Posted on 04/05/2002 3:31:40 PM PST by oswegodeee
The History and Meaning of "Palestine" and "Palestinians"
Presented by: A Time To Speak (speak@actcom.co.il) "There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nation . . . Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews . . . . Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us? The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity." — Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995
Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. — from "Myths of the Middle East", Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000
From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries . . . . — Professor Bernard Lewis, Commentary Magazine, January 1975 Talk and writing about Israel and the Middle East feature the nouns "Palestine" and Palestinian", and the phrases "Palestinian territory" and even "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory". All too often, these terms are used with regard to their historical or geographical meaning, so that the usage creates illusions rather than clarifies reality.
What Does "Palestine" Mean?
It has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philistines were not Arabs, they were not Semites. They had no connection ... with Arabia or Arabs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word itself derives from "Peleshet", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". The name began to be used in the Thirteenth Century BCE, for a wave of migrant "Sea Peoples" who came from the area of the Aegean Sea and the Greek Islands and settled on the southern coast of the land of Canaan. There they established five independent city-states (including Gaza) on a narrow strip of land known as Philistia. The Greeks and Romans called it "Palastina".
The Philistines were not Arabs, they were not Semites. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina" derived from the Peleshet.
How Did the Land of Israel Become "Palestine"?
In the First Century CE, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. After the failed rebellion of Bar Kokhba in the Second Century CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.
The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived still alive and free left the devastated country, but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land. There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly.
The History of Palestine
Thousands of years before the Romans invented "Palastina" the land had been known as "Canaan". The Canaanites had many tiny city-states, each one at times independent and at times a vassal of an Egyptian or Hittite king. The Canaanites never united into a state.
After the Exodus from Egypt — probably in the Thirteenth Century BCE but perhaps earlier — the Children of Israel settled in the land of Canaan. There they formed first a tribal confederation, and then the Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the post-Biblical kingdom of Judea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel-Judah-Judea has the only united, independent, sovereign nation-state that ever existed in "Palestine" west of the Jordan River.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning of history to this day, Israel-Judah-Judea has the only united, independent, sovereign nation-state that ever existed in "Palestine" west of the Jordan River. (In Biblical times, Ammon, Moab and Edom as well as Israel had land east of the Jordan, but they disappeared in antiquity and no other nation took their place until the British invented Trans-Jordan in the 1920s.)
After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin".
In that period, much of the mixed population of Palastina converted to Islam and adopted the Arabic language. They were subjects of a distant Caliph who ruled them from his capital, that was first in Damascus and later in Baghdad. They did not become a nation or an independent state, or develop a distinct society or culture.
In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, but never developed a national identity. It remained a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Mameluks, ethnically mixed slave-warriors whose center was in Egypt, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul.
During the First World War, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. At the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and among its subject provinces "Palestine" was assigned to the British, to govern temporarily as a mandate from the League of Nations.
The Jewish National Home
Travellers to Palestine from the Western world left records of what they saw there. The theme throughout their reports is dismal: The land was empty, neglected, abandoned, desolate, fallen into ruins
Nothing there [Jerusalem] to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds. — English pilgrim in 1590
The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population — British consul in 1857
There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] — not for 30 miles in either direction. . . . One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee . . . Nazareth is forlorn . . . Jericho lies a moldering ruin . . . Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation . . . untenanted by any living creature . . . .
A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds . . a silent, mournful expanse . . . a desolation . . . . We never saw a human being on the whole route . . . . Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country . . . .
Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes . . . desolate and unlovely . . . . — Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their [the Jews] labors created newer and better conditions and opportunities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The restoration of the "desolate and unlovely" land began in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century with the first Jewish pioneers. Their labors created newer and better conditions and opportunities, which in turn attracted migrants from many parts of the Middle East, both Arabs and others.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917, confirmed by the League of Nations Mandate, commited the British Government to the principle that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. . . . " It was specified both that this area be open to "close Jewish settlement" and that the rights of all inhabitants already in the country be preserved and protected.
Mandate Palestine originally included all of what is now Jordan, as well as all of what is now Israel, and the territories between them. However, when Great Britain's protégé Emir Abdullah was forced to leave the ancestral Hashemite domain in Arabia, the British created a realm for him that included all of Manfate Palestine east of the Jordan River. There was no traditional or historic Arab name for this land, so it was called after the river: first Trans-Jordan and later Jordan.
By this political act, that violated the conditions of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, the British cut more than 75 percent out of the Jewish National Home. No Jew has ever been permitted to reside in Trans-Jordan/Jordan.
Less than 25 percent then remained of Mandate Palestine, and even in this remnant, the British violated the Balfour and Mandate requirements for a "Jewish National Home" and for "close Jewish settlement". They progressively restricted where Jews could buy land, where they could live, build, farm or work.
After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel was finally able to settle some small part of those lands from which the Jews had been debarred by the British. Successive British governments regularly condemn their settlement as "illegal". In truth, it was the British who had acted illegally in banning Jews from these parts of the Jewish National Home.
Who Is A Palestinian?
During the period of the Mandate, it was the Jewish population that was known as "Palestinians" including those who served in the British Army in World War II.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jews who might have developed the empty lands of 'Palestine' ... instead died in the gas chambers of Europe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British policy was to curtail their numbers and progressively limit Jewish immigration. By 1939, the White Paper virtually put an end to admission of Jews to Palestine. This policy was imposed the most stringently at the very time this Home was most desperately needed — after the rise of Nazi power in Europe. Jews who might have developed the empty lands of Palestine and left progeny there, instead died in the gas chambers of Europe or in the seas they were trying to cross to the Promised Land.
At the same time that the British slammed the gates on Jews, they permitted or ignored massive illegal immigration into Western Palestine from Arab countries Jordan, Syria, Egypt, North Africa. In 1939, Winston Churchill noted that "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied . . . ." Exact population statistics may be problematic, but it seems that by 1947 the number of Arabs west of the Jordan River was approximately triple of what it had been in 1900.
The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in Palestine, until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into Palestine "displaced" the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugees".
Casual use of population statistics for Jews and Arabs in Palestine rarely consider how the proportions came to be. One factor was the British policy of keeping out Jews while bringing in Arabs. Another factor was the violence used to kill or drive out Jews even where they had been long established.
For one example: The Jewish connection with Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua long before it was King David's first capital. In 1929, Arab rioters with the passive consent of the British — killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now often proposed as a principle of international law and morality that all places that the British and the Arabs rendered Judenrein must forever remain so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For another example: In 1948, Trans-Jordan seized much of Judea and Samaria (which they called The West Bank) and East Jerusalem and the Old City. They killed or drove out every Jew.
It is now often proposed as a principle of international law and morality that all places that the British and the Arabs rendered Judenrein must forever remain so. In contrast, Israel eventually allotted 17 percent of Mandate Palestine has a large and growing population of Arab citizens.
From Palestine To Israel
What was to become of "Palestine" after the Mandate? This question was taken up by various British and international commissions and other bodies, culminating with the United Nations in 1947. During the various deliberations, Arab officials, spokesmen and writers expressed their views on "Palestine".
"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." — Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937
"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not" — Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian to Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." — Ahmed Shukairy, United Nations Security Council, 1956 By 1948, the Arabs had still not yet discovered their ancient nation of Falastin. When they were offered half of Palestine west of the Jordan River for a state, the offer was violently rejected. Six Arab states launched a war of annihilation against the nascent State of Israel. Their purpose was not to establish an independent Falastin. Their aim was to partition western Palestine amongst themselves.
They did not succeed in killing Israel, but Trans-Jordan succeeded in taking Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem, killing or driving out all the Jews who had lived in those places, and banning Jews of all nations from Jewish holy places. Egypt succeeded in taking the Gaza Strip. These two Arab states held these lands until 1967. Then they launched another war of annihilation against Israel, and in consequence lost the lands they had taken by war in 1948.
During those 19 years, 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never offered to surrendar those lands to make up an independent state of Falastin. The "Palestinians" never sought it. Nobody in the world ever suggested it, much less demanded it.
Finally, in 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Ahmed Shukairy, who less than 10 years earlier had denied the existence of Palestine, was its first chairman. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel. To that end it helped to precipitate the Arab attack on Israel in 1967.
The outcome of that attack then inspired an alteration in public rhetoric. As propaganda, it sounds better to speak of the liberation of Falastin than of the destruction of Israel. Much of the world, governments and media and public opinion, accept virtually without question of serious analysis the new-sprung myth of an Arab nation of Falastin, whose territory is unlawfully occupied by the Jews.
Since the end of World War I, the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa have been given independent states in 99.5 percent of the land they claimed. Lord Balfour once expressed his hope that when the Arabs had been given so much, they would "not begrudge" the Jews the "little notch" promised to them.
[Note: Some of the material cited above is drawn from the book From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters.]
Join our mailing list!
Receive our weekly news update free!
Back | Tzemach News Service | Current Issue | Links | Comments | Tzemach Institute
For information regarding this site, contact the Web Administrator
Jeff, this is the information I was trying to explain to that lady at dinner last friday...she said she was going to register.
Maybe you can give her the url for this thread next week if you and Mama_Bear go to Fresno. She was very interested in knowing this info, even called her husband from the dinner table if I remember correctly...
Thanks
Please. The Arabs tried many times to do the same, and they got their butts kicked. They gambled for more land, and lost the gamble. Now they are trying to get it back - without risking anything - by convincing the ignorant that the Israelis are the Bad guys and should just hand the land over.
Still, as unreasonable as that is, consider how the Israelis handled the deal with Egypt. The Palis could do the same if they would be as reasonable as Egypt was.
Ethnic Cleansing has bad connotations, but it does not have to be cruel. The fact is, unless the Palestinians stop the terrorists in their midst, they have no right to expect the Israelis to treat them as friends. Unless that happens quickly, the best thing that could happen would be for the 2 parties to live apart.
BTW, what do you think would happen to the Jews who did not choose to be "ethnically cleansed" from the future Palestinian state?
They didn't move to Palestine out of spite, and it wasn't simply a desolate wasteland since the days of Bar Kochba.
The primary posting in this thread perpetrates a false image of Palestine, Israel and the Levant. That image is then used to deligitimize the right of the non-Israeli population to live there, or to have any rights - that includes the Syrian Orthodox priests who have been around since the foundations of Christianity. That should demonstrate conclusively that the objective is not necessarily to deligitimize Yasser Arafat and the PA, or the Westbankers, but to deligitimize both Christianity and Islam from a presence in Israel or adjacent territories.
I believe Thera could well have been the cover under which the early Israelites who left by sea (aka the Proto-Celts) escaped, the rest escaping by land in the traditional EXODUS a century or two later.
In any case, none of these Iraelites were Jews. They were just Israelites, and not even divided into Northern and Southern Kingdoms at this point. The designation "Jew" for a small percentage of these Israelites offspring was not in common use until 500 BC, over a thousand years later.
For the details, click on my Profile.
You have taught me this and I agree. However, when I am making a 'quick' statement I think it is more widely understood when I use the word Jew....besides, I knew you'd be around shortly to correct the record, thanks. (smile) Now, I have to go out and continue cutting the grass. That's all I've done this week, cut grass. (ugh)
... assume that the Minoians were eventually assimilated into the surrounding population
I go real slow on assuming any population was "assimilated" into any other population. While
this certainly could have happened, and assimilation is not unknown, I think its claim is widely abused, and used mostly when the author simply doesn't know what happened. The story isn't complete without some final "explanation".
The most blatant of these "assimilation" errors, involving by far the LARGEST group of people, is the claim that the Lost Tribes of Israel were "assimilated" by their captors,
the Assyrians, and that's the end of their story. After even the most superficial examination of their history, the application of this "explanation" strains credulity.
When the Lost Tribes of Israel joined with the Medes and Persians to whip their
Assyrian captors, about 600 BC, their population was over 5 MILLION, and that was almost 10 Percent of the Global population! Ten percent of the global population is not easily assimilated by anyone, and it has to be someone even bigger, or at least more powerful. There weren't many Ten Percents around that part of the world to do such assimilating!
Since the previously totally unknown CELTS just happened to suddenly appear in massive quantity at the same time and the same place the Lost Tribes of Israel disappear, the only "assimilation" I can find is in their renaming. (But this does step on a number of oh-so-sensitive toes...)
For more details , see my Profile.
That's what happens when you OWN 28% of the State!
This is the best post of the lot. All of this is interesting and, as illustrated in the posts, subject to endless debate. The bottom line is who has the power to take and hold territory. No borders are permanent. Look at the old Soviet Union, (not to mention the Roman, Ottoman and British empires). India and Pakistan are legal creations. People have been fighting over land in Europe for centuries. Someday the U.S. borders might not be as they are today.
I don't understand how we think that the U.S. government has some moral obligation to "restrain" Israel when they are doing exactly what we would do. Jimmy mentions Texas in his post. Can you imagine what U.S. public opinion would be if Mexican extremists were launching suicide bombing missions against U.S. Civilians from "occupied" Mexico in south Texas? We'd hunt them down, kill them and break their stuff. Exactly what Israel is trying to do now.
You are wrong about the so called New Covenent.. For one thing God's covenent has never changed.. The old covenent is still in effect, as for the New Covenent is was made by God through Jesus Christ to include the gentile.. not to exclude the Jew.. read "Romans 11: 25 through 32...God's Covenents both old and new are errevocable! Paul is teaching the converted Gentiles about the covenent In Romans 11:vs25.. He says: " I do not want you to be ignorant of the mystery, ( pertaining to the grafting of the Gentile to the natural tree i.e.Israel), so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in.. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written".
I taught the Covenents on many levels over the years..Just so you will know the New Covenent was formed between God and the Gentile.. (see) Romans11:11.... This was how the Gentile was to be excepted as the children of God, only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.. God knew that some of the Jews would not accept the Messiah that was preordained. Don't ever think for one minute that God has turned his back on Israel, that will never happen.. God has always gathered them up and brought them through even if only in remnants... God never slumbers nor sleeps, nor shall HIS hand be taken away from Israel, nor shall HIS foot be moved". God will never walk away from Israel.. God does not change his covenents.. only man changes covenents..
I'm sure you are right about that. But it gives me a good opportunity to jump in a make the point (for other viewers). {ggg}
I'm going to be on the East coast later this spring and if things work out am planning to pop over to London and revisit the British Museum. Last time I concentrated on exhibits relating to Sir Henry Rawlinson and his discovery of the Behistun Rock in the Zarsos mountains of NW Iran, the heart of Lost Tribes of Israel country. The text on this massive mountain face is in three languages, and was key to our decyphering the different languages and thereby helping identify the Lost Tribes as known by different names.
Also checked out the Archeological work of Sir Flinders Petrie in Egypt. This trip I want to spend much more time in their Assyrian holdings, which are extensive. Hope it all works out!
I agree that forced population transfers are not always wrong. But a forced population transfer of Palestinians
1) Will not happen. Israel needs the support of the West, and the West would never stand for it.
2) Is contrary to US interests. As much as the neocons hate to admit it, we need at least cordial relations with the various Arab states, and it would be helpful to have friendly relations with a few, as we currently do with Jordan. Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians would instantly destroy all such relationships, and would cause all the moderate Arab regimes, such as Jordan's, to fall.
BTW, what do you think would happen to the Jews who did not choose to be "ethnically cleansed" from the future Palestinian state?
Palestinians would not tolerate a largescale presense of Jews in their state. However, given that the vast majority of Jews living in the occupied territories are settlers who moved there within the last 10 years, having them move out would not be so bad. It's not like they have any longheld ties to the land.
Israel probably could secure the saftey of a few small long-established Jewish communities, such as in Hebron, living in the Palestinian state, so long as their numbers are small. In return, Israel would have to allow a small number of Palestinian refugees, those who actually were driven from their homes by the IDF and had property confiscated, to return on Israel.
It is the U.N., Europe, and the US allowing them to influence our policy, that is flustrating both sides of the conflict. The problem could be settled in less than a month, but the international community keeps the pot boiling over there, and trading land for peace is not the answer and never will be.
The answer is to kill those that seek to kill you, as it has been since the dawn of man. We have not evolved beyond tooth and claw, only our toys have improved. Arab terrorist are slathering unappeasable animals that want blood and only blood, I say drown them in their own, rather than make lame attempts to negotiate the rate of your death with them.
Arafat and all those that follow him should be moldering in the grave, Israel should be allowed to arrange that.
you are part right-- some of the buildings in Jerusalem and Bethlehem are run by the Arab Christians.. who by the way do not, I repeat DO NOT call themselves Palestinians.. they call themselves Arab Christians who are Israeli Citizens.. I know because I have met most of them.. and they live usually in the Jewish sector.. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Israel from 1995 through 1999 and had the pleasure of meeting some of the directors of the Holy Sites.. they are well liked by the Jewish populace and are repected for their kinship... Most of them originally came from Morracco and parts of Saudi..
Then, there are the Syrian Orthodox who are permanent residents of Bethlehem. Frankly, I can't imagine how they would even qualify for Israeli citizenship. First of all they don't live there. Second of all they are Arabs.
Be that as it may, there are elements in Israel who have the ambition of deligitimizing the presence of both Moslems and Christians in Israel, the West Bank, or any of the various other places that were part of Israel or under its control in recent times or in ancient times.
Folks in Lebanon, parts of Syria, a fair chunk of Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi and Cyprus better watch out, because over the ages Israel, or Judea, or Jewish tribes have controlled and ruled a substantial part of the Middle East.
I do believe, though, that the fellows with their eyes on Saudi are keeping their mouths shut at the moment! (ROTFLMAO). And these folks with these claims do exist. I have talked to some of them. They are quite serious.
And then there's the crew looking for the pure red calf!
The other, and infinitely more important group came from Spain. They were seafaring folks who had been plying their trade since the earliest days of the Phoenicians, sometimes in competition, sometimes in cooperation.
While Abraham was still wondering around on the Arabian trade routes - long, long before the establishment of the state of Israel, the seagoing Celts controlled the Danube and other rivers that empty into the Black Sea. Their placenames may be discovered readily by looking at a map.
For up to a millenia these people made their money by keeping German speaking slaves on plantations in what is now Bulgaria. Everything was good for a very long time and these fellows controlled far more than their fairshare of Mediterranean trade. Then, it kind of came to an end when about 700 BC the German slaves got uppity and finally figured out how to hold a rebellion. The seagoing Celts then moved permanently West to Carvajal. They still live there. They have colonized other places, e.g. Scota, Alba and Briton. From time to time they would pop up working with the very well known Phoenician descendants called the Cartheginians in wars against the Italians. For example, we have Magolis allied to Hannibal in the Punic Wars. (Pronounce it McWallace if you wish - the Greeks and Romans were unable to do so)
You might note, also, that this same group occupied what we now call Troy in the days when the more primitive Greeks came around. The Celts called the town or fortress "Illium" or "Allium", depending on their dialect.
These folks had made their mark in the world, including a mark in civilization, long before the Hebrews in Egypt became slaves.
There's absolutely no reason to have to strip them naked of all culture and technology and then put them into a time machine and transport them FORWARD to the days of Moses where they can turn into a "Lost Tribe".
It would be far easier to turn the Hebrews into a "lost tribe" of Irishmen (or Bulgarian Celts)!
At some point in the Bible a Prophet notes in response to David's ancestry that it came from just about everywhere. Check the list - the Irish are in there (if you know what they are called at the time).
>Your basic Irishman, a "proto celt" in your parlance, descends from two group of Celts. One
group were primitive hunters and gatherers living in a broad band across Western Europe to
Cental Europe.
Please provide your source for this very generalized speculation. I studied Ancient Irish History at Trinity College Dublin and don't recognize any reference to CELTS that old. I'll be especially interested in your definition of and identification of CELTs.
>The other, and infinitely more important group came from Spain. They were seafaring folks who had been plying their trade since the earliest days of the Phoenicians, sometimes in competition, sometimes in cooperation.
To the extent they CAME via Spain I agree. Phoenician of course means "red headed man", which correlates both with the Irish and with David of the OT. The Phoenicians were Hebrews, as were Abraham and his offspring, but they appear to be from different families of Hebrews.
>While Abraham was still wondering around on the Arabian trade routes - long, long before the
establishment of the state of Israel, the seagoing Celts controlled the Danube and other rivers
that empty into the Black Sea. Their placenames may be discovered readily by looking at a map.
I agree with the concept, but your dates don't work. It is thought that members of the Tribe of Dan (Proto-Celts) explored and named the river Dan, Dneiper, and many others, all the way across northern Erope to the territory of DANmark (Denmark).
Todays State of Israel was established nearly 4,000 years after Abraham left Ur. There was no such thing as a "State of Israel" in Ancient times, but there was a Kingdom of Israel which existed before the formation of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. That name went with the Northern Kingdom when it split off.
>For up to a millenia these people made their money by keeping German speaking slaves on
plantations in what is now Bulgaria. Everything was good for a very long time and these fellows
controlled far more than their fairshare of Mediterranean trade. Then, it kind of came to an end
when about 700 BC t
722 BC is when the Northern Kingdom was taken into Assyrian Captivity. Any link there? These 5 MILLION in the Lost Tribes of Israel didn't escape from the Assyrians in any great quantity until a hundred years later, so probably not.
>the German slaves got uppity and finally figured out how to hold a
rebellion. The seagoing Celts then moved permanently West to Carvajal. They still live there.
They have colonized other places, e.g. Scota, Alba and Briton. From time to time they would
pop up working with the very well known Phoenician descendants called the Cartheginians in
wars against the Italians. For example, we have Magolis allied to Hannibal in the Punic Wars.
(Pronounce it McWallace if you wish - the Greeks and Romans were unable to do so)
Maybe we can pursue this in another thread or post. This is getting awfully long.
>You might note, also, that this same group occupied what we now call Troy in the days when the more primitive Greeks came around. The Celts called the town or fortress "Illium" or "Allium", depending on their dialect.
Yes, some scholars think that Troy (and lots of other places) was founded by the Israelite Proto-Celts who left Egypt by sea several hundred years before the Exodus by land. A major part of the Tribe of Dan, plus members of the Tribes of Asher and Judah were part of that evacuation. BLAM here on LT makes the interesting point that this is about the time of the massive Thera volcanic eruption.
>These folks had made their mark in the world, including a mark in civilization, long before the
Hebrews in Egypt became slaves.
What folks are we talking about??? I'd like to see your documentation and definition of CELT. I am unaware of any activity attributed to even Proto-CELTS prior to about 1600 BC.
>There's absolutely no reason to have to strip them naked of all culture and technology and then
put them into a time machine and transport them FORWARD to the days of Moses where they
can turn into a "Lost Tribe".
Sorry, your post was so long this part escapes me.
>It would be far easier to turn the Hebrews into a "lost tribe" of Irishmen (or Bulgarian Celts)!
Actually, its not all that difficult to make a case for Proto-Celts in Ireland with a direct link to the Israelites in Egypt.
>At some point in the Bible a Prophet notes in response to David's ancestry that it came from just about everywhere.
Please quote the verse.
>Check the list - the Irish are in there (if you know what they are called at the time).
The Irish are in where?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.