🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@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.

@ned

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.

@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.

@ned

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)

Guy: You dont think we are alone out there [space]?

Guinen: I think we are alone down here!

-- Picard

@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.

@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.

@ech @QasimRashid

> “To me this is her mocking the very thing her people has been tortured with her whole life.” – right – the raping, torturing, child-kidnapping terrorists the other day brought her this sense of mocking delight.

Yes and that is wrong.. but consider that mocking delight is in response to raping torturing and using kids as human shields by israel for 80 years against her people.. Again not saying its right but when that is how your people are treated for 80 years and you see your people dying off as a result.. then yea when they rise up and do the same to the other side and win.. there will be a sense of cruel delight... again, not right, but it is human and **expected** when you treat a people that way for so long.

> ooh ooh please be careful there. A lot of people who moved to Israel over the years were refugees fleeing some pretty bad situations.

Agreed, but if you flee a bad situation, and choose to flee to a country commiting mass genocide, and you choose to support that for your own self interests... well i can understand still seeing that as not right.. me personally id give them a pass, i mean I myself was licing in israel till jsut a few months ago. That said every day i was there i was in moral conflict and only decided to do it for a greater good... so.. its nuanced, and i agree you cant paint with a broad stroke like that.

> This is ghastly, far worse than her other comments. You join the Navy or whatever and suddenly its ok to rape you and post videos of you bleeding out from the rape online because you are or were “active military”? Can you see how this is not actually a valid, or interesting, point? (Did she really say that?? I can’t find it.)

I agree it is quite ghastly side of human nature.. but when your people are rapped and tortured you start to become ok with raping and torturing back... again it is **not** right but it is to be expected.

> Hamas doesn’t give a shit about the people of Gaza – they do things like kill babies in order to cement their own power at the Palestinians expense, whom they then use as human shields. Khalifa plays right into their game. Who would want to be suckered into amplifying such a foolish murderer-rapist-kidnapper-supporting message like hers?

I agree about your description of the hamas.. but i dont think kahlifa is so much playing into their propaganda (maybe a little) but rather responding in a somewhat human (though immoral) way to seeing her people be the victim of that same evil from israel.

> Lots of other people seem perfectly able to criticize Israel without rejoicing in the bloodshed and terror of the other day: read the last few posts on the subject from @QasimRashid for example. FWIW I disagree with almost every post he has ever made, but see how he does it without supporting kidnapping raping baby killers? Without trying to justify it with completely psychopathic arguments about “active military”? It’s really not that hard.

Yes but she refered to them as "her people" which suggests this is a personal thing for her. and it seems likely she is of palestinian heritage based on her words... so while many people more disconnected fromt he situation might be more level headed it is totally understandable her response as someone who feels she is of the same group as palestinians (not sure in what sense but presumably she has heritage from there).

@ned

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).

@ned

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.

"There is no better teacher than one's enemy"

@ned

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.

@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.

@realcaseyrollins

"Hamas was born as a means of resistance"

Though in context she said (and i am paraphrasing)... that hamas was formed 20 years after israel started exterminating her people.. it was born as a direct result of unjust mass murder commited ont he palistinians...

She is right... look i dont justify the terrorism... but if someone is terroristic to you for 20 years straight, and you have no means to do anything about it other than to just watch your people get slaughtered... yea your going to rise up as a means of resistance. And while i still do not justify it, id o understand meeting terror with equal terror.. after 20 years fighting back int he same way you have been treated isnt right (two wrongs dont make a right) but it is **expected**. There is a big difference between whats right,a nd what is the natural consequence of an injustice.

If i try to kill someone their going to try to kill me. Doesnt make it right, but it does make it expected.

@realcaseyrollins

She answered that for us. let me find the quote so I can judge it.. one sense.

@d9dba0e072bdb353dfb0020de159126af47e69e133ea91bbd48e8bede37320e2

right.. its not about who had it first, nor even about the 3k years... its about people invading a land who havent lived there in any of their recorded history, or even written history.. and invading people who have lived on that land for generations going back before recorded history.

The land being in dispute changes nothing for me. The people who hav ea right to the land are the people born there.. .. beyond the last generation or two it doesnt matter all that much.

@realcaseyrollins

@realcaseyrollins

I agree they are very different things.

What I see is a member of the community who has been abused cheering the fact that her people have finally been able to blow the walls of their prison and escape.. that was a huge freedom moment for them as a tortured and abused people... I think her reaction, especially with her going out of her way not to support hamas but only supporting the rioting people themselves and their escape throught he wall.. i think that shows remarkable restraint for a person whose community and family have been the victim for so long

I saw the same for the isralis by the way... many of them make excuses for the genocide and war crime of their own government. I often say how their support of terrorism is because of the same effect, they have had so many people die due to this war they just arent thinking straight, so as long as they dont actively support the terrorism and instead turn a blind eye, while it isnt right, as a victim as well I can understand how that mentality occurs at the hands of brutality.

@realcaseyrollins I mean I gave you some links/citations of well known historians and the papers they have written explaining this fact.

In fact its worse than that.. not only is there no historical evidence. What little non-historical evidence we have can be directly debunked due to known inaccuracies in the text about the time period.