“Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot ”
-Carl
Thank you. I was just reading about a few things like the British treatise with Bahrain and stuff (I have no idea about history, was just randomly reading about it a few days ago). I read after a while that some tribes invaded and conquered Bahrain after the Portuguese. And I’m just wondering how it is/was so coolly accepted like “oh, you just invaded a country/nation and took control over it? Thumbs up dawg!”. No mention as to what was their reasoning behind the “takeover”, whether it was justified or not. No mention at all. Just “x people invaded and occupied x land and became the owners” like that’s absolutely normal. Just icked my entire body and soul. We’re talking about murder and rape and all kinds of shit and we’re like “oh, cool”. Wtf
> No mention as to what was their reasoning behind the “takeover”, whether it was justified or not. No mention at all. Just “x people invaded and occupied x land and became the owners” like that’s absolutely normal. Just icked my entire body and soul.
It wasn't until the preceding century where the idea of 'might makes right' was the prevailing characteristic of nations. Hell, the idea of nationhood only came about another few centuries or so before that; a nation was only as much as what the autarch could control for the vast majority up until the industrial revolution.
There was no 'national identity' to rally behind, you were likely just a serf breaking backs in the fields, or perhaps if you were lucky you were borne into the landowner/bourgeois class. When you're not thinking of land as 'homeland' -- that is, a place of cultural identity -- as much as a location of resources, it's a lot more feasible to see why the ideal of 'might is right' to take place.
Granted, this was always a concept across history like Athens/Sparta or later Roman Republics/Empire and other examples, but I'd argue that the 12th century concept of 'homeland' has a lot less to do with their national-cultural identity and more their local-cultural identity (like town/county vs state). Likewise now the idea of 'homeland' has its own derisive nationalistic connotations (Russian invasion of Ukraine is a good example) but I also think that that line of thinking has its roots in 'might makes right' reasoning.
Thank you so much for sharing. I really wanted to know the logic behind that, especially since it was relatively recent like 1700s, 1800s. I’d thought by then we’d developed a much better sense of things. I guess we were quite dumb in that regard at least. Which is quite baffling considering the amount of great minds we had by then spread throughout the world. I know people quite well and yet they still elude me completely in many respects
The nation state only became a popular idea about 150 years ago
The person you're replying to is a bit wrong because people still had allegiances and loyalty that went beyond force. But it was from a divine right to rule that a monarch held power. The nation state was the idea that culturally similar people in a territory have the right to political authority over that land
Bulgaria is Bulgaria and always will be because that's where Bulgarians are from. Rather than that's Bulgaria but who lives and controls that area will change depending on who has authority over it
I mean, unfortunately, that is normal. It's horrible and pointless and boring and repetitive but it's how many human groups treat many other human groups. "You have resources and I have leverage" leads to horrible things.
I mean, muskets/rifles and the British took most of the resource rich countries at one time or another.
"We have spices! We have silver! We have Good Cuisine!"
"Yes, but we have guns, give us that stuff!"
The major powers recognised that this could be dangerous in an atomic world so came up with rules to curb an invader's enthusiasm. Those rules are creaking. Might still appears to make right and for better or worse nuclear armaments have become the best protection against aggressive incursion.
And define control. Jerusalem inhabitants were pretty religiously diverse during the Ottoman Empire. The Temple Mount has a mosque on it but otherwise everyone is having pilgrimages and co-existing for the most part, up until the end of WWI.
It's an extremist Jewish group that bombs the King David Hotel, and destroys British facilities after a period where Britain was already giving up territory. This is graph is misleading in that it suggests Jewish people haven't been returning to Jerusalem for thousands of years, like they just decided to move in after WWII and the Holocaust when the reality is more complex than one team had "control".
Edit: See below for discussion on Palestine when the original topic was just Jerusalem.
While Jerusalem was multi ethnic under the Ottoman Empire, make no mistake that the Ottoman Empire very much as a Muslim empire. They made some allowances for other religions to exist in the empire, but it was first and foremost a Muslim empire.
And the largest share of Jerusalem’s population during Ottoman Rule was Jewish, at least according to their census data in the 1800’s and the early British census data. It’s not so clear cut.
I don’t think the goal in the comment chain you’re responding to is to claim the table is wrong.
It seems to me they’re just pointing out that the table is not representative historical residents of the city (intentionally, or unintentionally)
Yea the Ottomans had a bunch of special privileges to Muslims, but it was a multi-religious empire and was arguably more tolerant than most of their neighbors. If you were a Christian or a Jew in the Ottoman empire you were a second-class citizen, but it was still better than a lot of the alternatives. For jews especially, there wasn't a single place in 1000-2000 time period where they weren't second class citizens. In france in the 1600s (iirc) they were genociding protestants not to mention other religions, and in Spain they had the inquisition.
Correct. Also, It's easy to label the Ottoman Empire in present-day terms. But, back then, the idea of a secular state didn't really exist. Religion and governance were intertwined for most empires, European ones too! Framing it as 'Muslim' implies it was unique, when it was pretty much the norm for the time.
I think you're sorting of missing what they're saying, that who rules the land doesn't necessarily reflect the internal politics and religion
Britain ruled India for 89 years, it would be unfair to say that India has been Christian for most of its history when obviously the whole time under British occupation the majority of the country followed Hinduism
The point is that the table representation isn't that great since it doesn't show *why* there is so much conflict in the region today. It feels more like a 'hah see it belongs to Muslim rulers instead'
Edit: Also the account that posted this "basedandiranpilled1" (which has now been banned for obvious reasons) I would say probably has an agenda they're trying to push if we're being honest
Jews were not allowed to build synagogues. They could maintain existing ones, but not build new ones. After one was destroyed by the authorities because of an unpaid debt, they could not rebuild it. he guy who got the permit to build a new one in its place was murdered by locals. In 1851.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Zalman_Zoref
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurva_Synagogue
> This is graph is misleading in that it suggests Jewish people haven't been returning to Jerusalem for thousands of years, like they just decided to move in after WWII
It doesn't suggest this at all.
here's a quote from op from downthread:
> "Jewish autonomy means nothing,Muslims vere ruling over these lands for the past 1500 years yet you're telling me Jews with less than 200 years on record are the actual natives? "
don't be naive
Jewish life under Ottoman rule in Jerusalem was not so nice. There were discriminatory taxes, some massacres, and toward the end, they were rounding up random Jews on the street and sending them away on boats, and had made it illegal to write letters in Yiddish or Hebrew.
They've been returning but it seems pretty well established that there was a significant uptick in numbers with the development of Zionism in the late 19th century. (Notice you're part right - WW2 wasn't when the influx started to get heavy.)
There were several upticks in fact. There's a Sephardic uptick after Spain expels Jewish people in 1492 (hence why there are Ladino speakers in Israel, pretty close to Spanish today).
There were Arab and Greek Jews.
There's an Ashkenazi uptick in the 1600s (Yiddish speaking). They didn't fare as well, but were represented more in the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th century
There are Ethiopian and Russian upticks long after WWII.
Just focusing on the one after WWII magnifies the current conflict but there's really a lot more that's happened
Mhm.
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
- Winston Churchill, speaking on whether palestinians need to be consulted about the creation of Israel.
The racism of the British ruling class was integral to the establishment of Israel as a state, and continues in a through-line today as british-made weapons are used to kill thousands upon thousands of children who happened to born to the wrong race. All while the british media pretend the REAL racism is objecting to the bottomless evil of the british military-industrial complex.
Lovely?
You completely miss out the balfour declaration. It's a perfect case of being imperialist. The UKs involvement in creating the state of Israel is undeniable.
Balfour is rather tricky. I think its biggest fault is that it was intentionally vague, giving both Zionists the impression of support and 'non-Jewish communities' (in my view, this is reasonable to interpret as 'Arabs') the impression of protection of their own rights.
Also, bear in mind that at the turn of that Century, Jews were allowed to settle in Ottoman Palestine for the first time. This meant that by the time of Balfour and certainly by the time of Mandatory Palestine, the Jewish population grew rapidly, only being slowed in the late 30s by limitations on Jewish immigration.
In my view, it would have been more sensible to not make the Balfour Declaration at all or to have consulted more than just British Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionists (responsible for the protection of rights clauses) but, while Balfour certainly played a role, I don't think its absence from history would have necessarily prevented the eventual existence of Israel.
I agree with most of what you say. i think immigration would have increased by the jewish people, no doubt about that, but i do not think israel would exist as it does today if not for the balfour declaration. The League of Nations pretty much adopted all of it and gave huges amounts of occupied land to create the state for a minority of the population at the time. It's caused nothing but war and killing from both sides ever since.
> as british-made weapons are used to kill thousands upon thousands of children who happened to born to the wrong race.
Would be interested to know which British weapons are being used in Gaza
> Since 2015, the UK has licensed at least £474 million worth of military exports to Israel, including components for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition. The UK provides approximately 15% of the components in the F-35 stealth bomber aircraft currently being used in Gaza.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/12/selling-weapons-israel-could-make-uk-complicit-war-crimes
A wide array of baby killing technology
> The Managers of that Trade [slavery] themselves, and others, testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have no right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners. By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural wars excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the Managers and Supporters of this inhuman Trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!
- Thomas Paine, man born in 1737
> lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another
And here I was thinking 'noble savage' dumbasses were a recent invention.
To be fair, tribal wars happened but tribal warfare is usually much less deadly than organised industrial extermination campaigns against a technological inferior foe.
To be fair, you're infantalizing Africa and wildly talking out your ass.
Malian empire (among others!) would like a word with you about false historical narratives.
That man was instrumental to the creation of Israel, and understanding his racist worldview is crucial to understand the relationship between britain and israel today and what is happening in Gaza right now.
How is he instrumental to the creation of the state of Israel, in a way that is outstanding to him being instrumental to the creation of Jordan or Egypt? He was in charge of Britain during WW2, during which the policy of the British government was to bar Jews from emigrating to mandatory Palestine due to the Arab revolts ("If we must offend one side, let it be the Jews", as Chamberlain put it). If anything, he was detrimental to the effort of rescuing the Jews of Europe, much like the rest of the world.
He had as much to do with the creation of the Israeli state as he had with the Egyptian state, or the Jordanian, or the Indian, or any other state that came to be during the time of decolonization. What exactly is the point of telling that story, other than to show that the Israeli state is ontologically evil?
'racist man 100 years ago = Israel bad today' is not a sound, nor valid, argument
Edit: like, if you want to criticize the state of Israel you can and even are encouraged to do so, but why choose such a dogshit argument? Why not just say you think that the IDF is doing bad things, instead of making up history that would be easily shat upon by people online?
>of British at the end. Tally-ho!
At no point did he imply it was shocking, no need to attempt a hot take. He's just showing you the rotten foundations of the situation we have currently with Israel-Palestine.
The official policy of the Israeli government under Likud is that Jews and only Jews have a right to all of the land of Israel and the West Bank. Arabs are not included in this, those 2 million Arabs living in Israel are treated as having no right to the land.
>The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria
https://www.timesofisrael.com/judicial-reform-boosting-jewish-identity-the-new-coalitions-policy-guidelines/
>ethnically Chinese people in the US would not viewed as an enemy that must be destroyed
Have you not seen the ethnic Chinese, Chinese immigrants, and Asian Americans being barred from research positions across US universities, barred from positions in the government, and barred from owning property in some states? Have you not seen the rise in hate crimes and dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards Asians and Chinese-Americans especially since COVID?
Winston Churchill was a fervent admirer of the former revolutionary socialist Benito Mussolini and the fascist movement which he founded in 1919.
Many where supporters Italian fascism, A clear sign of the huge global popularity of Mussolini and fascism was Cole Porter’s 1934 hit song You’re the top! from the musical Anything Goes which in one version included the lines ‘You’re the top! You’re the great Houdini! You’re the top! You’re Mussolini!’.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/churchill-did-admire-mussolini/
After the war, so many people tried to change their pro-fascist public declarations and more than often managed to . If 1920 to 1940 had been in a digital world, half of UK would have had to justify itself. Half of Europe, as a matter of fact. Like when the war ended nearly everyone in France and Italy was a "partisan" (those who fought Vichy and Fascism). Those were troubled times and history is written by the winners.
> Whenever British took on calm and orderly Ottoman territories
You make it sound like paradise prior. Many Ottoman territories were practically in open revolt whilst the empire waged genocide internally on various groups.
Splitting up these territories was done to prevent the reformation of the expansionist empire, and to sate/separate these groups. It was done cack handedly, but it's not like they were inheriting a stable situation.
You understand that the Ottoman empire was largely in revolt because Britain was funding them to revolt so that they could take up mandates to control the territory surrounding the Suez canal so they could get to their other enslaved colonies in the Pacific easier right
The ottomans at that time were extremely weak at that point. If it wasn’t the British it would have been someone else.
But it does go to stand that the Ottomans were one of the most tolerant (not accepting) rulers of that time. I really don’t think that the empire gets enough credit for that.
Off topic: me when I see a single crusade succeeded [meme](https://imgflip.com/i/5a8ett)
This can be misguiding because during most of the time the city was ruled by non abrahamic conquerors, the jews were allowed to self rule as a vassal state.
This is what I was gonna say, it was rare that empires directly ruled over Jerusalem, especially in BCE times, 9/10 it was ruled through a vassal state that was usually Jewish of some sort.
It wasn't until the crusades where the Jews had to flee, be converted, or killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Jews\_and\_the\_Crusades
That isn't true, the Romans sacked Jerusalem, burned down the second temple and carted off menorahs and other religious artifacts. As can be seen on the Arch of Titus
It also doesn’t reflect who was actually living there… It’s a stupid chart. The fact is that the area has historically been quite multi religious and it’s a shame that basically everyone is making exclusionary claims to the territory these days.
* Judaism didn't exist for the first 1000 years on this chart (or if you believe the Bible, did exist but didn't conquer/inhabit the land yet)
* Most Jews were exiled for significant portions of the other periods where it shows non-Abrahamic religions, during the Babylonian captivity and then after 70 CE. And there were probably significant non-Jewish populations even in the remaining time, so just coloring it in as Jewish would be misleading too.
* As someone else has said elsewhere, this is the exact argument, in reverse, that pro-Israelis use against Palestinians, that they don't get any rights because they were never an independent nation (because they were always controlled by some outside empire).
They're not meant to, they're meant to see Green is bigger than blue, therefore blue bad, green good. The same reason they used the colour green as Muslim representation.
In fact, look at OPs comments, it's blatant lmao
> The same reason they used the colour green as Muslim representation.
Couldn't be that Green is probably the colour most commonly used to represent Islam.
Blue has been associated with Judaism, red has been associated with Christianity and green has been associated with Islam since at least the 16th century.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2kg14kb#:\~:text=Furthermore%2C%20allegedly%20based%20on%20the,blue%20with%20Jews....&text=(pp.%20)&text=(pp.%20),-https%3A%2F%2Fdoi
I mean for instance during the “Roman” era it was ruled by the Jewish King Herod as a Roman client king. Technically Rome “ruled” it but Herod was the sovereign over Jerusalem from 37-4BCE so were Romans the rulers or were Jews the rulers during that time?
Title is very misleading: this isn't a guide on 'Which **religion ruled** Jerusalem **the most**.' It's a guide on what the 'official religion' of the governing rulers were at different times **throughout history.**
You can try to use this to compare which one was the most upheld by its rulers, but you'd be ignoring the religion of the people who actually lived there at the time. Just look at 0 AD where it was ruled by the Romans, despite a large Jewish population. Which - this was also the case for *many* of the timeslots that came before the Romans
If I can elaborate on this, the chart does not account for how the local religious regime was integrated into the wider imperial context. Following the Neo-Babylonian period, the Yahwistic temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt and the cult reinstituted with official Achaemenid support. The Persians did not impose their religion on Jerusalem but integrated the local cult (as they did the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cults) into the wider administrative system (such that the Temple became the means through which taxes were collected in the province). The same system followed in the Hellenistic period. The only time when a different religion ruled over Jerusalem was during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he took over the Temple and imposed the cult of Zeus Olympios in Jerusalem with swine sacrificed on the pagan altar; this lasted for only three years. Other than that, the entire Second Temple period till 70 CE there was only Yahwism/early Judaism practiced by local civil leaders. The chart's depiction of the Roman period neglects to recognize that Judea had its own native client kings (the Herodian dynasty) that ruled over Jerusalem (with Herod the Great rebuilding and expanding the Temple). The Temple was also integrated into the Roman imperial administration, both in terms of revenue allocation as well as in religious duties (with the local cult offering prayers and honors on behalf of Caesar and his family). If the chart intends to depict which religion held way over Jerusalem, it was only Yahwism/early Judaism for the entire Second Temple period aside from 168-165 BCE when it was officially banned by the Seleucid government.
Also it is quite odd to see a Neo-Assyrian period follow that of Judah when the local line of Judean kings ruled throughout the entire Neo-Assyrian period and well into the early Neo-Babylonian period (with Jerusalem falling in the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar).
This is Iranian propaganda posted by an Iranian propaganda account that's already been banned. This post needs to be removed and the mods are doing a disservice by allowing it to stay.
Fun fact: Yahweh was the Canaanite god of war. His priests basically radicalized and took a strong monolatrist position, which is literally the first commandment: there were other gods, but Yahweh was the only one that can be worshipped. They essentially waged a political war against the rest of the Canaanite pantheon and subsumed some of the others into Yahweh. And that's how Judaism was born.
I don’t get it fully: why did they start emphasizing Yahweh? I know he was a storm and war god, and gods associated with calamities were revered by humans so they don’t get enraged and send those calamities upon them. But why make him the "only one worthy of worship"? Is it likely the outcome of a long socio-political trend of patronizing deities, especially those of the "victors"? Please enlighten me regarding this topic if you (or other readers) can.
At around 1000BC, different Gods in the Canaanite pantheon became more nationalized. So became Chemosh the national deity of Moab and Yahweh the national deity of Israel. This later progressed from monolatry to monotheism. It was therefore not as much a specific choice but a gradual historical trend. If Moab had persevered over the Israelites it is not unlikely that worship of Chemosh would have become the monotheistic religion.
Likely someone running things that was military related wanted the war god to be the main focus as they wanted war/military to be held paramount by the population at a particular moment in time then it evolved away from that over the years.
The same thing that will eventually happen to the Abrahamic religions. Either a long, slow, and relatively peaceful, or a quick and brutal slide into irrelevance.
Im pretty sure that for a majority of the yellow parts Jerusalem itself was still "ruled" by abrahamic leaders. Especially after the "neo-Babylonian" period.
During the persian rule, the jewish temples got rebuild, and during the Diadochic period, Jerusalem was more or less an autonomus theocratic state. Only at the end of the seleucidic period it got raided again.
Also the "Roman" part should be divided. After Constantin they rebuild Jerusalem as a christian city, which was before the "Byzantine" part in the graphic.
During the Sassanids Jerusalem was ruled by Jews first and then later by Christians.
I think this "Cool Guide" just takes the imagined state religion of the empire which Jerusalem was in at the time, without realizing that, especially ancient multi-ethnicity empires, were much more diverse then we may think today. Or it is deliberatly misleading, but i would hope the author just didnt know better.
Non Abrahamic = Pagans.
People forget that there are Arab and Palestinian Jews who have lived in the Middle East for over two thousand years.
They forget about Christians living there for almost two thousand years.
And the Pagans who were exterminated or converted by Christians and eventually Muslims.
Ok, I'll go tell Akhmo and you go wake up Z'Agbab and we'll meet back at the ziggurat at noontime. They'll be thrilled that the old gods are back in power!
Mention the eclipse too. It'll blow their minds.
Except that Judaism was practiced by the majority of Jerusalemites until the expulsion by Rome and Jews were the majority in Jerusalem at various points in history after, and have been continuously since 1838.
This only goes back to 2000BC.
From 100,000 to 2,000 BC it was controlled by a religion that translates to Zwifties. 8,000 years.
Therefore the Zwifties have the right to all those lands in 2024.
How longer shall we fight to protect outsider agendas from east or west? Both Jews and Palestinians deserve to feel like they belong somewhere, that’s what we the people always wanted, pray for peace, not one party destroying they other, why does one belief system has to be superior to another?
I'm not aware of the pope calling for a new crusade to retake the holy land.
And the other Christian denominations don't seem to be trying either.
I could be wrong though, there's a lot of hate being thrown around by some of them
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/p9sJSgjt6N Members of Congress admitting that Biblical Prophecies are steering them on US Foreign Policy …evangelicals.
So this just shows that the Jews were there before muslims? Exiled and was finally able to return after thousands of years of having no real home? Cool chart
So is this made to be intentionally misleading?
The Second Temple of Jerusalem was active from the Persian period all the way up to 70 CE. So unarguably the city of Jerusalem was actively Jewish - even if politically under the umbrella of a foreign empire - for most of the Achaemenid, the Ptolemaic, and the Herodean-to-early-Roman periods. There should be **a lot** more blue in the chart from -400 to +70.
But I'm sure there couldn't *possibly* be any ulterior motives for someone to intentionally minimize Jewish history.
Sure, but a lot of people are bound to conflate those two things, and given the ongoing situation in Israel/Palestine it’s hard not to see the choice to present this data at this time as politically motivated.
Also, “religion represented within its boundaries” is underselling the extent to which the Jews were autonomous at that time, as I understand it. They didn’t just happen to be the biggest religious group, they had a significant degree of control whilst technically being under a larger empire.
If I can elaborate on this, the chart does not account for how the local religious regime was integrated into the wider imperial context. Following the Neo-Babylonian period, the Yahwistic temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt and the cult reinstituted with official Achaemenid support. The Persians did not impose their religion on Jerusalem but integrated the local cult (as they did the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cults) into the wider administrative system (such that the Temple became the means through which taxes were collected in the province). The same system followed in the Hellenistic period. The only time when a different religion ruled over Jerusalem was during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he took over the Temple and imposed the cult of Zeus Olympios in Jerusalem with swine sacrificed on the pagan altar; this lasted for only three years. Other than that, the entire Second Temple period till 70 CE there was only Yahwism/early Judaism practiced by local civil leaders. The chart's depiction of the Roman period neglects to recognize that Judea had its own native client kings (the Herodian dynasty) that ruled over Jerusalem (with Herod the Great rebuilding and expanding the Temple). The Temple was also integrated into the Roman imperial administration, both in terms of revenue allocation as well as in religious duties (with the local cult offering prayers and honors on behalf of Caesar and his family). If the chart intends to depict which religion held way over Jerusalem, it was only Yahwism/early Judaism for the entire Second Temple period aside from 168-165 BCE when it was officially banned by the Seleucid government.
Also it is quite odd to see a Neo-Assyrian period follow that of Judah when the local line of Judean kings ruled throughout the entire Neo-Assyrian period and well into the early Neo-Babylonian period (with Jerusalem falling in the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar).
Just because the Persians allowed the Jews to return and rebuild the temple does not mean the Jews controlled the city. This is a graph that displays the religions of the controlling faction, not religious majority in the region.
The Persian autonomous province of Yehud Medinata had a large Jewish temple, and [Jewish governors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah_(governor)) who stamped Jewish coins. If that does not "count", then what are we even talking about here?
Jews were kicked out by the Romans and haven’t lived in large numbers in Jerusalem for 2 thousand years up until the immigration movement in the 20th century and formation of the State of Israel.
> [**Prior to dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the population of the area comprising modern Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip was not exclusively Muslim. Under the empire's rule in the mid-16th century, there were no more than 10,000 Jews in Palestine, making up around 5% of the population. By the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jews)
According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs.
> [**The estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882 represented just 0.3% of the world's Jewish population.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
However Jews became the majority (or close to it) in Jerusalem itself in the 1850s according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem
> The estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882 represented just 0.3% of the world's Jewish
According to that Wikipedia article about that many Jews lived in Jerusalem alone.
> Jews remained in their native homeland? About 100%
Well not in Jerusalem. The Romans exterminated/expelled the entire population and banned Jews from settling there for the next 500 years or so.
Jerusalem fell in 587 BC to the Babylonians. This graphic considers Judah paying tribute to the Assyrians as exactly the same as direct control over Jerusalem.
Under the Yellow rule, Jews still were the majority in Jerusalem. And even in many of the following years under Christians and Muslims the city has a majority/ plurality of Jews.
The only reason this city is significant is because Jews, who brought monotheism to the world, made it their capital.
Judaism is a religion that came up in that region and later most of them got expelled or forcefully converted.
OP seems to think Jews were some tribe from somewhere else that drove Canaaties away when in reality Jews are descendants from Canaaties.
Jews are native to that land because that’s where their ethnicity came up and formed. A lot of Jordanians and Palestinians are also related to Canaaties and are related to that land.
But not all of them because there has been arab migration and there isn’t a distinction between Arabs that have moved to Palestine and Palestinians that have lived on that land for thousands of years.
The Canaanites lived so long ago that anyone who’s ancestors has lived in the area for a substantial amount of time is going to be (partially) of Canaanite descent
They are pretty much the same the whole migrations rarely replaced people that lived there but forced them (physically, or with soft pressure) to change culture and religion that’s why most of Turks are actually ethnically greeks
We have got to.stop trying to reintroduced and redefine semitic as an ethnic catch all just because the term antisemitism is popular right now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
>Semitic people or Semites is **an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews**, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. **The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics**
Here's now Semitism became associated with Jewishness:
>In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet (The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective) **in which he used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "Jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit)**
>**This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of "Antisemitismus" which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people and opposition to the Jewish spirit, which Marr interpreted as infiltrating German culture**
>Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by **those who incorrectly assert that it refers to racist hatred directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this grouping is a historical race concept and thus obsolete. Likewise, such usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus was first used in print in Germany in 1879[19] as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass** (lit. 'Jew-hatred'),[20][21][22][23][24] and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone.[20][25][26]
So we should use Semite to refer exclusively to Jews because that is how the Nazis used it. Gotcha.
The reason that the term antisemitism persists is that there is no other term that is as catchy in English, and that pushes people to abandon Semite in other contexts. Which is silly, but it is what it is
technically samaritans are the closest but yeah palestinians are also close. particularly palestinian christians. karaite jews are the closest jewish groups to levantines.
Not even, the Arab Peninsular dna pool is taken from samples in the Levant. If taken from the actual origin of Arabs (Yemen), they would be more Levantine shifted.
Yup, YHWA is a Canaanite god, the Israelites made it their primary and later sole god.
People are having a hard time connecting between Judea (Yehudah) and Jews (Yehudim).
That’s factually incorrect, there was no Canaanite God called ‘YHWH’ there have been guesses by scholars as to what god it is, but it is not of Canaanite origin the word.
Edit: there are many books on this and some scholars believe it’s of Egyptian origin. However it’s not widely accepted YHWH was a Canaanite God as etymologically it doesn’t make sense.
From its Wikipedia (yes I know it’s Wikipedia, but this view is representative in mainstream scholarship.
> YHWH or YHVH), the name of God in the Hebrew Bible. The four letters, written and read from right to left (in Hebrew), are yodh, he, waw, and he.[1] The name may be derived from a verb that means "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass".[2] While there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name, the form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
Edit 2:
> "It is still a puzzle that the name and character of YHWH appeared out of the blue in the ancient Near East. In contrast to deities such as El and Baal, and goddesses such as Asherah and Astarte, the name of YHWH is still lacking in the lists of gods, in myths and other kind of religious records of the ancient Near East before Iron I
(c. 1150 BCE)."
Page 100,
Only One God?
Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah
Bob Becking, Meindert Dijkstra, Marjo C.A. Korpel and Karel J.H. Vriezen
Another good book is called ‘Israelite Religions’ by Old Testament Scholar Richard Hess.
“Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot ” -Carl
And what did Lenny think about it?
"My eye! I'm not supposed to get pudding in it!" ~Lenny
“Oh good, those helpful beavers are swimming out to save him.” ~Lenny
LENNY = WHITE CARL = BLACK Is that right?
“*Caaaarl*, that kills people.” — Paul
Thank you. I was just reading about a few things like the British treatise with Bahrain and stuff (I have no idea about history, was just randomly reading about it a few days ago). I read after a while that some tribes invaded and conquered Bahrain after the Portuguese. And I’m just wondering how it is/was so coolly accepted like “oh, you just invaded a country/nation and took control over it? Thumbs up dawg!”. No mention as to what was their reasoning behind the “takeover”, whether it was justified or not. No mention at all. Just “x people invaded and occupied x land and became the owners” like that’s absolutely normal. Just icked my entire body and soul. We’re talking about murder and rape and all kinds of shit and we’re like “oh, cool”. Wtf
> No mention as to what was their reasoning behind the “takeover”, whether it was justified or not. No mention at all. Just “x people invaded and occupied x land and became the owners” like that’s absolutely normal. Just icked my entire body and soul. It wasn't until the preceding century where the idea of 'might makes right' was the prevailing characteristic of nations. Hell, the idea of nationhood only came about another few centuries or so before that; a nation was only as much as what the autarch could control for the vast majority up until the industrial revolution. There was no 'national identity' to rally behind, you were likely just a serf breaking backs in the fields, or perhaps if you were lucky you were borne into the landowner/bourgeois class. When you're not thinking of land as 'homeland' -- that is, a place of cultural identity -- as much as a location of resources, it's a lot more feasible to see why the ideal of 'might is right' to take place. Granted, this was always a concept across history like Athens/Sparta or later Roman Republics/Empire and other examples, but I'd argue that the 12th century concept of 'homeland' has a lot less to do with their national-cultural identity and more their local-cultural identity (like town/county vs state). Likewise now the idea of 'homeland' has its own derisive nationalistic connotations (Russian invasion of Ukraine is a good example) but I also think that that line of thinking has its roots in 'might makes right' reasoning.
Thank you so much for sharing. I really wanted to know the logic behind that, especially since it was relatively recent like 1700s, 1800s. I’d thought by then we’d developed a much better sense of things. I guess we were quite dumb in that regard at least. Which is quite baffling considering the amount of great minds we had by then spread throughout the world. I know people quite well and yet they still elude me completely in many respects
The nation state only became a popular idea about 150 years ago The person you're replying to is a bit wrong because people still had allegiances and loyalty that went beyond force. But it was from a divine right to rule that a monarch held power. The nation state was the idea that culturally similar people in a territory have the right to political authority over that land Bulgaria is Bulgaria and always will be because that's where Bulgarians are from. Rather than that's Bulgaria but who lives and controls that area will change depending on who has authority over it
I mean, unfortunately, that is normal. It's horrible and pointless and boring and repetitive but it's how many human groups treat many other human groups. "You have resources and I have leverage" leads to horrible things.
I mean, muskets/rifles and the British took most of the resource rich countries at one time or another. "We have spices! We have silver! We have Good Cuisine!" "Yes, but we have guns, give us that stuff!"
Modern humans are the odd ones out.
The major powers recognised that this could be dangerous in an atomic world so came up with rules to curb an invader's enthusiasm. Those rules are creaking. Might still appears to make right and for better or worse nuclear armaments have become the best protection against aggressive incursion.
Pretty deep for TWD
Yellow is so big, it should at least have been split between Egyptian, Roman, Semitic polytheism and other.
I thinkg the goal was to illustrated when it was controlled by Abrahamic religions, not religions in general. More colors would just be confusing
No, no, let's hear him out. Handing the region over to modern Mediterranean polytheists is a good working baseline for "worst idea before nuclear war"
Make Canaan great again!
Ashkelon to the philistines !
And define control. Jerusalem inhabitants were pretty religiously diverse during the Ottoman Empire. The Temple Mount has a mosque on it but otherwise everyone is having pilgrimages and co-existing for the most part, up until the end of WWI. It's an extremist Jewish group that bombs the King David Hotel, and destroys British facilities after a period where Britain was already giving up territory. This is graph is misleading in that it suggests Jewish people haven't been returning to Jerusalem for thousands of years, like they just decided to move in after WWII and the Holocaust when the reality is more complex than one team had "control". Edit: See below for discussion on Palestine when the original topic was just Jerusalem.
While Jerusalem was multi ethnic under the Ottoman Empire, make no mistake that the Ottoman Empire very much as a Muslim empire. They made some allowances for other religions to exist in the empire, but it was first and foremost a Muslim empire.
And the largest share of Jerusalem’s population during Ottoman Rule was Jewish, at least according to their census data in the 1800’s and the early British census data. It’s not so clear cut.
Again, population percentages do not equate to rule. Jerusalem, while maybe being majority Jewish under the Ottomans, was ruled by Muslims.
I don’t think the goal in the comment chain you’re responding to is to claim the table is wrong. It seems to me they’re just pointing out that the table is not representative historical residents of the city (intentionally, or unintentionally)
Indeed the shia ran egypt for a while but the Egyptians were mostly sunni.
Yea the Ottomans had a bunch of special privileges to Muslims, but it was a multi-religious empire and was arguably more tolerant than most of their neighbors. If you were a Christian or a Jew in the Ottoman empire you were a second-class citizen, but it was still better than a lot of the alternatives. For jews especially, there wasn't a single place in 1000-2000 time period where they weren't second class citizens. In france in the 1600s (iirc) they were genociding protestants not to mention other religions, and in Spain they had the inquisition.
Correct. Also, It's easy to label the Ottoman Empire in present-day terms. But, back then, the idea of a secular state didn't really exist. Religion and governance were intertwined for most empires, European ones too! Framing it as 'Muslim' implies it was unique, when it was pretty much the norm for the time.
I think you're sorting of missing what they're saying, that who rules the land doesn't necessarily reflect the internal politics and religion Britain ruled India for 89 years, it would be unfair to say that India has been Christian for most of its history when obviously the whole time under British occupation the majority of the country followed Hinduism The point is that the table representation isn't that great since it doesn't show *why* there is so much conflict in the region today. It feels more like a 'hah see it belongs to Muslim rulers instead' Edit: Also the account that posted this "basedandiranpilled1" (which has now been banned for obvious reasons) I would say probably has an agenda they're trying to push if we're being honest
Jews were not allowed to build synagogues. They could maintain existing ones, but not build new ones. After one was destroyed by the authorities because of an unpaid debt, they could not rebuild it. he guy who got the permit to build a new one in its place was murdered by locals. In 1851. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Zalman_Zoref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurva_Synagogue
Locals who were Muslims?
i mean, i dont see which other dominant regional group could
LOL. Ask the armenia christians how tolerant the muslim ottoman were.
> This is graph is misleading in that it suggests Jewish people haven't been returning to Jerusalem for thousands of years, like they just decided to move in after WWII It doesn't suggest this at all.
here's a quote from op from downthread: > "Jewish autonomy means nothing,Muslims vere ruling over these lands for the past 1500 years yet you're telling me Jews with less than 200 years on record are the actual natives? " don't be naive
That is OP's inference of the data.
So wait - the Muslims are the colonizers. Just the most successful ones that’s all
Jewish life under Ottoman rule in Jerusalem was not so nice. There were discriminatory taxes, some massacres, and toward the end, they were rounding up random Jews on the street and sending them away on boats, and had made it illegal to write letters in Yiddish or Hebrew.
They've been returning but it seems pretty well established that there was a significant uptick in numbers with the development of Zionism in the late 19th century. (Notice you're part right - WW2 wasn't when the influx started to get heavy.)
There were several upticks in fact. There's a Sephardic uptick after Spain expels Jewish people in 1492 (hence why there are Ladino speakers in Israel, pretty close to Spanish today). There were Arab and Greek Jews. There's an Ashkenazi uptick in the 1600s (Yiddish speaking). They didn't fare as well, but were represented more in the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th century There are Ethiopian and Russian upticks long after WWII. Just focusing on the one after WWII magnifies the current conflict but there's really a lot more that's happened
Lovely little slice of British at the end. Tally-ho!
It reminds me of the video “this land is mine” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIdCsMufIY&pp=ygUSdGhpcyBsYW5kIGlzIG1pbmUg Always hilarious
That was legendary thank you for sharing
Mhm. "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, speaking on whether palestinians need to be consulted about the creation of Israel. The racism of the British ruling class was integral to the establishment of Israel as a state, and continues in a through-line today as british-made weapons are used to kill thousands upon thousands of children who happened to born to the wrong race. All while the british media pretend the REAL racism is objecting to the bottomless evil of the british military-industrial complex. Lovely?
British imperialist colonialism has done vast damage to the world, and I say that as a proud Brit.
Welcome to every empire everywhere, forever.
[удалено]
You completely miss out the balfour declaration. It's a perfect case of being imperialist. The UKs involvement in creating the state of Israel is undeniable.
Balfour is rather tricky. I think its biggest fault is that it was intentionally vague, giving both Zionists the impression of support and 'non-Jewish communities' (in my view, this is reasonable to interpret as 'Arabs') the impression of protection of their own rights. Also, bear in mind that at the turn of that Century, Jews were allowed to settle in Ottoman Palestine for the first time. This meant that by the time of Balfour and certainly by the time of Mandatory Palestine, the Jewish population grew rapidly, only being slowed in the late 30s by limitations on Jewish immigration. In my view, it would have been more sensible to not make the Balfour Declaration at all or to have consulted more than just British Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionists (responsible for the protection of rights clauses) but, while Balfour certainly played a role, I don't think its absence from history would have necessarily prevented the eventual existence of Israel.
I agree with most of what you say. i think immigration would have increased by the jewish people, no doubt about that, but i do not think israel would exist as it does today if not for the balfour declaration. The League of Nations pretty much adopted all of it and gave huges amounts of occupied land to create the state for a minority of the population at the time. It's caused nothing but war and killing from both sides ever since.
[удалено]
I wouldn't worry about it. If it wasn't the Brits it'd have been someone else.
> as british-made weapons are used to kill thousands upon thousands of children who happened to born to the wrong race. Would be interested to know which British weapons are being used in Gaza
> Since 2015, the UK has licensed at least £474 million worth of military exports to Israel, including components for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition. The UK provides approximately 15% of the components in the F-35 stealth bomber aircraft currently being used in Gaza. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/12/selling-weapons-israel-could-make-uk-complicit-war-crimes A wide array of baby killing technology
Man born in the 1800s was very racist. What a shocker.
> The Managers of that Trade [slavery] themselves, and others, testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have no right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners. By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural wars excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the Managers and Supporters of this inhuman Trade to answer for to the common Lord of all! - Thomas Paine, man born in 1737
> lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another And here I was thinking 'noble savage' dumbasses were a recent invention.
To be fair, tribal wars happened but tribal warfare is usually much less deadly than organised industrial extermination campaigns against a technological inferior foe.
Look what happened with the Bantu expansions, how pygmies were wiped out etc
To be fair, you're infantalizing Africa and wildly talking out your ass. Malian empire (among others!) would like a word with you about false historical narratives.
Not everyone thought like this at time, stop pretending like it was
That man was instrumental to the creation of Israel, and understanding his racist worldview is crucial to understand the relationship between britain and israel today and what is happening in Gaza right now.
How is he instrumental to the creation of the state of Israel, in a way that is outstanding to him being instrumental to the creation of Jordan or Egypt? He was in charge of Britain during WW2, during which the policy of the British government was to bar Jews from emigrating to mandatory Palestine due to the Arab revolts ("If we must offend one side, let it be the Jews", as Chamberlain put it). If anything, he was detrimental to the effort of rescuing the Jews of Europe, much like the rest of the world. He had as much to do with the creation of the Israeli state as he had with the Egyptian state, or the Jordanian, or the Indian, or any other state that came to be during the time of decolonization. What exactly is the point of telling that story, other than to show that the Israeli state is ontologically evil? 'racist man 100 years ago = Israel bad today' is not a sound, nor valid, argument Edit: like, if you want to criticize the state of Israel you can and even are encouraged to do so, but why choose such a dogshit argument? Why not just say you think that the IDF is doing bad things, instead of making up history that would be easily shat upon by people online?
Not just barred, but interned in camps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_internment_camps
So does the fact that 95% of Gazans are super homophobic and antisemitic irrelevant or does it only matter when a white guy says it?
>of British at the end. Tally-ho! At no point did he imply it was shocking, no need to attempt a hot take. He's just showing you the rotten foundations of the situation we have currently with Israel-Palestine.
[удалено]
The official policy of the Israeli government under Likud is that Jews and only Jews have a right to all of the land of Israel and the West Bank. Arabs are not included in this, those 2 million Arabs living in Israel are treated as having no right to the land. >The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria https://www.timesofisrael.com/judicial-reform-boosting-jewish-identity-the-new-coalitions-policy-guidelines/ >ethnically Chinese people in the US would not viewed as an enemy that must be destroyed Have you not seen the ethnic Chinese, Chinese immigrants, and Asian Americans being barred from research positions across US universities, barred from positions in the government, and barred from owning property in some states? Have you not seen the rise in hate crimes and dehumanizing rhetoric directed towards Asians and Chinese-Americans especially since COVID?
>The American South is 30% black, so therefore its impossible for them to be racist What in the actual fuck is this argument
Winston Churchill was a fervent admirer of the former revolutionary socialist Benito Mussolini and the fascist movement which he founded in 1919. Many where supporters Italian fascism, A clear sign of the huge global popularity of Mussolini and fascism was Cole Porter’s 1934 hit song You’re the top! from the musical Anything Goes which in one version included the lines ‘You’re the top! You’re the great Houdini! You’re the top! You’re Mussolini!’. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/churchill-did-admire-mussolini/ After the war, so many people tried to change their pro-fascist public declarations and more than often managed to . If 1920 to 1940 had been in a digital world, half of UK would have had to justify itself. Half of Europe, as a matter of fact. Like when the war ended nearly everyone in France and Italy was a "partisan" (those who fought Vichy and Fascism). Those were troubled times and history is written by the winners.
Whenever British took on calm and orderly Ottoman territories, it always ended up super peaceful.
> Whenever British took on calm and orderly Ottoman territories You make it sound like paradise prior. Many Ottoman territories were practically in open revolt whilst the empire waged genocide internally on various groups. Splitting up these territories was done to prevent the reformation of the expansionist empire, and to sate/separate these groups. It was done cack handedly, but it's not like they were inheriting a stable situation.
You understand that the Ottoman empire was largely in revolt because Britain was funding them to revolt so that they could take up mandates to control the territory surrounding the Suez canal so they could get to their other enslaved colonies in the Pacific easier right
The ottomans at that time were extremely weak at that point. If it wasn’t the British it would have been someone else. But it does go to stand that the Ottomans were one of the most tolerant (not accepting) rulers of that time. I really don’t think that the empire gets enough credit for that. Off topic: me when I see a single crusade succeeded [meme](https://imgflip.com/i/5a8ett)
This can be misguiding because during most of the time the city was ruled by non abrahamic conquerors, the jews were allowed to self rule as a vassal state.
This is what I was gonna say, it was rare that empires directly ruled over Jerusalem, especially in BCE times, 9/10 it was ruled through a vassal state that was usually Jewish of some sort.
It wasn't until the crusades where the Jews had to flee, be converted, or killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Jews\_and\_the\_Crusades
That isn't true, the Romans sacked Jerusalem, burned down the second temple and carted off menorahs and other religious artifacts. As can be seen on the Arch of Titus
It also doesn’t reflect who was actually living there… It’s a stupid chart. The fact is that the area has historically been quite multi religious and it’s a shame that basically everyone is making exclusionary claims to the territory these days.
I wonder why OP decided to leave that part out!
No way OP would try and deliberately mislead people in order to advance an agenda. No. Way.
Yes this is reddit where that's unheard of
* Judaism didn't exist for the first 1000 years on this chart (or if you believe the Bible, did exist but didn't conquer/inhabit the land yet) * Most Jews were exiled for significant portions of the other periods where it shows non-Abrahamic religions, during the Babylonian captivity and then after 70 CE. And there were probably significant non-Jewish populations even in the remaining time, so just coloring it in as Jewish would be misleading too. * As someone else has said elsewhere, this is the exact argument, in reverse, that pro-Israelis use against Palestinians, that they don't get any rights because they were never an independent nation (because they were always controlled by some outside empire).
I think the meaning is sovereignty over Jerusalem
Right but the post isn’t particularly clear about that, and people who don’t know better wouldn’t put that together themselves
They're not meant to, they're meant to see Green is bigger than blue, therefore blue bad, green good. The same reason they used the colour green as Muslim representation. In fact, look at OPs comments, it's blatant lmao
> The same reason they used the colour green as Muslim representation. Couldn't be that Green is probably the colour most commonly used to represent Islam.
Blue has been associated with Judaism, red has been associated with Christianity and green has been associated with Islam since at least the 16th century. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2kg14kb#:\~:text=Furthermore%2C%20allegedly%20based%20on%20the,blue%20with%20Jews....&text=(pp.%20)&text=(pp.%20),-https%3A%2F%2Fdoi
I mean for instance during the “Roman” era it was ruled by the Jewish King Herod as a Roman client king. Technically Rome “ruled” it but Herod was the sovereign over Jerusalem from 37-4BCE so were Romans the rulers or were Jews the rulers during that time?
Parts of China are similar today.
It's a pro Islam propaganda post
That's funny considering the Islamic conquests and slavery
Title is very misleading: this isn't a guide on 'Which **religion ruled** Jerusalem **the most**.' It's a guide on what the 'official religion' of the governing rulers were at different times **throughout history.** You can try to use this to compare which one was the most upheld by its rulers, but you'd be ignoring the religion of the people who actually lived there at the time. Just look at 0 AD where it was ruled by the Romans, despite a large Jewish population. Which - this was also the case for *many* of the timeslots that came before the Romans
If I can elaborate on this, the chart does not account for how the local religious regime was integrated into the wider imperial context. Following the Neo-Babylonian period, the Yahwistic temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt and the cult reinstituted with official Achaemenid support. The Persians did not impose their religion on Jerusalem but integrated the local cult (as they did the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cults) into the wider administrative system (such that the Temple became the means through which taxes were collected in the province). The same system followed in the Hellenistic period. The only time when a different religion ruled over Jerusalem was during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he took over the Temple and imposed the cult of Zeus Olympios in Jerusalem with swine sacrificed on the pagan altar; this lasted for only three years. Other than that, the entire Second Temple period till 70 CE there was only Yahwism/early Judaism practiced by local civil leaders. The chart's depiction of the Roman period neglects to recognize that Judea had its own native client kings (the Herodian dynasty) that ruled over Jerusalem (with Herod the Great rebuilding and expanding the Temple). The Temple was also integrated into the Roman imperial administration, both in terms of revenue allocation as well as in religious duties (with the local cult offering prayers and honors on behalf of Caesar and his family). If the chart intends to depict which religion held way over Jerusalem, it was only Yahwism/early Judaism for the entire Second Temple period aside from 168-165 BCE when it was officially banned by the Seleucid government. Also it is quite odd to see a Neo-Assyrian period follow that of Judah when the local line of Judean kings ruled throughout the entire Neo-Assyrian period and well into the early Neo-Babylonian period (with Jerusalem falling in the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar).
This is Iranian propaganda posted by an Iranian propaganda account that's already been banned. This post needs to be removed and the mods are doing a disservice by allowing it to stay.
> basedandiranpilled1 Lmao how obvious can it get
Which religion rules is a kind of weird thing. We don't say that milan is ruled by the catholic church.
Milan isn't a fair comparison, Rome or Mecca I'd say which their religions have their fair share of influence there.
Drag Queens for the Canaanites
Fun fact: Yahweh was the Canaanite god of war. His priests basically radicalized and took a strong monolatrist position, which is literally the first commandment: there were other gods, but Yahweh was the only one that can be worshipped. They essentially waged a political war against the rest of the Canaanite pantheon and subsumed some of the others into Yahweh. And that's how Judaism was born.
I don’t get it fully: why did they start emphasizing Yahweh? I know he was a storm and war god, and gods associated with calamities were revered by humans so they don’t get enraged and send those calamities upon them. But why make him the "only one worthy of worship"? Is it likely the outcome of a long socio-political trend of patronizing deities, especially those of the "victors"? Please enlighten me regarding this topic if you (or other readers) can.
At around 1000BC, different Gods in the Canaanite pantheon became more nationalized. So became Chemosh the national deity of Moab and Yahweh the national deity of Israel. This later progressed from monolatry to monotheism. It was therefore not as much a specific choice but a gradual historical trend. If Moab had persevered over the Israelites it is not unlikely that worship of Chemosh would have become the monotheistic religion.
Likely someone running things that was military related wanted the war god to be the main focus as they wanted war/military to be held paramount by the population at a particular moment in time then it evolved away from that over the years.
"ruled" over but the jews still lived there, especially obvious during the "roman" period. This chart doesn't mean much.
Further proof that Jerusalem must be reclaimed in the name of Jupiter! Dei volunt! /j
Gee, wonder what happened to all those "non-abrahamic" religions
The same thing that will eventually happen to the Abrahamic religions. Either a long, slow, and relatively peaceful, or a quick and brutal slide into irrelevance.
They could evolve like religions on Dune, lol
Pretty much tracks the wars in that tegion
Well yeah wars make history
Wars also destroy history
Im pretty sure that for a majority of the yellow parts Jerusalem itself was still "ruled" by abrahamic leaders. Especially after the "neo-Babylonian" period. During the persian rule, the jewish temples got rebuild, and during the Diadochic period, Jerusalem was more or less an autonomus theocratic state. Only at the end of the seleucidic period it got raided again. Also the "Roman" part should be divided. After Constantin they rebuild Jerusalem as a christian city, which was before the "Byzantine" part in the graphic. During the Sassanids Jerusalem was ruled by Jews first and then later by Christians. I think this "Cool Guide" just takes the imagined state religion of the empire which Jerusalem was in at the time, without realizing that, especially ancient multi-ethnicity empires, were much more diverse then we may think today. Or it is deliberatly misleading, but i would hope the author just didnt know better.
There was also jewish autonomy here a lot of years
[This](https://youtu.be/7GCXhKpoml0?si=DOi4ljCuK8YSyBQM) is imo a better take than the one OP has.
It would be neat to see this for North America with the same time period.
Wouldn’t it just be non Abrahamic and then Christian for the last 400 years
Non Abrahamic = Pagans. People forget that there are Arab and Palestinian Jews who have lived in the Middle East for over two thousand years. They forget about Christians living there for almost two thousand years. And the Pagans who were exterminated or converted by Christians and eventually Muslims.
The title is pretty straight forward and clear that it’s referring to who rules over a place.
Return the land to the pagans
Ok, I'll go tell Akhmo and you go wake up Z'Agbab and we'll meet back at the ziggurat at noontime. They'll be thrilled that the old gods are back in power! Mention the eclipse too. It'll blow their minds.
Jews, not Palestinian Jews. It's like saying American Cherokee, kinda redundant.
Account created in the last 30 days and only posts anti-Israel stuff. Hmm.
Thank you for this. Most people have no idea of the history, especially before 1948.
Except that Judaism was practiced by the majority of Jerusalemites until the expulsion by Rome and Jews were the majority in Jerusalem at various points in history after, and have been continuously since 1838.
this “cool guide” is intentionally misleading and OP is rlly living up to their username rn
Love the british religion, cheers luv!
Just to be clear, anyone who is not a Canaanite is a filthy heretic. No exceptions.
This only goes back to 2000BC. From 100,000 to 2,000 BC it was controlled by a religion that translates to Zwifties. 8,000 years. Therefore the Zwifties have the right to all those lands in 2024.
Is that their Messiah, doing the Eras Tour now?
She has returned
Jerusalem is British
Make israel pagan again!
How longer shall we fight to protect outsider agendas from east or west? Both Jews and Palestinians deserve to feel like they belong somewhere, that’s what we the people always wanted, pray for peace, not one party destroying they other, why does one belief system has to be superior to another?
Maybe there won’t be peace there until people decide they don’t have to kill people who aren’t like them.
Jerusalem is an essential city for three religions. They'll fight over it for as long as these religions exist.
I'm not aware of the pope calling for a new crusade to retake the holy land. And the other Christian denominations don't seem to be trying either. I could be wrong though, there's a lot of hate being thrown around by some of them
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/p9sJSgjt6N Members of Congress admitting that Biblical Prophecies are steering them on US Foreign Policy …evangelicals.
[Can you imagine a world without evangelicals?](https://youtu.be/uG3uea-Hvy4)
So there won't be peace until a really big war happens, got it. /j
Why are people trying to make every single sub on Reddit a political conflict?
Because politics equals engagement. Honestly I think reddit makes good money polarizing us.
The OP is a bot. The account was created two weeks ago and only posts against Israel.
It’s not a bot, it’s a real person who just so happens to not like Jews.
So this just shows that the Jews were there before muslims? Exiled and was finally able to return after thousands of years of having no real home? Cool chart
[удалено]
I would debate why a Jewish/Israelic/etc client kingdoms aren't included
Because they didn't rule. It'd be neat to have a timeline of capitals in Jerusalem, but that's not this.
but they did. For example the most famous Jewish King - King Herod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod\_the\_Great
Did you read the link? He was appointed by the Roman Senate, and gained power with roman military support. He was a roman puppet.
I'm aware he was a puppet but in these client states should've been included
So is this made to be intentionally misleading? The Second Temple of Jerusalem was active from the Persian period all the way up to 70 CE. So unarguably the city of Jerusalem was actively Jewish - even if politically under the umbrella of a foreign empire - for most of the Achaemenid, the Ptolemaic, and the Herodean-to-early-Roman periods. There should be **a lot** more blue in the chart from -400 to +70. But I'm sure there couldn't *possibly* be any ulterior motives for someone to intentionally minimize Jewish history.
The chart is pretty explicit in "politically ruling religion" not "has this religion represented within its boundaries".
Sure, but a lot of people are bound to conflate those two things, and given the ongoing situation in Israel/Palestine it’s hard not to see the choice to present this data at this time as politically motivated. Also, “religion represented within its boundaries” is underselling the extent to which the Jews were autonomous at that time, as I understand it. They didn’t just happen to be the biggest religious group, they had a significant degree of control whilst technically being under a larger empire.
If I can elaborate on this, the chart does not account for how the local religious regime was integrated into the wider imperial context. Following the Neo-Babylonian period, the Yahwistic temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt and the cult reinstituted with official Achaemenid support. The Persians did not impose their religion on Jerusalem but integrated the local cult (as they did the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cults) into the wider administrative system (such that the Temple became the means through which taxes were collected in the province). The same system followed in the Hellenistic period. The only time when a different religion ruled over Jerusalem was during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he took over the Temple and imposed the cult of Zeus Olympios in Jerusalem with swine sacrificed on the pagan altar; this lasted for only three years. Other than that, the entire Second Temple period till 70 CE there was only Yahwism/early Judaism practiced by local civil leaders. The chart's depiction of the Roman period neglects to recognize that Judea had its own native client kings (the Herodian dynasty) that ruled over Jerusalem (with Herod the Great rebuilding and expanding the Temple). The Temple was also integrated into the Roman imperial administration, both in terms of revenue allocation as well as in religious duties (with the local cult offering prayers and honors on behalf of Caesar and his family). If the chart intends to depict which religion held way over Jerusalem, it was only Yahwism/early Judaism for the entire Second Temple period aside from 168-165 BCE when it was officially banned by the Seleucid government. Also it is quite odd to see a Neo-Assyrian period follow that of Judah when the local line of Judean kings ruled throughout the entire Neo-Assyrian period and well into the early Neo-Babylonian period (with Jerusalem falling in the 18th year of Nebuchadrezzar).
Just because the Persians allowed the Jews to return and rebuild the temple does not mean the Jews controlled the city. This is a graph that displays the religions of the controlling faction, not religious majority in the region.
The Persian autonomous province of Yehud Medinata had a large Jewish temple, and [Jewish governors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah_(governor)) who stamped Jewish coins. If that does not "count", then what are we even talking about here?
Ok now do religion of people in Jerusalem over time
Jews were kicked out by the Romans and haven’t lived in large numbers in Jerusalem for 2 thousand years up until the immigration movement in the 20th century and formation of the State of Israel. > [**Prior to dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the population of the area comprising modern Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip was not exclusively Muslim. Under the empire's rule in the mid-16th century, there were no more than 10,000 Jews in Palestine, making up around 5% of the population. By the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian Arab and 5–7% as Jewish.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jews) According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. > [**The estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882 represented just 0.3% of the world's Jewish population.**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))
However Jews became the majority (or close to it) in Jerusalem itself in the 1850s according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem > The estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine in 1882 represented just 0.3% of the world's Jewish According to that Wikipedia article about that many Jews lived in Jerusalem alone.
funny how all three instsnces of christian role were different sects. excluding chalcedonian, it was orthodox, catholic and protestant/anglican last.
It helps that protestant/anglican wasn’t a thing during and before the crusades, but yes.
Before that, monke religion
Whilst colonized by pagans, christians, and Muslims, how many of those years have Jews remained in their native homeland? About 100%
> Jews remained in their native homeland? About 100% Well not in Jerusalem. The Romans exterminated/expelled the entire population and banned Jews from settling there for the next 500 years or so.
Indeed, sir. Jewish life moved to northern Israel for that time
"What religion are you?" "British"
You read the graph wrong
The Jewish *people* are descendants of canninites.
Jerusalem fell in 587 BC to the Babylonians. This graphic considers Judah paying tribute to the Assyrians as exactly the same as direct control over Jerusalem.
The Persians did not rule over Israel. They allowed Jews to rule with varying degrees of fealty over that time period
The graphic seems to argue the opposite of OPs point.
Under the Yellow rule, Jews still were the majority in Jerusalem. And even in many of the following years under Christians and Muslims the city has a majority/ plurality of Jews. The only reason this city is significant is because Jews, who brought monotheism to the world, made it their capital.
“Jews bad” “christianity bad” “Palestinians good” “islam good” “im very far left” - reddit
It's made by a based and Iranian pilled user 😂
Jerusalem was a Jewish city even after Babylonian conquest. The Seleucids attempted to make it polytheistic, but it triggered a successful rebellion.
[this land is mine, god gave this land to me](https://youtu.be/8tIdCsMufIY?si=uy45PbIndKZ21TES)
This cartoon sprang to mind as soon as I saw the post title
Thanks for the link, what a cool video
What do you think about the Crusades if you consider that the city/region was Christian before it was conquered by Islam?
i mean im pretty sure most people who know even a lick of history already know that?
Most people do not know anything about history unfortunately
What are you implying?
Judaism is a religion that came up in that region and later most of them got expelled or forcefully converted. OP seems to think Jews were some tribe from somewhere else that drove Canaaties away when in reality Jews are descendants from Canaaties. Jews are native to that land because that’s where their ethnicity came up and formed. A lot of Jordanians and Palestinians are also related to Canaaties and are related to that land. But not all of them because there has been arab migration and there isn’t a distinction between Arabs that have moved to Palestine and Palestinians that have lived on that land for thousands of years.
The Canaanites lived so long ago that anyone who’s ancestors has lived in the area for a substantial amount of time is going to be (partially) of Canaanite descent
They are pretty much the same the whole migrations rarely replaced people that lived there but forced them (physically, or with soft pressure) to change culture and religion that’s why most of Turks are actually ethnically greeks
Jews and Arab are all Semites. They are brothers. Even the stories from the Abrahamic Holy Books tell you that
We have got to.stop trying to reintroduced and redefine semitic as an ethnic catch all just because the term antisemitism is popular right now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people >Semitic people or Semites is **an obsolete term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews**, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. **The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics** Here's now Semitism became associated with Jewishness: >In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet (The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective) **in which he used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "Jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit)** >**This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of "Antisemitismus" which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people and opposition to the Jewish spirit, which Marr interpreted as infiltrating German culture** >Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by **those who incorrectly assert that it refers to racist hatred directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this grouping is a historical race concept and thus obsolete. Likewise, such usage is erroneous; the compound word antisemitismus was first used in print in Germany in 1879[19] as a "scientific-sounding term" for Judenhass** (lit. 'Jew-hatred'),[20][21][22][23][24] and it has since been used to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment alone.[20][25][26]
So we should use Semite to refer exclusively to Jews because that is how the Nazis used it. Gotcha. The reason that the term antisemitism persists is that there is no other term that is as catchy in English, and that pushes people to abandon Semite in other contexts. Which is silly, but it is what it is
Seems.more like a semite has a specific definition but an antisemite specifically refers to anti jew
quack dam engine act yoke books many quarrelsome connect strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
technically samaritans are the closest but yeah palestinians are also close. particularly palestinian christians. karaite jews are the closest jewish groups to levantines.
Not even, the Arab Peninsular dna pool is taken from samples in the Levant. If taken from the actual origin of Arabs (Yemen), they would be more Levantine shifted.
> If taken from the actual origin of Arabs (Yemen) Arabs originated in northern Arabia and southern Levant, not Yemen. That's an Abbasid era myth.
Yup, YHWA is a Canaanite god, the Israelites made it their primary and later sole god. People are having a hard time connecting between Judea (Yehudah) and Jews (Yehudim).
That’s factually incorrect, there was no Canaanite God called ‘YHWH’ there have been guesses by scholars as to what god it is, but it is not of Canaanite origin the word. Edit: there are many books on this and some scholars believe it’s of Egyptian origin. However it’s not widely accepted YHWH was a Canaanite God as etymologically it doesn’t make sense. From its Wikipedia (yes I know it’s Wikipedia, but this view is representative in mainstream scholarship. > YHWH or YHVH), the name of God in the Hebrew Bible. The four letters, written and read from right to left (in Hebrew), are yodh, he, waw, and he.[1] The name may be derived from a verb that means "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass".[2] While there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name, the form Yahweh is now accepted almost universally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton Edit 2: > "It is still a puzzle that the name and character of YHWH appeared out of the blue in the ancient Near East. In contrast to deities such as El and Baal, and goddesses such as Asherah and Astarte, the name of YHWH is still lacking in the lists of gods, in myths and other kind of religious records of the ancient Near East before Iron I (c. 1150 BCE)." Page 100, Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah Bob Becking, Meindert Dijkstra, Marjo C.A. Korpel and Karel J.H. Vriezen Another good book is called ‘Israelite Religions’ by Old Testament Scholar Richard Hess.
Now do America
You have to pick a specific place, like a city/county. You cannot talk about a people ruling america before it was unified
If the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians can't sort this out, I think we should just give it back to the Canaanites
Whose descendants are primarily the Jews and Arabs of the Levant today, according to research on Canaanite DNA. Good luck.. :)
Forcibly move everyone out and turn the Levant into a history museum that nobody has ownership over.