JERUSALEM -- An city government official recently made an announcement that is realistically true in terms of Middle East peace:
Yakir Segev, who holds the East Jerusalem portfolio in the Jerusalem municipality, made an uncharacteristic remark on Friday, declaring that the Palestinian neighborhood east of the separation fence were "no longer part of the city."
Some 50,000 Palestinians, identification card holding residents of Jerusalem, live outside the separation fence. Most of them reside in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods which are currently under near anarchy due to the fact that Israeli authorities -- municipality, police, service authorities -- almost never enter this area and the Palestinian authorities also refrain from entering under Oslo guidelines forbidding them to operate within Jerusalem.
Speaking at Hebrew University, Segev, seen as a right-winger, said Thursday that the reality that has formed in the region is irreversible, and that the separation fence, which many Israelis credit with the dramatic drop in terror attacks perpetrated by Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, was built for political and demographic reasons - not just security concerns. "The Jerusalem municipality has no hand in managing these neighborhoods, and doesn't have the power to address the difficult situation facing the 55,000 people who live there," he said.
"The State of Israel has given up," he went on to say. "[The neighborhoods] are outside the jurisdiction of the state, and certainly the municipality. For all practical purposes, they are Ramallah."
There are three main obstacles to peace -- at least as far as implementing a two-state solution is concerned -- in the region: Palestinian hostility towards the very existence of Israel (especially as a Jewish state) and the terrorism that it inspires; settlements and the border between Israel and any future Palestinian state in the West Bank (and perhaps the Gaza Strip); and the status of Jerusalem.
But here is the question that no one addresses: What, exactly, is "Jerusalem"? It is an idea, of course, that is firmly planted in the minds of Christians and Jews -- and, to a lesser extent, Muslims. But as far as a geographic entity, the physical location of "Jerusalem" has not always been constant -- just like the areas of cities throughout the world:
The residents of Little Cambridge resolved to secede from Cambridge when the latter's government made decisions detrimental to the cattle industry and also failed to repair the Great Bridge linking Little Cambridge with Cambridge proper. Legislative approval for separation was obtained in 1807, and Little Cambridge renamed itself Brighton.
In October 1873, the Town of Brighton voted to annex itself to the City of Boston, and in January 1874 Brighton officially became a neighborhood of the City of Boston.
Brighton, where I lived for a few years, is a neighborhood of Boston. Before that, it was independent. Before that, it was part of Cambridge. Now, imagine that Boston -- for whatever reason -- has carried the same religious meaning as Jerusalem since 1850 or thereabouts. Which areas, exactly, would have those religious connotations today?
Brighton was not a part of Boston when it became "holy." So, say the city of Boston was divided like Jerusalem might be divided one day -- and Brighton would no longer be part of Boston under this hypothetical scenario. I could imagine religious people arguing that "Boston" should not be divided because of its significance to them even though Brighton was not part of the city at the time. When Brighton joined the city of Boston, it acquired the religious significance as well.
Now, here is a brief history of the expansion of the City of Jerusalem:
The first neighbourhoods outside the Old City walls, built from the 1860s onward, were scattered chiefly along the main roads from the west and northwest leading into the city. These early Jewish suburbs were paralleled by non-Jewish expansion prompted by Christian religious or nationalistic motivation. The latter included the Russian Compound on the meydan (old Turkish parade ground), near what is today the commercial heart of west Jerusalem; the German Colony, near what became the railway station; and the American Colony, north of the Damascus Gate. Some early communities, such as Mishkenot Shaʾanannim and Yemin Moshe, with its famous windmill landmark, have been reconstructed and resettled or turned into cultural centres. Others include the Bukharan Quarter; Meʾa Sheʿarim, founded by Orthodox Jews from eastern and central Europe, with its scores of small synagogues and yeshivas; and Maḥane Yehuda, with its fruit and vegetable market, inhabited mainly by Jews of North African and Oriental origin. Residential quarters established between World Wars I and II include Reḥavya in the centre, Talpiyyot in the south, and Qiryat Moshe and Bet Ha-Kerem in the west. The old campus of the Hebrew University at Mount Scopus, northeast of the Old City, formed for some 20 years (1948–67) an Israeli exclave in the Jordanian sector; it was entirely rebuilt after the Six-Day War. Some Arab districts, such as Talbieh and Katamon (Gonen), whose residents fled during the fighting of 1947–48, are now Jewish neighbourhoods, and thousands of houses were built for new Jewish immigrants in districts to the west, newly incorporated into the city. Arab neighbourhoods outside the Old City include El-Sheikh (Al-Shaykh) Jarrāḥ, Wadi al-Jōz (al-Jawz), and Bayt Ḥanīnā in the north and villages such as Silwān and Bayt Ṣafāfāin the south.
Since 1967 large new housing developments for more than 200,000 Jews have been built on the southern, eastern, and northern edges of the city, both within and beyond the extended city boundary. Their construction on territory claimed by both Israelis and Arabs gave rise to repeated confrontations and controversy. Meanwhile, construction of housing for Arabs within the city has been severely limited, which has resulted in large-scale ribbon development of Arab housing, particularly along the road leading north to Ramallah.
As we can see, specific areas that are considered part of "Jerusalem" today was not part of the city -- or much less even existed -- hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago. The city limits expanded over time, and different areas were incorporated later. But any proposed division of Jerusalem can enrage religious Jews and Muslims, cause riots in the streets, and potentially bring down governments.
For example, the German Colony in south Jerusalem (the picture above is from Wikipedia) did not exist at the times of David, Jesus, and Mohammed. So why is that specific piece of land now considered a sacred part of Jerusalem? If the mayor officially incorporates an outlying neighborhood into the city, does that act of law spread the sacredness of Jerusalem to the new area?
If the German Colony were given solely to Israel or a Palestinian state, the opposing side would raise hell (pardon the pun). But why, exactly? "Jerusalem" seems to be just whatever the municipal government says it is. I've never quite figured this out. When Segev, the municipal official who stated that the section of Jerusalem east of the separation barrier was "no longer part of the city," he was being realistic -- just like the fact that Israeli settlements inside the barrier will likely remain part of Israel.
If the part of land known as east Jerusalem were eventually given to a Palestinian state, could the city government not just deem the Western half to be "Jerusalem"?
Tags: israel travel, flights to israel, israel packages, israel tours, car rental israel, israel vacation, israel rentals, israel hotel deals, tickets to israel, jewish gifts
Now Available: E-Book download: "Letters from Israel: An American journalist’s adventures in the Holy Land."
Related posts:
The issue as you should well know is not over the city limits of Jerusalem / al-Quds, but over the Temple Mount / Noble Sanctuary (al-Haram al-Quds). It’s not as if Israelis or Muslim Palestinians give a damn about what happens to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher or anything else in the Old City.
Only one thing matters: the site of the Solomon’s Temple, which also happens to be the holiest place in Islam. That place, unfortunately, can never be divided.
Palestinians may get Jerusalem by default, but they’ll never get al-Quds, and neither Jew nor Arab will ever get peace so long as partition (of the city) remains on the table. Jeff Guevin(Quote)
Jeff, you’re correct on what the major issue is. I was just writing about a lesser-important issue in this post.
Still, on that subject: Sometimes I think that the notion of Jerusalem being the third-holiest place in Islam is a modern invention borne out of political rather than religious motivation.
I once saw pictures of the Temple Mount / Dome of the Rock taken in the 1920s. (I don’t know the link off-hand.) The entire area was desolate, vacant, decrepit, and overgrown with weeds. It looked like no Jews or Muslims had been there for years. If it was indeed such a holy place, then why was it not kept up and full of pilgrims and visitors under the Ottomans and later the Jordanians?
I think it’s a real possibility that the legends about Mohammad and Jerusalem were invented — or at least popularized — after Israel was created as a counter-offensive. I just wish I knew Arabic because I’d love to see if any Islamic primary-sources prior to 1900 mention the holiness of the city and whatnot. But even if the legends existed, I still wonder why there was little attention paid to the city before Israel was refounded. Sam Scott(Quote)
Sam, I’d like to see these photos you purport to have seen. But, I think you ought to check out some wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#British_Mandate_1917_-_1948
Your assertions about Islam are starting to tend towards the ridiculous Israeli right. Jeff Guevin(Quote)
PS: Check out the slideshow download at http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2009/09/western-wall-area-then-and-now.html Jeff Guevin(Quote)
“I once saw pictures of the Temple Mount / Dome of the Rock taken in the 1920s. (I don’t know the link off-hand.)”
I find your lack of evidence of these photos compelling; it speaks to the lack of reality of this statement.
“The entire area was desolate, vacant, decrepit, and overgrown with weeds. It looked like no Jews or Muslims had been there for years. If it was indeed such a holy place, then why was it not kept up and full of pilgrims and visitors under the Ottomans and later the Jordanians?”
To which I reply, “The Dome of the Rock was badly shaken during an earthquake in Palestine on Monday, 11 July 1927 rendering useless many of the repairs that had taken place over previous years.” It takes a significant amount of time to repair masonry buildings. It takes significantly less time to grow weeds. The pictures you claim to have seen, if taken in the months immediately after the earthquake, would display images of broken-down structures, few people, and many weeds.
“I think it’s a real possibility that the legends about Mohammad and Jerusalem were invented — or at least popularized — after Israel was created as a counter-offensive. I just wish I knew Arabic because I’d love to see if any Islamic primary-sources prior to 1900 mention the holiness of the city and whatnot. But even if the legends existed, I still wonder why there was little attention paid to the city before Israel was refounded.”
I have a source for you: the freaking Qur’an! How’s that for an Arabic language primary source? As far as “little attention paid to the city” — the Muslims and Christians fought several wars over the rights to “their” holy city over a series of centuries. You may have even heard of them: the Crusades. If a group of people decides it is worthwhile to fight and die in defense of a city, it would appear that they are “paying attention” to the site.
All of these comments, though, pale in comparison to what I find is the true import of your post: your casual double referral to the actions of Mohammad as “legends.” In what way are these stories, as written in the Qur’an, celebrated in prayer and ceremony, and believed by millions worldwide, any different from those of the Torah? If I were to refer to the stories of Moses, Abraham, and David as legends, how would you react? Here is a definition of legend: “An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.” Virtually all of the belief systems in the world rely on stories that are unverifiable using established historiographical methods. Does not every religion therefore rely upon such “legends?”
For example: I state that the very existence of Solomon’s Temple is a legend. Here is why: “To date, no archaeological evidence for Solomon’s Temple has been found and the only information regarding the First Temple in Jerusalem is contained in the biblical books of Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings.” Therefore, the Jewish belief that Jerusalem is theirs is based on a legend, and is to be casually dismissed. This is what you, Sam, are doing, after all, to the Muslim claim to the city. Either all three religions that claim Jerusalem as their own — Christianity, Islam, and Judaism — have an equal right to it, or none of them do. You cannot say that Jews deserve it and Muslims don’t any more than another might claim that Muslims deserve it and Jews don’t.
And if you do believe this, then you, and people who think like you, are the reason there has been violence and bloodshed in the Middle East for thousands of years. Religious intolerance is, in my (and many others’) opinion, a violation of the fundamental human right of freedom of religion. I truly hope that you have not changed so much that you would deny another the right to the religion of their choice. You have lived your life with that freedom, and would fight to preserve it. Do not deny this right to others. Do they not deserve it, just the same as you? If you would deny them this right, then do not be surprised if they fight to defend it. You will reap what you sow, my friend, if you maintain this belief. I truly hope, for your sake, that you do not. Dan(Quote)
Dan,
I have a source for you: the freaking Qur’an!
Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran. I was referring to hadiths and other writs in Islam.
If I were to refer to the stories of Moses, Abraham, and David as legends, how would you react?
I would say that you are correct. They are legends as well — although “myths” might be a better term. (Not “myth” as falsehood, as the word is commonly and improperly used today.) But describing something as a “myth” or “legend” does not contain truth. There is literal truth, metaphorical truth, and other kids as well.
You may have even heard of them: the Crusades. If a group of people decides it is worthwhile to fight and die in defense of a city, it would appear that they are “paying attention” to the site.
Imagine that Spain invades St. Louis. You would fight against Spain simply because you live there and it is your home — it would not necessarily be because you considered the place to be holy. The Christians invaded the Middle East, which was part of the Arab Empire during the Crusades (and afterward). Perhaps the Arabs were fighting the Christians just because some crazy Europeans decided to come and invade their homes. Sam Scott(Quote)
“I have a source for you: the freaking Qur’an!
Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran. I was referring to hadiths and other writs in Islam.”
I did a little bit more digging, and stand corrected. Jerusalem is indeed not mentioned in the Qur’an. Which is a little strange, but I think that is more out of my ignorance of the minutiae of Islam than anything else.
“You may have even heard of them: the Crusades. If a group of people decides it is worthwhile to fight and die in defense of a city, it would appear that they are “paying attention” to the site.
Imagine that Spain invades St. Louis. You would fight against Spain simply because you live there and it is your home — it would not necessarily be because you considered the place to be holy. The Christians invaded the Middle East, which was part of the Arab Empire during the Crusades (and afterward). Perhaps the Arabs were fighting the Christians just because some crazy Europeans decided to come and invade their homes.”
I agree. I never claimed that the Muslims defended Jerusalem against the Christians because they thought the site was holy; I said they defended it because they were paying attention to it, and thought it important enough to defend. I made no claims regarding WHY they thought it was so important. It may be, as you say, simply that a group of outsiders was waging war against them on their land and they were defending it. It may be that they were defending a holy place. Either way, they defended the city, thus indicating an ongoing interest in it. That’s all. Dan(Quote)
“…the Muslims and Christians fought several wars over the rights to “their” holy city over a series of centuries.”
Oops. Okay, so maybe I did write that the Muslims and Christians fought over the city because they thought it was holy. Undoubtedly they both believed his; however, I would posit the primary motivation for the Muslims defending Jerusalem would be the same as Sam mentioned in the response: defense of your homeland. St. Louis is not holy to me, but I would defend it against an aggressor. Surely the Muslims defended Jerusalem against an aggressor regardless of their feelings of holiness toward the city. That’s what I meant to say (I think — but then, I’m getting very old, and have pregnancy brain to boot). Dan(Quote)
Gentlemen, as to the question of whether Muhammed and Jerusalem are mentioned in the Quran, I refer you to this site: http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ee32.htm .
You can read the actual text (translated) here.
Indeed, it’s tradition that Muhammad ascended into heaven from Jerusalem. Just as it’s Jewish tradition, as Dan points out, that Solomon built a temple (or existed, for that matter).
Oh, and something I just found – hopefully to put the matter to rest: http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html . Jeff Guevin(Quote)