Why is this Happening?

         The local paper recently ran an op-ed entitled “Israel has no friends in Democrats.” The author, Adrianna Cohen, has a point of view made predictable by her surname. She rails about Palestinian response to the relocation of the Israeli capitol to Jerusalem and singles out the negative response to it by many prominent Democrats. In truth, this is another example of Donald Trump acting not in the interests of any broad group, but rather, sucking up to American Jewish and Evangelical interests.

        Trump isn’t the first political figure to make Jerusalem a pawn on a larger game of power and territory. That would extend all the way back to the late 11^th century, when, on 27 November 1095, Pope Urban II made perhaps the most influential, and largely self-serving, speech of the Middle Ages, giving rise to the Crusades by calling all Christians in Europe to war against Muslims in order to reclaim the Holy Land, insisting "Deus vult!("God wills it!")

        The larger picture was far more complex and revolved around increasing violence in Europe, renewed efforts to drive the Moors out of Iberia, and the idea that nobles engaged and dying in the “Holy land” were not likely to be killing their peers and vying for conquest, potentially upsetting the Church’s political hold in Christendom.

        This met with favor in several groups for widely divergent reasons. Second, third, fourth, etc., sons of nobles who were not likely to inherit title or land under the prevailing European rules of Primogenitor and Salic succession, saw an opportunity to seize their own domains in the Levant. Peasants and serfs, bound to feudal masters and having little hope of betterment, saw in the call to Crusade a chance to “get out of town” and maybe return either rich, free, or both. No one who left France or Germany for the Crusades had an inkling of what lay in store but, in the German states, it was gruesome ere it began.

        The preaching of the First Crusade inspired an outbreak of anti-Jewish violence. In much of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much an enemy as Muslims: they were held responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the distant Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home.

        It is also likely that the crusaders were motivated by their need for money. The Rhineland Hebrew communities were relatively wealthy, both due to their isolation, and because they were not restricted as Catholics were against money lending. Many crusaders had to go into debt in order to purchase weaponry and equipment for the expedition and, since Western Catholicism strictly forbade usury, many crusaders inevitably found themselves indebted to Jewish moneylenders. Having armed themselves by assuming the debt, the crusaders rationalized the killing of Jews as an extension of their Catholic mission.

        This is little different that what had transpired in England almost 2 centuries later.  The Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290, expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. It stemmed from most of the same reasons as the atrocities in the Rhineland – debt of wealthy Christians. The difference was that Edward stopped short of locking them in synagogues and setting fire to them, as happened in several German states.

        A sub-text more germane to today’s situation was that the Pope had received a letter from the Byzantine Empire asking for assistance in removing Muslims from the “holy” sites on the premise that they were interfering with Christian pilgrims.  The letter not with-standing, several alternate motives for Crusade become apparent.

         Primary among these was the fact that, following the Fall of Rome and the establishment of the Eastern Roman Empire with its locus in Constantinople, the Pope in Rome had seen increasing competition (for want of a better word) with the Patriarch (Bishop) of Constantinople, who was appointed by the Byzantine Emperor rather than by a church council, as in Rome. 

      Additionally, the acceptance by Charlemagne of the title of Holy Roman Emperor had the effect of a Western de-emphasis of the role, if any by then, of the Byzantine Emperor. This eventually led to the mutual excommunication of the Patriarch by the Pope and vice versa. (schism of 1054) This mutual excommunication remained in force until 1965, believe it or not.

        Pope Urban saw the plea for help from Constantinople as a chance to reunite, perhaps even by force, the split Church under the primacy of the Pope, who he happened to be. It is certain that the Byzantines had hoped for simply military aid, but what followed was a flood of western Europeans bound for the Holy land, determined to be nation builders as well and none too keen on their quasi co-religionists, now Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. In fact, when the First Crusaders reached Jerusalem, where most of the inhabitants dressed in similar fashion, they indiscriminately killed Jews, Christians, Muslims and anyone else so garbed.     

       Jumping ahead a bit, the Fourth Crusade never reached the Levant, as the “noble knights” decided instead to simply sack Constantinople. As a result, some of the finer art pieces now on display in Germany and Italy were stolen from the Byzantines! So much for religious discipline.

        An additional hope of Pope Urban was that by endorsing the founding of these “Crusader Kingdoms” he would encourage loyal political supporters on the eastern side of the Byzantine Empire. This would have, he hoped, the effect of limiting the spread of Easter Orthodoxy. 

       Urban probably had very little (make that "no") understanding of just how unrealistic that already was, due to the missions in the 9^th century of two Byzantine monks, Cyril and Methodius, in taking the Eastern Orthodox dogma to the Slavs. In the process, because Slavic languages were spoken, but not literary, they created an alphabet (Cyrillic) unknown to the Latins, insuring that as the Slavs became literate, they would do so in the language of local (as in  Russian, eventually) Orthodox Christianity.

         Finally, Urban assured the common folk, many of whom who followed men such as Peter the Hermit, even unto their deaths, of immediate welcome to heaven should they die in the cause. This smacks of the “77 virgins” promise made to young, pliable Muslims who die in what they view as similar efforts.

        Meanwhile, Jerusalem and the Levant had already been under Muslim rule for more than 450 years at the time. It is worthy of note that, at that time Jerusalem, in fact the entire region now called Israel, had not been independent for, at the most generous estimate, 1350 years. In fact, the independent Israel of David and Solomon had lasted a mere 70 years.  

        Yeah, I know, so why the history lesson? The reality of the current Israel situation is so deeply rooted in myth, political intrigue and simple fiction that an understanding of the past is critical if one is to make sense of the present.  So, here’s a condensation of the significa discussed above:

·       The region has always been a bone of political contention. 

·       Religion has frequently been used, generally spuriously, to justify political adventures in the region.

·       As a Jewish State Israel was historically a minor player, at best, in the region.

·       Claims to the Divine donation of Israel to the Hebrews are based on an itinerant Arab herdsman’s claim to his tribe, nothing more.

·       Political players in the USA, many of whom in reality pay religion short shrift, have abused the naivete of American Evangelicals on the Israeli state issue as they have on the abortion issue.

        For brevity (I know, too late!) I’ll elide over  more recent and, I hope, more familiar early 19^th and 20^th century political intrigues. These neo-colonialist machinations and their inevitable disintegration resulted in a post WW II “free world guilt fest” and refugee crisis in 1948. The fledgling United Nations’ partition of Palestine and subsequent disenfranchisement and ultimate expulsion of over a quarter of a million Muslims, with familial roots in the region extending back many generations, created scars which bleed today as surely as they did then.       

        The (then) current uproar in the region stemmed from the relocation of the American consulate to Jerusalem. This of course angered Muslims, for whom it has also been designated holy city. Muslims have inhabited Jerusalem as an ethnic majority for a span of more than a thousand years since the establishment of Islam and more than 2700 years since the last independent Jewish state existed. 

       For several generations, since the expulsion of Palestinians in the climax of Zionist efforts, Jerusalem has been considered a capital city to both Arabs and Jews. While moving the Embassy had been a hot button issue for years, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all, once elected, decided that the blowback of such a move would outweigh any positive aspects.

       So, what changed? Principally it is the ongoing attempt by Donald Trump to curry even more favor (votes) with US Evangelicals and to a similar degree, some, but not all, American Jewish groups. What would be laughable if people weren’t dying in the process is this: US Evangelicals spout platitudes about “treating Israel like all other states", while maintaining that this really shouldn’t apply to Islamic states.  Ms. Cohen (author of this essay?) even cites Israel’s treatment of “women’s rights” as a plus. Most of Trump’s Republican Evangelical sycophants have precious little concern for women’s rights, especially where reproduction is concerned. Ms. Cohen is massaging the message to justify her position which stems from her faith, not her concern for women.

        So why do Evangelicals love this move? Is it that they love Israel and Jewish persons? If it were true, it would reflect a sea change in the hearts of American Evangelicals, who in the too recent past called Jews “Christ killers” and restricted clubs and organizations. A simplified explanation of the somewhat “unholy” Trump/Evangelical alliance goes something like this:

·       Many Evangelicals believe that the establishment of Israel as a state fulfills some Biblical myth (my word, but accurate for all scriptures worldwide) regarding the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem as a precursor to the return of Jesus.

·       These naifs have, apparently, overlooked the fact that the predicted time that Jesus himself said he’d be back with the pizza elapsed about 1950 years ago at a minimum.

·       Trump, whose actions throughout his life have been singularly un-Christian, knows this, and consequently sees in the situation a chance to earn the gratitude and votes of American Evangelicals. while currying political favor with some American Jews.

·       This attitude is reflected in his Anti-choice stand, a hot button Evangelical concern only in recent years.

·       Applying all the rationale being trotted out to justify the relocation of the US Embassy is somewhat akin to maintaining that we ought to move the capitol of Illinois to Cahokia, since it was, for over 300 years, the historic seat of the Mississippian Native American civilization for centuries before Coronado brought flu and smallpox to them as a gift from the Spanish crown.

·       In the meantime, American Jews, who have a somewhat more legitimate cultural concern in the matter, just smile, write op-ed drivel, and pump money into pro-Israeli rhetoric.