Jews were Phoenicians - a long article.

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.proza.ru/2009/06/24/231

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/06 ... s-are.html


- This article provides evidences and describes in details the Phoenician-Jewish relationship, this article , and many other archaeological evidences presented in other articles and studies, weaken the stance of Bible radicals who say that the Canaanites were totally exterminated by Jews (this is probably a radical figurative story in the Bible, representing the victory of monotheism over polytheism) and shows instead that Jews have evolved from Phoenicians Canaanites themselves.

- This article does however enforces the Israeli theory that Palestine was a Jewish homeland but not because they have invaded it but because they were the native inhabitants- they were Phoenicians themselves.

- It does however weaken the general Jewish claim though for the exclusivity over the Palestinian lands , Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians all have Phoenician and Canaanites roots too so, if we are gonna base land ownership on roots like the Zionists do, those people have equal right to the land. The bible itself doesn't deny that Palestine was part of Canaan, however the Bible radicans of today believe that 100% of its people were killed by them, that's why Israelis on the internet spread weak stories and lies to deny the Palestinian/Lebanese/Syrians 's Canaanite blood roots (and keep claim that they are 100% Arabs/Jordanians) hence the very foundation of their state is based on the idea that they existed there before them.

- The second article also reinforces the Jewish-Phoenician relation.

The state of Israel is not based on some genetic correlation with a tribe that may or may not have lived in the area 4,000 years ago.

It is based on the Council of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine (1922-1923) - following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire - and UN General Assembly resolutions 181 (1947) & 273 (1949)

... just as modern day Lebanon is based on the Council of the League of Nations French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon (1920) - following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire - and the UN Charter (1945).

I think that's the standard view today. They were some form of Canaanite.

I think the early claims have all been jettisoned by serious scholars and the current debate is over David. The scope of that. Was is it a kingdom or more like a petty chiefdom? But as far as I know there is no evidence of Solomon or Saul.

Ahh talking international resolutions, you're right, but Israeli jews do not often justify their invasion and military aggression by this resolution but because they claim it's the "ancestral homeland" of all Jews hence why they claim they have the right to fight for it.

It's true that Lebanon was officially formed by the Council of the League of Nations but its people didn't come from scratch, they were always there, like the Palestinians who were always there in Palestine, and neither of those people ever identified themselves as Ottomans or Turks, not people imported from elsewhere, like Poland and Russia etc...

It's totally different scenario from Israel which was formed of imported people who were already citizens in other countries and holding their nationalities.

If Palestine is really an ancestral homeland for jews, it would be only for the Middle-Eastern, Moroccan and Spanish Jews (Sephardic?) but that's stupid because a lot of Mulsim Moroccans, Tunisians (and Palestinians too) most probably have the same Phoenician/Canaanite roots.

Last time I checked, many Syrians believe that Lebanon is rightfully part of Syria, and that it was taken away from them by force during the French Mandate.

Do you support the historic Syrian claim to the land currently known as Lebanon?

You don't need to have 100% Hebrew ancestry to be considered Jewish. Not sure what the relevance is of other people getting added to the genepool during history. Ashkhenazi Jews are no less Jewish than Middle-Eastern Jews. Even converts are considered part of the Jewish people, it is even forbidden to remind them that they were once gentile. Zionism is based more on religion than ancestry, since according to the bible God promised the land to them (which is a ridiculous concept). Many early Zionists were not even dead set on Israel, they would have settled for another piece of land to create their state, but by recreating Israel they got more support from Jews and even Christians.

There you go again, being logica.

The major excuse used by the Zionist to take over of Palestine is because it's the ancestral homeland of the Jews (the Hebrews) - Ashkhenazi Jews are mostly European coverts. Palestinians certainly have more Hebrew blood than any Ashkhenazi.




The majority of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine (together) aren't Jews therefore why should they care and accept this (stupid) promise by God?

Israelis claim that “There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.”

This means that the Zionists are not prepared even to acknowledge the existence of the native people who were born and brought up in Palestine, on the plea that they were not Jews. And at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, only 7% of the 700,000 inhabitants of Palestine were Jews; the rest were Christians and Muslims.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 26 Apr 2014, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you check the old map of Phoenicia, Phoenician is mostly equal to modern Lebanon, and there were minor religious differences between the Phoenicians and the Syro-Canaanites (yet both almost same religion), also Mount Lebanon had its own identity during Ottoman rule. Modern Syrian, Lebanon and even Palestine/Israel was never historically a single nation at any time of history.

However, regardless how historically accurate the Syrian claim is, that's totally not equivalent to the Israeli case hence the population of Lebanon wasn't imported from elsewhere. Weren't Southern Sudanese natives to south of Sudan too? They're probably more natives than their northern brethren. Aren't South Koreans originally Koreans too? Weren't they in south of Korea too? Yes, they are, but both are free to keep their independent countries regardless of history - there are hundred of examples.

Let's not ridicule the discussion and claim that all separation/independence cases in history are similar to the foundation of Israel, they're not at all, where did the Israelis live before the formation of Israel?
Israel is a pure colonialism case (regardless of any "legal" resolution), it is not comparable to Lebanon, Korea, Sudan, or any another nation which was reshaped with a new name in the 20-21th century.

If questions of borders and sovereignty aren't to be settled by international law, then how should they be settled?

Putin-style?

What's the diff between Phoenecians and Chaldeans? I remember at the beginning of the Book of Judith (hypothetical story and clearly allegorical) an enemy soldier or general gives their story and cites Abraham as being a Chaldean. I'm pretty sure the Hebrew alphabet is evolved Canaanite, think they might be a closer to a Canaanite/Chaldean blend or perhaps genetically Chaldean, culturally Canaanite at the source? I'm sure it's not nearly as clean as them all being Abraham's descendants but it was the kind of story-within-a-story that they don't usually drop unless there's a grain of something to it.

Chaldeans are another name for Assyrians. Not an alias for Phonecians.

The Phonecians were seafaring semitic speakers who lived on the coast of modern Lebanon. They colonized the mediterranean. Founded Carthage. One of their kings was buddies with fellow King Solomon of neighboring Israel.

The Assyrians were Mesopotamians of the inland Tigris Euphrates( modern Iraq). Also Semetic speakers. Obsessed with perfecting seige equipment they became great conquerors. They even Conquered the Phonecians. There is still an ethnic enclave of folks calling themselves "Assyrain" in Iraq today.

The Canaanites, the Phonecians, and the Ancient Hebrews were all semitic speaking peoples who lived cheek by jowl within a region smaller than Jersy and Maryland put together. So its not exactly shocking to learn that they were all related to each other. Its like learning that George W. Bush is related to George H.W.Bush. Not exactly shocking news.

It may be shocking to some people who think that the bible is a historically reliable account.

But the Ashkhenazi didn't have a homeland. And just because some non-Hebrew DNA got added to the genepool does not make them any less of a people of their own. I do agree with you that the Palestinians got screwed over and have been ignored ever since.



They shouldn't have to accept any religious claims to land. The problem is that the creation of Israel is a fait accompli. The way it came into being was extremely unfair to Palestinians, but it's not really feasable to reverse it. People born in Israel, where would they go? The focus should be on a solution, but that seems pretty far away. I'm not even sure everyone wants a solution. The building of new settlements by Israelis makes negotiations pretty much impossible.