Jerusalem: Offensive versus Atrocious
Atrocious as in committing atrocities. Offensive as in offering insults. Two separate cultural traditions facing off against one another. Two religions represented. Orthodox on the one hand, fundamentalist violence-prone on the other. Balanced? Somewhat not. One side wearing the traditional costume of European-influenced socially-righteous rigidity. The other that of a violently tribal belligerent; muscularly unclothed, personal identity masked."Ultra-right Israelis march through East Jerusalem!" read the headlines. Well, they insist that history and heritage are on their side. Jerusalem, after all, was founded by ancient Israelites, beloved of Yahweh, who promised that land to the oppressed tribes of Israel. The Old Testament is burdened with Jerusalem and its inimitable value as a touchstone of life to the Jewish people dispersed by violent forces; the Temple of Solomon twice destroyed.
Throughout the diaspora millennia the promise always was that the yearning for return would be fulfilled. And it was. Little wonder, then, that Jews cleave to the idea that Jerusalem is theirs and theirs alone. Muslim-come-latelies insisting that Jerusalem is not only 'also' theirs but primarily theirs, and in the not-so-distant past closed off to a Jewish presence, are equally insistent of ownership.
The righteous standoff that has ensued for the greater glory of statehood and glorious biblical Jerusalem the capital, has the world tuned in for more. But the biblical City of David was Jewish, is Jewish and will remain Jewish. There is no other alternative; what remains is a constant. The Temple Mount is that place where the Temple of Solomon was built, re-built and destroyed; a mosque built over it.
The Temple Mount is not a "site holy to both Muslims and Jews", but a site fundamentally, first-and-foremost holy and sacred to Jews. Presenting as an alternate holy site to Muslims, one of many, while Jews have but one singular site.
This case really is closed.
<< Home