Precarious Peace

In 638 CE, the Muslims gained control of Jerusalem under Caliph Umar. Islam was politically in control of the city until 1099, when the Crusaders invaded. Over these four centuries, Christians and Jews continued to live and build in the city. The Muslims entered Jerusalem with a policy of unity and tolerance, so Christians and Jews were allowed to continue their traditions and practice religion as they saw fit. This created a situation where these three religions were living in the city side by side. For the most part, they were not openly antagonistic towards each other but the general peace was tentative. This situation heavily mirrors what we see in Jerusalem today. With these parallels, it is useful to ask: can we look at how violence broke out in Jerusalem of the past, to prevent the same in Jerusalem of the future?

The most obvious incident of violence is at the end of this period where the Crusaders invade Jerusalem. While this was the violence of an outside force, which can be hard to control, it was the result of religious fanaticism. The Crusader's belief that Jerusalem was their Holy City, and therefore it was their duty to control it, led to the slaughter of the people living in Jerusalem. Modern-day Jerusalem is still faced with the threats of outside violence and religious fanaticism. Looking at the history of the brutality of the crusades, we can be aware of how these things can be a threat.

But even before the Crusaders entered, tensions were high in Jerusalem and the culture was not always peaceful. There were rebellions (Armstrong 244), disagreements on everything from building to economics (Armstrong 251), and always some form of power struggle. Outside events such as outer wars (Armstrong 256) or unstable tyrants (Armstrong 258-260) led to outbreaks of violence. The reasons behind the tensions were complicated, but they were arranged in a way that any catalyst such as those outside events led to outbreaks of violence.

With tensions as high as they were in Jerusalem, any catalyst led to violence. The problem was not the varied catalysts that happened, it was the facts that tensions were so high. Armstrong talks about how this long period of high tensions made the inhabitants of Jerusalem used to outbreaks of violence (Armstrong 270). That normalization of violence and high tensions is what led to that violence. We see those high tensions in Jerusalem today, and those tensions themselves are the biggest threat Jerusalem is facing in the present day.