I think that the first and most central principle in my understanding of the relationship between biblical interpretation and the writing of a history of pre-Hellenistic Palestine is the conclusion that I drew in my Historicity; namely, that these are two quite distinct tasks. A History of Palestine is based on direct evidence from archaeology and historical geography and is supported by analogies that are primarily drawn from anthropology, sociology and linguistics. Contemporary texts are often critical to such historical interpretation, but, nevertheless, must be weighted as much as by what they imply as by what they assert. Secondary literature, on the other hand, such as we find in the Bible, but also in the writings of Manetho, Josephus and other authors of especially the Hellenistic period, must involve an interpretation based on our access to the world of the author. We need to understand the authors’ access to the past they discuss and assert. This, of course, requires that we be satisfied with a fragmented history of Palestine in line with the fragmented nature of our sources. However, it will be one that is both correctable and falsifiable on the basis of continuing research.
     The Bible . . . is neither historical nor historiographical, but a secondary collection of tradition. Our earliest extant form of biblical books come from the Dead Sea scrolls. Nevertheless, the secondary and collective nature of the traditions collected in biblical works allows us to speculate on earlier forms of these literary productions, and especially on the themes and ideologies which the texts comprise. . . . The criterion of historicity belongs to historiography and the critical assessment of sources. It is rare that a literary or theologically oriented production can be attributed the historicity of more typical historical sources. As many of our written sources for the history of the ancient Near East are filled with both literary and theological tropes, I find it necessary to consider literary strategies in their interpretation prior to attempting to integrate them within an historical synthesis. This also has much to do with my long-standing interests in the potential of non-literary archaeological sources for the history of Palestine.^4a

Recently, a controversy has developed within Judaism no less over the claim that Jews were ever in Egypt, Moreover, it is doubted that there was an exodus of more than 600,000 Jews who "passed over" the Red Sea out of Egypt into the Sinai.^4b And that they wandered in the desert for 40 years in search of the "promised land" in Palestine. In reality there had to be close to a million or more people, if you include the women and children who must have wandered with the men. Could the Sinai desert support so many nomads? It's doubtful. Teresa Watanabe, The Los Angeles Times Religion Writer reported on Friday, April 13, 2001:

     It's one of the greatest stories ever told: A baby is found in a basket adrift in the Egyptian Nile and is adopted into the pharaoh's household. He grows up as Moses, rediscovers his roots and leads his enslaved Israelite brethren to freedom after God sends down 10 plagues against Egypt and parts the Red Sea to allow them to escape. They wander for 40 years in the wilderness and, under the leadership of Joshua, conquer the land of Canaan to enter their promised land. . . . For centuries, the biblical account of the Exodus has been revered as the founding story of the Jewish people. . . .
     After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred – archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.^{4c, 4d}
     Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan – modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel – whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolaters. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt – explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.⁵

This underscores Professor Thomas L. Thompson's point about the problems inherent in using religious tradition as historical evidence. The point refuses to go away, and well it shouldn't. The Dallas Morning News published on March 30, 2002 the following story by Kristen E. Holmes of The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Jews Grapple with Skepticism about Exodus Story": "Archaeologists and other experts are finding no solid evidence outside Scripture that the Exodus, and the slavery in Egypt, ever really happened. . . . 'The story of the Exodus did not happen the way the Bible depicts it, if it happened at all,' said Rabbi David Wolpe, senior rabbi at Los Angeles' Sinai Temple."^{6a, 6b}

     . . . The land of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, this area did not constitute a single political unit. The northern districts of Acre and Nablus were part of the province of Beirut. The district of Jerusalem was under the direct authority of the Ottoman capital of Istanbul because of the international significance of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as religious centers for Muslims, Christians and Jews. According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (Bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects. The great majority of the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) lived in several hundred rural villages. Jaffa and Nablus were the largest and economically most important Arab towns.
     Until the beginning of the 20th century, most Jews living in Palestine were concentrated in four cities with religious significance: Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad and Tiberias. Most of them observed traditional, orthodox religious practices. Many spent their time studying religious texts and depended on the charity of world Jewry for survival. Their attachment to the land was religious rather than national, and they were not involved in – or supportive of – the Zionist movement which began in Europe and was brought to Palestine by immigrants. Most of the Jews who immigrated from Europe lived a more secular lifestyle and were committed to the goals of creating a Jewish nation and building a modern, independent Jewish state [or "Yishuv," Yiddish for "the Jewish community in Palestine"]. By the outbreak of World War I (1914), the population of Jews in Palestine had risen to about 60,000, about 33,000 of whom were recent settlers. The Arab population in 1914 was 683,000.⁷

The Jewish people, particularly the Zionists, take the above referenced mythological Bible evidence to secure their claim to the lands west and east of the River Jordan. They believe that the territory they presently control and the lands which they refer to as Judea and Samaria represent their promised land, with Jerusalem as their capitol. The Jews were never promised Palestine, for scholars have never authenticated that the Jews, were ever in Egypt and that the Exodus ever occurred or could have occurred. Furthermore, "on 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 laid down that "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." This fact obviates the Jewish claim to Jerusalem as their capital. However, neither the Jews nor the United States apparently wants to remember this and a host of other UN resolutions. Indeed, there are many other U.N. resolutions the Israelis utterly refuse to respect, namely 242, 338, 1402, 1403 and no less than 81 others since 1948.^{8a, 49a, b} We offer here the text of Resolution 242 to demonstrate why it and the others are summarily rejected because of Israeli intransigence and a sophistic semantic dispute. Because the definite article "the" is missing in the phrase "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," they argue this allows them to keep some of the occupied territories because no definite territory is indicated. How much sophistry must the world community and the Palestinians endure?http://www.sis.gov.eg/jerusalem/html/jeru-un0.htm   8
Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)^8b
 (Adopted on 22 November 1967)

EXPRESSING its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
EMPHASIZING the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, 
EMPHASIZING further that all member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, 
     1. Affirms that the fulfillment's of the Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
          i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [emphasis added];
         ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 
     2. Affirms further the necessity
         a) for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
         b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

         c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

     3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a special representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles of this resolution;
     4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.⁹

The Israeli parsing of words and other issues – territorial integrity, control of air space, political independence, Jewish settlements, access to the sea, safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the ability to arm, and other symbols of state sovereignty – surfaced again in the Palestinians' rejection of the so-called Oslo Accord¹⁰ and Camp David.¹¹ These are the stumbling blocks that invariably prevent any settlement the Palestinians may want to negotiate. Ehud Barak at Camp David did represent himself as an honest broker; however, in the end, at the Taba, Egypt negotiations which followed, he instructed his chief negotiator, Gilad Sher, to tell the Palestinians that the formerly agreed upon reduction of the settlement area to 5 percent "had no validity." We will revisit this issue later.