Reading Response 2

One of Dumper’s first points emphasizes the nature of the importance of Jerusalem. I had never really thought about it before, but geographically and economically the city doesn’t have much of an appeal. That just highlights how the struggle and conflict truly are focused on religious ideals (which I say at the risk of oversimplifying). But it’s pretty clear that very few people are concerned about Jerusalem because of abundant natural resources or a strategic geographical location. Whereas in many other places, conflicts arise due to a struggle for the control of or access to resources, the struggle in Jerusalem has little to nothing to do with these issues. To me, that perspective highlights how the situation in Jerusalem is unique. Dumper also mentions how the city used to be full of harat, or different areas that could range in size from an alley on up that were home to different groups. I know it’s naïve, but this nostalgic recollection seems to be the ideal picture for the future: for people to live in peace as neighbors.

Khalidi’s article was really interesting. He makes the point that not every belief about Jerusalem is based on verifiable historical fact, but that people also cannot discount these beliefs because they have often been proven to be true. Furthermore, he seems to say that because people hold these beliefs so strongly and act upon them that they have historical relevance. While I agree with his sentiment, I also think that fact is more important than opinion (and I think Khalidi believes so as well, he just doesn’t say it explicitly). I’m not sure what relevance this would necessarily have in Jerusalem, but I am of the opinion that if someone’s beliefs were proven to be false, it would only be logical to relinquish them. If, for example, it somehow were proven that Jesus never really existed (although the historical evidence strongly suggests otherwise), it would only be appropriate for this group to give up their claims on certain locations. While I think that tradition and belief have their place, if they can be proven unfounded in history, then I think they lose their meaning.

Besides a deeper understanding of the history of claims in Jerusalem, Rubin’s article didn’t raise many questions or thoughts for me. It did seem like the article favored the Jewish claim in Jerusalem as the most ancient (and perhaps by implication also the most legitimate), but in class we mentioned that the chronology and legitimacy of claims to the city are highly disputed. Throughout the article she didn’t really touch on the initial claim to the land, so I was curious about that.