I’m pretty sure it goes back much, much, further than that.
[0] https://chat.openai.com/c/83abf663-6011-4ed0-9a8b-f183d2e029...
Edit: why the downvotes with no explanation? I thought the same thing as the parent, and did some research, to discover the real history, that the Israel-Palestine tensions actually only go back to the late 1800s. I did some independent verification, but would appreciate being corrected if this is wrong.
I'd wager people aren't likely to be as methodical in their analysis of comments' verity on this topic as they might be normally. I thought US politics was polarizing, israel palestine legit seems to drive people to even further extremes
Wikipedia sometimes has similar problems, but it has generally gotten pretty good over the years on many topics. I still wouldn't cite Wikipedia on something so politically charged as the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The ChatGPT conversation has zero value as a source in the abstract.
> It feels just somewhat like when I was told not to use wikipedia in my early school days.
Do you understand why you should not cite Wikipedia?
If your objective is to get only first hand accounts, sure. But like wikipedia it's good as a source to find where to look deeper. I disagree there's zero value there. I often use it to generate a few things I go look at more serious sources for. Surely that's some value when web search's well has been well (heh) poisoned by ads?
>Do you understand why you should not cite wikipedia
If you find the primary source through wikipedia, did wikipedia provide "zero value as a source"? I don't think so. Bad analogy I suppose - I meant like how wikipedia was seen as not trustworthy to use even if you just used it to find the primary sources. I guess I should've said "use as a source" wikipedia not "cite" it.
You aren't using Wikipedia as a source but as a partial and severely biased index of the reference material. You must still be very skeptical because you have no idea what led a page's editors to include or exclude a particular reference. Frankly, you'd be better off contacting the reference desk of your local library. That's what it's there for.
From the transcript:
> The animosity that characterizes the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict has roots in the late 19th and 20th centuries and shouldn't be projected onto earlier epochs. The current conflict is influenced by nationalist movements, territorial disputes, and political developments of the last two centuries, rather than solely religious differences.
Imagine if the Cherokee fought the US government and somehow captured part of Tennessee. That would surely create hostilities between the Cherokee and displaced Tennesseans. But would you say those hostilities arose from what the Cherokee did, or the original conquest of the land by Americans?
Jews were banned from even entering Jerusalem (except for the day of Tisha B'Av) until the Arab armies marched in and took it from the Christians.
That same Wikipedia article says: "Josephus' death toll figures have been rejected as impossible by Seth Schwartz, who estimates that about a million people lived in all of Palestine at the time, about half of them Jews, and that sizable Jewish populations remained in the area after the war was over, even in the hard-hit region of Judea. Schwartz, however, believes that the captive number of 97,000 is more reliable"
The Judaean Jewish community was nowhere near wiped out by the 66–73 CE war, given the fact they were able to launch another sizeable rebellion against Roman rule (the Bar Kokhba revolt) in 132–136 CE.
And even after the Bar Kokhba revolt, significant Jewish communities survived in what is now Israel/Palestine – of particular note is Judah ha-Nasi, the redactor of the Mishnah, who was born during the Bar Kokhba war. The office of Nasi (leader of the Jewish community in Israel/Palestine) continued until the death of Gamaliel VI in c. 425. The Christian Roman Emperor Theodosius II refused to permit the appointment of a successor, which was arguably the decisive step in transferring the seat of leadership of the Jewish community from Galilee to Babylonia.
While it is clear that many Jews were driven into exile, killed or enslaved, it is also likely that a significant number succumbed to the temptation/pressure to convert to Christianity (and later Islam). How many is difficult to say; I wonder how many Palestinian Arabs have Jewish ancestors, it is possibly a quite substantial number.
Someone saying with a straight face "no, I really checked and it goes no further than this" about the Holy Land seems unbelievably naive, no?
The Crusades were a rather belated attempt by Christians to reconquer the territories they had lost to Islam – over 400 years after that initial Islamic conquest. They succeeded in the short-term – the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem endured for almost 90 years, and they managed to hang on to the coastal city of Acre (now in Israel's Northern District) for almost another hundred – but were ultimately unsuccessful.
Whereas, the current Israel-Palestine conflict is primarily a Jewish-Muslim conflict, not a Christian-Muslim one. There is a small Christian minority on the Palestinian side, but Palestinian Christians have no particular links to the Crusades; nor do Israeli Jews or Zionism have any particular link to it. Some of the Crusades (especially the First) involved antisemitic pogroms-but there were plenty of other pogroms in European history which had nothing to do with the Crusades, and by the time Zionism came along, other more recent instances of antisemitism were much more of a motivating factor than any of those as historically distant as the Crusades by then were. So, the Crusades were really a rather different historical chapter without much to do with the current one.
However, given that the historical crusades in Israel/Palestine have rather dubious relevance to the contemporary conflict, other “crusades” fought thousands of kilometres away are of even more dubious relevance
Whether that conversation happens to be accurate or not and to what degree, I don’t know, because the link fails to load.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
I read the Wikipedia article you cited, and I can’t find anything in it about conflict between Jews and Muslims in the early 1800s. The vast majority of the conflict of that nature it describes is 20th century; it mentions a few things happening in the second half of the 19th century, but I’m struggling to find anything in it about that in the early 19th century
Dhimmi also means "protected" but you may ask protected from what?
That's not a standard English term, I think you mean to say "Noahide". I am guessing you are getting your information from non-English sources.
In contemporary use, "Noahide" primarily refers to a religious movement which is a sort of "Judaism lite", of people who accept Orthodox Judaism's theological beliefs without formally converting to Judaism, and without following the vast majority of Orthodox Judaism's rules and rituals.
But, I think what you are actually referring to, is the concept in Jewish religious law (halacha) of "ger toshav", which is a non-Jew permitted to reside in the land of Israel. Formally speaking, contemporary Noahides by religion do not have the legal status of "ger toshav".
It is true that there are some clear parallels between "ger toshav" and "dhimmi" status. However, at the same time, there is a very fundamental difference – the Jewish laws of "ger toshav" have not been enforced in practice since the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE. The Rabbis engaged in a lot of development of those laws (as an abstract intellectual exercise, not a practical matter) since 70 CE, and so those laws as they currently exist in Orthodox Judaism have never been enforced in practice, and for all we know their pre-70 precursors were rather different. The State of Israel has never recognised the laws of "ger toshav", and the majority of Orthodox Rabbis believe they are impossible to apply in the current scenario (in which the Jewish Temple no longer exists, etc). Indeed, the majority of Orthodox Rabbis believe that the laws of "ger toshav" are not to be put into practice until the Messiah comes. There is a small minority of Jews who believe they can and should be applied today (such as the followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane), but that minority has never had the political power to put their beliefs into effect.
By contrast, dhimmi status has been a real thing in the Islamic world, not just a theoretical thing, for many centuries. There are a lot of disagreements between different schools of Islamic law (madhabs) on what the exact rules of dhimmi status are, and very often what Islamic scholars have insisted should be done in theory has had little to do with what actually happened in practice. Still, it doesn't really make sense to compare what has been, for the past 2000-odd years, a purely theoretical/hypothetical legal construct, with a legal construct which has actually been implemented in practice (to varying extents and in varying ways) in many societies for more than half of those 2000-odd years.
[0] there is somewhat of a debate on the topic in Orthodox Jewish sources, not that it makes much difference to the matter under discussion: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/513212/jewish...
Which, in itself, was a reaction to other developments. Zionists argued that Jews needed their own homeland in order to be safe from pogroms and potential extermination at the hands of European nationalists; the Zionist idea, obscure and fringe at first, only gained traction with the increase of anti-Semitic attitudes after the Great War.
To a big degree, current existence of Israel is a strange echo of the vicious nationalisms of pre-WWII Europe.