Rex Dyer

Hist-4510
5/1/2023
Professor Olomi
Contend for Jerusalem: How the Existence of Empire Aggravates Group Conflict
Jerusalem is the holiest city to those of the Abrahamic faith and the site of countless

conflicts between religious groups fighting to establish the city as belonging to their faith alone;

this is the traditional narrative that is given when discussing the middle east, a narrative that

when scrutinized falls apart as the historical record testifies a list of conflict that are aggravated

by the establishment of empire rather than mere religious conflict. Our modern view of middle

eastern history is heavily distorted by contemporary ideas and conflicts portrayed through the

lens of orientalism and imperial interests in the material; the narrative of an area inhabited by

hostile and backward nations in an eternal and bloody conflict over religious differences

evaporates when presented with human accounts of an intermingled(albeit unfair) history that

for the most part respected religious difference barring times of disputes and ingrained social

systems established by empires. The history of the middle east is one of the Empires

establishing their control over their subjects in an organic manner that did not require supreme

oversight of the individual’s life; however, as the practices of the Empire evolved, their control

expanded into the personal and cultural lives of those who lived within their provinces,

aggravating originally intermingled societies. The direction of these empires toward greater

local control is most evident starting from the Byzantine empire’s edicts regarding Jews in

Jerusalem to the establishment of the modern Israeli state; through these periods, we can see a

gradual shift from more intermingled religious societies existing relatively peacefully within
empires to more hostile relations between religious, ethnic, and nationalist groups, most often

driven by the interests of Imperial powers with greater volatility as they adopt a more colonial

mindset.

To understand the environment that formed these factors, it is essential to trace the

roots of the Empires themselves in their religious beliefs; this origin comes from the God of

Abraham, whom all three of these religions declare as their one God, not suffering the influence

of their polytheistic neighbors; the disagreements between these religions are cited as the

source of conflict over the holy land; However, this claim is shown to be made hollow by the

historical record which contradicts the politics and livelihoods of the groups within each of

these empires. One of the earliest cited sources of conflicts is the Byzantine removal of the

Jewish people from the holy land and the Jewish persecution of Christians within Arabia; these

events are often used as a foreshadowing and cause for the enmity between Christians and

Jews1; while this persecution no doubt warranted a response, it is undeniable that there were

significant imperial interests. The history of conflict between the Roman Empire and Judaism

precedes its adoption of Christianity following the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century

AD; we see a diaspora of the Jewish people across the Roman Empire alongside the growth of

Christianity under persecution. These persecutions and restrictions slowly changed as the

Empire adopted Christianity and moved its capital to Constantinople; religious conflict was

undeniable in this period. However, there is a definite air of imperial goals that appears when

looking at the later conflicts between the Byzantine Empire and the Jewish kingdom of Himyar;

we can see an apparent influence of political goals represented by the alliance between the

1
“Community of Believers” Olomi, Ali,
Byzantines and Ethiopians in their conflict against Himyar and the Sassanid empire 2, here we can

see a very early representation of using religious groups as justification for long-range

campaigns. This was only a shadow of what was to come later, the impact of religion on these

relations is undeniable, and the politics intertwined with it even more so.

The idea of religion and empire being intertwined is as old as humanity itself, evident

from the many artifacts and murals of ancient priest-kings across Mesopotamia in their claims

that their cause was holy; however, as the Islamic empires came to prominence, we can see

small shifts in how religion was viewed within the Abrahamic empires, as the caliphate brushed

aside the polytheists within their influence and asserted new regulations for their fellow

“Peoples of the book,” this expansion showcases the justification for uniting an empire on basic

tenants while tolerating differences. The origins of Islam are entrenched within the conflict; the

religion itself arose within a hostile biome that necessitated warfare and trading to ensure the

survival of a person’s clan; this land was also home to a massive variety of religions for the

weary travelers trading across the desert’s dunes, there were significant polytheist, Christian,

Jewish, and monotheistic groups that made their home in Arabia3, this was also where

Mohammad the founder of Islam established his expansion. The conflicts between Islam and

the non-Abrahamic faiths would set a pattern for future diplomacy and society; the Islamic ideal

was for tolerance for the groups they saw as having common ancestry with and swift

suppression of pagan faiths. Their belief in a need for expansion led to them exploding out of

2
Bowersock, Glen Warren. “Introduction.” Essay. In Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on
the Eve of Islam, 1–6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
3
“Community of Believers” Olomi, Ali,
Arabia and quickly subjugating their neighboring Sassanid Empire and offering friendship to the

Jewish populations; these groups were all too happy to throw off the yoke of the byzantine

empire4. This expansion is not dissimilar to other past empires that sought to subjugate their

neighbors. However, it is unique in how it established the relationship between members of the

Abrahamic faiths as an early sort of hegemonic control5, seeking to develop a social system to

stabilize the empire.

As Islam continued to expand outward, it came into more significant conflict with the

Byzantine Empire; their consistent victories would push deeper and deeper into Byzantine

territory until it required the assistance of Western Europe under the papacy, a conflict that

would set the foundation for an east vs. west conflict that would be reflected on for centuries.

As the Islamic caliphates drove deeper and deeper into the Anatolian heartland, the Byzantine

Emperor was forced to desperation, in his distress, he called for support from the Pope and the

kingdoms under the control of the Catholic Church6. This would lead to a general call to all

European Christians to join the First Crusade and jumpstart a wave of conflicts between the two

groups across the near east around Jerusalem, with notable claims for religiously inspired

atrocities occurring during the capture of Jerusalem and subsequent massacre. While this event

can be used to present a cut-and-dry view of the Crusades as a bloodthirsty war between two

fanatical empires seeking to destroy each other, many significant accounts prove that this is not

the case; with reports of integration between the Crusaders and Muslim people’s within the

area, the sharing of knowledge and development of friendships, that even in a high-intensity

4
“Pre-Islamic Arabia” Olomi, Ali,
5
“Umayyads” Olomi, Ali,
6
Armstrong Ch 13
environment that existed within the crusader states, there was civil society, Crusader and

Muslim leaders would even ally with each other for political gains.7 The accounts of what is

generally regarded as the most prominent religious conflict of human history refute the idea of

intercommunal hatred and subjugation; At the same time, there was still significant brutality

and alienation between groups, and the power of the Empire was not genuinely able to divide

its people along the lines of its power beyond what it could exert through hegemonic and

coercive means.

There was a significant change in how these relations were handled as the colonial era

began to take hold; the power of the empire was no longer the administration of the many

people within a nation’s borders, but with the creation of globe-spanning states such as Great

Britain, also comes the rise of a much more divisive empire system. This evolution in empire

building from a relatively non-intrusive state to a more biopolitical system is most apparent in

how it contrasts with the formation of the Ottoman Empire. While still a violent empire, the

Ottoman Empire exemplified cooperation and religious tolerance under its representation

system. This system focused on the idea of Ottoman identity that respected the existence of

smaller minorities within the empire; this system contrasted with the emergent colonial system

employed by nations like Great Britain, whose separation from their colonies led to a much

more detached administration. The colonial system under Great Britain focused on the

extraction of resources from their far-off colonies, employing trade companies and local

leadership to establish their power over the territory at the detriment of the local population;

the distance and lack of danger made it very easy to employ military force with little fear of

7
Armstrong Ch 13
reprisal to the British home isles. This system, combined with supporting minority groups within

other empires,8 created an environment of hostility.

This encroachment of the Empire into the everyday life of its citizens and a need to

cause division within its people groups due to nationalism justified through religious differences

has come to a head in modern-day Israel. The establishment of a new nation within the

traditional living space of the Palestinians, where there was once relative peace and coexistence

within the walls of Jerusalem; there is now an incredibly hostile and repressive environment

based on the ambition to find a Jewish homeland and create a power friendly to western

interests in the area9. The nationalism that formed the state of Israel responded to hostile

nationalism in Europe, leading to a cycle of deep intercommunal conflicts justified by race and

religion but originating in nationalist animosity.

In the growth of Abrahamic empires across the middle east, we can also see a change in

the operation of Empires based on establishing religious values and power to a new system that

sought to extract wealth from areas driven by harsh sectarian conflicts instigated by foreign

powers. This change was gradual but apparent throughout the centuries; the growing strength

of empires within the personal and community lives of their vassals would lead to a greater

need for control beyond just receiving tribute and reverence and would evolve past the

traditional formation of many peopled nations; instead turning into highly aggravated nation-

states based off religious or ethnic supremacy. As every new empire slowly began to master

their ability to control the interactions of its citizenry and influence its enemies, so came the

8
“Armenian Genocide” Olomi, Ali,
9
“Israel and Palestine” Olomi, Ali,
necessity to put identity as the focus for conflict exemplified through the many ongoing

struggles within the middle east.

Bibliography

Armstrong Ch 13
Bowersock, Glen Warren. “Introduction.” Essay. In Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on the Eve of Islam, 1–

6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Olomi, Ali, Slideshow Presentations