Sacred Space, Politics, and its People

I would argue that a discussion on the Israeli-Palestine tensions should be filtered through the notion of sacred space. This is not to say that the entire conflict is comprised of competing faction yearning to possess Jerusalem however that indeed is a facet of the situation. The idea of being able to lay claim to a city with as much history and tradition as Jerusalem is a power tactic to further legitimize each respective faction. Sacred space is an infectious concept that mobilizes bases to pour in resources in order to secure the physical manifestations of their culture/beliefs. A affinity for such a space occurs not only due to its ties but most importantly due to the influence it will have in asserting their claim to the region as a whole. Thus, it's expected when discussion on sacred space and politics begin to occur in relation to who should claim the space. An insightful manner of understanding how politics and sacred space interact is: "sacred space is socially constructed. Its meaning is made, and that making has implications for the doctrines which motivate those who claim it as their own" (Friedland & Hecht,  55). The motivations to claim a state is driven by the social significance it has amounted over time. Jewish and Muslim claims for the space are only fomented with each passing controversy. Another example of contributing to the social value of the space can be seen with the Trump administration to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The attachment to the notion of sacred space coupled with prophetic expectations for many served as a justification for such a move. This represents another collision of politics and sacred space as faith driven motives influence political decisions. One aspect that binds the entire discussion is its people, specifically how the relationship between Israleis and Palestinians can be viewed d through the lens of settlers and those dislocated. For a cycle has manifested itself which can be summed up as push pull actions. The ideas of invasion leads to settlements, settlers lead to conflict with indigenous, and lastly the idea that one victory leads to another defeat (Ellis, 77).