Jerusalem: Symbol of Culture, Symbol of Religion, Symbol of Conflict

Through the course of this class, we have discussed the ways in which Jerusalem impacts those living there and the world around it. Jerusalem has become a symbol of religion and culture but it is also a symbol of the larger Arab Israeli Conflict. Jerusalem is not only a symbol of the conflict but a pinnacle point with it. We can find examples of this mirror relationship historically, politically, and culturally. I while work to illustrate this by answering the question, what is Jerusalem? Additionally, I will argue that Jerusalem is not as unique as current rhetoric around the conflict suggests. Finally, this fact coupled with conflict that is central to Jerusalem has certain implications for potential future peace.

To better understand the position of Jerusalem in the Arab- Israeli Conflict we must begin by understanding the history behind the conflict itself. The First Arab Israeli War was in 1948 after the partition plan was put into place. Arabs launched the war in opposition to the new Israeli state being established. Israel ended up gaining more land than they originally were awarded in the partition plan. After the 1948 war, in 1962 the United States first began to supply a large number of arms and ammunition to Israel. This has continued until the present day. The main culminating point of the conflict, especially in relation to the debate over settlements today occurred during the Six Day War in 1967. Israel again on the defense was able to claim huge swaths of land and almost tripled in size. This is when settlements within the West Bank and East Jerusalem began to be built. Throughout this time Jerusalem has been an international protectorate, but a hotbed of contention and the main area of the settlements. Each peace agreement and war that has occurred has adjusted the boundaries of the Holy City. After the 1967 war, the conflict was met with more outside intervention, especially in potential peace processes.

Throughout the conflict, there has been a major presence of outside influence. The United States and the Soviet Union, as with other regional disputes, are highly involved with the Arab Israeli Conflict. The conflict served as a regional proxy conflict during the Cold War and even into today. The US is a major arms supplier to Israeli and the USSR, now Russia, is a major arms supplier to Arab nations. Either of these superpower nations has been potential contributors to the increase of immigration into Israel. In the mid to late 20th century Jews were not welcomed into the US and were driven out of Russia. In 1991 we were given a clear example of the involvement of the US, during the Gulf War the US persuaded Israel to invade Iraq. While both of these outsiders have been prominent in the conflict, they have also been very involved in many peace negotiations such as the Madrid Conference, Camp David Accords, and Oslo Declaration. Central in each of these peace agreements is the control of Jerusalem. Jerusalem serves as the anchor for both the conflict and peace agreements. This is seen in the US moving their embassy to Jerusalem. This was a clear political statement that only has the weight it does because of Jerusalem’s central nature.

The rhetoric surrounding this conflict is that it is a religious one based on the fight over holy places. Karen Armstrong in the article The Holiness of Jerusalem: Asset or Burden? describes how the religiosity of Jerusalem has increased throughout the conflict. This has led to the increased importance of sacred spaces and artifacts. This, in turn, creates competition in which opposing artifacts are destroyed. This has been the main focus of our class and this is where we see Jerusalem acting as the pinnacle of the conflict. I argue that religion is not the only cause of this conflict. However, if you focus on the religious aspect of the conflict, which is present, Jerusalem is the clear center given the sites and artifacts that are located in Jerusalem. Due to this, we see Jerusalem clearly symbolizes the religious aspect to the conflict that is present in the larger conflict. However, as we have discussed it is not only Muslim versus Jew there is a complex web of religion and ethnicity both in Jerusalem and in the region. Yochanan Peres proposes that there are two layers of ethnic tension in Jerusalem first between European and Non-European Jews and second between Jews and non-Jews. This clearly mimics the ethnic hierarchy described in Second Person Singular. Both in Jerusalem and in the larger conflict it is important to remember that the ethnic tension is not binary but multifaceted and intersectional.

I argue that both religion and ethnicity are aggravating factors to the root problem in the conflict which is the battle for sovereignty which is demonstrated in conflict over Jerusalem and the Old City within. Sovereignty can be understood as a nation having exclusive governing and self-determination power over its territory. The battle over sovereignty finds its roots in the original formation of these nations. The nations within this region were born out of a legacy of imperialism and partition plans. The overreach of the US and USSR continues this legacy of imperialism. Due to this, the nations in the region are constantly trying to prove their sovereignty and right to self-determination. This is fueled by the fact there is a belief the sovereignty of one negates the sovereignty of the other. This conflict can be seen mimicked smaller scale in Jerusalem but the even smaller scale on the Temple Mount itself. The Muslim and Israeli authorities both are trying to gain the power of self-determination over their territory. The true conflict is over territory and sovereignty and fueled by religious and ethnic conflict.

Due to the religious and ethnic tensions in the conflict, it is frequently viewed as a unique and unsolvable problem. Aggravating factors of deep ethnic intersections, as well as the importance of religion, make it appear unique, however, I argue that the fight over sovereignty and territory is not unique and neither is Jerusalem. Scholars, such as Scott Bollens, have suggested that the is similar to that in other countries. Jerusalem within that conflict is similar to other “divided cities” like Sarajevo and Johannesburg. By removing the mysticism and impossibilities that come along with the conflict and Jerusalem itself there are two major implications first the understanding of the divisions in places and second what these means for potential peace. The concept of the divided city is very prevalent in Jerusalem with examples as concrete as the divisions of the quarters in the Holy City or between East and West Jerusalem. Michael Dumper in Jerusalem Unbound describes how these borders are not as rigid as some assume and that this fluidity allows for potential political agreements that could move peace forward.

By viewing this conflict like other conflicts that have found a road towards peace we could assume there is a potential road towards peace in Jerusalem. While Jerusalem can be viewed as the pinnacle point of the conflict, it can also be viewed as the center of peace. Jerusalem has had a violent past but has been able to withstand and still exists today. They have been able to find compromises and co-exist somewhat. Jerusalem serves as an example of coexistence as well as a site and focuses for many peace negotiations within the larger conflict. The future of Jerusalem will be one of the most important aspects of any peace plans in the future.