Week Two Readings

I have to say, much of the Ruben and Khalidi articles were so laden with dates and names that I had trouble actually soaking in the thousands of years condensed into a few pages. What I initially tried to focus on, in reading these texts, was the intent and the extent of the authors to step outside their own predispositions and to offer disclaimers on their potential fallacies. In this respect, I think Khalidi made a more noticeable attempt to present her side of the history humbly.

In her opening paragraphs she states, "In nearly every case, what these sources tell us about Jerusalem is based on accounts compiled centuries after the events and should, therefore, be suspect, even if some do contain more than a kernel of fact." She goes on to discuss the ability of religion to cloud judgment. "And whether a tradition is "true" or not, when held strongly enough, it can be the motive for potent behaviors that produce historically verifiable results." This admission is an important one, and one that Karen Armstrong explores in the opening of her book.

Near the end of her essay, Khalidi explains, "The loss of Jerusalem to the Crusaders was important to the way in which Arabs and Muslims regarded the holy city; it reminded them how intensely others coveted it and united them in striving to regain it." Though she is speaking to a particular time in the history of Jerusalem, I wonder if this facet, being reminded of "how intensely others covet..." pokes at the heart of the issue.

Mick Dumper's sweeping history, timeline included, was insightful to me because of its brief mention of third-party players in the conflict. So often I hear of Israel vs. Palestine, Jews vs. Muslims, Hebrew vs. Arabic, that I forget about the many other players affecting the region. Dumper touched on this, stating, "Following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Arabs sought Western support, and Western churches flourished as a result. Since 1967, largely in the context of the alliance between the US and Israel, American evangelical movements and the Mormon Church have been the main beneficiaries."

And then...

"The removal by the British of the Palestinian Muslim mayor and his temporary replacement by a Jewish deputy in 1938 gave political form to this transition and heralded the dramatic changes which were to occur later... After the next war... the intensification of the religious community competition became too much for the British, and they slipped ignominiously away as militias and armies piled into the arena."

My my, how opportunistic of America and our good friend Great Britain. So my question(s) are...

What effect do third parties have on the region?
What are their interests/agendas?
Have they historically exacerbated the conflict and then left the mess behind for the main players to continue making themselves?
Well, of course they have. But I'd like to hear more information and opinions from you all.