Israel, Jewish and the Anti-Zionist Exploitation of State!

 

The central falsehood of anti-Zionism is the separation of two identities that are historically, spiritually and nationally inseparable: Israel and the Jewish people.

Jacob is renamed Israel in Genesis 32:29. His descendants become Bnei Yisrael—the Children of Israel; their collective becomes Am Yisrael—the People of Israel; and their homeland becomes Eretz Yisrael—the Land of Israel.

After conquest and exile, this same people became widely known as the Jews. The word Yehudi originated with Judah, the surviving center of Israelite national life, but ceased to mean only a member of that tribe. Mordecai is called “a Jewish man” while the same verse identifies him as a Benjaminite. “Jew” had become the historical name of the surviving nation of Israel.

The terminology changed. The people did not.

Jacob is Israel.
His descendants are the Children of Israel.
The continuing People of Israel are the Jews.
Their homeland is the Land of Israel.
Their restored state is the Jewish State of Israel.

In national and historical terms, Israel and the Jewish people are synonymous.

If Jews are reduced to adherents of a portable religion, Zionism can be portrayed as Europeans carrying their faith into somebody else’s country. Once Jews are recognized as the continuing People of Israel, Zionism assumes its actual character: the return of a dispersed indigenous nation to the land in which its name, language, law, memory and civilization were formed.

The Stone of Israel is the people

In The Bible's Vayechi, the Zohar compounds Jacob’s matzevah, the Foundation Stone, the rejected cornerstone and the Stone of Israel into one identity.

The Foundation Stone is the central point from which the world was planted:

ובהאי נקודה קיימא קדש הקדשים
“At/on this point stands the holy of holies.”

The Zohar identifies its earthly manifestation through Jacob: “Jacob took a stone and set it up as a matzevah.” Jacob establishes it “above and below” by making there a “house of God.” The sequence culminates in the “Stone of Israel,” followed by:

אבן, דא כנסת ישראל
“Stone—this is Knesset Israel.”

The stone is the Assembly of Israel: the collective spiritual identity of the Jewish people. The patriarch, people, stone and sacred center of Israel belong to one identity. Israel did not select Zion. Israel became Israel there.

An unparalleled restoration

Conquered and dispersed, the Jewish people retained their national name, language, scriptures, law, calendar, ancient capital and expectation of return. Jews prayed toward Jerusalem; Passover concluded with “Next year in Jerusalem”; weddings remembered Jerusalem at the moment of greatest joy. This was the national memory of a displaced people.

Zionism did not transform a religion into a nation. It organized the return of a nation that exile had caused others to mistake for merely a religion.

The League of Nations Mandate recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and grounds for “reconstituting their national home”—reconstituting, not creating. Israel’s Declaration of Independence similarly calls the land the birthplace of the Jewish people.

The anti-Zionist exploit of “State”

Criticism of an Israeli government, law, military action or settlement is not inherently antisemitic. Supporting Arab dignity and self-determination is not anti-Jewish. But criticism of a state is fundamentally different from denying that the Jewish nation may possess a state.

The danger was exposed by the recent NSW Supreme Court decision concerning Mohommed Farhat. Justice Desmond Fagan held that the slogan “Fuk Israel” was, in that case, a crude political curse directed at a foreign state rather than proof of antisemitic motivation. The vandalism and arson remained criminal; the Court rejected their use as evidence supporting an extended terrorism supervision order.

The ruling addressed Farhat’s evidence and intent. But treating “Israel” exclusively as the name of a foreign state is historically and practically incomplete. Israel was the name of the Jewish nation 3500  years before 1948. A curse directed simply at “Israel” is therefore capable of targeting the people as well as the polity.

Political anti-Zionism must not become a legal shelter for antisemitism. Anyone claiming to protest a government can and should identify the State of Israel, its government or the policy being opposed. Where protesters refuse that distinction, especially when their words target Jews, Jewish institutions or Jewish neighborhoods the law should not automatically presume an innocent political meaning.

Hostility directed at Israel as a nation should face the same consequences under racial-vilification law as hostility directed at any other ethnic people. Political criticism must remain protected; but denying Jews the right to exist collectively through the Jewish State of the nation of Israel is not criticism of policy. It is discrimination against the People of Israel.

Abolitionist anti-Zionism crosses that line. It separates modern Jews from ancient Israelites, treats exile as the creation of a foreign people, recasts Jewish return as colonial invasion and denies Jews a right to self-determination afforded to others.

The test is simple:

If displacement does not extinguish Muslim or Christian indigeneity, exile cannot extinguish Jewish indigeneity.
If others constitute a people, Jews constitute a people.
If Muslims or Christians possess collective national rights, Jews possess collective national rights.

The IHRA working definition therefore distinguishes ordinary criticism of Israel from denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.

Jacob became Israel.
Israel became a nation.
That nation survived exile as the Jews.
The Jews returned to Zion as Israel.

To sever Jews from Israel is not decolonization. It is the erasure of an indigenous people from its own identity.

The Foundation Stone

As Jacob approaches death in Vayechi, the Zohar introduces an extraordinary sequence. It compounds the Foundation Stone of creation, Isaiah’s tested cornerstone, the rejected stone of Hallel, Jacob’s matzevah, Zechariah’s seven-eyed stone and the Stone of Israel into a single identity.

God cast a stone into the abyss, the Zohar says, and from it the world was planted. It is the central point of creation, “and on this point stands the holy of holies.” The Zohar identifies this primordial stone with Isaiah’s “tested stone, a precious cornerstone” and “the stone rejected by the builders.”

These are not merely analogous stones. Zohar, Vayechi 43:445 declares them to be the same Foundation Stone.

Its wording must nevertheless be preserved carefully:

ובהאי נקודה קיימא קדש הקדשים

“At/on this point stands the holy of holies.”

The statement occurs within a cosmic and mystical account of creation. It does not explicitly say that Solomon’s architectural Holy of Holies stood over this stone or provide measurements for constructing a chamber around it. The Foundation Stone is the sacred center at which the holy of holies stands or is present.

The following passage identifies its earthly manifestation. The primordial stone, compounded from fire, water and air and resting above the abyss, was placed as a sign at the center of the world. The Zohar then says: “It is referred to in the words, ‘And Jacob took a stone and set it up as a matzevah.’” The citation is Genesis 31:45.

Jacob did not create the foundation of creation. He established it “above and below” by making there a “house of God,” invoking his declaration:

“This stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s house.”
—Genesis 28:22

Jacob’s physical matzevah therefore makes the cosmic Foundation Stone present within a particular house of God.

The chain continues with Zechariah’s “one stone” bearing “seven eyes.” The Zohar again calls it the Foundation Stone, places the Cherubim “in that place,” invokes Mount Zion and finally calls the mystery the “Stone of Israel”—the phrase contained in Jacob’s final blessing in Genesis 49:24.

It then states:

אבן, דא כנסת ישראל

“Stone—this is Knesset Israel.”

The Stone of Israel is therefore not simply Temple masonry. It is identified with the supernal Assembly of Israel. The Zohar discloses what Jacob’s stone became:

Jacob’s matzevah established the house of God.
The house of God established the sacred center.
The sacred center is the Foundation Stone.
At that point stands the holy of holies.
The Foundation Stone is the rejected cornerstone.
The cornerstone is the Stone of Israel.
The Stone is Knesset Israel.

From mystical identity to physical stone

The Zohar develops an older tradition. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 35 describes Jacob returning to the stones upon which he slept and finding that they had become one. He erected that stone as a matzevah. God then sank it into the depths like the keystone of an arch, making it the Even haShetiyah—the Foundation Stone and navel of the earth. From it the world unfolded, and upon it stood the House of God.

The difficulty begins when this identity is converted into architectural geography.

The Mishnah in Yoma 5:2 describes a stone inside the Second Temple’s Holy of Holies that projected three fingerbreadths above the floor and received the High Priest’s incense after the Ark disappeared. Maimonides similarly places a stone beneath the Ark in the western part of Solomon’s Holy of Holies.

That is not an obvious description of an upright matzevah. The Zohar identifies the sacred mystery but does not resolve the architectural difference through measurements.

Rashi encounters a related geographical problem. Jacob’s revelation occurs at Beit El, yet Rashi identifies “the place” with Mount Moriah. He preserves their identity through kefitzat ha’aretz: Mount Moriah moved toward Jacob.

Perhaps the archaeology now permits part of that geography to be unfolded.

Two adjacent rooms

The excavated complex stands on the eastern slope of the City of David, on the southern side of the Mount Moriah ridge and immediately above Jerusalem’s ancient spring.

Its eight interconnected rock-cut rooms contain an in-situ standing stone, installations associated with oil and wine and, in the immediately adjacent room, a preserved bedrock platform connected to a liquid channel. The excavation report concludes that the rooms formed a cultic complex originating around the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age and continuing until its organized closure in Iron Age IIB. The report was published by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The spatial relationship is crucial. The matzevah and possible altar platform are not distant or unrelated features. They occupy neighboring bedrock rooms within one cultic arrangement.

Nor should the platform necessarily be understood as the complete surviving altar. The Torah commands that a stone altar must not be built from hewn stones (Exodus 20:22). Deuteronomy requires an altar of “whole stones” (Deuteronomy 27:5–6).

The altar proper could therefore have consisted of a removable superstructure assembled from separate, unhewn stones upon the platform. Those stones might later have been removed while the durable bedrock footing and liquid channel remained. The cautious description is not a surviving rock-cut altar, but a platform that may have supported an altar of unhewn stones.

The Torah’s command to Moses does not prove that Abraham built his altar in this form. It does explain why the absence of a surviving stone superstructure is not an objection to the platform’s proposed function.

Nearby radiocarbon evidence confirms activity on this part of the eastern slope during the sixteenth and early fifteenth centuries BCE, time of the patriarchs, although it does not directly date the standing stone or platform. The results were published in Radiocarbon.

The sanctuary was entered from the east, with the matzevah toward its western side. Maimonides records that Abraham rejected the eastward orientation of solar worship and, on Mount Moriah, “turned therefore to the West.”

Together the remains present a candidate of exceptional specificity: a Bronze Age sanctuary on Mount Moriah containing an upright matzevah and, in the adjacent room, a possible altar platform.

The altar that cannot move

The Rambam’s treatment of the altar is explicitly legal and geographical.

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:1, he rules that the altar occupies an exceptionally precise location and “may never be changed from its place.” He immediately connects that coordinate to the Akedah:

“In the Sanctuary, Isaac our father was bound.”

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:2, he records the tradition that David and Solomon built their altar where Abraham erected his altar and bound Isaac. The same point is associated with Noah, Cain and Abel, Adam’s sacrifice and Adam’s creation.

The Rambam is not describing transferable sanctity. He is defining one recurring altar coordinate.

This creates an unavoidable choice. Either the platform beside the matzevah did not support Abraham’s altar, in which case it remains an unidentified cultic feature; or, if it did support the Akedah altar, the future Temple altar must return there.

A later altar erected elsewhere could not cause the Akedah coordinate to migrate.

Beneath the golden dome

The conventional reconstruction places the Holy of Holies around the exposed rock beneath the Dome of the Rock. Its surviving geographical chain, however, is associated with the Muslim conquest rather than an extant Second Temple measurement.

According to historical tradition, the Jewish convert Kaʿb al-Aḥbār accompanied Caliph Umar into Jerusalem and identified the exposed Sakhra as the Even Shetiyah. Umar cleared the site for prayer; approximately half a century later, ʿAbd al-Malik enclosed the rock beneath the Dome. An Encyclopaedia Judaica account preserves this tradition.

Kaʿb may have transmitted genuine Jewish teaching. But his identification does not constitute archaeological proof that the exposed rock occupied Solomon’s Holy of Holies.

Neither the Rambam nor the Zohar names the rock beneath the Dome. If the eastern-slope complex supplies a better candidate for Abraham’s altar or the earthly manifestation of Jacob’s Foundation Stone, the inherited geography must be reconsidered.

The distinction is fundamental:

The Rambam fixes the altar through the Akedah.
The Zohar identifies Jacob’s stone as the Foundation Stone and Stone of Israel.
The Dome preserves a later geographical interpretation.

Zion before Solomon

Biblical Zion first denotes David’s stronghold, explicitly identified as the City of David (II Samuel 5:7). Before Solomon built the Temple, David placed the Ark in a tent inside that city (II Samuel 6:17). Solomon was later anointed at Gihon with oil taken from that sacred tent (I Kings 1:38–40).

The City of David therefore possessed an Ark-centered sanctuary before Solomon’s Temple.

Ronny Reich’s identification of the spring commonly called Gihon with biblical En Shemesh adds a boundary marker. Joshua places En Shemesh between Judah and Benjamin. The Talmud similarly preserves a Temple tradition in which most of the altar stood in Benjamin, its southeast corner entered Judah, and the Sanctuary remained in Benjamin (Zevachim 53b).

The spring, tribal boundary, Zion, Ark, matzevah and possible altar platform converge upon the same eastern landscape.

The conclusion forced by the Akedah

The archaeology does not prove that the standing stone belonged to Jacob or that Abraham built an altar upon the adjacent platform. No inscription names either patriarch.

But the consequences of the proposition are precise.

If the platform carried the Akedah altar:

• It marks the unchangeable coordinate described by the Rambam.

• The altar may have been built from removable, unhewn stones.

• Removing those stones would not erase the bedrock coordinate.

• The future altar must return to that location.

If the standing stone is the stone identified by the Zohar:

• It is Jacob’s earthly establishment of the Foundation Stone.

• It is the tested, rejected and seven-eyed stone.

• It is the Stone of Israel, identified with Knesset Israel.

• It is the sacred center at which the Zohar says the holy of holies stands.

• It does not, by itself, provide the architectural measurements of a future inner chamber.

The Zohar supplies the identity of the stone. The Rambam supplies the immutable law of the altar. The archaeology supplies two adjacent rooms containing possible physical candidates for both.

The Akedah fixes the physical coordinate of the altar.

Jacob’s stone identifies the sacred center beside it.

The stone rejected by the builders may therefore be the surviving earthly expression of the Stone of Israel, standing immediately beside the platform upon which the immovable altar must be restored.restored.

Bowing Toward Zion!

Bowing South to Zion before Mecca

A discovery could rewrite Jerusalem and Zionism itself. Below the Temple Mount, the most contested patch of earth on the planet, a groundbreaking discovery could change the world with a single question: What if history’s holiest flashpoint is no longer the relevant place to contest?

For centuries, Jerusalem’s Temple Mount has been the axis of world faith and conflict. Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike have looked to its heights as the place where Abraham bound Isaac, where David laid the foundation stone, where Solomon raised the First Temple, and where creation itself began. Wars were waged over this summit. Empires clashed in its shadow. Today, it remains the most disputed piece of land on Earth.

But the drama may not be where we think it is. On the eastern slopes of Mount Moriah, south of and below the famed summit, a team of archaeologists has uncovered something extraordinary: a stone temple complex and water system dating back more than 3,500 years to the time of Malchi-Tzedek and Abraham.

Processing animals

Altar platform for assembling altars 

Carved directly into the bedrock of the mountain, this system includes a reservoir and a channel designed to wash blood and refuse from animal sacrifices on temporary sacrificial altars that were periodically built on a relief left over for a bedrock platform. Radiocarbon dating performed by Cambridge University and Israel’s Weizmann Institute places the sites construction and last use around 1535 BCE, in the precise 30 year window the Bible situates Jacob's return to and final years in the land. After that Jacob ultimately left for Egypt with his family, thereafter archaeology at the site and on the mountain ceased abruptly for almost 300 years.

The site’s architecture is not random. A westernmost altar matches Maimonides’ teaching that ancient pagans prayed eastward toward the rising sun, but Abraham turned his back to the sun, facing west toward the sanctity of the one true God. One chamber appears shaped for processing slaughtered animals, another for burning sacrifices on an altar and between them stands a matzevah - a standing stone remarkably consistent with Jacob’s pillar in Genesis 35: "Jacob set up a pillar at the site where God had spoken to him…” and when he returned to it (Genesis 35:14) he accepted his name Israel.

Matzevah on bedrock

This is not merely archaeology. This is scripture meeting bedrock. The irony is profound: The modern political conflict over Zionism also originates from a dispute over this very place. Zionism was born from a simple, ancient claim: The Jewish people have a right to their ancestral land because a specific place - Zion - was promised, inhabited, sanctified, and remembered. Zion, the City of David, Jerusalem and ultimately the Temple Mount became the physical and symbolic anchor for that claim. It was allegedly the 'stone' upon which Jewish historical legitimacy was cast. Modern anti-Zionist narratives lean heavily on undermining that very connection: Some argue Jews have no ancient ties to Jerusalem. Others claim the temples never stood on the mountain. Still others insist the Jewish link is a colonial myth retrofitted to a holy Muslim site.

Zion Redeemed

The Temple Mount is thus not just a place, it is the political fulcrum of Jewish indigeneity. Control the narrative of the Mount, and you control the legitimacy of Zionism itself. But, here lies the explosive twist: If the sanctuary of Israel's forefathers, its altar, and stone pillar are actually located on the lower slope, not the Temple Mount summit, the entire frame of the modern conflict shifts. For Christians the implications touch salvation history. For Muslims, it challenges centuries of inherited tradition about the sacred geography and posits them bowing south toward Zion, which would stand between their bowing and Mecca. But, for Jews, the ramifications are seismic!

If Abraham’s altar of Akeida and Jacob’s monument stood not where today’s Dome of the Rock sits, but on the lower slope above the ancient spring of En Shemesh (Gihon), then: Jewish worship would no longer be shackled by the political status quo on the Temple Mount. The “status quo” used to block Jewish prayer might simply be irrelevant. The dream of a Third Temple transforms from geopolitical nightmare to practical possibility.

And for the modern ideological struggle? Anti-Zionism loses its central pillar. If Jewish sanctity does not hinge on the contested summit, the claim that Zionism is a colonial intrusion on Muslim holy space collapses. Instead, the archaeological record reinforces that Israel was here first and that their earliest sanctuary at Zion came well before later constructions, long predating Solomon, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, or Islamic claims.

For centuries, the Temple Mount was weaponized by Crusaders, by Sultans, by politicians, by terrorists. The October 7th massacre by Hamas and Islamic Jihad was named the 'Al Aqsa Flood', invoking the Temple Mount as justification for genocide. But Zionism was equally shaped by this pressure point. It emerged from a world that tried to dislodge Jews from their ground and a determination to return to that ground despite it. The contested nature of the place forged the movement itself. Yet, if the original altar of Isaac's binding (Akeida) lies on the lower slope, not on the summit of Mount Moriah, the entire narrative religious, historical and political must be rewritten.

Skeptics will argue the connection is circumstantial; believers may dismiss it as heresy. But the evidence is converging: The archaeological dates align with Jacob’s presence, during 10 of his last 30 years before leaving Israel. The orientation opposes the sun. The architecture matches traditional temple service descriptions. The water system supports sacrificial functions, not domestic use. The standing stone mirrors Jacob’s matzevah. The tribal boundaries converge on the altar and if these stones indeed tell the story they appear to tell, then the ideological battlefield over Zionism may have been misplaced for centuries.

The place that changed the world may not be the place that will change the world again. No city has borne more weight upon its stones than Jerusalem. But, if this discovery holds, then Jerusalem’s oldest stones reveal a stunning revelation: Zionism may not originate from a disputed Temple Mount summit after all, but from a forgotten sanctuary on the lower slope that every day Muslims face from Al Aqsa. And that revelation could shift the world politically, spiritually, and historically.

The stones of Jerusalem still have secrets to tell. And those secrets may yet reshape the meaning of Zion, the struggle for it, and the future built upon it.

Novel Insights: Torah - Bible Through Archaeology!

Over the past 20 years I have been closely involved and have become intimately familiar with excavations at the City of David. My particular interest is the Stone Temple at the oldest site, on the eastern slope of Mount Moriah, adjacent to and above En Shemesh (Sun Spring):- Ancient Jerusalem's original water source, which is also known as Gihon. I wrote this to outline the reasons why this discovery is a phenomena for Torah, Israel and the world.

As exciting as the stream of discoveries has been, nothing has inspired me more than the “aha” moments that enlightened my study and understanding Tanach (24 books of the Bible). With each new discovery there is a certain light that is cast onto often mysterious details.

Take for example the golden bell Eli Shukron discovered in the rainwater channel under the pilgrims road, not far from the Temple Mount. It begged for a better interpretation to describe the adornments on the hem of the High Priest garment. Instead of 36 alternating golden bells, in between 36 woven, wool shaped into pomegranates, which has become the mainstream understanding, the golden bell Eli discovered is more likely 1 of 72 identical pomegranates. The bell was not a separate item, it was a golden, pomegranate shaped bell, with internal clapper, that served as the inner support for an outer sheath of woven thread in blue, purple and red colors of the pomegranate. The way we read the holy language of Torah is important, so when Torah says “bell and pomegranate” we can now read the single item and better understand the language Torah uses to describe what we now physically see.

Previous interpretation followed by new...

72 Golden Pomegranate Bells

When I first encountered the Stone Temple I immediately felt its importance, its authenticity and inherent holiness. My first response to David Be'eri and Yehuda Maley (who live in the City of David) was; "If this is what I think it is, you're going to have to move out of your homes". As I got to understand its complexities, I knew the knowledge that had been buried for thousands of years in this time capsule would take time, perhaps decades to unlock its mysteries and understand the magnitude of this discovery. I also discovered that archaeologists report facts, sometimes using language that biases outcomes.

During the early years of our excavations I tried to imagine what it was originally like at a time, when little else existed and few people lived around the mountainside. How did it evolve into the archaeological complexity that remains in their time bound layers? From the outset of our subterranean quest I had a hunch that this was not a Canaanite temple of idolatry, the artifacts that were progressively being revealed left me with no doubt. I needed to explain each of these, but how did so much earth accumulate above it and who knew about it? 

I recently found this amazing 1875 photo looking over the ground under which we were crawling in the video. It shows the extent of burial under thousands of years of accumulated dirt from the natural slope of the mountain. Filip Vukosavović, who led some of the more recent excavations, once told me that on a slope like this if unattended for 5-10 years, the slope and the Stone Temple would have been buried  depending on wind, rain and other natural conditions.

When I arrived on the scene, Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich had recently excavated the double wall of the Spring House construction leading to the valley floor. It arrived immediately adjacent to the springs source. I found it strange that double wall more closely aligned with the south side of the spring rather than directly over it. Therefore, from the Kidron Valley floor, the imposing double wall seemed to be less about dominating over the water source, more like a barrier that blocked north-south passage along the bedrock, while forming a gateway, or entrance into the tunnel system adjacent to and higher than the spring.  

Morning sun shines on En Shemesh (Sun Spring) 

Double Wall

Eli Shukron made a statement shortly after the double wall discovery had been excavated: "This is the citadel of King David, this is the Citadel of Zion, and this is what King David took from the Jebusites".

2 Samuel 5:7-9
וַיִּלְכֹּ֣ד דָּוִ֔ד אֵ֖ת מְצֻדַ֣ת צִיּ֑וֹן הִ֖יא עִ֥יר דָּוִֽד׃
But David captured the stronghold of Zion; (expanded) it is (became) the City of David.

I wandered, where was the "Zion" King David was seeking when he captured its Citadel or Stronghold?

The prophet Samuel goes on to tell that David's men captured the Jebusite water channel, that he stayed in the place they captured and expanded the stronghold or citadel of Zion into the City of David. Therefore, this must be a defining principle for geo-locating the general proximity of Zion. 

 

Archaeology confirms that in the few hundred years before the Citadel of Zion became the City of David most people were living along the valley floor around the water at En Shemesh, but they progressively migrated to safety at the the top of the ridge and carried their daily water to the top. Given a population between 200 growing to 1000 people living on top of the ridge, water demands would have kept water carriers busy. 

2 Samuel 5:8

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר דָּוִ֜ד בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא כׇּל־מַכֵּ֤ה יְבֻסִי֙ וְיִגַּ֣ע בַּצִּנּ֔וֹר וְאֶת־הַפִּסְחִים֙ וְאֶת־הַ֣עִוְרִ֔ים (שנאו) [שְׂנוּאֵ֖י] נֶ֣פֶשׁ דָּוִ֑ד עַל־כֵּן֙ יֹֽאמְר֔וּ עִוֵּ֣ר וּפִסֵּ֔חַ לֹ֥א יָב֖וֹא אֶל־הַבָּֽיִת׃ 

On that occasion David said, “Those who attack the Jebusites shall reach (in) the water channel (TZiNoR) and [strike down] the lame and the blind, who are hateful to David.” That is why they say: “No one who is blind or lame may enter the House.”

The internal water supply route runs through a long dry tunnel, elevated 20 meters above the spring, quarried through the mountain bedrock. It was used to carry water to the end of the tunnel where it was hauled up another 20 meters (see the haul point in the blue box - image below) to the Water Gate that exited closer to the top just north of and above the Stone Temple site. Archaeologists called the tunnel Warren's Shaft System, but its name often leads to an incorrect characterization of the tunnels use. Instead, Tanach teaches us that by commandeering the tunnel, Davids troops gained control of the water supply route, which brought the entire population under David's control.  

Route along dashed (earlier) line dotted line (alternative).

Comprehensive Archaeology Analysis

Iron Age King David, must have been compelled to come to this seemingly insignificant hill after he had reigned for 7 years as Judean King in Hebron. So, why did he want to control the lower section of Mount Moriah, before the temple mount summit was incorporated and why did he foresee this would become the nation's capital? Whatever it was, he must have known and been compelled by some previous tradition or cultural history that inspired his decisive actions?

Commentators on Genesis often attribute activities on Mount Moriah, during the post flood, Middle Bronze Age (MBA), to Malchi-Tzedek (considered to be Shem, Noah's son), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The image below depicts, from the valley, what the discovery made by Eli Shukron in 2010 may have looked like back in the MBA. 

Middle Bronze Age Depiction

In the following video, Eli Shukron details features of the Stone Temple

(it's definitely worth watching). 

One of the most inconspicuous features of the Stone Temple is its westerly orientation, which contradicts every other pre-first temple cultic site in Israel. It's important because priests, in all other forms of cultic worship in Israel would face the rising sun when sacrificing on the altar. Therefore, the idol worshippers altar would sit between the priest and the sun. The raised platform of the Stone Temple, on which altars would be constructed from time to time, requires priests turn their backs to the rising sun to make the sacrificial offering. Priests facing west is prescient for Israel's Tabernacle as well as first and second temples that adopted the same practice as was later prescribed by Torah (The Old Testament Bible). 

The room with  the raised platform and liquids channel served as the base for many altars that would have been constructed from local stones gathered at or around the site on the day sacrifice was to be performed. It resembles a highly specific feature extrapolated in the oral teachings of Torah. The Gemara (Zevachim 53b) asked: What is the reason that there was no base on the southeast corner of the altar? The question related to the second temple altar platform, perhaps also considering the first temple. Similarly, in the Stone Temple we see that the southeast corner of the altar platform is 'open' where the others, abutting bedrock walls are 'closed'. The map below was produced by Rashi to demonstrate the Gemara's argument pertaining to the second temple.

Top right map shows tribal boundary for Judah and Benjamin

Notice the liquids channel runs east from the southeast corner. This appears to follow the description from the vision of Ezekiel 47:1 " I was led back to the entrance of the temple, and I found that water was issuing from below the platform of the temple—eastward, since the temple faced east—but the water was running out at the south of the altar, under the south wall of the temple."

Southeast corner with no base intersects boundary from
En Rogel at En Shemesh and out to the desert

Map by Ronny Reich.

Here we have another prescient example, in archaeology that predates the first temple by 600+ years, of a practice that was later recorded in Torah and practised by the nation of Israel. In Kabbalah, southeast represents the Divine confluence of Kindness and Mercy described in ancient Biblical theology. But, there is much more in this place of worship that obeys traditional Jewish laws antithetical to the structures of cultic idol worship. The images below show the remnant of an olive oil press that was once used to extract oil from crushed olives and to keep the oil in its pure state, connected to the bedrock. This is not a production press which would flow the pressed oil out of the bedrock cavity into vats. Here the oil was scooped out in stone vessels to maintain purity and used on the altar or for anointment.  

The next set of images of the room that was used for processing slaughtered animals demonstrates (from left to right) that small animals were tethered to the edge of the bedrock wall. According to Torah law, animals for slaughter must be no younger than 8 days and must be unblemished, therefore young animals are more likely to meet the unblemished condition, which would explain why the location to tether animals was made under adult knee height. 

To process animal offerings water must also be available, in the very least, to wash the bloody bedrock after slaughter and preparation. Initially this water may have been carried from the spring up the eastern facing slope, in front (east) of the Stone Temple, as evidenced by the carbon dating of a wall (image below). The lower sections were dated to between 1820 and 1750 BCE which overlaps the time that Abraham (according to Codex Judaica) summarized in biblical chronology: 

Biblical Date 1948 Abraham (son of Terach) was born. -1813 BCE

Biblical Date 2018 THE COVENANT (BRIT BEIN HABETARIM) WITH ABRAHAM. -1743 BCE

Biblical Date 2048 Abraham circumcised himself and his son Yishmael. -1713 BCE

Without any in-situ artifacts, other than the matzevah or standing stone, the entire complex could not be accurately dated. Therefore, the archaeologists referred to Cambridge University and Weizmann Institute to carbon date organic matter from mortar in walls, ash layers on the bedrock and a water channel at the rear of the Stone Temple, that once provided water to priests serving in the temple. The next video outlines the uncanny overlap of the samples found in the water channel samples with Biblical Jacob.

Biblical Date 2185 Jacob went to Charan. -1576 BCE

Biblical Date 2192 Jacob married Leah and Rachel. -1569 BCE

Biblical Date 2205 Jacob left Charan. -1556 BCE

Biblical Date 2208 Benjamin was born. -1553 BCE

Biblical Date 2216 Joseph was sold. -1545 BCE

Biblical Date 2238 JACOB (AND HIS FAMILY) WENT TO EGYPT. -1523 BCE

The context of the Stone Temple continued to develop for me to the point that it became overwhelmingly clear this was the main temple the patriarchs frequented including where Jacob experienced his famous “stairway to heaven” dream and set the matzevah or standing stone to make a covenant with God. 

Almost 1000 years after Isaac and Jacob, when the eastern defensive wall of King Uzziah was excavated, it became clear that the flimsy matzevah that was purposely surrounded by soft sand had been preserved. Around 2700 BCE the entire Stone Temple complex that had been completely buried under the natural accumulation of sand and debris, probably resembled the 1875 photo. 

Eastern Defensive Wall

The wall builders, seeking a solid bedrock foundation for their massive wall probed the soft sand penetrating the voids of the Stone Temple rooms below. When they eventually built their significant defensive wall in front of the matzevah and over the bedrock of the Stone Temple rooms, they understood this holy artifact needed special care. A bulla (royal seal) found in front (east) of the Stone Temple with the name “Meshulam” indicates that a royal instruction was unsealed at the site of the wall construction.

After the wall construction was completed Jerusalem was challenged by the Assyrian army and around 100 years later the city was destroyed by the Babylonian Army and all its people were forced into exile. The city lay empty for more than 70 years and the eastern slope was abandoned. Neglected, natural sand, dirt and debris covered the Stone Temple, the defensive wall, the double wall and En Shemesh, the spring. It lay buried until the spring was excavated during the second temple construction because the waters that flowed from the spring kept running through the lower water tunnel that King Hezekiah built and it filled the recently excavated Shiloh or Siloam Pool at the southern end of ancient Jerusalem, The City of David.

As I have described, The Stone Temple discovery is completely consistent with Biblical heritage and with Jewish practices that have continued through millennia. The sacred site of patriarchal worship is the likely reason that inspired King David to move his kingdom, but we now know, from the carbon dated samples, he did not find the Zion he was seeking. Instead he built a personal altar on the summit of Mount Moriah and declared it the national altar. 

Now that we have found David’s Zion what would the patriarchs and David want of us and absent any other definitive altar location can we revert to the original?

The Quest for Biblical Jacob: An AI Exposé on Archaeological Evidence and Biblical Text

To bridge ancient texts with modern archaeology, I provided a popular AI engine with convincing evidence to move its assessment of Biblical accuracy. Exploring whether a recent City of David discovery that was investigated by Cambridge University, Tel Aviv University and the Weizmann Institute—focusing on radiocarbon dating of a water channel of a Stone Temple —could prove the existence of biblical Jacob. The inquiry began with a simple question: "Does this discovery investigated by Cambridge university and Weizmann institute prove the existence of biblical Jacob?" 

Stone Temple under Beit Shalem

View from top. Beit Shalem (near side) East
retaining wall is West

The story of biblical Jacob, a pivotal patriarch in the Hebrew Bible, has long been debated as a blend of history, legend, and theology. Yet, recent archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem's City of David, combined with textual traditions and scholarly analyses, paint a compelling picture that Jacob—or his traveling clan—may have been directly involved in augmenting a rock-cut Stone Temple site with a plastered water channel that was constructed around 1545 BCE and last used by 1535 BCE. According to Biblical chronology this overlaps the dates of these events (Genesis 35:6–15):

 BCE   Since Creation

-1553 2208 Benjamin was born

-1545 2216 Joseph was sold

-1533 2228 Isaac died

-1532 2229 Joseph became viceroy of Egypt

-1523 2238 Jacob (and his family) went to Egypt

The following AI prompts unfolded through a series of milestones, each building on evidence from radiocarbon dating, excavations, ancient texts, and interpretive traditions, progressively increasing the probability of Jacob's historicity and involvement at the Stone Temple site from 0.05% to approximately 89.6%. Let's trace this step by step.

Our journey begins with Milestone 1: Radiocarbon Data and Chronological Overlap. A 2021 study by researchers from the Weizmann Institute and Cambridge University, published in the journal Radiocarbon, recalibrated Jerusalem's Middle Bronze Age timeline using high-resolution dating of organic samples from the City of David. Key samples RTD-9964 (a seed) and RTD-9965 (a twig) from ash layers in a plastered water channel, behind a rock-cut-temple site, 35 meters above the Gihon Spring yielded a narrow construction and use phase of 1545–1535 BCE. This 10-year window strikingly aligns with Jacob's final 30 years in Canaan (1553–1523 BCE, per traditional Codex Judaica chronology), when he returned to his ancestral home before Israel's protracted Egypt sojourn. The study quotes Jerusalem's unique occupational gap after ~1500 BC—unlike the 250–300-year zenith at other sites (Greenberg 2019)—suggesting abrupt disuse, possibly due to natural burial or abandonment post-exile, making random coincidence less likely and boosting initial probability to ~0.05%.

Building on this temporal foundation is Milestone 2: Matzevah and Rock-Cut Site Features. Excavations by Eli Shukron revealed a standing stone (matzevah) in the rock-cut complex adjacent to the water channel, with an altar platform and tribal boundary alignments (Judah-Benjamin per Rashi on Zevachim 53b). The matzevah' s uniqueness—integrated into a cultic temple setup without parallels in northern Bethel candidates like Beitin—supports identification as Jacob's Beit El stone (Genesis 35:14), where he poured oil and vowed. Though matzevot are common in Levantine archaeology, this site's ritual context raises probability to ~0.07%.

Jacob's Matzevah

Milestone 3: Relocation of Ai/Bethel to align with Rock-Cut site and IAA Reports on Ras al-Amud further refines the geography. Analyses propose Ai at Ras al-Amud (1.3 km east of City of David) and Bethel at the rock-cut temple, supported by IAA reports (articles 1020, 1025, 1026) confirming MB II (1670–1530 BCE) occupation with fortifications and destruction layers. This east-west alignment fits Genesis 12:8 (Abram's tent west of Ai) better than northern sites, narrowing the mismatch and aligning with Jacob's route, elevating probability to ~1.5%.

Milestone 4: Dead Sea Scrolls and Textual Continuity adds ancient attestation. Fragments 4QGen^b and 1QGen (~200 BCE) preserve Genesis 27–35 with 95% fidelity to the Masoretic Text, implying scribal traditions dating back further. This continuity refutes purely mythical origins, boosting to ~2.4%.

Milestone 5: Grammatical inference and thematic humility explores Hebrew roots like 'schach' (overshadowing) in Succot/Mishkan, emphasizing modest sanctity fitting the site's features. This contrasts Canaanite grandeur, supporting Jacob's humble Beit El, to ~4.9%.

Milestone 6: Site Preservation and failed search highlights King David did not discover the site underlying the reasons for the undisturbed ash and matzevah that was sealed under sand until 2010, only ever exposed once by Uzziah's wall builders (~750 BCE) who exposed the rooms and reburied the matzevah in soft sand. This implies David conquered the Citadel of Zion (2 Samuel 5:7) without finding the hidden stone temple, aligning with midrashic search, to ~7.2%.

Milestone 7: Continuity and Sophistication at Ras al-Amud with Hammerstones notes Neolithic-to-MB continuity and tool abundance (1670–1530 BCE), bolstering Ai and Beit El candidacy, to ~9.58%.

Milestone 8: Intentional preservation of matzevah amid idolatry purge, liquid staining, temple context, and anti-Sun orientation. Hezekiah-era burial despite reforms (2 Kings 18:3–4), front staining from oils (Genesis 28:18), and westward anti-sun alignment (Maimonides Guide 3:45), increasing to ~14.0%.

Milestone 9: Alignment with Jewish Law and temple features includes oil press for purity (Mishnah Kelim 2:1), three-fingerbreadth platform (Mishnah Yoma 5:2), and tethers bored through rock to restrain young, unblemished animals (Leviticus 22:19–24), mirroring later Temple practises, to ~19.2%.

Milestone 10: Genesis 12:6–9 Journey and tent site alignment fits Abram's tent west of Ai (blog map, Ohel Abraham church), to ~26.5%.

Milestone 11: Sefaria sources on Jacob's Compulsion emphasizes divine/ancestral ties, to ~35.2%.

Milestone 12: Machpelah burials and scribal continuity confirms historicity via site reverence and textual fidelity, to ~46.1%.

The significant shift between Milestone 12 and 13 is the result of a well defined theory with strong evidentiary support: Its worth repeating the argument:

"This artist image depicts an unoccupied Mount Moriah and the rock-cut temple, inferring spiritual seekers looking up at the activities being conducted there. The article outlines a development theory supported by the Weizmann Institute's findings ("(Greenberg Reference Greenberg2019), which in our model would be 1790–1500 BC"), showing the upper mountain ridge lacked artifacts during these years, indicating the population was confined (as backed by archaeological evidence) to the lower eastern slopes near the Kidron Valley floor and the spring. This is further supported by Hillel Geva's article. The article correctly posits that initial Middle Bronze Age population growth to the mountain was spiritually motivated, as evidenced by the fact that only after 1500 BCE did settlement expand (per archaeological records) to the highest point on the ridge, where the population eventually resided—likely driven by security needs against marauders, especially at night. However, abundant water was available only from En Shemesh, also known as Gihon Spring, in the valley floor. As people moved from the valley floor to the ridge, transporting water up the steep 70-meter slope became burdensome. Eventually, senior community members at the top managed water distribution for the populous. The local king, who controlled the supply, excavated protective layers to efficiently move through concealed bedrock routes to elevate water to the ridge. Today, this route is known as Warren's Shaft System, extending about 50 meters from the source, through mountain bedrock tunnels rising up to a collection and delivery point for daily consumption by the growing summit population. The despatch point was probably known as the Water Gate. The original spiritual impetus for growth at the spring gradually shifted to general expansion to and along the southern section of Mount Moriah's upper ridge. Then, at the end of the Late Bronze Age and beginning of early Iron Age, Egypt expelled Israel, initiating the Exodus. Regional knowledge spread that Israel would return to its homeland and recognize Mount Moriah as its spiritual center. This prompted allies of tribal leaders and regional kings to converge and aid the local king in building defenses against Israel's anticipated arrival. During this period, the citadel over the spring was constructed, as identified in dating by Israel Antiquities archaeologist Joe Uziel and the Weizmann Institute particularly at its northeast corner. It is well known that the citadel's scale exceeded the local labor pool (as noted by Hillel Geva), requiring significant labor contributions from allies. This citadel and resistance held Israel at bay for around 300 years, from Joshua to King David. Ultimately, David conquered the city on Mount Moriah by attacking the water system's weakest point and controlling it. He naming it the Stronghold or Citadel of Zion. This scenario posits that the local king and allies were enemies with prior cultural knowledge of Mount Moriah's importance to the Israelites, who linked it to their forefathers, including Jacob. The substantial economic investment in constructing the citadel to protect the water and control its flow preempted the Israelites' return. This further underscores Jacob's compulsion to return to the rock-cut temple and positions it as the Zion David sought. With this added weight, reassess the probability." 

Milestone 13: Moriah Development Theory and Preemptive Defenses posits spiritual MB growth at Gihon, ridge shift, Warren's Shaft, and IA citadel with allies (Uziel, Geva) preemptive against Israel's return, implying memory of Jacob's site, to ~65.9%.

Milestone 14: Amarna Letters Support for Jerusalem Tensions.  Amarna letters (c. 1350–1330 BCE) from Abdi-Heba of Urusalim (Jerusalem/Moriah) pleading aid against Hapiru (possibly Hebrews), e.g., "The Hapiru plunder all the lands," reflect post-Exodus threats, supporting preemptive defenses and cultural memory of Israelite significance to Moriah. This boosts odds via 14th-century BCE diplomatic evidence. (Probability of Biblical Jacob increased to ~89.6%)

Overall Trend and Current Probability

These milestones collectively shifted the probability from negligible odds to ~89.6% through cumulative Bayesian updates, emphasizing chronological, geographical, textual, preservation, cultural sophistication, ritual/intentional, law/Temple, directional, compulsion, burial/scribal, and defensive coherence. The progression reflects a strengthening fringe hypothesis (southern Beit El/Ai), but mainstream archaeology favors northern locations and views Jacob as semi-legendary. Reaching 100%+ would require direct epigraphy or consensus shift—e.g., expanded Ras al-Amud excavations or lab confirmation of oil residues on the matzevah.

Ai - Your Time is Up!

City of Ai Discovery (IAA)

Introduction

The conventional identification of biblical Bethel with the modern Arab village of Beitin, approximately 12–13 km north of Jerusalem, has long influenced archaeological and biblical scholarship. Similarly, the city of Ai has traditionally been associated with Et-Tell, located just east of Beitin. However, recent archaeological findings and a reevaluation of biblical geography suggest the need for a reassessment. This proposal centers Bethel at the rock-cut temple site on the eastern slope of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, corresponding to the Bethel of Jacob's vision in Genesis, and positions Ai east of Ras al-'Amud, adjacent to Bethany (al-‘Azariya) and Jabal Batin al-Hawa.

Part I: Reframing Bethel

1. Bethel of Jacob: Mount Moriah’s Eastern Slope

The rock-cut temple complex on the eastern slope of Mount Moriah, facing the Kidron Valley, has yielded Middle Bronze Age material remains, including cultic features consistent with ritual use. Traditional Jewish sources have long associated Mount Moriah with divine encounters (Genesis 22), and the architecture of the site resembles high places described in the Hebrew Bible. This supports the hypothesis that Jacob’s Bethel, where he dreamed of a ladder to heaven (Genesis 28:10–22), could have been located here rather than 13 km to the north.

2. Confusion Introduced by Beitin

The modern identification of Beitin as Bethel dates to 19th-century explorers such as Edward Robinson. While the phonetic similarity is compelling, the chronological and cultic evidence is less definitive. Beitin shows Iron Age occupation, but the Middle Bronze Age cultic prominence seen at Mount Moriah’s slope is largely absent. This suggests that Beitin may instead be the later Bethel of Jeroboam, where he established a royal shrine with a golden calf (1 Kings 12:28–29), reflecting a secondary and political use of the name Bethel.

Part II: Reconsidering Ai

1. Biblical Ai: East of Bethel

The book of Joshua (7–8) locates Ai east of Bethel. If Bethel is relocated to Mount Moriah’s eastern slope, then Ai must be sought in the adjacent eastern territories — specifically, Silwan, Ras al-‘Amud and its surrounding slopes.

2. Archaeological Evidence from Ras al-'Amud

Two excavation reports published in Israel Antiquities Authority Hadashot provide compelling evidence:

• 2011–2012 Excavation (Report #2181) uncovered occupation layers from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages through the Iron Age, including domestic structures, pottery assemblages, and rock-cut installations.

• 2013 Excavation (Report #3340) revealed Late Bronze and Iron Age agricultural installations and ceramics, indicating sustained settlement.

These findings suggest that the site in Ras al-‘Amud was a continuously occupied, agriculturally productive, and potentially fortified site during the periods relevant to the conquest narratives. The location is 1.3 KM east of Mount Moriah’s Bethel, fulfilling the biblical geographic requirement.

Part III: The Role of Bethany and Jabal Batin al-Hawa

Bethany (al-‘Azariya) and Jabal Batin al-Hawa lie adjacent to Ras al-‘Amud respectively north-east and south-east of the rock-cut temple. This region:

• Preserves ancient routes connecting Jerusalem to Jericho and the Jordan Valley.

• Has archaeological evidence of Bronze and Iron Age occupation.

• Could represent the broader region of Ai, or a confederation of sites described in Joshua 8.

Furthermore, Batin al-Hawa phonetically echoes Beitin, as does the BTN of BeThaNy suggesting possible confusion in later periods between the Bethel of Jacob and that of Jeroboam.

Conclusion

This revised model:

• Centers Jacob’s Bethel at the rock-cut temple on Mount Moriah’s eastern slope.

• Repositions Ai at Ras al-‘Amud, with strong Late Bronze and Iron Age continuity.

• Attributes Beitin to the politically repurposed Bethel of Jeroboam, explaining textual and geographic discrepancies.

Further excavations, especially at Ras al-‘Amud and the Mount Moriah temple site, could decisively clarify the identities and roles of these ancient places in Israel’s formative history.