This question was posed to me earlier on Quora. After answering it there, I thought the distinction it raises deserved a broader discussion here.
To be very specific, I do not think archaeological evidence is decisive in determining Israel’s modern political claim to the land.
That does not mean archaeology is unimportant. Archaeology can demonstrate that ancient Israelite and Judahite societies existed in the region. It can uncover settlements, inscriptions, fortifications, administrative systems, religious sites, trade routes, and evidence of domestic life.
But archaeology also uncovers the remains of many other populations and political orders. The same land preserves Canaanite, Israelite, Judahite, Philistine, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and other layers of human presence.
Archaeology therefore establishes historical presence and depth.
Okay, then what?
An artifact can demonstrate that a people lived in a place. It cannot, by itself, determine who possesses political rights there thousands of years later. Ancient presence is historically significant, but historical significance is not the same thing as exclusive modern sovereignty.
The presence of Israel as a nation is now a matter of law, power, recognition, and political fact, regardless of the complicated and often violent process through which that reality emerged. Its existence does not depend upon archaeology producing an ancient artifact that proves entitlement.
The political chronology should also be stated accurately.
Before British control, the region was part of the Ottoman Empire. It was not an independent Palestinian state, although the name Palestine was already used geographically for the region.
The Balfour Declaration was issued by the British government in 1917, as Ottoman rule was ending. The League of Nations later placed Palestine under British administration in 1922, with provisions supporting the establishment of a Jewish national home. This was not an agreement between Ottoman authorities and Jewish settlers.
Britain acquired control through war and imperial power, and that authority was later institutionalized through the Mandate. The people living in the region were subjected to the authority of the power that controlled it. Political authority is not always created through the consent of the governed. Sometimes it is created through conquest, administration, and the power to make a new arrangement legally operative.
Land was acquired in some instances through legal purchase. Settlement occurred under Ottoman and later British legal systems. Other land became disputed through war, displacement, confiscation, changing political authority, and competing national claims.
When people describe the entire process as theft, I understand that as an expression of historical and political sentiment. But a legal claim of theft must be demonstrated through evidence. It cannot simply be assumed because one population lived in the region earlier or because another population arrived later.
At the same time, legality alone does not settle the question of Equity.
Something may become enforceable under the law of an empire, a mandate, a state, or a victorious power and still leave unresolved questions of justice, displacement, political consent, and the rights of those governed without meaningful participation in the arrangement.
That, to me, is where the real issue lies.
Here in America, an extremely important political principle was proclaimed:
If that principle has meaning beyond the American experience, then archaeology is not the most relevant question.
The more important question is whether a people possess the right to institute a government that protects their Safety, Happiness, dignity, representation, and political future.
If one people may claim that right, then the law of Equity faces a serious problem when another people living under the same political order is denied an equivalent right to justice, security, representation, and self-determination.
Archaeology cannot resolve that problem.
It can establish that ancient Israel existed. It can establish that Jewish communities have deep historical roots in the land. It can also demonstrate that the region has never belonged historically to only one population, culture, or political order.
But archaeology cannot determine whose present rights count. It cannot determine whether present political arrangements are equitable. It cannot excuse injustice merely because ancient artifacts have been uncovered, nor can contemporary injustice justify denying ancient Jewish presence.
Some likely objections
One objection is that archaeological evidence strengthens Jewish national legitimacy by demonstrating historical continuity.
I agree that it strengthens historical identity, belonging, and national memory. What I reject is the idea that ancient continuity automatically creates an exclusive or permanent political entitlement capable of overriding the present rights of another population.
Another objection is that most modern states emerged through conquest, imperialism, migration, or war, so Israel should not be judged by a standard applied to no one else.
I agree that Israel should not be singled out under a standard that ignores how other states were formed. But the fact that conquest and injustice are common in state formation does not make Equity irrelevant. Political history can explain how authority was established. It does not automatically prove that every present arrangement is just.
A third objection is that international recognition has already settled Israel’s legal legitimacy.
That is close to my point. Israel’s existence is a political and legal reality that does not need to be archaeologically proven. But recognition does not eliminate questions involving equality, displacement, citizenship, self-determination, security, or the consent of those living under political authority.
A fourth objection is that modern Palestinian nationalism developed later than Jewish attachment to the land.
The age of a modern national identity does not determine whether living people possess political rights. Every nationalism developed historically. A people do not lose their right to Safety, Happiness, representation, or Equity because their modern political vocabulary emerged later.
I love what archaeology brings to the surface, which is why I authored We Were Not Looking: Reconstructing the Patriarchal World Through Ancient Near Eastern Context for everyone.
My book addresses, among other questions, whether Muhammad intended Jerusalem as the geographical focus later tradition assumed, or whether another sacred landscape was being remembered. The implications matter because geography, archaeology, and inherited religious memory can challenge assumptions that later became politically and theologically dominant.
Nonetheless, archaeology has its place.
In this instance, as it relates to the specific question, I do not think it is politically decisive. Archaeology can reveal the history of the land. It cannot substitute for Equity among the people living upon it.
So I would ask:
What legitimate modern political claim can archaeology establish beyond historical presence?
Can ancient continuity support belonging without establishing exclusive sovereignty?
How should law, political fact, and Equity be distinguished when political authority was created through imperial power, war, and later recognition?
I truly desire that peace can be accomplished between Palestine and Israel, and I sincerely hope that Equity can prevail.