News
Smithsonian publishes first ever photographs of Jerusalem
Ynet
Published: 09.02.14, 00:03
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
11 Talkbacks for this article
1. No Shlomo's temple ? :( ,...
split ,   US   (02.09.14)
2. "Third holiest city"? No, a neglected backwater.
Raymond in DC ,   Washington, USA   (02.09.14)
Muslims may claim that Jerusalem is the "third holiest city", but even that's only for Sunnis; for Shiites, Jerusalem ranks a pathetic 5th place. But these photos suggest that, as Pipes has long argued, Jerusalem only has value to the Muslims if someone else holds it or seeks to hold it. Otherwise, as it was in the 19th century, it is a poor, neglected town of little significance. So too, as Mark Twain documented during his travels, was the rest of the "Holy Land". Even as the Jews became the majority of Jerusalem's population in the mid-19th century, authority remained in Muslim hands according to Ottoman law. Photos available elsewhere from the end of the 19th century show even the "holy" Al Aqsa mosque in a state of neglect and general disrepair. Now, of course, with the Jews on their doorsteps they're ready to die for it.
3. There Were More Jews Than Muslims In Jerusalem Even Then
Yishai Kohen ,   YeShA, Israel   (02.09.14)
Just shows how unimportant Jerusalem always was to them.
4. Jerusalem was a nearly deserted city in the 19th century
CJK   (02.09.14)
although the ottoman muslims were rulers at the time, it is obvious that they did not consider it important to build the city or to increase its muslim population. the ottomans, did expel jews from the city in the 16th century. hence, what is important to muslims, and continues to be important, is to make jerusalem a jew free city.
5. I see that he died in 1892
Henry ,   Benoni SA   (02.09.14)
I was not aware at that time there was a so called country of Palestine. I recall the area under Ottomon rule and countries were not yet named or shamed by the colonial british?Lies once again
6. #1 Shlomo's Temple destroyed in 600 BCE
Netanya ,   Netanya   (02.09.14)
I have seen your comments many times and know that you are not very bright. Shlomo's temple was destroyed about 2,600 yrs ago, while these pictures are from less than 200 yrs ago. The wall from the temple is showing still. The second temple. But where are all those "native" Palestinians here? More Jews were in Jerusalem in those days and today.
7. I think the Turks didn't care for the city.
lili   (02.09.14)
they left it in a state of ruin.
8. # 2 Even the sky was full of holes that time.
Harri ,   EU   (02.09.14)
Jerusalem was a beautiful city even that time. If you take any photo of any city from 1840s, everything looks rubbish. If you look NY photos from 1850, it looks like a ghost town. They took the pictures early in the morning, when there was much light and before people came to the streets. They had to avoid people, because the minimum shutter speed was about 1/2 s and people and horses can run few meters in that time. Don't fool yourself. Jerusalem has always been a beautiful and living city under every ruler, Jewish, Roman, Christian or Muslim. And it will be.
9. at split
common sense ,   UK   (02.09.14)
Split, why are you so filled with hate? All of your comments are alike. You need to relax and stop spewing filth- you will be a happier person.
10. Split Relax!
Claude ,   London and Cape Town   (02.09.14)
No No we don't want a relaxed Split, we want an enraged , angry Split fuming at his impotence against the Thunder of Israel. Imagine his blood pressure readings after each IL lightning strike. Call in the pharmaceutical Teva. Remember even with all those Split Peas you cannot Fart against Thunder.
11. Just a hypothetical question
Lynx ,   Palestine   (02.09.14)
Can anybody produce a shred of evidence that the so-called Temple ever existed? Or for that matter, that King David (if he did exist after all, and not a figment of the human imagination) ever roamed the alleys of Jerusalem? I am not denying the Jewish connection to the city - I'm just saying that any exclusive Jewish claim on this city is neither rooted in solid, undisputed archeology, or in international law. Besides, the city existed before Ur Shalim was ever uttered...and preceded the Jewish narrative, and that is not disputable! Finally, I find it interesting the difference between a similar article published in Haaretz last year which featured vivid and lively early photographs of the city from the late 1800s and early 1910's. The inhabitants were predominantly Arabs.
Back to article