Talk:History of the Southern Levant

Ethnography

I'm not sure any of that ethnographic analysis in the second section really belongs in a "History of Palestine" article. It might be better placed in a page more closely related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like that one. In my opinion this article should stick to the political history per se as much as possible, meaning who invaded what when, territorial and monarchial stuff, and downplay the ethnic considerations. -- Branden

The history of the area is complex due to the many tribes and (later) nations that settled, conquered and ruled, traded there or moved through: Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians.

In pre-Biblical times, the area was known as the Land of Canaan and had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel-El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BC made possible the invasion of the Israelites. According to Jewish tradition, twelve tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses approximately 1240-1200 BC. Historical evidence from the Amarna tablets suggests that there were already 'apiru' (Hebrews) among the Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule.

During the final years of the Late Bronze Age, the Philistines also invaded Canaan (1500 - 1200 BC). Other evidence suggests that around 1200 BC, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. [Francis]

Zahir Muhsein

I propose to delete the passage attributed to "Zahir Muhsein" unless someone can supply evidence that the interview is genuine and not just an extreme view from an unimportant person. There are hundreds of mentions of "Zahir Muhsein" on the web but I can't find a single one that is not merely repeating this "quotation" (though with variations even in the name of the newspaper). It looks to me like "Zahir Muhsein" is unworthy of mention here. Of course the pan-Arab view of things was very common amongst Palestinian Arabs until the middle of the 20th century, but the implication that it is a significant viewpoint in the PLO needs better proof. - bdm

Ok, I found out more about "Zahir Muhsein" and deleted the quote even though it is probably genuine. The problem is that it is highly misleading. Zuhayr Muhsin was the Secretary General of the group Sa`iqa which consisted of mostly of Syrian Ba'athists and was established by the Syrian government in opposition to Fatah. His membership of the PLO was due to pressure from Syria even though his pan-Arab position (i.e. the Syrian position) put him at constant conflict with the mainstream Palestinian nationalists. At one point he even (allegedly) supported Syrian armed conflict against the PLO in Lebanon. In 1979 he was assassinated. So he was indeed a Palestinian with pan-Arab political views but he was not representative of Palestinians generally and certainly not of the PLO.

I don't know why the Meir quotation is there either. What point is being made? Btw, the reference is Sunday Times (London) 15 June 1969 -- bdm

"Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River

There is no indication of who "considered" this. Perfect example of "weasel words". Any objection to deleting this? 24.64.166.191 07:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) So I have deleted the sentence: "Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse." If someone can say who "considered" this (and when) and tell us what this "political discourse" is about I will be interested to read it.24.64.166.191 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionists did, and many still do, and it is often brought up in political discource, particularly when people argue that Israel currently occupies only 17.5% of the original mandate.[1] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps could this map be of some interest : it seems the Roman Syria Palæstina was including some (much) of the geographical Transjordan, and much of Lebanon (Middle East map). |frdm¦✉|01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)|

Well the article Transjordan says Transjordan on the east side of the Jordan River was part of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1921-21, although it seems to be unclear whether post 1921-22 there was one mandate or two, although Transjordan was administered seperately by Britain Hugo999 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

change

i change the "Today the southern Levant is roughly the same area as that occupied by the modern states of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza Strip)" to more correct and less political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.113.28 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this edit may have been from me and i forgot to log in? Unsure. Drsmoo (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored title to History of the Southern Levant

A more accurate title, describing the geographic area which has been in place on the article for over two years. It is a more reasonable and accurate title the politically charged and completely inaccurate "History of Palestine" Drsmoo (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile should also check out the relevant wikipedia articles which deal with the same subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Levant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Southern_Levant

Drsmoo, the attempted middle ground of History of Palestine (region) was stable for more than two weeks until you changed it back to the name you prefer. Your renaming away from the original and WP:Commonname title of History of Palestine was made only c.200 edits ago - this is not a frequently seen article. Since this article is in the I/P space, your original change of name was always going to be controversial - the fact that you did not use Template:Movenotice was a violation of the guidelines and resulted in the problem we are now facing.

Separately, you have just violated WP:1RR.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

here is no 1RR rule listed as being in place for this article anywhere.

The current common name of most of the area is Israel. I say most of the area because the borders and names of the country have changed throughout time. It is factually wrong for you to claim that the common name is Palestine, it is not, just as it is factually wrong to claim that my edit was controversial, it was not. You will notice there are multiple articles on the Southern Levant for example "Prehistory of the Southern Levant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Southern_Levant, these articles describe this same region as this. There is also an article on the history of ancient Israel and Judah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah This article is a description of the history of the southern Levant, an equally detailed article on the history of Palestine could and should be written. However to have an article that describes the Southern Levant as a region in all its incarnations and call it "Palestine" is not only blatantly manipulative, it is also plainly wrong. There was certainly no disagreement when I changed the title of the article. I hope other editors will opine as well. Drsmoo (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you accuse others of being political, while having a clearly political agenda yourself. Israel is the current common name of the area? Nonsense, and you can't support it - Israel is the name of a country within the area. The common modern name for the area is the Middle East, but that's too broad for us to use here. Among scholars (historians and archaeologists) the common name is Palestine, although Levant and southern Levant are used sometimes. I have no objection to calling the article Southern Levant, but we need to include the fact that Palestine is the common name for the area in at least the Bronze Age to Classical period (my area of interest) in scholarly literature. You need to examine your own motives and ask yourself just what it is you're trying to achieve here. PiCo (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To say that the common name of the archeological field is Palestinian or Syro-Palestinian archeology correct, to say that the common modern name of the area is Palestine is incorrect. Given that the article includes ancient Israel and Judah along with the modern state. I think Natty4bumpo's edit adds the right context. Drsmoo (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)