iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

انخفاض معدل المواليد خطر يهدد الامن القومي في السعودية ودول الخليج خصوصا في ظل تجنيس الاسرائيليين وتمكينهم رغم عملهم على تحقيق #اسرائيل_الكبرى تحتاج السعودية ودل الخليج لمشاريع تسلح ديموگرافي خصوصا وان إسرائيل لديها مخطط لاستيطان تبوك واحتلالها #انخفاض_مواليد_السعودية #خطر_توطين_اليهود

000

2️⃣The Normans were influenced by Arab culture in Sicily, but no one claims that they were Arabs.

000

1️⃣You claim that the Israelites are a Canaanite continuation simply because you assume cultural similarity instead of basing your conclusions on genetics and the study of fossils, and this is pure misinformation.

100

If you claim that the biblical narrative of the Israelites' Iraqi origins is false, then you must provide evidence from genetic studies comparing Israelite and Canaanite fossils. Furthermore, not every Levantine is a Canaanite. And modern Jews have no connection to the Israelites.

000

2️⃣ Your argument does not negate that the Israelites were invaders and were influenced by Canaanite culture.

000

1️⃣I said the Jebusites were Canaanites, but they were the builders of Jerusalem. Your claim that the Torah is wrong about the Israelites being invaders must be supported by evidence such as a genetic comparison between Israelite fossils and those of the Canaanites who came before them.

101

2️⃣Furthermore, it would need to be proven that modern Jews are descended from the Israelites, a claim refuted by genetics.

000

1️⃣There is no evidence that the Israelites are a continuation of the Canaanites; this would need to be proven through a genetic comparison between the Canaanites and the Israelites. In either case, the land was not exclusively Israelite.

100

You haven't proven anything definitively. You're merely suggesting that the Torah might be wrong in its claim that the Israelites conquered the land.

000

This is nonsense because the continuity should be determined by genetic studies of fossils between the Canaanites and the Israelites.

000

You haven't proven that they were Canaanites and not invaders, as the Torah you believe in claims. In either case, that land didn't belong exclusively to the Israelites, so on what basis can it be confined to a Jewish nation-state?

000

Ancient Arabic writings also exist. Since before Christ, this land was not exclusively for the Israelites, and the Zionist settlers do not belong to the Israelites; they are different peoples who converted to Judaism. Do not confuse them.

200

Choose your lies carefully.

000

I bring historical documents and scientific studies, while you bring images designed according to Zionist propaganda. No, my friend, you are occupiers and you stole the land. You have no connection to the Israelites, who, according to the Torah, were invaders.

200

Both described the Israelites as invaders who intruded upon Canaan. The Quran did not mention the word "Israel" or "Land of Israel"; it spoke of the tribe of the Israelites and their migrations. The Quran and the Torah are not considered authoritative if archaeology tells a different story.

000

Archaeology has also not proven that the Israelites originated locally. Nor has it denied that the Canaanites and their descendants, the Jebusites, were the earliest inhabitants. Therefore, you cannot claim that Judah and Israel are unlike the Mughal Empire in India.

100

2️⃣If you reject the Torah's claim that the Israelites conquered the land, then you must provide evidence that they were Canaanites, not conquerors.

100

1️⃣Why do you act as if you've provided proof that the Israelites were indigenous inhabitants like the Canaanites? Archaeology doesn't deny the Canaanites', including the Jebusites', precedence over the Israelites.

100

So this completely contradicts the Zionist narrative that reduces the land to the Israelites.

000

1️⃣But it proves that it was a tribal leadership, not a country or a land, and that it emerged relatively late and was neither the oldest nor the only one. This proves that the land was not exclusively for the Israelites,

100

If a Bronze Age tribal leadership has the right to exist today, why don't you give the Cahokia and the Iroquois Confederacy the right to exist in America?

110

1️⃣Britain doesn't mean denying the English, the Scots, or the Welsh. That's exactly what Palestine meant; it didn't mean denying the Jews or the Arabs. The Ashkenazi Zionists killed that through settler colonialism and apartheid.

200

The splendid tapestry: How DNA reveals truths, ancient & lasting | Nathan Pearson | TEDxBoston

There is no connection between modern Jews and the Israelites, as they are different peoples who embraced Judaism in ancient times, whether from the Middle East, Europe, or Africa. youtu.be/-dEL2yhT7Uo?...

youtu.be

YouTube video by TEDx Talks

100

1️⃣Israel and Judah were tribal leadership. This was a result of the Israelites' conquest of Canaan. In this sense, the Mongols would have a claim to India.

100

The splendid tapestry: How DNA reveals truths, ancient & lasting | Nathan Pearson | TEDxBoston

It's not misleading. Do you deny the precedence of the Jebusites?!. On the contrary, genetic data fully supports that. youtu.be/-dEL2yhT7Uo?...

youtu.be

YouTube video by TEDx Talks

000

Repeating nonsense won't make it true.

000

This is not history; it's a lie propagated to justify the theft of Palestine. The Israelites were invaders of Jerusalem; modern Jews have no connection to them, as they are different peoples who converted to Judaism.

011

That's incorrect because the fragment is broken and the word is illegible There are other, better readings The reading you're advocating is Jsriar, which doesn't refer to Israel. Some consider it a reference to a Canaanite group, while others believe the text speaks of the destruction of agriculture

000

The inscription speaks of Jsriar, who were Canaanites.

200

This is nonsense because Israel was a tribal leadership in a small area, not a land or a country. Even the Torah describes them as strangers and acknowledges their invasion of that land.

210

You're a clown. The inscription speaks of the Jsriar people, who were Canaanites.

100

Because you only cite the Torah when it suits your desires. As for archaeology, all it denies is that the Israelites had a vast kingdom, but it doesn't claim anything else, such as denying the Israelite conquest mentioned in the Torah.

100

It's no more complicated than the Roman, Achaemenid, and Egyptian conquests before them. By your logic, they were also indigenous inhabitants, like the Jebusites. The fact that the Israelites conquered this land and controlled parts of it doesn't mean they were indigenous.

000

therefore they were the original inhabitants before the Israelites conquered the land.

000

1️⃣This biblical history is what the Zionists use as justification. Archaeology has not shown that the Israelites were a continuation of the Canaanites, nor has it denied that they were a nomadic tribe. The Jebusites were not invaders; they were the founders of Jerusalem,

100

They came from Iraq and were not Canaanites; that's why the Torah describes them as strangers to Canaan. They were a nomadic tribe who then moved to Egypt and subsequently invaded Canaan from Egypt. This is no different from any other invasion.

000

The inscription speaks of the people of Jsriar, who were Canaanites, not of a kingdom called Israel or of the Israelites. You are habitually lying.

200

The inscription speaks of the people of Jsriar, who were Canaanites, not of a kingdom called Israel or of the Israelites. You are habitually lying.

000

The Torah acknowledges them as invaders and refers to them as strangers in the land of Canaan. History tells us that the Israelites also conquered it and seized it from the Jebusites; Jerusalem was built by the Jebusites, not the Israelites.

100