InfraBlue wrote: oralloy wrote: InfraBlue wrote: oralloy wrote:
There was more to the Kingdom of Israel than religion. There was a king, and an army, and an entire functioning Iron Age society.
Sure, but that doesn't negate the point I made.
It seems to me that claiming that something is a religious construct is contrary to it being an actual physical place.
I'm referring to the idea of the land of Israel
what with the claim that it was given to "the Jews" by their god.
Lots of indigenous peoples have a mythology that explains their link to their land. That's never justified denying indigenous rights before.
InfraBlue wrote: oralloy wrote:
The Kingdom of Israel had defined borders. Places within those borders were under the power of the Israeli king. Places outside those borders were not under the power of the Israeli king.
Sure, and who knows where these boundaries were or what was the extent of the power of this "king of Israel" whom that Aramean king boasts of vanquishing in the late 9th century BC in the Tel Dan stele.
That's a question for the archaeologists to have fun with. No one is proposing that Israel's borders be made an exact match for the Kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon.
More than likely Israel will end up with some territory that the original kingdom didn't have, and without some territory that the original kingdom did have.
The point is, as the indigenous population, Israel has every right to be in Palestine.
What's more, it's utterly ridiculous that the Zionists claim ownership of Palestine by way of him.
Israel claims ownership of their portion of Palestine by way of being the indigenous populace.