The history of Jerusalem, as we all know, is a messy, tangled and complicated past. It is difficult to find a compilation of unbiased history, yet understanding the history of this city is essential.
What I find very interesting about Jerusalem is that the existence of the city itself is geographically unsound. The location of Jerusalem, high on the hill with no natural access to water, does not provide a place where life can flourish. In all technicality, Jerusalem is a desert. What is so magical about this place is more than what it physically is, but what has happen there. The city itself is the history, and that's really where its worth lies. The ancient crumbling walls and the structures that hold the ghost of what Jerusalem used to be hold more history than anyone in present day can ever imagine.
Another thing that stuck out to me while I was reading about the history of Jerusalem was in the article "Jerusalem: Then and Now." "Following the Muslim conquest, al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, both built upon the former temple plateau, became the third holiest site in Islam, and evolved into a meritorious 'second leg' of the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca" (5). What baffles me the most about this is the fact that Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem, the city of peace, the holy land of Israel is the only place that is important to the Jews. It is where the ancient kings once ruled and were forced out by more than one force to drive the Jews out. How can it be fair that Islam can have multiple holy sites and the Jews cannot even be respected enough to occupy the only holy place in our history?
Following that and moving towards more present day arguments, just prior to the creation of the state of Israel, the Jews accepted the partition of the land while the Arabs rejected it. I believe that this is where this major problem could have been eased. Even though the partition was a puzzle piece and geographically did not make sense, the Jews accepted the partition because it was better than not having a holy land at all.
I think that the rejection of the partition by the Arabs gave free reign to open fighting. In my opinion, the rejection of the partition is what set the tone for many wars. I also believe that wars were fought fairly, and there were enough of them to prove that Israel has a right to exist. There was a point when the Jews did not have tremendous military reign. However, with the animosity and hostile environment that Israel is surrounded by, Israel had no choice but to create itself into a military threat. Surrounding Israel are numerous Arab and Palestinian nations, while there is only one Jewish state. This chain of events in history has led to the situation that exists in Israel today.
The solution to this situation is going to be as complicated as the history itself. The numerous attempts for peace are obviously temperamental and rely heavily on the individual in charge at the time. Only time will tell, but in the meantime I believe that learning about the history is essential yet dangerous in terms of understanding this deep-rooted conflict.
Hey Brianna,
ReplyDeleteWell if to consider the 'Partition Plan" in 1947, do you think it was fair enough for more than an 80% of the nation to take less than 50% of the land, while the other less than 20% of the population take more than 50%? I think that it is unfair and not negotiable. That was the thing for the Palestinians.
Another thing, is that when the Arab countries declared the war on Israel, they did that as a response or you can think of it as a reaction to the actionS that were done by the Jewish terrorist groups as the Haganah to the Palestinians, or who were the homeowners. (Haganah is considered as a terrorist group, and that was not my opinion regarding such a group, even some Israeli historians consider it as that).
One more thing to point out is that, if i came to your house by force and ordered you to take half of the house and the backyard as a foreigner, would you negotiate this with me? Or you will fight me and declare war on me and my plan? This is exactly what happened, Immigrant Jews came from across the globe and by force and under the threat of killing and destruction they took the houses and properties of the Palestinians and claimed their right of existence on the cost of the existence of others. I believe this was the main problem of the conflict that Jerusalem and the Palestinians/Israelis are having today. This is the root of the whole conflict.
Not to nitpick, but Jerusalem isn't the only holy place for Jews. I can think of many off the top of my head (e.g., the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb outside Bethlehem, Masada, as well as 'unknown' locations such as Mt. Sinai), but more importantly, as Armstrong points out, Jerusalem became sacred to Judaism--most important events in Judaic Scripture happened elsewhere (just as most important events in Islam happened elsewhere... by this calculus, Christianity "wins" Jerusalem because of the number of important events that happened there).
ReplyDeleteBut this is all a sideshow--we shouldn't get sucked into calculating which religion has the strongest claim to Jerusalem because of the relative importance of Jerusalem in that religion's history. That whole "Islam has Mecca and Medina, so why should it get Jerusalem, too?" argument can be used against Zionism itself.
Regarding the UN partition plan, the Pressman article does a good job outlining some of the pitfalls in blaming Arabs for the plan's failure. To wit: the Jewish immigrants to Palestine had been operating as a quasi-state during the British Mandate, and had institutions and leadership ready to judge the plan and determine if the plan would be acceptable. The "Arabs" had no such institutions or leadership--they were constantly reacting to events, and the Palestinians had no organization. The Arab states surrounding Mandate Palestine didn't have the interests of Palestinians at heart, and so there was no "up-side" to accepting the partition. Ultimately, I would ask why rejecting the partition proposal should condemn Palestinians to accepting less and less as time goes on. Negotiations should never be an "all or nothing" scenario: it's not very ethical to say "accept this 'compromise' or you get nothing."