Israel

Wayne T. Pitard (The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Before Israel) says that during the second millennium BCE, Canaan was the name often used for Palestine, an area west of the Jordan River, whose northern boundary fluctuated between southern and central Lebanon. Modern scholars generally use the term in referring to a wider region in Syria-Palestine where a substantial cultural continuum defined as Canaanite can be discerned. However, there never was one single nation of Canaan, rather a number of city-states with loose affiliations and shared interests.

The Israelites appeared on the scene shortly before 1200, settling in the mountainous Canaanite hinterland, which had until this time been sparsely populated. Until recently, it was accepted that Israel expanded to take in many of the coastal Canaanite cities during the tenth century BCE. However, recent archaeological research and more accurate carbon-dating now appear to place the expansive period up to one hundred years later, during the reigns of Omri and Ahab, kings of Israel. After a further one hundred years, the northern kingdom of Israel was once again reduced to its former territory away from the coast, then in 722 BCE, Israel was destroyed forever. Meanwhile, the small inland kingdom of Judah continued in the southern hinterland.

On this evidence, Israel occupied the less productive part of Canaan for several centuries, expanding briefly by conquest and then forced back into its core territory. As a whole, the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah never at any time occupied all the land of Canaan, so it would be more accurate to say that Israel was located within the land of Canaan.

According to the Israeli government Customs Guide for Tourists:

• Alcohol/spirits and wine - for each entrant age 17 and above, 1 liter of alcohol/spirits and 2 liters of wine.

See related link.

Answer 1

We think that's a great idea, and would solve a lot of problems that exist now because there are more borders and boundaries than necessary.

In the same vein, we could put to rest another conflict that's been boiling for centuries now, by simply eliminating the unnecessary boundary between the USA and Mexico, and create a truly democratic North Amexican state.

We could re-unite India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and relax and breathe free as the Muslim and Hindu make nice throughout that truly democratic state. And then go on to join in eternal brotherhood the masses torn asunder by the lines that separate Germany from Poland, Serbia from Montenegro, and all of the Soviet Republics from one another.

If the Middle East and the rest of the world would but open their eyes and truly witness the amity, tranquility, peace and harmony that have reigned after China's benevolent absorption of Tibet, North Vietnam's welcome of the peoples of the South, and the similar struggles for unification of the two Koreas, We know in our hearts that Israel and those surrounding pieces of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan would run to embrace each other, and would live happily ever after.

We can practically hear the Nobel Peace committee calling now.

Answer 2

In the same vein, a "truly democratic One-State Solution", would not benefit the Jews. The importance of having a Jewish State is that in such a State, the Jews form the majority and can protect their own affairs. This is not such a unique concept. Pakistan was created on a similar pretense (that Indian Muslims should be able to determine their own affairs), so was Kosovo (so that ethnic Albanians would be free of Serbian aggression), and so was Greece (so that ethnic Greeks would be independent of Ottoman rule. A "truly democratic state" would be an Arab State since the Palestinians and their refugee population outnumber the Jews. This would lead to a new Arab State and the end of a Jewish State. Domestically, it is very likely that such a State would exhibit the religious tolerance of Egypt and the racial tolerance of modern Zimbabwe.

If a solution is to be a solution, it has to work to a certain degree for everyone. The Israeli Jew can see no benefit to such an insidious attempt to completely dis-empower him.

Answer 1

This policy of support for the State of Israel goes back to the Truman Adminstration. Iran lost U.S. support in the Carter Adminstration. The Obama Adminsitration has been rethinking these relationships and is working to reverse both of these decisions of previous adminstrations.

Answer 2

The question assumes that it is an either/or situation. In many political conflicts in the world, the US maintains supportive and positive relations with both parties. Some examples include: Pakistan/India, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Taiwan, Russia/Georgia, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Turkey/Cyprus, etc. The US relationship with Israel and the US relationship with Iran are based on fundamentally different factors.

Israel and the United States started on friendly terms with the United States approving the 1947 Partition Plan. However, until the Six-Day War of 1967, the United States did not see Israel as a country that would exist in the long-term because of Arab belligerence against the State. After Israel's stunning victory in that war, the United States became Israel's primary Western Ally and began to trade technologies, both civilian and military, with Israel. Israel has cooperated with the United States on diplomatic issues, military and intelligence exchanges, large amounts of trade, and significant technological investment. In addition there a numerous Americans who support the State of Israel because of religious convictions on top of the already-listed reasons. The United States government, therefore takes a pro-Israel stance in international politics and is often seen as Israel's backer. As a result, the United States opinion on the conflict is often harsher on Palestinian Terrorism than the Israeli Occupation.

Iran and the United States were close allies through much of the Cold War and the Shah of Iran took a decidedly pro-Western political view. In 1951, the Shah of Iran was ousted, leading to the United States CIA collaborating with the British to reinstall the Shah in 1953 called Operation Ajax. From 1953-1979, the Shah of Iran maintained strong military alliances with pro-Western countries, including Israel. In 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran was declared and the Shah fled once more. He eventually ended up in New York in November of 1979 for medical surgery. The Islamic Republic demanded that the US render the Shah to them for a trial (and likely torture). The US refusal to do so met with Iranian anger that manifested in the attack on the US Embassy in Tehran. This invasion of the US diplomatic rights in Tehran led to the US ending relations with Iran, under President Carter.

Additionally, Answer 1 is incorrect concerning US Support for Israel. It only goes back to the Johnson Administration (1967). Prior to that US-Israel relations were cordial, but not openly supportive.