Who was in Israel first, the Jews or Palestinians

That would be just one man, Abraham. Obviously he picked up the major part of his vast entourage in Harran, which is NW of Iraq, presently in Turkey by a few miles.

Thank you for your reply!

If you have links to the school of thought you mentioned, I’d appreciate them.

It does not alarm me at all that the Tel Dan Stele is 150-250 years later than David’s time – since it was referring to a conquest within the “House of David.” I looked at the museum site to find anything to support your remarks about their position, but couldn’t find anything.

I did find this good summary of 3 archeological references to the House of David. For the discussion:

BAR, January/February 1999, David in Egypt?

“A leading Egyptologist has recently suggested that the name of the Biblical king David may appear in a tenth-century B.C.E. Egyptian inscription. If correct, this mention of David dates a hundred years earlier than the mention of the "House of David" in the now-famous stele from Tel Dan and fewer than 50 years after the great king's death! According to Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool, in England, "David" is the probable reading of one name in a hieroglyphic list carved on the exterior south wall of the great Temple of Amun in Karnak, Upper Egypt.

This is the third possible mention of David in ancient inscriptions. The clearest reference is in the much-heralded Tel Dan inscription from the ninth century B.C.E., which refers to the "House of David" (bytdwd, or Beit David). Carved in Aramaic on what appears to be a victory stele celebrating the victory of an Aramean king over Judah and Israel, this inscription was found in 1993 by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.

The eminent French paleographer André Lemaire has also detected a reference to the House of David in the long-known but still not completely deciphered Mesha Stele (also called the Moabite Stone), which is contemporaneous with the Tel Dan Stele, although this reference to the "House" is based on an unclear reading, and the reading of "David" is based on a highly probable reconstruction of the initial letter of the name.

I'm pinging a few others who are following this discussion...

Closing an HTML tag...

Which came first , the chicken or the egg?

Oh, that's easy. If you read the Bible literally, the chicken came first. God created animals and then told them to multiply. Boy, reading the Bible literally is easy AND fun!

:)

glad someone here got my humor. :)

If your seven rules of nationalism abide all over the world, then the Sudetenland of the old countries of Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, and parts of Austria, should still belong to Germany, because these lands were 90% German populated at the end of the First World War. However, the Sudetenland was given to the newly founded state of Czech-o-slovakia by the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty. The Czechs forcibly took over German villages, towns and businesses, and thereafter fired German employees. This caused much unrest among the German population and was instrumental in leading to the second world war.

Naturally these Germans followed Hitler who offered them release from their Czech bondage via the Munich agreement, which the Sudeten Germans welcomed without reservation. However, much to their regret, this agreement was not welcomed by the rest of the world, which didn't or wouldn't recognize the serious plight of the Germans under the oppressive Czech rule. As history has shown this agreement became a massive powder keg.

After the war, the Czechs expelled some 3 million Germans, my relatives among them. They lost their homes, personal belongings, farms, shops, etc., to the Czechs, who gave them no compensation for homes and lands that had been in their families for several generations.

My relatives were allowed to take with them only that which they needed for daily survival. Photographs, jewelry and other valuables were confiscated. Many Sudeten Germans resettled in Germany, and have been mostly quiet about their plight. However, they have not forgotten their homeland.

Your seven rules of nationalism sound great and are truly moral for the innocent people of the world, but don't expect these rules to be upheld in a world where those who wield the most power always win.

Strangely. A burst of postings by you. And the previous "corpse" is not yet cold.

So anybody who thinks that the "House of David" is an archaeological, let us just say...Question mark...is a NAZI?... nice spin.

"The very large Northern Kingdom, under Ephriam, also known as the House of Israel, was made up of all the tribes except Judah, Levi and part of Benjamin. It was taken into captivity by the Assyrians to the fertile crescent area ~722BC, and later, as a group of over 5 Million Israelites escaped and migrated north through the Caucasus mountains, to appear in history as the Celts. These Celts became a huge population, eventally overrunning small local tribes and are the root stock of todays Europeans and Americans."

ROFL.
There is absolutely no evidence of this. Language, genetics, culture, belif system are all different. Sorry. This was a theory of a English drug user int eh 19th century. No sane person should give it any credence.

There is far more evidence that the Pathans are the decendents, although most likely they assimilated into the Babylonian gene pool.

But you do have to be concerned whether the "minimalists" have an anti-Jewish bias, which guides their "scholarship."

>There is absolutely no evidence of this.

Hello. What you are saying is that YOU, in your limited readings and background have found no evidence. Fair enough. Try reading my Profile for starters. It's a BIG world out there and there is lots more to learn.

Yes, drop the BCE dating...use the B.C. or A.D. !!

This is an interesting study, but its conclusion are tenuous based on its evidence. I will parse and comment on the study.
The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians.
Look at the breadth of that Statement. These are all heterodox populations, including non-semetic elements.
1) Exactly what Jews were used as a baseline. One would expect that because of intermarriage, Jews from Arab countries would be genetically closer to the inhabitants of the areas than Jews from Europe.
2) Anatolian Turks are a very mixed groups with few Semetic elements. They are decended from the Ancient populations of Anatolia, Greeks, Turkmen who invaded in the 12th century, and groups like Tatars that sought refuge as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
3) Lebanese are not all Arab. They are also decended from the ancient Canaanites, Phoenecians, and Greeks settled during the Roman and Byzantine Empires. The Arabs invaded only in the 630's CE. Maronite Christians and many other Lebanese groups are not Arab, but speak Arabic as a common language.
4) Egyptians are not really Arabs. They had a large civilization for 3000 years before the tribes of Arabia invaded.
5) Neither Armenians nor Iranians are even Semites.
What all this shows is that Palestinians are a mixed lot. This is not suprising since most are decended from Arabs who settled between 1890 and 1940 from Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Little talked about fact, between 1900 and 1940, more Arabs settled in the area than Jews. Many came after England effectivly ended Jewish immigration in 1929.
At any rate, this study is so imprecise as to be irrelevent. Of course Jews and Palestinians are somewhat related as are all peoples in the area. There is intermarriage.
Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times.
That is one possibility based on to wide tolerances and poor understanding of history.
Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.
No real dispute, just don't take too much from it.
We are all related if your have wide enough tolerences.

Hello. What you are saying is that YOU, in your limited readings and background have found no evidence. Fair enough. Try reading my Profile for starters. It's a BIG world out there and there is lots more to learn.
Actually, I have read some of this "information" in the past and I read some of it a few minutes ago from your profile.
It is conjecture without fact. Language, culture, and genetics are all different.

Which ethnic group was in Israel first, the ethnic group which (may have migrated at some point(s) in its existence) which later became "the Palestinians," or the ethnic group (the Jews) which migrated into Israel over 3300 years ago?

Which ethnic group set foot on Israel first?

Should Ariel Sharon be tried for war crimes, for the ethnic cleansing of the inhabitants of Canaan 3300 years ago?

Or is this getting a little bit ludicrous? Does it MATTER which was the first ethnic group to live in Israel, millenia ago?