Some analogies on the Israelite invasion of Canaan

[Surlethe]

I was thinking recently about the invasion of Canaan after Exodus in the Bible, and how it's somewhat similar to IvP (not coincidentally, I'm sure). A long time ago, I heard an analogy on IvP: suppose your family is kicked out of your house, and you spend years in a refugee camp; when you return, complete strangers have moved in. What do you do?

Now, whether or not the analogy is flawed relative to IvP (it seems circular) is irrelevant, because it suggests a couple of interesting takes on the Old Testament invasion of Canaan.

1. Your family decides to up from your homestead and move to another country. You stay there for many years, then decide to go back. When you arrive back, you find that new people have moved into your neighborhood. What do you do? Round them all up and shoot them, then put your extended family in their newly-abandoned houses.

2. You get up from your table at the office cafeteria to go back to your cubicle to do some work. After a half hour, you and some buddies decide to go get some more lunch; you arrive, and people are sitting at your table. What do you do? Round them all up and shoot them, then sit yourself and your buddies down in the newly-empty chairs.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hm, of course no one would settle into your old country after your people abandoned it centuries ago and left it for dead. Anyone who would are obviously evil people who must be genocided.

It's more like ditching a restaurant you fancied and then coming back a week later and finding someone sitting on your favorite seat and then killing him and eating the food he's ordered.

[Androsphinx]

Of course, in reality the "Israelites" arrived in waves over several centuries, slowly dispersing and assimilating the pre-existing cultures and fighting the usual tribal conflicts over resources and religion that every Bronze Age civilisation managed.

What you think of as the story of the conquest of the land (Book of Joshua) was almost certainly written after the return from the Babylonian exile, where a large number of Jews returned to a sparsely inhabited land, incorporated the people who had moved in during their absence, and then proceeded to write about how much more impressive their first entrance to the land was (and, co-incidentally, how its geographic boundaries were identical).

[Surlethe]

Of course, in reality the "Israelites" arrived in waves over several centuries, slowly dispersing and assimilating the pre-existing cultures and fighting the usual tribal conflicts over resources and religion that every Bronze Age civilisation managed.

Of course. But the Bible-thumpers don't think of it that way, so this is another tack to take when arguing with them: instead of simply denying their premises outright, accept them and lead them on to the logical yet absurd conclusions.

[Androsphinx]

If you're debating with people who are defending the extermination of the indigenous population of Canaan, I think that this is some considerable way down the list.

In any case, if I have your analogy right (the Israelites were there, left and then came back), it's flawed for a number of reasons, not least that the pre-Egyptian settlement of the land is described by the Bible as being no more than a few hundred (Abraham takes, IIRC, 318 soldiers to war; 70 people descend to Egypt with Jacob), and the Canaanites were there first in any case (Gen 12:6 - "the Canaanite was then in the land"), and Abraham et al just happened to live there for a little while.

The only places that this could be claimed about would be Be'er Sheva, Shechem (Nablus) and Hebron, where the Patriarchs are described as buying land and digging wells.

[Darth Smiley]

Honestly, it shouldn't matter at all whose ancestors lived where. I've only looked at it a little bit, but it looks like both sides screwed up. Having ancestors who lived in Israel does not give the Israelis the right to effectively conquer that region and institute their own government. Having a whacko religion does not give the Palistinians the right to deny the Israelis the ability to enter (or kill them), provided each individual doesn't become a menace (and you still don't get to kill them). But then again, its not like there was a national government to handle such a thing. The whole region is so screwed up that it defies any kind of analogy.

[Androsphinx]

Honestly, it shouldn't matter at all whose ancestors lived where. I've only looked at it a little bit, but it looks like both sides screwed up. Having ancestors who lived in Israel does not give the Israelis the right to effectively conquer that region and institute their own government. Having a whacko religion does not give the Palistinians the right to deny the Israelis the ability to enter (or kill them), provided each individual doesn't become a menace (and you still don't get to kill them). But then again, its not like there was a national government to handle such a thing. The whole region is so screwed up that it defies any kind of analogy.

Is NOT what is under discussion, and IS the subject of a moratorium under current board policies.

[Darth Smiley]

ghetto edit: CRAP! misread OP. sorry.

[Surlethe]

If you're debating with people who are defending the extermination of the indigenous population of Canaan, I think that this is some considerable way down the list.

Well, yes, but it's still something interesting to think about.

In any case, if I have your analogy right (the Israelites were there, left and then came back), it's flawed for a number of reasons, not least that the pre-Egyptian settlement of the land is described by the Bible as being no more than a few hundred (Abraham takes, IIRC, 318 soldiers to war; 70 people descend to Egypt with Jacob), and the Canaanites were there first in any case (Gen 12:6 - "the Canaanite was then in the land"), and Abraham et al just happened to live there for a little while.

What does that have to do with the point of the analogy, which is that the behavior of the Israelites was deplorable? It's not like the situations need to be comparable in every detail. In any case, if whether the land was populated before Abraham arrived is something that bothers you, then it's easy to change the analogies to suit that without altering the point.

[Androsphinx]

What does that have to do with the point of the analogy, which is that the behavior of the Israelites was deplorable? It's not like the situations need to be comparable in every detail. In any case, if whether the land was populated before Abraham arrived is something that bothers you, then it's easy to change the analogies to suit that without altering the point.

The Israelites go around killing a lot of people. That's not the sort of thing that one needs an analogy to think is not a good thing. And the problem with the analogy is not its "point", but the fact that the comparison is invalid.

Your analogy was that new people had taken over a geographical area previously occupied, and the previous occupiers returned, took exception to this situation, and resolved it by killing the new inhabitants. While this is quite a simple analogy, there are two large problems with it is: firstly that the "new" inhabitants had been there the entire time; and secondly that the previous inhabitants were not present in number sufficient to occupy any significant geographical area. These aren't details, but rather the central assumptions on which your analogy rests - previous occupation and subsequent settlement - and both are invalid.

By all means construct a different analogy, but especially if you are planning to use the analogy in debate, it should stand up to basic scrutiny.

[Androsphinx]

By all means construct a different analogy, but especially if you are planning to use the analogy in debate, it should stand up to basic scrutiny.

Actually, I take that last bit back. People won't challenge the analogy, because it only makes the killings more egregious. It strikes me that changing the analogy to "and kill everyone in the county/ cafeteria" makes it both more accurate and effective to boot.

[Elfdart]

I think a good analogy would be a married couple who split up (for whatever reason) two thousand years ago. The descendants of one side of the marriage now claim they are still married to the other and have the full "rights" of a spouse. They also claim the "right" to kill or displace the old spouse's relatives and descendants.

[Darth Wong]

What's really odd is when Americans express support for this "ancient Israelite land claim" idea. It's like they're honestly incapable of seeing the irony of an American supporting ancient ancestral land claims.

[Elfdart]

Silly Canadian! Don't you realize that DA JOOZ are white and will bring back Baby Jesus once they've killed off the Palestinians, while DA INJUNS are just red-skinned heathen savages with no connection to the Rapture whatsoever? Irony is just a gay, communist, Islamodon'ttrytoconfusemewithbigwordsIcan'tspell plot.

[Androsphinx]

What's really odd is when Americans express support for this "ancient Israelite land claim" idea. It's like they're honestly incapable of seeing the irony of an American supporting ancient ancestral land claims.

Or that the Jewish community in Palestine survived their subjugation by the pagan!Romans and the Muslim!Arabs just to be wiped out by... the Crusaders.

[HemlockGrey]

What's really odd is when Americans express support for this "ancient Israelite land claim" idea. It's like they're honestly incapable of seeing the irony of an American supporting ancient ancestral land claims.

This isn't necessarily inconsistent or ironic. Virtually everyone who supports this claim does so on the basis that the ancestral land claim is granted to the Israelites by the divine will of God. Since the Amerindians have no such divine guarantee, they're shit out of luck.

[Darth Wong]

What's really odd is when Americans express support for this "ancient Israelite land claim" idea. It's like they're honestly incapable of seeing the irony of an American supporting ancient ancestral land claims.

This isn't necessarily inconsistent or ironic. Virtually everyone who supports this claim does so on the basis that the ancestral land claim is granted to the Israelites by the divine will of God. Since the Amerindians have no such divine guarantee, they're shit out of luck.

In my experience, the majority of people espousing Israel's ancestral land claim shy away from using God as a justification for the idea. They act as though there is a purely secular reason to support the idea.

[NeoGoomba]

Silly Canadian! Don't you realize that DA JOOZ are white and will bring back Baby Jesus once they've killed off the Palestinians, while DA INJUNS are just red-skinned heathen savages with no connection to the Rapture whatsoever? Irony is just a gay, communist, Islamodon'ttrytoconfusemewithbigwordsIcan'tspell plot.

TSK TSK! Someone hasnt read the holy book of MORMON! Sweet Baby Jesus LOVES those Small Pox Blanket consumers!

[Surlethe]

By all means construct a different analogy, but especially if you are planning to use the analogy in debate, it should stand up to basic scrutiny.

Actually, I take that last bit back. People won't challenge the analogy, because it only makes the killings more egregious. It strikes me that changing the analogy to "and kill everyone in the county/ cafeteria" makes it both more accurate and effective to boot.

Ah, I see. Yes, this would work -- I guess what I meant was that the setup of the analogies doesn't change substantially, although now with your fix it does reflect more accurately the invasion of Canaan.