2012 CE? 1434 AH? Or 5773? How confusing this must have been for the citizens of Jerusalem for the past 3000 years. Celebrating New Years, I am sure, could not have been easy.
All three articles for this week reveal the history of a land burdened with conquest after conquest, ransack after ransack, worship after worship. The resilience of Jerusalem reflects the resilience of those who have, for millennia, claimed the land as their own.
As I was reading these articles, I couldn't help but think that watching the layout of Jerusalem unfold in fast-motion would be akin to watching an equalizer (example here). Just as the rhythm and beat of music dictates the movement and construction of a song, so too does conqueror (and tectonic plates) dictate the landscape of Jerusalem. A stretched simile aside, Jerusalem's past, as Mick Dumper points out, has had a life of its own. It "appeared to breathe in and out as the population swelled and contracted." Its life was of such diverse conditions, Dumper explains, that at one point "its military value was insignificant enough that Napoleon ignored the city as he swept north from Egypt." Dumper also makes a point to discuss how unyielding the city of Jerusalem is - that is, in terms of producing or harvesting any natural resources- and how scarce water supply has been in the past. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't most ancient civilizations lie in proximity to water and other natural resources? Jerusalem is, and always has been, a place of anomaly and surprise. And I am far, far, far from understanding it.
It was interesting to read an article by Rashid Khalidi. I have come across him before and knew beforehand that he is a supporter of the Palestinian narrative- "Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies" and editor of Journal of Palestine Studies. I am studying the development and expansion of Islam in another course, so Khalidi's (and Rubin's) section on Islam's place in Jerusalem was informative complementary information. I found Khalidi's short discussion at the beginning of his article on Jerusalem's history and how much of it isn't "historically verifiable." I hope this becomes more apparent as we learn more about the city - that some of what people claim about this place doesn't have significance. I'm not sure why I "hope" this. I am anxious to read our Jerusalem book. I want to read about the city's changes in a little more detail, rather than reading a few sentences that seek to explain three-hundered years. But I am glad that I got a snapshot of pillage and war and conquer and building and tearing down.
Provided what we know about the turbulent, transient history of Jerusalem, I can't help but question what will happen there next. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment