neverfail wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:17 am
cassowary wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:44 pm
You overlooked the return of the Jews at the time of Persian King, Cyrus the Great. Then after the Persians were defeated by Alexander the Great, the Greeks ruled the area till the revolt against the Seleucids that led to the Jewish Kingdom of the Maccabees.
It was not just King David.
There was a Jewish kingdom, albeit a vassal state of Romans ruled by Herod’s descendants, till the Romans destroyed it following a revolt against Rome.
The Jews were dispersed till 1947.
Another comment. I suppose the Canaanites might have a better claim than the Jews, if you can find them. Hahaha.
No Cass, I did not overlook any of these - just "keeping my powder dry" for another time - like now.
Yes, Cyrus the Great did, according to Biblical testimony, permit the Jews to return from Babylonian captivity to rebvuild Jerusalem - bearing in mind that the country they were returning to was JUDEA, not Israel. The central and northern regions of Israel, Samaria and Galilee, were lost permanently almost 200 years earlier when the Assyrians conquered the Hebrew kingdom of Israel (while apparently leaving Judah alone) and led its inhabitants off into permanent captivity - replacing them in their country with foreign settlers.
That's not quite right. There was a remnant of Jews left by the Assyrians - the Samaritans
who still survives to this day, albeit nearly extinct.
Samaritan, member of a community of Jews, now nearly extinct, that claims to be related by blood to those Jews of ancient Samaria who were not deported by the Assyrian conquerors of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE. The Samaritans call themselves Bene-Yisrael (“Children of Israel”), or Shamerim (“Observant Ones”), for their sole norm of religious observance is the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament).
So the Jewish presence is not as non-existent as the left claims. They might have been conquered and dominated by the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks and later the Romans. But their attachment to their homeland and memory of an independent kingdom of Jews remain.
They are like the modern Kurds who are still looking for a country of their own. Or look at them like the Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and others who were conquered by the Austrian-Hungarian empire but still yearned for a country of their own. Didn't President Wilson called the empire a prison house of nations? They achieved it after WWI. So the Jews got what they wanted for thousands of years after WWII. Their nation was imprisoned for thousands of years by first, the Assyrians, then Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks and finally the British.
Even by the time of Christ centuries later Galilee's majority population still as a legacy apparently comprised Alhamric speaking gentiles while the Jewish presence there comprised mainly settlements located on infertile hilltop land not wanted by the local gentiles. Christ's home town of Nazarith was apparently one such Jewish hilltop settlement originally seeded off Judea.
I doubt there are any reliable records of the population composition from so long ago. What you read might be leftist propaganda because leftist parties in Europe and the US want to win the Muslim vote.
That revived Kingdom of Judah, whose most celebrated figure was Queen Esther, would have been under Persian suzerainty, not soverign independent
Maybe. Its difficult to say what degree of independence Judah had. Its so long ago. The relationship might have been something like say Poland and East Germany during the Cold War. Independent but strongly influenced by the USSR. Or it might have been more like Tito's Yugoslavia with a higher degree of independence. Or somewhere in between like Rumania under Ceausescu.
Which together makes the Zionist claim that the whole terrestial space between the Jordan River and adjacent Meditteranean coastline is rightfully Jewish look outrageously absurd.
That is just a matter of opinion. It depends on when you take a "snapshot" of Israel's borders. Is it at the time of King David and Solomon, when Israel was at its greatest expanse? Or is it at the time of Hezekiah? Or when Israel had no borders because it was conquered? There is no answer except one - land belongs to he who can hold it.
This means it has to be settled by war.
The Maccabean state (Judea again, not Israel) led a turbulent, flickering existence inbetween two neighbouring Greek Kingdoms (Syria and Ptolomic Egypt): both greater powers than itself and both when not taking turns to invade Judea were manipulating its factions into civil war. Not much of a national soverignty to feel proud of there
. Finally the Romans intervened to put a stip to it - by pushing the half-Jewish/half Greek princling, King Herod the Great on the Jewish throne as quisling ruler. The Romans for their own convenience also incorporated the Kingdom of Judah into the much larger province of Syria with its seat of government in Syria.
Again, it depends on when in time, you take the 'Snapshot'. Those who don't like Israel, like most leftists, will take the picture at its worst period to undermine its claim. Those who are friendly to Israel will take the picture at its most favorable to say, "See, that's the rightful border of Israel."
Its mostly irrelevant.
The point is, Cassowary, that in ancient times following the fall of the kingdom founded by Saul; consolidated by the shepherd king david then ruled by King Solomon (which was a HEBREW, not a Jewish, kingdom): the Jewish state enjoyed only fleetingly brief periods of real soverignty and for the most part soverignty was vested in other peoples' empires that it was incorporated into. There were also long periods when the Jews were either abscent from this country or else reduced demographically to small minorities in the midst of overall gentile majority populations.
Firstly, can you explain to me what is the difference between Hebrew and Jewish?
This view is the standard leftist view to diminish Jewish claim to Israel and propagated to court Muslim votes in western countries. How does that stack up against Arab claim to Israel or Palestine as they call it?
Well, they came later, conquered the land. Their faith is centered around Mecca and Medina not Jerusalem. Later, they too, like the Jews, were conquered by outsiders. First it was the Turks who conquered Jerusalem in 1070. So they didn't own the land either if you go by the standard you set for the Jews. After WWI, Palestine belonged to the British. After the British left, there was a war in which the Arabs lost and the land belonged to the Jews.
Its very simple, Neverfail. The Jews or Israelis if you prefer conquered the land from the Canaanites. The Jews were expelled by the Romans who squelched the last Jewish resistance at Masada. The Romans lost it to the Arabs in the 7th century (638AD). Arabs held it till it was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in 1071
Thus the Arab claim was based on this 400 year period when they owned Palestine. Why favor this period over the Jewish period? When they they capture it from the Canaanites? Somebody check for me? The Romans sacked the temple in Jerusalem in the first century.
Therefore, the Zionist claim that this country rightfully belongs to the Jews to the exclusion of all gentiles - above all the Palestinians - is nothing but outrageous, self-serving chutzpah.
And the Arab claim is even worse by your method of reckoning.