Armstrong in the beginning of her book, mentioned how different and plural Jerusalem as a city is. She talks about how each eye can view and see Jerusalem from a different point of view, and that was clear for her, when her Israeli colleagues showed her different parts and aspects of Jerusalem than her Palestinian colleagues. I liked how Armstrong goes over the word ‘holy’, as she says that although both the Palestinians and Israelis agree that Jerusalem is a holy city, but each define holiness differently, which make it more complex. One interesting point Armstrong mentions in her book is that the Palestinians (whether Christians or Muslims) see the claim of the presence of Solomon’s temple as myth, and how the Jews or Israelis, might look at the story of prophet Mohammad as a myth, I have saw few documentary videos from Israeli and Jewish archeologists that are saying after the years that have been spent in digging under the Old City of Jerusalem trying to look for any tie for the Solomon’s temple, nothing have been found yet. Something that is really interested to focus on. History is different than facts, no one is sure about history, no one knows if the religious stories we hear off are right and exact, they might be changed a bit, and words might have been different hundreds or thousands of years ago than today. In my own humble opinion, I think that we have to put history on the side, because Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe to have ties to this city.
Chapter one talks deeply on the very early history of Jerusalem, what is really clear and obvious is that even historians have no exclusive and absolute fact about who was living in the hills of Jerusalem thousands of years ago. In the second chapter, about Zion and Israel, it is clear that even history is not absolute of what was going on hundreds of years BC. One other misconception that is used now and I have been faced with, is that some people think that the land of Israel, thousands years ago is the same as the “state of Israel” nowadays. This is a misconception, and none is connected to the other. Chapter three talks about the city of David, Judah, the approximate time when they moved into “the promised land”, etc. While I am reading, although I have a few backgrounds about the history of Jerusalem, but I am overwhelmed about this deep and detailed history provided, I am somehow lost between the Jebusites, Cannanites, Israelits, Solomon, etc. It is clear that the history of Jerusalem is one of the richest and oldest in modern history, but at the same time, I do also believe that history stays history, and in any possible talks or negotiations, history should be put on the side, because we are living the present, and the acts on the ground are killing the history of such a city. Also another point is that what was mentioned as the land of Israel or the ‘Promised Land’, thousands years ago was not over the exact land of Israel today, or Palestine now. And it was clear that the Land of Israel was not over the whole land of Palestine/Israel now, but was spread around the areas there. From the first readings of this week, it is clear that violence was there in the City of Jerusalem long time ago.
I was about to say, "Yeah, people get so focused on violence in the modern period that they forget that there is a long history of bloodshed in the region!"
ReplyDeleteAnd then I remembered the refrain when the West dragged its feet intervening in Bosnia (and other humanitarian crises): "This is a centuries-old conflict that's been ingrained upon generations, and we can't stop them from fighting."
So I worry that if we do lay bare the histories of conquest that extend back for millennia, people will focus on that and give up hope for peace.