Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaveFr | Hacker News Reader

This part https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Edit: Sorry, I can't reply to your comment below, for some reason.

This part,

> Did you know that Jews lived among Muslims for over a thousand years in peace?

is revisionist because it paints second-class status for Jews as "peace". This is ridiculous, a fiction akin to "separate but equal" without even the pretense of equality.

Additionally,

> The violence started happening when the Zionists wanted the land for themselves, exclusive of the indigenous population (1948 nakba).

Is ahistorical. There have been small but continuous Jewish settlements in the region since antiquity, Jews are indigenous. Further, Zionist immigration started earlier than 1948, as early as the late 1800s, and finally, Arabs fled Israel to avoid the incoming invasion from Arab Muslim nations who, for bigoted reasons, could not tolerate a Jewish state.

View on HN

> is revisionist because it paints second-class status for Jews as "peace". This is ridiculous, a fiction akin to "separate but equal" without even the pretense of equality.

Let's agree for a moment that there was intense bigotry and prejudice, as I'm very sure there was some amount. As we can also agree, there is human tribalism alive and well to this day between people of minimal or great differences.

Separate but equal is not enslavement or extermination. Dhimmi was the basis for peace, not equality, and I haven't found a compelling alternative narrative.

> > The violence started happening when the Zionists wanted the land for themselves, exclusive of the indigenous population (1948 nakba).

> Is ahistorical.

While I can appreciate what you're trying to say here, the post you are responding to was describing a situation within the context of the Zionist state movement of the mid 1900s. The fact that there have always been Jewish settlements throughout the historical Levant (and beyond) is incidental. Neither of these points are without merit. I'm not sure arguing past each other about who deserves what is constructive.

(Looks like I can reply now) I feel I've pretty clearly answered your question of "what 'revisionist' means in that context". Dhimmitude is absolutely not a basis for peace. If it helps, think of Zionism as a civil rights movement, but more aligned with Malcom X than MLK.

I don't believe it's incidental that there have always been Jewish settlements, it's exactly the point: Muslims were fine with Jewish settlements so long as the Jews were subservient to a ruling Muslim power, but Jewish self-determination was intolerable.

I do agree that arguing about who deserves what is not constructive. 1948 was 78 years ago, there are ~10 million Israelis, and the country has nukes. The historical perspective is not very helpful here.

I think you’re ignoring the historical context. Jews were being systematically targeted all over Europe, and at the height of the Islamic empire they held ministerial positions in the royal court. Btw, as a native Arabic speaker, I find it extremely interesting how you’re using ‘dhimma’ to mean servitude, when it literally means those who were given an oath to be protected.

> I think you’re ignoring the historical context. Jews were being systematically targeted all over Europe, and at the height of the Islamic empire they held ministerial positions in the royal court.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Individual Jews held prestigious positions in Europe as well. So what?

> Btw, as a native Arabic speaker, I find it extremely interesting how you’re using ‘dhimma’ to mean servitude, when it literally means those who were given an oath to be protected.

Yes, the literal and practical meanings differ. And of course, relying on others for protection leaves you at their mercy and locks you into a position of submission towards your "protector". Avoiding that reliance is perhaps the primary purpose of Israel.

in creating, perpetuating, and expanding israel, the zionist jews betrayed the ones who had protected them for so long, hosting them on lands that for the most part never even belonged to the jewish people to begin with. israel is the only colony turned state in history to have been created by a people who were previously stateless, this fact alone should raise suspicions about the true history and legitimacy of that state.

who gave the jews a state? people think it was britain but britain agreed to the balfour declaration, an agreement made between zionist bankers and the british state which involved upholding the rights of the indigenous arab population and which did not involve the creation of a jewish state. how do you think jews got their state regardless? did britain change their mind and decide to give jews more than they agreed to give them?

The Israelis accepted the partition but the Arabs didn't.

The Arabs made war instead, lost, and so Israel won the land by force of arms, same as the vast majority of states.

why should the arabs have accepted the partition? what was the rationale behind the partition, who made the decision and what right did they have to make such a decision, what was the justification for a zionist state to begin with?

the arabs made war after the zionists started the nakba, if zionists weren't so aggressive the arab states likely wouldn't have sent any soldiers to fight, just taken economic and diplomatic measures.

in historical jewish states, how did they treat the people they conquered? not to mention, most jews in the muslim world lived well outside of their homeland in palestine, and that's not because the muslims pushed them out, they were there before the muslims conquered, and many times they helped the muslims conquer because they would rather have lived under muslim rule than christian rule.

It’s not clear what "revisionist" means in this context, especially when pointing to Dhimmi.

I’ve never heard of it before today. I’m aware that Jews and Muslims live in Iran today. There is historical evidence, including written accounts, that some arrangement (Dhimmi?) existed over 1,200 years ago—whether social, legal, cultural, or, most likely, a combination. Under this system, the religions coexisted without the overtones of genocide within their communities.

  today. I’m aware that Jews and Muslims live in Iran today

That is true, in the sense that there are more than two jews left in Iran.

5x as many Iranian jews live in the USA now. 20x in Israel.

Iran has a population of almost 100 million, and the Hollywood Bowl could seat its jewish population twice over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews

I found this: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/11/22/iran-drops-the-facad...

Which has been enlightening. Thank you for highlighting the tenuous situation in Iran, which is not favorable toward Jews. This does shed light on the affair and seems credible to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com