If ancient Jerusalem isn't ancient Jerusalem, then what justification could the Jews possible have for the entire Zionist enterprise. Without history and its significance for the Jews, they really ought to go home to Poland, or Iraq, or where-ever.This site has been developing beneath the radar for several years across from the Dung Gate, where you enter to the plaza leading to the nearby Wailing Wall. Just to be clear, there is about as much evidence that King David's palace would be excavated by this project as evidence that Queen Helena actually found the grove from which the true cross had been cut in the Valley of the Cross. But like Helena's sites--she was said to be the greatest archeologist in history, because she never looked for something she didn't find--Barkat's City of David is actually meant to excite pilgrims--you know, guests to the Shapiro bar-mitzvah who are looking for something to do on Sunday afternoon.
Personal musings on Israel, Jewish matters, history and how they all affect each other
Pages
▼
Monday, June 28, 2010
City of David
Bernard Avishai wrote the other day about a demonstration he participated in last week at Silwan. I'll write about this soon, once I find the time for a thorough article. I will however point out that Avishai's post emphasizes one aspect of the matter, which is that in their haste to reject the settler's and everything they stand for, some of Israel's Jewish critics are taking a position which essentially rejects the basic foundations of Zionism and even Jewish identity.
OT: There's an article in Archeology that might be interesting
ReplyDelete'Rewriting Jewish History' on Jewish communities in medieval Europe
abstract here:
http://www.archaeology.org/1007/abstracts/insider.html
Wait, saying that King David's 3000 year old palace is unlikely to be found under Ir David implies that the modern Jerusalem isn't the same as the ancient Jerusalem of the Bible? There must be an argumentative step that I'm missing here, because there are several credible archeologists who maintain the former, and virtually zero who believe the latter.
ReplyDeleteActually, RK, since 2005 the doubters' case has been considerably weakened. But that's not the issue, as I'll explain in depth once I've got the time. Concentrating on the palace is a red herring, since the claim isn't about a palace but about the city itself - and that case is documented fully. It's as if someone claimed Christianity never happened in Rome, because the remains in the catacombs probably aren't of those early Christians.
ReplyDeleteRK
ReplyDeleteto me the snarky tone of the excerpt sounds for lack of a milder word inappropriate.
What is he aiming at?
ridiculing all archeological digging?
digging in Jerusalem is on the same level as the relic trade of Christianity?
he sounds like one of those guys in love with his own wittyness.
IMHO there is way too little excavation going on to satisfy my curiosity. If Jerusalem happens to be a city where a lot is possible - great! -
Silke
Are you saying Avishai is denying the ancient Jewish connection to Jerusalem, or that others ("some of Israel's Jewish critics") are? If the former, I don't see it that the article. In fact, I would be shocked if Avishai believed that.
ReplyDeleteRK
ReplyDeletedigging in Jerusalem is on the same level as the relic trade of Christians?
Silke
I applaud Mr Avishai's argument for precisely this statement. He undermines the silly tribal Jewish attachment to Jerusalem. The Palestinians need a physical tie to a city for their honor and self respect. We followers of New Judaism do not, recognizing that our attachment to Jerusalem is allegorical, and Jerusalem is merely where we make our home. Surely we can give up a few crummy felafel stands for world peace. I would join Mr Avishai in his protests, but as a matter of principal, I dont visit the apartheid zionist entity
ReplyDeleteSo, what, Mr. Jutner, are you just that much better than the backwards Palestinians, that you have transcended the need for a city, but they have not?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the Palestinians give up "a few crummy felafel [sic] stands" for world peace? Why is the onus always on our side?
P.S. My post-verification word for this comment was "duped." Does blogger know something I don't?
Tony must be doing a lot of commenting these days as his sentences seem to make it less and less into sentences or maybe he has increased his dose of daily imbibation (if there is such a thing) and so forgets in the middle what he wanted to say - I hope there is a treatment for the condition.
ReplyDeleteSilke
Dear Anonymous and Bryan:
ReplyDeleteThe comment by "Rabbi Tony Jutner" is ironic -- that is, it's meant to be a joke.
I'm not sure of all the elements of the made-up name -- one of them is Tony Judt, though.
dear Anon
ReplyDeletecould you please tell Tony wannabe Rabbi that a joke is only a joke when it is funny
- and alas that is to this day not to be judged by the author no matter how many authors bemoan that little fact all over the world and it is also not to be decided by any elites with super-evolved sensibilities - it remains exclusively within the authority of the individual reader
maybe authors of funny should apply to the Human Rights Council to be granted the right to judge what's funny and what's not - I understand the gremium was heavily involved into problems with jokes recently
that said, just in case you are Tony yourself, learn to live with it and work on it - to get Bryan to laugh at you may be the ultimate task, because believe me from all I've read by him he has a great sense of humour and is quite willing to get tickled - if you can make it with him, you may make it everywhere ...
Silke
Actually, I don't like being tickled. I'm terribly sensitive and once I start laughing I can't stop. But pedantry aside, Silke is right. Jokes are only jokes when they're funny.
ReplyDeleteIt's as if someone claimed Christianity never happened in Rome, because the remains in the catacombs probably aren't of those early Christians.
ReplyDeleteWho is saying that other than you? Avishai is making a claim about one archeological site, there's no reason to expand that to a broader claim about the historical Jewish presence in the Jerusalem area, which I'm sure he wouldn't deny.
That historical presence is actually a very poor justification for a state, but that's a different issue.