Judaization vs Islamization

The case of the Tower of David

The term "Judaization" is often heard in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Used to describe anything from Jewish settlement of the West Bank, encouraging Jews to move to the Galilee, or excavating a site for its Jewish heritage, the term carries similarly nefarious connotations to that of "settler colonialism." Crucially, it implies making something Jewish that wasn't previously. Like many buzzwords, it can be insightful, if used carefully, precisely, and contextually. However, this is rarely the case, and in practice it is often used to delegitimize any kind of attempt to highlight the Jewish historical connection to key sites in the holy land.

A good example of this is provided by an interview with Professor Mahmoud Hawari on the Jerusalem Unplugged podcast, hosted by Roberto Mazza. Professor Hawari, a faculty member at Bethlehem University, has written a book called Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187 – 1250): An Architectural and Archeological Study, and he has also studied the history of the Tower of David, about which he wrote an article for the Institute for Palestine Studies, both of which were the subject of the interview.

In the article, 'Capturing the Castle: Archeology, Architectural History and Political Bias at the Citadel of Jerusalem,' Hawari begins by noting that the Citadel (al-qal'a) of Jerusalem was renamed the Tower of David following the Israeli conquest in 1967, "as part of the general Israeli policy to "Judaize" archaeological and historical sites in order to promote Israel's historical claims to them," and that the museum at the site (which is currently undergoing renovations) "presents a biased narrative of the history of Jerusalem." It "attempts to bridge three millennia of history and thus promote continuity between the Jewish past and present and make exclusionary historical claims, with complete disregard and contempt for the indigenous Palestinian Arab in habitants of the city." Instead, Hawari claims, "the citadel is a remarkable monument to contemporary Islamic military architecture, equal in significance to citadels found elsewhere in the Levant such as those of Damascus and Aleppo" and is "part of the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people."

The Tower of David is located next to the Jaffa Gate/Bab al-Khalil, on the western side of the Old City. For topographic reasons, it is the most vulnerable part of the city to invasion, which is why it has been fortified since ancient times. For the article, Hawari carried out a full-scale survey of the structure and its architectural development.

The Hasmoneans were the first to fortify the area, with their efforts built upon by King Herod in the first century BCE. Only one half of one of the three towers built by Herod remains standing today. Afterwards, a Roman garrison was stationed there, with Herod's tower being renamed the "Tower of David" in the sixth century, presumably because the Byzantines mistakenly believed that it had been fortified by King David, even though during his reign the city had not yet expanded to the northwest. A Christian shrine honoring King David was also built at the site. In the sixth-century Madaba Map, the tower is displayed next to the Gate of David, which like today's Jaffa Gate/Bab el-Khalil was the main western gate into the city.

Into the Muslim period, many Arab historians and geographers state that the Christian shrine was converted into a Muslim shrine called Mihrab Dawud (David's Prayer Niche – David is a prophet in Islam). From then until the Crusader conquest, Christian pilgrims stopped referring to the "Tower of David." Hawari argues that scholars mistakenly believed that the Umayyads built what came to be known as the Citadel, and that in actuality this was done by the Seljuks, who conquered the city in 1071, and who "sought to establish a stronghold…in the midst of a hostile local Arab population." The Citadel was subsequently captured by the Fatimids, from where they fought their final battle against the Crusaders.

The Citadel was expanded by the Crusaders, whose moat and drawbridge – among other remains – can still be seen today. They also reintroduced the name "Tower of David." In 1187, they were defeated by the Ayyubids, who restored the citadel and mosque, indicating that the site played both a military and a religious function. It was later completely rebuilt by the Mamluks. Hawari notes that it was built in the style of similar Ayyubid and Mamluk fortifications in places such as Damascus, Aleppo, and Cairo, to name but a few. "This Mamluk defensive system represents the apogee of Islamic military architecture, one that witnessed a remarkable development in the space of a century."

The Citadel was refurbished yet again by the Ottomans, to meet the needs of the city's garrison. During this time, a sufi traveler from Damascus referred to a "mosque situated inside the citadel, in which there is the Mihrab of Dawud…which is known as the place where Dawud, peace be upon him used to sit." "The Citadel of Jerusalem as transformed by the Ottomans is a major example of Islamic military architecture," Hawari writes.

On 11 December 1917, General Allenby proclaimed the British conquest of Jerusalem from the Citadel's steps, and another restoration began. The site was then used for various activities and exhibitions and was excavated for the first time, before being turned into a museum and archaeological site following Israel’s conquest in 1967.

***

The next section of the essay is entitled "The Appropriation of the Citadel by Israel." It is the first time the word is used but it is done so hypocritically. Remember: Hawari himself concedes that the site was first fortified by the Hasmoneans and then King Herod, both of whom were Jewish rulers of primarily Jewish kingdoms. He does not, however, refer to this as "Jewish military architecture." Each of the Islamic buildings, however, are described as being examples of "Islamic military architecture." Why? Was it the presence of a mosque? Or did something else distinguish them from their Christian counterparts? We are not told. And why are the Hasmonean and Herodean structures not referred to as "Jewish"? In fact, Hawari does not even mention the Jewishness of the Hasmonean or Herodian kingdoms.

He writes: "Many archaeological, historical and holy sites in Palestine which are an integral part of Palestinian cultural heritage have been expropriated as being "biblical" or "Jewish," before giving examples of this being done through settlement-building and archaeological excavations, for example in Silwan. Clearly, though, the fact that the site was initially built by Jewish rulers, in much the same way that the later Citadel was built by Islamic rulers, means that the charge of appropriation is false. Even more so given that the name "Tower of David" predates that of al-qal'a.

Hawari argues that this renaming is political and ideological and "has had remarkable consequences for the understanding of its historical and cultural character…Changing its name gives visitors an incorrect impression of its real history and cultural character, and creates unjustifiable misconceptions." Does Hawari think that the change of name from "Tower of David" to "Citadel" created similarly unjustifiable misconceptions? If not, why not? He does not say. Instead, he tells us that Israeli propaganda has been "so effective" that even Palestinian Jerusalemites have "started regrettably" to refer to it as "Qal'at Dawud."

In the podcast, Hawari discusses the study of biblical archaeology, contrasting it with Islamic archaeology: "We are not talking about using the Islamic narrative or scriptures as it is done in biblical archaeology, in order to verify places are related to the Quran, or related to any Islamic existence in these sites. And so, therefore, Islamic archaeology deals with the material culture of those periods without privileging one ethnic group over the other." This is a disingenuous way of putting it, especially given the fact that his analysis of the Tower of David's history quite blatantly privileges the Islamic history of the site over its Jewish origins. "Islamic archaeology is not religious and is not based on any religious writings or scriptures while biblical archaeology is based on the Bible as a historical source." If it is not religious, then why does he consistently stress the Islamic nature of the Citadel's architecture? It is a particularly odd assertion given the overlapping of architectural styles between the Crusaders and their Muslim rivals.

Hawari emphasizes that the Christians were mistaken in calling Herod's tower the "Tower of David," but clearly the error is not what riles him. If Israel had named the site, "The Tower of Herod," would he have been satisfied? Of course not. His problem is that the Jewish history of the site undoubtedly predates the Islamic history of the site, thus providing more undeniable proof that the settler colonial charge is built on the lie of Jewish foreignness to the land; his response to this is not to present a "multicultural" history but to dismiss any Jewish connection as "appropriation."

These double standards are revealed once more when Hawari turns to his specialist topic, the history of Ayyubid Jerusalem. He describes how the Ayyubids destroyed many Crusader buildings on the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif and built new buildings to "reinstate" Islam and the Islamic faith in Jerusalem. Why not use the word Islamicize? He describes how the Ayyubids made Jerusalem a multicultural city but doesn't refer, for example, to the transformation of Church of Saint Anne into a madrassa (there's an inscription above the entrance of the building to prove it). Was this not Islamicization or appropriation? Why not?

***
As Matti Friedman writes in a review of Under Jerusalem: The Buried History of the World’s Most Contested City:

These problems are linked to a more central one affecting many Western observers, with their narrative of a city “sacred to three faiths”—namely, a failure to understand the unique centrality of Jerusalem in Judaism or to admit that the city is of interest to other religions only because it was sacred to Jews first. It’s impossible to understand the city without grasping that Jerusalem has existed at the center of Jewish consciousness since Rome was a village on the Tiber and that it has that role in no other religion. Christianity cares about Jerusalem because Jesus and his followers were Jews who orbited the Jewish ritual center on the Temple Mount. Islam built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount because that was the site of the Jewish temple. Both imperial religions have more important cities elsewhere but came here with architects and stonemasons to create a physical expression of a claim central to both—that they had supplanted the numerically insignificant but historically imposing natives of Judea. 

It is legitimate to criticize Israel when it excludes other histories in favor of the Jewish one.  The newly refurbished Tower of David Museum (which wasn’t open when the podcast was recorded) doesn’t do that, but it does – accurately – describe the Jewish origins of the city. There is nothing wrong with an inclusive history of Jerusalem that emphasizes the city’s importance for both Jews and non-Jews, but it should not come at the expense of truth.