From: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:54:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <bdm.717416634@cs.anu.edu.au>, bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
> >In article <9209241645.AA00570@top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Khaled J Shammout <kshammou@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >>2)  The next argument is that they claim that the Jews where in Palestine
> >>before the Arabs, Historically speaking.
> 
> >>Well, Wrong!  Any person who reads ancient history would find out
> >>that a massive migration of ARAB TRIBES from the Arabian Peninsula
> >>took place at around 3000 B.C. (Keep in mind that a single tribe
> >>could have any where from few thousand to tens of thousands of
> >>members).  Some of these tribes settled in what is today Iraq, others
> >>in Greater Syria (which includes Palestine).  Those who settled in
> >>Palestine were to be called the Canaanites.  So what does all of this
> >>mean?  It means that historically, the ARABS inhabited Palestine
> >>before the Hebrews or Jews by about a THOUSAND Years.
> 
> >Could you provide evidence of this Arab migration?  There is no
> >evidence I've seen that would point to the cananites being arabs.
> >Also, the Israelits wiped out the Cananites (if you believe the
> >bible); there are non left.  Or is there a Cannanite Liberation Front
> >seeking to kick the Jews and Muslims both out, and re-claim their
> >land?
> 
> >There was, after the cannanites, a Jewish, Israelite kingdom, which
> >was destroyed by the Babylonians, and then a second one whihc was
> >destroyed by the Romans.
> 
> >Jews then remained in Safed, Jerusalem, and other places around Israel
> >for the next 2000 years.
> 
> An irrelevantly small number did, yes.
> 
> >Most rational historical accounts have Muslims overrunning the area
> >in the 7th century, or so.  There is no evidence that there was any
> >historical continuity or ethnic separation between the 7th century
> >invaders and the local (non-Jewish) population, who you, without
> >evidence claim, were arab.
> 
> I don't know if they were Arab.  I don't think it makes a difference.
> What seems clear is that the locals adopted the culture and religion
> of the invaders.  Unless the locals were all killed off, the argument
> for continuous occupation stands.
> 

Well, the Babylonians and Assyrians practiced an old trick, still
practiced today in Iraq.  When you conquer a people, like the
Israelites and Judaeans, Philistines, Canaanite remnants in Israel
and Judaea, you take them off the land, and take people from another
part of your empire and settle them there.  Only difference between
the pre-Assyrian Canaanites and the Israelite/Judaeans, is that
the latter were given permission to go back and rebuild there
cities.  Descendents of those who some think came from Arabia to
Israel/Judaea 3000 years ago should be looked for in Iraq or Iran today.
Again I would recommend people read Archeology Review about the
Hebrew conquest of Canaan.  They didn't really massacre anyone,
they sold them on the one god concept.  Most of them were converted
and absorbed, that is why Hebrews, a pre-iron-age people,
become Israelites and Judaeans, prized by the Babylonian kings
for their Iron work. (see Rappoport discussing iron work among
remote Jewish communities in "The Lost Jews" about Ethiopian Jews)

	Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own, not my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast