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.
> 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?
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.
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.
they were merchants and artisans part of an international diaspora spanning thousands of miles, it was really an economic role that they chose to assume. they weren't victims of a racist occupation like arabs in the west bank today.
some would say that they were kicked out of their homeland so it wasn't really a choice but there's actually no evidence that this ever happened. for one thing, jews have always lived in judea and there's no record of them being expelled from anywhere there except the city of jerusalem in the 2nd century by the romans after they tried another revolt. there was a huge jewish diaspora before that revolt and even before the 1st century revolt. the jewish diaspora was likely primarily a result of economic migration and subsequent success of jewish communities in certain economic roles as a diasporic community spanning many different lands.
The only choice they had which would have allowed them assume any other role was conversion to Islam.
> no evidence that this ever happened
There is obviously evidence and there several major Jewish or Samaritan revolts until the Romans lost Palestine in the 600s with the last revolt being quite brutal.
Of course the scale of expulsions, forced conversions and massacres is not really known but the region was almost certainly majority Christian by the time the Muslims got there
> there was a huge jewish diaspora before that revolt and even before the 1st century revolt
There is no strong evidence of that either (depending on how one defines “huge” of course)
Islam allowed jews to own land, just like how it allowed christians to own land.
if there were several jewish revolts until the 600s that is evidence that they did not result in significant expulsions. the fact that the region became majority christian is not evidence of a major expulsion of jews and subsequent replacement by christians, likely they mostly converted just like how most christians would end up converting to islam. In any case it wasn't muslims who expelled them so they can't take it out on the indigenous muslims of the west bank.
there are records of jewish presence across the medditerranean region and the near east for centuries prior to the first roman jewish war
i am arguing against the idea that the romans kicked out all or most of the jews from palestine. I am not suggesting that no jews were ever expelled or sent away as slaves. I think the historical record is clear that the jewish diaspora would have existed even if not a single jew were ever forcefully removed from palestine. I also don't understand how it is relevant to the israel palestine conflict, palestinians aren't romans, they're the native inhabitants of the land, whatever really happened to jews in palestine 1500+ years ago is hardly relevant to any political disputes ongoing today. The fact of the matter is that palestinians can trace their ancestry to the land as far back as they can trace their ancestry, meanwhile most israeli jews arrived in palestine within the past 100 years, and before that their line was living elsewhere as far back as they could trace. There are palestinians that were kicked out in the nakba that are still alive today and hold the keys to their homes that they were dispossessed of. Did the zionists have that kind of verifiable and particular claim to the land when they came over?
All of it? Islam literally calls for violence and oppression of anyone who isn’t a Muslim. It’s literally in the Quran. Islam spread to many of the regions it is now in through invasion and genocidal violence. For example, they colonized India before Europeans did. They have completely erased the previous cultures and ethnic groups of the North African countries. Etc.
This is categorically false. The Quran explicitly says "There is no compulsion in religion". It teaches Muslims to say "You have your religion, and I have my religion". It tells Muslims to fight only those who fight them and "do not exceed the limits". In fact, it says God does not forbid Muslims from dealing "kindly and fairly" with non-Muslims who have not fought or expelled them.
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.