Shared with respect, from someone trained to see what narratives omit as much as what they include.
— צפה | Tsafah| The Observer

This is not political—it’s methodological clarity. Including Israel/Judah would enrich your project and align it with modern archaeological and textual scholarship.

A collapse that transforms rather than disappears belongs in your framework. Ignoring the Jewish case risks repeating an unconscious, inherited anti-Jewish bias in mainstream historiography.

Your series covers every major Near Eastern collapse except the one whose aftershock still shapes religion, ethics, geopolitics, and even the idea of resilience. That absence is not neutral.

Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE is one of history’s most consequential collapses: a state destroyed, a population exiled… yet a culture that uniquely survives, rebuilds, and reshapes world identity

English-language scholarship often elevates Phoenician/Canaanite cultures while minimizing Israelite continuity. These trends have roots in 19th-century biblical minimalism and Protestant academic biases.

Ancient Israel/Judah—its collapse, exile, survival—is absent from your narrative. This omission mirrors a wider academic pattern: treating Jewish history as marginal or overly textual.