We need to stop pretending that this issue is so difficult. It is obvious even to a young child.

[louie888]

How is it that your "people" were able to build their Mosque over a Jewish Temple? Riddle us that batman.

It is a stupid question based on ignorance.

It is a claim. It is a Jewish narrative. It is certainly not historical fact, nor is it a settled matter within the mainstream historical community.

Uhhhh, no, it ain't. The ROMANS, you know who they were right? They record building their Temple to Jupiter ATOP the Jewish temple built by Solomon. Not Jews, not Israelis" ROMANS! I would trust the words of an ancient Roman over a moronic buffoon, such as you, any day of the week.

You obviously never read what was actually written or how that bodes for your story.

Actually. I have. And if you would like to read it yourself It is well described in Tacitus's history's as well as being touched on by Marcellinus, and the Byzantine historian Eunapius also talks about it. You are simply an ignorant twerp speaking out of your ass, boy.

Look, dumb one, here is just one mainstream piece on why your story is shit. Let me preface this with I don't think this answers all the questions, but it's a start. And we can actually quote your favorite Roman...

“Josephus described it [the fortress] as being “erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height” on a “great precipice,” Sams quotes Josephus. “It had “all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps, such that it had all the conveniences of cities and seemed like it was composed of several cities.” With 60-foot walls, four towers (the southeast being 105 feet high), and smooth stones covering the slope on its east side, it dominated the temple to its south, ready to fend off the most formidable attacks.”


Given this description, according to Sams, tucking Fortress Antonia north of the temple location in the Temple Mount area subscribed to by most scholars would have been impossible.

It simply wouldn't fit.
Wailing at the wrong wall?

Think.

 

[Indeependent]

How is it that your "people" were able to build their Mosque over a Jewish Temple? Riddle us that batman.

It is a stupid question based on ignorance.

It is a claim. It is a Jewish narrative. It is certainly not historical fact, nor is it a settled matter within the mainstream historical community.

Uhhhh, no, it ain't. The ROMANS, you know who they were right? They record building their Temple to Jupiter ATOP the Jewish temple built by Solomon. Not Jews, not Israelis" ROMANS! I would trust the words of an ancient Roman over a moronic buffoon, such as you, any day of the week.

You obviously never read what was actually written or how that bodes for your story.

Actually. I have. And if you would like to read it yourself It is well described in Tacitus's history's as well as being touched on by Marcellinus, and the Byzantine historian Eunapius also talks about it. You are simply an ignorant twerp speaking out of your ass, boy.

Look, dumb one, here is just one mainstream piece on why your story is shit. Let me preface this with I don't think this answers all the questions, but it's a start. And we can actually quote your favorite Roman...

“Josephus described it [the fortress] as being “erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height” on a “great precipice,” Sams quotes Josephus. “It had “all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps, such that it had all the conveniences of cities and seemed like it was composed of several cities.” With 60-foot walls, four towers (the southeast being 105 feet high), and smooth stones covering the slope on its east side, it dominated the temple to its south, ready to fend off the most formidable attacks.”


Given this description, according to Sams, tucking Fortress Antonia north of the temple location in the Temple Mount area subscribed to by most scholars would have been impossible.

It simply wouldn't fit.
Wailing at the wrong wall?

Think.

I just attended a lecture that described how conquering nations would purposely build infrastructure above the conquered.
The 1st Temple is currently 19 layers below the Western Wall.
So much for your interpretation without the aid of an archaeologist.

 

[louie888]

The 1st Temple is currently 19 layers below the Western Wall.

Not one shred of evidence to back that grandiose claim. I guess we will just believe you even though you lie daily.

 

[Indeependent]

The 1st Temple is currently 19 layers below the Western Wall.

Not one shred of evidence to back that grandiose claim. I guess we will just believe you even though you lie daily.

What is Beneath the Temple Mount? | History | Smithsonian
Ah, **** you.

 

[Shusha]

It is a stupid question based on ignorance.

It is a claim. It is a Jewish narrative. It is certainly not historical fact, nor is it a settled matter within the mainstream historical community.

FFS.

 

[Hollie]

How is it that your "people" were able to build their Mosque over a Jewish Temple? Riddle us that batman.

It is a stupid question based on ignorance.

It is a claim. It is a Jewish narrative. It is certainly not historical fact, nor is it a settled matter within the mainstream historical community.

Uhhhh, no, it ain't. The ROMANS, you know who they were right? They record building their Temple to Jupiter ATOP the Jewish temple built by Solomon. Not Jews, not Israelis" ROMANS! I would trust the words of an ancient Roman over a moronic buffoon, such as you, any day of the week.

You obviously never read what was actually written or how that bodes for your story.

Actually. I have. And if you would like to read it yourself It is well described in Tacitus's history's as well as being touched on by Marcellinus, and the Byzantine historian Eunapius also talks about it. You are simply an ignorant twerp speaking out of your ass, boy.

Look, dumb one, here is just one mainstream piece on why your story is shit. Let me preface this with I don't think this answers all the questions, but it's a start. And we can actually quote your favorite Roman...

“Josephus described it [the fortress] as being “erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height” on a “great precipice,” Sams quotes Josephus. “It had “all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps, such that it had all the conveniences of cities and seemed like it was composed of several cities.” With 60-foot walls, four towers (the southeast being 105 feet high), and smooth stones covering the slope on its east side, it dominated the temple to its south, ready to fend off the most formidable attacks.”


Given this description, according to Sams, tucking Fortress Antonia north of the temple location in the Temple Mount area subscribed to by most scholars would have been impossible.

It simply wouldn't fit.
Wailing at the wrong wall?

Think.

On the other hand,

Not wailing at the wrong Western Wall of the Temple Mount | Ritmeyer Archaeological Design

A certain Ms. Sams, who has a degree in English, is picking up the old idea of Ernest Martin that the Temple Mount was not located where all scholars agree it is, but in the City of David. She has decided therefore that the Jewish people are praying at the wrong place. Dr. Jim Davila of PaleoJudaica has written an excellent post showing why Ms. Sam is wrong:

The article refers to some notions by Dr. Ernest L. Martin and “researcher and author” Marilyn Sams, neither of whom is (was, in the case of the late Dr. Martin) a trained specialist in the archaeology of ancient Israel. Dr. Martin’s PhD was in education from Ambassador College. Ms. Sams’s degrees are in English. Their notions about the Temples are not presented at scholarly conferences or debated in peer-review journals. They are not on the radar for specialist discussion of the archaeology of ancient Jerusalem.

 

[louie888]

The 1st Temple is currently 19 layers below the Western Wall.

Not one shred of evidence to back that grandiose claim. I guess we will just believe you even though you lie daily.

What is Beneath the Temple Mount? | History | Smithsonian
Ah, **** you.

You said no jewish sources, but you don't even read what you post...

Barkay and his colleagues have published their main findings in two academic journals in Hebrew, and they plan to eventually publish a book-length account in English.
Read more: What is Beneath the Temple Mount? | History | Smithsonian
Feeling stupid yet?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't see where it shows that a whole population moved out and a whole new population moved in as you suggested.

The entire region was in movement for centuries. At some times there were almost no people due to disease and no arable land. But even then, there were still Jews living there. Thus it is the Palestinians who are the interlopers.

I agree with your history but I don't agree with your conclusion.

Palestine has been invaded, conquered, and occupied many times. Plus it was the cross road of trade and human migration forever. A lot of people came and went.

However, I don't believe that every time a new flag went up over city hall that everyone moved out and a whole new population moved in. Normally when a territory is conquered the political elites are removed and everyone else stays to be exploited. Somebody has to create the wealth that the conqueror wants to take.

Through all of this flux there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the Palestinians of today.

No, they're not. The only ethnic group who have been represented in Israel from the very beginning of written history are the Jews. They are the only group that has had a constant presence there for the last 3,000 years. The Palestinians didn't arrive until around 150 years ago. The facts are very clear on that.

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

My people? The Palestinians? How have they done one damn thing on that list? This should be funny if nothing else.

I believe this is the most relevant one.

1. Do you deny indigenous people the right to self-determination on land that you conquered?

The Palestinians have always said the the Jews should have the same right to self determination as all of the other people living there.

 

[westwall]

The entire region was in movement for centuries. At some times there were almost no people due to disease and no arable land. But even then, there were still Jews living there. Thus it is the Palestinians who are the interlopers.

I agree with your history but I don't agree with your conclusion.

Palestine has been invaded, conquered, and occupied many times. Plus it was the cross road of trade and human migration forever. A lot of people came and went.

However, I don't believe that every time a new flag went up over city hall that everyone moved out and a whole new population moved in. Normally when a territory is conquered the political elites are removed and everyone else stays to be exploited. Somebody has to create the wealth that the conqueror wants to take.

Through all of this flux there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the Palestinians of today.

No, they're not. The only ethnic group who have been represented in Israel from the very beginning of written history are the Jews. They are the only group that has had a constant presence there for the last 3,000 years. The Palestinians didn't arrive until around 150 years ago. The facts are very clear on that.

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

 

[westwall]

My people? The Palestinians? How have they done one damn thing on that list? This should be funny if nothing else.

I believe this is the most relevant one.

1. Do you deny indigenous people the right to self-determination on land that you conquered?

The Palestinians have always said the the Jews should have the same right to self determination as all of the other people living there.

The history of Israel throughout the late 1800's into the 1940's belies that claim.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I agree with your history but I don't agree with your conclusion.

Palestine has been invaded, conquered, and occupied many times. Plus it was the cross road of trade and human migration forever. A lot of people came and went.

However, I don't believe that every time a new flag went up over city hall that everyone moved out and a whole new population moved in. Normally when a territory is conquered the political elites are removed and everyone else stays to be exploited. Somebody has to create the wealth that the conqueror wants to take.

Through all of this flux there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the Palestinians of today.

No, they're not. The only ethnic group who have been represented in Israel from the very beginning of written history are the Jews. They are the only group that has had a constant presence there for the last 3,000 years. The Palestinians didn't arrive until around 150 years ago. The facts are very clear on that.

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

Where is your proof?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I agree with your history but I don't agree with your conclusion.

Palestine has been invaded, conquered, and occupied many times. Plus it was the cross road of trade and human migration forever. A lot of people came and went.

However, I don't believe that every time a new flag went up over city hall that everyone moved out and a whole new population moved in. Normally when a territory is conquered the political elites are removed and everyone else stays to be exploited. Somebody has to create the wealth that the conqueror wants to take.

Through all of this flux there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the Palestinians of today.

No, they're not. The only ethnic group who have been represented in Israel from the very beginning of written history are the Jews. They are the only group that has had a constant presence there for the last 3,000 years. The Palestinians didn't arrive until around 150 years ago. The facts are very clear on that.

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

You have claimed that the Palestinians are recent arrivals. Then who are all those other people?

 

[westwall]

No, they're not. The only ethnic group who have been represented in Israel from the very beginning of written history are the Jews. They are the only group that has had a constant presence there for the last 3,000 years. The Palestinians didn't arrive until around 150 years ago. The facts are very clear on that.

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

Where is your proof?

Read a history of ANY empire who counted the Holy Land as its property, and ALWAYS the Jews are mentioned. Every single time.

 

[westwall]

No, they're not. The only ethnic group who have been represented in Israel from the very beginning of written history are the Jews. They are the only group that has had a constant presence there for the last 3,000 years. The Palestinians didn't arrive until around 150 years ago. The facts are very clear on that.

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

You have claimed that the Palestinians are recent arrivals. Then who are all those other people?

Various Arab and Bedouin tribes people. Lydians, Persians, Egyptians, Byzantines, Normans, various European Christians, and Mamaluks, Mongols and the famous "Sea Peoples" from the time of Ramses I and II. The Holy Land has been a crossroads of travel since before time was recorded.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

Where is your proof?

Read a history of ANY empire who counted the Holy Land as its property, and ALWAYS the Jews are mentioned. Every single time.

You keep pounding on the part that is not contested.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, the whole population, except for a few Jews, left the territory.

• Who were those people?
• Why did they leave?
• Where did they go?

Then the Palestinians came.

• Who were they?
• Where did they come from?
• Why would they go to a place where everybody left?

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

You have claimed that the Palestinians are recent arrivals. Then who are all those other people?

Various Arab and Bedouin tribes people. Lydians, Persians, Egyptians, Byzantines, Normans, various European Christians, and Mamaluks, Mongols and the famous "Sea Peoples" from the time of Ramses I and II. The Holy Land has been a crossroads of travel since before time was recorded.

We have a list like that in the US. We are still all Americans.

 

[westwall]

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

Where is your proof?

Read a history of ANY empire who counted the Holy Land as its property, and ALWAYS the Jews are mentioned. Every single time.

You keep pounding on the part that is not contested.

Oh? You keep asking for proof that the Jews never left so I have presented it to you.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

Where is your proof?

Read a history of ANY empire who counted the Holy Land as its property, and ALWAYS the Jews are mentioned. Every single time.

You keep pounding on the part that is not contested.

Oh? You keep asking for proof that the Jews never left so I have presented it to you.

No, I was asking about the other people.

 

[westwall]

Never claimed that. However it is KNOWN that the Palestinians didn't arrive in the region until quite recently. It is also known that there have been Jews living in the region for ALL of recorded history. I think that trumps anything you can claim.

You say that some number of Jews have lived there for thousands of years. OK, I don't think anyone will argue that fact. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

The part that I cannot accept is that nobody else has. That none of the Palestinians have any ancestors from back in the day. I have seen nothing to suggest that to be true. Surely you can point to some people who have come and gone. Sometimes even influencing culture and religion.

But then again, I haven't seen anything that would change that core group of people.

And I have never made the claim that no one else has. I have made the claim that the Jews are the only people who have CONSTANTLY been there.

You have claimed that the Palestinians are recent arrivals. Then who are all those other people?

Various Arab and Bedouin tribes people. Lydians, Persians, Egyptians, Byzantines, Normans, various European Christians, and Mamaluks, Mongols and the famous "Sea Peoples" from the time of Ramses I and II. The Holy Land has been a crossroads of travel since before time was recorded.

We have a list like that in the US. We are still all Americans.

That's because we STAYED. They didn't. You really should read some of the history's of the Holy Land. It is truly amazing what went on there. This revisionist silliness is simply hilarious when you have even the slightest knowledge of what happened before. There are period Greek, Byzantine, Roman, and of course Egyptian history's that deal with the Holy Land. I can't remember which Ramses it is, but around 1200 BCE he had a stele created that describes his conquering of Canaan and the people who lived there. I think that is the earliest non biblical sourced mention of the Jews in the Holy Land. He didn't like them much.