Why a map caused an outbreak of ‘historo-phobia’

History is at the heart of legitimacy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The centrality of history is obvious when one considers the rage generated by Israel’s Foreign Ministry publishing a historical map of Biblical-era Israel. The spokesmen for two Arab countries, both nominally at peace with Israel, issued vehement condemnations, as reported in the Times of Israel. Jordanian Foreign Ministry spokesman Dr. Sufyan Qudah rejected the map “in the strongest terms,” terming the map “allegations and illusions,” while reactions from the United Arab Emirates considered the map to be “a deliberate effort to expand the occupation and a blatant violation and contravention of international law.”
History, by definition, cannot be a contravention of international law. Nor can historical fact be dismissed as “allegations and illusions.” A convenient way of denying historical fact is to claim that these facts are rooted in “Biblical myths.” Academics at once-highly regarded institutions, who know none of the languages or texts of ancient history, traffic in the claim that Biblical “myths” are behind the history of ancient Israel.
But Israelite control of Transjordan in the tenth to eighth centuries BCE is historical reality, attested to by inscriptions written by kings of the region at the time, inscriptions found in the leading historical museums of the Arab and Western world. This control can be proved without reference to Biblical texts. To discount Israelite control of Transjordan in this period, one would have to discount the inscriptions of Egypt’s Pharaohs, the kings of Assyria, and the ancient kings of Transjordan itself. More simply, one would have to obliterate and eliminate historical inscriptions, in a sort of wholesale “historicide.”
The earliest text to narrate Israelite control of Transjordan comes from Pharaoh Shoshenq I, in the late 10th century BCE. His inscription from the Bubasite portal at Karnak narrates his attack on the Israelite kingdom, mentioning sites such as Megiddo, Beth-Shean, Rehob, and Gibeon. These sites, west of the Jordan, are universally recognized as part of an incipient Israelite polity in this period. Toponyms 53 and 56 in this inscription are “[Pa]-nu-‘-lu” and “’A-da-ma-a” respectively. Penuel is well-known as a city in northern Transjordan, as is Adam, whose ancient name is preserved to this day in the city of A-Damiya, in Jordan. Sheshonq’s inscription shows that he, at least, considered Penuel and Adam as areas to which his attack against Israelite territory led him.
The most explicit text to narrate Israelite control in Transjordan comes, not surprisingly, from Transjordan itself. The 9th century BCE inscription of Mesha king of Moab, found at Dhiban in southern Jordan 157 years ago, states baldly that the “king of Israel built Ataroth for himself.” Ataroth is at Khirbet Ataruz in southern Jordan. Mesha saw the Israelite control of Ataroth as offensive, and declares “I fought against the city,” but the protracted Israelite control of southern Transjordan in his period is undeniable. The Mesha stone tells of “Omri, king of Israel” who “took possession of the whole land of Medeba, and settled it, in his days and in half the days of his son, 40 years.” Mesha claims to have ejected the Israelites but acknowledges their long-standing presence in the region.
The eighth-century Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III references the same king Omri mentioned by Mesha. In his inscriptions, he calls the kingdom of Israel “the house of Omri” and specifically mentions its control of Transjordan: “I annexed to Assyria all the extensive land of the house of Haza’el, from Mount Lebanon up to the cities of Gilead and Abel-shittim, which are on the border of the land of the house of Omri.” Gilead is consistently mentioned in ancient texts as a city in northern Transjordan, as is Abel-shittim. Abel-shittim is located at or near the archaeological site of Tell el-Hammam, east of the mouth of the Jordan. These Transjordanian sites were considered by Tiglath-pileser III to be “on the border of the land of the house of Omri,” leaving it beyond question that Israelite control extended into Transjordan.
The nonsensical reaction of both “moderate” Arab countries to a map that clearly depicts historical reality — a reality attested by the ancient rulers of the territory that is now Jordan — seems rooted in a difficult-to-explain phobia of pre-Islamic history. This phobia finds expression in two simultaneous reactions: the denial of history, as cited above, and second, a rationalization of this fear, claiming that acknowledging historical reality will lead to “altering the legal status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” in the words of the UAE spokesman. The UAE spokesman is claiming that if we acknowledge historical fact, the Palestinian claims to territory will be weakened. This ought to give pause to the UAE spokesman.
The Jordanian and Emirati phobia of historical fact stand in direct contrast to those of the Zionist movement. From its inception, Zionism has on the one hand cited ancient history as justifying its territorial claims, and on the other hand, recognized that the territorial boundaries of antiquity need not delineate the boundaries of the modern Jewish state. As early as the Peel Commission of 1937, the Zionist movement accepted the principle of the partition of historic Palestine. This acceptance of partition was repeated after the 1947 UN Partition Plan, in accepting the 1948 borders as basis for a ceasefire (violated by Israel’s opponents in 1956 and again in 1967), and again at Camp David in 2000. In contrast to the phobias of the Jordanian and Emirati spokespersons, Zionism has acknowledged the rights that come from historical claims, and a willingness to implement those rights in a pragmatic way. It is time for the Arab world’s spokespersons to find more serious and thoughtful ways to confront history.