Is Brenan stating ignorance by stating Romans renaming isn't taking place today?
Debate Rounds (5)
After the second Jewish revolt under Bar Cochba (A.D. 132-135) it is said the Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the land of Israel and Judea as Palastina ('Palestine') after the ancient enemies of the Jews - the Philistines. Because of his hatred of the Jews, it was meant to be an insult to dishonor them and remove their history. Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina, in the area of the destroyed Temple and dedicated it to Jupiter-Zeus demonstrating the supremacy of the Roman deities in Judea. He then forbid the Jews from entering.
Being posted from
If you discredit that one, I can provide numerous more sites that state similiar things..
Want to try me?
Or are you going to admit you're ignorant (not knowing) such things and apologize like a grown-up?
Moving on, while what you say is mostly true about the history of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, your premise is incorrect the name isn't even roman in origin and the name never left use.
The name Palestine actually originates from the Assyrians who called it "Palastu". This refered to the area of the Southern Levant between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Today this encompasses Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and Parts of Syria and Jordan. Back then however this land was mostly tribal without really a unified empire such as Egypt or Assyria (Mesopotamia). The Philistines had settled all over the area and thus the name assigned was the Land of the Philistines. This is according to the American Schools of Oriental Research.
The name Palestine ITSELF comes from the Greeks, specifically Herodotus, who called the area Palaistin".
The Romans called the area around Jerusalem, most of modern day Israel and Palestine, Judea (ie Land of the Jews). After the Bar Kokhba Revolt the administration of the entire region. The provinces of Judea and Syria were merged into Syria Palaestina (taking the name form Herodotus). The Area encompassed the area that was the entire southern levant. The point was to abolish the Jewish administration and put the area under the control of the Syrian administration. The area started splitting up into three regions all called Palestine, but none was the old judea, as this was only divided into three parts, and were effectivley a formality, as the area of adminstration was really larger under the eastern diocese of the Byzantine Empire.
After the Arabs took over the city, the name Palestine just stuck. The province (with shifting borders) was called some variation of this under the Seljuks, Abbasids, Umayyads, Mamluks, Fatimids, Ayyubids, and Ottomans. The only time it wasn't was when it was called the Kingdom of Jerusalem (under the Crusaders).
After the fall of the Ottomans the British Mandate it was called Mandatory Palestine. The early Zionists, in fact, actually wanted to create a state called, and this is according to the first meeting of the world zionist congress, "Jewish Palestine". It wasn't until the 1930s when the WZO decided on calling it Israel. After the establishment of Israel, there was still supposed to be another country called PALESTINE (UN Res 181). The Israelis didn't like this however and tried to crush this state. The Arabs responded by shooting back at the Israelis, fleeing from their homes, (insert Egyptian/Syrian invasion) and maintaining that their was still a state called Palestine. This state was finally set up by the Oslo Accords in the 1990s and recognized by the UN in 2012.
I would like to note that your source, Let Us Reason ministries, has the following mission statement
"Our website is about upholding, promoting sound doctrine, challenging the teachings of those who do not hold to it. It is up to each one to further consider what is being said, to look deeper into these men"s teachings for their own spiritual safety. And we ask you do the same on upholding core doctrine to keep the unity of the faith among the body of Christ."
Unless you want to use some real sources, just stop now. So if you post another Christian Fundamentalist nutcase sites for the next round, you should just give up now.
So each of these sites state something, some say the same, some say different.
The main thing I truly and sincerely am uncertain about is:
Which is correct and why?
I read a couple comments that seems to be going on forever saying that even the original inhabitants interbred with the Jewish of that time at the very beginning.
I don't know the reality or the truth.
That is the whole point of the original debate I had posted which you seemed to me mocked, so I challenged you instead.
Hoping, that you'd know more since you were so smug about your initial comment, and it actually might be correct you might know more.
But can you explain it in such a way, that it isn't just a one site explains all bias with backed up references of multiple concluding adequate resources?
I'm finding a mix of feedback, some stating one some stating the other...
If you only use one source... why just one source?
History Learning Site, and History World are good links for getting a better understanding of various historical topics. The Palestinefacts.org site is a blog, that tries to present itself as an encyclapedia like souces, but it is definatley slanted towards Right Wing Zionism.
And while I ususally don't trust Eurasia Review, the author does have solid credentials. Eric Walberg is a distinguished jounalist who has reported on this region of the world for a good while.
My source is an academic work from the American School of Oriental Research. The ASOR is an academic institute dedicated to the study of the near east cultures and people. It is non-religious and apolitical.
I also used Middle East Conflicts by Franscois Massoulie, however I was unsure how to cite this.
And to help supplement the knowledge and fill in any gaps, I also used wikipedia, however this was used lightly.
Someone posted this site on another debate I was going through.
I by this am taken back to what to say or agree to.
It makes to me as if man is forcing their will over territorial control to create their will over man not understanding the significant impact of the result (or lack of caring for better words).
But I would be required to ask this simple question since I don't seem to comprehend the significant or lack of significance..
If the Palestinian people are arab descent, and muslim at that, which sect (sunni, or shiite) are they and why isn't that sect directly helping to decrease the overwhelming display of poverty in that territory?
From the governmental officials I have seen in the news previously, the Palestinian people are more to use all their funds to produce terror than to use it to help their own people which very well could stabilize the region's poverty level and decrease the rise in strife against the individuals who are not islamic.
If Islam is a religion of peace, these two situations conflict each other greatly. (openly condemning the acts, yet doing nothing themselves to eliminate it privately. And privately funding the groups to produce terror versus stability. Of course, whenever there are terrorists, or acts of terrorism taking place it produces a reason to control that territory more unless somehow my logic is irrational in that understanding?)
But I would have to sincerely inquire, if there was no arabic/islamic terroritories set-up by death and destruction to convert and death or disownment by those who change faith away from islam for power and control if the United Nations would not have forced their hand on the terroritory in the middle of all their required inhumane laws, inhumane practices and inhumane beliefs.
What's your take on it?
The reason the Palestinians are poor is because they are living under a military occupation and it is very hard for them to make money as it is almost impossible to export their goods and to get jobs.
The idea that Palestinians are putting most of their money and efforts towards terrorism is completely false. For starter, Palestinians don't have that much money to begin with, and the Palestinian Government has a very hard time collecting taxes. This means they collect very little money at all. Then there is the issue of the occupation. Under the occupation, the Infrastructure is almost entirely controlled by the Israelis, which means Palestinians can't build almost anything. This only furthers the problem. The people who use money to commit acts of violence are members of the violent political factions within Palestine. And these people are both Christians and Muslims, and these acts are targeted at Israeli soldiers and settlers. However these attacks are not as common as you might think. The majority are stabbings of Israeli soldiers, meanwhile Israeli settlers and soldiers shoot Palestinians daily and destroy their homes en masse.
And yes your understanding is irrational, because the reason for violent attacks is because of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. If the Israelis were to say, leave the West Bank, abandon the settlements, dismantle the West Bank Barrier, release Palestinian Political prisoners, end the blockade of Gaza and commit to the Palestinian right of return, then there would be no violence from the Palestinians.
And you claim muslims are "openly condemning the acts, yet doing nothing themselves to eliminate it privately", so I must ask, what do you want them to do? What specific actions would you expect Muslims to do to stop acts of terrorism? And by that same logic what do you expect white people to do to stop acts of violence by the KKK and Neo-Nazis?
And these groups receive funding from various methods, but are not being funded by the muslim population as a whole.
Since we are talking about Palestine, lets look at the ways that the various armed factions are funded.
The Al Quds Brigades, the armed group affiliated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is funded almost exclusively by Iran (note as to why other factions accuse them of being Iranian puppets).
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are funded mostly by membership dues, ransoms from Kidnappings of Hamas members and Israeli settlers and by extortion.
The Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, is funded by Iran, through front organizations (both businesses and charities) and by donations and extortion.
You clearly know very little about the history of the middle east, because Islam was not spread just by military campaigns. It was also widely spread by trade, and the appeal of the Islamic Justice system, which was considered fair for the time (a great indicator of how far we've come).
You're reasoning here doesn't even make any sense! You are completely illogical!
waterscalming forfeited this round.
As the Pro has explained that he is busy with college and work I will not hold his forfeiture against him. Extend my arguments against from round 3.
I may attempt to re-challenge you at a later time, the best I can say is you have provided me more information from a different view that I was not aware and was seeking a response from to better understand.
I thank you for that.
Mentally and time-crunching I cannot say I have any adequate feedback/rebuff or anything else to properly respond.
I acknowledge a defeat/loss in this debate, to learn more about this country origination and information.
THe only valid response/question is this:
If it can be proven that Palestine was taken from Roman's Latin name (to ridicule the individuals they conquered and married into as well being Jewish) to include all the history from the Jewish faith that is by far the most I have to go by in rebuff to seek better clarification.
I do not have adequate or knowledgable resources to directly go off other than the scriptural references of what the Bible speaks of when it comes to who owns what territory and why in approximate understandings of the area, and in a better answer understanding what happens next from the archeological dig sites with the historical sources afterwards.
I do not have enough adequate time/references to properly rebuff with evidence proving my underlying understanding.
Thank you for the explanation.
Perhaps in a few weeks/months (if I find it still of interest) I may re-challenge you with more sources to use as evidence.
I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to future debates.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.