Talk:Palestine (region)

"Gaza's population is expected to increase to 2.1 million people in 2020" outadedness

It's 2024, we need to change the tense of that statement and/or verify whether or not the prediction came true. Polishedrelish (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Main image

Is the current main image really the best option, as opposed to, say, a medieval map showing Palestine? For me it seems to overemphasize the 20th century mandatory Palestine delineation, while the green lines are frankly a little bit hard to understand. Also, this is specifically not an article about the occupied territories, so why are those also on the map? I suspect that for a lot of newcomers this makes it altogether more muddling and confusing than a more simple image might. I'm not convinced this means it performs as the lead image (as what one expects to see for this topic, as in other tertiary sources) particularly well. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to understand the green lines from the information given. Zero^talk 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

change state of Palestine from political entity to country

in the main article - it is defined as a country and not a political entity. can someone change it in the top section Gsgdd (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Map

The map is inaccurate for the british mandate of Palestine. It should include Transjordan. 173.178.44.232 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

because...? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding Sources

I do not have extended confirmed user status so I cannot edit the page, so if someone else can, that would be helpful. The introductory paragraph references Herodotos' The Histories. This is extremely important as there is a claim that has been repeated continuously that Palestine is a an invention of the Romans and did not exist in the ancient world, or variously that it has never existed. The reference is from Herotodos c 104, where he makes no mention of Judeans or Samaritans, but only refers to Syrians and Phoenicians of Palestine:

"For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be p393 so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macrones, say that they learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do even as the Egyptians. But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learnt it from the other; for it is manifestly a very ancient custom. That the others learnt it from intercourse with Egypt I hold to be clearly proved by this — that Phoenicians who hold intercourse with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children."

The Greek is:

"Φαίνονται μὲν γὰρ ἐόντες οἱ Κόλχοι Αἰγύπτιοι, νόησας δὲ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἢ ἀκούσας ἄλλων λέγω. ὡς δέ μοι ἐν φροντίδι ἐγένετο, εἰρόμην ἀμφοτέρους, καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ Κόλχοι ἐμεμνέατο τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἢ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τῶν Κόλχων· νομίζειν δ’ ἔφασαν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τῆς Σεσώστριος στρατιῆς εἶναι τοὺς Κόλχους. αὐτὸς δὲ εἴκασα τῇδε, καὶ ὅτι μελάγχροες εἰσὶ καὶ οὐλότριχες. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐς οὐδὲν ἀνήκει· εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἕτεροι τοιοῦτοι· ἀλλὰ τοῖσιδε καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅτι μοῦνοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων Κόλχοι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Αἰθίοπες περιτάμνονται ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς τὰ αἰδοῖα. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Σύροι οἱ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογέουσι παρ’ Αἰγυπτίων μεμαθηκέναι, Σύριοι δὲ οἱ περὶ Θερμώδοντα καὶ Παρθένιον ποταμὸν καὶ Μάκρωνες οἱ τούτοισι ἀστυγείτονες ἐόντες ἀπὸ Κόλχων φασὶ νεωστὶ μεμαθηκέναι. οὗτοι γὰρ εἰσὶ οἱ περιταμνόμενοι ἀνθρώπων μοῦνοι, καὶ οὗτοι Αἰγυπτίοισι φαίνονται ποιεῦντες κατὰ ταὐτά. αὐτῶν δὲ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Αἰθιόπων οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ὁκότεροι παρὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐξέμαθον· ἀρχαῖον γὰρ δή τι φαίνεται ἐόν. ὡς δὲ ἐπιμισγόμενοι Αἰγύπτῳ ἐξέμαθον, μέγα μοι καὶ τόδε τεκμήριον γίνεται· Φοινίκων ὁκόσοι τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἐπιμίσγονται, οὐκέτι Αἰγυπτίους μιμέονται κατὰ τὰ αἰδοῖα, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων οὐ περιτάμνουσι τὰ αἰδοῖα."

Text is from Godley's translation of Herodotos, Loeb Library, 1st ed, ISBN 9781296575090

Historiaantiqua (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"where he makes no mention of Judeans or Samaritans" Not surprising. Either they were obscure in this era, or non-existent. Judea is a term coined much later. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The oldest inscription we have with the name of Jerusalem is only from the 1st c BCE. Gmirkin (2019) in "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible" posits a terminus post quem for the Torah at 280 BCE; his evidence is convincing. Ronny Reich's excavations, together with those of Silberman and Finkelstein do not support an occupation consistent with a city on the site of Jerusalem before at the earliest late 700's, so 8th c BCE. The Biblical story has a grand city of David and the Kingdom of Israel in the 11th c. Archaeology shows that at the time Nebuchadnezzar sacks Jerusalem in 586 BCE, it was the size of a small town - with no Temple of Solomon. There was only ever one and the same Temple.

A German excavation on Mt Gerizim in Nablus, the Samaritan temple, established it two centuries older than Jerusalem itself. The inscription of Yahweh at Kuntillet

Ajr- our oldest one - names him as Yahweh of Teman and Samaria, Teman being Yemen. He is therefore clearly the god of the Samaritans before he is the god of the Jews. In the ensuing years as the Judeans and the Samaritans fight, the Judeans would prevail, and in first century they convince Herod to annex Samaria into the Roman province of Judea. The irony here is that the Roman-allied Judeans were erasing the culture and history of the local Samaritans using the power of the Roman state. You can see Yaakov Ben Aaron, "The History and the Religion of the Samaritans," for more.

ud

That Judeans were seen as "Syrians" and "Phoenicians" in many contexts of the ancient world is clear to those of us who know this part of the world. And that what is frequently conflated as "the Kingdom of Israel" or "Northern Kingdom" - was never called by either name, and was always Kingdom of Samaria. The Samaritans are therefore simultaneously erased - by having their ancient identity conflated to give Israel a claim of antiquity, and not considered Israelites at the same time. There is even a story in the New testament of Jesus meeting a Samaritan woman who is surprised that he speaks to her "since Judeans have no dealings with the Samaritans." The racism is obvious - the Canaan woman is compared to a dog by the gentle Jesus meek and mild. One of the most convincing bits that Jesus was a real person is precisely this - a fictional character would probably not have racist slip-ups.

So, you're very correct. All of the claims of ancient Israel, are actually, about Samaria. Wikipedia is full of such conflations. The earliest mention of Israel - in the Amarna letters - look into it more - is actually a mention of the House of Omri, after whom Samaria is named - not Israel. The Bible itself calls the language as Canaan or Judean, never as Hebrew. And "paleo-Hebrew" is another made up idea - it's literally the Phoenician script. Historiaantiqua (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Biblical story has a grand city of David and the Kingdom of Israel in the 11th c." So what? The Biblical narratives are little more than fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)