part of an Amorite migration south into Canaan from Mesopotamia which continued down to Egypt climaxing in the Hyksos rule. The exodus is to be identified with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose (1570-50 BC; Frerichs and Lesko, 1997, 82, 96).
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

Top Ten Discoveries Related to Moses and the Exodus

Now, new research lends weight to an alternative theory on the Hyksos’ origins. As Colin Barras reports for Science magazine, chemical analysis of skeletons found at the Hyksos capital of Avaris indicates that people from the Levant—an area encompassing the countries surrounding the eastern Mediterranean—immigrated to Egypt centuries before the takeover.
Three Egyptian Inscriptions About Israel

I covered this a while back in one of the threads but can't find it now. Its quite interesting what the new dicoveries are revealing.

A couple of references to real places appearing in the stories that Abra(ha)m allegedly visited, undersized references to maybe "Hebrews", and the identification of the one dynasty as immigrant Semites without identification of their origin. Color me not impressed.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I also said in the same post, but you completely ignored it:

"No a nation is a political entity consisting of a group of people with a specific territory. The UK is a nation, the English are an ethnic group."

Don't play games with me.
I'm not playing games that why I am confused as you contradicted yourself as far as I can see. You said "I'm not talking about "land areas", I am talking about nations. Blobs of land don't have membership in the UN, nation-states do".. Now your saying a nation has to have a specific territory.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I also said in the same post, but you completely ignored it:

"No a nation is a political entity consisting of a group of people with a specific territory. The UK is a nation, the English are an ethnic group."

Don't play games with me.
I'm not playing games but just taking at face value what you are saying. To me you are making contradictory statements by "a nation is a political entity consisting of a group of people with a specific territory" and then "I'm not talking about "land areas", I am talking about nations. Blobs of land don't have membership in the UN, nation-states do".

Does a nation need a territory or land mass or not. I may be misunderstanding you but from a plain reading I am not sure.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A couple of references to real places appearing in the stories that Abra(ha)m allegedly visited, undersized references to maybe "Hebrews", and the identification of the one dynasty as immigrant Semites without identification of their origin. Color me not impressed.
Thats rather dismissive. THis is just the tip of the iceberg and that you don't know that shows that you have not even done the research to qualify your dimissals.

Kind David was a Jew, his city and capital was in Jerusalem. We have archeological evidence. Being one of a Royal line of Kings it not only supports the Isrealites in Jerusalem at that time but that there were other real Kings in that line which we also have evidence for besides the Bible.

The so called 'undersized references' are actually significant because they come from extra Biblical source and shows that the Isrealites were a powerful nation at that time in Caanan.

If Abraham doesn't exist then David doesn't exist. But it really doesn't matter if we cannot specifically identify and prove Abraham because he represents the fact that like Islam and Mohummad there was some sort of Prophet associated with the Jews who began their culture.

We have evdience of alters and sacrifices and other Hebrew culture in the land at that time reflecting the Hebrew belief. So it doesn't matter because someone built those alters and someone had to be the actual original prophets and leader for the culture and religion to begin and grow otherwise there would be no culture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thats rather dismissive. THis is just the tip of the iceberg and that you don't know that shows that you have not even done the research to qualify your dimissals.

I've read plenty, but the historicity of the old testament is not on topic for this thread. It also is not worth my time to spend the effort to demonstrate how much of what you posted is wrong or doesn't demonstrate what you imply it does. Therefore, I dismiss it.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Does a nation need a territory or land mass or not. I may be misunderstanding you but from a plain reading I am not sure.

A nation is a group of people on a bit of land with a government. The borders can move. People can migrate in or out. The nation can be conquered, merged with another, or split. The Soviet Union was a nation, Ukraine and Russia are nations. The United States is a nation as is the UK. East Germany and Scotland were nations. North Korea is a nation. South Vietnam was a nation.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thats rather dismissive. THis is just the tip of the iceberg and that you don't know that shows that you have not even done the research to qualify your dimissals.

Kind David was a Jew, his city and capital was in Jerusalem.
Perhaps, but at the alleged time of David, any Israelite state was far smaller and less powerful than portrayed in the text.
We have archeological evidence.
There is a reference on one object to the "house of David". This might refer to a real founder of a dynasty, or to a mythical or legendary founder.
Being one of a Royal line of Kings it not only supports the Isrealites in Jerusalem at that time but that there were other real Kings in that line which we also have evidence for besides the Bible.

Several generations after David and Solomon is the first attestation of an Israelite king. The prior ones are unattested.
The so called 'undersized references' are actually significant because they come from extra Biblical source and shows that the Isrealites were a powerful nation at that time in Caanan.
In calling things "undersized" I was referring to how the sources you gave listed numbers far smaller than any in the biblical text. This belies a reality that was not as powerful as the scriptural version would have you believe.
If Abraham doesn't exist then David doesn't exist.
This does not follow at all. David could be a real tribal king in the Judean hills, moving his capital to Jerusalem with legendary enhancements added to the text, it doesn't require Abra(ha)m to be a real person at all for the story of David to have truth in it. While there are some questionable parts to the way the David story is written, the Abra(ha)m story reads as fully legendary to a non-believer. (I know, it shocked me the first time I read Genesis, too. I thought it would have more "substance".)
But it really doesn't matter if we cannot specifically identify and prove Abraham because he represents the fact that like Islam and Mohummad there was some sort of Prophet associated with the Jews who began their culture.
Or they created a legendary figure to be the first prophet well after the fact. (The version we have is from ~600 BCE.)
We have evdience of alters and sacrifices and other Hebrew culture in the land at that time reflecting the Hebrew belief.
And it seems polythesitic or at least henotheistic. Those same alters and shrines frequently show apparent offerings made to the consort of the principle god.
So it doesn't matter because someone built those alters and someone had to be the actual original prophets and leader for the culture and religion to begin and grow otherwise there would be no culture.
They had religious leaders, of course, but that proves nothing about the details that come down to us today.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And that's my entire problem with this claim. "Returning" to the land their ancestors occupied 2000 years ago isn't or shouldn't be some sort of "right". Such a world would be untenable.
Like I said this is a falsehood. The Jews have maintained a continous connection with the land and were never completely removed from the land. They maintained their culture and even grew it during that 2000 years. For example

A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.

Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea. Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-claim-to-the-land-of-israel

Even Wiki acknowledges this. At one point they were even considering rebuilding the Jewish Temple which showed how much influence they had at the time and that their culture was still developing and strong. This could not happen if the Jews were supposedly absent from the land.

Emperor Julian (361–363) gave permission for the Jews to rebuild and populate Jerusalem.[97]In one of his most remarkable endeavours, he initiated the restoration of the Jewish Temple which had been demolished in 70 CE. Jews probably constituted the majority of the population of Palestine until some time after Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.[100].

With return of the Byzantines in 628, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius promised to restore Jewish rights and received Jewish help in ousting the Persians with the aid of Benjamin of Tiberias. According to one estimate, the Jews of Palestine numbered between 300,000 and 400,000 at the time. At this time there were Jewish communities scattered all over the country, including Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ascalon, Caesarea, and Gaza.

Benjamin of Tudela and Pethahiah of Regensburg, who visited Palestine around 1160 and 1180 respectively, found well-established Jewish communities in Ascalon, Ramleh, Caesarea, Tiberias, and Acre, with communities in other localities and scattered individual Jews living elsewhere.


Although the Jewish population declined greatly during Mamluk rule, this period also saw repeated waves of Jewish immigration from Europe, North Africa, and Syria. These immigration waves possibly saved the collapsing Jewish community of Palestine from disappearing altogether.[163]

Additionally, worried about a scheme which would invest excessive authority in a Jewish senate, possibly resulting in the first step toward the restoration of the Jewish state, the new Ottoman rulers forced Berab to flee Palestine and the plan did not materialize.[184] The 16th-century nevertheless saw a resurgence of Jewish life in Palestine.

In 1714, Dutch researcher Adriaan Reland published an account of his visit to Palestine, and noted the existence of significant Jewish population centers throughout the country, particularly Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias, and Gaza. Hebron also had a significant Jewish community at the time. The 18th century saw the Jewish population slightly recover.


Throughout the 19th century up to the 1880s, Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe as well as groups of Sephardi Jews from Turkey, Bulgaria, and North Africa immigrated to Palestine

So this is just some snippets of how the Jews remained in the land, at times having significant populations and even coming close to rebuilding the Temple and re-establishing a Jewish State. Of course in between these times many were dispossessed and persecuted and the population depleted. But it also rebounded many times all the while maintaining Jewish culture even growing it with additions to religious scholarship and the establishment of Jewish schools and synagogues.

The other point many don't realise is that when the land was depleted of Jews there were points where the land deteriorated and hardly anyone occupied it in some places. It was the Jews who cared for the land because of their deep connection.

There was no alternative culture or nation wanting or identifying with the land. Only the Jews. In fact even the Arabs admitted that there was no Palestine and that they were actually Syrian.
A lot of people have the idea (as you seem to) that they have the right to push anyone living on their ancestral homeland out even if those people have lived there for hundreds or even thousands of years.
I don't think the Isrealis have a right to kick out those who may have lived there for a long time or can show they have a right to be there. But the situation is messy as well. I don't pretend to know all the details and we hear conflicting stories.
I oppose the idea of ethno-religous states, but some fools got the idea that southern Levant should be partitioned into a "Jewish state" and an "Arab/Muslim" state. (It was a very 1919 kind of dumb idea, see the other ethnic cleansings in post-WW1 Europe.) No one is saying that the Jewish partition (the State of Israel) should be a "Muslim state" including me. What many are saying (including me) is that they should finish the partition and give proper sovereignty and self-government to the "Arab partition"
I agree but the problem is the extremist who continually put up road blocks. The Jews have compromised many times and been fair but the Arab powers like the PLO, PA and Hamas and I suspect powers in Iran don't want a Jewish or Isreal State.

But if we can remove these extremist out of the picture and allowed the Palestinians to have a democractically elected leader then there's a chance. Even Rabin Isreals prime minister in the 90's tried help the Palestinians transition to democracy as he knew this would help the peace process. But Hamas eventually took control.

Many say the Abraham Accord is the best hope as its designed to include all Arab nations to agree to peace like we do in the South Pacific nations. I think the UAE, Jordan and another couple of Arab nations have signed up recognising Isreal and also supporting a Palestinian nation. In that way it isolates any radicals because they are not just out of line with Isreal but with all Arab nations. It also has the benefit of isolating Iran as we know they are the real threat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think the Isrealis have a right to kick out those who may have lived there for a long time or can show they have a right to be there. But the situation is messy as well. I don't pretend to know all the details and we hear conflicting stories.

Where do you think the Palestinian refugees came from prior to the start of the current war? (Clue: The Israelis kicked them out of their own land to make way for the State of Israel.) Did they have documentation? Of course, they had property deeds. People were kicked out of their villages and off their farms to make way for the State of Israel.

As for their "right" to live there... They lived there already and many owned property.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,151
1,723
✟203,746.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Like I said this is a falsehood. The Jews have maintained a continous connection with the land and were never completely removed from the land. They maintained their culture and even grew it during that 2000 years. For example

A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.

Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea. Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-claim-to-the-land-of-israel

Even Wiki acknowledges this. At one point they were even considering rebuilding the Jewish Temple which showed how much influence they had at the time and that their culture was still developing and strong. This could not happen if the Jews were supposedly absent from the land.

Emperor Julian (361–363) gave permission for the Jews to rebuild and populate Jerusalem.[97]In one of his most remarkable endeavours, he initiated the restoration of the Jewish Temple which had been demolished in 70 CE. Jews probably constituted the majority of the population of Palestine until some time after Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.[100].

With return of the Byzantines in 628, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius promised to restore Jewish rights and received Jewish help in ousting the Persians with the aid of Benjamin of Tiberias. According to one estimate, the Jews of Palestine numbered between 300,000 and 400,000 at the time. At this time there were Jewish communities scattered all over the country, including Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ascalon, Caesarea, and Gaza.

Benjamin of Tudela and Pethahiah of Regensburg, who visited Palestine around 1160 and 1180 respectively, found well-established Jewish communities in Ascalon, Ramleh, Caesarea, Tiberias, and Acre, with communities in other localities and scattered individual Jews living elsewhere.


Although the Jewish population declined greatly during Mamluk rule, this period also saw repeated waves of Jewish immigration from Europe, North Africa, and Syria. These immigration waves possibly saved the collapsing Jewish community of Palestine from disappearing altogether.[163]

Additionally, worried about a scheme which would invest excessive authority in a Jewish senate, possibly resulting in the first step toward the restoration of the Jewish state, the new Ottoman rulers forced Berab to flee Palestine and the plan did not materialize.[184] The 16th-century nevertheless saw a resurgence of Jewish life in Palestine.

In 1714, Dutch researcher Adriaan Reland published an account of his visit to Palestine, and noted the existence of significant Jewish population centers throughout the country, particularly Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias, and Gaza. Hebron also had a significant Jewish community at the time. The 18th century saw the Jewish population slightly recover.


Throughout the 19th century up to the 1880s, Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe as well as groups of Sephardi Jews from Turkey, Bulgaria, and North Africa immigrated to Palestine

So this is just some snippets of how the Jews remained in the land, at times having significant populations and even coming close to rebuilding the Temple and re-establishing a Jewish State. Of course in between these times many were dispossessed and persecuted and the population depleted. But it also rebounded many times all the while maintaining Jewish culture even growing it with additions to religious scholarship and the establishment of Jewish schools and synagogues.

The other point many don't realise is that when the land was depleted of Jews there were points where the land deteriorated and hardly anyone occupied it in some places. It was the Jews who cared for the land because of their deep connection.

There was no alternative culture or nation wanting or identifying with the land. Only the Jews. In fact even the Arabs admitted that there was no Palestine and that they were actually Syrian.

I don't think the Isrealis have a right to kick out those who may have lived there for a long time or can show they have a right to be there. But the situation is messy as well. I don't pretend to know all the details and we hear conflicting stories.

I agree but the problem is the extremist who continually put up road blocks. The Jews have compromised many times and been fair but the Arab powers like the PLO, PA and Hamas and I suspect powers in Iran don't want a Jewish or Isreal State.

But if we can remove these extremist out of the picture and allowed the Palestinians to have a democractically elected leader then there's a chance. Even Rabin Isreals prime minister in the 90's tried help the Palestinians transition to democracy as he knew this would help the peace process. But Hamas eventually took control.

Many say the Abraham Accord is the best hope as its designed to include all Arab nations to agree to peace like we do in the South Pacific nations. I think the UAE, Jordan and another couple of Arab nations have signed up recognising Isreal and also supporting a Palestinian nation. In that way it isolates any radicals because they are not just out of line with Isreal but with all Arab nations. It also has the benefit of isolating Iran as we know they are the real threat.
Just speculation, and it is Israel's decision. Still today many Rabbi's still are against the rebuilding of the Temple. They gave control of the temple mount away when they took it in 67. I wonder if it is not about the the return of Levitical authority? They usurped the authority of the priesthood in 70 A.D. Rebuilding it could change that.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps, but at the alleged time of David, any Israelite state was far smaller and less powerful than portrayed in the text.
Actually King Davids Kingdom was bigger than Isreal is today. It also covered Isreal, Judah and parts of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon as well. Latest archeological evidence shows ancient cities within the Kingdom were substancial in size including a large city that was associated with administering the Kingdom. So it was not small. No small nation can build such big cities or need to for that matter.

Two fortified sites dating to the 10th century have been unearthed which scholars believe are evidence of such a centralized authority controlling the region. “The massive construction of the Khirbet Qeiyafa city wall, which required 200,000 tons of stone, and the massive eastern gate of the city with two stones of ca. 10 tons each, proclaim the power and authority of a centralize political organization, namely a state.”16
Top Ten Discoveries Related to David
There is a reference on one object to the "house of David". This might refer to a real founder of a dynasty, or to a mythical or legendary founder. Several generations after David and Solomon is the first attestation of an Israelite king. The prior ones are unattested.
Ah I see your skeptical of King David even existing let alone being less of a figure than claimed. There is ample evidence now coming from the last couple of decades with new discoveries which supports King David as the above link shows including one from only 50 years after his death.
In calling things "undersized" I was referring to how the sources you gave listed numbers far smaller than any in the biblical text. This belies a reality that was not as powerful as the scriptural version would have you believe.
This does not follow at all. David could be a real tribal king in the Judean hills, moving his capital to Jerusalem with legendary enhancements added to the text,
The archeological evidence shows King Davids Kingdom was no small thing. This includes discovery of his massive Palace which would seem strange for a tribal king but rather like all other figures that had large cities and palaces a King of some significance.
it doesn't require Abra(ha)m to be a real person at all for the story of David to have truth in it. While there are some questionable parts to the way the David story is written, the Abra(ha)m story reads as fully legendary to a non-believer. (I know, it shocked me the first time I read Genesis, too. I thought it would have more "substance".)
Just like skeptics have thought about all the other Biblical figures, cities and places not existing that have now been verified.
Or they created a legendary figure to be the first prophet well after the fact. (The version we have is from ~600 BCE.)
Here we have a religion which has been verified existing in the land at the time. You would think that being a religion and having priests and prophets that there would be some notable figures associated with its beginning like all other religions ie Muhammad for Islam, Christ for Christians.

Sure you can make one up but what happened to the actual person who began the religion, who built the alters and left the other evidence. That was not legend but real artefacts in the ground. If there were real people making real artefacts then why wouldn't there be real people who were perhaps leaders at that time which were associated with those events.

We have evidence of an alter on the very rock within the Dome of the Rock which is suppose to be where Abraham placed his alter. Thats the same Rock that Mohummad was suppose to have flown on a horse to the 7 heavens.

So someone built the alter and why would not this great even be told and passed down. Why hide the name of the one who built such an important alter in Jewish culture. Why make a person up when you had an actual person or persons build the alter.
And it seems polythesitic or at least henotheistic. Those same alters and shrines frequently show apparent offerings made to the consort of the principle god.
But these are particular alters with burnt offerings of only certain animals which are associated with the Jews. there is also archeological evidence going back to the 15th century BC showing the Jews worshing God YHW. So it makes sense that this would have been the same God of Abraham considering he came only a couple of centuries before.
They had religious leaders, of course, but that proves nothing about the details that come down to us today.
Thats where the archeological evidence can help which is showing more and more that much of the Biblical accounts are pretty close to what actually happened. Sure theres no evidence for the supernatural events but certainly the people, places and other historical events happened and we even see that from other cultures who mention the Jews.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where do you think the Palestinian refugees came from prior to the start of the current war? (Clue: The Israelis kicked them out of their own land to make way for the State of Israel.) Did they have documentation? Of course, they had property deeds. People were kicked out of their villages and off their farms to make way for the State of Israel.

As for their "right" to live there... They lived there already and many owned property.
I find this line of reasoning strange. People cite how the Jews were dispossessed of their land through war and therefore no longer had a right to the land ie someone else took the land and occupied it ejecting the Jews. They never call this an injustice or that the Jews should be given back their land.

After the 67 war the Isrealis had won and even bigger territory than they have now including the West Bank and Gaza as well as Jordan. But they gave it all back allowing the Jordanians and the Palestinians to create their own nations.

But when the Isrealis kick out people some perhaps questionable about their original and legal status and rights and some may be illegally denied they are attacked for doing the same thing. If there are some who are being denied illegally it will not be a great many as with what happened to the Jews.

I question the logic of using the fact that the Isrealis are denying a small number for which we are not fully aware of the circumstances as anything comparable to what has happened to the Jews and their rights to secure themselves against a people living on their doorstep to which the vast majority want them dead or out of the land completely.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Actually King Davids Kingdom was bigger than Isreal is today. It also covered Isreal, Judah and parts of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon as well.
So the propaganda says.
Latest archeological evidence shows ancient cities within the Kingdom were substancial in size including a large city that was associated with administering the Kingdom. So it was not small. No small nation can build such big cities or need to for that matter.

Two fortified sites dating to the 10th century have been unearthed which scholars believe are evidence of such a centralized authority controlling the region. “The massive construction of the Khirbet Qeiyafa city wall, which required 200,000 tons of stone, and the massive eastern gate of the city with two stones of ca. 10 tons each, proclaim the power and authority of a centralize political organization, namely a state.”16
Top Ten Discoveries Related to David

These sites are in Israel or the West Bank, none of them are in the extended Israel beyond (modern Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey(!). Even the quote you give only claims that the Israelites had an organized state, not some expansive territory.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just speculation, and it is Israel's decision. Still today many Rabbi's still are against the rebuilding of the Temple. They gave control of the temple mount away when they took it in 67. I wonder if it is not about the the return of Levitical authority? They usurped the authority of the priesthood in 70 A.D. Rebuilding it could change that.
Perhaps thats a minority of Jews. But the majority believe in the importance of rebuilding the Temple as paret of their faith. But when we are talking about the past say within the first millenian the Jews seen the rebuilding of the Temple as utmost after it was destroyed in 70AD.

Such as with Emperor Julian (361–363) who began to allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple only for it to not go ahead. This happened a couple of times. My point was that it was not a case that the Jews were completely ejected from the land and quite the opposite in that they were able at times to suceed in their culture to the point of the contemplation of their Temple being rebuilt. That doesn't happen if the Jewish culture was wiped out of the land.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So the propaganda says.


These sites are in Israel or the West Bank, none of them are in the extended Israel beyond (modern Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey(!). Even the quote you give only claims that the Israelites had an organized state, not some expansive territory.
I wasn't posting them for showing the land area but rather for showing that it was no small Kingdom by the size of the cities and administration. That same size cities and level of sophistication in building and size is usually associated with a Kingdom or nation of considerable size.

I think the link I posted includes evdience of clay bullae, or seals which are linked to King David all over the place including near Gaza.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
After the 67 war the Isrealis had won and even bigger territory than they have now including the West Bank and Gaza as well as Jordan. But they gave it all back allowing the Jordanians and the Palestinians to create their own nations.
This just isn't correct.

1. During the 1967 war Israel captured

A. the Gaza strip from Egypt which had occupied it since the last war (it was mandate territory)
B. the Sinai peninsula from Egypt. Israel didn't withdraw completely until 1982.
C. the West Bank from Jordan. Jordan had annexed the mandate territory in 1950.
D. the Golan Heights from Syria. In 1981 the Israeli Knesset de facto annexed the Golan Heights.

2. The only thing "given back" was the Sinai, with partial withdrawal as a consequence of the 1973 war.

3. Jordan was already a separate nation before Israel was. It gained full independence in 1946. There was no "allowing" of Jordan to become a nation by Israel -- ever.

4. The Palestinians have never been allowed to form their own nation by Israel. That is the whole point. Before the current war, Israel effectively had the semi-independent Gaza blockaded and still exercises security control over the West Bank. (and civilian control over settler territories within).

The quoted text from you implies a magnanimity from Israel toward subordinate Arab states that did not happen. (Israel didn't allow Jordan to become a state, the British empire did. They have never "allowed" a Palestinian state to form. The only territory they have fully given up control of was the Sinai, and that in part required an additional war to happen.) It is rather condescending toward those states and would be states.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,856
971
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟248,806.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This just isn't correct.

1. During the 1967 war Israel captured

A. the Gaza strip from Egypt which had occupied it since the last war (it was mandate territory)
B. the Sinai peninsula from Egypt. Israel didn't withdraw completely until 1982.
C. the West Bank from Jordan. Jordan had annexed the mandate territory in 1950.
D. the Golan Heights from Syria. In 1981 the Israeli Knesset de facto annexed the Golan Heights.

2. The only thing "given back" was the Sinai, with partial withdrawal as a consequence of the 1973 war.

3. Jordan was already a separate nation before Israel was. It gained full independence in 1946. There was no "allowing" of Jordan to become a nation by Israel -- ever.

4. The Palestinians have never been allowed to form their own nation by Israel. That is the whole point. Before the current war, Israel effectively had the semi-independent Gaza blockaded and still exercises security control over the West Bank. (and civilian control over settler territories within).

The quoted text from you implies a magnanimity from Israel toward subordinate Arab states that did not happen. (Israel didn't allow Jordan to become a state, the British empire did. They have never "allowed" a Palestinian state to form. The only territory they have fully given up control of was the Sinai, and that in part required an additional war to happen.) It is rather condescending toward those states and would be states.
Yeah sorry for some reason I thought the Isrealis had captured Jordan at some point. Nevertheless the point is they had taken land from Jordan and other nations and then over time handed it back. Including the Temple mount and east Jerusalem which was their greatest historical and religious site. They could have kept it as other nations had done. Remembering that the Muslims took it from the Jews to begin with.

I mean like you point out Egypt occupied the Gaza strip and Jordan the West Bank and there are no pro Palestinians supporters complaining about this. Egypt closed their border with Gaza thus denying Palestinians free movement and no one complained. Isreal do the same and everyone goes crazy.

The Isrealis helped the Palestinians try to form a democractic nation. It was in their interest so they could negociate with a democractic leadership rather than radicals. They pulled out of Gaza to allow the Palestinians self determination in 2005.

But the Palestinians failed and showed they were not capable of making a democractic state but rather became radicalised. Once that happened it was then necessary just like Egypt had done to isolate Gaza and monitor or close its borders to stop the radicals infiltrating Isreal. The same with the West Bank. As radicals have infiltrated so has the policing of check points and streets. At times this has meant removing some Palestinians to ensure safety.

When looking at the Map I cannot understand how the West Bank will work practically. You sort of have a state within a state and it won't work for economics, security and policing. Two ideologies competing for control within the same territory. It seems strange that the river would be the natural border and there should be one nation up to that river. That is why many say the Palestinians are really Syrians.

So why are not other nations taking the Palestinians as they also have historical connections to these lands. At least with Gaza you can have a seperate isolated state with borders rather than a mixed one. Isreal is only a small territory and is surrounded by massive Muslim States. The Muslims already occupy the majority so why take even more of their tiny territory only to create an even bigger Muslim presence which will threaten the Isrealis. Doesn't make sense.

Why can't some land be given up by Egypt making Gaza bigger or in Jordan. Why take it from one of the smallest nations in the world and try to squeeze another nation in that small space. It will only amount to conflict. IT makes more sense that Isreal is allowed to occupy that land including the West bank and allow Palestinians to live there freely as they were already doing until the radicals came along.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
3,215
3,016
Davao City
Visit site
✟233,142.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
the point is they had taken land from Jordan and other nations and then over time handed it back. Including the Temple mount and east Jerusalem which was their greatest historical and religious site. They could have kept it as other nations had done. Remembering that the Muslims took it from the Jews to begin with.
When Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims in 636–37, it was part of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines were Christians.

The Isrealis helped the Palestinians try to form a democractic nation. It was in their interest so they could negociate with a democractic leadership rather than radicals. They pulled out of Gaza to allow the Palestinians self determination in 2005.

But the Palestinians failed and showed they were not capable of making a democractic state but rather became radicalised.
This was because of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians and the blocade of Gaza.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
15,299
12,236
54
USA
✟305,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah sorry for some reason I thought the Isrealis had captured Jordan at some point. Nevertheless the point is they had taken land from Jordan and other nations and then over time handed it back. Including the Temple mount and east Jerusalem which was their greatest historical and religious site. They could have kept it as other nations had done. Remembering that the Muslims took it from the Jews to begin with.
But Israel never gave anything back to Jordan.
I mean like you point out Egypt occupied the Gaza strip and Jordan the West Bank and there are no pro Palestinians supporters complaining about this. Egypt closed their border with Gaza thus denying Palestinians free movement and no one complained. Isreal do the same and everyone goes crazy.
Egypt isn't the one occupying/blockading Gaza for the last 55 years. Israel is.
The Isrealis helped the Palestinians try to form a democractic nation. It was in their interest so they could negociate with a democractic leadership rather than radicals. They pulled out of Gaza to allow the Palestinians self determination in 2005.
"helped" is a bit of a stretch.
But the Palestinians failed and showed they were not capable of making a democractic state but rather became radicalised. Once that happened it was then necessary just like Egypt had done to isolate Gaza and monitor or close its borders to stop the radicals infiltrating Isreal. The same with the West Bank. As radicals have infiltrated so has the policing of check points and streets. At times this has meant removing some Palestinians to ensure safety.
Shockingly treating people as lesser and denigrating their potential doesn't get "thank you"s. Why do you keep doing it to them?
When looking at the Map I cannot understand how the West Bank will work practically.
As a whole state with contiguous internal and external sovereignty the West Bank could function, but with the various settlements and corridors of Israeli control internally, it has no chance. (It would seem that is rather the point, carve it up and justify complete control, perhaps with expulsion.)
You sort of have a state within a state and it won't work for economics, security and policing. Two ideologies competing for control within the same territory. It seems strange that the river would be the natural border and there should be one nation up to that river. That is why many say the Palestinians are really Syrians.
Syria doesn't even touch the Palestinian territories.
So why are not other nations taking the Palestinians as they also have historical connections to these lands. At least with Gaza you can have a seperate isolated state with borders rather than a mixed one. Isreal is only a small territory and is surrounded by massive Muslim States. The Muslims already occupy the majority so why take even more of their tiny territory only to create an even bigger Muslim presence which will threaten the Isrealis. Doesn't make sense.
Most of the "Muslim territory" is empty desert. "We be tiny" isn't a valid argument. The connections the Palestinians have to the land is either the land they live in or the parts (in Israel) their parents were already ejected from. They are not Egyptians or Jordanians, or Lebanese.

Why can't some land be given up by Egypt making Gaza bigger or in Jordan.
As I noted above, at one point the West Bank *was* attached to Jordan (and over 2 million refugees from Palestine live in Jordan proper). One of the problems that caused was that the West Bank was densely populated and represented a significant fraction of the Jordanian population after annexation. Neither Jordan nor Egypt should be forced to give up their territory because Israel can't get along with Palestine.
Why take it from one of the smallest nations in the world and try to squeeze another nation in that small space. It will only amount to conflict. IT makes more sense that Isreal is allowed to occupy that land including the West bank and allow Palestinians to live there freely as they were already doing until the radicals came along.
How would you like to be forcibly relocated along with all of your town to another country? I find your lack of mpathy shocking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0