Who Are the Hebrews? (A Practical Approach)

In this post I'm going to use some terms that are familiar to almost everyone yet due to overuse, interchangeability and in some cases I would say an attempt to intentionally cause confusion have somewhat ambiguous meanings.  However for the sake of this article I'm going to define specifically what I mean when I refer to each, and I think in general these definitions are in agreement with how most people understand them:

Hebrew - a direct biological descendant of the Biblical patriarch Abraham.  For a person to prove they came directly from Abraham - or any human being who lived thousands of years ago - is virtually impossible, but apparently some can still make stake such a claim based on their land of ancestry (Palestine) and oral tradition.

Israelite - a descendant of Abraham who has/had accepted and practiced Mosaic Law, especially if such a person lived in Palestine.  Also a foreigner who practiced Mosaic Law, specifically one who lived amongst the Israelites who, according to the said law, were required to accept such people as their own.

Jew - a person, particularly in the modern era, who overtly practices Mosaic Law which in its modern application is often referred to as Judaism.  Although such people usually claim to be direct descendants of Abraham, in general the Jewish worship, as with most major religions, accepts converts from any national background.

On the surface many Jews don't bear a resemblance to Middle Easterners at all, which raises a bit of concern when White Jews claim to be descendants of Abraham since the general implication is that, with their (skin color) genes being recessive, there should be some physical sign of their Middle Eastern ancestry.  Moreover it's interesting to note that whereas Biblically Israelite lineage was passed through fathers, since the "fall of Jerusalem to Rome" (70AD) this was "switch(ed) to matrilineal descent".  Also note how currently a citizen of the State of Israel is referred to as an "Israeli", not an "Israelite".

Now when you look up the term "Hebrews" in Wikipedia it says, "it is mostly taken as synonymous with the Semitic-speaking Israelites",  It goes on to say "however, in some instances it may also be used in a wider sense, referring to the Phoenicians, or to other ancient groups", which basically coincides with the definition of a Hebrew I gave above.

Now concerning Israelites, Wikipedia says, "a confederation of Iron Age Semitic-speaking tribes of the ancient Near East, who inhabited a part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods."  Accordingly, the "Israelites enter(ed) the land of Canaan" 3000+ years ago, meaning for all intents and purposes they would currently be considered the indigenous (native) people of that land, although the people they conquered back then clearly didn't view them as such.

Finally we get to Wikipedia's article on Palestine, the general region in which Israel is situate: "Historically [Palestine] has been known as the southern portion of wider regional designations such as Canaan..."  So combining this with the two previously-mentioned articles, the Israelites would be the indigenous people of Palestine, a fact that by and large no one seems to disagree with.

However where the beef does brew is in trying to conclusively decide who the Israelites are, and let me state from the jump that I'm not an anti-Semite, as the purpose of this article is not to attack any group of people.

According to the way I understand the mainstream narrative, Jews understand themselves to be the Israelites and thus rightful owners of Palestine (again based on their nativity) since they were sacked from Israel, particularly around the year 70 AD.  But Wikipedia says, "the Judean population revolted against the Roman Empire in 66 CE during the period known as the First Jewish–Roman War which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.  During the siege, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem. This event marked the beginning of the Roman exile, also called Edom exile. Jewish leaders and elite were exiled from the land, killed, or taken to Rome as slaves."  In other words, it never says anything about masses of Jews being exiled since "there is no historical record of any such event", which is something that even large media entities recognize even if they don't regularly speak about it. 

Recently the Trump Administration made global headlines for deciding to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, basically recognizing it as the capital of the State of Israel.  The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and its continued existence to the present day has resulted in the existence of "over 5 million Palestinian refugees", with Palestinians being defined, again by Wikipedia, as "comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, including Jews and Samaritans" - in other words what we would define as the indigenous people of Israel/Palestine, and I find it a bit peculiar how they used the word "centuries" instead of perhaps 'millennia'.

In contrast President Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, was very supportive of the Palestinians, to the point of at times it seemed like an internationally-recognized Palestinian state may have been established during his Presidency.  The point I'm trying to make here is that in general, the international community itself seems to have no problem sympathizing with Palestinians over the Israelis since it's the job of organizations like the United Nations to side with displaced people.

CONCLUSION

So why is it that, despite the fact that there are places experiencing an even greater refugee crisis than Palestine, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict always gets the most attention?  Why is it that no matter what, the Palestinians refuse to give up their homeland and that the State of Israel basically isn't recognized by the Arab world?

The mainstream media presents this beef as primarily the case of a people who have been sacked from their country (the pop media also seems these days to be siding with the Palestinians, as shown in the video above) fighting back and Islam's insistence on recognizing Jerusalem as one of its holy sites.  But I think, based on some of the facts/ideas presented earlier in this article, that it's much more than that.  For instance, I personally believe that the international community, being that the leaders of countries tend to be exponentially more-intelligent/knowledgeable than the masses, actually know that the Palestinians are the Israelites.  I also believe that the Arab world may claim Jerusalem for religious purposes, but the Palestinians themselves, who are vehemently and incessantly fighting for it, view mastery of the city as their birthright since historically it is the capital of the nation, not State, of Israel, and they are Israelites.  This is not to say that the Jews who currently run the State can't also trace their ancestry back to Abraham, but the Palestinians have a more Middle Eastern appearance and as such would logically have more of Abraham's DNA then they would.

Unless the Israelites were doing a lot of interbreeding it is only really the Palestinians, out of the whole Arab world, who can claim that they're actually Israelites as in the people who practiced Mosaic Law before the introduction of Islam since such was the law of Palestine.  Indeed Jesus prophesied that the Israelites would be exiled from the Holy Land, and the only real record of that happening since his time was again in 1948 when the State of Israel was established, and as you know today we call the people who were dispersed during that war Palestinians, not Jews or Hebrews or Israelites.

Last modified on 9 October 2023