Talk:Palestine (region)

Demographics

Reliable figures exist for Jerusalem.. less so for the other sanjaks of the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia)

"Present Condition of the City" (1907)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:

Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population..""

---

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

..... Jews Muslims Christians Total

1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000

1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ........ First Official Ottoman Census

1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 ..... ..Second """""""

1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 .......Third/last, detailed in Cath Encyclopedia link above

1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300

1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400

1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

And these numbers are NOT in dispute to my knowledge.

Thank you, abu_afak@yahoo.ie

I have found much of his —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Country/state/area, Ottoman debt

When the British occupied Palestine it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Not a state, for sure. In Norman Bentwich's legal summary of Palestine for 1925 in Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1927), pp. 186-189, we find:

The Treaty of Peace with Turkey came into force during the year, and Ordinance No. 28 gives legal effect in Palestine to the clauses of the Treaty, and vests certain officers of the Government with power of taking action with regard to economic provisions. The Ottoman Debt (Payment of Annuities) Ordinance (No. 4) provides for the annuities payable by Palestine on account of the Ottoman Public Debt being a first charge upon the revenue and assets of the country.

From this we see that (1) if the Treaty of Lausanne created States, it didn't do so until 1925, and (2) Palestine was indeed saddled with part of the Ottoman Public Debt. Zero^talk 08:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

However, regardless of what the treaty set out to do, states were not immediately created. While Transjordan was created rather quickly, the British dawdled with the creation of states in Cisjordan. The mandate was created for the very purpose of creating a state or states; the 1947 partition plan was passed to create two states in Palestine, which would not replace any state, but the mandate.

Can you elaborate on the debt? Did the British use tax money from the mandate area to pay debts? Did Transjordan pay debts? (I know that Israel didn't, but maybe the debt was all paid by then, or just nobody cared anymore). okedem (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding statehood, the issue is over what the word "state" means. It does not necessarily mean independent nation state. See state - it is a complicated legal matter. On the Ottoman debt, I found the following in the Annual Report to the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan:

Palestine is to be congratulated on a settlement with the Ottoman Public Debt Administration with regard to its obligations under the Treaty of Lausanne. Under that Treaty it was necessary to make annual provision for 20 years, beginning with a sum of £P.186,000 and diminishing from time to time as the individual loans were amortized. Annual provision of this dimension would have been a heavy load on the country and would necessarily have led to drastic curtailment of services. The position now is, that for payments aggregating £820,000 the tax-payer is freed from the annual charge and need not suffer on that account deprivation of existing services.[1]

I guess that applied to Transjordan too, since it doesn't say otherwise. So Turkey's creditors are not going to repossess Israel any time soon (that would have been interesting :)). Zero^talk 10:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As commonly used, "state" is understood to be a sovereign entity, or, at least, part of a republic (e.g. the US, Australia, Germany, etc). The Mandate of Palestine wasn't any of these, and so the use of the word "state" in this context is just confusing; in this case, it seems to be just part of an attempt to claim Israel was established over the ruins of sovereign state, or some such nonsense. The Mandate was created for the very purpose of creating a state there, and was not one itself. It wasn't conquered territory, or a colony, or a state - it was a mandate. okedem (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Statehood Issue

When Israel applied for membership in the UN, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements of a State. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Jessup said: 'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948 [2]

According to the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) the "newly-created states" were required to assume responsibility for payment of the annuities on the pre-war Ottoman Debt as of 1 March 1920. There was no change in the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne in that regard. See article 241 in Sèvres [3] and articles 46 and 53 in Lausanne [4]. The Treaty of Versailles was ratified in January of 1920. Article 22 of its Covenant stated that the territories and colonies had already ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them. It also recognized the existence of the communities of the 'A' Mandates as 'independent nations' on a provisional basis. [5]

In 1920 article 103 of the Ottoman Land code was repealed and a new Mahlul Land Ordinance was adopted to demarcate and regulate State land in Palestine. In 1921 the Mewat Land Ordinance was passed. Under the former Ottoman laws anyone could convert mawat or mahlul land into miri by cultivating it, registering it, and paying its unimproved value. That was no longer possible under the new laws. Anyone found cultivating waste land was prosecuted in the courts of Palestine for encroaching on State land. See 'A broken trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians 1920-1925', by Sahar Huneidi, page 215. Those facts strongly suggest the new states had come into existence sometime in 1920.

I reverted Zigmar's edit because his summary on the British Mandate subsection said that during this period Palestine was used to refer to a geographical area, not a country. [6] The text of the Mandate instrument contained twelve references to the "country" (in the preamble, Article 2, 4, 11, 17, 18, and 21). [7] Article 6, encouraged Jewish settlement on "State lands", and Article 7 required the adoption of a Palestinian nationality law. [8] Hersh Lauterpacht advised the Jewish Agency on matters related to the taxes, customs, and regulations governing the development of the country under article 18 of the Mandate. He informed the Agency that for the purposes of the most favored nation clause, the British government had concluded that Palestine was a third, independent State. see International Law: General works, By Hersch Lauterpacht, E. Lauterpacht, Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 100 [9]

The Legal Secretary and Attorney General of Palestine, Norman Bentwich, explained a series of court decisions which held that the Ottoman decrees that had transferred property and possessions to the Civil Lists for the benefit of the public were sovereign acts of State. That meant they were immune from legal challenges by the former owners in the Courts of Palestine. He went on to say that those properties now belonged to the Government of Palestine because the natural interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne was "that the imperial decrees had transferred properties of Sultan Abdul Hamid to the Ottoman State and that these properties were ceded to the Allied successor states." see Professor N. Bentwich, "State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts", XXIII British Year Book Of International Law, 1946, pages 330-333. [10]

During the negotiations for the Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne the position advanced by the Ottoman officials was based upon abandonment or dereliction of title to the territories. Here is a link which explains the various legal grounds for loss of state territory [11] The Turkish delegates claimed that the territories had already been detached from the Empire by the Armistice of Moudros, concluded on 30 October 1918. There was a discussion in the House of Lords regarding the (mis)appropriation of the funds that were seized by the British military from the agencies of the Ottoman Debt Administration when they occupied Palestine and Iraq. Here is a link to the portion about the negotiations: [12] In R. v. Ketter and other cases the British Courts held that the Treaty of Lausanne did not transfer Palestine to Great Britain. Most authorities view the change of sovereignty in Palestine under the Treaty of Peace and the Mandate as an act of dereliction on the part of Turkey. [13]

International arbitral and judicial awards are a "subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law" as provided in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. [14] Whiteman cited the Ottoman Public Debt case in a portion of the State Department Digest devoted to the legal status of the Mandates. The text of the award is available in Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948) at page 529. The case concerned the apportionment of the annuities of the Ottoman Public Debt among the various States whose territories, in whole or in part, had formerly belonged to Turkey. It was decided by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations pursuant to the provisions of article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The costs of the arbitration, including the fees of the Arbiter were supposed to be borne in equal shares by the State parties to the arbitration. The ruling on that matter said:

"The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other." cited in 1925-1926, Digest of International Law 42 (No. 29) and III Whiteman, Damages in International Law (1943) 2029-2030.

There are a number of commonly used English terms for client, tributary, or vassal states that been in use for centuries and covered by Wikipedia articles. They are very well attested and understood. For example West's Encyclopedia of American Law says: "Various terms have been used to describe different types of dependent states, such as condominium, mandate, protectorate, and vassal state. ("Dependent States." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. The Gale Group, Inc. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. (October 25, 2009). [15]) harlan (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"I reverted Zigmar's edit because his summary on the British Mandate subsection said that during this period Palestine was used to refer to a geographical area, not a country." - You were wrong because the sentence in question referred to the time of British occupation, which was before there was even a ceasefire, let alone a treaty. Zero^talk 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question also mentioned the approval of the draft mandate by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922. My edit summary said that I had added a reference which indicated Palestine was a successor state under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. I had also reverted Zigmar's edit, 'country' vs. 'area' without comment and explained that here on the talk page. There are thousands of published references to the country of Palestine in works of the 19th and early 20th Century (including the draft mandate mentioned in the passage in question).

Acts of State like the 1920 Land Laws are sometimes more relevant than the actual dates of ceasefires and treaties in matters of statehood. The question was settled by the two 1925 Court decisions. The Arbital Court was required under the terms of article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne to rule on the dispute surrounding the meaning of the term "newly-created States". The 1925 decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case required a similar interpretation of the terms used in Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne. Under then existing rules of customary international law, recognition was retroactive in effect and validated all the actions and conduct (Acts of State) of the government so recognized from the commencement of its existence, e.g. the adoption of the 1920 Palestine Land Laws.

In Abmed Shauki el Kharbutli v. Minister of Defence, the Supreme Court of Israel had to rule on the validity of the mandate era laws that Israel retained in force under its Law and Administration Ordinance. The court held that by virtue of the Mandate the Mandatory Power had assumed authority over the country-- and that every act done, or law promulgated, by the Mandatory Power in contravention of the terms of the Mandate was a violation both of international law and of the law of Palestine.

In 'The Creation of States in International Law', page 424 James R. Crawford said that due to the revolution in Turkey the Treaty of Sèvres was never ratified. Nonetheless the Council of the League of Nations proceeded to approve the terms of the mandate on 24 July 1922. The Mandate came into force on 29 September 1923 after the Treaty of Lausanne had been signed, but not ratified by Turkey. In an earlier passage Crawford had said that the prevailing view is that the concept of sovereignty is inapplicable to international regimes of divided competences such as the Mandate and Trusteeship systems. He and Paul Weis (mentioned above) both cited Sir Arnold McNair's opinion in the Southwest Africa case.

Turkey ceded its property and possessions on the Civil lists to the successor states under the terms of Article 60, but did not renounce its title and rights to the territories in favor of any party. Article 16 of the treaty merely provided: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The 1998-99 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration regarding territorial sovereignty and delimitation required an interpretation of Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). It ruled that the matter of sovereignty remained indeterminate pro tempore, i.e. it was "settled or to be settled" on a res inter alios acta basis by the concerned parties ("a thing done between others") The PCA said [the territories] "did not become res nullius – that is to say, open to acquisitive prescription – by any state, including any of the High Contracting Parties. Nor did they automatically revert (insofar as they had ever belonged) to the Imam. [the prior sovereign]. harlan (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From reading the above -- most of it with benefit -- I get the impression that there is a difference between state and State.

If state and State were the same, "sovereign state" would be similar to "Jewish synagoge". --Xdr56tfc (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Google map -- Where is P.?

Has anyone tried searching for Palestine in GoogleMaps? It comes up with ac city in Texas, and nothing else. Obviously Google is a massive supporter of Israel, but for such a major source of information you would expect/hope for it to be accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.119.59 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You should totally alert the internet! TFighterPilot (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The river of Egypt

There is a dispute as to what the southern border of the land of Israel is. The term used in the Torah is "the river of Egypt" some historians think it means the Nile while others think it refers to a small stream within the Sinai peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.241.5 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree: You MUST change the wording in "Biblical texts" about the country streching from "the Nile" to the Euphrates. It MUST be from "the river of Egypt -- understood by some to be the Nile, by other a wadi in Northern Sinai running towards the Mediterean between al-Arish and Rafah" or something of the sort. --Xdr56tfc (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem inserting false information

It's not the case that "British Mandate Palestine (1920–1948) ... contained two states ... and the autonomous Transjordan". It becomes dangerous nationalist propaganda to add "The term Land of Israel is used to refer to the same geographic region". It's known that some Jews are trying to colonise parts of Jordan (as reported in the Jewish Tribune 28th July 2009 - Jews to reclaim land in Jordan - Jewish Tribune staff - 28 July 2009 ... Israel Land Fund chairman Aryeh King told AFP that his organization has proof that thousands of properties in present-day Jordan were historically Jewish, adding, “We have records of the ownership.”[16]) but this article is not a platform for hasbara. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you substantiate your accusation against me, or withdraw it. I couldn't understand what you want. okedem (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

86.159.70.117, if the infomation inserted is wrong, I would suggest the best thing to do is find a source that shows this. The infomation about the Mandate looks basically correct to me (although if it is wrong in some detail please correct me) and it would be (in my perception) anti-Palestinian bias, as well as historically inaccurate, to remove it. Are you saying that the info about the Jewish Land Fund (Jewish National Fund?]] should be included in the article? If so, then more detail as to the facts and why you think it is noteworthy would be a good idea. --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okedem literally harassed other editors for more than a year claiming that Palestine wasn't a country or a state. Ten minutes after he lost that argument, he Googled for sources he could use argumentatively to claim that Transjordan was an autonomous state, while Palestine was British administered. In reality both were British administered, and the lede contains arguments that are actually refuted in the main Palestine Mandate article.

The first recital of the Mandate gave Great Britain the power of administration over both Palestine and Transjordan. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territories to become independent self-governing States. See the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore, C.330.M.222, Mandate for Palestine - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission/League of Nations 32nd session, 18 August 1937 [17] The terms of the mandate required the establishment of self-governing institutions in both Palestine and Transjordan. In 1947 Foreign Secretary Bevin admitted that during the previous twenty-five years the British had done their best to further the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish communities without prejudicing the interests of the Arabs, but had failed to "secure the development of self-governing institutions" in accordance with the terms of the Mandate regarding Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, page 1033.

The 16 September 1922 letter from the British government regarding the application of Article 25 had no connection to autonomy. The fact that self-governing institutions were established in Transjordan, but not in Palestine, had nothing whatever to do with the terms of Article 25 of the Mandate. The League of Nations had provisionally recognized the independence of the communities as nations, and the 16 September 1922 letter from the British government simply withheld the first portion of Article 2 regarding the Jewish national home from Transjordan: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." See the Note of the Secretary General regarding the application of Article 25 on pages 10 and 11 of the attachment to the Palestine Mandate [18]

Tessler and Mideastweb repeat the myth that Transjordan was part of the Mandate territory that was granted to Great Britain at San Remo, and that it was administratively separated or severed from the mandate in a series of steps which included the letter of 16 September 1922 and the Anglo-Transjordan treaty of 1928. Tessler does note that Great Britain still administered Transjordan's military and foreign affairs under the terms of the treaty.

In reality, Transjordan was annexed to the mandate in 1921 after the San Remo Conference, and the parties agreed that the status of the mandate was not altered by the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Emirate concluded on February 20, 1928. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574 and Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631. All of that is explained in the main British Mandate article subsection on Article 25 of the Mandate. What happened in Transjordan is exactly what was supposed to happen in the case of all the "A" mandates, including Palestine. Tessler and Mideastweb portray the events in Transjordan as if the purpose of the mandate was somehow undermined, when in fact the failure to "secure the development of self-governing institutions" happened in Palestine. That is explained in the British Mandate article subsection on Arab political rights. harlan (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Again you flood the page with irrelevant claims, refuting arguments that nobody made. "In reality", you attack me, because you don't like what the sources I've provided say. okedem (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained that in this particular instance, your sources are making factually incorrect statements. In 1923 the government of Great Britain recognized an "independent government" in Transjordan. It was not however accepted as an autonomous or independent State. Great Britain could not unilaterally alter the status of a mandate it administered on behalf of the LoN. The Journal of the League of Nations and the US State Department Digest of International Law both state that the terms of the Anglo-Tansjordanian treaties did not alter the status of the League of Nations Mandate or the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. Tessler quite incorrectly states that the treaty did alter the status and made it an autonomous state. Both of the mandate agreements required the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine and Transjordan. That fact is not WP:OR, and it is already included in the text and citations of the main article on the Palestine Mandate.

In addition, Mideastweb and Tessler both repeat the myth that Transjordan was part of the Mandate territory that was granted to Great Britain at San Remo. You are also attempting to convey the impression that Transjordan was not "British administered", but Tessler specifically stated that the British retained control and administered the military and foreign affairs of Transjordan. WP:ELNO says editors should avoid linking to any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material. harlan (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "autonomous". It is not the same as independent, but means partial self rule, as in Territorial autonomy. I'm definitely not trying to claim that Transjordan was an independent entity, completely free from British rule, just that they were self-ruling at least in internal affairs, contrary to Palestine, which was under the direct rule of the British. If you don't like the word "autonomous", you can suggest another one to convey these facts; I chose it because it is verifiable, as used by an RS. okedem (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing the fact that Tessler misstates the facts. He claims Transjordan was part of the territory that was allocated by the San Remo Conference and that is was subsequently separated or severed from Palestine by Article 25 and the treaties. That fable is debunked in a subsection of the Palestine Mandate article.

I have a pretty good understanding of the definition of the term "autonomous state". Great Britain recognized an "independent government in Transjordan" (but not an autonomous state). The League of Nations consented to the former, but it did not consent to the latter. That has also been verified and published by reliable sources. One of those includes an entry in the Official Journal of the League of Nations which addressed that specific issue.

The failure of Great Britain to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine had no basis in the powers of administration that were granted by the Mandate. That is also addressed in a subsection of the Palestine Mandate article. It's time to sync this article and stop linking to sites or passages which misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material. harlan (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be wholly incapable of discussing anything without straying into irrelevant subjects and claims. I don't care if you think Tessler was wrong in some point, not only because he's an RS and you're not, but because it's not the point we're discussing. We're discussing the fact that Palestine (Cisjordan) was directly ruled by the British (as you yourself acknowledge), and that Transjordan had a measure of self-rule (which, again, you acknowledge). So, for the life of me, I don't know what's your problem with the current phrasing, which seems to be completely accurate. I've already offered that you suggest an alternate phrasing, if the word "autonomous" isn't clear in your opinion, but you refuse to cooperate. okedem (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Better picture?

The stark satellite image at the head[19] of the article does very little to present/illustrate/reflect the subject of the article. So can we get a better one? Ideas? RomaC (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, that picture show Golan as part of Israel. It must be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

:How does an unlabeled satellite map show the Golan as part of anything, let alone Israel?? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look closely you will see that the borders are carved out and that Golan is part of "Israel proper" in that image. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Boundaries

There is a lot of nonsense in this statement here, that should be removed:

Scholars disagree as to whether the archaeological evidence supports the biblical story of there having been a Kingdom of Israel of the United Monarchy that reigned from Jerusalem, as the archaeological evidence is both rare and disputed.[26][27]

There is no significant "controversy" or dispute on this. The sources referenced in fact do NOT represent NPOV, and are HIGHLY controversial "revisionist" historians. Whats next, are we going to be quoting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other horrific propaganda as a reliable source? Proteus7 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the sentence is entirely true and the authors of the two references are highly respected mainstream archaelogists. Zero^talk 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this, but "scholars disagree" rings alarm bells. Does this mean that scholars are roughly evenly split? Or does it mean that there exist a small number of controversial scholars whose views are at variance with everyone else?--FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)?

The archaeological evidence does not provide an unambiguous confirmation of the Bible for this period of history. In the past almost all archaeologists took the truth of the Bible for granted, but this is not true any longer. Quite of lot of leading archaeologists today regard the evidence for this period as being in conflict with the Biblical account, but this view is not universal. So calling it disputed is fair. It is not clear how to give percentages, but neither view is fringe. Zero^talk 07:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The archaeological evidence is best summed up by Biblical archaeologist J. Maxwell Miller who said: "If one is willing to make adjustments in the historical claims of the Bible, they can be correlated with the archaeological evidence if one is willing to take some liberties with the archaeological evidence."

Since I am a so-called "expert" I should be writing my new book but writer's block has once again sent me to Wikipedia. "Scholars disagree" is too obvious to say. We always disagree. That's our job. I hate Picasso, for instance, so we could say, "scholars disagree that he's a great artist." I suspect, with FormerIP, that the phrase is meant to suggest a statement nobody can support: "scholars are evenly split." Nobody could say that. From the whole profession there are two, maybe three "minimalists" who have argued that David is just a myth, like King Arthur. Recent archeological finds have greatly embarrassed them, and they're forced to call them forgeries. But here's how it really works, guys. If I tried to publish a book arguing that Picasso wasn't a great artist, I'd be snickered at. But! If somehow disparaging Picasso furthered the argument that Israel was an occupier, I'd be hailed in certain important circles as a "highly respected" thinker, a "rebel," even a "hero" (cf. Tony Judt). Someday I will find a way to link Picasso to the Occupied Territories and then half the academic world will fall at my feet! That's how it is. Meanwhile, educated laypeople like yourselves can follow the controversy by reading the Highly Respected journal, Biblical Archeology Review. I remember a good summary of the politicized "minimalist" issue about a year ago. All parties gave interviews. Good luck! Profhum (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the last few decades, the Bible story was taken to be historical truth; however, a growing number of archaeological scholars, particularly those of the minimalist school, are now insisting that Kings David and Solomon are "no more real than King Arthur," citing the lack of archaeological evidence attesting to the existence of the United Kingdom of Israel, and the unreliability of biblical texts, due to their being composed in a much later period.

This also smells of anti-zionist propaganda. Especially the "growing number" part. Letriste1977 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

another name

The land of Israel was also known as zion. 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)