Question # 5 June 15 - 21: Chapters 9 - 12

In describing Jerusalem, Picot reflects, "That's what you don't expect—how tangled it all is....You think...God bless, that fellow kneeling to a cross, he's a Christian, he must be on our side—and he is a Christian, but he isn't necessarily on your side, he's just as likely to be in an alliance with a Moslem prince." In what ways does the "tangled" Middle East of the twelfth century seem similar to the troubled region of today? In what ways is it different? Does this depiction of Jerusalem a thousand years ago shed any light on the predicament there now?

I think that less has changed in the Middle East than you would presume by the amount of time that has passed since Rowley's visit. What defines the region and makes it especially problematic is (still) the conflicting interest of representatives of three religions: Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Although the alliances seem a little clearer than in 1170, the word "tangled" is still valid. Jerusalem as the focal point with places sacred to all three religions makes a solution of these conflicts very improbable indeed. And modern day "crusaders" (like the USA) have to tread as carefully as Rowley had to.

On a funnier note, the first association that came into my mind when I read the question was a sentence from a book I'm currently reading, The Lion's Game by Nelson de Mille, that deals with the terrorist threat from the Middle East. The novel's hero John Corey is briefed on the situation there concerning the conflict of three religions and at the end of his briefing he says: "I didn't know whether to make the sign of the cross, face Mecca, or call my friend Jack Weinstein."

The Roman Empire had trouble with the inhabitants of this region, so why should we think it would be different today? It's a naturally anarchic place, and should properly be left in the care of its native anarchists without let or hindrance of outsiders.

There really wasn't any good reason for the Crusades, but their ghastly and still reverberating results should be modern proof enough that outside powers meddle at their own, enduring peril. Leave it.

Well said, Richard!

There were all sorts of good reasons for the crusades and little had to do with religion (much like today!).
I speak for France since it is what I know best, but I'm sure it must apply to England too. It was a political initiative: get rid of an idle nobility to prevent it from fomenting plots against the king. It was also an economic one of expansion and colonialism. It comes across clearly in Franklin's book.
The motives have certainly not changed much today: petrol is our main imperative and war-torn countries are a boon to speculators, investors and developers. What is destroyed must be rebuilt!

Well, Cecilturtle, we have to disagree on what a good reason is, then. Expediency doesn't equal good reasons to me.

Touché.
However I tend to disagree with
"It's a naturally anarchic place, and should properly be left in the care of its native anarchists"
This region is rich with culture and history. It would be a shame to not save it from its anarchists (not that Western politics are interested in doing that but I would hope that humanitarian organisations are).

I would argue that a resistance to authority that extends back to times before Western thought was stolen from the Egyptians and Assyrians, documented in countless histories and sacred texts, suggest that anarchy appears endemic to the region and its peoples.

I don't believe in the efficacy of attempting to save people from themselves, whether as individuals (addiction recovery, reform of sociopaths, etc) or as cultures. It comes from within, or it's of no value whatever.

But I have, quite rightly, been marked down as a cynic by more than one observer.

We all know that the area is constantly in turmoil between the 3 religions and as far as i can see not much has changed, and not much will change any time soon.

What Picot says about "he is a Christian, but he isn't necessarily on your side" is also valid. I mean just because someone belongs to a particular religion, doesn't make them an enemy or a friend. and we still see that today.

I do not think that I know as much about this as others do. However, I have seen many peace initiatives over the years which have fallen apart. So I do think that the problem is continuing and difficult to resolve. For those who want peace, there are others who do not. But I continue to hope and pray for peace in the Holy Land.
--BJ

About 15 years ago, I spent a week in the area visiting Jerusalem, Galilee (passing through the West Bank), and Tel Aviv. It was by far the most fascinating and disturbing trip I had ever been. I probably learned more on that trip than any other, yet, I was so relieved to get on that airplane and get out of there. (This will date me: the airport security took my Walkman apart to make sure it wasn't a bomb and it never worked again). My mistake for buying a chess set in the Muslim quarter, having it wrapped in Arabic newspaper and then taking it in my carry-on. They examined EVERY item in my suitcase, but that is another story....

The tension has texture there, a heaviness you can actually feel. I don't see that the problems are solvable any time soon. We talk about peace in the Middle East as if there ever has been such a thing. I think it will take a great deal more than politics and diplomacy. I hope it comes in the form of fewer violent conflicts, but I agree with Richard: it has to come from within. Eventually, the people in that region will have to decide that living in peace with acceptance is more important to them than having dominance, power and control.

The Middle East seems to be caught in the same struggles that are neverending from even before the Crusades. The Crusades just added another thread to the already confusing mix. With beilefs and feelings being indoctrinated into the young for such a long time many of the ideals are now passed on as facts of life and accepted without question. Throw the Christian idealists into the mix during the Crusades and is it any suprise the area turned into a bloodbath. Since the region never really arrived at a reconcilation, the battle continues today.