All the points that he denies are at least questionable, so he is being somewhat reasonable. That being said, he does not deny that the Kingdom of Israel existed, with Israelites. So there were Israelites in ancient Israel.
You need to come up with a source that says that, because your current source says everything but that. Your source questions whether the Israelites came from Egypt, but not whether they were in Israel.
The origin story of the Israelites is a legend, not a myth. It probably has some foundation in truth, but maybe not much. What is history is that the Israelites existed.
Not in Palestine, according to Israeli archaeologists.
No point did your source question that there was a Kingdom of Israel, with Israelites living in it. He questions how they got to Israel, but not that they were there.
Arthur is myth. The lack of evidence of Israelites in Palestine does not prove that Palestine does not exist, of course. Your mind is wandering, genocidal prosemite.
The evidence indicates that ' the kingdom of Israel ', was, at best, a small tribal affair. You didn't read the reports. Fuck off.
Arthur is a legend. There is a kernel of truth in it.
There is a huge amount of evidence of Israelites. The Kingdom of Israel, with Israelites, is an unmovable historical fact. You have a good point when you question their origin legend, but that falls apart when you claim that proves they did not exist.
You are off on several points. The Kingdom of Israel was actually relatively well established. It is the Kingdom of Judah that appears to have started as a small tribal affair.
Like I said, no scientific discovery will be good enough, no amount of evidence can overcome the self-imposed ignorance of racism. The state of Israel has been referenced by other nations throughout history, he gloms onto one he particularly dislikes and pretends it negates everything. This guy is a simple flat-earther science denier and a small minded bigot. A Muslim racist that moved in with infidels in Britlandia, and cannot get over his simple and direct racism and the self loathing he feels that his own people cannot get it together and come to terms with their self-induced ingorance. He'll ignore all science, from DNA to actual references to the nation by others, including the people who tried to erase it by renaming it "Palestine", the Romans....^ ' House of David ' . eh ? No, that is not accepted.
The Tel Dan inscription: the meaning of ביתדוד, "House of David"
This post outlines the arguments of George Athas on the famous “House of David” lexeme that appears in the published version of his 1999 doctoral dissertation, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (2003). Athas believes that the critical word often translated as House ofvridar.org
Archaeologists have found no evidence of Israelites in Palestine.
Weak, that is a weak argument, useless in this context. Names can mean many things. Do you know that there are actual people today named Beloved? That's a fact jack.Er.... ' David ' David ? derived from דּוֹד (doḏ) meaning "beloved" or "uncle". King Uncle ? No, a stretch too far. Hebrew wishful thinking.
Meaning, origin and history of the name David
The meaning, origin and history of the given name Davidwww.behindthename.com
Says the brain-scrubbed prosemite that simply cannot accept that the Israelites were never in Palestine.
Again, no one but you has said that, and you are not an archaeologist. What some archaeologists have argued is that the origin tale of the Israelites is untrue, not that they never existed. Some archaeologists argue that King Arthur never existed, none argue the English do not exist.