Another interesting fact about #Israel ... There is no historical evidence that a kingdom of Israel in anctient times **ever** actually existed. In fact most non-religious scholars feel that it either didnt exist or at the very least the writings about it were first written long long after it may have existed. This is evident because of countless anachronisms that we know couldnt be historically accurate (as they didnt exist yet for the time period)... so scholars have been able to reasonably conclude the account in the bible was in all likelihood made up at a later time.
In short, #Israel 's entire claim of it being an "ancient ancestral land" is based entirely on the bible and not accepted as historical fact by historians...
Yet again people kill for their gods, gods who tell them the first rule is not to kill.
🇳🇱
@freemo@qoto.org
@mike805 There has never been compelling proof of a large scale anctient kingdom of israel.
@freemo schon mal an der klagemauer gewesen??
@rhertle Yes I've been to the western wall.
@freemo how about flavius josephus?
@rhertle What about him?
@freemo does He not testify jews living as a Statement in Israel?
@rhertle He lived 800 years after the fall of israel, assuming israel existed at all... So im not sure anything he says matters much.
@freemo Tacitus wrote 100 years later about Juda under Pilates...
@rhertle if he had evidence then please link to it.
@freemo Tacitus, annales 15,44
Oh you meant Judae ... ok what about it, Judae isnt Israel, it was part of rome.
@freemo occupied part of Rome, which should have been called palistine? Why judaea?
@rhertle It was named judae after a biblical reference.. the reason it wasnt called palestine or Israel is because it was neither of those at the time, it was Judae.
@freemo
How about this as a source?
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel-Dan-Inschrift
@rhertle A rock in the sand with the phrase "house of david" on it tht was dated and found to be carved 60 to 180 years AFTER the bible claims the house of david ended.
Sorry even most historians find that question and think that phrase is more likely part of a mythos than actual evidence.. it just doesnt add up.
@freemo why do you think, that it dates as you say, when the soil layer where it was found, dates to somewhere 800 bc?
@rhertle Off hand I dont know how they dated it exactly... but that is the general range of dates accepted by historians.. and many historians discount the existance of such a kingdom... so im willing to accept the date range and skepticism as the reasons all add up based on what facts I know and the scientific community accepts (at least many of them, its hardly a settled subject).
That said if you think the dating was wrong im happy to hear the evidence.
@freemo
The evidence is quoted on Wikipedia. As the soil layers there are described and dated and sources are given in the Literatur reference.
@rhertle ahh ok good find then.. I suspect the range in dates accounts for any reasonable error in that process.
Regardless the dates put everything in question, and even if the dates lined up someone writing "house of david" on a block of stone is pretty weak evidence of anything other than the fact that whoever wrote the scrolls either also carved the stone, or inspired people to beleive the mythos and later carved the stone as worshipers or beleivers in the myth written in scrolls.
Obviously if there was more context and evidence it might make compelling evidence... but as is its very weak and easily dismissed.
@freemo
Ok, i disagree. I find it Hard evidence and very unlikely someone doug down the encarved stone in an exact layer - and did not leave a remarkable digging trace after all!
Anyway, was nice hearing your point of view! Have a good day!
Cant imagine how he possibly good since even according to the Jews their country was long gone since then.. If you mean they were living in some other country by a different name in the regions, sure.. but there was no Israel when he was alive so i cant imagine there being any evidence he saw it... please feel free to share the source if you have one.
@freemo I'm a BDS activist, so don't take this as an attempt to back up zionist narratives, but Jews have recorded history in Palestine wrt to the Jewish-Roman Wars, which saw their expulsion, and Samaritan Jews have had a continued presence in Nablus since ~100BC, and still do today (they are few, maybe 300, but I've been to their village -- they are Palestinians. and yes they are Jews, just not Rabbinical jews; the Pentateuch is Torah, with some key differences).
whether we Ashkenazis have roots in Palestine, I believe just vague traces at the genetic level due to marriages with Sephardic and maybe some Samaritans as well, but from what I understand we're the product of assyrian jews migrating to central asia and marrying with caucasian and turkic tribes, some of which converted to Judaism, and continued migrating westward, eventually settling among germanic tribes in the area that spans from today's Belarus to Estonia.
I am in no way claiming jews didnt live in the area in anctient times. I think that is well established for sure.
I would say its very reasonable to say palestine was the original home to jews and arabs, and any fair right of return should be a home to both..
I do not beleive in Palestine for the arabs or jews for israel... I beleive in one nation for both since both groups have roots in the land and people should be welcomed to the land they have ancestry from.
Sounds like we mostly agree.
Oh, yes the way it should have happened is palestine should have integrated the jews naturally. If they had (Rather than jews taking land and creating their own country) we would already have a one state solution and that would be great.
But yea my solution has always been a one-state one where both groups have equal rights, vote, right to return, etc.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world
I would just point out that the Arab Revolts of the 30s were due to groups like the Irgun lead by Ze'ev Jabotinsky committing atrocities against Palestinians. Zionists did not show up in any friendly capacity, ever. Zionists explicitly called for, in their words, the colonization of Palestine, from the 1899 Zionist Congress in Baltimore, and thats what they went and did.
Many Hasidim migrated to Palestine and were resolutely, religiously opposed to Zionism until after the Shoah. and they did not seek to colonize Palestinians. and with every Palestinian uprising, tens of thousands of "Israelis" leave. Estimates suggest that between 50 - 70% of Israliens have a foreign passport; those people will all leave. Much of the Haredim will remain, but not the neo-orthodox, which is a weird and larpy thing genocidal secular jews get into in order to become extremists. and the largest Hasidic groups such as Satmar remain strict anti-zionist, and over 50% don't recognize Israel because its clearly an abberation of the Torah.
but most secular liberal zionists are too racist to stay. they want to be White. the zionist dream is to become independent White Europeans who get to lead a scramble for africa of our own.
on the other hand, when it becomes Palestine, I will move there. because a lot of my best friends are Palestinian and I will be able to find decent work and enjoy decolonized palestine and the amazing country and culture they have. I live in Hanoi, Viet Nam, which is the coolest, most properly sovereign decolonial country I've ever been to, and I hope Nablus will one day be the Hanoi of the future.
Excellent context... a lot of that is new to me but some of it not. Regardless this is a great share of info, thanks.
@freemo yep, I'd say so, but I'm not sure I believe most ashkenazim have any "right" to be there, we are not indigenous to the land in any way shape or form. and I'm not sure I still buy into Edward Said's vision of a binational solution, for the simple reason that I think its a violation of judaism for eretz Yisroel to be associated with any kind of government or state. and I'm not religious, I'm just very influenced by the Chasidic tradition, and I think that the Talmud contains many sage lessons, that have material purposes that facilitate a tikkun olam (repairing the world) as a practice that happens with other non-jews, and ensures we treat them with dignity and respect; if we actually follow Talmud at least, for which a jewish nation is strictly forbidden.
For me there is a huge issue with giving land to someone based on race, particularly a group that is 2000+ years removed.. I mean genetically the jews of today are probably very far removed, in part due to them being dispersed.
Its problematic at best.
@freemo @useless_idiot Ooh…Christianity lore moment and I hope I’m not misspeaking here but I find this rather interesting because if you look at the OT, even though #Israel as a whole was considered to be “God’s Chosen People”, when #Israel split into two Nations, the nation of #Israel and #Judea, it was actually #Judea (which had 2 out of the 12 original tribes of #Israel IIRC) that followed God relatively closely, and thus, God’s presence often dwelled with and blessed those in #Judea rather than in #Israel. And #Jesus, who came from the lineage of #David, actually came through the line of #Judah as well, the head of one of the tribes of #Judea.
TL;DR #Judea is more “God’s Chosen People” than #Israel because they followed God more closely and #Jesus came from one of their two tribes, not any tribes that remained in #Israel
@freemo are you suggesting that Titus did not in fact destroy the second temple in 70AD and the Romans are just making it up?
@ned Please quote the part of what I said that you feel says that?
@freemo "There is no historical evidence that a kingdom of Israel in anctient times **ever** actually existed."
If it wasn't a Jewish Kingdom the Romans occupied, who's kingdom was it? Or are you referring to the 1st temple kings of Solomon, etc.?
@ned The word jew doesnt even show up in the quote you just made.. I said nothing about what race was in the area.
So feel free to try again. But you cant just quote something and make it sound like its saying something it isnt and think that will work with me.
@freemo Why don't you put your fedora down for a sec and clarify the distinction you are alluding to?
Israel was the name of a kingdom, and this mythical kindgom was founded by a specific Jewish person (saul/samuel), and was intrinsicly a jewish first kingdom.
That is quite different from saying some other kingdom existed with a different ruler, with a different name, at a different time and in a different place, that was a mix of arabic and jewish population.
The first invasion of Rome in regard to Judae was the sacking of jeurselem in 63 BC and the conquering of the surrounding area. Before Judae became the province of judae of rome it was actually called both palestine and judae by the people int he region since it was a mix of both and there was **not** a clear jewish rule there at the time.
This period is called by historians "hellenistic palestine", however the jews, called the same redion Judae and thus jewish scholars refer to it by that name. It was **not** a jewish kingdom , it was a kingdom of mixed heritage.
@freemo The only reason I brought up the Romans is because it's a historical touch point from an indisputable 3rd party. When you said "ancient times" in the OP, I didn't know you SPECIFCALLY meant 1070BC. You were being intentionally vague at that point.
As for what you would technically define as a "Kingdom", I don't care. I'm not going to argue that point. But surely we can agree there is evidence of a nation of Hebrews living in the region, under their own rule, not that of the Philistines.
I was specifically talking about a kingdom named Israel, largely because that is the point used to "certify" their choice.
While a "kingdom of hebrews" might not be the right wording I would say that it is abslutely true jewish people are native to the region. There is no evidence of them ever having an exclusive kingdom all to themselves.. there is however evidence of there being regions that were mixed with jews, arabics and others occupying the region together. So they do come from the region, but the debatable part is if they had their own kindgdom or not.
@freemo Oh so now you've set the bar at a pure ethnostate? That's absurd, and stupid.
No im not saying the state needs to be ethnically pure, only that its rule needs to be a jewish-prioritized rule (kinda like modern day israel is)... in other words, there is no evidence of a country that was jewish rules by right.. only countries of mixed ethnicity with no one ethnicity being the ruling ethnicity.
If we look at every time period there was either no clear side ruling and it was a mixed culture and mixed ethnicity (helenistic period) .. or it was ruled by someone that was of neither group (the romans).
@freemo This just feels like you are arguing over an unnecessary distinction. I don't believe anyone is suggesting ethnic supremacy is a requirement during the united kingdom period. Just political supremacy.
From a quick Wikipedia browsing... "From 850 BCE onwards a series of inscriptions are evidence of a kingdom which its neighbors refer to as the "House of David.""
@ned there was plenty of non-ethnical political supremacy (aka kingdoms that formed that were neither jewish nor arabic and contained both people)... sure.
Yes there was one tiny piece of rock found in some sand called the Tel Dan Stele which has the phrase "house of david" on it, which would be a reference to a lineage from king david.
That evidence is quite weak.. for one important reason...
The kingdom by which the house of david rules according to the bible was 1047 bc to 930 bc. However the Tel Dan Stele was created between 870 BV to 750 BC, which would place it 60 years after the **fall** of the kingdom at the soonest, or as late as 180 years after its fall.
This lines up more closely with the biblical scrolls than with history and is highly suggests this inscription was **not** an indication of such a kingdom at all (since it wouldnt have existed when created), and far more likely to be an inscription that was inspired by the scrolls and fictional stories of the time.
@freemo 930? That's stupid. Did the government of the united states cease to exist when the south revolted? No, it just had a smaller area of control. Just because Judah seperated does not mean the "House of David" no longer existed.
@ned We arent talking about "when the south revolted" we are talkign when the kingdom no longer existed.. the process started much sooner than that.
@freemo And the "kingdom" as you define it can only exist between 1047 bc to 930 bc? Well I think the only purpose for your definition is to win arguments, and provides no meaningful understanding.
Yes, the last king in the "house of david" (which refers to a lineage not a kindgdom) according to the bible was in 930... There was not "house of david" alive after 930 according to the bible ..
So yea what your saying makes no sense.. like if there was such a kingdom and the people and villages somehow still existed there was literally no "house of david" .
so no matter how you split it your theory makes no sense (not to mention is not supported by the historians and experts for many of these same reasons)
A picture is not a citation. I am familiar with most mentions of Alijah as far as I know the bible doesnt even have any dates associated with him and very very little information. I can think of just a few vague passages where he makes some prophicies.
@freemo Your argument seems to be that evidence of a political unit that drawers it's lineage from someone called "David", can be ignored because at some point prior the extent of that political power changed. Even though by your own requirements there is LESS evidence that a united kingdom existed at all. Whether the kingdom was united, or divided into Israel and Judah is not my concern. I'm just merely trying to argue that a political unit derived from the lineage of David existed.
@ned No... thats not it.
Historians are split on if **any** kingdom existed, either a uniqued one or split.. There are two versions of the scrolls which were eventually the book of samual. You have teh monarchical version and the non-monarchial version.
In the non-monarchical version of the scroll (not the one that made it into the bible) Saul/Samual refused the call to become kind and no such kingdoms were every formed at all. In the monarchical version the kingdoms are part of the story and he accepts the call to become king and forms the kingdom.
The issue is that the monarchical is litered with enormous errors that many are anachronisms.. things that could only be known if the writer was writing many years AFTER the claimed existance of the kingdoms (things that didnt exist int he area yet were written as if they did). This lays pretty clear evidence that of the two the monarchial version is unlikely to be historic suggesting the other copy is more like to be fact.
The idea that the **only** piece of physical evidence is a stone sitting int he sand with the phrase "house of david on it" that is 60 to 180 years after the existence of such a mythical nation lends little if any evidence to the story and simply suggests someone who believed int he mythos wrote the phrase in a piece of stone at one point for some reason.
@freemo So your point is the structure of political control in the region. Not the ethnic origins of the political control in the region.
I'm happy to grant you that. As I explained earlier. I'm not interested in how you technically define "Kingdom".
@freemo A bunch of zionist archeologists went there in the early 20th century, from what I've read, trying to prove their claims. And while they found some interesting stuff, they did not find proof of a large scale Israel, correct?