When a friend of mine in PR sent me a review copy of a new book on the excavation of an ancient site outside Jerusalem, I was skeptical that I would have much to say about the book. The subject, while intellectually interesting, is not exactly in my wheelhouse. 

But, being a friend, I said I would take a look. 

True enough, the book's main thesis is interesting, but it is also not quite in my wheelhouse. When Stones Speak seeks to prove what to me is already established--that Israel is the ancestral land of the Jews. The excavation of the city of David, located just outside Jerusalem's Old City, has a treasure trove of archaeological evidence that demonstrates that the region is the ancestral land of the modern Jews. 

That this fact should need to be proven is bizarre, but a reality in the modern world. People who colonized the land are making claims that Jews don't belong there, and since their cause is the Approved™ one, Jews must defend a proposition that is as true as that the Earth is round, men landed on the moon, and that crashing planes into skyscrapers is likely to make them structurally unstable. 

What stood out to me from the wealth of information was a vignette that demonstrated how distorted coverage of Israel and Jewish history has become. 

The excavation of this site has become controversial, and 60 Minutes decided to cover the disputes. And, as usual, their "reporting" turned out to be propaganda disguised as "journalism."

Right off the bat, Leslie Stahl hit me with accusations, not questions, about the City of David: “Archaeology is being used as a political tool, I mean, I hate to use the word ‘indoctrination’…” Watch her tone. Is this journalism? [2/6] pic.twitter.com/uhWeGcoPzd

— Doron Spielman (@DoronSpielman) April 29, 2025

The author, Doron Spielman, describes both in the book and in his recent thread on X how Leslie Stahl came in with an anti-Israel agenda. Far from being interested in the archaeological findings themselves, she worked hard to imply that an interest in Jewish history is really a political tool to promote the oppression of victimized Arabs. 

One would think that the discovery of the original City of David would fascinate anybody, regardless of their ideological commitments. It's history, and a history that informs all the Abrahamic faiths. 

While Stahl grilled me, she fawned over Jawad Siam, a Palestinian who denies the City of David’s history. “You pay taxes… to guard the settlers?” she prompted breathlessly. No pushback on his lies. This clip shows 60 Minutes fueling division, not facts. Also, note the dramatic… pic.twitter.com/gUMMOEt4yn

— Doron Spielman (@DoronSpielman) April 29, 2025

There is nothing inherently wrong with examining the controversies that, in today's fraught political environment, will surround this project. But the spin is ridiculous. We are fed the story of an oppressive Jewish settler-state rewriting history to harm a colonized people. 

It's an archaeological dig, for God's sake. And that the discoveries reinforce what we already know about the history of the land is hardly surprising, nor should it be particularly controversial. 

Want the full story? My new book "When the Stones Speak" uncovers the City of David’s truth and exposes how Israel’s enemies–-including mainstream media like 60 Minutes--have gone to great lengths to hide the truth about the Jewish people’s 3,800 year connection to the land. From…

— Doron Spielman (@DoronSpielman) April 29, 2025

In a lot of ways, I think the "who was here first" narrative is less compelling than many assume it should be. The entire region's demographics have been remade time and again over the past several thousand years as people migrate from place to place. To me, it's pretty rich for Muslims, who spread their religion and in many cases themselves through conquest, to rest their claim to legitimacy based mostly on questionable claims of indigeneity, especially since so many of the surrounding countries have expelled Jews in systematic ethnic cleansing. 

And, ironically, I don't think that Jewish history alone is sufficient to prove Israel's right to exist. The right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland should go without saying, but the right to rule a modern state is as much a legal question as anything else. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire left an unholy mess and all sorts of states with shaky political foundations, and Israel has, if anything, proven itself to be the most politically stable and well-run state in the region. And as the only state that recognizes the rights of all its citizens to participate in government and have full civil rights, its legitimacy has the most solid foundation in the region. 

What? You want Syria or Lebanon to be the model? Even Egypt, a relatively stable Arab country, has suffered coups, and Jordan, while relatively stable, had to expel the Palestinians to save the state. 

So I don't think Israel has to justify its existence based on indigeneity. International recognition and a stable, legitimate government seem sufficient to me, especially since the entire region has been ridiculously unstable since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. 

If you are interested in archaeology, the ancient history of the region, and even the politicization of what ought to be science, you may like When the Stones Speak.