Ze'ev Herzog invited such a comparison by concluding his Ha'aretz article with an explicit linkage to modern Israeli history: "It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to recognize the injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country and is willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women -- but is not up to adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical myth. The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye," he wrote.
To me, it sounds like he's the one with the agenda.
Where the scriptures translate in verse 5:2 of Daniel, the Hebrew word ‘av’ to read father, it can also be translated as ancestor or predecessor; Belshazzar was not the direct son of Nebuchadnezzar but he was descended from him through his mother who married Nabonides.
Nabonides is considered the last great king of Babylon. His relationship with the previous Kings of Babylon is unclear, perhaps he was once a great general, but he came to the throne by overthrowing a young king named Labashi-Marduk. It is likely Nabonides substantiated his claim to the throne by marrying Nitocris, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, since he was not a blood relative to Nebuchadnezzar.
Being a religious eccentric, in 549 BC Nabonides left Babylon to live at Teyma (Tema) located in what is now Saudi Arabia northeast of Hijaz, where the ancient trade route between Medina and Dumah crosses the Nefud desert. Tayma is approximately 400 kilometers north of Medina. While on religious sojourn Nabonides left his son behind to rule in Babylon, but Belshazzar never fully came to the throne.
Skeptics believed that the writer of Daniel made an historical error in calling Belshazzar king, but when Belshazzar told Daniel that if he could interpret the strange writing on the wall he (Daniel) would be granted authority in the kingdom as third ruler, the scriptures show a detail which lends credence to the account. Belshazzar was not the first ruler of the kingdom, but he was in a secondary position, appointed to reign in Babylon while his father was away. By Babylonian tradition, all in the city with the secondary ruler would call him king. Belshazzar offered to Daniel third position, so the writer of the Book faithfully related the fact as a minor detail, and then much later archaeological evidence substantiated the trivia.
These findings in archaeology show that the writer of Daniel was telling of a real man named Belshazzar, thus the other details are likely true, also. These were no fables.
It is interesting to note that in the past some people stamped this passage and all of the Book of Daniel as mere myth-telling because Historians didn’t believe there was such a king as Belshazzar who ever reigned in Babylon. But in 1854, a member of the British Consul was exploring ancient ruins in southern Iraq and dug into a great tower built there. He found a time capsule: clay cylinders inscribed with cuneiform writing; the cylinders were inscribed at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C., and commemorated repairs the king made to the tower; they included a prayer for long life of Nabonidus and his oldest son, Belshazzar, proving Belshazzar was not a fictional character.