It was inevitable: Article pointing out that ancient Israel included much of Lebanon being criticized by Hezbollah media

At the Jerusalem Post, Michael Freund an utterly inoffensive op-ed that pointed out the obvious: that the borders of ancient Israel are not congruent with today's borders of the State of Israel.

As the IDF battles to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah terrorists, it is worth highlighting an intriguing historical fact, one that many seem to have forgotten.

Having grown up with an international boundary between the Jewish state and our neighbors to the north, we take it for granted that this is how it has always been and should be.

But the truth is that the current border between Israel and Lebanon is little more than a century old and is entirely artificial, a relic of a time when European colonialists whimsically drew lines on maps over a bottle of brandy in smoke-filled rooms.

Historically speaking, southern Lebanon is in fact northern Israel, and the roots of the Jewish people in the area run deep. Whether or not this can or should be translated now into a political reality is a far more complex question, but there is simply no denying our connection to the land.

 He is in no way advocating annexing southern Lebanon, just as no one is seriously contemplating annexing parts of Jordan that also lie within the boundaries of ancient Israel - nor is anyone talking about giving up the Negev which was not part of the old borders, as this nineteenth century map shows.

But Hezbollah mouthpiece Al Mayadeen is freaking out:

Michael Freund, an American-born Israeli political figure of German descent, believes that southern Lebanon is historically part of "Israel" and that the Jewish people have deep-rooted connections to the area.

A recent opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post, titled "Southern Lebanon is Actually Northern Israel," exemplifies yet another attempt to legitimize expansionist ambitions through what can only be described as Zionist propaganda.

The article undermines Lebanon's sovereignty while distorting Judaism by weaponizing it to rationalize territorial conquest.

The New Arab also slammed the piece, without contradicting it.

Because everything Freund says is true and no one can seriously doubt it (although the exact borders of ancient Israel are always matters of dispute and they changed over time.)

There are two real questions one might want to ask.

One is is why the map above  of what are clearly the 12 Tribes of Israel calls the area "Palestine?" The answer is, of course, that the term "Palestine" was historically used as a synonym for the Holy Land or the Land of Israel. It never referred to a land of Palestinian Arabs.

The second question is what, exactly, is "historic Palestine" that the Palestinians claim to have heritage over? All of those maps are indeed based on when "European colonialists whimsically drew lines on maps over a bottle of brandy in smoke-filled rooms." They consider the colonial boundaries of the 20th century to be their age-old lands - which is ridiculous. 

Yet while they love pointing to these maps and claiming that it proves that "Palestine" is a historic country, they never use those same maps to claim their own stake in parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

No, for some reason the only lands they ever claimed as their historic homeland always coincides with the land that Jews control, and no more. And this includes before 1967 when they made no claims on the West Bank. 

Funny how the more you look at their claims of having been part of a historical Palestine for thousands of years, the less tenable their claims turn out to be.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!