If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior
But I said "Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews.". We can talk about the word "Jew" and even the letter J. For instance many argue the first time the word Jew was used was in 18th century CE, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals". And that the letter J was only invented in the 15th century. Or, Judean or Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") of the bloodline of Judah, an Israelite.
But I don't think that's correct. "Jews" is a Persian term, let me explain. First let's talk about Jerusalem, the area. So, this area is only a very small part of the Levant. But this part is specifically for the Jews. And it's part of this Persian province called Beyond the River. And they call it the province of Yehud. That's why we have the term Jews. Okay? Because they are part of the province of Yehud. So Yehud was established by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. I don't know what you have against the word "invented", maybe I should have used the word "established" instead. My point, and to repeat myself, Jews is actually a Persian term. So, the Jews were created/established (not invented) by the Persians to control the Levant.
Anyway, they are surrounded by enemies. The Samaritans are Israelites, like I said, who have stayed in the land. So most people around them are in fact Israelitess who adapted to local circumstances and that means that they practice different religions. So what happens is that these exiles from Babylon, they come back and they say, "No, we're the true Israelites. You guys are the false Israelites. The reason why we're true is we have stayed loyal to our religion.". So what's going to happen over the next few decades is almost a civil war between Israelites who've stayed and Israelites who left but came back. And this is exactly what the Persian Empire wants in order to maintain stability in the Levant. Because you have this small minority of exiles from Babylon who've come back and they're in conflict with everyone else. This is divide & conquer rule and strategy. Worked then and works now.
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.
Let me share with you the AI results: "The province of Yehud was established by Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. It was created to absorb the Babylonian province of Yehud, which had been established by the Neo-Babylonian Empire to absorb the Kingdom of Judah after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. 13
The province was named Yehud Medinata, which is the Aramaic designation for the Persian province of Judah. It was an autonomous administrative unit within the larger satrapy of Eber-Nari (Beyond the River). 135
The establishment of the province reflected the empire's decentralized governance model, which permitted local ethnic groups to maintain customary laws and religious practices under appointed officials to ensure regional stability and minimize administrative costs in peripheral areas. 3".
If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
But I said "Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews.". We can talk about the word "Jew" and even the letter J. For instance many argue the first time the word Jew was used was in 18th century CE, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals". And that the letter J was only invented in the 15th century. Or, Judean or Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") of the bloodline of Judah, an Israelite.
But I don't think that's correct. "Jews" is a Persian term, let me explain. First let's talk about Jerusalem, the area. So, this area is only a very small part of the Levant. But this part is specifically for the Jews. And it's part of this Persian province called Beyond the River. And they call it the province of Yehud. That's why we have the term Jews. Okay? Because they are part of the province of Yehud. So Yehud was established by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. I don't know what you have against the word "invented", maybe I should have used the word "established" instead. My point, and to repeat myself, Jews is actually a Persian term. So, the Jews were created/established (not invented) by the Persians to control the Levant.
Anyway, they are surrounded by enemies. The Samaritans are Israelites, like I said, who have stayed in the land. So most people around them are in fact Israelitess who adapted to local circumstances and that means that they practice different religions. So what happens is that these exiles from Babylon, they come back and they say, "No, we're the true Israelites. You guys are the false Israelites. The reason why we're true is we have stayed loyal to our religion.". So what's going to happen over the next few decades is almost a civil war between Israelites who've stayed and Israelites who left but came back. And this is exactly what the Persian Empire wants in order to maintain stability in the Levant. Because you have this small minority of exiles from Babylon who've come back and they're in conflict with everyone else. This is divide & conquer rule and strategy. Worked then and works now.
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.
Let me share with you the AI results: "The province of Yehud was established by Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. It was created to absorb the Babylonian province of Yehud, which had been established by the Neo-Babylonian Empire to absorb the Kingdom of Judah after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. 13 The province was named Yehud Medinata, which is the Aramaic designation for the Persian province of Judah. It was an autonomous administrative unit within the larger satrapy of Eber-Nari (Beyond the River). 135 The establishment of the province reflected the empire's decentralized governance model, which permitted local ethnic groups to maintain customary laws and religious practices under appointed officials to ensure regional stability and minimize administrative costs in peripheral areas. 3".