In the first four chapters of the book, Karen Armstrong goes through details about the history of Jerusalem and Palestine since thousands of years B.C.E. based on historical stories which are not really supported by strong evidence.
I learned from it some new details about that part of history which the Zionist movement always uses to give an excuse for its occupation of Palestine. Whenever I was in a debate or discussion about the situation in Palestine and the occupation of the land in 1948, there were always Zionists who came out and claimed that this land is only for Jews because they were the first people to live in this . They always refuse to go further back in history which shows that the Canaanites were there even before the Israelite flee from Egypt.
Another thing that is mentioned when speaking about that period is that most of Israel and Judah in that period was not what is known as “Israel” today. Most of Israel especially the coastal areas were known as Philistia and inhibited by the Canaanites.
The history shows the unrest and conflicts over controlling this region that has been associated with almost every period that historians can trace. Many people look at the ancient history and try to look for a solution from it for the current situations. I personally think that including this ancient history in any discussion will make finding a solution even more and more difficult. The main reason is simply because there is no evidence to support it other than stories that may be true and may not be or religious beliefs which differ from one religion to another.
You bring up a very interesting point about the shift in territoriality and territorial claims from antiquity to modernity. That is, the coastal areas were least associated with ancient Hebrew/Jewish rule, and the highlands of the modern West Bank were the heartland of the United Monarchy--but today, Israel proper is by and large coastal, and the West Bank largely Palestinian. There is an irony there, but the why, how, and so what? of this juxtaposition is very important.
ReplyDeleteThe coastal areas have been inhabited & productive continuously over the centuries, while the highlands have not--so the coastal region has held more value to foreign powers and conquerors. The highlands have less extrinsic value (i.e., value that everyone would agree upon--natural resources, strategic access, etc.) but greater intrinsic value (i.e., value that is subjective to one's context--religious significance, historical presence, etc.) to some groups, and thus were less-contested (until recently).
So, to put it in a nutshell, when large-scale immigration started in the early 20th century, people tended to concentrate in the established, productive coastal areas. It's only been when those coastal areas have gotten too crowded, and when nationalist/religious hardliners have advocated greater control over historical Judea and Samaria, that there has been a big influx of Jewish/Israeli settlers in the West Bank.