[LottiFurmann]

“If the Hebrews were never in Egypt then perhaps the whole epic was fiction, made up to give the Jewish people a history and a destiny,” he declared. And he scoffingly dismissed what he called “the religious justification of the State of Israel” – Moses’ “burning bush” encounter with the Almighty.

As the London-based Israeli journalist Douglas Davis observes of that documentary, in an essay entitled “Hatred in the Air: The BBC, Israel and Antisemitism” that appears in the book A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st-Century Britain (2003):

“I have no problem with a documentary that suggests scientific explanations for seemingly miraculous events in the Jewish story, but I do object when I suspect that the purpose of the investigation is to delegitimize the basis of Judaism and to undermine the claim of the Jewish people to national expression in even a part of its ancestral home. ...[I]t is inconceivable that the BBC would devote an hour-long prime-time documentary to a critical investigation that served to delegitimize the Prophet Muhammed and undermine the basic tenets of Islam.”Now, the BBC seems set on the delegitimising-Israel-through-undermining-Judaism course once again.

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011...itimising.html

[HedgeYourBets]

Douglas Davis ignores the fact that the noble Quran itself claims that Allah gave the land of Israel to the Jews. I hereby issue a fatwa on this infidel dog!


O my people! Enter the holy land which God has promised you; but do not turn back [on your faith], for then you will be lost! Sura 5:20 And [thereafter], indeed, We assigned unto the children of Israel a most goodly abode, and provided for them sustenance out of the good things of life. And it was not until the knowledge [of God's revelation] was vouchsafed to them that they began to hold divergent views: [but,] verily, thy Sustainer will judge between them on Resurrection Day regarding all on which they were wont to differ. Sura 10:93 Note that the following predicts that the Jews will be exiled twice from the land. Not three times, but twice:

And we made [this] known to the children of Israel through revelation: "Twice indeed, will you spread corruption on earth and will indeed become grossly overbearing!" Hence, when the prediction of the first of those two [periods of iniquity] came true, We sent against you some of Our bondmen of terrible prowess in war, and they wrought havoc throughout the land: and so the prediction was fulfilled.
And after a time We allowed you to prevail against them once again, and aided you with wealth and offspring, and made you more numerous [than ever].
[And We said:] "If you persevere in doing good, you will be doing good to yourselves; and if you do evil, it will be [done] to yourselves."
And so, when the prediction of the second [period of iniquity] came true, [We raised new enemies against you, and allowed them] to disgrace you utterly, and to enter the Temple as [their forerunners] had entered it once before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that they had conquered.
Your Sustainer may well show mercy unto you; but if you revert [to sinning], We shall revert [to chastising you]. And [remember this:] We have ordained that [in the hereafter] hell shall close upon all who deny the truth. Sura 17:4-8 Here's the part about God gathering the Jews together again in the end times:

And after that We said unto the children of Israel: "Dwell now securely on earth - but [remember that] when the promise of the Last Day shall come to pass, We will bring you forth as [parts of] a motley crowd! Sura 17:104

[Lt_Apple]

And he scoffingly dismissed what he called “the religious justification of the State of Israel” – Moses’ “burning bush” encounter with the Almighty. This is something I see people harp on about all the time. That Zionism was a religious movement. Which Zionists were religious? I know Herzl wasn't.

[radikal]

Backwards

You are absolutely right. Most of the original modern Zionists were non religious even though SOME WERE religious. Therefore, most of the original Zionists claimed the land of Israel NOT on the basis of religion but based on actual recorded history which is irrefutable and can be backed up by plenty of archeological evidence that proves the presence of the Jewish people in ancient Israel/Judea and Samaria. And based on modern history too ... Because even in modern times, 100 years ago, 200 years ago and going back further all the way to ancient times. There were ALWAYS Jews in the land that became known as Palestine. The Jews never gave up on their rights to that land which was OCCUPIED by various conquerors.

So I don't know what the BBC documentary hopes to prove ...

[radikal]

... actually, I do know what they [the BBC] hope to prove. They put up a straw man, they proceed to knock it down and voila, they "prove that Israel is just founded on the basis of myth" and that the existdnce of Israel has no legitimacy.

Only, they are dead set WRONG because the legitimacy of Israel is based on actual and REAL history which cannot be refuted.

[Fegasderty]

If so, what's their version of the history of Jews circa 1200-500 BC?

Because if we are to base ourselves in the version exposed in The Bible Unearthed, I don't see why does it delegitimize Zionism or Israel. On the contrary - if anything according to them Jews/ancient Hebrews were actually one (or perhaps several) of the multiple Caananite tribes who had always lived there, they developed their own ethnic Hebrew identity and eventually founded the Kingdoms of Israel (which had its moments of glory but eventually dissapeared) and Judah (which was poor and small but eventually reached some success and increased its size a bit due to the collapse of the former Kingdom, to eventually dissapear as well); as opposed to the Torah's version in which Abraham arrived to Israel from modern-day Iraq, settled there with his tribe for some time giving born to the ancient Hebrews, then the Hebrews left to Egypt due to bad economic conditions in ancient Israel, the Hebrews are then enslaved by the Egyptians, then they flee Egypt and go back to Israel and conquer it by commiting genocide against the local population, and then found a big and succesful Unified Kingdom which eventually collapses and divides forming the previously mentioned Kingdoms of Israel (which wasn't glorious and was sinful, and eventually dissapeared as a punishment by God) and Judah (which was glorious, pious and cool, and dissapeared too as a punishment by God).

I don't know about you guys, but I actually prefer Finkelstein's and Gilberman's account of the facts over the facts exposed by the Torah, if anything it makes Zionism way more legitimate. And if we are to trust them, then it actually has some solid archaeological foundations.

[S.T.D.]

watOn

Never mind about what we think. Let's see what Israel's enemies got out of the BBC narrative ...

The Bible: A History

This biblical tradition has left a powerful legacy: today, many Jews, Christians and Muslims claim Abraham as their ancestor and assert their exclusive right to the land on this basis. The fact that most scholars agree that he is unlikely to have existed seems irrelevant in the face of the land conflicts afflicting the people living in the territories identified as Abraham’s

[9mm_fan]

But that doesn't answer my question, are they supporting the version of history put forward by The Bible Unearthed?

If so, then why don't zionists argue what I argued?

[S.T.D.]

watOn

Religious Jews are entitled to their beliefs, just as religious Christians and religious Muslims. But let's just put religion aside for the moment. Let's just look at known, recorded and verifiable history. Based on that, here are SOME of the pertinent historical facts that support Jewish claims to the land that became known as Palestine ...

• Archeological artefacts such as the dead sea scrolls and other finds support the fact that long before the Arab conquests, the Jewish people lived in the land that became known as Palestine.
• The Romans themselves recorded their conquest of Judea and the eventual exile of the Jewish people. In fact, I believe they built sculptures in Rome which depict their [the Roman's] triumph. They also record the fact that they [the Romans] were the ones who renamed that land Palestine. That's another independent evidence.
• From there, there exists a continuous written records, Jewish, Christian and Muslim of what happened to the Jewish people, their persecutions and their consequent migrations as they were fleeing from one place to the next in the ancient and modern world.
• And here is the most important bit. There is irrefutable evidence that some Jews always lived in the land that the Romans renamed Palestine and that not all the Jews were expelled (although most were). In fact, as far back as the mid 1800s, the majority of Jerusalem's population was Jewish. Various travellers to the holy land attest to that in their writings. People such as Mark Twain and Karl Marx for instance. Of course there are other records in the archives as well as well as Jewish cemeteries etc ...
• And for those who pick on the fact that the majority of Jews immigrated to Palestine in Modern times, I say, that's true. But it's also true that a large number (not all) of Palestine's Arab population were also immigrants who migrated there following the mass immigration of Jews whose immigration brought about an economic upturn in the area. Which in turn attracted Arab immigrants from other parts of the Ottoman empire.

I don't know about you, watOn, but the above facts are good enough for me to justify Jewish claims to at least parts of the land that some people still insist in calling Palestine ...

[NeroASERCH]

watOn

Religious Jews are entitled to their beliefs, just as religious Christians and religious Muslims. But let's just put religion aside for the moment. Let's just look at known, recorded and verifiable history. Based on that, here are SOME of the pertinent historical facts that support Jewish claims to the land that became known as Palestine ...

• Archeological artefacts such as the dead sea scrolls and other finds support the fact that long before the Arab conquests, the Jewish people lived in the land that became known as Palestine.
• The Romans themselves recorded their conquest of Judea and the eventual exile of the Jewish people. In fact, I believe they built sculptures in Rome which depict their [the Roman's] triumph. They also record the fact that they [the Romans] were the ones who renamed that land Palestine. That's another independent evidence.
• From there, there exists a continuous written records, Jewish, Christian and Muslim of what happened to the Jewish people, their persecutions and their consequent migrations as they were fleeing from one place to the next in the ancient and modern world.
• And here is the most important bit. There is irrefutable evidence that some Jews always lived in the land that the Romans renamed Palestine and that not all the Jews were expelled (although most were). In fact, as far back as the mid 1800s, the majority of Jerusalem's population was Jewish. Various travellers to the holy land attest to that in their writings. People such as Mark Twain and Karl Marx for instance. Of course there are other records in the archives as well as well as Jewish cemeteries etc ...
• And for those who pick on the fact that the majority of Jews immigrated to Palestine in Modern times, I say, that's true. But it's also true that a large number (not all) of Palestine's Arab population were also immigrants who migrated there following the mass immigration of Jews whose immigration brought about an economic upturn in the area. Which in turn attracted Arab immigrants from other parts of the Ottoman empire.

I don't know about you, watOn, but the above facts are good enough for me to justify Jewish claims to at least parts of the land that some people still insist in calling Palestine ...

I know, Reffo, but it doesn't end there if we are to trust The Bible Unearthed (written by Norman Finkelstein and Dan Gilberman, 2 Israeli archaeologists from Tel Aviv University) as far as modern Zionism is concerned:

1) Hebrews originated from Canaanites and had always been living in Canaan.

2) There is no evidence of the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews and of the extermination of the locals by the Hebrews (sometimes put forward as an argument to attack Israel).

And this means:

1) Jews are indigenous to Israel, and as such the argument that "Palestine had always been inhabitated by foreigners from time to time" is rendered moot.

2) As such, Jews have the right to call the land "Israel".

3) Zionism doesn't have to be founded on religious thought, but on the fulfillment of historical claims. It also means that Zionism is not a colonial enterprise - these are people returning to their historical homeland, unlike European colonists in America or Africa.

4) Archaelogical evidence gives credence to the claim that Jews are indigenous to the Levant. Not only that, but this is confirmed by the main body of archaelogical research.

In all fairness, though, the region encompassing Israel, Gaza and the WB started to be called "Palestine" by Herodotus in 450 BC. Probably because Philistines had Mycenaean (i.e. proto-Greek) origin, though I don't know if this was known in these times.

[Slonopotam845]

watOn

Like I said, let's put the Bible aside (no disrespect intended to religious people). Even without the Bible, we agree that the Jewish people have the longest historical claim to the land. Note, I for one don't tend to deny that the Arabs who lived and live there, have a claim. It is my belief that we should respect their claims too to parts of the land, simply because they too lived there for a long time. I do however make the following caveat ...

If they [the Arabs] continue to play the zero sum game of claiming EVERYTHING for the Arabs, then the Jews have every right to play the same game. Therefore, unless the Arabs drop their irredentist intransigence, THEY will be the ones who will end up with NOTHING!

Now here is some more independent historical evidence that backs up Jewish claims to the land ...

The first mention of the name Israel in the archaeological record is in an Egyptian record of c. 1207 BC. By the 9th century BCE the kingdom of Israel had emerged as an important local power before falling to the Assyrians in 722 BC History of ancient Israel and Judah

[Drugmachine]

... and here is another one (I alluded to this Roman record in my previous post above) ...

The Arch of Titus

On the inside walls of the archway are reliefs. The south relief depicts part of the triumphal procession. It is oriented so the figures are proceeding into the Forum through the triumphal arch and carrying the spoils from Judea, including, from the Temple of Jerusalem, the table of showbread, a menorah, and silver trumpets.[1] Some of the soldiers depicted are carrying signs with the names of conquered cities.[3] What more do we need, watOn? But even if we need more, there are plenty of other independent or objective records that corraborate Jewish claims to the land. And then on top of those of course there is the Bible too which is not only a religious text but is written down history even if it contains religious writings as well ...

[brraverishhh]

As a atter of interest, I was watching another series, about the Middle East, on the history channel. The name of the series was "In Search of Destiny". Although overall, it tried to be objective, they too couldn't resist supporting the anti Israel bias by building THEIR "straw man". They made a statement like, '... The Jews claim to the land was based on God's promise while the Arabs lived there for 50 generations ...". Of course, they forgot to mention that Jews too lived there continuously for even longer than 50 generations and the fact that Palestine was not a sovereign Arab land for nearly a 1000 years now. And that well before the Arab conquest, Palestine was a Jewish sovereign land, as I demonstrated in my posts above.

[PhillipHer]

'"Palestine" by Herodotus in 450 '

1. Thats an a-historic assertion. The land was punitively renamed such by the Romans after the Bar Kohba revolt.
2. Philistine colonized areas, per se, also have nothing to do with Arab etc claims, and they were invaders in their own right.
3. Herodotus makes an uninformed claim. From his writings, please do read the original they're interesting, it seems he knew very little about anything other than hearsay above and beyond Greece. i.e., Herodotus believed there were Amazons ("Androktones", "killers of men") in Trace you know. Absolutely no evidence of that ever came to be.

Also... it should be noted that there is good reason to consider that Hebrews are a mix of two populations, namely Arameans from what is now Iraq and Canaanites. This holds in modern genetic testing by the way to a great extent to nearly all parts of the Jews, including overwhelming majority of Ashkenasim.

It should also be noted that there is significant evidence of Hebrews in Egypt as early as the first temple period and certainly possible before that (mercenaries guarding the Kush frontier for instance in Elephantine), but not as slaves though. "Hapiru" is furthermore a name the middle kingdom Egyptians used vis-a-vis people to their North East that harassed their expeditions in presumably Sinai and onward. HPR = HBR is plausible.

[doctorzlo]

watOn

Like I said, let's put the Bible aside (no disrespect intended to religious people). Even without the Bible, we agree that the Jewish people have the longest historical claim to the land. Note, I for one don't tend to deny that the Arabs who lived and live there, have a claim. It is my belief that we should respect their claims too to parts of the land, simply because they too lived there for a long time. I do however make the following caveat ...

If they [the Arabs] continue to play the zero sum game of claiming EVERYTHING for the Arabs, then the Jews have every right to play the same game. Therefore, unless the Arabs drop their irredentist intransigence, THEY will be the ones who will end up with NOTHING!

Now here is some more independent historical evidence that backs up Jewish claims to the land ...



History of ancient Israel and Judah

... and here is another one (I alluded to this Roman record in my previous post above) ...

The Arch of Titus



What more do we need, watOn? But even if we need more, there are plenty of other independent or objective records that corraborate Jewish claims to the land. And then on top of those of course there is the Bible too which is not only a religious text but is written down history even if it contains religious writings as well ...

As a atter of interest, I was watching another series, about the Middle East, on the history channel. The name of the series was "In Search of Destiny". Although overall, it tried to be objective, they too couldn't resist supporting the anti Israel bias by building THEIR "straw man". They made a statement like, '... The Jews claim to the land was based on God's promise while the Arabs lived there for 50 generations ...". Of course, they forgot to mention that Jews too lived there continuously for even longer than 50 generations and the fact that Palestine was not a sovereign Arab land for nearly a 1000 years now. And that well before the Arab conquest, Palestine was a Jewish sovereign land, as I demonstrated in my posts above.

'"Palestine" by Herodotus in 450 '

1. Thats an a-historic assertion. The land was punitively renamed such by the Romans after the Bar Kohba revolt.
2. Philistine colonized areas, per se, also have nothing to do with Arab etc claims, and they were invaders in their own right.
3. Herodotus makes an uninformed claim. From his writings, please do read the original they're interesting, it seems he knew very little about anything other than hearsay above and beyond Greece. i.e., Herodotus believed there were Amazons ("Androktones", "killers of men") in Trace you know. Absolutely no evidence of that ever came to be.

Also... it should be noted that there is good reason to consider that Hebrews are a mix of two populations, namely Arameans from what is now Iraq and Canaanites. This holds in modern genetic testing by the way to a great extent to nearly all parts of the Jews, including overwhelming majority of Ashkenasim.

It should also be noted that there is significant evidence of Hebrews in Egypt as early as the first temple period and certainly possible before that (mercenaries guarding the Kush frontier for instance in Elephantine), but not as slaves though. "Hapiru" is furthermore a name the middle kingdom Egyptians used vis-a-vis people to their North East that harassed their expeditions in presumably Sinai and onward. HPR = HBR is plausible.

Guys, to make my point clear: I've seen people claiming that The Bible Unearthed is the book that summarizes the evidence against the Bible and that as an obvious implication it undermines Zionism. My point is that if one actually reads the book, then you see that they claim that Hebrews are indigenous to the land, that they arised from Canaanites, and that there was no Exodus and conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews and the ensuing genocide of the Canaanites as described in the Torah, so the obvious question is: In which way does this version of history undermine Zionism? In fact, shouldn't it have the opposite effect as it shows Hebrews were indigenous in their own right?

Re. "Palestine by Herodotus", my only point was that the region was named "Palestine" before the Romans, the word itself was not invented by them. I'm not saying that Herodotus was right by naming the region "Palestine" in any way - in fact the name back then used by the Persians was Yehuda Medinata (roughly translated as "Province of Judah" if I'm not mistaken).

And regarding your last paragraph, bararallu, the minimalists would probably argue that there were Hebrews in Egypt because they went to work there (like the Mexicans go to work to the US) rather than the whole nation moving to Egypt as implied in the Torah, and regarding the genetic (and if I'm not mistaken demographic/historical) evidence of a shared Canaanite/Aramean (and maybe Hittite and even Phillistine) ancestry among Hebrews, my guess is that a minimalist would argue that immigration to/contact with Canaan was common back then and that it had started long before the rising of Hebrews. Either way, I don't see how this delegitimizes Zionism, in fact I'd say that it legitimizes it as Jewish nationhood has non-religious justifications supported by archaeologic evidence.