I loved it pronounced so many time in this video: https://youtu.be/brZgN-DDtV8

I never meant to imply otherwise. What I am saying is that we are discussing optics on the legitimacy or lack thereof of Israelite and Palestinian people to those land. Or at least we are discussing right to history representation for the Palestinian. And in my opinion there is no interpretation that gives credit to one claim or the other. The whole argument is idiotic. We should let historians focus on recovering the history of those land and keep modern politics outside ancient history museums.

The creation of the kingdom of Israel was 1100 years old when Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the Judaea province into Syria Palaestina. Before that Greek domination, Achaemenid domination, Babylonian domination and Assyrian domination. And before the Israelites, the Canaan, the Ghassulian and many others. The bible describe in details how that land was conquered with violence and genocide by the tribes of Israel. It makes no sense to make historical claim to that land.

I get what you say. The problem is that being inaccurate for protecting Palestinian claim to their land is exactly what give credit to Israel. The kingdom of Israel has a much older claim to that land. Nonetheless this is inconsequential. We do not see Norway claiming northern France, Germany claiming Poland, Poland claiming Russia or Italy claiming France and Croatia. This is just silly. Modern Israel has no more claim to that land than Germany claim to north Italy of Celtic heritage.

Palestine is the Latin term used by the Romans from the greek translation of the Egyptian term used to describe the Philistines. Only the costal area was to be considered “Palestine” before the romans decided to use that term to describe the entire area. To say that the entire area was Palestine is to rewrite history. To create a link between the Philistines and the modern inhabitants of Palestine is also rewriting history.

If I were to call Tuscans the ancient Etruscan people would I not commit the same mistake? The world is full of territories that saw their cultural, religious and ethnic makeup change radically throughout invasions. To identify the correct term to describe a specific period of history is not rewriting history. The Hyksos were not “Palestinian”, and I agree that it just add confusion. If historian have used retroactively the term Palestine to identify the area, I see no issue in revising the terminology to better align with the original context.

Even if they do not care, should historians care with giving correct information to museums visitors?

If it is more historically correct then why not. I despise what Israel is doing to Palestine like any sane person should, but I see nothing wrong in getting historical names right. I would not be pissed if someone were to change Bizantine Empire with Eastern Roman Empire in a museum exhibition. This is not a win for Israel. Zionist are the one forgetting history by committing genocide.

Discovery lacked much needed love for the franchise, with lot of nonsensical, lore breaking episodes. The same is true for Picard sadly. But I am finding STSA boasting some of the best episodes for a Star Trek season 1 series so far. Star Trek was always woke, and that is why it was so loved. STSA is no more woke than Voyager was. I see lot of respect from the writers to the previous series. STSA makes me think of TNG much more often than any other nutrek series (except lower deck, but that is nearly fanservice). Being into the future you have a lot of flexibility to do something new, and I like that a lot. Nahla Ake is a different character than Picard or Janeway, and that is fine. A great character nonetheless in my opinion.