Jerusalem in history: notes on the origins of the city and its tradition of tolerance.

• Author: Asali, K.J.

Early in 1994 the Israeli press reported that the Israeli Ministry of Tourism and the Municipality of Jerusalem would organize country-wide celebrations in two-and-a-half years to mark the three-thousand-year anniversary of the founding of the city of Jerusalem. The Ministry and the Municipality found that the year 1996 would be one which would leave a special impression as an anniversary of the eternal city. However, in 1970 a musical festival was held in Israel marking the four-thousand-year anniversary of the founding of Jerusalem. At that time, the Israeli newspaper Davar criticized the organizers of the festival for reducing the age of the city by one thousand years. The question that presents itself here is how could the age of the city be reduced once again by another thousand years by the Israeli Municipality and the Ministry?

It is evident that neither anniversary is historically correct. It seems that both were chosen for touristic or artistic considerations, and that the choice of the second one was politically motivated. It is well-known that the correct age of the city, according to historical accounts, is five thousand years. This estimation is given by the Israeli historian Zev Vilnay, among other sources, in his comprehensive work in Hebrew, The Encyclopedia for the Knowledge of the Land of Israel, in the chapter titled "Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel."(1) The same age is given by the Israeli historians Ephraim and Menachem Tilmay at the end of their book, Jerusalem.(2)

Why then does the Israeli government plan in 1996 to celebrate a fallacious 3000-year anniversary? Davar notes that the anniversary was calculated from the year of the proclamation of David as King of Jerusalem in 1000 B.C. However, no source exists which claims that David was the founder of Jerusalem. The Old Testament narrates in detail how David's soldiers broke into the city after passing through a famous tunnel, "Sinnor" in the Old Testament. The well-known story need not be reiterated here. The plain truth is that David did not found Jerusalem. Instead, according to the text of the Bible and Professor Vilnay's encyclopedia, he occupied an already-inhabited city. It is this occupation which occurred in the year 1000 B.C.

At the time of the Davidic occupation, Jerusalem was already two thousand years old. Its original inhabitants were not Jews but Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, Hittites and other races each of whom had a culture and language as well as art, industry and agriculture.

Indeed, the oldest name of the city "Urusalem" is Amoritic. "Salem" or "Shalem" was the name of a Canaanite-Amorite god, while "uru" simply meant "founded by."(3) The names of the two oldest rulers of the city, Saz Anu and Yaqir Ammo, were identified by the American archaeologist W. F. Albright as Amoritic.(4) The Amorites, according to the Bible, are the original people of the land of Canaan. They had the same language as the Canaanites and were of the same Semitic stock. Many historians believe that the Amorites are an offshoot of the Canaanites who came originally from the Arabian Peninsula. In this regard it is apt to quote the Bible (Ezekiel: 16):

Thus say the Lord God to Jerusalem.

Your Origin and your birth are of the land

of the Canaanites, your father was an Amorite,

and your mother a Hittite.(5)

In the second millennium, Jerusalem was inhabited by the Jebusites. In the Bible the Jebusites are considered to be Canaanites. It was the Jebusites who first built the fortress Zion in the town. Zion is a Canaanite word which means "hill" or "height."

The second name of Jerusalem was "Jebus". The culture of Jebus was Canaanite, an ancient society which built many towns with well-built houses, in numerous city-states, in industry and commerce and in an alphabet and religion which flourished for two thousand years and were later borrowed by the primitive Hebrews.

It is strange indeed that all these facts were set aside and ignored by the authorities in Israel. But the reason is ready at hand: Jerusalem during these two thousand years, in the words of the Bible, "did not belong to the people of Israel." In Judges:19 it says:

In those days when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite set out on a journey to seek his concubine.... He had with him his servant. When they were near Jebus [i.e. Jerusalem] the day was far spent and the servant said to his master: "Come now let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spend the night in it." [And his master said to him], "We will not turn aside to the city of foreigners who do not belong to the people of Israel."(6)

Bearing these facts about the origin of Jerusalem in mind, the Israeli writer Dan Almagor, writing in the Israeli paper Yediot Ahronot, 29 January 1993, scoffed at the intended celebrations of the founding of Jerusalem and stressed that David was the occupier, not the founder of Jerusalem. Almagor said, "Let us be careful about the rules of truth and reality in our publishing. Accordingly, we must say truthfully: No festivities for the 3000-year anniversary of the foundation of Jerusalem but for the occupation of Jerusalem."

Following the first Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the city did not become purely Jewish, since the Jebusites remained in the city. Judges...