Jerusalem

**Paparock** · #1 02-08-2009, 01:01 AM

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem3.htm

Source: Gov't Press Office
http://www.netanyahu.org/jerusalem1.html

Jerusalem has emerged as a major point of contention in Israel's negotiations with its Arab neighbors, particularly the Palestinians. Claims of historic, religious and legal rights to the city have been asserted by the various parties to the conflict and, accordingly, these three aspects should be reviewed:

In discussing Jerusalem, history matters. In weighing ostensibly competing claims to the city, it must be recalled that the Jewish people bases its claim to Jerusalem on a link which dates back millennia. Indeed, Jerusalem has served as the capital of independent Jewish states several times over the past 3,000 years, including since 1948; it has never served any Arab state -- at anytime in history -- in such a capacity, and a Palestinian claim to Jerusalem was not articulated prior to 1967.

The observation that, "Jerusalem is holy to three religions," tends to mislead, since Jerusalem is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians in fundamentally different ways. Jerusalem contains sites holy to Muslims and Christians, and is one of many locations of religious significance to them. To Jews, however, it is the city itself which is uniquely holy; only Jews have a religious prescription to live there, to make pilgrimages there and to pray in its direction.

Israel has advanced a coherent case, based upon the precepts of international law, for sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Palestinians, for their part, have failed to offer any legal grounds in support of their claim to the city. Their claim seems to be based solely on their desire to possess it.

HISTORY
Jewish Continuity in Jerusalem
Throughout history, the Jewish People has maintained a presence in Jerusalem, ever since King David established the city as his capital nearly 3,000 years ago. Except for a very few periods, when they were forcibly barred from living in the city by foreign conquerors, Jews have always lived in Jerusalem. It is for this reason that Jews regard the city as their national center. Indeed, it is the centrality of the connection with Jerusalem -- Zion -- which led the modern Jewish movement for national liberation to be called Zionism. Throughout millennia, and in the face of conquest, forced exile, violence and discrimination, Jews have maintained their direct link to Jerusalem, returning to live in their city again and again.

The Jewish national and religious tie to Jerusalem was first established by King David and Solomon, his son, who built the first Temple there. This First Commonwealth lasted over 400 years, until the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and exiled the Jewish inhabitants of the city.

Immediately following the Persian defeat of the Babylonians, the Jews returned to Jerusalem less than 100 years later, rebuilt their Temple and reestablished the Jewish character of the city.

For the next 500 years, the Jews further strengthened their presence in Jerusalem, surviving various attempts by foreign empires to destroy their national and religious identity. Greeks, Seleucids and Romans took turns in conquering the city, forbidding Jewish religious practices and encouraging the Jews to assimilate into the dominant culture. Several times, the Jews were forced to take up arms in order to preserve their liberty and heritage.

Only after the Second Temple was destroyed by Rome in 70 AD, and a subsequent Jewish revolt was crushed in 135 AD, was the Jewish presence in the city temporarily suspended, following the killing or enslavement of the Jewish population by the Romans.

By the 4th century, some Jews had managed to make their way back to the city. In the 5th century, under early Christian rule, Jews were, at various times, either more or less free to practice their religion. At this time, few non-Christian communities remained in the country, apart from the Jews. Theodosius II (408-450) deprived the Jews of their relative autonomy and their right to hold public positions. Jewish courts were forbidden to sit on mixed Jewish-Christian cases and the construction of new synagogues was prohibited. Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem except on one day a year, to mourn the destruction of the Temple.

At the beginning of the 7th century, the Jews looked to the Persians for salvation. Hoping to be permitted to worship freely once the Byzantine oppression had been removed, the Jews encouraged the Persians' conquest of Acre and Jerusalem, and a Jewish community was subsequently allowed to settle and worship in Jerusalem (614-17), though it was later expelled. Under early Arab rule, a Jewish community was reestablished in Jerusalem and flourished in the 8th century. Jews were even among those who guarded the walls of the Dome of the Rock. In return, they were absolved from paying the poll-tax imposed on all non-Muslims. In the 10th and 11th centuries, however, harsh measures were imposed against the Jews by the Fatimids, who seized power in 969. Though the Jewish academy (Yeshiva) of Jerusalem was compelled by Caliph Al-Hakim to reestablish itself in Ramle, entry to Jerusalem was revived by the "Mourners of Zion", Diaspora Jews who did not cease to lament the destruction of the Temple. This movement, which held that "aliyah" -- ascent to the Land -- would hasten the resurrection of Israel, was at its peak in the 9th-11th centuries. Many Jews came from Byzantium and Iraq and established communities.

The Crusader period in the 12th century brought terrible massacres of Jews by Christians, and the prohibition against living in Jerusalem. After the conquest of the country by Saladin late in the century, the Jewish community in Jerusalem again grew considerably.

In 1211, three hundred rabbis from France and England immigrated as a group, many settling in Jerusalem. After the Mamluks took power in 1250, the famous Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman (Nahmanides), traveled from Spain and settled in Jerusalem.

Jewish communities existed in Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, though under economic stress, and religious and social discrimination. During this period, the Jews in the city were supported in large measure by the tourist trade, commerce and contributions from Jews abroad (Europe, the Mediterranean countries and North Africa), who did what they could to help maintain the center of the Jewish People. The Expulsion from Spain and Portugal, in the late 15th century, led to an influx of Jews into the Land, including Jerusalem.

The 16th and 17th centuries were times of economic hardship for the Jews, during which the population of Jerusalem was somewhat reduced. By the end of the 17th century, however, Jerusalem again emerged as the largest central community of the Jews in the Land. Large numbers of Jews immigrated in the 18th century as a result of the messianic-Shabbatean movement, many coming from Eastern and Central Europe, Italy, and other places. Even so, the majority of Jews in the Land in the 17th and 18th centuries were Sephardic Jews, descendants of those expelled from Spain, and immigrants from Turkey and the Balkan countries.

During the 19th century, immigration increased and the establishment of the modern Zionist movement revitalized the Jewish community throughout Israel. Jerusalem, which in 1800 numbered about 2,000 Jews (out of a total population of 8,750), grew to 11,000 by 1870 (out of 22,000), and 40,000 (out of 60,000) by 1905. It is the political, cultural and religious center of the State of Israel and of the Jewish People around the world.

The Biblical Era
While various origins have been proposed for its Semitic name, Yerushalem -- often translated as "the city of Shalem" -- the Bible recounts in Genesis that Abraham visited King Malchizedek of Shalem, which the commentators equate with Jerusalem. Interestingly, "shalem" is also related grammatically to "shalom," or peace; thus the city's appellation: "City of Peace." The Hebrew root "shalem" also means "wholeness." The first archeological evidence of Jerusalem's history dates back to the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000 BC).

When David was anointed King of Israel (c. 1000 BC), and subsequently united the tribes of Israel, he captured the city -- which he perceived as an ideal site for the capital of his new kingdom. Then, with the King and the Ark of the Covenant in residence in the city, Jerusalem was transformed into both the political capital and the religious center of Israel. King David's son and successor, Solomon, consolidated Jerusalem's eternal religious significance for all Jews by building the First Temple.

Later, in the early 6th century BC, Judah's rulers fought and were defeated by the Babylonians. In 586 BC, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon occupied the city, destroyed the Temple and exiled Jerusalem's population to Babylon. Then, when the Persians defeated Babylon in 536 BC, Cyrus the Great allowed the Jewish exiles to return home. The Second Temple was dedicated soon after and, under Nehemiah, who was appointed governor by the Persians in 445 BC, the Jews rebuilt the walls of the Temple and strengthened its fortifications. At the same time, reforms initiated by Ezra restored the authority of Jerusalem as the spiritual capital of Judaism.

Hellenistic Rule and the Maccabees
Alexander the Great's conquest of Jerusalem in 333 BC led to the establishment of the Hellenistic monarchies, and the first new rulers -- the Ptolemies of Egypt -- retained the existing Jewish religious and political leadership. Under their reign, Jerusalem prospered. This continued even after 198 BC, when the Seleucid king of Syria, Antiochus III, captured Jerusalem from the Egyptians. His son, Antiochus IV, however, sought to intensify the influence of Hellenism. It was his intention to transform Jerusalem into a Greek metropolis and his desecration of the Temple that provoked a Jewish insurrection; the ensuing revolt, headed by the Hasmonaeans and led by Judah Maccabee, succeeded in liberating Jerusalem. In 165 BC, Chanukah ("dedication") was first celebrated, with Jews again being permitted to worship at the Temple.

Roman Rule
The later years of the Hasmonaean dynasty witnessed the emergence of an internal Jewish dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, culminating in civil war and foreign intervention. In 63 BC, Pompey imposed Roman rule in Jerusalem -- and, in 37 BC, Roman hegemony was firmly established with the appointment of Herod as King of Judea. Ironically, a combination of factors brought Herodian Jerusalem to the pinnacle of its prosperity, marked by extensive and lavish construction projects. King Herod's fortification projects also included the construction of the still standing Western Wall (of the Temple). It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem reached 120,000-200,000 under Herod's rule.

The Second Fall of Jerusalem
After Herod's death, Judea became a Roman province (6 AD). Jerusalem was governed by Roman procurators residing in Caesarea, and ceased to function as the capital of Judea -- although the municipal government remained in the hands of the Jewish high priest and Sanhedrin (rabbinical council), which fulfilled the functions of a municipal council.

The next few decades were marked by the eruption of sporadic riots in Jerusalem, usually resulting in clashes with Roman troops. By the middle of the 1st century AD, the Jews of Israel had again fought to liberate their country and capital -- but their war against the Romans ended in 70 AD, when the armies of Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple. Most residents of Jerusalem had either been killed or had perished from hunger during the Roman siege, and the survivors were sold into slavery or executed. Virtually the entire city was destroyed.

Subsequently, in 130, Emperor Hadrian decided to rebuild Jerusalem as a city -- thus provoking the Second Jewish Revolt against the Romans. Under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kokhba, Jerusalem was once again liberated, although only for two years. Ultimately, Rome crushed the revolt and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina. Later, in the 4th century, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. It was then that Queen Helena and her son, Emperor Constantine, transformed Jerusalem into a Christian center.

Arab and Crusader Eras
In 638, the Muslim army of Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem. Initially, Muslim rule was tolerant and brought prosperity. In 691, Caliph Abd al- Malik of the Umayyad dynasty constructed the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple. The Dome was intended to compete with the shrines in Arabia, which were under the rule of his political opponents. Significantly, Jerusalem ranked only third in the hierarchy of Muslim religious sanctity, subordinate to Mecca and Medina.

Afterward, the First Crusade (1099) conquered Jerusalem, massacring tens of thousands of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Jerusalem was established as the capital of the Latin Kingdom in the Holy Land. This Kingdom, however, collapsed some decades later. In 1187, Sultan Salah a-Din arrived from Egypt and besieged Jerusalem, ultimately gaining control of the city. Jews began to return to Jerusalem in 1210, ending the short and temporary exile from the city, which had been imposed by the Crusaders. In fact, the Jewish community in Jerusalem continued to expand as Jews immigrated from Europe and the Maghreb.

The Mamluk and Ottoman Periods
By the 13th century, Jerusalem had become a marginal part of a large kingdom ruled from Aleppo and Damascus -- and, by the end of the century, the Mamluks of Egypt had taken control. Mamluk rule lasted for the next 200 years. During their rule, Jerusalem first belonged to the province of Damascus, then became a separate province. The Sultan appointed the provincial head directly, often selling the post to the highest bidder. Jerusalem's economy was devastated, owing to the imposition of excessive taxes by the Mamluks, who also engaged in frequent Muslim civil wars.

In 1517, Jerusalem fell to the Turks, whose rule was to last for exactly four centuries. Initially, Ottoman rule was energetic and beneficent. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls and gates of the Old City. However, the death of Suleiman was almost immediately followed by pervasive internal decay which beset the empire, and during the 17th and 18th centuries, Jerusalem experienced the least impressive period of its illustrious past.

Jerusalem "Rediscovered"
In the 19th century, Jerusalem blossomed into an urban center. Demographic, political and technological factors contributed to the gradual process of urbanization -- largely reflecting the competition raging between European states and the declining Ottoman Empire. Moreover, world politics and economics were intermingled with religion in Jerusalem; France backed the Catholics, Prussia and England founded Protestant Bishoprics, and the Czar of Russia extended his aegis to the Greek Orthodox.

Jerusalem entered the 19th century with about 9,000 inhabitants. In 1840, Jews became the largest single community in the city -- accounting for a majority of Jerusalem's residents by 1880. In 1860, Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore established the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood, the first quarter outside the Old City walls. Eventually, this project was followed by many others. In 1900, the city's population reached 55,000; 60% of whom were Jews.

Under British Rule
In the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917, Britain declared that:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Following the World War I victory of the Allies in the Middle East, Britain occupied Mandatory Palestine -- including what is now Jordan, which was separated from the rest of Mandatory Palestine by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and given to the Hashemite family of Arabia in 1921 -- assuming military and administrative control for the area.

This situation was endorsed by the international community, and in 1922 Britain was awarded the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations -- which entailed, among other things, the fostering of a Jewish National Home in the territory, as proposed by the Balfour Declaration.

During their Mandatory administration of Jerusalem, the British did demonstrate considerable concern for the special character and atmosphere of Jerusalem. The British did, however, pursue policies which promoted conflict between the various populations of Jerusalem -- such as always appointing Arab mayors, although the Jews had long constituted the city's majority.

Between 1920 and 1940, Arab hostility to Jewish immigration and toward the majority Jewish presence in Jerusalem was expressed in increasingly violent attacks against Jewish residents. In 1929, a mob of 2,000 Arabs attacked Jews at the Western Wall and throughout the city, killing six. Continual Arab rioting, mostly violent, led the British government to issue its White Paper of May 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine. Meanwhile, the Arabs continued to reject all attempts to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

All attempts to internationalize Jerusalem were also flatly rejected by the Arabs. This approach was best personified by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who directed the violent suppression of Jewish religious and political rights. His views found their ultimate expression during World War II, in his active support for the Nazis and their genocide against the Jews.

The British ultimately forfeited the Mandate, and departed on 15 May 1948. United Nations Approves Partition On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states -- and to make Jerusalem a "separate body" (corpus separatum) under a special international regime, with "suitable guarantees for the protection of Holy Places."

The Jews accepted the resolution, but the Arabs -- both those living inside and beyond the territory of the Mandate -- rejected the partition resolution and the plan to internationalize Jerusalem, thereby nullifying the proposal.

Between November 1947 and April 1948, Arab bands attacked Jews in Jerusalem itself and on all roads into the city, killing 296. The Arabs also imposed a blockade on the city -- denying food, water and medical supplies to its Jewish population.

go to part two
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerus...erusalem3b.htm

Jerusalem Divided
In 1948, following the United Nations decision, the British Mandate ended and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Arab armies attacked the fledgling state, starting the first Arab-Israeli war. Three Arab armies -- those of Egypt, Iraq and the Arab Legion from Jordan -- together with Syrian troops, surrounded Jerusalem, bombarded the city and tried to occupy it. In four weeks, 170 Jewish civilians were killed by Arab shellfire; another 1,000 were wounded. In the ten months of fighting, many Jews and Arabs fled Jerusalem, and all Jewish residents of the Old City were driven from their homes by Jordanian forces.

Following an armistice signed in April 1949 between Israel and Jordan, Jerusalem was divided for the first time in its millennia-old history. The city was split along the cease-fire lines of the Israeli and Jordanian forces, with several "no-man's land" areas and two demilitarized zones separating the two sides. Still, in breach of the cease-fire agreements, which called for Jewish access to the Jordanian-held areas, the armistice lines ultimately functioned as a frontier dividing the two previously intermingled communities. Mount Scopus was cut off from Israel and, despite the commitments undertaken in the armistice agreement, only minimal Israeli access was allowed. Jordan would not permit the Hebrew University, the library or Hadassah Hospital to operate.

What had been intended as an interim period prior to the reunification of Jerusalem became, for the next 19 years, a border of minefields and barbed wire traversing the city. The Jordanians systematically destroyed the synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, desecrated the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and denied Jews the right to worship at Judaism's holiest site, the Western Wall. While concentrating its efforts in the expansion of its capital, Amman, Jordan implemented policies which led to the stagnation of east Jerusalem. Its historical and holy sites became inaccessible to all Jews, as well as to Israeli Christians and Muslims. Meanwhile, west Jerusalem -- the declared capital of Israel -- thrived and developed.

Jerusalem Reunited
In June 1967, King Hussein of Jordan ignored Israel's pleas (communicated through the UN) to maintain the cease-fire, and Jordan joined other Arab countries in initiating a war against Israel. The Arabs heavily shelled Jewish neighborhoods and their ground forces occupied strategic positions in "no-man's land" areas -- in preparation for further attacks.

In defending itself, Israel gained control of the eastern part of Jerusalem by 7 June; Jerusalem was reunited and Jews were once again able to pray at the Western Wall. The current municipal borders were defined that June, and contemporary Jerusalem began to evolve. The city was opened to all worshippers. Unprecedented development was achieved in the spheres of economics, health, education, art and culture, and the general welfare of its inhabitants. In 1967, the total population of Jerusalem stood at 267,800 -- 196,500 Jews, 60,500 Muslims and 10,800 Christians. In December 1993, there were 567,700 residents of the city -- 406,800 Jews and 160,900 non-Jews.

Religion
The world's three great monotheistic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- all consider Jerusalem a holy city, with major events in each of their histories being linked to the city. For Judaism, uniquely, it is the city itself that is holy, representing the hope and meaning of Jewish existence and continuity. For Christians and Muslims, by contrast, Jerusalem is a city that contains holy sites, hallowed by sacred events.

Judaism
Jerusalem, whose name was invoked by the Hebrew prophets, runs as a common thread throughout Jewish history. Jeremiah called Jerusalem the "Throne of the Lord." Jerusalem is enshrined in daily prayers, as voiced in the great central prayer of the Jewish service recited in the morning, at midday and at night: "And to Jerusalem Thy city return in mercy...rebuild it soon in our days." Jews around the world pray facing Mount Moriah, where the Temple stood. The city has also been immortalized in the poetry of Jews such as Yehuda Halevi who, in 12th century Spain, woefully lamented the great distance separating him from Jerusalem.

It is this city which reflects Jewish self-understanding and historic consciousness. The Talmud -- versions of which were composed in both Babylon and Israel, with the latter being known as the Jerusalem Talmud -- a compilation of rabbinic commentary on the Bible, contains countless references to Jerusalem, using many of its more than forty different names. Jewish tradition says that of the ten measures of beauty in the world, Jerusalem possesses nine of them.

For the Jews, Jerusalem and Zion are synonymous, and have come to symbolize the Jewish nation as a whole. Judaism, in fact, recognizes both the Earthly Jerusalem -- a symbol of the ingathering of the exiles to their promised land -- and its Heavenly counterpart. It is written in the Talmud: "And God said: I will not enter the Heavenly Jerusalem until I can enter the Earthly Jerusalem".

The modern movement which emerged in late-19th century Europe, termed practical Zionism, secularized the religious belief that only when Jews came and inhabited Jerusalem would the Day of Redemption arrive. Isaiah's reference to a Heavenly Jerusalem is another source of the Jewish longing to return to Zion, something which has also influenced today's political Zionism, with Jews from around the world coming to live in Jerusalem. Jews fleeing Arab persecution also came to Jerusalem, realizing the commandment of a spiritual Zionism, as part of a parallel national liberation movement among Jews born in Arab lands who, for two thousand years, have also longed to return to Zion.

No other city has played such a predominant role in the history, culture, religion, and consciousness of a people as Jerusalem has in the life of the Jews. Throughout centuries of exile, Jerusalem has remained alive in the hearts of Jews everywhere as the spiritual center of their lives.
They never ceased to mourn the ancient destruction of the city. Fast days marking the destruction of the first and second temples, and of the city itself, are an integral part of the Jewish calendar.

Jerusalem is even remembered at all Jewish weddings. At the conclusion of the wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass to commemorate the destruction of the Temple -- even at this most joyous of occasions. It was also customary for the groom to put ashes on his head, the jewelry of the bride to be incomplete, and an empty space to be left at the feast to remind the guests of mourning Jerusalem. Indeed, the restoration of Jerusalem as the national and religious capital of the Jews is an oft- repeated theme. "Next year in Jerusalem" is a Jewish motif that permeates all religious observances. This sentiment found its most succinct expression in the words of the Psalmist: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning," (Psalms 137:5).

Christianity
For Christians, Jerusalem is the witness of their faith. Some of the central events in the life of Jesus, culminating in the crucifixion and the resurrection, occurred here. In an effort to achieve control over these sites, the Christian powers entered Jerusalem in the 4th century. They remained until the Arab conquest three centuries later, and again returned at the end of the 11th century with the advent of the Crusades.

Today, the Christian community in Jerusalem may be divided into four basic categories: Orthodox, Monophysite, Catholic, and Protestant. In total, some 15 ancient churches (and another 20 denominational groups) are active in the city.

In Christianity -- in contrast to Judaism -- there is no precept to live in Jerusalem. Further, Christians en masse were never enjoined to establish a residence (even temporarily) in Jerusalem, apart from the clergy who were dispatched by their Churches. In Christian tradition, it is the Heavenly Jerusalem that is emphasized.

Islam
The Koran relates that, one night, the prophet Muhammad was miraculously transported from Mecca to Jerusalem -- from where he made his ascent to heaven. The events of this nocturnal journey have been further embellished by legends, including those concerning Muhammad's winged mount Al-Buraq.

Accordingly, Islam is linked to the pre-existing tradition of holiness ascribed to Jerusalem by Judaism and Christianity, having integrated this legacy into its own religious constellation.

But for Islam, Jerusalem has never been regarded as sacred as Mecca and Medina. The Temple Mount, with the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque -- built in the 7th century, soon after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and referred to as the center of the universe -- is only considered by Muslims to be the third most important site in Islam after the Ka'aba in Mecca (in whose direction all Muslims - even those in Jerusalem - pray) and the Mosque of Muhammad in Medina.

Legal Status
From a legal perspective, the departure of the British in May 1948 left Jerusalem's status undetermined. The end of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war found the western part of the city in Israeli hands, and the eastern part (including the Old City) controlled by Jordan. In 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an armistice, dividing Jerusalem into two demarcated zones. These lines, however, were seen by both sides to be temporary -- until a peace treaty could be concluded; neither party viewed the cease-fire lines as permanent borders.

As late as 31 May 1967, Ambassador Al-Farrah of Jordan told the United Nations Security Council:

"There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed the demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights -- political, military or otherwise. Thus, I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement."

Under the armistice agreement, Jordan promised to allow "free access to the Holy Places... and use of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives." It further guaranteed Israel free access to Hadassah Hospital and the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus. These rights, however, were denied.

Despite the commitments under the armistice agreement, no Jew, from any country, was allowed to pray at the Western Wall. In fact, no Israelis -- of any religious persuasion -- were allowed to pray at the sites sacred to them. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City was systematically destroyed. The Jewish cemetery was desecrated and its tombstones were used to pave a path to the latrine of a Jordanian military installation. Christian education was restricted in the part of the city controlled by Jordan; Christian schools were forced to close on Friday, the Muslim day of rest. Christians were also forbidden to acquire land in or near Jerusalem. The economy of eastern Jerusalem was devastated and political expression was severely limited; no Palestinian Arab newspaper was allowed to publish. The Absence of Jordanian Legal Title to Jerusalem The annexation of territory by a belligerent occupant, pending the conclusion of a peace treaty, is not permitted by international law. Thus, the invasion of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem by Jordan in 1948 did not bring with it the right to annex the conquered areas -- and, in the absence of a peace treaty, the Jordanian annexation of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem was a violation of both international law and the Israel- Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949. Indeed, only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, ever recognized Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria; even then, Britain withheld recognition of the annexation of Jerusalem by Amman.

In contrast, Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem came under the control of the Israel Defense Forces in June 1967, following Israel's exercise of its right of self-defense in the face of Jordanian attacks along the then existing Israel-Jordan armistice demarcation lines.

Not only did Israel not view the Israel-Jordan armistice demarcation lines as full-fledged borders, but it explicitly upheld the contrary view when Jordan sought to unilaterally alter the status of Judea and Samaria (including eastern Jerusalem) in 1950. The provisions of the Armistice Agreement remained in force so long as the agreement was in effect. The Jordanian aggression of June 1967, however, constituted a material breach of that agreement, entitling Israel to regard it as no longer in force.

The overall extension of Israeli law to eastern Jerusalem, and the governmental functions Israel performs there, do not constitute a violation of international law. Israel's position in eastern Jerusalem cannot be considered that of "occupant" or "annexing state," given the meaning of these terms under international law.

The Palestinian Claim to Jerusalem
Similarly, the claim to make Jerusalem (or at least its eastern part) capital of a Palestinian state is unfounded. Palestinian leaders often call for Jerusalem (or "Arab Jerusalem") to be "restored" to the Palestinian people, but there is no legal basis for this claim.

First, not only has Jerusalem never been the capital of an Arab state, but there has never been any state of Palestine. When the Arabs first controlled the region in the Middle Ages, they established their capital in Ramle. Subsequent Arab and Mamluk empires chose to rule from Baghdad and Damascus. The Ottoman sultan resided in Constantinople, now Istanbul. More recently, the Jordanians -- who held the eastern part of the city from 1948 to 1967 -- designated Amman as their capital city.

Second, prior to 1948, Palestinian Arabs refused to accept any of the proposed solutions to the Arab-Jewish conflict. They would not consent to anything short of establishing Arab rule in all of the Palestine Mandate -- and expelling, or killing, all Jews living in that area. In an effort to achieve that objective, the Palestinian Arabs (and the surrounding Arab states) initiated a war against the newly proclaimed State of Israel, hoping to destroy the new country before it could establish itself.

Third, between 1948 and 1967, there were only isolated calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the "territories," with Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964, three years before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, with the avowed aim of "liberating" that area of Mandatory Palestine which had become the State of Israel, as well as that which had become Jordan. At that time, the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem were Jordanian citizens -- and remain so today.

Fourth, only in 1967 -- once Israel had successfully defended itself against Arab aggression and reunited Jerusalem -- did the Palestinian Arabs begin to lay claim to Jerusalem as their political capital. What motivated them was primarily an inability to accept the fact that Israel had emerged victorious from a war which was intended to destroy it, and that Israel had also succeeded in establishing its rule over all of Jerusalem.

Thus, there is no legal basis for the "historical" Palestinian claim that Jerusalem was their capital. Moreover, although the Palestinians may have a strong emotional attachment to Jerusalem, it does not necessarily follow that Jerusalem -- over 70% of whose population is Jewish, and where the majority of the population in the eastern part of the city is also Jewish, should become the capital of any Palestinian political entity.

Israel's Record of Openness and Tolerance
The reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli rule brought with it the Protection of the Holy Places Law, adopted by the Knesset in June 1967. The law protects freedom of access to all holy sites -- and prescribes punishment for all those whose actions are "likely to violate" this freedom and/or even the "feelings" of observant people vis-a-vis these sacred shrines. The desecration of such a Holy Place also bears a penalty of incarceration. In July 1980, the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel reiterated both the duty of the State to protect the Holy Places and the right to freedom of access by religious adherents.

The reality of Jerusalem is clear testimony to Israel's success in meeting these commitments. Israel allows the various religious communities to administer and maintain their own holy places and institutions, and to celebrate their holidays.

Free access to Jerusalem's holy sites is ensured to foreign pilgrims as well. In fact, 150,000 of the over 1 million tourists who visit Jerusalem each year are Muslim pilgrims from countries which have not yet established diplomatic relations with Israel -- such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The sites of religious and historical significance to Jews, Muslims and Christians have been explored and restored; equal concern is afforded to all.

Israel's Record in Jerusalem
Toward the end of 1948, when fighting between Jordan and Israel ceased, the Israeli-held sector began to function as the capital. The Knesset held its first session, from 14-17 February 1949, in Jerusalem, where its members took the oath of office and Chaim Weizmann was elected President of the State.

Despite the division of the city, western Jerusalem -- the capital of Israel -- flourished. Its population doubled between 1948 and 1967. During those years, Israel took steps to strengthen the status of Jerusalem as capital. The new Knesset building and Government Center were constructed. A new Hadassah Medical Center and Hebrew University were erected, since the original institutions on Mount Scopus became inaccessible. A national convention center (Binyanei Ha'uma) was built and the Israel Museum was created. The seat of the Chief Rabbinate and the official residence of the President were built.

All foreign ambassadors present their credentials in Jerusalem, and visiting heads of state are officially received there by the President, Prime Minister and the Knesset. Diplomatic contact with government officials takes place in Jerusalem.

On 30 July 1980, the Knesset adopted the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which states, among other things, that:

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.
Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government, and the Supreme Court.
The holy places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation, and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.

Israel has been charged with annexing Jerusalem, either the entire city or at least its eastern side. However, the term "annexation" is an inappropriate description of the measures implemented to apply Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction to any areas of Israel -- including Jerusalem -- because the State of Israel cannot "annex" areas which, until 1948, constituted a part of Mandatory Palestine. Israel neither regards its standing in these areas to be that of an occupying power, nor has it ever regarded the Arab states that invaded Israel in May 1948 as sovereign in the areas of Israel that they seized; the Arab states were, at best, merely belligerent occupants. The Arab residents of those territories, including eastern Jerusalem, became citizens of the country which conquered the territory, Jordan; they never constituted a separate political entity.

Under Knesset legislation, Israel amended the 1967 Municipalities Ordinance to recognize the enlarged area of Jerusalem (in the wake of the Six-Day War) as part of the Municipality of Jerusalem. Accordingly, it is clear that Israel sought to emphasize both that it did not consider itself an occupying power in Jerusalem, and that the status of Jerusalem was different from that of Judea and Samaria -- which are administered under a different legal system.

Moreover, immediately following Israel's reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, Arab residents of Jerusalem were offered full Israeli citizenship. The majority of the Arabs living in Jerusalem chose not to accept Israeli citizenship, but nevertheless, as residents of the city, they were given -- and still retain -- the right to participate in municipal elections and enjoy all economic, cultural and social benefits afforded to Israeli citizens (e.g. membership in Israel's labor federation and national insurance system). Furthermore, Israel's democratic legal system grants equal protection of property, civil and human rights to all residents of Jerusalem.

Thus, the application of Israeli law to eastern Jerusalem is no different in substance from its application in the other parts of Israel that lie beyond the boundaries recommended by the United Nations in 1947.

Possible Solutions to the Issue of Jerusalem's Status Following Jerusalem's reunification, four approaches to resolving the issue of the city's status evolved. The first approach is to redivide the city. The second proposes dividing the city into cantons, according to which population constitutes a majority. The third entails international control over Jerusalem. The fourth proposes recognizing the sovereignty of one nation, while guaranteeing open access and the internal administration of religious places by their adherents.

Redividing the city today is not a viable option. The 19 years between 1948 and 1967, when the city was scarred by barbed wire, walls, and armed troops dividing the population, were unbearable for its residents, limited Jerusalem's natural development, and contrasts with the openness, tolerance and neighborliness of the city since 1967. Any division of the city, even a solely administrative one, is likely to exacerbate tensions among the population and undercut the progress that has been made in so many spheres. Likewise, cantonization would unnaturally divide Jerusalem into enclaves spread throughout the city. The reality is that neighborhoods are not uniformly linked to form exclusively "Jewish" and "Arab" areas. Attempting to combine separate neighborhoods into different municipal units would unravel the social fabric which has been woven in Jerusalem, not to mention lower the quality of municipal services provided to city residents. Similarly, the infrastructure simply does not exist to enable multiple governments to serve residents adequately, in a patchwork of separate cantons located in different sections of the city.

The internationalization proposal appears to be in eclipse. In the late 1960s however, the Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) indicated their preference for that solution -- since it seemed most likely to put an end to Israeli control.

The Vatican, which initially also professed to support the concept, subsequently changed its views in favor of "international guarantees" for the holy places. The practical problems of internationalization would be too numerous to make it feasible -- nothing would be more likely to disrupt the life of a city and its population, than imposing upon it a system of divided, external government, with each factor seeking to further its own, rather than the city's, interests.

In discussing the fourth solution -- recognizing the sovereignty of one nation -- the question of the parties' primary objectives in Jerusalem must be addressed. Israel believes that Jerusalem must function as an increasingly tolerant, peaceful and prosperous city, where a diverse, multi-cultural population may live and work. Israel is committed to ensuring that Jerusalem remains safe and attractive, and that the atmosphere of the city facilitates tourism and worship. The Government of Israel has stated that it is ready to sign international commitments enshrining these principles.

Provided by the Government Press Office

**Paparock** · #2 02-08-2009, 01:06 AM

PALESTINIAN VIEWS TOWARD THE LAND

1. Faisal Husseini, PLO-ARAB Authority Representative for Jerusalem Affairs:
Oslo accords are a Trojan Horse:

"Had the U.S. and Israel realized, before Oslo, that all that was left of the PLO-ARAB National movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls. This effort [the Intifada] could have been much better, broader, and more significant had we made it clearer to ourselves that the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger... We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure. . [Palestine] according to the higher strategy [is]: ' from the river to the sea.' Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation."
[Al-Arabi' -Egypt, 24 June 2001]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Abd El Aziz Shahian, PLO-ARAB Authority Minister of Supplies:
Oslo is just the first step in the destruction of Israel:

"The PLO-ARAB people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent settlement, based on the premise that the war and struggle in the land is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land [i.e. Tunisia, where the PLO was based before Oslo -Ed] ... the PLO-ARAB people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution..." .
[P.A. Minister of Supply Abd El Aziz Shahian, Al Ayyam, 30 May 2000]
[The "'65 Revolution" is the founding of the P.L.O. and the publication of the PLO-ARAB charter that calls for the destruction of Israel via an
armed struggle.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Othman Abu Arbiah, Arafat's Deputy:
The PLO-ARAB state is just the first stage:

"... At this stage we'll prevail in our struggle [toward] the goals of the stages [plan]. The goal of this stage is the establishment of the
independent PLO-ARAB State, with its capital in Jerusalem. When we achieve this, it will be a positive [step] and it will advance us to the
next stage via other ways and means... 'Every PLO-ARAB must know clearly and unequivocally that the independent PLO-ARAB State, with Jerusalem as its capital is not the end of the road'. The [rise of] the PLO-ARAB State is a stage after which there will be another stage and that is the democratic state in all of Palestine [i.e. in place of Israel]."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 25 November 1999]
[Othman Abu Arbiah is Arafat's aide for Political Guidance and national affairs, and the Director-General for National Affairs, a senior position in the PLO-ARAB national educational structure]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Sheikh Yousuf Abu Sneina, the preacher of the Al-Aqza Mosque:
All of Israel is "Palestine" forever:

"The Islamic land of Palestine is one and can not be divided. There is no difference between Haifa and Nablus, between Lod and Ramallah,
between Jerusalem and Nazareth, between Gaza and Ashkelon. The land of Palestine is Waqf land that belongs to Moslems throughout the
world and no one has the right to act freely or the right to make concessions or to abandon her. Whoever does this betrays a [trust] and is
nothing more than a loathsome criminal whose abode is in Hell!"
[The Preacher of Al Aqza Mosque, Sheikh Yousuf Abu Sneina, PATV, 8 September 2000]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Abdullah Al-Hourani, Chairman, PLO-ARAB National Council Political Committee:
The conflict remains eternal - all of Israel is Palestine:

Interviewer: "How do read the future of the peace process.?" Al-Hourani: "Whether they return to negotiations or not, and whether they fulfill the agreements or not - the political plan is a temporary agreement, and the conflict remains eternal, will not be locked, and the agreements being talked about are regarding the current balance of power. As to the struggle, it will continue. It may pause at times, but in the final
analysis, Palestine is ours from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River."
[Al Hayat Al Jadida, 14 April 2000]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Imad Alfalugi, the PLO-ARAB Authority Minister of Communication:
Israel "the Occupation State" will cease to exist:

"Our people have hope for the future, that the Occupation State ceases to exist, and that it makes no difference [how great] its power and
arrogance..." .
[Minister of Communications, Imad Alfalugi, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 18 November 1999]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Salim Alo'adia, Abu Salam, Supervisor of Political Affairs:
The goal has not changed - the "liberation of Palestine"
"When we picked up the gun in '65 and the modern PLO-ARAB Revolution began, it had a goal. This goal has not changed and it is the liberation of Palestine."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 20 January 2000]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, PLO-ARAB Authority appointed Mufti of Jerusalem & Palestine:
We have not forgotten about Jaffa or about Acre

"We are discussing the current problems and when we speak about Jerusalem it doesn't mean that we have forgotten about Hebron or about Jaffa or about Acre. .we are speaking about the current problems that have priority at a certain time. It doesn't mean that we have given up... We have announced a number of times that from a religious point of view Palestine from the sea to the river is Islamic."
[PATV, 11 January 2001]
[Note: Jaffa and Acre are Israeli cities. The "sea to the river" is all of Israel.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halbiah, a PLO-ARAB Authority Religious leader, a member of the PLO-ARAB Sharianic (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector Advanced Studies, the Islamic University:"
All the agreements are temporary"

"We the nation of Palestine, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard in the war against the Jews until the resurrection of the dead, as the Prophet Mohammed said: The resurrection of the dead will not come until you do battle with the Jews and kill them. We the Palestinians, are the vanguard in this issue, in this battle, whether we want to or whether we refuse. All the agreements being made are temporary."
[Preacher Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halbiah, PATV, 28 July 2000]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, a PLO-ARAB Authority religious leader:
"We will enter Jaffa, Ramle and Lod and all of Palestine, as conquerors."

"We are positive that Allah will help us triumph. Our belief is firm that one day we will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as conquerors, Ramle and Lod. and all of Palestine, as conquerors. [ed. note: Jaffa, Ramle, and Lod are Israeli cities.] "If He [Allah] asks them [Arab leaders], on Judgment Day: 'the majority of Palestine was lost in '48 and what did you do? And the remainder was lost in ' 67, and now it is being vanquished again.' How shall we respond to our Lord?.

"Palestine shall be the burial grounds of the invaders just as it was for the Tartars, and the Crusaders and for modern colonialism. The Tradition relates to us that Allah's cherished one [Muhammad] said: 'The Jews will battle against you but you shall emerge masters over them."
[Preacher Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, PATV, 12 April 2002]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, a PLO-ARAB Authority religious leader:
" We will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel-Aviv"

"We will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel-Aviv and in Netanya... We will fight against them and rule over them until the Jew will hide behind the trees and stones and the tree and stone will say: 'Moslem! Servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him'. We will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, and Jaffa as conquerors, and Haifa as conquerors and Ashkelon as conquerors...."
[Preacher Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, PATV, 3 August 2001]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halbiah, a PLO-ARAB Authority Religious leader:
" We will not forget Haifa, Acre, Jaffa, the Galilee Triangle, and the Negev"

"Even if agreements were signed [regarding] Gaza and the West Bank, we will not forget Haifa, Acre, Jaffa, the Galilee Triangle, and the Negev. It is only a question of time."
[Preacher Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halbiah, PATV, 13 October 2000]
[Ed note: All are Israeli cities or regions.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, PA religious leader:
Palestine shall return to its former days. Israel shall pass.

"Who is responsible for the loss of Palestine, the good land that the passages of the dear Koran bless many times, and [for] deceitfully labeling it Israel? Who is responsible for the loss of Jerusalem... The Prophet [Muhammad] soothes us with many Hadiths that Palestine shall return to its former days.... We must prepare a foothold, for the coming army of Allah, by divine predetermination. May it be Allah's will, this oppressing state shall pass, Israel shall pass..."
[Preacher Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, PATV, 8 June 2001]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:
What is clear from these PLO-ARABS is that they have never abandoned their goal of destroying Israel. The message from the Israeli and
PLO-ARAB leadership to their respective people are direct opposites of one another: Israel leaders are saying: The permanent status agreement will be painful, but we will accept it because it will mark the end of the conflict with the PLO-ARABS and the Arab world in general.

The PLO-ARAB leaders are saying: The permanent status agreement will be painful, but we will accept it because it is not the end of the conflict. This is just step one in the eventual destruction of Israel. The words of MK Abd-Al Malek Dahamshe sum up the reasoning of the PLO-ARAB policies: " We exaggerate when we say 'peace'... what we are [really] speaking about is ' Hudna'".(an Islamic term meaning cease fire)

**Paparock** · #3 02-08-2009, 01:10 AM

THE MOSLEM CLAIM TO JERUSALEM IS FALSE

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerus...erusalem21.htm

Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann is a writer for the Algemeiner Journal.
[Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.]

The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.

In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.

The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the
rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.

With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.

**Paparock** · #4 02-08-2009, 01:14 AM

A BIBLICAL HISTORY OF JERUSALEM

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerus...erusalem23.htm

By Lee Underwood

http://www.tzemach.org/index.htm

References to the city of Jerusalem appear throughout the entire Hebrew and Messianic Scriptures. Through the ages it has been called by many names: Salem, Mount Moriah, Adonai Urah, Jebus, Jerusalem, Zion, the City of David, and Ariel (Lion of God). God has declared that this is the place He will establish His Name and will dwell there forever (1 Kings 9:3).

This is a city rich in history, tradition and culture. It is also one of the main focal points of the United Nations and the world. This article will show the history of Jerusalem as it is presented in the Scriptures: without interpretation or speculation. The aspect of prophecy will not be addressed as this is not a part of the literal history of Jerusalem. To understand the periods of time, all dates are taken from known historical events, except in the time of Abraham.

The Beginning
The Scriptural history of Jerusalem begins when Abraham meets "Melek Tzedek", king of Salem - around 2110 BC (Genesis 14:17-20). This is following Abraham's defeat of Chedorlaomer after he had captured Abraham's nephew, Lot. A peculiar aspect of this meeting is that Abraham had bread and wine with "Melek Tzedek" and then gave him a tenth of all he had. The Scriptures reveal that "Melek Tzedek" is a priest of the God Most High.

Several years later (approx. 2082 BC), following a command from God, Abraham took Isaac, his only begotten son, to Mount Moriah in order to offer him as a sacrifice to the Lord (Genesis 22:1-18). Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). As he was about to kill Isaac, the Lord intervened and supernaturally provided a sacrifice in the place of Isaac. Abraham called that place of sacrifice, "The Place Where God Will Be Seen" (Genesis 22:14). This is usually wrongfully interpreted as "The Lord Will Provide" or "The Lord Who Provides" since God provided a sacrifice in place of Isaac. However, the Hebrew word no Hebrew fonts means "will be seen" (future tense). By this we can see that the Lord had already chosen Jerusalem as the place where He would establish Himself.

Around 1405 BC, "The sons of Judah fought against Jerusalem and captured it" (Judges 1:8). It was the dividing line between Judah and Benjamin, on Benjamin's side. It is said that the sons of Benjamin could not drive out the Jebusites so they lived together (Judges 1:21).

David and Solomon
David conquered Jerusalem by defeating the Jebusites in 1052 BC (1 Chronicles 11:4-9). It is interesting to note that, in the middle of a war with the Philistines (Palestinians), David, upon being anointed king over Israel, turned to Jerusalem in order to take the city as capital of his kingdom. He ignored the Philistines (Palestinians) until Jerusalem was secured and established. He reigned there thirty-three years and built Jerusalem into a great city.

David desired to bring the ark of God into Jerusalem. His first attempt, however, was a disaster (1 Chronicles 13:1-14). It was not transported according to Torah and, as a result, cost the life of one of David's men. Eventually, David did bring the ark into Jerusalem the proper way (1 Chronicles 15:1-16:6).

David wanted to build a house for God, but God told him that He would establish for David, a house, a throne, and a kingdom, forever (2 Samuel 7:1-17). But because of the blood on David's hands, God did not allow him to build the house (1 Chronicles 22:8). However, David did make preparations for his son, Solomon, to build it (1 Chronicles 22:2-5, 14-16).

Ha'Satan maneuvered David into taking a census of Israel (1 Chronicles 21). This would put David's trust in his men, rather than God. Even Joab recognized this and tried to dissuade David from taking the census. Nevertheless, David prevailed and the census was taken. God was displeased and gave David a choice in his punishment: three years of famine, three months of attack by his enemies, or three days of pestilence in Israel. David, not wanting to feel the ruthlessness of man, told God he wanted to fall into the hands of the Lord. So God sent a pestilence on Israel and 70,000 men died. God then sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. However, when the angel was standing over the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite, with his sword lifted to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord felt sorry and stopped him. David, as well as Ornan, saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn over Jerusalem. Davis asked God to stop His wrath against Israel as it was he who ordered the census, not the people of Israel. The angel of the Lord told David, through the prophet Gad, to build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan. David bought the threshing floor from Ornan and built an altar on it. He then offered burnt offerings as well as peace offerings. These were acceptable to the Lord because He sent fire from heaven and consumed the burnt offering. As the angel of the Lord put his sword back into his sheath, David offered a sacrifice to the Lord on the altar. David declared that "This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel" (1 Chronicles 22:1). The threshing floor of Ornan is the exact same place where Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed - Mount Moriah.

After David's death, Solomon (in 1015 BC) began to "build a house for the Name of the Lord" (2 Chronicles 2:1). It took seven years and 183,300 men to build it (1 Kings 5:13-16;6:38). It measured nearly 90 feet in length, 30 feet in width and 45 feet in height (1 Kings 6:2). The Holy of Holies occupied one-third of the interior space and the Holy Place, two-thirds. The complete details are described in 1 Kings 6 & 7. When it was completed, the Glory of God filled the Temple (2 Chronicles 7:1).

However, because Solomon went after other gods due to the influence of his wives, God turned His wrath against Solomon's kingdom, tearing it into two smaller kingdoms.

The Divided Kingdom
Israel was divided after Solomon's death (979 BC). The kingdom of Israel was in the north, while Judah was in the south.
Jerusalem was the capital of Judah (the Southern Kingdom). It was to be ruled by a succession of twenty kings from 979 BC to 586 BC. Their reigns lasted from as short as three months (Jehoahaz and Jehoiachim) to as long as fifty-five years (Manasseh). The bleak history of the declines of Judah is told in 1 Kings 12:1-2, Kings 25:30, and 2 Chronicles 10:1-36:21.

Jerusalem was entirely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. The city, as well as the Temple, were completely leveled and the articles of the Temple and its treasures were carried off to Babylon. The inhabitants that were not killed were also taken to Babylon. Jerusalem was to lie desolate for seventy years in order that the land might enjoy its Sabbaths (2 Chronicles 36:17-21/Leviticus 26:34).

The Rebuilding of Jerusalem
In 539 BC, Cyrus, king of Persia issued a proclamation to rebuild the house of the Lord in Jerusalem (Ezra1:1-4). A total of 42,360 people returned to Jerusalem and Judah to help rebuild the Temple, not including male and female servants and the singers. All gave according to their ability, in order to finance the work.

In the first year, during the month of Tishri, Jeshua and Zerubbabel led a group to build the altar in order to offer sacrifices in accordance with Torah. During this time, they celebrated Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) and the other festivals of the Lord.

After gathering all the materials, they began the work on the Temple in the second year, in the month of Iyar. It was finally completed in 516 BC/ on the third day of Adar - a total of twenty-three years.

Seventy-one years later (445 BC) Nehemiah heard of the condition of Jerusalem. He lived in Susa and was the cup-bearer of king Artaxerxes. Nehemiah asked king Artaxerxes to allow him to return to rebuild the city. The king granted his request and Nehemiah set out for Jerusalem. The account of the rebuilding, along with details regarding the opposition to the work, is given in the book of Nehemiah.

A Holy Sacrifice
There is no Biblical account of Jerusalem from 445 BC/ until the time of Yeshua. In 26 AD/CE, Yeshua entered Jerusalem at Passover. He drove out the moneychangers and merchants inside the Temple. Three years later, in Jerusalem, He was offered up as a sacrifice in order that all mankind would be justified before the Father. He wept over the city, even though His death was only days away. Then, on a hill overlooking the city, He was nailed to a cross like a common criminal although He had committed no crime. The city that had killed its prophets had just killed its Saviour.

The Church in Jerusalem
In the book of Acts, we see the establishment of the Church in Jerusalem. It was used as a base of operations from which the apostles worked; returning to report what they had accomplished in their travels.

Conclusion
It is plain to see that Jerusalem has played, and will continue to play, an important part in God's deliverance of the earth. It is plain enough that we should seek His guidance and direction concerning this, His Holy City, and our involvement in it.

**Paparock** · #5 02-08-2009, 01:25 AM

Claims to Jerusalem

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerus...erusalem24.htm

With 3,000 years of history behind it, Jerusalem is now thrust to the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here's a thorough review of spiritual, historical and political claims -- from both sides.

The Jews of Israel are currently locked into a conflict with their Palestinian Arab neighbors. While the media bombards us with constant reports of violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there is no doubt that the epicenter of the conflict lies in Jerusalem and more specifically on the Temple Mount in the Old City.

Yasser Arafat constantly repeats that there can be no peace without Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and total Moslem sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Indeed, the last Camp David Summit floundered over Arafat's uncompromising position on the issue of controlling the site.

Israeli leaders, on the other hand, say that Jerusalem will remain under Israeli sovereignty, even as Barak offered significant autonomy over the Temple Mount and Palestinian Authority control over Arab sections of Jerusalem.

What historical or religious claim do both sides make? Is either party's claim for Jerusalem stronger, or is it merely a case of "might makes right?"

The purpose of this article is not to prove or disprove anyone's claim to Jerusalem, but rather to help clear up some of the fog clouding this controversy and enable us to better understand both the Jewish and Moslem connection to this holy site.

THE JEWISH SPIRITUAL CONNECTION TO JERUSALEM

To understand the Jewish connection to Jerusalem we must begin with the Jewish Bible. From the Jewish perspective, the area of special holiness is Mount Moriah, today known as the Temple Mount. This area is located beneath the platform on which the Moslem Shrine, the Dome Of the Rock, now stands.

In the Jewish Bible, Jerusalem has many names: Salem (Shalem), Moriah, Jebuse (Yevuse), Jerusalem (Yerushalayim), and Zion (Tziyon). The most common term for the city, Yerushalayim, is mentioned 349 times in the Jewish Bible, while Tziyon is mentioned an additional 108 times.

The earliest mention of the site is Genesis 4:18, when Abraham interacts with Malchizedek, King of Shalem. According to Jewish tradition the story of the Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22:1-19) also takes place in the "land of Moriah" on the site of the present-day Temple Mount. Abraham chooses the site specifically because he sensed how God's presence is strongly connected to this site.

In the Kabbalah, the Jewish metaphysical tradition, the rock of Mount Moriah is known as the "Even Shtiyah" -- the Drinking Stone. This is the spiritual center of the universe, the place from where the world is spiritually "watered."

Later patriarchal stories in Genesis are also connected with the site:

When Isaac goes out into the fields to pray prior to meeting Rebecca for the first time (Genesis 24:63-67), he is standing on Mount Moriah.
Jacob's dream of the ladder to heaven with the angels ascending and descending (Genesis 27:10-22) takes place on this site.

The Temple Mount is the single holiest Jewish site, a connection well-represented in contemporary Jewish practice.

We see from here that for thousands of years, the Jewish people have always associated Mount Moriah as the place where God's presence can be felt more intensely than any other place on earth. That is why, for the Jewish people, the Temple Mount is the single holiest place.

This connection is still very much alive and well in contemporary Jewish practice:

When religious Jews pray three times a day, they always turn toward Jerusalem. (Someone praying in Jerusalem faces the direction of the Temple Mount.)

Jerusalem is mentioned numerous times in Jewish daily prayers and in the "Grace After Meals."

Jews close the Passover Seder with the words "Next Year in Jerusalem." These same words are invoked to conclude the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur.

The Jewish national day of mourning, Tisha B'Av, commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples.

During a Jewish wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass as a sign of mourning to commemorate the destruction of the two Temples which stood on Mount Moriah. The breaking of the glass is accompanied by the recitation of part of Psalm 137: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest Joy."

Religious Jews often keep a small section of one wall in their house unplastered and unpainted, as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple.

THE JEWISH HISTORICAL CONNECTION TO JERUSALEM

The early history of Jerusalem is also rooted in the Bible. In addition to the events already mentioned, the Book of Joshua (ch. 10)describes how Adoni-Tzedek, the Canaanite king of Jerusalem, wages war against the Jews.

During the approximately 400-year period from the entrance of the Jewish people into the land, through the period of the Judges, Jerusalem remained a non-Jewish city. It was not until the reign of King David (ca. 1,000 BCE) that Jerusalem was captured from the Canaanites (2-Samuel 5) and converted into the political/spiritual capital of the Jewish people. (Archaeologists agree that the original Canaanite city and the City of David was located in what is now the Arab village of Silwan, a few meters south of the "modern" walls of the Old City.)

King David purchased the peak of Mount Moriah, as recorded in 2-Samuel 24:18-25.

David purchased the peak of Mount Moriah (2-Samuel 24:18-25) as the site for the future Temple and gathered the necessary building supplies. The Book of 1-Kings (ch. 6-8) describes in great detail how David's son, King Solomon, built and dedicated the Temple: "And it came to pass after the 408th year after the Children of Israel left Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel... that he began to build the house of the Lord" (1-Kings 6:1).

Solomon's Temple is also known as the first Beit HaMikdash (the First Temple). While all archaeologists agree that it stood on Mount Moriah, probably on the site of the present Gold Dome of the Rock, its exact location is unknown.

Four hundred and ten years after its completion, it was utterly destroyed by the Babylonians when they besieged Jerusalem and no trace of it remains.

After the Babylonian destruction, most of the Jewish population of Israel was forcibly exiled from the land. This forced exile on the road to Babylon is mentioned in the famous verse from Psalm 137: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion."

Fifty years later, after Babylon was captured by Persia, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Under the leadership of Zerubavel and Nechemiah, the Jews rebuilt both the Temple and walls around the city (Nechemia 4-6).

During both the First and Second Temple periods, the Temple was the central focus of the Jewish world both in Israel and the diaspora. Its upkeep was paid for by all Jews worldwide. The Kohanim (priests) and Levites served in the Temple, and three times a year -- during the holidays of Passover, Sukkot and Shavuot -- all Jews were commanded to come to Jerusalem and visit the Temple.

This rebuilt temple is known as the Second Temple (Bayit Sheni). It stood for 420 years on the same site as the First Temple, on Mount Moriah. The Second Temple was remodeled several times, but reached its most magnificent form during the reign of King Herod the Great (37-4 BCE). The great Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived during the end of the Second Temple period, gives detailed descriptions of both Herod's construction and the layout of the Temple compound (see "Antiquities" ch. 15 and "Jewish Wars" ch. 5).

The Second Temple period ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. It is possible that the Jews tried to rebuild the Temple at later periods, but they were never successful, and for over 600 years the site of the Temple Mount lay in ruins. The only remains are the massive retaining walls that encompass Mount Moriah, built by Herod to support the platform on which the Temple stood.

THE MODERN JEWISH CONNECTION TO JERUSALEM

Although the Temple hasn't stood for almost 2,000 years, Jerusalem continues to be the focus of the Jewish world. The Temple may not be there, but Jews believe that the intrinsic holiness of the site always remains. Jewish tradition also maintains that in the End of Days, during the Messianic Era, a third and final Temple will be built on Mount Moriah.

It is often erroneously stated that the holiest site in the world to Jews is the Western Wall. This is incorrect. The holiest spot for Jews is Mount Moriah itself, behind the Wall. The Western Wall is merely a small section of Herod's massive retaining wall and has significance only as it relates to the Temple Mount itself.

So why do Jews pray at the Wall? Since the destruction of the Temple, the Sages decreed that due to the sanctity of the site, Jews (and non-Jews) should not go up on the actual Temple Mount. Therefore, the Western Wall became the site of prayer for Jews wishing to get as close as possible to their holiest site, the Temple Mount. It earned the moniker "Wailing Wall" because Jews coming to this site would shed tears over the loss of the Holy Temple.

THE MOSLEM SPIRITUAL CONNECTION TO JERUSALEM

The Islamic connection to Jerusalem began much later in history, during the 7th century CE. The central personality of Islam, Mohammed, was born and raised in the area of present-day Saudi Arabia and founded Islam in the early 7th century. (The first year of the Moslem calendar, or the Hajira, corresponds to the year 622 CE of the Christian calendar.)

Scholars agree that Mohammed was influenced by Judaism (and Christianity). This influence was significant enough that Mohammed's original plan for the direction of prayer (Qibla) was also Jerusalem. Mohammed later changed the direction of prayer to Mecca in Saudi Arabia -- a place that was converted from a pagan pilgrimage site to the "eternal city," and the center of the Moslem religion. (Moslems also placed Mecca as the spot where Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac's brother Ishmael.)

Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem, and the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran.

After founding Islam and leading his Islamic armies to victory over his pagan rivals, Mohammed died. Although Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem with his conquering armies, his successor, the Caliph Omar, captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638. When Omar first visited the ruined Temple mount, he deliberately prayed south of the ruins of the Temple, toward Mecca, so that no one should think he was praying in the same direction as the Jews.

The holiest book of Islam is the Koran, which according to Moslem tradition contains the teachings of Mohammed. Unlike the Jewish Bible which contains hundreds of references to Jerusalem, the word "Jerusalem" appears nowhere in the Koran. So what is the Islamic spiritual connection to the site? To answer that question we must understand more of early Islamic history.

THE MOSLEM HISTORICAL CONNECTION TO JERUSALEM

By the time the Omar arrived in Jerusalem in 638, the Islamic direction of prayer was toward Mecca, and the two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina were already well-established. Islam, which like Christianity has many of its spiritual roots in Judaism recognized the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, and one early Islamic name for the Temple Mount was Bayt al-Maqewdis -- literally "Holy Temple." The name used today, al-Quds, is based on the Hebrew word for "holy." Moslems have also used the term Sahyun or Sihyun, the Arabic form of "Zion."

Historians suggest several reasons for the construction of Moslem holy sites on the Temple Mount. The establishment of the Umayyid Islamic Dynasty in 658 corresponds to a period of instability in the Islamic world, characterized by power struggles and assassinations. One of the Five Pillars (commandments) of Islam is Hajj -- pilgrimage to the holiest Islamic city, Mecca. In the late 7th century, the Damascus-based Umayyid Caliphate lost control of Mecca. This need to diminish the importance of Mecca and create an alternative Moslem holy site closer to Damascus may well have pushed the Umayyid Caliph Abd al-Malik, in 688, to begin construction of the Dome of the Rock on the former site of the Jewish Temple.

Another reason suggested by historians for a Moslem presence in Jerusalem is that the Caliph wished to compete with the impressive Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the traditional burial place of Jesus in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that the present dimensions of the Dome of Rock are identical to those of the rotunda of the Holy Sepulcher.

Yet given that Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the Koran, what is the uniquely Islamic connection to the site? The answer is found in the 17 Sura (chapter) of the Koran. This chapter recounts the story of a dream Mohammed has where he takes a midnight ride (al-Isra) on his flying horse al-Buraq, which had the face of a woman, the body of a horse and the tail of Peacock. The narrative of the Koran in Sura 17 describes it as follows:

"Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Mecca) to the further mosque (al-masjid al-Aqsa), the precincts of which we have blessed."

The actual location of al-Aqsa (the "further mosque") in Mohammed's dream ride is never mentioned. Some early Moslems understood al-Aqsa metaphorically, or as a place in heaven.

In the late 7th century, the Umayyids claimed that the actual site of al-Aqsa was in fact the Temple Mount. Later the site of al-Aqsa was restricted to the mosque area at the southern end of the Temple Mount (the site of the current Al Aqsa Mosque). The original mosque, probably located on the site where Omar first prayed when he arrived in Jerusalem in 638, was built by the Umayyid Caliph al-Walid in the early 8th century. It was destroyed by earthquakes several times and later rebuilt.

Islam claims that the site of Mohammed's ascension to heaven was a rock atop Mount Moriah.

The narrative of the Koran then describes how Mohammed, having arrived at al-Aqsa, then ascends to heaven (al-Mi'raj -- "the ascension") accompanied by the angel Gibril (Gabriel), where he then traveled around the heavens and spoke with Allah and other prophets. The Umayyids in Jerusalem claimed that the actual site of Mohammed's ascension to heaven was the exposed piece of bedrock at the top of Mount Moriah. Thus Caliph Abd-al-Malik's beautiful Dome of the Rock was built to commemorate the location of this important event.

From 638 CE until 1917 (with the exception of the Crusader occupation from 1099 to 1187), Jerusalem was controlled by various Islamic dynasties based in Syria, Egypt and Turkey. While Jerusalem remained a city of pilgrimage, none of these Islamic dynasties made Jerusalem their capital. The only other people in the last 3,000 years to have Jerusalem as a capital are the Crusaders who founded the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1099-1187.

For most of this 1,300-year period, despite its status as the third holiest Islamic city, Jerusalem remained a backwater, run-down town under Islamic control. Exceptions were during both the Umayyid period (7th to mid-8th century) and the Mamluk period (mid-13th to early-16th century), when major Islamic building projects were carried out in the city.

MODERN REALITIES IN JERUSALEM

From 1918 through 1948, the Land of Israel was under the control of the British who conquered it from the Ottoman Turks in World War One. The State of Israel was established in 1948, when half of Jerusalem -- including the entire Old City and Temple Mount, was under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan.

During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel captured the Old City and for the first time in over 2,000 years, the Temple Mount was back under Jewish control.

It is worth noting that the inaugural PLO Covenant of 1964 does not mention Jerusalem. Only after the city fell back to Jewish control did the updated PLO Covenant of 1968 mention Jerusalem by name.

Israel handed over control of the site to the Wakf, the Moslem Religious Trust.

One might have expected that the Israelis would immediately expel the Moslems and re-establish control of the single holiest Jewish site. But in an act of what can only be described as unprecedented tolerance, Israel handed over control of the site to the Wakf, the Moslem Religious Trust.

Today, although Israel technically claims sovereignty over the site, the defacto reality since 1967 has been that the Moslems have control over the site, to the point where Jews are forbidden to pray on the Temple Mount (but permitted to visit).

CONCLUSION

Within the Hebrew word Jerusalem is contained the word for peace -- shalom. Jerusalem is often referred to as the City of Peace. It is ironic that this city sits at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There are no simple solutions to complex problems, especially when religious beliefs and national identities are at stake. But only through an objective understanding of the intricacies that surround the history of Jerusalem, can we hope to arrive at a just and lasting solution.

SOURCES AND SUGGESTED READING:

Bahat, Dan. The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1990

Ben-Dov, Meir. In the Shadow of the Temple Mount - The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. New York: Harper and Rowe, 1982

Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Mazar, Benjamin. The Mountain of the Lord - Excavating in Jerusalem. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1975.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. The Holy Land - An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Tines to 1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Prawer, J, and Ben-Shammai, H. The History of Jerusalem - The Early Muslim Period 638-1099. New York: New York University Press, 1996.

Shanks, Hershel. Jerusalem - An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House, 1995.

Rabbi Ken Spiro is originally from New Rochelle, NY. He graduated from Vasser College with a BA in Russian Language and Literature and did graduate studies at the Pushkin Institute in Moscow. He has Rabbinical ordination from Yeshiva Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem and a Masters Degree in History from The Vermont College of Norwich University. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife and five children where he works as a senior lecturer and researcher on Aish HaTorah outreach programs

**Paparock** · #6 02-08-2009, 01:31 AM

JERUSALEM! JERUSALEM!

BY Dave Hunt
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/sep00.htm

Jerusalem is indisputably, year after year, the top news story in the world. That fact reflects the fulfillment of multiple prophecies concerning this remarkable city and its unique place in Gods will. The ongoing actualization of these prophecies in our day is absolute proof that God exists, that the Bible is His Word and that the Jews are His chosen people.

The very fact that Jerusalem is mentioned more than 800 times in the Bible makes it worthy of special attention. This unique city is the only one upon which God has bestowed His distinctive blessing and protection (Ps 132:13-14), and the only city for whose peace we are commanded to pray (Ps122:6). God says He has chosen Jerusalem as the place where He has put His name forever (2 Chr 6:6; 33:7; Ps 46:4; 48:1-8; 87:3). The new heavens and new earth will contain "the city of my God...new Jerusalem" (Rv 3:12; 21:2). That there will be a "heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:22) but no "heavenly" New
York, Paris, London, Damascus, Cairo, etc. speaks volumes.

After decades of pleading with Israel to repent of its idolatrous rebellion, God pronounced through Jeremiah His reluctant judgment upon His city and upon His land (Lv 25:23). Daniel referred to "the word of the Lord...to Jeremiah the prophet" (Jer 25:3-11), that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem" (Dn 9:2).

Two views (the second is correct) define the prophesied 70 years of desolations: 1) that it began with the first taking of captives to Babylon about 605 b.c (2 Chr 36:6-7) and ended with the Edict of Cyrus around 536 b.c. (Ezr 1:1-4, etc.), allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem; or 2) that it began with the destruction of the temple and the city in 586 b.c. (Jer
52:7-14) and ended with the temples completion about 516 b.c.

That the temple was restored and sacrifices resumed at the end of 70 years is established history. The angel Gabriel told Daniel that after the Messiah had come and been "cut off" (i.e., killed, "but not for himself") the temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed again (Dn 9:25-26). This post-Messiah destruction would leave the Jews for "many days without a king...and without a sacrifice..." (Hos 3:4). Obviously, something would prevent the temple from being rebuilt! As quoted above, Jesus explained that the Gentiles would control Jerusalem.

For 1,930 years since the a.d. 70 destruction of the temple, Christs words (proving that He is God the Messiah - Isa 9:6). have been fulfilled in history, and their continued fulfillment today is at the heart of the Middle East crisis. Control of Jerusalem was the major issue breaking down recent peace talks at Camp David. Sadly, neither the Israelis nor the Arabs in their "peace" negotiations give heed to what God has decreed for His land and His city. Were the world to take the Bible seriously, real peace would be instantly established. UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali expressed the worlds true intent toward Israel: "The Jews must give up their status as a nation and Israel as a state, and assimilate as a community in
the Arab world."

Popes throughout history have opposed Gods prophecies and promises concerning Jerusalem. The Crusaders captured Jerusalem from the Muslims for the Church, not to restore it to the Jews to whom God, as the Bible repeatedly declares, had given it as a possession forever (Gn 13:14-15; 17:8; Lv 25:23; Jer 31:35-40; Ezk 37:26, etc.). Pope Urban II, organizing
the First Crusade in 1096, called the Jews "an accursed race, utterly alienated from God" and urged the Crusaders to "start upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre to wrest that land from the wicked race and subject it to yourselves." Urban IIs offer of full forgiveness of sins for Crusade participants brought forth hordes of volunteers who, under the banner of the Cross, massacred Christs earthly brethren, the Jews, by the thousands all along the route to Jerusalem. The Crusade leader, Godfrey of Bouillon, vowed to avenge the blood of Jesus upon the Jews, leaving not one alive. Upon taking the City of David, the Crusaders chased the Jews into the synagogue and set it ablaze.

Coming to modern times, Theodor Herzl records in his diary that when in 1904 he asked Pope Pius X to support the Zionist cause, the Pope replied, "We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it." In 1919, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, Vatican Secretary of State, said, "The danger that frightens us the most is that of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine." A 1928 Vatican decree refers to Jews as "the people formerly chosen by God." The Second Vatican Council in 1965 affirmed the centuries-old claim that "the Church is the new people of God...." We have quoted [TBC, Sep. 99] the June 22, 1943 letter to President Roosevelt from Pope Pius XII which said in part, "If a Hebrew Home is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory than Palestne. With an
increase in the Jewish population there, grave new problems would arise." So the "vicars of Christ" and their Church have consistently opposed the fulfillment of Gods promises to His chosen people!

That Jerusalem would be "trodden down of the Gentiles" has been a fact of history, exactly as Christ foretold. The Babylonians held Jerusalem, then the Medes and Persians. Alexander the Great took it for the Greeks in 333 b.c. Later the Egyptians and Syrians alternately had it until the Romans under Pompey captured Israel in 64 b.c. and held it into the fourth century a.d. In the seventh century Islamic invaders took control, to be replaced near the end of the eleventh century by the Crusaders. They held Jerusalem until Saladin (Sultan of Egypt and great Muslim warrior) retook the city in 1187. Later the Islamic Mamelukes of Egypt possessed Jerusalem. Then the Ottoman-Turkish Empire ruled for about 400 years. The Turks sided with Germany in World War I, so the Allied victors gave Britain a mandate in 1917 to administer the region.

Central to the Middle East conflict today is the issue of the so-called Palestinian people. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasser Arafat since 1969, claims to represent them. To this day, the PLO declares, "The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a struggle about Israel's borders, but about Israel's existence."

The PLO is an Islamic terrorist organization. It trained most terrorists around the world: Idi Amins murder gangs who killed about 300,000 black Christians in Uganda; the Italian Red Brigades; German Baader-Meinhof gang; the Iranian Revolutionary Guards; terrorists in Latin America, etc. Arafat committed his first murder at age 20. Under him the PLO became the most vicious and bloodiest terrorist organization ever known. It holds records for the biggest hijacking (4 aircraft at once), the largest number of hostages (300 at one time), the largest ransom extorted ($5 million from Lufthansa) and the greatest number and variety of targets (40 civilian aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic missions, and
massacres of school children), etc. The Palestinian Prize for Culture was recently awarded to Abu Daoud for his book telling how he planned and murdered eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics!

The PLOs terrorism against Jordanian civilians was so vicious that King Hussein chased them into Lebanon. There the PLO wiped out the Christian towns of Damur, Beit Mallat, Tall Abbas and others. Its reign of terror went
largely unreported. The international press was cowed into silence by the brutal murder of those who dared to tell the truth: Larry Buchman and Sean Toolan of ABC-TV, Mark Tryon of "Free Belgium Radio," Robert Pfeffer of Der Spiegel and others. About 300,000 Lebanese civilians were murdered in the PLOs rape of that country before the Israelis expelled them. Yet Israel was painted the villain!

Incredibly, Arafat and his PLO murderers have been sanitized and lionized by world media. John Pauls recent trip to Bethlehem was in response to Arafats invitation to join him there to celebrate "our Jesus Christ." Our Jesus Christ? Arafat says Jesus was a Palestinian freedom fighter against Israel, and the Pope smiles and blesses him! John Paul II has warmly received Arafat in Rome many times. This ruthless, sadistic terrorist and murderer was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 and is honored as the champion of justice for the Palestinian people.

Palestinians? There never was a Palestinian people, nation, language, culture, or religion. The claim of descent from a Palestinian people who lived for thousands of years in a land called Palestine is a hoax! That land was Canaan, inhabited by Canaanites, whom God destroyed because of their wickedness. Canaan became the land of Israel given by God to His people.

Those who today call themselves Palestinians are Arabs by birth, language, and culture, and are close relatives to Arabs in surrounding countries from whence most of them came, attracted by Israel's prosperity. The name Palestine comes from the Philistines, who were not Semites, but invaded Canaan from Crete and parts of Asia Minor. Yet Arafat, an Arab, claims that
ancestry.

In a.d. 130, the Romans rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city with a temple to Jupiter where the Jewish temple had stood. Provoked to rebellion, about 500,000 Jews were killed and thousands sold into slavery. The Romans angrily renamed Israel "Syria Palaestina." Jews living there became known as Palestinians. During World War II, the British Army had a Palestinian Brigade made up entirely of Jewish volunteers. The Palestinian Symphony Orchestra was all Jewish, and The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper.

In 1948, Arabs who had fled from Israel (attacking Arab nations had broadcast, "All Arabs get out!") began to claim they were the true Palestinians and that the land of Israel had always belonged to them. World media eagerly promotes that lie. Yet in 1948, Arabs owned a mere 3 percent of so-called Palestine.

Israel's claim to the land goes back 4,000 years to Abraham's purchase of the cave of Machpelah in Hebron. There Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah are buried. In Hebron David was crowned king. This sacred Jewish site has no relationship to Arabs or Muslims. Yet Muslims claim Hebron as their own, built a mosque to keep Jews and Christians from visiting the cave, and are determined to drive out every Jewish resident.

For 3,000 years Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Temple Mount on the summit of Mount Moriah is the heart of Jerusalem. This 35-acre parcel arouses such explosive passions that it could trigger World War III at any time. This is where Abraham built an altar to offer his son Isaac to God. That spot was purchased by King David from Ornan the Jebusite to build there an altar to God. There Solomon built the first temple. In its place now sits the Dome of the Rock, a monument to Islams unbiblical and irrational claim that Abraham offered, not Isaac, but Ishmael.

Perpetuating a Muslim lie, Ikrema Sabri, mufti of Jerusalem, declared again early this August that the Temple Mount is Islamic and "not subject to negotiations." Given its 3,000-year Jewish history and importance to Christians, on what basis should Muslims control this site? That Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran exposes the lie of Islams claim to any part of Jerusalem as a holy site.

Today we see the continuing fulfillment of Christs remarkable prophecy that Jerusalem would be "trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Lk 21:24). UN Resolution 181 in 1947, supported by the Vatican, declared that Jerusalem must remain an international city. Israels Knesset is there. But nations locate their embassies elsewhere in Israel. No other country is forbidden to decide its own capital! The European Union repeatedly says it "does not recognize Israels sovereignty" over Jerusalem. By what right do Gentile nations claim Jerusalem as their international city?

In 1998, the Vaticans foreign minister called the Israeli presence in East Jerusalem "illegal occupation." In a papal bull on the Year 2000 Jubilee, John Paul II again rejected Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. In mid-February 2000, the Vatican signed an agreement with the PLO calling for "international guarantees" to keep Jerusalem under international control.

Muslim nations have spent billions since the Yom Kippur War for missiles carrying a variety of deadly warheads. These are not defensive weapons. They exist for one purpose: to rain death and destruction upon Israel, so that Muslims can possess the land God promised the Jews. The new borders imposed by the Oslo Accords (1993) allow Katyusha rockets to be moved to within deadly range of Israels narrow heartland which holds 70 percent of the Jewish population, 80 percent of its industry, its only international airport and its most important military installations.

As the "peace process" continues, Arabs murder and torch the homes of fellow Arabs suspected of cooperating with Israel. Muslim terrorists who kill Jews are honored with streets and holidays named after them! Yet Israelis dream on of peace with those who have sworn to exterminate them! An ad in The Jerusalem Post for "The Jerusalem Heights Penthouses" reads, "As Close to Heaven as You Can Ever Get."

When will "the times of the Gentiles" end? Clearly, not until the Gentile nations are defeated at Armageddon. Just ahead lies "the time of Jacobs trouble" (Jer 30:7). The armies of the world, led by Anti-christ, will be brought to Armageddon by Yahweh to punish them for mistreatment of His people Israel (Ezk 38:16-18)--and to discipline Israel for her unbelief.

No wonder Christ wept over Jerusalem! For 1,900 years, as Hosea foretold, Jews have had no sacrifices for sin. We are driven to one of two conclusions: either God has abandoned them--or the Messiahs once-for-all death for sin has fulfilled and replaced animal sacrifices. Let us pray that Israel will awaken to the truth.

http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/sep00.htm

**Paparock** · #7 02-08-2009, 01:47 AM

PALESTINE OR THE HOLY LAND

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerus...rusalem57.html

Title: Palestine or the Holy Land From the Earliest Period to the Present Time
Edinburgh, _September_, 1831
Author: Michael Russell
Release Date: September, 2005 [EBook #8860] Edition: 10
For the entire e-book,

This is a long article and contains some historical facts (the Crusades)that some may find offensive. I am publishing this chapter to give you a glimpse into the history of the region of the world that was referred to as Palestine, but was, and is once again, the State of Israel, and how the Jewish people have ALWAYS maintained some kind of presence in their G-D given homeland.

CHAPTER VIII.

_The History of Palestine from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Present Time_.

State of Judea after the Fall of Jerusalem; Revolt under Trajan; Barcochab; Adrian repairs Jerusalem; Schools at Babylon and Tiberias; The Attempt of Julian to rebuild the Temple; Invasion of Chosroes; Sack of Jerusalem; Rise of Islamism; Wars of the Califs; First Crusade; Jerusalem delivered; Policy of Crusades; Victory at Ascalon; Baldwin King; Second Crusade; Saladin; His Success at Tiberias; He recovers Jerusalem; The Third Crusade; Richard Coeur de Lion; Siege and Capture of Acre; Plans of Richard; His Return to Europe; Death of Saladin; Fourth Crusade; Battle of Jaffa; Fifth Crusade; Fall of Constantinople; Sixth Crusade; Damietta taken; Reverses; Frederick the Second made King of Jerusalem; Seventh Crusade; Christians admitted into the Holy City; Inroad of Karismians; Eighth Crusade under Louis IX.; He takes Damietta; His Losses and Return to Europe; Ninth Crusade; Louis IX. and Edward I.; Death of Louis; Successes of Edward; Treaty with Sultan; Final Discomfiture of the Franks in Palestine, and Loss of Acre; State of Palestine under the Turks;
Increased Toleration; Bonaparte invades Syria; Siege of Acre and Defeat of French; Actual State of the Holy Land; Number, Condition, and Character of the Jews.

The destruction of Jerusalem, though it put an end to the polity of the Hebrew nation as an independent people, did not entirely disperse the remains of their miserable tribes, nor denude the Holy Land of its proper inhabitants. The number of the slain was indeed immense, and the multitude of captives carried away by Titus glutted the slave-markets of the Roman empire; but it is true, nevertheless, that many fair portions of Palestine were uninjured by the war, and continued to enjoy an enviable degree of prosperity under the government of their conquerors. The towns on the coast generally submitted to the legions without incurring the chance of a battle or the horrors of a siege; while the provinces beyond the Jordan, which formed the kingdom of Agrippa, maintained their allegiance to Rome throughout the whole period of the insurrection elsewhere so fatal, and especially to the inheritance of Judah and of Benjamin.

It has been already suggested that soon after the Roman army was withdrawn, many of the Jewish families, Christians as well as followers of the Mosaical Law, returned to their sacred capital, and sought a precarious dwelling among its ruins. To prevent the rebuilding of the city, Vespasian found it necessary to establish on Mount Zion a garrison of eight hundred men. The same emperor, it is related, commanded strict search to be made for all who claimed descent from the house of David, in order to cut off, if possible, all hope of the restoration of that royal race, and more especially of the advent of the Messiah, the confidence in whose speedy coming still burned with feverish excitement in the heart of every faithful Israelite. A similar jealousy, which dictated a similar inquisition, was continued in the subsequent reign,--a fact strongly illustrative of the spirit which prevailed at that period among the descendants of Abraham, and explanatory also of their successive revolts against the Roman power.

Under the mild sway of Trajan, the Jews in Egypt, Cyprus, and even in Mesopotamia, flew to arms, to avenge the insults to which they had been subjected, or to realize the hopes that they have never ceased to cherish. After a war remarkable for the waste of blood with which it was accompanied, the unhappy insurgents were everywhere suppressed; having lost, according to their own confession, more than half a million of men in the field of battle, or the sack of towns. The skill and fortune of Adrian, who soon afterward occupied the imperial throne, were displayed in the island of Cyprus, from which the Jews were expelled with tremendous slaughter, and prohibited from ever again touching its shores.

To check the mutinous disposition, or to weaken the influence of the vanquished tribes, an edict was promulgated by their Roman masters, forbidding circumcision, the reading of the Law, and the observance of the weekly Sabbath. Still further to defeat their favourite schemes, and to blast all hopes of a restoration to civil power in Jerusalem under their Messiah, it was resolved by the government at Rome to repair to a certain extent the city of the Jews, and to establish in it a regular colony of Greeks and Latins. At this crisis appeared the notorious Barcochab, whose name, denoting the "son of a star," made him be instantly hailed by a large majority of the nation as that predicted light which was to arise out of Jacob in the latter days. Recommended by Akiba, one of the most popular of the Rabbim, to the confidence of Israel, this impostor soon saw himself at the head of a powerful army; amounting, say the Jewish annalists, to more than two hundred thousand men. In the absence of the legions now called to other parts of the East, he found little difficulty in taking possession of Jerusalem; and before a competent force, under the renowned Julius Severus, could arrive in Palestine, the false Messias had seized fifty of the strongest castles, and a great number of open towns.

The details of the sanguinary campaigns which followed are given by the vanquished Jews with more minuteness than probability. Severus, who had learned all the arts of desultory warfare when employed against the barbarians of Britain, used a similar policy on the banks of the Jordan; choosing to cut off the supplies of the enemy, and attack their posts with overwhelming numbers, rather than encounter their furious fanaticism in a general engagement. Bither, a strong city, and defended by Barcochab in person, was the last to yield to the Romans. At length it was taken by storm, at the expense of much human life on either side; but as the leader of the rebellion was among the slain, the victors did not consider their success too dearly bought, as with the star whose light was extinguished in the carnage of Bither the hope of Israel fell to the earth. Dio Cassius relates, that during this war no fewer than 580,000 fell by the sword, besides those who perished by famine and disease. The whole of Judea was converted into a desert,--wolves and hyenas howled in the streets of the desolate cities,--and all the villages were consumed with fire.

It was after these events that Adrian, to annihilate for ever all hopes of the restoration of the Jewish kingdom, accomplished his plan of founding a new city on the waste places of Jerusalem, to be peopled by a colony of foreigners. This town, as we have elsewhere observed, was called AElia Capitolina; the former epithet alluding to AElius, the praenomen of the emperor,--the latter denoting that it was dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus, the tutelar deity of Rome. An edict was issued, interdicting every Jew from entering the new city on pain of death, or even approaching so near it as to be able to contemplate its towers and
the venerable heights on which it stood. The more effectually to keep them away, the image of a cow was placed over the gate which leads to Bethlehem. But the more peaceful Christians, meanwhile, were permitted to establish themselves within the walls; and AElia, it is well known, soon became the seat of a flourishing church and of a bishopric.[165]

From this period the history of the Holy Land is less connected with the Jews than with the policy of the different governments by which their country has been occupied. More attached to their ancient faith than when it was established at Jerusalem, we find them, both in the East and West, labouring with the most indefatigable zeal to revive its principles and extend its authority. Hence their celebrated schools at Babylon and Tiberias,--the source of all legislation, and the seat of judgment in all cases of doubtful opinion. Hence, too, those mixed titles, so long recognised in their tribes, the Patriarch of Tiberias and the Prince of the Captivity,--appointments which, during a long period, constituted a bond of union, partly spiritual and partly political, among all the descendants of Jacob. The numerous remains of that people, though still excluded from the precincts of Jerusalem, were nevertheless permitted to form and to maintain considerable establishments both in Italy and in the provinces; to acquire the freedom of Rome; to enjoy municipal honours; and to obtain, at the same time, an exemption from the burdensome and expensive offices of society.

The moderation or the contempt of the Romans gave a legal sanction to the form of ecclesiastical police, which was instituted by the vanquished sect. The Patriarch was empowered to appoint his subordinate ministers, to exercise a domestic jurisdiction, and to receive from his brethren an annual contribution. New synagogues were frequently erected in the principal cities of the empire; and the Sabbaths, the fasts, and the festivals, which were either commanded by the Mosaic Law or enjoined by the traditions of the Rabbim, were celebrated in the most solemn and public manner. They were, in like manner, restored to the privilege of circumcising their children, on the easy condition that they should never confer on any foreign proselyte the distinguishing mark of the Hebrew race. Such gentle treatment insensibly assuaged the stern temper of the Jews.

Awakened from their dream of prophecy and conquest, they assumed the behaviour of peaceable and industrious subjects. Their hatred of mankind, instead of flaming out in acts of blood and violence, evaporated in less dangerous gratifications. They embraced every opportunity of overreaching the idolaters in trade; and they pronounced secret and ambiguous imprecations against the haughty kingdom of Edom, the name under which they were pleased to denounce the Roman empire.[166]

The glories which were shed upon Palestine by the munificent zeal of Constantine and his mother have already been repeatedly mentioned. The splendid buildings which arose in every part of the Holy Land announced the triumph of the new faith in the country where it had its origin; exciting at once the pride of the Christian, and the jealousy, resentment, and despair of the Jew. The government of Constantius was not more favourable to the children of Israel; nor was it till the accession of Julian that they were encouraged to look for revenge upon their enemies, if not for protection to their despised countrymen. The edict to rebuild the Temple on Mount Moriah, and to establish once more at Jerusalem the worship enjoined by Moses, called forth their utmost exertions in behalf of a prince who at least abandoned a rival religion, destined, as they apprehended, to supplant their own more ancient ritual.

The issue of this attempt to reinstate the ceremonies of the Jewish Law in the capital of Palestine is known to every reader. The workmen employed in digging the foundation of the new Temple were terrified by flames of fire darting forth from the ground, and accompanied with the most frightful explosions. No inducement could prevail on them to persevere in labours which appeared to excite the anger of Heaven. The enterprise was relinquished, as at once hopeless and impious; and there is no doubt that, whatever additions may have been made to the circumstances by ignorance and a too easy belief, the views of Julian were frustrated by the occurrence of some very extraordinary event, which still finds a place even in Roman history.

The skeptic may smile when he reads in the pages of a Christian Father, that flakes of fire which assumed the form of a cross settled on the dresses of the artisans and spectators; that a horseman was seen careering amid the flames; and that, when the affrighted labourers fled to a neighbouring church, its doors, fastened by some preternatural force within, refused to admit them into the sacred building. In such details the imagination is consulted more than the reason; and it cannot be denied that certain authors, who wrote long after the reign of Julian; have admitted traditionary anecdotes into the narrative of a grave event. It is deserving of notice, however, that the mark of the cross, said to have been impressed upon the bystanders, is not the most incredible of the circumstances recorded. Many instances have been known of persons touched by the electric fluid, whose bodies exhibited similar traces of its operation,--straight lines cutting one another at right angles--and hence that part of the description which appears the least entitled to belief will be found to be strictly within the limits of nature.[167]

The policy of the emperors continued to depress the Jews in Palestine, while it granted to them the enjoyment of considerable privileges in all the other provinces where their presence and peculiar views were less hazardous to the public peace. During the same period, the Christian church possessed the countenance of the civil power, and gradually extended its doctrines into Armenia, as well as into the more important region of the Lower Mesopotamia. It was not till the beginning of the seventh century that the course of events was materially disturbed by an invasion of the Persians, under Chosroes, who had resolved to humble the government of Constantinople, and to check its pretensions in the East.

The part of the army appointed to serve against Palestine was entrusted to Carnsia, an experienced general, who invited the Jews to join his standard. This people, ever ready to aid the cause of revolt, assembled, it is said, to the number of 24,000 men, and made preparations for an attack on Jerusalem. A sanguinary warfare had ensued, even before the arrival of their allies from beyond the Euphrates; and both sides, accordingly, were exasperated to the highest degree of fury, and importuning Heaven to hasten the moment of revenge. The Christians within the walls massacred their enemies in cold blood, while the assailants without carried destruction to every point which their arms could reach.

At length, the advance of the Persians secured to the Jews the hour of triumph and retaliation, when they fully quenched their thirst for vengeance in the blood of the Nazarenes. The victors are said to have sold the miserable captives for money. But the rage of the Jews was stronger than their avarice; for not only did they not scruple to sacrifice their treasures in the purchase of these devoted bondsmen at a lavish price, but they put to death without remorse all whom they bought. It was rumoured that no fewer than 90,000 Christians perished. Every church was demolished, including that of the Holy Sepulchre,--the greatest object of Jewish hatred. The stately building of Helena and Constantine was abandoned to the flames, and the devout offerings of
three hundred years were rifled in one sacrilegious day.

But the arms of Persia did not long support the persecuting spirit of the Jews. The Emperor Heraclius, who had spent some inglorious years on the throne, was alarmed into activity by the progress of the enemy, who had threatened even the walls of Constantinople itself. The discipline of ancient Rome, which was not yet quite extinct among the legionary soldiers, maintained its wonted superiority over the less martial troops of Chosroes, and recovered in the course of a few campaigns all the provinces that the invaders had overrun. Heraclius visited Jerusalem as a pilgrim, when the wood of the true cross, which, it was rumoured, had been carried away to Persia, was reinstated with due solemnity. Several Christian churches, too, were restored to their former magnificence; and the law of Adrian was again put in force, which prohibited the Jews from approaching within three miles of the holy city.[168]

Palestine continued to acknowledge the power of the emperor until the rise of Islamism changed the face of Western Asia. The armies of the califs, which wrested from Persia the dominion of the surrounding nations, conquered in succession the provinces of Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, and at length planted the crescent on the walls of Jerusalem. The victories of Omar in 636 decided the fate of the venerable city, and laid the foundations of a mosque on the sacred hill where the Temple of Solomon had stood. This conqueror was assassinated at Jerusalem in 643; after which, the establishment of several califates in Arabia and Syria, the fall of the Ommiades, and the elevation of the Abassides involved Judea in trouble for more than two hundred years. In 868, Achmet, a Turk, who from being governor had made himself sovereign of Egypt, conquered the capital of Palestine; but his son having been defeated by the califs of Bagdad; the holy city again returned under their dominion in the year 905 of our era. Mohammed Ikschid, another Turk, about thirty years after, having in his turn seized the throne of the Pharaohs, carried his arms into Palestine, and reduced the capital.

The Fatimites, again, issuing from the sands of Cyrene, expelled the Ikschidites from Egypt in 968, and conquered several towns in Judea. Ortok, towards the end of the tenth century, made himself master of the holy city, whence his children were for a time driven out by Mostali, Calif of Egypt. In 1076, Meleschah, the third of the Turkish race, took Jerusalem, and ravaged the whole country. The Ortokides, who, as we have just related, were dispossessed by Mostali, returned thither, and maintained themselves in it against Redouan, Prince of Aleppo. They were expelled once more by the Fatimites, who were masters of the place when the crusaders first appeared on the confines of Syria.

Several generations passed away, during which the affairs of the Holy Land created no interest in Europe, and when Christians and Jews, who could hardly obtain the most limited toleration from their Mohammedan masters, sought an asylum among the states of Europe. In the Travels of Benjamin of Tudela are to be found some incidental notices which leave no doubt as to the fact that his countrymen, unable to bear the persecution directed against them, had gradually abandoned the birthplace of their fathers. Jerusalem, in the twelfth century, did not contain more than two hundred descendants of Abraham, poor, depressed, and calumniated; while at Tiberias, the seat of learning and of their sovereign patriarch, the number did not exceed fifty,--the victims of suspicion and jealousy, not less on the part of the Christians than of the Moslem, who had already begun to contend with each other for the sepulchre of Christ.

It has often been observed, that pilgrimage to the holy places of Palestine was from a very early period regarded as at once a wholesome discipline and an acceptable reverence on the part of Christian worshippers. The Arabian califs were, on various accounts, inclined to favour the resort of Europeans to these shrines of their faith. They saw in it a fruitful source of revenue; while, as the progeny of Abraham, they were not disposed to take offence at the veneration lavished upon the prophetic son of David, whose tomb the fortune of war had placed in their hands. But the Seljukian Turks, those irreclaimable barbarians, who had no sympathy with the believers in Christ, laid on them such burdens and vexatious restraints as were altogether intolerable. The cries of the unhappy pilgrims had long resounded throughout all Christendom; and the indignation which was universally felt against the bigoted Mussulmans was inflamed in no slight degree by the eloquence of Peter the Hermit, who had witnessed in foreign lands the afflictions of his brethren. Yielding to the impulse of the age, Pope Urban the Second convoked a general council at Clermont, in Auvergne, to whom he addressed an oration well fitted to confirm the enthusiasm which he found already kindled. He encouraged them to attack the enemies of God, and in that holy warfare to earn the reward of eternal life promised to all the faithful servants of the Redeemer; suggesting, that as a mark of their profession as well as of their Saviour's love, they should wear red crosses on their garments when fighting the battles of Christianity.

The warlike spirit of the time was roused by every motive which can touch the heart of man in a rude state of society,--the love of glory, religion, revenge, and enterprise. Many of the most illustrious princes of the Christian world took up the cross, and were followed by persons of both sexes, and of all ages, classes, and professions. A vast army poured in from every country, under the most distinguished leaders, of whom the principal were, Godfrey, Duke of Brabant and Bouillon; Robert of France, the brother of King Philip; and Robert, Duke of Normandy, the son of the English monarch. Bohemond, too, the chief of the Normans of Apulia, and Raymond, Count of Toulouse, led many renowned warriors to Syria.

The tumultuary bands who marched under the standard of the Hermit suffered hardships altogether unknown to modern war. In passing through the countries watered by the Danube, and the hilly countries which lie between that river and the Mediterranean, more than half their number fell victims to disease, famine, and the rage of the barbarians whose lands they infested. But, in spite of these misfortunes, Bohemond, one of the leaders, laid siege to Antioch in 1097; and on the 15th July, two years after, the ancient and holy city of Jerusalem was taken by assault, with a prodigious slaughter of the garrison. Ten thousand Mohammedans were slain on the site of the Temple of Solomon; a greater number was thrown from the tops of houses; and a fearful carnage was committed after all resistance had ceased.

The siege had lasted two months with various success, and a considerable loss of life on either aide; and hence arose the savage ferocity which disgraced, on the part of the victors, the last scene of this miserable tragedy. The assailants having endured much from drought, as well as from the sword of the enemy, betook themselves to pious exercises in order to avert the anger of Heaven. The soldiers, completely armed, made a holy procession round the walls. The clergy, with naked feet, and bearing images of the cross, led them in the sacred way. Cries of _Deus id vult_,--God commands it,--rent the air; and the people marched to the melody of hymns and psalms, and not to the sound of drums and trumpets. On Mount Olivet and Mount Zion they prayed for assistance in the approaching conflict. The Saracens mocked these expressions of religious feeling, by throwing mud upon crucifixes which they raised for the purpose; but these insults had only the effect of producing louder shouts of sacred joy from the Christians. The next morning every thing was prepared for battle; and there was no one who was not ready either to die for Christ, or restore his city to liberty. The night was spent in watching an alarm by both armies. At dawn of day the conflict began which was to determine the fate of the great European expedition, and when noon arrived the issue was still in suspense, or seemed rather to incline in favour of the Mohammedans. The cause of the Western World appeared to totter on the brink of destruction, and the most valiant among the crusaders allowed themselves to fear that Heaven had deserted its own cause and people.[169]

At the moment when all was considered lost, a knight was seen on Mount Olivet, waving his glittering shield as a sign to the soldiers that they should rally and return to the charge. Godfrey and Eustace cried aloud to the army, that St. George was come to their succour. The spirit of enthusiasm instantly revived, fatigue and pain were no longer felt, the princes led their columns to the breach, and even the women insisted upon sharing the honours of the fight. In the space of an hour the barbacan was broken down, and Godfrey's tower rested against the inner wall. Exchanging the duties of a general for those of a soldier, the Duke of Lorraine fought with his bow: "The Lord guided his hand, and all his arrows pierced the enemy through and through." Near him were Eustace and Baldwin, "like two lions beside another lion." At three o'clock, the hour when the Saviour of the world was crucified, a soldier, named Letoldus of Tourney, leaped upon the fortifications; his brother, Engelbert, followed, and Godfrey was the third Christian who stood as a conqueror upon the ramparts of Jerusalem. The glorious ensign of the Cross streamed from the walls, and the whole city was soon at the mercy of the besiegers. The Mussulmans fought for a while, then fled to their temples, and submitted their necks to the sword. The victors, in a document which is still preserved, boasted, that in the mosque of Omar, whither they pursued the fugitives, they rode in the blood of Saracens up to the knees of their horses.

After the slaughter had terminated, and the soldiers had soothed their minds by certain acts of devotion, the expediency of forming a regular government became manifest to all parties. Godfrey, a hero whose name can not be too highly honoured, was chosen by the unanimous suffrages of rival warriors to be the first Christian king of Jerusalem. Bohemond, the son of Robert Guiscard, reigned at Antioch; Baldwin, the brother of Godfrey, at Edessa; and the Count of Toulouse, at Tripoli. The dominion of the crusaders extended from the confines of Egypt to the Euphrates on the east, and to the acclivities of Mount Taurus on the north; and several of their principalities lasted nearly two hundred years.

Many attempts have been made to defend the policy and excuse the enormities of the Christian warriors in their enterprise against the Moslem occupants of the Holy Land. These two points ought to be more carefully distinguished than they usually are, whether in the pages of friends or enemies; for while the general expediency of a combination of the Christian powers may be supported on good grounds, the cruelty of some of their measures deserves the severest censure. It is remarked by Mr. Mills, that the massacre of the Saracens on the capture of the holy city did not proceed alone from the inflamed passions of victorious soldiers, but from remorseless fanaticism. Benevolence to Turks, Jews, infidels, and heretics made no part of Christian ethics in those rude times; and as the Moslem in their consciences believed it was the will of Heaven that the religion of their prophet should be propagated by the sword, so their antagonists laboured under the mental delusion that they themselves were the ministers of God's wrath on a disobedient and stiff-necked people.

The Latins, on the day after the victory, massacred three hundred men, to whom Tancred and Gaston de Bearn had promised protection, and even given a standard as a pledge of safety. But every engagement was broken, in consequence of the resolution that no pity should be shown to the Mohammedans,--an expedient which was justified by the opinion now prevalent among the invaders, that in conjunction with the Saracens of Egypt they might again reduce the city and recover all the ground they had lost. It was for this reason that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, armed and unarmed, were dragged forth into the public squares, and slain like cattle. Women with children at the breast, boys, and even girls were slaughtered indiscriminately, and in such numbers that the streets were covered with dead bodies and mangled limbs. No heart melted into compassion or expanded into benevolence. The stones of the city were ordered to be washed, and the melancholy task was performed by some Moslem slaves. The Count of Toulouse, whose avarice prevailed over his superstition, was loudly condemned for accepting a ransom from a few of the devoted prisoners, whom he sent in safety to Ascalon. So unrelenting, in short, was the passion of revenge among the crusaders, that they set fire to the synagogues of the Jews, many of whom perished in the flames.[170]

Such conduct merits the deepest execration that moralist or statesman may be pleased to pour upon it. We are nevertheless convinced that, in the peculiar circumstances of the Christian world when Peter the Hermit called its chiefs to arms, a united war against the Mohammedan states of Syria was dictated by the soundest political wisdom. The subjects of Omar had already conquered an establishment in Sicily and Spain, and attempted the subjugation of France. Their views were directed towards universal dominion in the West, as well as in the East; they hoped to witness the triumph of the crescent in Europe not less certainly than in Asia, and to be able to impose a tribute on the worshippers of Christ, or compel them to relinquish their creed on the remotest shores of the Atlantic. Those, therefore, who perceive in the Crusades nothing but a mob of armed pilgrims running to rescue a tomb in Palestine must take a very limited view of history. The point in question was not merely the recovery of that sacred building from the hands of infidels, but rather to decide which of the two religions, the Christian or Mohammedan, should predominate in the world; the one hostile to civilization, and only favourable to ignorance, despotism, and slavery; the other friendly to improvement, learning, and freedom in all ranks and conditions of society.

It is asserted by Chateaubriand, that whoever reads the address of Pope Urban to the council of Clermont must be convinced that the leaders in these military enterprises were not actuated by the petty views which have been ascribed to them; but, on the contrary, that they aspired to save the Western World from a new inundation of barbarians. The spirit of Islamism is conquest and persecution; the gospel, on the contrary, inculcates only toleration and peace. The Christians, moreover, had endured for several centuries all the oppressions which the fanaticism of the Saracens impelled them to exercise. They had merely endeavoured to interest Charlemagne in their favour; for neither the conquest of Spain, the invasion of France, the pillage of Greece and the Two Sicilies, nor the entire subjugation of Africa, could for nearly six hundred years rouse the Christians to arms.

If at last the cries of numberless victims slaughtered in the East, if the progress of the barbarians, who had already reached the gates of Constantinople, awakened Christendom, and impelled it to rise in its own defence, who can say that the cause of the Holy Wars was unjust? Contemplate Greece, if you would know the fate of a people subjected to the Mussulman yoke. Would those who at this day so loudly exult in the progress of knowledge wish to live under a religion that burned the Alexandrian library, which makes a merit of trampling mankind under foot, and holding literature and the arts in sovereign contempt? The Crusades, by weakening the Moslem hordes in the very centre of Asia, prevented Europe from falling a prey to the Turks and Arabs; they did more, they saved her from revolutions at home, with which she was threatened; they suspended intestine wars by which she was ever and anon desolated; and, finally, they opened an outlet to that excess of population which sooner or later occasions the ruin of nations.[171]

The administration of Godfrey was gentle and prosperous. He gained a decisive victory over the Vizier of Egypt, who had encamped on the plains of Ascalon with the view of assisting his Syrian allies to recover Jerusalem from the hands of the Christians. According to the spirit of the age, he joined to the qualities of a brave soldier the profession of an ardent faith and the utmost reverence for the authority of the church. He refused a precious diadem offered to him by his companions in arms, declaring that he would never wear a crown of gold in the city where the Saviour of the world had worn a crown of thorns. In the same feeling he was disposed to reject the title of king and to exercise his office under the name of Defender and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre.

Upon the demise of this distinguished commander, which is supposed to have taken place at Jaffa, the government devolved upon his brother Baldwin, who sustained its glory and interests with a steady hand. About the year 1118, he was succeeded on his throne by his nephew, who bore the same name, and who, although sometimes unfortunate, did not tarnish the honour of his family. Melisandra, his eldest daughter, married Foulques of Anjou, and conveyed the kingdom of Jerusalem into the hand of her husband, who enjoyed it ten or twelve years, when he lost his life by a fall from a horse. His son, Baldwin the Third, a youth of a rash temper and destitute of experience, assumed the sceptre of Jerusalem, which he held twenty years,--a period rendered remarkable by the events of the second Crusade, and the rise of various orders of knighthood,--the Hospitallers, Templars,
and Cavaliers.

The news from Palestine, that certain reverses had been sustained by the Christians, acted so powerfully on the pious spirit of St. Bernard and the troubled conscience of Louis the Seventh, the king of France, as to suggest a second confederation among the European princes for the security of the Holy Land. This new apostle of a sacred war was, on many accounts, greatly superior to Peter the Hermit. He was a man of noble birth; possessed learning sufficient to rival the attainments of Abelard, his contemporary; and could speak with a degree of eloquence to which no orator of his age had the boldness to aspire. The French monarch, who had assembled around him a powerful and most splendid army, was joined by the Emperor of Germany, Conrade the Third, whose thousands equalled those of his warlike brother, and whose zeal in the cause of Christendom was not less active.

But the experience of their predecessors, fifty years before, was lost upon these fearless soldiers of the Cross. Without suitable preparation, they encountered the dangers of a long march through hostile countries and sickly climates, the effects of which appeared in the rapid diminution of their numbers, in mutual invectives, and in increasing despair. Not more than a tenth part of the Germans reached the coast of Syria. The French, who had suffered less than their allies, were sooner ready to take the field against the Saracens; and after proving their arms in a few unimportant skirmishes, they resolved to lay siege to Damascus in concert with the battalions of Conrade. But the evil genius of intrigue defeated their designs. After a fruitless display of force more than sufficient to have reduced the place, the Christian chiefs withdrew from before the ramparts of the Syrian capital, and fell back upon Jerusalem in sorrow and shame. Conrade soon returned to Europe with the shattered remains of his gallant host; and about a year afterward his example was imitated by the French king and the greater number of his generals, who were disgusted with the narrow policy on which the war had been conducted.

Baldwin the Third, dying without male issue, transmitted the precarious throne of Jerusalem to his brother Amaury, or Almeric; who, after of a reign of eleven years, was succeeded by his son, Baldwin the Fourth. The young sovereign, being incapable of the duties of government, passed his minority under the wise counsels of Raymond, Count of Tripoli, who endeavoured to sustain the weight of kingly power in the midst of very formidable enemies. The name of Noureddin was long terrible to the Christians of Palestine, who had gradually lost their warlike virtues; but they were now about to encounter a still more able, and much more celebrated antagonist, in the person of Saladin, the hero of the Crescent, and one of the most distinguished leaders of that very romantic age.

Baldwin had given his sister Sybilla, widow of William, surnamed Longue-Epee, or the Long-sword, in marriage to Guy of Lusignan. The grandees of the kingdom, dissatisfied with the choice, divided into parties. The king, dying in 1184, left for his heir Baldwin the Fifth, the son of Sybilla and William just mentioned, a child not more than eight years of age, and who soon afterward sunk under a constitutional distemper. His mother caused the crown to be conferred on her husband, the ambitious Guy,--a measure which did not allay the jealousy of the nobles who had opposed their union. An alarming dissension prevailed among the barons, some of whom refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new sovereign, and even offered the diadem to Humphrey de Thoron. But the intrigues of Sybilla and the terror of Saladin prevented an open rupture, while events of a more important nature were about to occupy the attention of either party.

The sultan had received from several of the Christian warriors just ground of offence, and failing to obtain redress from the feeble government of Jerusalem, he took the field in order to chastise with his own hand the more guilty of the aggressors. He encamped near the Lake of Tiberias, where Guy, listening to counsellors who saw not the danger of placing the fortunes of the kingdom on the issue of a single battle, resolved to attack him. For a whole day the engagement was in suspense, and at night the Latins retired to some rocks in the neighbourhood, hoping that they might find a little water to quench their thirst. At the approach of dawn the two armies stood for a while gazing upon each other, as if conscious that the fate of the Moslem and the Christian worlds was in their hands. But no sooner did the sun appear than the Crusaders raised their war-cry, and the Turks sounded their trumpets and atabals,--a mutual challenge to renew the sanguinary conflict. The bishops and clergy ran through the ranks cheering the soldiers of the church. A fragment of the true cross,
intrusted to the knights of the Holy Sepulchre, was placed on a hillock, around which the broken squadrons repeatedly rallied, and recovered strength for the combat whereon the interests of their faith were suspended. But the Crescent, supported by more numerous and stronger hands, triumphed on the plain of Tiberias. The Christians were defeated with great loss; the king, the Master of the Templars, and the Marquis of Montferrat were taken prisoners, and the piece of holy wood, in which they had put their trust, was snatched from the grasp of the Bishop of Acre.

This victory placed the greater part of Palestine in the power of Saladin, who, upon the whole, used his success with moderation and clemency. The fugitives from every quarter fled to Jerusalem, hoping to escape in that asylum the swords and fetters of the Turks. One hundred thousand persons are said to have been crowded within the walls; but so few were the soldiers, and so feeble was the government of the queen, that the holy city presented no serious obstacle to the progress of the Moslem arms. Saladin declared his unwillingness to stain with human blood a place which even the followers of the Prophet held in reverence, as having been sanctified by the presence of many inspired individuals. He therefore promised to the people, on condition that they would quietly surrender the city, a supply of money, and lands in the most fertile provinces of Syria.

This offer was rejected, as implying a sacrilegious contract to yield into the hands of infidels the sacred spot where the Saviour of mankind had died. He therefore swore that he would enter their streets sword in hand, and retaliate upon them the dreadful carnage which the Franks had committed in the days of Godfrey. Two weeks were spent in almost incessant fighting, during which the advantage was generally on the side of the assailants.

Finding resistance vain, the besieged at length appealed to the clemency of the conqueror. It was, stipulated that the military and the nobles should be escorted to Tyre, and that the inhabitants should become slaves, if not ransomed at certain rates fixed by Saladin. Thus, to use the words of the historian, "after four days had been consumed by the miserable inhabitants, in weeping over and embracing the Holy Sepulchre and other sacred places, the Latins left the city and passed through the enemy's camp. Children of all ages clung round their mothers, and the strength of the fathers was used in bearing away some little part of their household furniture.

In solemn procession, the clergy, the queen, and her retinue of ladies followed. Saladin advanced to meet them, and his heart melted with compassion when he saw them approach in the attitude of suppliants." The softened warrior uttered some expressions of pity; and the women, encouraged by his tenderness, declared, that by pronouncing one word he might remove their distress.

"Our fortunes and possessions," said they, "you may freely enjoy; but restore to us our fathers, our husbands, and our brothers. With these dear objects we cannot be entirely miserable. They will take care of us; and that God whom we reverence, and who provides for the birds of the air, will not forget our children." Saladin was a barbarian in nothing but the name. With the most courteous generosity, he released all the prisoners whom the women requested, and loaded them with presents. Nor was this action, so worthy of a gentle and chivalrous knight, the consequence of a merely transient feeling of humanity; for when he had entered the city of Jerusalem, and heard of the tender care with which the military friars of St. John treated their sick countrymen, he allowed ten of their order to remain in the hospital till they could fully complete their work of charity.[172]

The Mohammedans, being once more in possession of the holy walls, took down the great cross from the Church of the Sepulchre, and soiled it with the mire of the streets. They also melted the bells which had summoned the Christians to devotion, and at the same time purified the Mosque of Omar by a copious sprinkling of rose-water. Ascalon, Laodicea, Gabala, Sidon, Nazareth, and Bethlehem opened their gates to the victorious Saladin, who, indeed, found no town of consequence able to resist his arms except Tyre, garrisoned by a body of excellent soldiers under the gallant Conrade. All the inhabitants took arms, and even the women shot arrows from the walls, or assisted in strengthening the fortifications. The Saracens cast immense stones into the place, and attacked it with all the other means in their power; but the spirit of freedom triumphed over the thirst of revenge, and the conqueror of Tiberias was finally compelled to relinquish the siege.

The intelligence that Jerusalem had fallen under the dominion of the unbelievers created in all parts of Europe a profound sensation of grief and disappointment. The clergy, as on former occasions, preached to all classes the duty and honour of assuming the Cross, and even of dying is the service of the Redeemer, should the sacrifice of life be required at their hands. But the enthusiasm of the eleventh century had now very generally passed away. Every family had to lament the loss of kindred in the field of battle or in the bonds of a hopeless captivity; and hence, the inducements which had crowded the ranks of Godfrey and Conrade were at this time listened to both in France and England with comparative indifference.

At length, however, about the year 1190, Philip Augustus, the French King, the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, and the celebrated Richard Coeur de Lion succeeded in raising forces, with the view of wresting once more the Holy Land from the thraldom of the Saracens. Philip received the staff and scrip at St. Denys, and Richard at Tours. They joined their armies at Vezelay, the gross amount of which was computed at one hundred thousand, and marched to Lyons in company. There the royal commanders separated; the former pursued the road to Genoa, the latter to Marseilles,--the island of Sicily being named as the place of their nest meeting.

Among the other fruits of the victory of Tiberias reaped by the brave Saladin was the possession of Acre, or Ptolemais, one of the most valuable ports on the coast of Syria. The Crusaders, aware that they could not maintain their ground in the East without a constant communication with Europe, resolved to recover this city at whatever expense of life or treasure; and with this view they had invested it more than twenty-two months before Richard could carry his reinforcements into Palestine. Upon his arrival, an unhappy jealousy arose between him and the King of France, which divided the Christians into two great parties; nor was it until each had attempted with his separate force to ascend the ramparts of Ptolemais, and had even been repulsed with great loss, that they consented to unite their squadrons, and act in unison. A reconciliation being effected, it was determined that the one should attack the walls, while the other guarded the camp from the approaches of Saladin. But the town had already suffered so dreadfully from the length of the siege, now extended to about two years, that the garrison were disposed to sue for terms The sultan endeavoured to infuse his own invincible spirit into the minds of his people, and to revive for a moment their languid courage, by turning their hopes to Egypt, whence succour was expected. As no aid appeared, the citizens wrung from him permission to capitulate. They were accordingly allowed to purchase their safety by consenting to deliver the city into the hands of the two kings, together with five hundred Christian prisoners who were confined in it. The true cross also was to be restored, with one thousand such captives as might be selected by the allies; it being covenanted, at the same time, that unless the Mussulmans within forty days paid to Richard and Philip the sum of two hundred thousand pieces of gold, the inhabitants of Acre should be at the mercy of the conquerors.

It was on the 12th of July, 1191, that Ptolemais was recovered by the Europeans; and in the following month, Richard (for the King of France had already turned his face homewards) gained an important victory over Saladin at Azotus. The progress of Coeur de Lion being no longer disputed, he quickly arrived at Jaffa. That city was now without fortifications; for when the tide of conquest ebbed from the Moslem, their commander gave orders to dismantle all the fortresses in Palestine. It was his policy to keep the invaders constantly in the field, and to exhaust them by incessant marching and sudden attacks. Some time was accordingly lost in restoring the works of this ancient town,--a period which was employed by the enemy in recruiting their ranks, and preparing to contest once more the laurels gained by the conquerors of Azotus.

Richard, still full of confidence, declared to the Saracens that the only way of averting his wrath was to surrender the kingdom of Jerusalem as it existed in the reign of Baldwin the Fourth. Saladin did not reject this proposal with the disdain which he felt, but made a modification of the terms, by offering to yield all of Palestine that lay between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean. The negotiation lasted some time without farther concession on either side, when at length it became manifest that the enemy were not in earnest, but merely sought to derive advantage from the delay which they had the ingenuity to create. Hence the meditated attack on Jerusalem was postponed, and dissension began to prevail in the ranks of Plantagenet. The winter was passed amid privations of every description, which, as they were partly owing to the negligence of the king, gave rise to numerous desertions. The inactive season of the year was occupied in rebuilding the walls of Ascalon,--a task in which the proudest nobles and the most dignified clergy laboured like the meanest of the people. On the return of spring both armies appeared in the field; but as political disturbances in England demanded the presence of Richard, be manifested for the first time a greater disposition to negotiate than to fight. He made known to Saladin that he would be satisfied with the possession of the holy city and of the true cross. But the latter replied, that Jerusalem was as dear to the Moslem as to the Christian world; and, moreover, that he would never be guilty of conniving at idolatry by permitting the worship of a piece of wood.

Thwarted by the religious prejudices of his enemies, the English commander attempted a different expedient. He proposed a consolidation of the Christian and Mohammedan interests, the establishment of a government at Jerusalem, partly European and partly Asiatic; and this scheme of policy was to be carried into effect by the marriage of Saphadin, the brother of the sultan, with the widow of William, King of Sicily. The Moslem princes would have acceded to these terms; but the union was thought to be so scandalous to religion, that the imans and priests raised a storm of clamour against it; and Richard and Saladin, accordingly, though the most powerful and determined men of their age, were compelled to submit to popular opinion.

In the month of May, therefore, Coeur de Lion began his march towards Jerusalem, with the firm resolution of accomplishing the main object of his armament. The generals and soldiers vowed that they would not leave Palestine until they should have redeemed the Holy Sepulchre. Everything wore the face of joy when this resolution was announced. Hymns and thanksgivings gave utterance to the general exultation. Terror seized the Mussulmans who were appointed to defend the sacred walls, and even Saladin himself gave way to apprehension for their safety. The Crusaders arrive at Bethlehem; and here the stout mind of Plantagenet began to vacillate. He avowed his doubts as to the policy of a siege, as his force was not adequate to such a measure, and also to the regular maintenance of his communications with the coast, whence his supplies must be derived. He submitted his difficulties to the barons of Syria, the Templars, and Hospitallers, declaring his readiness to abide by their decision, whether it should be to advance or to retreat. These officers received information that the Turks had destroyed all the cisterns which were within two miles of the city, and they felt that the intolerable heats of summer had begun; for which reason, it was resolved that the attack on Jerusalem should be deferred, and that the army, meantime, should proceed to some other conquest.

Saladin, aware of the hesitation which had chilled the wonted ardour of his foe, resolved to profit by this turn of affairs, so little to be expected under such a leader. He advanced by forced marches to Jaffa, with the view of reducing it before Richard could send relief. Attacking it with his usual vigour, he succeeded in breaking down one of the gates; and such of the inhabitants as could not defend themselves in the great tower or escape by sea were put to the sword. Already were the battering-rams prepared to demolish that fortress, when the patriarch and some French and English knights agreed to become the prisoners of the sultan, fixing, at the same time, a heavy sum for the ransom of the citizens, if succour did not arrive during the next day. Before the morning, however, the brave Plantagenet reached Jaffa; and so furious was his onset, that the Turks immediately deserted the town; while their army, which was encamped at a little distance, no sooner saw the standard of Richard on the walls, than they retreated some miles into the interior.

But the English chieftain, harassed by unfavourable tidings from home, and perplexed by dissensions in his camp, became heartily desirous of peace. Nor was Saladin less willing to grant repose to his country, now exhausted by protracted wars. The two heroes exchanged expressions of mutual esteem; but as Richard had often avowed his contempt for the vulgar obligation of oaths, they only grasped each other's hands in token of fidelity. A truce was agreed upon for three years and eight months; the fort of Ascalon was dismantled; but Jaffa and Tyre, with the intervening territory, were surrendered to the Europeans. It was provided, also, that the Christians should be at liberty to perform their pilgrimages to Jerusalem, exempted from the taxes which the Moslem princes were wont to impose.[173]

Towards the end of the year 1192, Richard the Lion-hearted withdrew from the Holy Land on his way to England,--a journey beset with many perils and adventures, which it is no part of our task to describe. We are told that his valour struck such terror into his enemies, that long after his death, when a horse trembled without any visible cause, the Saracens were accustomed to say that he had seen the ghost of the English prince. In a familiar conversation which Saladin held with the warlike Bishop of Salisbury, he expressed his admiration of the bravery of his rival, but added, that he thought "the skill of the general did not equal the valour of the knight." The courteous prelate replied to this remark, the justice of which, perhaps, he could not question, by assuring the sultan that there were not two such warriors in the world as the English and the Syrian monarchs. Without entering minutely into the comparison of two characters which presented little in common, it must be acknowledged, that the courage of Richard at the head of his gallant troops prevented many of the evils which had been anticipated from the defeat at Tiberias. Palestine did not, as was apprehended, become a Moslem colony. A portion of the seacoast, too, was preserved for the Christians; while their great enemy was so enfeebled by repeated discomfitures, that fresh hostilities could be safely commenced whenever Europe should again find it expedient to send into the East a renewed host of military adventurers. Richard, besides, gained more honour in Syria than any of the German emperors or French kings who had sought renown in foreign war; and although a rigid wisdom might censure his conduct as unprofitable to his country, it must be admitted that his actions were in unison with the spirit of the times in which he lived, when valour was held more important than the acquisition of wealth, and achievements in the field were esteemed more highly than the most beneficial results of victory.

Saladin did not long survive the departure of his distinguished rival. He died in the year 1193; leaving directions, that on the day of his funeral a shroud should be borne on the point of a spear, and a herald proclaim in a loud voice, "Saladin, the conqueror of Asia, out of all the fruits of his victories, carries with him only this piece of linen." The soldiers of this distinguished sultan rallied round his brother Saphadin, whom they raised to the throne. Nor did the new monarch disappoint the expectations that were entertained of his wisdom and valour; for by the exertions of military skill, as well as by a sagacious policy, he strengthened the government which was committed to his hands, and was found, at the expiration of the truce, ready to meet the armies of the combined powers of Christendom.

The fourth Crusade was called into existence by the active zeal of Pope Celestine the Third, and of Henry the Sixth, the German emperor, who wasjoined by many of the subordinate princes of Northern Europe. The term of peace fixed by Richard and Saladin had indeed expired; but both Christians and Moslem, exhausted by war and famine, were disposed to lengthen the period of repose, and at all events to abstain from a renewal of their sanguinary conflicts. Nevertheless, when the new champions of the Cross arrived at Acre, all remonstrances against fresh aggression were disregarded. Saphadin, who was informed of their hostile intentions, anticipated them in the field, and before they could advance to Jaffa, he had battered down the fortifications, and put thousands of the inhabitants to the sword. A general action, it is true, took place soon afterward, in which the strength and discipline of the Germans secured the victory; but, when advancing to Jerusalem, the conquerors allowed themselves to be turned aside in order to reduce the insignificant fortress of Thoron, where they met with a repulse so serious as to defeat the main object of the campaign. Factious contentions now disturbed the councils of the Latins; vice and insubordination raged in the camp; and, to crown their miseries, the Crusaders were informed that the Sultans of Egypt and Syria were concentrating their troops with the view of attacking them. Alarmed at this intelligence, the German princes deserted their posts in the night, and fled to Tyre; the road to which was soon filled with soldiers and baggage in indiscriminate confusion; the feeble relinquishing their property, and the cowardly casting away their arms.

Another battle took place in the neighbourhood of Jaffa, which terminated, as before, to the advantage of the Christians. But the death of the Emperor Henry, the patron of the expedition, again disconcerted their measures. Many returned to Europe to assist at the election of his successor; while the residue of the army, thrown into a fatal confidence by their late triumphs, were destroyed by a body of Turkish auxiliaries, who surprised them during the revels in which they commemorated the virtues and abstinence of St. Martin.

The crown of Palestine meantime, greatly shorn of its lustre, had devolved upon Isabella, daughter of Baldwin and sister to Sybilla. Her third husband, Henry, Count of Champagne, was acknowledged as king; and upon his death she was advised to give her hand to Almeric of Lusignan, the brother of Guy, who had formerly swayed the sceptre. This union being approved by the clergy and barons, the marriage was celebrated at Acre, where Almeric
and Isabella were proclaimed the sovereigns of Cyprus and Jerusalem.

The repeated failure of the Christian armaments impressed upon the people of Europe a belief, either that the real difficulties of the enterprise had been concealed from them, or that the time fixed in the counsels of Providence for the deliverance of the Holy Land had not yet arrived. In such circumstances, it required the authority of the church and the power of eloquence, seconded by the performance of numerous miracles, to rouse the slumbering zeal of those who had money to give or arms to use in the service of the Cross. Fulk, the preacher, who equalled Peter the Hermit in the ardour of his address, and Bernard in oratorical talents, co-operated with the pope, Innocent the Third, in convincing the several kingdoms under his spiritual dominion of the necessity of a fifth combined effort, in order to expel the infidels from the sacred inheritance.

The voice of religion was again listened to with pious obedience, and a large force was mustered in France and the Low Countries. As, however, the arms of the Christian chiefs on this occasion were not employed against the Saracens, but against their own brethren of the Grecian empire, the object of our work does not require that we should do more than follow their steps to the shores of the Bosphorus. In April, 1204, Constantinople fell into their hands, and was subjected to all the horrors and indignity which usually punish the resistance of a strong city. The remains of the fine arts, which the Eastern Church had preserved as consecrated memorials of her triumph over paganism, were destroyed with peculiar industry by the less polished Latins, who were pleased to view with contempt the superior taste of their rivals. The establishment of the Crusaders in the capital of the Lower Empire, where they elected a sovereign and formed an administration, was the only result of the fifth expedition against the Moslem. Their dominion lasted fifty-seven years, at the end of which Manuel Paleologus, descendant of Lascaris, and son-in-law of the Emperor Alexis, recovered the throne of the Cesars, and finally expelled the usurpers from the city of Constantine.

The successes of the French, against the Greeks had, however, an indirect influence in promoting the welfare of the Christians in Palestine. The Mussulmans were alarmed, and Saphadin gladly concluded a truce for six years. But the country was doomed to be soon deprived of the tranquillity afforded by a cessation of arms. Almeric and his wife being dead, Mary, the daughter of Isabella by Conrade of Tyre, was acknowledged Queen of Jerusalem; while Hugh de Lusignan, son of Almeric by his first wife, was proclaimed King of Cyprus. There was not at that time in Palestine any powerful nobleman capable of governing the state; on which account the civil and ecclesiastical potentates resolved that Philip Augustus of France should be requested to provide a husband for Mary. The French monarch fixed his eyes on John de Brienne who was esteemed among the knights of Europe as equally wise in council and experienced in war.

The hopes inspired by this union raised the pretensions of the Christian community so high, that they refused to prolong the truce which still subsisted between them and the sultan. The latter, therefore, marched an army to the neighbourhood of Tripoli, and threatened hostilities. The young king took the field at the head of a respectable force and displayed his valour in many a fierce encounter; and though he did not succeed in concerning his foes, he saved his states from the utter annihilation with which they were threatened. He foresaw, however, the approaching ruin of the sacred cause; for he could not fail to observe that, while the Saracens were constantly acquiring new advantages, the Latin barons were embracing every opportunity of returning home. He accordingly wrote to the pope, that the kingdom of Jerusalem consisted only of two or three towns, and that its fate must already have been determined but for the civil wars which had raged among the sons of Saladin.

His holiness was not deaf to a remonstrance so just and important. In a circular letter to the sovereigns of Europe, he reminded them that the time was now come when a successful effort might be made to secure possession of Palestine, and that, while those who should fight faithfully for God would obtain a crown of glory, such as refused to serve him would be punished everlastingly. He employed, among other arguments, a consideration which has since been often urged by Protestant writers against his own church; stating, that "the Mohammedan heresy, the beast foretold by the Spirit, will not live for ever--its age is 666." He concluded with the assurance, that Jesus Christ would condemn them for gross ingratitude and infidelity, if they neglected to march to his succour at a time when he was in danger of being driven from a kingdom he had acquired by his own blood.

The preacher of the next Crusade was Robert de Courcon, a man inferior in talents and rank to St. Bernard, but whose fanaticism was as fervent as that of the Hermit and Fulk. He invited all to assume the Cross, and enrolled in the sacred militia women, children, the old, the blind, the lame, and even the distempered. The multitude of Crusaders, as might be expected, was very great, and the voluntary offerings of money were immense. A council was held in the church of the Lateran, in which the Emperor of Constantinople, the Kings of France, England, Hungary, Jerusalem, Arragon, and other countries, were represented. War against the Saracens was unanimously declared to be the most sacred duty of the Christian world. The usual privileges, dispensations, and indulgences were granted to the pilgrims; and the pope, besides other expenses, contributed thirty thousand pounds.

It was in the year 1216 that the sixth Crusade, consisting chiefly of Hungarians and the soldiers of Lower Germany, landed at Acre. The sons of Saphadin were now at the head of affairs in Syria, their father having retired from the fatigues of royalty; and, although unprepared to oppose so large a host with any prospect of success, they mustered what forces they could collect and advanced to Naplosa, the modern Nablous. But the insubordination of the invaders made victory more easy than was anticipated. Destitute of provisions, they wandered over the country, committing the greatest enormities, and suffering from time to time very severe losses from the just indignation of the inhabitants. At length the sovereign of Hungary, disgusted with the campaign, refused to remain any longer in Palestine,--a defection which compelled the King of Jerusalem, the Duke of Austria, and the Master of the Hospitallers to take up a defensive position on the Plain of Cesarea. The knights of the other military orders, the Templar and Teutonic, seized upon Mount Carmel, which they fortified for the occasion. But their fears were relieved in the spring of the following year by the arrival of a large body of new and most zealous Crusaders from the upper parts of Germany. Nearly three hundred vessels sailed from the Rhine, which, after having sustained more than the usual casualties of a voyage in the North Sea, landed on the shores of Syria those martial bands who had assembled in the neighbourhood of the Elbe and the Weser.

For reasons which are not very clearly assigned, but having some reference, it may be conjectured, to the exhausted state of the country, the chiefs of the Crusade came to the resolution of withdrawing their troops from Palestine, and of carrying the war into Egypt. Damietta, not unjustly regarded as the key of that kingdom on the line of the coast, was made the first object of attack; and so vigorous were the approaches of the assailants, that the castle or fortress, which was supposed to command the town, fell into their hands. Meantime a reinforcement from Europe appeared at the mouth of the Nile. Italy sent forth her choicest soldiers, headed by Pelagius and De Courcon, as legates of the pope. The Counts of Nevers and La Marche, the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, the Bishops of Meaux, Autun, and Paris, led the youth of France; while the English troops were conducted by the Earls of Chester, Arundel, and Salisbury, men celebrated for their heroism and experience in the field.

The tide of success flowed for some time so strongly in favour of the
Christians, that the Saracen leaders were desirous to conclude a peace
very advantageous to their invaders. When the loss of Damietta appeared
inevitable, the Sultan of Syria, Khamel, the son of Saphadin, apprehensive
that the Crusaders would immediately advance against Jerusalem, issued
orders to destroy the fortifications, to prevent its being held by them as
a place of defence. But in the negotiation which was opened between the
contending powers, the Mussulmans consented to rebuild the walls of the
sacred city, to return the portion of the true cross, and to liberate all
the prisoners in Syria and Egypt. Of the whole kingdom of Palestine, they
proposed to retain only the castles of Karac and Montereale, as necessary
for the safe passage of pilgrims and merchants in their intercourse with
Mecca. As an equivalent for these important concessions, they required
nothing more than the instant evacuation of Egypt, and a complete
relinquishment of the conquests which had been recently made in it by the
arms of the Crusaders.

The Christian chiefs, after a stormy discussion, determined to reject the
terms offered by the allied sultans, and to prosecute the siege of
Damietta. This devoted town, having been invested more than a year and a
half, was at length carried by assault; but so resolute and persevering
had been the defence, that of seventy thousand inhabitants, who were shut
up by the Crusaders, only three thousand remained to witness their
triumph.

The Saracens, fatigued with the horrors of war, once more proposed a
treaty on terms similar to those which were offered before the fall of
Damietta. But the victors, whose wisdom in council was never equal to
their valour in the field of battle, again refused to conclude a peace.
The prevailing party recommended an immediate attack upon Grand Cairo;
anticipating the reduction of the whole of Egypt, and the final subjection
of all the Mahommedan states on the shores of the Mediterranean. This
vision of greatness, however, soon vanished before the real difficulties
of a campaign on the banks of the Nile. In a few months the leaders of the
expedition found themselves reduced to the necessity of soliciting
permission to return into Palestine; consenting to purchase safety by
giving up all the acquisitions they had made since the first day that they
opened their trenches before Damietta. The barons of Syria and the
military orders retired to Acre, where they held themselves in readiness
to sustain an attack from the indignant Moslems; the mass of the
volunteers and pilgrims soon afterward procuring the means of returning
into Europe.

Frederick the Second of Germany, who had engaged to lead a strong force
into Syria, was so long prevented by domestic cares from fulfilling his
promise, that he incurred the resentment of the pope, who actually
pronounced against him a sentence of excommunication.[174] The emperor, at
length, was induced to marry Violante, the daughter of John de Brienne,
and accept as her dowry the kingdom of Jerusalem. In the year 1228 he
arrived at Acre, with the view of making good his pretensions to the
sacred diadem,--an object which he finally attained, not less by the
connivance of the sultan than by the exertions of his military companions.
The son of Saphadin felt his throne rendered insecure by the ambition or
treachery of his own kindred, and was therefore much inclined to cultivate
an amicable feeling with so powerful a prince as the sovereign of Germany.
In pursuance of these views a treaty was signed, providing that for ten
years the Christians and Mussulmans were to live on a footing of
brotherhood; that Jerusalem, Jaffa, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and their
dependencies, were to be restored to the former; that the Holy Sepulchre
was likewise to be given up to them; and that the people of both religions
might offer up their devotions in that house of prayer, which the one
called the Temple of Solomon, and the other the Mosque of Omar. Thus the
address or good fortune of Frederick more effectually promoted the object
of the Holy Wars than the heroic phrensy of Richard Coeur de Lion; many of
the disasters consequent on the battle of Tiberias were wiped away; and
the hopes of Europe for a permanent settlement in Asia appeared to be
realized.

But the emperor had performed all these services while the stain of
excommunication was yet unremoved from his character. The fidelity of the
knights, accordingly, whose oaths had a reference to the supremacy of the
church, and the attachment of the clergy, could not be relied upon. Hence,
when he went to Jerusalem to be crowned, the patriarch would not discharge
his office; the places of worship were closed; and no religious duties
were observed in public during his stay. Frederick repaired to the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre, surrounded by his courtiers, and boldly taking the
crown from the altar, placed it on his own head. He then issued orders for
rebuilding the fortifications of his eastern capital; after which he
returned to Acre, whence he almost immediately set sail for Europe.[175]

The peace established between Frederick and the Saracen rulers was not
faithfully observed by the latter, some of whom did not consider
themselves as bound by its stipulations. The sufferings endured by the
Christians of Palestine accordingly called their brethren in Europe once
more to arms. A council, held under the auspices of the pope at Spoleto,
decreed that fresh levies should be sent into Asia so soon as the truce
with Khamel, the sultan of Damascus, should have expired. Many of the
English nobility, inflamed by the love of warlike fame, took the cross,
and prepared to follow the standard of the Earl of Chester, and of
Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother to King Henry the Third.

In this pious movement the lords of England were anticipated by those of
France, who, in the year 1239, landed in Syria, and prepared to measure
lances with the Moslems. News of these warlike proceedings having reached
the nephew of Saladin, he forthwith drove the Christians out of Jerusalem,
and demolished the Tower of David,--a monument which till that time had
been regarded as sacred by both parties. The combats which followed,
although fought with great bravery on the side of the invaders, terminated
generally in favour of the Saracens; and the French accordingly, after
losing a great number of their best warriors, were glad to have recourse
to terms of peace. The Templars entered into treaty with the Emir of
Karac, while the Hospitallers, actuated by jealousy or revenge, preferred
the friendship of the Sultan of Egypt.

The following year Richard, the earl of Cornwall, arrived with his levy,
hoping to find his allies in possession of all the towns which had been
ceded to the Emperor of Germany, and enjoying security in the exercise of
their religious rites. His surprise was therefore very great, when he
discovered that the principal leaders of the French had already fled from
the plains of Syria; that the knights of the two great orders had sought
refuge in negotiation; and, finally, that the conquests of the former
Crusaders were once more limited to a few fortresses and a strip of
territory on the coast. He marched in the first instance to Jaffa, with
the view of concentrating the scattered forces of Europe; but receiving
notice, as soon as he arrived, that the Sultan of Egypt, who was then at
war with his brother of Damascus, was desirous to cultivate friendly
relations, he lent a ready ear to the terms proposed. The Mussulman
consented to relinquish Jerusalem, Beritus, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Mount
Tabor, and a large portion of the Holy Land, provided the English earl
would withdraw his troops and preserve a strict neutrality.

The conditions being ratified by the Egyptian sovereign, the Earl of
Cornwall had the satisfaction to see the great object of the Crusaders
once more accomplished. Palestine again belonged to the Christians. The
Hospitallers opened their treasury to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem,
while the patriarch and clergy entered the holy city to reconsecrate the
churches. For two years the gospel was the only religion administered in
the sacred capital, and the faithful had begun to exult in the permanent
subjection of their rivals, when a new enemy arose, more formidable to
them than even the Saracens.

The victories of Zingis Khan had displaced several nations belonging to
the great Tartar family, and among others the Karismians, who continued
their retreat southward till they reached the confines of Egypt. The
sultan, who perhaps had repented the liberality of his terms to the
soldiers of Richard, advised the expatriated barbarians to take possession
of Palestine. He even sent one of his principal officers and a large body
of troops to serve as them guides; upon which, Barbacan, the Karismian
general, at the head of twenty thousand cavalry, advanced into the Holy
Land. The garrison of Jerusalem, being quite inadequate to its defence,
retired, and were followed by many of the inhabitants. The invaders
entered it without opposition, sparing neither life nor property, and
respecting nothing, whether sacred or profane. At length the Templars and
Hospitallers, forgetting their mutual animosities, united their bands to
rescue the country from the grasp of such savages. A battle took place,
which, after continuing two whole days, ended in the total defeat of the
Christians; the Grand Masters of St. John and of the Temple being among
the slain. Only thirty-three individuals of the latter order, and sixteen
of the former, with three Teutonic cavaliers, remained alive, and
succeeded in making their way to Acre, the last refuge of the vanquished
knights. The Karismians, with their Egyptian allies, after having razed
the fortifications of Ascalon and Tiberias, encamped on the seacoast, laid
waste the surrounding territory, and slew or carried into bondage every
Frank who fell into their hands. Nor was it till the year 1247 that the
Syrians and Mamlouks, insulted by this northern horde, attacked them near
Damascus, slew Barbacan their chief, and compelled the remainder to
retrace their steps to the borders of the Caspian Lake.

The intelligence did not fail to reach Europe that the members of the
Church in Palestine had been put to death or dispersed by the exiles of
Karism. Pope Innocent the Fourth suggested the expediency of another
Crusade, and even summoned all his faithful children to take arms. He
wrote to Henry the Third, king of England, urging him to press on his
subjects the necessity of punishing the Karismians. But the spirit of
crusading was more active in France than in any other country of the West
and it revived in all the vigour of its chivalrous piety in the reign of
Louis the Ninth. Agreeably to the superstition of the times, he had vowed,
while afflicted by a severe illness, that in case of recovery he would
travel to the Holy Land. The Cross was likewise taken by the three royal
brothers, the Counts of Artois, Poictiers, and Anjou, by the Duke of
Burgundy, the Countess of Flanders and her two sons, together with many
knights of high degree.

But it was not till 1249 that the soldiers of Louis were mustered, and his
ships prepared for sea; the former amounting to fifty thousand, while his
vessels of all descriptions exceeded eighteen hundred. They set sail for
Egypt; a storm separated the fleet; but the royal division, in which were
nearly three thousand knights and their men-at-arms, arrived in the
neighbourhood of Damietta. On the second day the king ordered the
disembarkation; he himself leaped into the water; his warriors followed
him to the shore; upon which the Saracens, panic-struck at their boldness
and determination, made but a slight show of defence, and fled into the
interior. Although Damietta was better prepared for a siege than at that
period when it defied the arms of the Crusaders during eighteen months,
yet the garrison were pleased to seek safety in the fleetness of their
horses. Louis fixed his residence in the city; a Christian government was
established; and the clergy, as they were wont on such occasions,
proceeded to purify the mosques.

Towards the close of the year, after being joined by a body of English
volunteers, the French monarch resolved to march to Cairo and attack the
sultan in the heart of his kingdom. But the floods of the Nile, and the
intersection of the country by numerous canals, occasioned a second time
the loss of a brave army. Famine and disease, too, aided the sword of the
enemy, till at length the victors of Damietta were compelled to sue for a
peace which they could no longer obtain. A retreat was ordered; but those
who attempted to escape by the river were taken prisoners, and the fate of
such as proceeded by land was equally disastrous. While they were occupied
in constructing a bridge over a canal, the Saracens entered the camp and
murdered the sick. The valiant king, though oppressed with the general
calamity of disease, sustained boldly the shock of the enemy, throwing
himself into the midst of them, resolved to perish rather than desert his
troops. One of his attendants succeeded at length in drawing him from the
presence of the foe, and conducted him to a village, where he sunk under
his wounds and fatigue into a state of utter insensibility. In this
miserable condition he was overtaken by the Moslems, who announced to him
that he was their captive. One of his brothers, the gallant Artois, had
already fallen in battle, but the two others, Anjou and Poictiers, with
all the nobility, fell into the hands of the enemy.

The sultan did not abuse his victory, nor seek to impose upon Louis terms
which a sovereign could not grant without forfeiting his honour. He agreed
to accept a sum equivalent to five hundred thousand livres for the
deliverance of the army, and the town of Damietta as a ransom for the
royal person. Peace was to continue ten years between the Mussulmans and
the Christians; while the Franks were to be restored to those privileges
in the kingdom of Jerusalem which they had enjoyed previous to the recent
invasion of the French. The repose which succeeded this treaty was
interrupted by the murder of the sultan, who fell a victim to the
jealousy, of the Mamlouks; but after a few acts of hostility too
insignificant to be recorded, the emirs renewed, with a few modifications,
the basis of the agreement on which the peace was established. Louis
himself made a narrow escape from the sanguinary intrigues of those
military slaves who had imbrued their hands in the blood of their own
master. They declared that, as they had committed a sin by destroying
their sultan, whom, by their law, they ought to have guarded as the apple
of their eye, their religion would be violated if they suffered a
Christian king to live. But the other chiefs, more honourable than the
Mamlouks, disdained to commit a crime under any such pretext; and the
French monarch, accordingly, was allowed to accompany the poor remains of
his army to the citadel of Acre.

It has been remarked that the expedition of St. Louis into Egypt resembles
in many respects the war carried on in that country thirty years before.
In both cases the Christian armies were encamped near the entrance of the
Ashmoun canal, beyond which they could not advance; and the surrender of
Damietta in each instance was the price of safety. The errors of the
Cardinal Pelagius seem not to have been recollected by the French king,
who, in fact, trod in his steps with a fatal blindness, and ended by
paying a still severer penalty.

A gleam of hope arose in the minds of the Crusaders from finding the
rulers of Egypt and of Syria engaged in a furious war. The Mamlouks even
condescended to solicit the cooperation of Louis, and agreed to purchase
it by remitting one-half of the ransom which still remained unpaid. They
further consented to deliver up Jerusalem itself, and also the youthful
captives taken on the banks of the Nile, whom they had compelled to
embrace the Mussulman faith. But before the Franks could appear in the
field, the interposition of the calif had restored peace to the contending
parties, both of whom immediately resumed their wonted dislike to the
European invaders.

The infidels, however, at this period did not pursue their schemes of
conquest with the vigour and ability which distinguished the movements of
Noureddin, and more especially of Saladin, his renowned successor. They
might have swept the feeble and exhausted Christians from the shores of
Palestine; but they merely ravaged the country round Acre, and then
proceeded to Sidon, in the strong castle of which Louis and his army had
taken refuge. The blood and property of the citizens satisfied the
barbarians, who departed without trying the valour of the soldiers who
occupied the garrison.

The death of Queen Blanche, the mother of the king, and regent during his
absence, afforded him a good apology for leaving the country, of which he
had long been tired. The patriarch and barons of the Holy Land offered him
their humble thanks for the honour he had bestowed upon their cause, and
for the benefits which he had conferred upon themselves individually.
Louis, sensible that he had gathered no laurels in Palestine, and that the
interests of the church were even in a more hopeless condition than when
he landed at Damietta, listened to their address with mingled emotions of
shame and regret, and forthwith prepared himself for his voyage
homewards.[176]

Thus terminated that expedition, of which, says a French author, the
commencement filled all Christian states with joy, and which, in the end,
plunged all the West into mourning. The king arrived at Vincennes on the
5th of September, 1254, accompanied by a crowd collected from all
quarters. The more they forgot his reverses, the more bitterly he called
to mind the fate of his brave companions, whom he had left in the mud of
Egypt or on the sands of Palestine; and the melancholy which he showed in
his countenance formed a striking contrast to the public congratulation on
the return of a beloved prince. His first care, says the historian, was to
go to St. Denys, to prostrate himself at the feet of the apostles of
France; the next day he made his entrance into the capital, preceded by
the clergy, the nobility, and the people. He still wore the cross upon his
shoulder; the sight of which, by recalling the motives of his long
absence, inspired the fear that he had not abandoned the enterprise of the
Crusade.[177]

The misfortunes sustained in the field were greatly increased by the
dissensions which prevailed among the military orders after the departure
of Louis. The Templars and Hospitallers, especially, never forgot their
jealousies except when engaged in battle with the Mussulmans; for, in
every interval of peace, they mutually gratified their arrogance and
contempt by wrangling on points of precedency and professional reputation.
At length an appeal to arms was made, with the view of determining which
of these kindred associations should stand highest as soldiers in the
estimation of Europe. The Knights of St. John gained the victory; and so
bloody was the conflict that no quarter was granted, and hardly a single
Templar escaped alive.

But these unseemly disputes were soon drowned amid the shouts of a more
formidable warfare waged against Palestine by the Mamlouk sovereign of
Egypt, the sanguinary and bigoted Bibars. His troops demolished the
churches of Nazareth and Mount Tabor; after which they advanced to the
gates of Acre, inflicting the most horrid cruelties upon the unprotected
Christians. Sephouri and Azotus were taken by storm, or yielded upon
terms. At the reduction of the former, it was agreed that the knights and
garrison, amounting in all to six hundred men, should be conducted to the
nearest Christian town. But no sooner was the sultan put in possession of
the fortress than he violated the conditions of surrender, and left the
knights only a few hours to determine on the alternative of death or
conversion to Islamism. The prior and two Franciscan monks succeeded by
their exhortations in fixing the faith of the religious cavaliers; and
hence, at the time appointed for the declaration of their choice, they
unanimously avowed their resolution to die rather than incur the dishonour
of apostacy. The decree for the slaughter of the Templars was pronounced
and executed; while the three preachers of martyrdom, as if responsible
for the conduct of their countrymen, were flayed alive.

A large Christian state had been formed at Antioch, in alliance with the
kingdom of Jerusalem. Bibars, after reducing Jaffa and the castle of
Beaufort, marched his fierce soldiers against the capital of Syria, and
soon added it to the number of his conquests. Forty thousand believers is
Christ were on this occasion put to the sword, and not fewer than one
hundred thousand were led into captivity. The barbarian, indeed, avowed
the fell purpose of exterminating the whole Christian community in the
East, extending the terror of death or the ascendency of the Koran from
the Nile to the mountains of Armenia. But his progress was stopped by the
intelligence which reached him in Palestine, that the King of Cyprus had
resolved to interpose his arms in behalf of the Holy Land, and was about
to make a descent on the coast at the head of a large force collected from
various nations. Bibara returned to Cairo, fitted out a fleet for the
conquest of that island, and intended, during the absence of its
sovereign, to annex it permanently to the dominions of Egypt. But his
ships were lost in a tempest; his military character suffered from the
failure of the enterprise; his power was weakened; and he ceased to be any
longer the scourge and dread of the Christian world.

Before the atrocities of this Mamlouk chief were made known in Europe, the
people of the West had made preparations for the ninth Crusade. Louis was
not able to conceal from himself that his first expedition to the Holy
Land had brought more shame on France than benefit to the Christian cause.
Nay, he was not without fear, that his personal reputation was in some
degree tarnished by the fatal result of his attack on Egypt, so unwisely
and rashly conducted. The Pope favoured his inclination for a new attempt;
and accordingly, in a general meeting of the higher clergy and nobles,
held at Paris in 1268, the king exhorted his people to avenge the wrongs
which Christ had so long suffered at the hands of the unbelieving Moslems.

In England a similar spirit had long prevailed among the priesthood and
the great body of the commons; but Henry the Third, taught by experience
that the late Crusades had only weakened the friends and strengthened the
enemies of Christianity, refused to countenance this popular folly at the
time when Louis first assumed the cross. On the present occasion, however,
he permitted his son Edward, with the Earls of Warwick and Pembroke, to
receive the holy ensign, and to join the sovereign of France in his
renewed attempt to plant the emblem of his faith on the walls of
Jerusalem.

It was not till the spring of 1270 that St. Louis spread his sails the second time for the Holy Land. The feelings of religious and military ardour which animated the heart of this pious monarch were diffused through the sixty thousand soldiers who followed his banners. He could count, too, among his leaders, the descendants of those gallant chiefs, the lords of Brittany, of Flanders, and Champagne, who in former generations had distinguished themselves in fighting the battles of the church. But notwithstanding such promising appearances, this proud armament took the sea under an evil omen. The fleet was driven into Sardinia; and there a great and unfortunate change was made in the plan of operations. Instead of proceeding to Palestine, it was resolved that the troops should be landed in the neighbourhood of Tunis, to assist the Christians in extending their faith in opposition to the disciples of the Koran. Success, indeed, crowned the first efforts of the invaders; Carthage fell into their hands; and more splendid conquests seemed to invite their progress into the heart of the Mohammedan nations of Northern Africa. But a pestilential disease, the scourge of those burning shores, soon spread its ravages among the ranks of the Christians. Louis, the great stay of the Crusaders, was stricken with the fatal sickness, and died, leaving his army, which had accomplished nothing, to prosecute the war, or to return with sullied standards into their native country.[178]

Prince Edward, who condemned the vacillating conduct of his allies, had
already passed from Africa into Sicily, where he spent the following
winter. In the early part of the year 1271, he set sail for Acre, where he
landed at the head of only one thousand men; but so high was his
reputation among the Latins of Palestine, that he soon found his army
increased sevenfold, and eager to be employed in the redemption of the
sacred territory. He led them, in the first place against Nazareth, which
did not long resist the vigour of his attack; and, almost immediately
afterward, he surprised a large Turkish force, whom he cut in pieces The
Moslems imagined that another Coeur de Lion had been sent from England to
scourge them into discipline, or to shake the foundation of their power in
Syria. Edward was brave and skilful as a warrior, and owed his success not
less to his able dispositions than to his personal courage. But he was
cruel and lavish of human blood. The barbarities which disgraced the
triumphs of the first Crusade were repeated on a smaller scale at
Nazareth, where the prince put the whole garrison to death, and subjected
the inhabitants to unnecessary suffering.

The resentment of the governor of Jaffa is said to have pointed the dagger
which was aimed at the heart of the English prince by the hand of an
assassin. The wretch, as the bearer of letters, was admitted into the
chamber of Edward, who, not suspecting treachery, received several severe
wounds before he could dash the assailant to the floor and despatch him
with his sword. But as the weapon used by the Saracen had been steeped in
poison, the life of his intended victim was for some hours in imminent
danger. The chivalrous fiction of that romantic age has ascribed his
recovery to the kind offices of one of that sex whose generous affections
are seldom chilled by the calculations of selfishness. His wife, Eleanora,
is said to have sucked the poison from his wound, at the hazard of instant
death to herself,--a story which, having received the sanction of the
learned Camden, has not unfrequently been held as an indisputable fact.
The more authentic edition of the narrative attributes the restoration of
Edward's health to the usual means employed by surgical skill, aided by
the resources of a strong mind and a vigorous constitution.[179]

It soon became manifest that the valour and ability of Edward, unsupported
by an adequate force, could make no lasting impression upon the Moslem
power in Syria. Accordingly, after having spent fourteen months in Acre,
he listened to proposals for peace made by the Sultan of Egypt, who, being
engaged in war with the Saracens whom he had displaced, was eager to
terminate hostilities with the English. A suspension of arms, to continue
ten years, was formally signed by the two chiefs; whereupon the Mamlook
withdrew his troops from Palestine, and Edward embarked for his native
country.

The loan and discomfiture which for more than a hundred years had
concluded every attempt to regain the Holy Land did not yet extirpate the
hope of final success in the hearts of the clergy and sovereigns of the
West. Gregory the Ninth, who himself had served in the Christian armies of
Syria, exerted all the means in his power to equip another expedition
against the enemies of the faith. The small republics of Italy, which
found a ready employment for their shipping in transporting troops to
Palestine, were the first to embrace the cause recommended by their
spiritual ruler. The King of France seemed to favour the enterprise, and
advanced money on the mortgage of certain estates within his dominions
belonging to the Templars; Charles of Anjou followed the example of his
royal relation; and Michael Paleologus, the Emperor of the East, announced
his willingness to take arms against the ambitious sultan, who already
threatened the independence of Greece. A council held at Lyons in 1274
sanctioned the obligations of a crusade, and imposed upon the church and
other estates such taxes as appeared sufficient to carry it to a
successful issue. But the death of the pope dissolved the coalition, and
all preparations for renewing the war were immediately laid aside,--never
to be resumed.

The Franks in Palestine, now left to their own resources, ought to have
cultivated peace, and more especially to have abstained from positive and
direct aggression. Their conduct, however, was not marked by such
abstinence or wisdom. On the contrary, by attacking certain Mohammedan
merchants, they provoked the anger of the sultan, who swore by God and the
Prophet that he would avenge the wrong. A war fatal to the Christian
interests was the immediate consequence. Their fortresses were rapidly
demolished; and at length, in the year 1289, the city of Tripoli, the
principal appanage of the kingdom of Jerusalem, was taken, its houses were
consumed by fire, its works dismantled, and its inhabitants massacred, or
sold into slavery.

Acre now remained the sole possession of the Latins, in the country where
their sovereignty had been acknowledged during the lapse of nearly two
centuries. A short peace granted to Henry the Second of Cyprus, the
nominal king of the Holy Land, postponed its fate, and the utter abolition
of Christian authority in Syria, a few years longer. Within its walls were
crowded the wretched remains of those principalities which had been won by
the valour of European soldiers. A reinforcement of unprincipled Italians
only added to the disorder which already prevailed in the town, and
increased the number of offences by which they were daily accumulating
upon their heads the vengeance of the fanatical Mamlouks, who longed for
an opportunity to attack them.

At length, in the month of April, 1291, a force which has been estimated
at more than 200,000 men, issued from Egypt, and encamped on the Plain of
Acre. Most of the inhabitants made their escape by sea from the horrors of
the impending siege; the defence of the place being intrusted to about
12,000 good soldiers, belonging chiefly to the several orders of religious
knighthood. The command was offered to the Grand Master of the Templars,
who, being prevailed upon to accept, discharged its duties with firmness
and military skill. But the Mamlouks were not inferior in valour, and
their numbers were irresistible. Prodigies of bravery were displayed on
both sides: the assailants threw themselves, with desperate resolution,
into the breach, from whence they were repeatedly driven back at the point
of the sword, or hurled headlong into the ditch. But the sultan was
prodigal of blood, and had vowed to humble the Nazarenes who dared to
dispute his authority. The walls, accordingly, after having been several
times lost and won, were at length finally occupied by the Tartars and
Mamlouks, who obeyed the sovereign of Egypt, and the crescent was at that
moment elevated to a place which it has continued to occupy during the
greater part of five centuries. Struck with terror, the few small towns
which till this period had been allotted to the Christians surrendered at
the first summons, and saw their inhabitants doomed either to death or to
a hopeless captivity. In one word, the Holy Land, which since the days of
Godfrey had cost to Christendom so much anxiety, blood, and treasure, was
now lost; the sacred walls of Jerusalem were abandoned to infidels; and
henceforth the disciple of Christ was doomed to purchase permission to
visit the interesting scenes consecrated by the events recorded in the
gospel.

The titular crown of Palestine was worn for the last time by Hugh the
Great, the descendant of Hugh, king of Cyprus, and Alice, who was the
daughter of Mary and John de Brienne. At a later period, this empty honour
was claimed by the house of Sicily, in right of Charles, count of Anjou
and brother of Louis IX, who was thought to unite in his own person the
issue of the King of Cyprus and of the Princess Mary, the daughter of
Frederick, sovereign of Antioch. The knights of St. John of Jerusalem,
since denominated knights of Rhodes and Malta, and the Teutonic knights,
the conquerors of the north of Europe and founders of the kingdom of
Prussia, are now the only remains of those Crusaders who struck terror
into Africa and Asia, and seized the thrones of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and
Constantinople.

Although no expedition from the Christian states reached the Holy Land
after the close of the thirteenth century, the fire which had so long
warmed the hearts of the Crusaders was not entirely extinguished in
several parts of Europe. Edward the First of England, for example, still
cherished the hope of opening the gates of Jerusalem, or of leaving his
bones in the sacred dust of Palestine. A similar feeling animated the
monarch of France; while the pope, who derived manifold advantages from
the prosecution of such wars, summoned councils, issued pastoral letters,
and employed preachers, as in the days that were past. But dissensions at
home during the first half of the fourteenth century, and the general
conviction of hopelessness which had seized the public mind respecting all
armaments against the Moslems, occasioned the failure of every attempt to
unite once more the powers of Chistendom in the common cause.

In the following century, the ascendency of the Turks, not only in the
East, but on the banks of the Danube and the northern shores of the
Mediterranean, compelled the people of Europe to act on the defensive. The
fall of the Grecian empire, too, rendered the intercourse with Syria at
once more difficult and dangerous. Egypt in like manner was shut against
the Christians, being subjected to the same yoke which pressed so heavily
on the western parts of Asia. Hence, during more than two centuries a
cloud hung over the affairs of Palestine, which we in vain attempt to
penetrate. Suffice it to remark, that it remained subject to the Mamlouk
sultans of Egypt till the year 1382, when they were dispossessed by a body
of Circassians, who invaded and overran the country. Upon the expulsion of
these barbarians, it acknowledged again the government of Cairo, under
which it continued until the period of the more formidable irruption of
the Mogul Tartars, led by the celebrated Tamerlane. At his death the Holy
Land was once more annexed to Egypt as a province; but in 1516, Selim the
Ninth, emperor of the Othman Turks, carried his victorious arms from the
Euphrates to the Libyan Desert, involving in one general conquest all the
intervening states. More than three hundred years have that people
exercised a dominion over the land of Judea, varied only by intervals of
rebellion on the part of governors who wished to assert their
independence, or by wars among the different pashas, who, in defiance of
the supreme authority, have from time to time quarrelled about its spoils.

From the period at which the Crusaders were expelled from Syria down to
the middle of the last century, we are chiefly indebted for our knowledge
of the Holy Land to the pilgrims whom religious motives induced to brave
all the perils and extortions to which Franks were exposed under the
Turkish government. The faith of the Christians survived their arms at
Jerusalem, and was found within the sacred walls long after every European
soldier had disappeared. The Jacobite, Armenian, and Abyssinian believers
were allowed to cling to those memorials of redemption which have at all
times given so great an interest to the localities of Palestine; and
occasionally a member of the Latin Church had the good fortune to enter
the gates of the city in disguise, and was permitted to offer up his
prayers at the side of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1432, when La Broquiere
undertook his pilgrimage into the East, there were only two French monks
in Jerusalem, who were held in the most cruel thraldom.

The increasing intercourse between the Turks at Constantinople and the
governments of Europe gradually produced a more tolerant spirit among the
former, and paved the way for a lasting accommodation in favour of the
Christians in Palestine. We find, accordingly, that in the year 1507, when
Baumgarten travelled in Syria, there was at Jerusalem a monastery of
Franciscans, who possessed influence sufficient to secure his personal
safety, and even to provide for his comfort under their own roof. At a
somewhat later period, the Moslem rulers began to consider the reception
of pilgrims as a regular source of revenue; selling their protection at a
high price, and even creating dangers in order to render that protection
indispensable. The Christians, meantime, rose by degrees from the state of
depression and contumely into which they were sunk by the conquerors of
the Grecian empire. They were allowed to nominate patriarchs for the due
administration of ecclesiastical affairs, and to practise all the rites of
their religion, provided they did not insult the established faith,--a
condition of things which, with such changes as have been occasioned by
foreign war or the temper of individual governors, has been perpetuated to
the present day.

As the civil history of Palestine for three centuries is nothing more than
a relation of the broils, the insurrections, the massacres, and changes of
dynasty which have periodically shaken the Turkish empire in Europe as
well as in Asia, we willingly pass over it, as we thereby only refrain
from a mere recapitulation of names and dates which could not have the
slightest interest for any class of readers. At the close of the
eighteenth century, however, its affairs assumed a new importance.
Napoleon Bonaparte, whose views of dominion were limited only by the
bounds of the civilized world, imagined that, by the conquest of Egypt and
Syria, he should open for himself a path into the remoter provinces of the
Asiatic continent, and perhaps establish his power on either bank of the
Ganges.

It was in the spring of 1799 that the French general, who had been informed of certain preparations against him in the pashalic of Acre, resolved to cross the desert which divides Egypt from Palestine at the head of ten thousand chosen men. El Arish soon fell into his hands, the garrison of which were permitted to retire on condition that they should not serve again during the war. Gaza likewise yielded without much opposition to the overwhelming force by which it was attacked. Jaffa set the first example of a vigorous resistance; the slaughter was tremendous; and Bonaparte, to intimidate other towns from showing a similar spirit, gave it up to plunder and the other excesses of an enraged soldiery. A more melancholy scene followed--the massacre of nearly four thousand prisoners who had laid down their arms. Napoleon alleged, that these were the very individuals who had given their parole at El Arish, and had violated their faith by appearing against him in the fortress which had just fallen. On this pretext he commanded them all to be put to death, and thereby brought a stain upon his reputation which no casuistry on the part of his admirers, and no considerations of expediency, military or political, will ever succeed in removing.[180]

Acre, so frequently mentioned in the History of the Crusades, was again doomed to receive a fatal celebrity from a most sanguinary and protracted siege. Achmet Djezzar, the pasha of that division of Palestine which stretches from the borders of Egypt to the Gulf of Sidon, had thrown himself into this fortress with a considerable army, determined to defend it to the last extremity. After failing in an attempt to bribe the Mussulman chief, Bonaparte made preparations for the attack, with his usual skill and activity; resolving to carry the place by assault before the Turkish government could send certain supplies of food and ammunition, which he knew were expected by the besieged. But his design was frustrated by the presence of a British squadron under Sir Sidney Smith, who, in the first instance, captured a convoy of guns and stores forwarded from Egypt, and then employed them against him, by erecting batteries on shore. Notwithstanding these inauspicious circumstances, Napoleon opened his trenches on the 18th of March, in the firm conviction that the Turkish garrison could not long resist the fury of his onset and the skill of his engineers. "On that little town," said he, to one of his generals, as they were standing together on an eminence which still bears the name of Richard Coeur de Lion, "on that little town depends the fate of the East. Behold the key of Constantinople or of India!"

At the end of ten days a breach was effected, by which the French made their first attempt to reduce the towers of Acre. Their assault was conducted with so much firmness and spirit, that for a moment the garrison was overpowered, and the town seemed lost. The pasha, renowned for his personal courage, threw himself into the thickest body of the combatants, and at length, by strength of hand and the most heroic example, rallied his troops and drove the enemy from the walls. The loss of the French was great, and the disappointment of their leader extreme. Napoleon was deeply mortified when he saw his finest regiments pursued to their lines by English sailors and undisciplined Turks, who even proceeded to destroy their intrenchments.

Bourrienne relates, that during the assault of the 8th of May more than two hundred men penetrated into the city. Already the shout of victory was raised; but the breach, taken in flank by the Turks, could not be entered with sufficient promptitude, and the party was left without support. The streets were barricaded; the very women were running about throwing dust into the air, and exciting the inhabitants by cries and howling; all contributed to render unavailing this short occupation by a handful of men, who, finding themselves alone, regained the breach by a retrograde movement; but not before many had fallen.

The want of proper means for forming a siege, and perhaps the contempt which he entertained for barbarians, occasioned a great deficiency in the works raised before Acre. Bonaparte was not ignorant of the disadvantages under which his men laboured from the cause now assigned; and was principally for this reason that he trusted more to the bayonet than to the mortar or cannon. He repeated his assaults day after day, till the ditch was filled with dead and wounded soldiers. His grenadiers at length felt greater horror at walking over the bodies of their comrades than at encountering the tremendous discharges of large and small shot to which the latter had fallen victims.

On the 21st of May, after sixty days of ineffectual labor under a burning sun, Napoleon ordered a last assault on the obstinate garrison of Ptolemais, which had barred his path to the accomplishment of the most splendid conquests. This attempt was not less fruitless than those which had preceded it, and was attended with the loss of many brave warriors. A fleet was at hand to reinforce Djezzar with men and arms; the French, on the contrary, were perishing under the plague, which had already found its way into their ranks, and were, besides, constantly threatened by swarms of Arabs and Mamlouks, who had assembled in the neighbouring mountains. His failure in this effort, accordingly, dictated the necessity of a speedy retreat towards Egypt, where his affairs continued to enjoy some degree of prosperity, and in the magazines of which he might still find the means of restoring the health and vigour of his troops.

The siege of Acre, says the biographer of Bonaparte, cost nearly three
thousand men in killed, and of such as died of the plague and their
wounds. Had there been less precipitation in the attack, and had the
advances been conducted according to the rules of art, the town, says he,
could not have held out three days; and one assault such as that of the
8th of May would have sufficed. But he admits that it would have been
wiser in their situation, destitute as they were of heavy artillery and
provisions, while the place was plentifully supplied and in active
communication with the English and Ottoman fleets, not to have undertaken
the siege at all. In the bulletins, he adds, always so veracious, the lose
of the French is estimated at five hundred killed and a thousand wounded;
while that of the enemy is augmented to fifteen thousand. These documents
are doubtless curious pieces for history,--certainly not because they are
true. Bonaparte, however, attached the greatest importance to these
relations, which were always drawn up or corrected by himself.[181]

The reader may not be displeased to consider the motives which induced
Napoleon to persevere so long in the siege of Acre. "I see that this
paltry town has cost me many men, and occupies much time; but things have
gone too far not to risk a last effort. If we succeed, it is to be hoped
we shall find in that place the treasures of the pasha, and arms for three
hundred thousand men. I will raise and arm the whole of Syria, which is
already greatly exasperated by the cruelty of Djezzar, for whose fall you
have seen the people supplicate Heaven at every assault. I advance upon
Damascus and Aleppo; I recruit my army by marching into every country
where discontent prevails; I announce to the people the abolition of
slavery, and of the tyrannical government of the pashas; I arrive at
Constantinople with armed messes; I overturn the dominion of the
Mussulman; I found in the East a new and mighty empire which shall fix my
position with posterity; and perhaps I return to Paris by Adrianople or
Vienna, having annihilated the house of Austria."[182]

Whatever accuracy there may be in these reminiscences, there is no doubt
that Napoleon frequently remarked, in reference to Acre, "The fate of the
East is in that place." Nor was this observation made at random; for had
the French subdued Djezzar, and buried his army in the ruins of the
fortress, the whole of Palestine and Syria would have submitted to their
dominion. He expected, besides, a cordial reception from the Druses, those
warlike and semi-barbarous tribes who inhabit the valleys of Libanus, and
who, like all the other subjects of the Ottoman government, had felt the
pressure of the pasha's tyranny. His eyes were likewise turned towards the
Jews, who, in every commotion which affects Syria, are accustomed to look
for the indication of that happy change destined, in the eye of their
faith, to restore the kingdom to Israel in the latter days. It was not,
indeed, till a somewhat later period that he openly extended his
protection to the descendants of Abraham; but it is not improbable that
the notion had occurred to him during his Eastern campaigns of employing
them for the purpose of establishing an independent sovereignty in
Palestine, devoted to his ulterior views in the countries beyond the
Euphrates.

During the siege of Acre, the several detachments of the French army
stationed in Galilee were attacked by a powerful Mussulman force, which
had assembled in the adjoining mountains. Junot, who was induced to risk
an engagement near Nazareth, would have been cut in pieces by the Mamlouk
cavalry, had not Bonaparte hastened to his assistance We have already
alluded to the masterly conduct of Kleber, who, at the head of a few
hundred men, kept the field a whole day against an overwhelming mass of
horsemen that attacked his party near Mount Tabor. On this occasion, too,
the speedy aid of Napoleon secured a victory, and scattered the enemy's
troops over the face of the desert. But he found, upon his return to the
trenches, that the same men whose columns dissipated like smoke before his
battalions on the plain were extremely formidable behind an armed wall,
and that all the skill of his engineers and the bravery of his veterans
were of no avail when opposed by the savage courage of Turks directed by
European officers and supported by English seamen.

The sufferings which the French endured in their retreat across the desert
were very great, and afforded constant exercise for the self-possession
and equanimity of their leader. "A fearful journey," says one of their
number, "was yet before us. Some of the wounded were carried in litters,
and the rest on camels and mules. A devouring thirst, the total want of
water, an excessive heat, a fatiguing march among scorching sand-hills,
demoralized the men; a most cruel selfishness, the most unfeeling
indifference, took place of every generous or humane sentiment. I have
seen thrown from the litters officers with amputated limbs, whose
conveyance had been ordered, and who had themselves given money as a
recompense for the fatigue. I have beheld abandoned among the wheatfields
soldiers who had lost their legs or arms, wounded men, and patients
supposed to be affected with the plague. Our march was lighted up by
torches kindled for the purpose of setting on fire towns, hamlets, and the
rich crops with which the earth was covered. The whole country was in
flames. It seemed as if we found a solace in this extent of mischief for
our own reverses and sufferings. We were surrounded only by the dying, by
plunderers, by incendiaries. Wretched beings at the point of death, thrown
by the wayside, continued to call with feeble voice, 'I have not the
plague, I am but wounded;' and, to convince those that passed, they might
be seen tearing open their real wounds, or inflicting new ones. Nobody
believed them. It was the interest of all not to believe. Comrades would
say, 'He is done for now; his march is over;' then pass on, look to
themselves, and feel satisfied. The sun, in all his splendour under that
beautiful sky, was obscured by the smoke of continual conflagration. We
had the sea on our right; on our left and behind us lay the desert which
we had made; before were the sufferings and privations that awaited
us."[183]

Since the departure of the French no event has occurred to give any interest to the history of Palestine. The Mussulman instantly resumed his power, which for a time he appeared determined to exercise with a strong arm and with little forbearance towards the Franks, from the terror of whose might he had just escaped. But the ascendency of Europe, as a great assemblage of Christian states, checks the intolerance of the Turk, and imposes upon him the obligations of a more liberal policy. Hence we may confidently assert, that although the members of the Greek and Latin churches in Syria are severely taxed, they are not persecuted. They are compelled to pay heavily for the privilege of exercising the rights of their worship, and of enjoying that freedom of conscience which is the natural inheritance of every human being; but their property is held sacred, and their personal security is not endangered, provided they have the prudence to rest satisfied with a simple connivance or bare permission in things relating to their faith.

The actual state of the Holy Land may be known with sufficient accuracy from the topographical description which we have given in a former chapter. With regard, again, to the civil government of the country, it has been remarked that the pashas are so frequently changed, or so often at war with each other, that the jurisdiction of the magistrates in cities is so undefined, and the hereditary or assumed rights of the sheiks of particular districts are so various, that it is extremely difficult to discover any settled rule by which the administration is conducted. The whole Turkish empire, indeed, has the appearance of being so precariously balanced, that the slightest movement within or from without seems likely to overturn it. Everywhere is absolute power seen stretched beyond the limits of all apparent control, but finding, nevertheless, a counteracting principle in that extreme degree of acuteness to which the instinct of self-preservation is sharpened by the constant apprehension of injury. Hence springs that conflict between force and fraud, not always visible, but always operating, which characterizes society in all despotic countries.

In the minute subdivision of power, which in all cases partakes of the absolute nature of the supreme government, the traveller is often reminded of patriarchal times, when there were found judges, and even kings, exercising a separate dominion at the distance of a short journey from one another. As an instance of this, we may mention, that on the road from Jerusalem to Sannour, by way of Nablous, there are no fewer than three governors of cities, all of whom claim the honours of independent sovereigns; for, although they acknowledge a nominal superiority in the Pasha of Damascus, they exclude his jurisdiction in all cases where he does not enforce his authority at the head of his troops: The same affectation of independence descends to the sheiks of villages, who, aware of the precarious tenure by which their masters remain in office, are disposed to treat their orders with contempt. Like them, too, they turn to their personal advantage the power of imposition and extortion which belongs to every one who is clothed with official rank in Syria. They sell justice and protection; and in this market, as in all others, he who offers the best price is certain to obtain the largest share of the commodity.[184]

This chapter would not be complete were we to omit all allusion to the Jews, the ancient inhabitants of Palestine. Their number, according to a statement lately published in Germany, amounts to between three and four millions, scattered over the face of the whole earth, but still maintaining the same laws which their ancestors received from their inspired legislator more than three thousand years ago. In Europe there are nearly two millions, enjoying different privileges according to the spirit of the several governments; in Asia, the estimate exceeds seven hundred thousand; in Africa, more than half a million; and in America, about ten thousand. It is supposed, however, on good grounds, that the Jewish population on both sides of Mount Taurus is considerably greater than is here given, and that their gross number does not fall much short of five millions. [185]

In Palestine of late years they have greatly increased. It is said that not fewer than ten thousand inhabit Saphet and Jerusalem, and that in their worship they still sing those pathetic hymns which their manifold tribulations have inspired; bewailing, amid the ruins of their ancient capital, the fallen city and the desolate tribes. In Persia, one of them addressed a Christian missionary in these affecting words:--"I have travelled far; the Jews are everywhere princes in comparison with those in the land of Iran. Heavy is our captivity, heavy is our burden, heavy is our slavery; anxiously we wait for redemption."

History, says an eloquent writer, is the record of the past; it presumes not to raise the mysterious veil which the Almighty has spread over the future. The destinies of this wonderful people, as of all mankind, are in the hands of the all-wise Ruler of the universe; his decrees will certainly be accomplished; his truth, his goodness, and his wisdom will be clearly vindicated. This, however, we may venture to assert, that true religion will advance with the dissemination of sound and useful knowledge. The more enlightened the Jew becomes, the more incredible will it appear to him that the gracious Father of the whole human race intended an exclusive faith, a creed confined to one family, to be permanent; and the more evident also will it appear to him, that a religion which embraces within the sphere of its benevolence all the kindreds and languages of the earth is alone adapted to an improved and civilized age.[186]

We presume not to expound the signs of the times, nor to see farther than we are necessarily led by the course of events; but it is impossible not to be struck with the aspect of that grandest of all moral phenomena which is suspended upon the history and actual condition of the sons of Jacob. At this moment they are nearly as numerous as when David swayed the sceptre of the Twelve Tribes; their expectations are the same, their longings are the same; and on whatever part of the earth's surface they have their abode, their eyes and their faith are all pointed in the same direction--to the land of their fathers and the holy city where they worshipped. Though rejected by God and persecuted by man, they have not once, during eighteen hundred long years, ceased to repose confidence in the promises made by Jehovah to the founders of their nation; and although the heart has often been sick and the spirit faint, they have never relinquished the hope of that bright reversion in the latter days which is once more to establish the Lord's house on the top of the mountains, and to make Jerusalem the glory of the whole world.

[165] History of the Jews, vol. iii.

[166] Decline and Fall, vol. ii. p. 385.

[167] The reader who wishes to examine the evidence for the miraculous
nature of the interruption sustained by the agents of Julian will find an
ample discussion in the pages of Basnage, Lardner, Warburton, Gibbon, and
of the Author of the History of the Jews.

[168] History of the Jews, vol. iii.

[169] "When the first light brought news of a morning, they on afresh;
because they had intercepted a letter tied to the leg of a dove, wherein
the Persian emperor promised present succours to the besieged. The Turks
cased the outside of their walls with bags of chaff, straw, and such like
pliable matter, which conquered the engines of the Christians by yielding
unto them. As for one sturdy engine, whose force would not be tamed, they
brought two old witches on the walls to enchant it; but the spirit thereof
was too strong for their spells, so that both of them were miserably slain
in the place.

"We must not think that the world was at a loss for war-tools before the
brood of guns was hatched: it had the battering-ramme, first found out by
Epeus at the taking of Troy; the balista to discharge great stones,
invented by the Phenicians; the catapulta, being a sling of mighty
strength, whereof the Syrians were authors; and perchance King Uzziah
first made it, for we find him very dexterous and happy in devising such
things. And although these bear-whelps were but rude and unshaped at the
first, yet art did lick them afterward, and they got more teeth and
sharper nails by degrees; so that every age set them forth in a new
edition, corrected and amended. But these and many more voluminous engines
are now virtually epitomized in the cannon. And though some say that the
finding of guns hath been the losing of many men's lives, yet it will
appear that battles now are fought with more expedition, and Victory
standeth not so long a neuter, before she express herself on one side or
other."--_Fuller's Holy Warre_, p. 41.

[170] Fuller remarks, that "this second massacre was no slip of an
extemporary passion, but a studied and premeditated act. Besides, the
execution was merciless upon sucking children whose not speaking spake for
them; and on women whose weakness is a shield to defend them against a
valiant man. To conclude, severity, hot in the fourth degree, is little
better than poison, and becometh cruelty itself; and this act seemeth to
be of the same nature."--_Fuller's Holy Warre_, p. 41.

[171] On this interesting subject we refer to the "Itineraire" of
Chateaubriand, and his "Genie du Christianisme;" the History of England by
Sir James Mackintosh, volume first; and to Mills's History of the
Crusades, volume first, chapter sixth. We may add Dr. Robertson's
"Historical Disquisition concerning the Knowledge which the Ancients had
of India."

[172] Mill's History of the Crusades, vol. ii. p. 48.

[173] Mills's History of the Crusades, vol. ii. p. 129. Michaud, Histoire
des Croisades, tom. iii. p. 187.

[174] A cure at Paris, instead of reading the bull from the pulpit in the
usual form, said to his parishioners, "You know, my friends, that I am
ordered to fulminate an excommunication against Frederick. I know not the
motive. All that I know is, that there has been a quarrel between that
prince and the pope. God alone knows who is right. I excommunicate him who
has injured the other, and I absolve the sufferer." The emperor sent a
present to the preacher, but the pope and the king blamed this sally: _le
mauvais plaisant_--the unhappy wit--was obliged to expiate his fault by a
canonical penance.--_Mills's History_, vol. ii. p. 253.

[175] The address of the Pope to the Fourth Council of Lateran, as
translated by Michaud, is not a little striking:--"O vous qui passez dans
les chemins, disait Jerusalem par la bouche du Pontife, regardez et voyez
si jamais il y eut une douleur semblable a la mienne! Accourez donc tous,
vous qui me cherissez, pour me delivrer de l'exces de mes miseres! Moi,
qui etais la recue de toutes les nations, je suis maintenant asservie au
tribut; moi, qui etais remplie de peuple, je suis restee presque seule.
Les chemins de Sion sont en deuil, parceque personne ne vient a mes
solemnites. Mes ennemis ont ecrase ma tete; tous les lieux saints sont
profanes: le saint sepulchre, si rempli d'eclat, est couvert d'opprobre;
on adore le fils de la perdition et de l'enfer, la ou nagueres on adorait
le fils de Dieu. Les enfants de l'etranger m'accablent d'outrages, et
montrant la croix de Jesus, ils me disent:--'_Tu as mise toute la
confiance dans un bois vil; nous verrons si ce bois te sauvera au jour de
danger_.'"--_Histoire des Croisades_, tom. iii. p. 394.

[176] "On se rappelait alors les vertus dont il avait donne l'exemple, et
surtout sa bonte, envers les habitants de la Palestine, qu'il avait
traites comme ses propres sujets. Les uns exprimaient leur reconnaissance
par de vives acclamations, les autres par une morne silence; tout le
peuple qu'affligeait son depart, les proclamait _le pere des Chretiens_,
et conjurait le ciel de repandre ses benedictions sur la famille du
vertueux monarque et sur la royaume de France. Louis montrait sur son
visage, qu'il partageait les regrets des Chretiens de la Terra-Sainte; il
leur addressait des paroles consolantes, leur donnait d'utiles conseils,
se reprochait de s'avoir fait assez pour leur cause, et temoignait le vif
desir qu'un jour Dieu le jugeat digne d'achever l'ouvrage de leur
delivrance."--_Michaud, Histoire des Croisades_, tom. iv. p. 299.

[177] Ibid. p. 302.

[178] It was during the siege of Tunis that Louis died. "Our Edward would
needs have had the town beaten down, and all put to the sword; thinking
the foulest quarter too fair for them. Their goods (because got by
robbery) he would have sacrificed as an anathema to God, and burnt to
ashes; his own share he execrated, and caused it to be burnt, forbidding
the English to save any thing of it; because that coals stolen out of that
fire would sooner burn their houses than warm their hands. It troubled not
the consciences of other princes to enrich themselves herewith, but they
glutted themselves with the stolen honie which they found in this hive of
drones: and, which was worse, now their bellies were full, they would goe
to bed, return home, and goe no farther. Yea, the young King of France,
called Philip the Bold, was fearful to prosecute his journey to Palestine;
whereas Prince Edward struck his breast, and swore, that though all his
friends forsook him, yet he would enter Ptolemais though but only with
Fowin his horsekeeper. By which speech he incensed the English to go on
with him."--_Fuller's Holy Warre_, p. 217.

[179] "It is storied how Eleanor, his lady, sucked all the poison out of
his wounds, without doing any harm to herself. So sovereign a remedy is a
woman's tongue anointed with the virtue of loving affection! Pity it is
that so pretty a story should not be true (with all the miracles in love's
legends), and sure he shall get himself no credit who undertaketh to
confute a passage so sounding to the honour of the sex. Yet can it not
stand with what others have written."--_Fuller's Holy Warre_, p. 220.

[180] The motives for the massacre of Jaffa are given by Bourrienne in so impartial a manner, that we are inclined to believe he has given a true transcript of his master's mind. "Bonaparte sent his aids-de-camp,
Beauharnais and Crosier, to appease as far as possible the fury of the soldiery, to examine what passed, and to report. They learned that a numerous detachment of the garrison had retired into a strong position, where large buildings surrounded a courtyard. This court they entered, displaying the scarfs which marked their rank. The Albanians and Arnauts, composing nearly the entire of these refugees, cried out from the windows that they wished to surrender, on condition their lives were spared; if not, threatening to fire upon the officers, and to defend themselves to the last extremity. The young men conceived they ought, and had power, to
accede to the demand, in opposition to the sentence of death pronounced against the garrison of every place taken by assault. I was walking with General Bonaparte before his tent when these prisoners, in two columns, amounting to about four thousand men, were marched into the camp. When he beheld the mass of men arrive, and before seeing the aids-de-camp, he turned to me with an expression of consternation, 'What would they have me to do with these? Have I provisions to feed them; ships to transport them either to Egypt or France? How the devil could they play me this trick!' The two aids-de-camp, on their arrival and explanations, received the strongest reprimands. To their defence, namely, that they were alone amid numerous enemies, and that he had recommended to them to appease the slaughter, he replied, in the sternest tone, 'Yes, without doubt, the slaughter of women, children, old men, the peaceable inhabitants, but not of armed soldiers; you ought to have braved death, and not brought these to me. What would you have me do with them?' But the evil was done. Four thousand men were there--their fate must be determined. The prisoners were made to sit down, huddled together before the tents, their hands being bound behind them. A gloomy rage was depicted to every lineament. A council was held in the general's tent," &c.

On the third day an order was issued that the prisoners should be shot,--an order which was literally executed on four thousand men. "The atrocious crime," says M. Bourrienne, "makes me yet shudder when I think of it, as when it passed before me. All that can be imagined of fearful on this day of blood would fall short of the reality!"--_Memoirs_, vol i. p. 156.

[181] Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, vol. i. p. 163.

[182] Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, vol. i. p. 165.

[183] Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte, vol. i. p. 168.

[184] Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 315.

[185] Weimar, Geographical Ephemerides; and History of the Jews, vol. iii.
p. 332.

[186] History of the Jews, vol. iii. p. 338.