Suppose "Jerusalem" and "Mecca" were like "Istanbul" and "Constantinople": two names for one city.

[Boojatta]

Furthermore, suppose that prior to the military invasion from Medina, Mecca had been owned and managed not by people who might be called "Arab pagans", but by people who might be called "Arab adherents of Judaism."

Would the current conflict in Israel/Palestine then seem to be simply part of a long and unfinished history of invasions and counter-invasions?

Would the current conflict in Israel/Palestine seem to be a barbaric and anachronistic re-introduction of military force to settle disputes that have for a long time been settled through international law and peaceful diplomacy?

What is interesting is not only that people seem to be trained to see the ancient military invasion of Mecca as a completely acceptable form of violence, but they seem to have not even a fig leaf of concern for the rights of Arab pagans.

[tridim]

1. That's nobody's business but the Turks. nt

[YOY]

3. Even Old New York was once New Amsterdam.

Why they changed it, I can't say

People just liked it better that way!

[happyslug]

8. The Name changed to reflect it became an English instead of Dutch Colony

That was just after the Dutch took over New Sweden in about right is now the Delaware River. The Duke of York become the "Owner" of the New Colony so it was named after him (The Duke of York later became King James II how was deposed in 1688 but the Position of Duke of York Survived and thus the Naming of New York).

More On New Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden

More on New Netherlands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland

The English first Took New Amsterdam on August 27, 1664 (Changing the name to New York), but the Dutch Took it back in August 1673 and called in "New Orange" After "William of Orange as Lord-Lieutenant (stadtholder) of Holland" who became the head of the Netherlands in 1672. The City reverted back to the English and the Name of New York in November 1674. This remain the name even as William of Orange became King William III (Or William and Mary Rule) of England replacing James II (The Duke of York) in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. The term is King William and Mary, for Mary was the heir to the throne from her father, King James, but the country was ruled by William, even after Mary's death, the only time a consort of the ruling monarch had any power.

New Amsterdam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam

The Duke of York, second to the Price of Wales in right of inheritance to the throne of England. (No one has inherited the title, their either died without heir, or became King of England):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York

[YOY]

9. Sigh...tridim and I were quoting this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0X77OBJUg

[happyslug]

14. You have to be careful some of us do NOT listen to music,

and we will take historical references on their face NOT what the song writer wanted.

[happyslug]

10. The Greeks would object, it was their city for 1200 years

And the Greeks outnumbered the Turks even after the city fell to the Turks in 1453. Furthermore till the 1700s, the Ottoman Empire, while technically lead by the Turks, was more a Greek-Turkish Empire NOT just a Turkish Empire (This is reflected in the legend of Osman where one of his first supporters is a Greek Orthodox, who remained Orthodox). While most of his Victories were against the Greeks, these were the Greek states AFTER the Fall of Constantinople to the fourth Crusade in 1204. Osmas was born the same year (1258) as the Fall of Baghdad to the Mongols, thus the two largest cities in the world had been destroyed before he came of age. The Empire both had been the center of were a shadow of their former selves (The Mongols who took Baghdad called it the largest and richest city they ever took, and this is AFTER the Mongols had attacked China).

Anyway, in this collapse of both the Seljuk Turk Empire (Baghdad) and the Byzantine Empire (The Greeks took back Constantinople ending the Latin Empire in 1261) left Asia Minor open to anyone who had the skill to both conquer AND rule (and most rule is by consent, so a lot of willingness to agree to what the other side wants is important). This is what the Ottomans were good at, combining the Greek and Turks into an indefeatable combination.

The Turks subsequent decline reflected the break up of the Greek-Turkish alliance, as the Turks, technically in charge, revamped the alliance to become more and more pro-turkish and less pro-Greek. The old Greek Nobility slowly converted to Islam and with that conversion they left the Greek peasants behind, which further alienated the Greeks. Finally it was to much and the Greeks revolts and won their Independence in 1830 and throughout the 1800s expanded Greece to include more and more Greek Populated but Turkish controlled land. Finally this ended in the Greek-Turkish war of 1920, where the Turks did some ethnic cleansing of the Greek populations in Western Asia Minor (and elsewhere in Asia Minor). I should note the Turks deny this and blame the Greeks for Ethic Cleansing but we see no huge exchange of population till the Turks drive out the Greeks and most neural observers, while not holding the Greeks blameless, clearly show the Turks did most if not all of the Ethnic Cleaning.

This policy became worse in the 1950s when the Turks again made a move to drive out Greeks, this time from Constantinople.

For more see the following:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2968617#2970767
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2997039#2998967

The "Riots" (More accurately called a "Pogram" against the Greeks living in Istanbul in 18\955:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Pogrom

The law in Turkey is the Head of the Patriarch of Constantinople be a Turkish Citizen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Constantinople

Population displacement between Greece and Turkey since 1923:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

My point is the Greeks have a lot of History to Istanbul and dispute any comment that it is only up to the Turks, except by the right of force.

[angstlessk]

2. which year in the last century

did you actually make sense, boojatta? do you recall?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. you mean like

florence and firenze?
roma vs. rome?
bejing v. Peking?

Moskva v. Moscow?

I guess not.

If you can find it, take a look at the book covering the start of a jewish state in Palestine, and the study of Ben-Gurion, his negotiations with various Arab tribes, his discussions and attacks (and defenses) on Palestinian peoples, and his plans to take land away from Palestinian families who had been there for generations, without compensation, and how he forced a fledgling Israel to ban Arab labor, in favor of Jewish only labor. If you want to see how the friction started, that would be a good place to start.

When Hitler took power in Germany, BenGurion thought that would be a good thing, because he needed to increase Jewish immigration to support his plans for a state, and this gave him a great opp for moving bodies into the region.

it is a tangled, messy, bloody, shocking, and crazy region, with no logic or obvious solutions to many of the issues or problems that exist there. Just try finding someone with clean heands.

[TheWraith]

5. This sounds more like an alternate-history novel than a realistic analogy. nt

[Boojatta]

6. It's not realistic to anticipate riding on a beam of light.

Nevertheless, some people who teach non-creationist physics sometimes ask people to imagine riding on a beam of light. They call it a "thought experiment." Perhaps there are some creationists who will soon begin to put an end to the teaching of such "thought experiments" in public schools.

[Occam Bandage]

7. ...

Let me make sure I'm clear on the alternate history here, because it could be read several ways. I'm guessing the intended reading is this: In our alternate history, Jerusalem (in its current geographical position) was the birthplace of Mohammad. The inhabitants of Jerusalem--that is to say, the "Jews"--were and still are considered ethnic Arabs. The city was conquered outright in 630 by Mohammad's followers. The "Arab adherents of Judaism" remained in diaspora but persisted as a unified culture. Jerusalem/Mecca remained in Muslim possession (with the exception of a few brief instances during the Crusades) until the foundation of the state of Israel for those dispersed Arab adherants of Judaism.

In that case, let's go through the three questions:

1. I'd say the situation from this perspective would be exactly the same as today: While ancient rivalries would certainly factor into any analysis of the Israel/Palestine situation--as they do now--only commentators looking to advance a cultural or religious viewpoint would focus on ancient history. Analysts striving for neutrality would focus on the immediate causes of violence.

2. Probably not. Not, at least, any more than the current situation is. Frankly, I can't see any reason why there should be a difference; the only real things you have changed are: the ethnic identification of the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem; the year in which Jerusalem was conquered; and the elevation of Jerusalem to the most holy instead of the third-most holy city in Islam.

3. (Implied: "Do people consider the ancient invasion of Mecca to be completely acceptable?") Yeah, pretty much. The injustices of ancient history are generally only considered when they have some bearing on the mindsets and fortunes of modern groups. The Etruscans were conquered and utterly assimilated by Rome. Nobody particularly cares about their history or culture, or the injustices done to them, except academically. The Arab Pagans were conquered and utterly assimilated; therefore nobody particularly cares about them, except academically. Had the Jews managed to have been conquered/assimilated before the foundation of Christianity, they would today be considered no more worthy of concern than the Dacians or Bithynians.

...so, um...what does this have to do with religion or theology? It would seem that this would be better put in I/P.

[Boojatta]

15. "what does this have to do with religion or theology?"

This statement ... ---->
"The Arab Pagans were conquered and utterly assimilated; therefore nobody particularly cares about them, except academically."

... seems to have something to do with religion and/or theology.

[Occam Bandage]

16. I still don't see the connection.

Sure, they were people with a particular religion, and they ended up dropping it in favor of another religion after being conquered. The religion isn't really an active factor here, though, it's simply one of a number of things that can be expected to change when one culture supplants another. I'm sure that the inhabitants of Mecca changed their system of coinage, too, but the question as asked wouldn't really fit in a numismatics forum.

[Azooz]

11. Other history

When Arabs Muslims invaded Medina then Mecca no civilans were killed, None, nor in Jerusalem, nor in Egypt, nor in Iraq, nor in Syria. The original "invaders" all died off at the border of Tunisia but by then the Egyptians, Iraqis and Syrians became Arab and continued the push. Lots and lots of Roman, Byzantian and Persian soldiers, and death squads were killed, but no civilains. Nor were the holy places of any religion sacked or looted.

The Arab pagans were not killed, but instead they became Muslim, their famalies and tribes all still exist. The very worst enamies of early Islam, mentioned in the Koran as "the worst of all infidals" are my tribe and we are doing fine.

I speak of the 6th and 7th centuries only, the first century of Islam, after that Islam lost it's place among Arab Muslims and things went downhill from then on especialy with the destruction baught on by the Crusaders and the Moguls but even the Mogul armies became Muslim in the end.

Jerusalem - it's invader's name was Omar (raa), I think you will be suprised by how he did it, he was one of the original Arab pagans of Mecca. His military force was the most powerfull on Earth at the time, two huge armies of his took Jerusalim, but he had a big thick stick and would smack any of his generals with it if they even look wrong at a civilain.

Spelling button not working, sorry for any spelling mistakes.

[happyslug]

13. Not according to Greek Records (As to Jerusalem)

Now the conquest was quick (and more the result of Greek Weakness do to the recent war to the death with Persia and the need to revamp its army for that War) but people did lose they lives, the numbers were small for the Greeks decided the withdraw to Syria rather then fight but Civilians did lose their lives. This became worse during the Arab Conquest of Syria, the cities opposed the Arab Conquest but the Greeks in Constantinople was unwilling (Or unable) to field an army to relive the towns (Prob ally do the revamping of the Army during the War with Persia, the old Roman Mercenary Legion cease to exists being replaced by Themes, that raised Troops in area of Asia Minor in exchange for land in those same areas, sons served in the same Themes their father had to get the land when their father died. Land ownership and Military duty became one and the same, replacing the pay of the old Roman legions mostly because the Greeks no longer had to access to Silver and Gold to pay the troops and this way was the best way to pay them. This system survived not only the Arab Conquest but the later Turkish conquest (The System became the basis of the Turkish Army until just before WWI).

Side Note: If you would to ask a Resident of Palestine at the time of the arab Conquest who he was, he would have said a Roman, for since 212 AD all people in the Roman Empire had been given Roman Citizenship. As to the Citizens of Egypt, Palestine and Syria he would have spoke a variation of Arab (which includes Ancient Egyptian). In Asia Minor and the rest of the Empire he would have spoke Greek. The West was under Germanic Rule, but in the West most people still considered themselves Romans and spoke vulgar Latin (and if he could read and write proper Latin) even as they were ruled by Germanic people. In the 1700s an historian did NOT want his ideal Roman Empire be compared to the later Empire, so he started to call post-476 Roman Empire the Byzantine Empire, which was a name that has stuck (Through never used when the Empire actually existed, and it lasted till 1453). Thus my use of the Term Greek, Byzantine and Roman almost interchangeably in the above. All three terms are more or less correct.

[happyslug]

12. Napoleon avoided Jerusalem in his move from Egypt to Turkey in the 1790s.

The main reason was Jerusalem is an isolated high point, you do NOT need to control it to take any of the three main roads though Palestine/Israel/Judea to get from Egypt to Damascus, but it is a good based to Attack/Control such roads from any enemy forces from Syria or Egypt. Thus as long a no substantial troops are stationed in Jerusalem it has little military significance, but given its location a difficult military objective only needed if you intend to rule Palestine/Israel/Judea NOT just travel through it to more profitable areas (as was Napoleon was doing).

There is a debate on Mecca at the time of Mohammad. Had the caravan route from Yemen to Mecca to Medina to Palestine/Israel/Judea died out or was it still functioning at that time. Ethiopia had invaded and then withdrawn as the Persian and Roman Empire was fighting their battle to their deaths (Persia would lose and be conquered by the Arabs, the Greeks would win, and be pushed out of Egypt, Palestine and Syria by the Arabs). No one seems to have used the Red Sea for sooner or later you had to disembark from the ships and hit the Caravan route anyway (For 1000 years before most trade via Egypt had gone on the "canal" built by the Persian around 500 BC just after the Persian conquered Egypt for the first time, rebuilt several times including just before the lost of Egypt by the Roman/Byzantines/Greeks).

Anyway this seems to have been the main business of Mecca for centuries, but the debate is how much the trade had declined given the Persian-Greek war of the early 600s. It was a massive war, ending in the complete defeat of Persia by the Greeks, but a Greek Empire no longer capable of any further offensives action, including even trying to hold Persia (Which the Greeks never tried) Egypt (Which the Greeks tried, but quickly gave up, through did invade to retake it the year after it fell, but then left again) but did try to hold onto Syria (But lost it after losing the cities to the Arabs, while the rural areas seemed to embrace the Arabs as soon as the arabs invaded, few conversions, but support.

My point is it is hard to compare cities to other cities, most exist for some geographical reasons that applies only to that city (Mecca is on a Orris on the Caravan route from Yemen to Jerusalem). Istanbul in on the trade route between the Black sea and the Mediterranean, Jerusalem is on the edge of the farming line in Palestine/Israel/Judea and thus where a division occurred. In Desert areas, the fear by attack by Bedouins, so the need for Caravans. In farming areas such Bedouins were not tolerated so the need for a caravan did not exist (You could go as an individual in the farming areas, of you were attacked and could hold off the attackers the local farmers would help you, thus most thieves were small groups and left as soon as possible. In the deserts you did not have any local farmers, so thieves could, and did, operate on much larger numbers and do more extensive attempts at robbery, thus people traveled in groups (Caravans) for mutual protection. Thus you have the Caravan route from Yemen to Mecca to Medina to Jerusalem or Amman. From Amman the caravan would go to Damascus. From Jerusalem or Damascus individual traders would take the merchandise through the farming belt to the coast for shipment elsewhere.

Thus it is hard to judge one city with another, all are different, often to different for comparison like you are making.

first spot to get access to farming items including improved pasture and water for whatever animals are being used to haul items across the Desert. Ancient Philadelphia (Modern Amman) was another Orrises in the Desert, a good spot to stop and take a break but like Mecca more stop over then a place to disperse (Which is what Jerusalem and Damascus were noted for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amman