Tsohon Alkawari an gina shi ne bisa tunanin zamanin bayan bautar Babila da kuma bayan dawowa daga bauta, da kirkirar adabi da labari. Ba a bayyana labaran tatsuniya a cikinsa a matsayin gaskiyar da aka tabbatar ba; ya kamata a karanta su a matsayin labari, koyarwar addini da adabi. 'Yan Kan'aan a zahiri iri daya ne da Finiciyawa. Haruffan Finiciyawa na yankunan bakin teku na Falasdinu da Lebanon – wadanda aka fi sani da haruffan Proto-Kan'aan – an ba da su ga Helenawa, Aramiyawa, Larabawa da Ibraniyawa. Duk da haka, kalmomin Tsohon Alkawari 'Kan'aanawa' da 'Isra'ilawa' a Falasdinu ba lallai ne su nuna ko kwatanta kabilu biyu daban-daban ba.

The Old Testament is based on exilic and post-exilic imagination, literary invention and fiction not facts. Its myth-narratives should be read as fiction, theology and literature, not proven facts. The ‘Cana’anites’ are in fact identical to the Phoenicians. The alphabet of the Phoenicians of the coastal regions of Palestine and Lebanon – conventionally known as the proto-Canaanite alphabet – was given to Greek, Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew. However, the Old Testament terms ‘Canaanites’ and ‘Israelites’ in Palestine do not necessarily refer to or describe two distinct ethnicities.

Niels Peter Lemche, wani masanin Tsohon Alkawari a Jami'ar Copenhagen, wanda bincikensa ya shafi Isra'ilawa na farko da dangantakarsu da tarihi, da Tsohon Alkawari da ilimin kayan tarihi, ya bayar da shawarar cewa dole ne a karanta labarin Tsohon Alkawari game da 'Isra'ilawa' da 'Kan'aniyawa' a matsayin tsarin ra'ayi na wasu (watau wadanda ba Yahudawa ba), ba a matsayin nuni ga wata kabila ta gaskiya a tarihi ba: 'Kan'aniyawan [na Falasdinu] ba su san cewa su kansu Kan'aniyawa ne ba. Sai lokacin da suka, a ce, "bar" gidansu na asali … ne suka amince cewa Kan'aniyawa ne su' (Lemche 1999: 152).

Niels Peter Lemche, an Old Testament scholar at the University of Copenhagen, whose interests included early Israelites and their relationship with history, the Old Testament and archaeology, has suggested that the Old Testament narrative of the ‘Israelites’ and ‘Canaanites’ must be read as ideological constructs of the other (as the non-Jews) rather than as a reference to an actual historical ethnic group: ‘The Canaanites [of Palestine] did not know that they were themselves Canaanites. Only when they had so to speak “left” their original home … did they acknowledge that they had been Canaanites’ (Lemche 1999: 152).

Ƙirƙira ta adabi da gaskiyar cewa marubutan Tsohon Alkawari na zamanin bauta sun ƙirƙiri kalmar "Kan'aniyawa" cikin tunani – wata gina-ƙa'ida ta addini da akida da waɗannan marubuta suka yi – ba lallai ba ne ta nuna cewa akwai rikici tsakanin Isra'ilawan tarihi da Kan'aniyawa a Falasdinu.

Literary invention and the fact that exilic Old Testament authors imaginatively coined the term ‘Canaanites’ – a religio-ideological construct by these authors – does not necessarily indicate that there was a conflict between historical Israelites and Canaanites in Palestine.

Amma, a zamanin zamani (farawa daga ƙarshen karni na sha tara), ...

However, in the modern era (beginning with the late 19th century)

Shugabannin Yahudawan Sihiyoniyya na Turai sun kwace labaran Tsohon Alkawari suka karɓe su a matsayin tarihi na gaskiya, suka yi amfani da su a matsayin hujja don tabbatar da aikin mamaya da suka yi da kuma rikicinsu da mutanen asali na Falasɗinu. Duk da haka, rikicin Isra'ila da Falasɗinawa rikici ne na zamani, kuma kada a gauraya shi da Falasɗinu ta gaske, ta tarihi, ta dā, ko duk wani tsarin akida da addini da ya biyo baya daga labaran Tsohon Alkawari.

European Zionist leaders appropriated the Old Testament narratives as historical accounts and used them instrumentally to justify their settler project and their conflict with the indigenous people of Palestine. Nevertheless, the Israeli‒Palestinian conflict is a modern conflict and should not be confused with the real, historical, ancient Palestine or any subsequent religio-ideological constructs of the Old Testament narratives.

Hakika an yi amfani da sunan Cana’an a zamanin Late Bronze Age.

Historically the name Cana’an was indeed used in the Late Bronze Age.

Amma sunan bai koyaushe yana nufin yankin Cisjordan daga Gaza zuwa Kogin Litani ba. Haka kuma ba shi kaɗai ne sunan da ake amfani da shi dangane da wannan yanki ba. Wasu sunaye kamar Falasɗinu, da kuma sunayen da suka fi dadewa kamar Retenu da Djahi, su ma ana amfani da su don wannan yanki (har ma da yankunan cikin ƙasa na yammacin Falasɗinu da Transjordan) a wani lokaci a cikin zamanin Late Bronze Age. Kan'ān yana nufin yanki na yanayin girma daban-daban, a gabar tekun Bahar Rum ta Lebanon, Falasɗinu da Siriya (ba Falasɗinu kaɗai ba). A wasu lokuta wannan ya haɗa har da yankunan cikin ƙasa. A ƙarni na farko na zamani, duk da haka, Phoenicia (Lebanon ta yau) ita ce sunan da aka fi amfani da shi ga yankin gabar teku ta arewa, wanda da farko ake kira Kan'ān, yayin da sunan Philistia, wanda asalinsa Assyrian ne, aka fi amfani da shi da farko ga gabar teku ta kudu, daga baya kuma ga Falasɗinu baki ɗaya. Sunan Kan'ān ana samunsa a rubuce-rubucen tsohuwar Gabashin Kusa, ba kawai a kan takamaiman yankin Falasɗinu ba, har ma, abin lura, a kan Siriya, tun daga ƙarni na 15 K.Z. zuwa farkon ƙarni na 9 K.Z. Tunanin farko tabbatacce na sunan Kan'ān an same shi a rubutun cuneiform a kan mutum-mutumin Idrimi daga Alalakh a arewacin Siriya (kusan 1500 K.Z.), a sigar Kinahhu.

But the name did not always refer to the Cisjordan area from Gaza to the Litani River. Nor was it the only term used in connection with this area (between the Wadi Gaza and the Litani). Other names such as Palestine, as well as earlier names, such as Retenu and Djahi, were also used for this area (including, at times, the inland regions of western Palestine and the Transjordan) at some point in the course of the Late Bronze Age. Cana’an referred to a geographical region of varying size, along the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon, Palestine and Syria (and not just Palestine). At times this included regions inland. In the first millennium, however, Phoenicia (modern Lebanon) was the most common name used for the northern coastal region, which had earlier been referred to as Cana’an, while the Assyrian-derived name of Philistia was most often used initially for the southern coast and later for Palestine as a whole. The name Cana’an is found in ancient Near Eastern inscriptions with reference not just to the specific area of Palestine but crucially to Syria from the 15th century BC to the early 9th century BC. The first certain reference to the name Cana’an is found in cuneiform on the statue of Idrimi from Alalakh in northern Syria (c. 1500 BC) in the form Kinahhu.

Sunan Cana’an kuma an same shi sau goma sha shida a cikin rubutun Masar; daga cikin waɗannan, goma sha biyu sun fito ne daga Zamanin Masarautar Sabon Zamani (Hasel 2009: 8–17). An same sunan a wasu daga cikin allunan Amarna a cikin tsarin kn’ny – kimanin shekaru talatin daga tsakiyar ƙarni na 14 K.Z. A cikin waɗannan rubuce-rubuce, tsohon tashar jirgin ruwa na birnin Ugarit ba ya cikin Cana’an, amma Qadesh na ciki. Sunan kuma yana bayyana a rubuce-rubucen Masar a tsarin k3n‘n‘ daga Hattusa na ƙarni na 13, da rubuce-rubucen Ramesses II da Merneptah (wannan na ƙarshe kimanin 1205 K.Z.). A kan Dutsen Merneptah, garin Gaza an ambace shi a matsayin ‘bakin (wato, “buɗewa zuwa”) k3n‘n‘.

The name Cana’an is also found sixteen times in Egyptian texts; of these, twelve are from the New Kingdom (Hasel 2009: 8–17). The name is found on some of the Amarna tablets in the form kn’ny – about thirty years from the middle of the 14th century BC. In these inscriptions, the ancient port city of Ugarit itself does not belong to Cana’an, but Qadesh does. The name also occurs in Egyptian inscriptions in the form k3n‘n‘ from the 13th century Hattusa, Ramesses II and Merneptah inscriptions (this last from c. 1205 BC). On the Merneptah Stele, the town Gaza is referred to as ‘the mouth of (that is, “the opening to” k3n‘n‘’.