One of the most common recent, revisionist arguments against the legitimacy of the Jews in the area of Israel/Palestine is the rejection of David/Solomon, which is interesting, given the attempt on behalf of Charles to trace his lineage back to David, thereby making him a legit ruler of the world:
In “The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House Of Britain” (First Published in 1902 by The Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., London, England), the authors easily trace Prince Charles’ lineage back to David and beyond.
The College of Heralds (London) has also traced Prince Charles to be the 145th direct descendant of King David. This claim was also made, in May of 2000, in a documentary on Israeli television.
Charles also claims descent from Islam’s prophet Mohammed.
Prince Charles’ Coat of Arms and Crest was designed for him by the British College of Heraldry, using a system of guidelines over 500 years old.
This is admittedly based on the bible record of the Levant kingdoms c830BC:
But note this:
The traditional view, personified in such archaeologists as Albright and Wright, faithfully accepted the biblical events as history, but has since been questioned by “Biblical minimalists” such as Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein suggests that the empire of David and Solomon (United Monarchy) never existed and Judah was not in a position to support an extended state until the start of the 8th century.
Finklestein accepts the existence of King David and Solomon but doubts their chronology, significance and influence as described in the Bible. Without claiming that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, some non-supernatural story elements appear to correspond with physical artifacts and other archaeological findings.
So they were certainly around the area and so were the Canaanites. The various maps over the centuries also throw light on the question and I’ve included many of these above and below.
From all that, we can probably take it that, if not pinpoint regarding chronology, Israel and the Jews were present and furthermore, the name Judaea persisted long into the future when the name Israel had largely disappeared off the maps.
The Neo-Assyrian Empire:
Persian (Achaemenid) Empire period:
Hellenic Kingdoms (Ptolemaic / Seleucid / Hasmonean) period:
Roman Iudaea period:
Which puts us pretty well into the realm of recent history or at least history with fairly good records.
Roman Syria Palaestina period:
Late Roman Empire period [Byzantine]:
The Byzantines redrew the borders of the Land of Palestine. The various Roman provinces (Syria Palaestina, Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea) were reorganized into three diocese of Palaestina, reverting to the name first used by Greek historian Herodotus in the mid-5th century BCE: Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Tertia or Salutaris (First, Second, and Third Palestine), part of the Diocese of the East.
Palaestina Prima consisted of Judea, Samaria, the coast, and Peraea with the governor residing in Caesarea. Palaestina Secunda consisted of the Galilee, the lower Jezreel Valley, the regions east of Galilee, and the western part of the former Decapolis with the seat of government at Scythopolis. Palaestina Tertia included the Negev, southern Jordan—once part of Arabia—and most of Sinai with Petra as the usual residence of the governor. Palestina Tertia was also known as Palaestina Salutaris.
And so to the current period – UN partition and the 1948 Israeli–Arab War:
What surprises me there is that the Jews accepted so little of the land of their forefathers, which would have almost ensured a Palestinian State but the Arabs chose to try to obliterate the Jews and the rest is, as they say, history.
This is pretty well today:
As I’ve stated many times, I’m not Jewish but a fair assessment of the past in the region suggests there were various peoples in the area, there was certainly reference to Israel and Judah and certainly, later, to Palestine as a region. In terms of the peoples, it’s certainly difficult because there was a mass migration from about the 1890s back into Israel/Palestine as an area and that was resented as more and more Arabs moved into the area too.
The UN partition plan was not bad but a bit messy. I’d suggest the Jews know Gaza is not theirs as it was the site of the ancient Philistines and all the impure filth which infested those days largely came out of there – in other words, it’s always been the bastion of the dark side. The other territories are variously in dispute, according to which era of history you settle on.
Leaving Golan and East Jerusalem aside for now, it seems logical that Gaza is one Palestinian State and part of the West Bank the other, possibly called West Bank. Don’t forget that of the displaced peoples, we only hear of the Palestinian Arabs but the Jews were also shifted. Were there a two state solution and free movement out of Israel, it would actualize fairly quickly.
I’d imagine the West Bank State would run through Jerusalem from the Dead Sea, excluding Bethlehem and Hebron, thence pretty well directly up to the current limit to the north. West Bank people already there could decide to go east or west of the line.
With the two state solution in place and over time, the 2nd last issue is Golan:
According to the Bible, the Children of Israel conquered the Golan from the Amorites. The Bible also says that the area, known as Bashan, was inhabited by two Israelite tribes during the time of Joshua, the tribe of Dan and Manasseh. The city of Golan was a city of refuge. King Solomon appointed ministers in the region. After the split of the United Monarchy, the area was contested between the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Aramean kingdom from the 9th century BC. King Ahab of Israel (reigned 874–852 BC) defeated Ben-Hadad I in the southern Golan.
In the 8th century BC the Assyrians gained control of the area, followed by the Babylonian and the Persian Empire. In the 5th century BC, the Persian Empire allowed the region to be resettled by returning Jewish exiles from Babylonian Captivity.
The last issue then becomes East Jerusalem. I suspect the East Jerusalem issue has much to do with the rebuilding of the Temple and would be the last resolved, whilst Golan was the seat of Dan and Israel does not want that to arise again so there are religious as well as militarily strategic reasons to occupy it. Gaza needs to be controlled, in Israeli eyes, as it’s a historical spring of trouble.