That's a rather odd argument, don't you think? Romans have been in my country even before that, Greeks have been in present-day Turkey, Egypt, etc. Normans have invaded and colonised England 1000 years ago. Should the corollary be that these peoples are somehow entitled to expel the current dwellers of those lands because of some sort of historical right?

It's a pretty simple argument - how can one colonize a region in which they are native to?

You could argue there's unfairness in the events, but saying israel is a colony is just odd, jews have come from the region.

So did the Italians, and I'm not sure if I would like Meloni ruling either Madrid or Barcelona... or the whole Mediterranean Europe and a chunk of Asia.

user fldsk means to say 6000 year history, of course. But I'm willing to come down on that, since Genesis is a bit of a chronological hand-wave.

I'm relying on whatever Synod counted the ages of people in the talks and arrived at a creation date of 4004 BC, of course

If we grant that Italy is Rome, which is a separate conversation, then we're still left with Roman conquest, which we don't consider legitimate today, and a long period of documented Jewish inhabitation.

I don't take a position on the legitimacy or otherwise of Israel, because there are already plenty of indignant westerners with insufficient information. But I will say: that written history is weighty evidence.

The Bible is not a valid source, neither is the Talmud. I would trust the Egyptians far more as they wrote down everything.

It's perfectly valid. The word you're looking for is "reliable".

If we were discussing the virgin birth, I wouldn't put any stock in the Bible. The gospels were written after the fact, by people who weren't there and had a strong motivation to make shit up. We conclude that it is _unreliable_ on the topic of the Virgin birth. (It's a reliable source on the topic of Christian beliefs in Nicaea in 300AD, however.)

But the Talmud describes Jews living in Judea at _great length_, which, I'll remind you, implies many hours spent reciting oral history or copying text by hand. It's supported by the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The conspiracy that you suppose is of a flat-earth scale.

I won't discuss the middle east any further. Cunningham's Law got me. if you do want to learn more, try books.

> Genesis is a bit of a chronological hand-wave

What do you mean? Genesis is not remotely a historically accurate narrative at all

Irony. Consensus today is that the earth is 4 billion years old.

There's a saying "God doesn't exist but he gave us the land" which refers to the hypocrisy behind Zionism's biblical claims to the land of Palestine given that its founding fathers were all atheists.

Feel free to educate yourself on the history of jews in the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judais...

"God gave us the land" has nothing to do with the jewish connection to the land.

My point stands. An atheist claiming God gave him exclusive rights to anything is rank hypocrisy.

I think you missed the point. The claim is based on being native to the lands, has nothing to do with god.

Ask any settler out in the Negev and I think you'll hear a different view.

That's assuming you can prove direct lineage over 2000 years. The Kazar theory of 8th century Ashkenazi conversion hasn't been completely debunked.