Modern day Jerusalem Conflict: Directions: write a 5-paragraph essay answering the following prompt: To what extent can

the ancient Crusades conflict be used to explain the modern conflict between Israel and Palestine? Use the viewpoints of the two authors of the article to articulate your point. Be sure to incorporate at least one perspective and event from the Crusades.

Final Project Rubric

Grading will be based off of the options you choose. Each 1-point option is worth 15 points out of the total score. Each 2-point option is worth 30 points, and the 3-point options are worth 45 points. The total score for this project is 90 points. 1. I Am Poem Creativity_______/5 points Use of character from the Crusades..._______/5 points 3 complete stanzas_______/5 points Total._____/15 points 2. Drawing of a scene from the Crusades Creativity_______/5 points Use of character from the Crusades..._______/5 points 3 complete stanzas_______/5 points Total._____/15 points 3. Analysis of Political Cartoon Analysis of the cartoon_______/5 points One paragraph response....._______/5 points Related to a theme from the Crusades_______/5 points Total._____/15 points 4. Letter from soldier Creativity_______/5 points Use of theme from the Crusades...._______/10 points 3 Paragraphs minimum.._______10 points Correctly articulated time period..________/5 points Total._____/30 points 5. Dialogue between two leaders Creativity_______/5 points Use of theme from the Crusades...._______/10 points 3 Paragraphs minimum.._______10 points Dialogue format...________/5 points Total._____/30 points 6. News Article Creativity_______/5 points Use of theme from the Crusades...._______/10 points 3 Paragraphs minimum.._______10 points Article format....________/5 points Total._____/30 points

7. Brochure Creativity_______/5 points All panels completed._______/15 points Decorated.._______/5 points Content is related to Crusades......________/15 points One viewpoint is clearly articulated.________/15 points Total._____/45 points 8. Opposition essay Creativity_______/5 points Quotes from article._______/15 points Use of characters._______/5 points Content is related to Crusades......________/15 points One viewpoint is clearly articulated.________/15 points Total._____/45 points

9. Modern day interpretation Creativity_______/5 points Quotes from article._______/15 points Comparison between past and present_______/5 points Content is related to Crusades......________/15 points Both viewpoints are used..________/15 points Total._____/45 points

Crusades Final Project

Directions: You may select any options you would like for your project, but you must select enough options that the final score adds up to six points. For example, you may select one item from the 1 point column, 1 item from the 2 points column, and 1 item from the 3 points column, because 1+2+3=6. You can create any combination you would like as long as the minimum score for your project is 6 points. If you would like to exceed 6 points, you may also do so for additional credit. The rubric for how each assignment will be scored as given below. The materials for the project vary, so you must circle the options you are choosing and give them to Ms. Jackson so she can provide you with the literature you will need to finish your project. 1 POINT (worth 15 points) Write an I Am Poem (perspective) 2 POINTS (worth 30 points) Letter from soldier during massacre 3 POINTS (worth 45 points) Create a brochure to present to your people on why they should join the Crusade/Jihad movement and fight for your beliefs. Opposition to the crusades Modern day interpretation How can the Conflict over Jerusalem be used to justify the current conflict between Israel and Palestine?

Cartoon of a scene from crusades Analyze the political cartoon.

Dialogue between 2 leaders Write a news article about the massacre at Jerusalem.

I am Poem: Write a poem about a character we studied that participated in the Crusades using the following format. Be very creative, and try to use some of the vocabulary we have been using during the unit. FIRST STANZA I am (2 special characteristics you have) I wonder (something of curiosity) I hear (an imaginary sound) I see (an imaginary sight) I want (an actual desire) I am (the first line of the poem repeated) SECOND STANZA I pretend (something you actually pretend to do) I feel (a feeling about something imaginary) I touch (an imaginary touch) I worry (something that bothers you) I cry (something that makes you sad) I am (the first line of the poem repeated) THIRD STANZA I understand (something that is true) I say (something you believe in) I dream (something you dream about) I try (something you really make an effort about) I hope (something you actually hope for) I am (the first line of the poem repeated)

Cartoon: Pick from one of the following five scenes and draw a cartoon to represent the event. Be sure to be detailed in your drawing, I dont want any stick figures! 1. The First Crusade, the most successful and well-known of the Crusades, consisted of five armies of knights and one army of peasants led by a zealot named Peter the Hermit. Nearly all of the peasants were slaughtered by the Turks before reaching Jerusalem. 2. Eleanor of Aquitaine, the wife of Louis VII and Queen of France, didnt just send a thousand of her vassals on Crusade: she went herself and brought 300 of her ladies to tend the wounded. It was said that in order to gain volunteers for the Second Crusade, she dressed as an Amazon and rode through the crowds on a galloping white steed, urging the men to join. 3. The Third Crusade was led by Englands Richard the Lionhearted. After negotiating a successful treaty for control of Jerusalem, he was heading home when he ended up shipwrecked on the coast of Italy. While trying to return overland, he was kidnapped and held for ransom by Leopold of Austria. It is during this period of Richards reign that the Robin Hood tales are set. 4. Another well-known Crusade is the Childrens Crusade. In 1212, a young man named Stephen of Cloyes supposedly convinced an estimated 15,000 children that they could defeat the Muslims by merely going to Jerusalem: their faith in God would give them victory. They actually made it through France and to Italy, where they got on seven boats to head to the Holy Land. And after that? They simply disappeared from history, most likely being sold into slavery by their transporters when they reached the Middle East. So much for the faith of children! 5. Some of the Crusades fiercest fighters belonged to the Knights Templar, a military monastic order formed after the First Crusade to defend Jerusalem. Although known for their bravery and staunch defense, the Knights quickly acquired wealth through donations of land and money, which brought them many enemies. Falsely accused of heinous crimes, the order was disbanded and its leaders arrested in 1307.

Political Cartoon: Answer, in a paragraph, what is the cartoon saying? What message is it sending? How can we relate the image back to the Crusades?

Letter from Soldier or Article: Read one of the following excerpts. Then write either a letter home as a soldier, or an article for a newspaper discussing the events. If you are writing a letter as a soldier, be sure to indicate who you are fighting for and what it must have been like to witness the fighting. If you are writing an article, also remember who your audience is. Be sure that if you are writing home to the Muslims and the Muslims lost, to express sadness instead of joy, or vice versa if you are representing the Christians. 1. The Crusaders Capture Jerusalem, 1099 In the year 637 the armies of Islam lead by the Caliph Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, the center of the Christian world and a magnet for Christian pilgrims. The city's Muslim masters exhibited a certain level of religious tolerance. No new churches were to be built and crosses could not be publicly displayed outside church buildings, but the pilgrims were allowed to continue their treks to the holiest shrines of Christendom (the pilgrims were charged a toll for access). The situation remained stable for over 400 years. Then, in the latter part of the 11th century, the Turks swarmed westward out of Central Asia overrunning all that lay in their path. Jerusalem fell to them in 1076. The atmosphere of tolerance practiced by the followers of Omar was replaced by vicious attacks on the Christian pilgrims and on their sacred shrines in the Holy City. Reports of robberies, beatings, killings, degradation of holy sites and the kidnapping for ransom of the city's patriarch made their way back to Europe. To the Europeans the Holy Land was now in the smothering grip of the Infidel and something must be done. In response, Pope Urban II called a conference at the city of Clermont, France in 1095, concluding the eight days of deliberation with one of history's most influential speeches. Mounting a lofty scaffold, the Pope exhorted the assembled multitude to wrest the Holy Land from the hands of the Infidel and assured them that God would absolve them from any sin associated with the venture. His words fell on receptive ears as the crowd responded with cries of "It is the will of God!", "It is the will of God!". The Crusades had begun. The First Crusade was the most successful in that it actually accomplished what it set out to do - conquer Jerusalem. But it had its problems. Responding to the Pope's challenge, thousands of peasants rallied to the cause motivated by a combination of religious fervor and the desire to escape their squalid condition at home. Led by Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless the hapless rabble marched across Europe to Constantinople, only to be slaughtered by the Turks soon after crossing the Bosphorus into Asia Minor. In the meantime, the nobility of Europe raised an army of thousands that made its way through various routes and with much mishap to Constantinople. Unfortunately, many of these crusaders could not wait until they met the Muslims on the field of battle to demonstrate their religious zeal. As they progressed through Europe many Jewish communities became the target of their wrath and thousands were massacred. In the spring of 1097, a host of over 100,000 crusaders joined forces on the eastern side of the Bosphorus. The combined army then fought its way along the coast of the Mediterranean reaching the gates of Jerusalem in June of 1099. Capture of the Christian "Navel of the World"

(The name of the author of the following eyewitness account is unknown, but it is considered a reliable description published before 1101): "Exulting with joy we reached the city of Jerusalem on Tuesday, June 6, and we besieged it in a wonderful manner. Robert of Normandy besieged it on the northern side, near the church of St. Stephen, the first martyr, who was there stoned for Christ's name. Next to him was Robert, Count of Flanders. Duke Godfrey and Tancred carried on the siege on the west. The Count of St. Gilles operated from the south, on Mount Sion, near the church of St. Mary, the Lord's mother, where the Lord supped with His disciples. . . . During the siege we were unable to find any bread to buy for about the space of ten days, until a messenger came from our ships; also we were afflicted by great thirst, so much so that in fear and terror we had to water our horses and other animals six miles away. The fountain of Siloam, at the foot of Mount Sion, sustained us, but the water was sold among us at a high price. . . . We sewed up skins of oxen and buffaloes in which we brought the water six miles. The water we drank from such receptacles was fetid, and what with foul water and barley bread we daily suffered great affliction and distress. Moreover the Saracens hid near all the springs and wells and ambushed our men, killing and mutilating them and driving off the animals into their dens and caverns. Then our leaders planned to attack the city with machines, in order to enter it and adore the sepulchre of our Saviour. They made two wooden towers and many other machines. . . . Day and night on the fourth and fifth days of the week we vigorously attacked the city on all sides; but before we made our assault the bishops and priests persuaded all by their preaching and exhortation that a procession should be made round Jerusalem to God's honour, faithfully accompanied by prayers, alms and fasting. Early on the sixth day we attacked the city on all sides and could do nothing against it. We were all surprised and alarmed. Then, at the approach of the hour at which our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to undergo the passion of the cross for us, our knights in one of the towers fought bravely, amongst them Duke Godfrey and his brother, Count Eustace. One of our knights, Letholdus by name, climbed on to the wall of the city. When he reached the top, all the defenders of the city quickly fled along the walls and through the city. Our men followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as the temple of Solomon, and there there was such a slaughter that our men were up to their ankles in the enemy's blood. . . . The emir who commanded the tower of David surrendered to the Count [of St. Gilles] and opened the gate where pilgrims used to pay tribute. Entering the city, our pilgrims pursued and killed the Saracens up to the temple of Solomon. There the Saracens assembled and resisted fiercely all day, so that the whole temple flowed with their blood. At last the pagans were overcome and our men seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit. On the roof of the temple there was a great crowd of pagans of both sexes, to whom Tancred and Gaston de Beert gave their banners [to provide them with protection} . Then the crusaders scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the sepulchre of our Saviour Jesus and there discharged their debt to Him. . . . On the eighth day after the capture of the city they elected Duke Godfrey prince of the city, to fight the pagans and protect the Christians. Also, on the day of St. Peter in chains, they elected as Patriarch a most wise and honourable man, named Arnulf. The city was captured by the Christians on Friday, July 15."

2. Richard The Lionheart Massacres The Saracens, 1191 In the year 1187, the Muslim leader Saladin re-conquered the city of Jerusalem [see "The Crusaders Capture Jerusalem"] as well as most of the Crusader strongholds throughout the Holy Land. In response, the kings of Europe including Frederick Babarossa of Germany (who died on route), Phillip of France and Richard I of England (the Lionheart) mounted a campaign to rescue the city. The Third Crusade was underway. Key to the campaign's success was the capture of the port city of Acre. King Richard arrived on the scene in June 1191 to find the city under siege by a Christian army. In the distance, Saladin threatened - his army too weak to overwhelm the besiegers, but too strong to be dislodged. Intensifying the bombardment of the city, Richard and the French King, Phillip, slowly broke the city's walls, weakening its defenses while simultaneously starving the occupiers into submission. Finally, on July 12, the Muslim defenders and Crusaders agreed to surrender terms. In exchange for sparing the lives of the defenders, Saladin would pay a ransom of 200,000 gold pieces, release some 1500 Christian prisoners and return the Holy Cross. These actions were to be accomplished within one month after the fall of the city. Richard would hold 2,700 Muslim prisoners as hostage until the terms were met. Saladin immediately ran into problems meeting his part of the bargain and the deadline came without payment of the terms. As a compromise, Saladin proposed that Richard release his prisoners in return for part of the ransom with the remainder to be paid at a later date. Saladin would provide hostages to Richard to assure payment. Alternatively, he proposed to give Richard what money he had and allow Richard to keep the prisoners in return for Christian hostages to be held until the remainder of the money was raised and the Muslim prisoners released. Richard countered that he would accept the partial payment but Saladin must accept his royal promise to release his prisoners when he received the remainder of the ransom. Neither ruler would accept his opponent's terms. Richard declared the lives of the Muslim defenders of Acre forfeit and set August 20 as the date for their execution. Slaughter In The Desert Beha-ed-Din was a member of Saladin's court and (along with much of the Saracen army who watched from a distance) witnessed the massacre of 2,700 of his comrades: "Then the king of England, seeing all the delays interposed by the Sultan to the execution of the treaty, acted perfidiously as regards his Musulinan prisoners. On their yielding the town he had engaged to grant their life, adding that if the Sultan carried out the bargain he would give them freedom and suffer them to carry off their children and wives; if the Sultan did not fulfill his engagements they were to be made slaves. Now the king broke his promises to them and made open display of what he had till now kept hidden in his heart, by carrying out what he had intended to do after he had received the money and the Frank prisoners. It is thus that people of his nation ultimately admitted. In the afternoon of Tuesday, 27 Rajab, [August 20] about four o'clock, he came out on horseback with all the Frankish army, knights, footmen, Turcoples, and advanced to the pits at the foot of the hill of Al 'Ayadiyeh, to which place be had already sent on his tents. The Franks, on reaching the middle of the plain that stretches between this hill and that of Keisan, close to which place the sultan's advanced guard had drawn back, ordered all the Musulman prisoners, whose martyrdom God had decreed for this day, to be brought before him. They numbered more than three thousand and were all bound with ropes. The Franks then flung themselves upon them

all at once and massacred them with sword and lance in cold blood. Our advanced guard had already told the Sultan of the enemy's movements and he sent it some reinforcements, but only after the massacre. The Musulmans, seeing what was being done to the prisoners, rushed against the Franks and in the combat, which lasted till nightfall, several were slain and wounded on either side. On the morrow morning our people gathered at the spot and found the Musulmans stretched out upon the ground as martyrs for the faith. They even recognised some of the dead, and the sight was a great affliction to them. The enemy had only spared the prisoners of note and such as were strong enough to work. The motives of this massacre are differently told; according to some, the captives were slain by way of reprisal for the death of those Christians whom the Musulmans had slain. Others again say that the king of England, on deciding to attempt the conquest of Ascalon, thought it unwise to leave so many prisoners in the town after his departure. God alone knows what the real reason was. "

Dialogue Between Two Leaders: We will use the same narratives as before. Pick two of the three narratives, and write a dialogue between the two leaders. A dialogue is a conversation. Your dialogue must be a minimum of 2 paragraphs with 5 sentences each. In your dialogue, you should talk about what they want from each other, what they believe, why they think the other person is wrong, etc. Make sure you make very clear what they are talking about and what they are trying to accomplish. You will be graded on your ability to write from the perspective of both leaders, and express how both leaders would defend their actions. Also

Opposition to the Crusades Read the article below about the Christian leaders that opposed the Crusades. Write a letter to the pope as a commoner (someone who simply lives in the empire) stating three reasons why the Church should not continue the crusades. Cite evidence from at least three of the figures discussed on why we should not continue the crusades. Christianity, the Crusades, and Violence While at the Tantur Ecumenical Institute, I heard an informal lecture from a former Rector of Tantur about a particular discussion between Christian and Jews in which one of the topics was what each religion really knows about the other. A rabbi said that for some Jews in Israel all they know about Christianity is the crusades, inquisition, and holocaust. Obviously, this statement does not represent all Jews, but it is indicative of a widely held belief that Christianity is a violent religion and has caused millions of deaths. There is no doubt that Christians have perpetrated countless acts of violence, as have the representatives of every other major religious and political movement. How can we determine that Christianity is the cause of the violence of the crusades, inquisition, and holocaust? This is a very difficult question to answer. First, we cannot unequivocally determine the principle cause of complicated and multi-dimensional movements of 800 years ago. We cannot garner simple answers from ancient and too-often conflicting records. Second, we cannot clearly separate religious motives from the social, economical, and political motives of the kings, princes, despots, and ecclesiastical authoritarian figures of the periods of the crusades, inquisition, and holocaust. Frankly, its just as easy to say territorial and economical interests motivated the crusades, as did religious motives. Third, we cannot easily determine whose role in the crusades indicates the true Christian position. There was not unanimity among Christianitys leaders about the legitimacy of the crusades. I will not address the first two issues here. Yet, I want to show that there were strongly held opposing opinions on the crusades, and that because the charge that Christianity caused the crusades is a serious allegation against it, we need to determine which view represents Christianity. Here are two religious leaders justifying the crusades. First, there was Arnold Amaury (died 1225), the leader of the Cistercian order of monks, who Pope Innocent III charged to conduct the Albigensian Crusade against the heretical group called the Cathars of southern France. The crusade started in 1209 with twenty thousands soldiers, and at the town of Brezier, they killed twenty thousands. In his report to the Pope, Amaury wrote, Nearly twenty thousand of the citizens were put to the sword, regardless of age and sex. The workings of divine vengeance have been wondrous. It also didnt bother Amaury that orthodox Catholics were killed as a necessary measure to complete the task. Anyway, God would know His own, as he reasoned. Pope Innocent III started the crusade with the help of the king of France, Philip Augustus, who wanted to annex the territories of southern France. The Pope and King made a bargain to help out each other. One would eliminate a heresy, and the other would get new land. The justification to end the heretical threat was connected with the Kings political/territorial goals. What was good for the King must be good for the Church, so they reasoned.

A second representative is St. Dominic (died 1221, pictured left), who started the order of Dominican friars. Pope Innocent III established the order to be traveling preachers of the Gospel and also to find and persecute suspected heretics. He accompanied the armies, praying for the conversion of the heretics and the victory of the Kings solders over the rebels. A number of Dominican friars were directly involved in the burning of Cathars. For St. Dominic the defense of the integrity of the faith also meant the use of violence to safeguard the authority of the Church and State.

St. Thomas Aquinas (died 1274, pictured left) is the most famous of Dominicans. Though it would be inaccurate and unfair to reduce St. Thomas theology and philosophy to just what he said about persecuting heretics, but he also agreed with St. Dominic that the State should kill obstinate heretics, because they are a threat to the stability and integrity of society and hence the Church.

However, Amaury and St. Dominic were not the only ecclesiastical leaders at that time addressing the legitimacy of the crusades. St. Anselm of Canterbury (died in 1109, pictured right) is well known for his theological-philosophical accounts of the atonement of Christ, the certainty of Gods existence, free will, and the nature of evil. He is also well known for his opposition to the English King, Henry I, who disputed with Anselm over investitures. Anselm vehemently opposed the King appointing Bishops and using the Churchs land and wealth for his own pursuits. For this, Henry exiled Anselm twice. Anselm knew the difference between the authority of a King and the authority of the Church. What is not well known about Anselm is his opposition to the crusades. A young Italian nobleman, whose brother was fighting the Muslims in Asia Minor, had written Anselm asking his advice about joining the crusades. Anselms recommendation was to join the monastery at Bec instead. He said, Do not be ashamed of breaking the bond of the vanity of this world: it is a privilege, not a dishonor, to reach out to the liberty of truth [which lay in the humility of the monastic life]. The crusades were contrary to the Churchs mission and frankly fit the purposes of the King more than Christ. R. W. Southern expresses Anselms position on the crusades this way, For him, the important choice was quite simply between the heavenly Jerusalem, the true vision of Peace signified by the name Jerusalem, which was to be found in the monastic life, and the carnage of the earthly Jerusalem in this world, which under whatever name was nothing but a vision of destruction (in Saint Anselm, p. 169). In Anselms mind, Christianity rejects using the carnage of the crusades at Jerusalem because it can never represent the Churchs knowledge of the heavenly Jerusalem. Another example of an influential Christian leader opposing the crusades is St. Francis of Assisi (died in 1226, pictured left). Most people remember him for his compassionate identification and care for lepers, animals, and the poor. However, he was also a company-man. He knew that for his movement to survive, he needed Vatican recognition. So he worked with the institutional system and eventually obtained Papal recognition from Pope Innocent III, the same Pope who had commissioned the brutal Albigensian Crusade. Ironically, St. Francis accompanied the Fifth Crusade of about 32,000 Hungarian and Austrian fighters into Egypt. However, instead of blessing the fighting as St. Dominic had, he tried to stop it. He entered the camp of the Muslim leader, Sultan Al-Kamil to

persuade him to stop the violence. He told the Sultan that he would show the truth of his faith by stepping into fire if the Kings religious leaders would as well. None agreed. The Saint inspired the Sultan, but the violence continued on both sides. St. Francis before the Sultan (pictured left) Instead of trying to convert Muslims by violence, St. Francis tried by non-violence, because he knew using violence would be contrary to the Churchs mission. In conclusion, the question is which group is more indicative of the essence of Christianity? A lot would be involved in giving a conclusive answer, but we can make the following observations: 1. Christian leaders were never unanimous about the legitimacy of the Crusades; 2. It is thus inaccurate to say that Christianity caused the violence of the Crusades; 3. However, the Christian leaders who did justify violence patterned their understanding of the Churchs authority on the Kings authority; 4. Those who did not justify violence did not confuse the institutional authority of the Church with that of the State. 5. It follows that if the Churchs mission is based on the authority of Christ, then she cannot use the authority of the State and King to promote her mission, and, consequently, she cannot use the same means the State and King use to promote their interests when in conflict with othersi.e., violence. 6. Finally, as a general observation, we can never be certain that we represent and follow the morally superior position in a conflict, if we use the same destructive violence against our adversary as the adversary would against us.

Brochure: Read the article below and mark the text. Then, create a brochure as either a Christian or Muslim leader to send out to the people in your lands to try and persuade them on why they should join the effort. Follow the format below for your brochure. Outside Panels: Key Events that have occurred (image) Name Class Period Key leaders/people in movement on your side Title of Movement (Christian, Muslim) (picture) Inside Panels:

Summary Reasons Reasons of to join not to join Conflict movement other movement (image) (image) (image)

Introduction At the Council of Clermont in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon Christians in Europe to respond to an urgent plea for help from Byzantine Christians in the East. Muslims were threatening to conquer this remnant of the Roman Empire for Allah. The threat was real; most of the Middle East, including the Holy Land where Christ had walked, had already been vanquished. Thus began the era of the Crusades, taken from the Latin word crux or cross. Committed to saving Christianity, the Crusaders left family and jobs to take up the cause. Depending on how one counts (either by the number of actual crusading armies or by the duration of the conflict), there were six Crusades between 1095 and 1270. But the crusading spirit would continue on for centuries, until Islam was no longer a menace to Europe. There is a genuine difficulty for us to view the Crusades through anything but the eyes of a 21st century American. The notion of defending Christianity or the birthplace of Christ via military action is difficult to imagine or to support from Scripture, but perhaps a bit easier since the events of September 11th. So when Christians today think about the Crusades, it may be with remorse or embarrassment. Church leaders, including the Pope, have recently made the news by apologizing to Muslims, and everyone else, for the events surrounding the Crusades. In the minds of many, the Crusades were an ill-advised fiasco that didn't accomplish the goals of permanently reclaiming Jerusalem and the Holy Lands. Are history books correct when they portray the Crusades as an invasion of Muslim territories by marauding Europeans whose primary motive was to plunder new lands? What is often left out of the text is that most of the Islamic Empire had been Christian and had been militarily conquered by the followers of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th and 8th centuries.

Islam had suddenly risen out of nowhere to become a threat to all of Christian Europe, and although it had shown some restraint in its treatment of conquered Christians, it had exhibited remarkable cruelty as well. At minimum, Islam enforced economic and religious discrimination against those it controlled, making Jews and Christians second-class citizens. In some cases, Muslim leaders went further. An event that may have sparked the initial Crusade in 1095 was the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre by the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim. In fact, many Christians at the time considered al-Hakim to be the Antichrist. We want black and white answers to troubling questions, but the Crusades present us with a complex collection of events, motivations, and results that make simple answers difficult to find. In this article we'll consider the origins and impact of this centuries-long struggle between the followers of Muhammad and the followers of Christ. The Causes Historian Paul Johnson writes that the terrorist attacks of September 11th can be seen as an extension of the centuries-long struggle between the Islamic East and the Christian West. Johnson writes, The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years, and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the "occupied territories" of the Holy Land. Islam had exploded on the map by conquering territories that had been primarily Christian. The cities of Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage had been the centers of Christian thought and theological inquiry for centuries before being taken by Muslim armies in their jihad to spread Islam worldwide. Starting in 1095 and continuing for over four hundred years, the crusading spirit that pervaded much of Europe can be seen as an act of cultural self-preservation, much as Americans now see the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. One motivation for the Crusade in 1095 was the request for help made by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. Much of the Byzantine Empire had been conquered by the Seljuk Turks and Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world, was also being threatened. Pope Urban knew that the sacrifices involved with the call to fight the Turks needed more than just coming to the rescue of Eastern Christendom. To motivate his followers he added a new goal to free Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ. At the personal level, the Pope added the possibility of remission of sins. Since the idea of a pilgrim's vow was widespread in medieval Europe, crusaders, noblemen and peasant alike, vowed to reach the Holy Sepulcher in return for the church's pardon for sins they had committed. The church also promised to protect properties left behind by noblemen during travels east. The Pope might launch a Crusade, but he had little control over it once it began. The Crusaders promised God, not the Pope to complete the task. Once on its way, the Crusading army was held together by "feudal obligations, family ties, friendship, or fear. Unlike Islam, Christianity had not yet developed the notion of a holy war. In the fifth century Augustine described what constituted a just war but excluded the practice of battle for the purpose of religious conversion or to destroy heretical religious ideas. Leaders of nations might decide to go to war for just reasons, but war was not to be a tool of the church. Unfortunately, using Augustine's just war language, Popes and Crusaders saw themselves as

warriors for Christ rather than as a people seeking justice in the face of an encroaching enemy threat. The Events The history books our children read typically emphasize the atrocities committed by Crusaders and the tolerance of the Muslims. It is true that the Crusaders slaughtered Jews and Muslims in the sacking of Jerusalem and later laid siege to the Christian city of Constantinople. Records indicate that Crusaders were even fighting among themselves as they fought Muslims. But a closer examination of the Crusades shows the real story is more complex than the public's perception or what is found in history books. The fact is that both Muslims and Christians committed considerable carnage and internal warfare and political struggles often divided both sides. Muslims could be, and frequently were, barbaric in their treatment of Christians and Jews. One example is how the Turks dealt with German and French prisoners captured early in the First Crusade prior to the sacking of Jerusalem. Those who renounced Christ and converted to Islam were sent to the East; the rest were slaughtered. Even Saladin, the re-conqueror of Jerusalem was not always merciful. After defeating a large Latin army on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of all Hospitallers and Templars left alive, and he personally beheaded the nobleman Reynald of Chatillon. Saladin's secretary noted that: He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis . . . [and] each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair. In fact, Saladin had planned to massacre all of the Christians in Jerusalem after taking it back from the Crusaders, but when the commander of the Jerusalem garrison threatened to destroy the city and kill all of the Muslims inside the walls, Saladin allowed them to buy their freedom or be sold into slavery instead. The treachery shown by the Crusaders against other Christians is a reflection of the times. At the height of the crusading spirit in Europe, Frederick Barbarossa assembled a large force of Germans for what is now known as the third Crusade. To ease his way, he negotiated treaties for safe passage through Europe and Anatolia, even getting permission from Muslim Turks to pass unhampered. On the other hand, the Christian Emperor of Byzantium, Isaac II, secretly agreed with Saladin to harass Frederick's crusaders through his territory. When it was deemed helpful, both Muslim and Christian made pacts with anyone who might further their own cause. At one point the sultan of Egypt offered to help the Crusaders in their struggle with the Muslim Turks, and the Turks failed to come to the rescue of the Shi'ite Fatimid Muslims who controlled Palestine. Human treachery and sinfulness was evident on both sides of the conflict. The Results On May 29, 1453 the city of Constantinople fell to the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II. With it the 2,206-year-old Roman Empire came to an end and the greatest Christian church in the world, the Hagia Sophia, was turned into a mosque. Some argue that this disaster was a direct result of the Crusaders' misguided efforts, and that anything positive they might have accomplished was fleeting.

Looking back at the Crusades, we are inclined to think of them as a burst of short-lived, failed efforts by misguided Europeans. Actually, the crusading spirit lasted for hundreds of years and the Latin kingdom that was established in 1098, during the first Crusade, endured for almost 200 years. Jerusalem remained in European hands for eighty-eight years, a period greater than the survival of many modern nations. Given the fact that the Latin kingdom and Jerusalem eventually fell back into Muslim hands, did the Crusaders accomplish anything significant? It can be argued that the movement of large European armies into Muslim held territories slowed down the advance of Islam westward. The presence of a Latin kingdom in Palestine acted as a buffer zone between the Byzantine Empire and Muslim powers and also motivated Muslim leaders to focus their attention on defense rather than offense at least for a period of time. Psychologically, the Crusades resulted in a culture of chivalry based on both legendary and factual exploits of European rulers. The crusading kings Richard the Lionheart and Louis IX were admired even by their enemies as men of integrity and valor. Both saw themselves as acting on God's behalf in their quest to free Jerusalem from Muslim oppression. For centuries, European rulers looked to the Crusader kings as models of how to integrate Christianity and the obligations of knighthood. Unfortunately, valor and the ability to conduct warfare took precedent over all other qualities, perhaps because it was a holdover from Frankish pagan roots and the worship of Odin the warrior god. These Germanic people may have converted to Christianity, but they still had a place in their hearts for the gallant warrior's paradise, Valhalla. As one scholar writes: But the descendants of those worshippers of Odin still had the love of a warrior god in their blood, a god of warriors whose ultimate symbol was war. The Crusades temporarily protected some Christians from having to live under Muslim rule as second-class citizens. Called the dhimmi, this legal code enforced the superiority of Muslims and humiliated all who refused to give up other religious beliefs. It is also argued that the crusading spirit is what eventually sent the Europeans off to the New World. The voyage of Columbus just happens to coincide with the removal of Muslim rule from Spain. The exploration of the New World eventually encouraged an economic explosion that the Muslim world could not match. Summary Muslims still point to the Crusades as an example of injustice perpetrated by the West on Islam. An interesting question might be, "Had the situation been reversed, would Muslims have felt justified in going to war against Christians?" In other words, would the rules in the Qur'an and the Hadith (the holy books of Islam) warrant a conflict similar to what the Crusaders conducted? You have probably heard the term jihad, or struggle, discussed in the news. The word denotes different kinds of striving within the Muslim faith. At one level, it speaks of personal striving for righteousness. However, there are numerous uses of the term within Islam where it explicitly refers to warfare. First, the Qur'an permits fighting to defend individual Muslims and the religion of Islam from attack. In fact, all able bodied Muslims are commanded to assist in defending the community of believers. Muslims are also given permission to remove treacherous people from power, even if they have previously agreed to a treaty with them.

Muslims are encouraged to use armed struggle for the general purpose of spreading the message of Islam. The Qur'an specifically says, "Fighting is a grave offense, but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque. . . . Warfare is also justified for the purpose of purging a people from the bondage of idolatry or the association of anything with God. This gives the Muslim a theological reason to go to war against Christians, since the Qur'an teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is a form of idolatry. Had the situation been reversed, the religion of Islam provides multiple rationalizations for the actions of the Crusaders. But is there a Christian justification for the Crusades? The only example of a Christian fighting in the New Testament is the apostle Peter when he drew his sword to protect Jesus from the Roman soldiers. Jesus told him to put the sword away. Then He said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" The kingdom that Jesus had established would not be built on the blood of the unbeliever, but on the shed blood of the Lamb of God. The Crusader's actions should be defended using Augustine's "just war" language rather than a holy war vocabulary. Although they did not always live up to the dictates of "just war" ideals, such as the immunity of noncombatants, the Crusades were a last resort defensive war that sought peace for its people who had been under constant assault for many years. If one of the functions of a God-ordained government is to restrain evil and promote justice, then it follows that rulers of nations where Christians dwell may need to conduct a just war in order to protect their people from invasion.

Changing Sides in the Middle East: Zionist and Palestinian Exchange Opinions about Jerusalem It is always very difficult to see the other's point of view. Many months ago, PEACE/MidEast Web group member Anita Abu-Daya suggested an exercise in which members would "change sides" - Palestinians would take the Zionist side, Zionists would defend the Palestinian viewpoint. Recently, Peter Mann voiced a similar idea at MidEast Web Forum. The result is presented below as an eye-opening exercise in dialog. Anita Abu-Daya has taken the Zionist Jewish view of the Jerusalem Issue. Peter Mann presents the Arab Palestinian side. The result is proof that people on either side can and do listen to each other. As you read these presentations, try to remember who wrote them: not "the enemy," but a Zionist or a Palestinian. Try to envision yourself doing the same thing. Peter and Anita noted that the attempt produced symptoms of dual personality. They have not simply produced a literary exercise but rather an interesting attempt at molding their own opinions and at generating openness to dialog among others. We invite others to try the same exercise with issues such as Jerusalem, the refugee question, Zionism and anything else you want to tackle. We hope that these exercises will serve as food for thought Jerusalem: The Palestinian Side Peter Mann This is an experiment. I am a Jew. I am taking the position of a Palestinian in order to better understand that position. I have studied the issue of Jerusalem, and the possibility of returning at least a part of it to the Palestinians to be used a capital of the Palestinian state, i.e.; Palestine. Probably the best description of this kind of exercise is a role-reversal. I do not claim perfection in my understanding through this process, so please bear with me. If I am not completely reflective of reality, this is not my fault. I am only trying to gain greater empathy, and to pass this on. I was born in Jerusalem. My family has lived in Jerusalem since before the Crusades. Our family is very close, and we have always tried to keep together. Some of us fled. In 1967, my uncle and aunt went to the U.S. I write to them sometimes and we talk about things. Recently we talked about the possibility of Jerusalem becoming at least in part, part of the new Palestine. My uncle was cynical about the thing, saying that the Israelis consider the whole of Jerusalem to be holy, from the pebbles in the street to the molecules of oxygen. I feel like much of the negotiation is going nowhere, that past agreements are always being abrogated and we get less and less. We talked about Jerusalem and what it means emotionally to him. He remembers the beauty of the Dome as a shining symbol of the holiness of the place. He told me the story of the night journey, of how Mohammed ascended on his horse beyond the earthly sphere into the heavens and what this means to Moslems everywhere. It is the first Qibla, the direction one posits oneself before praying. It is not a good thing that this holy site be in the territory of those not of Islam. It must come back to the land of the believers and those believers are of Allah. We do not invest out time trying to wrench the wailing wall from the Israelis and hope that they respect us to the degree that access shall be made to connect this very holy site to the new Palestinian capitol. My uncle says this will happen when the Jordan runs backwards. I mentioned the Rock and my uncle told me that some Israelis diminish its importance and see it as totemistic stone worship. That would put us back before Islam when we believed in many Gods. It is an insult to infer paganism. The Rock has traditional importance as the place of Ibrahim's sacrifice.

I would think there would be some respect in that regards to that. We have always helped to maintain and improve the ancient holy places of the city. For that alone, we deserve something of it. We talked about the land Israel has returned to us, about how it is only a percentage of what was discussed in negotiation. How does one compensate the losses suffered in 1948 and 1967? The land is gone now. People are displaced, refugees, or worse. To truly compensate for the loss of east Jerusalem to so many, something of east Jerusalem needs to be returned to the Palestinians. My uncle scoffed and said that you would think that displaced people might understand that when displaced people displace people there are just a different group of displaced people in the end. He says he dreams at night of the shouk and can still smell the fruit and the coffee smells in his mind. He has a hard time believing that other nations in the area will take Palestine with any kind of seriousness unless they have a capitol in Jerusalem. Not only will they have returned an important holy place to the Islamic world, but they will themselves be able to manage the visitation and gain importance in the eyes of the many pilgrims from all over the world who will come to worship. It is for legitimacy's sake that we need to administer the government from a new east Jerusalem. I told my uncle that although this agreement may go through in September, there have been other agreements made and broken throughout history. Jerusalem was not always in our hands. He said, "what makes one people's history less important than another's? How do you measure that over centuries and in this case, millennia. Who owned the place originally? The Jebusi, the Jebusites. Where are they now? Someone probably owned it before them. It is a fact that I lived there, in the city, some forty odd years ago. If there are people alive to remember what was, then it is the present." The Israelis want peace. Peace is negotiable through the trading of land. When land is traded, the details, social, religious, historical, cultural, economic, all get dissected and reviewed. Every little detail has got to be examined before anything happens. I am beginning to think that my uncle is right. It will happen when the Jordan runs backwards. Jerusalem: The Zionist Side Anita Abu-Daya Of all the "final status issues" that have to be resolved to get peace in the Middle East, the fate of Jerusalem is deemed to be the most difficult. This might seem quite strange since unlike the question of borders, territory or water rights the possession of Jerusalem does not confer a material advantage on the Palestinians. A viable Palestinian state is quite possible even if its capital is not Jerusalem. It is the symbolism of the city and the holy sites in it therefore that make it so important. For the Jewish people Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish nation before the diaspora. For the next 2000 years it was mentioned in Jewish prayers, as a place where the Jews wanted to return to, wherever Jews found themselves to be, from Morocco to Russia. The old city which lies in East Jerusalem and which is claimed by the Palestinians for their Capital contains the wailing wall and temple mount, the holiest sites in Judaism. Is it that strange that now that the Jews have finally returned to Jerusalem, giving it up seems unthinkable? It has been suggested by certain Israelis and certain Palestinians that it is not necessary to divide Jerusalem, that the whole city could function as a capital for both states. Although this is a beautiful idea in theory, in practice it would simply not work. The outcome of the final status talks should be two states, Israel and Palestine with clearly defined borders, separate governments, laws, custom duties etc. Such states cannot share a city in common. The movement of people from Jerusalem to the rest of Israel would necessitate border controls at the border of

Jerusalem. Every nation must have free movement of people between its capital and the rest of the country. Therefore the idea of a shared capital is simply impossible in practice. When East Jerusalem was controlled by the Jordanians Jewish people had no access to their holy sites. The Palestinian community contains many factions of religious fanatics such as Hamas who don't accept the peace process and will probably persist in their belief that "Israel must be thrown into the sea" no matter what. The Palestinian authority is on the whole a secular government but the "fringe groups" have a large influence on Arafat et al. It is very easy for them to whip up the Palestinians into a frenzy of anti-Jewish protests (as happened a few years ago when the Netanyahu government tried to open a tunnel for tourists). Hence even if the Palestinian authority were to promise and swear that they would not block access to our holiest sites, it would not be an easy promise to keep and things would probably be back to the pre 1967 nightmare. Of-course, we Israelis also have our religious fanatics, including a group that believes we should demolish the Al-Aqsa mosque and build the third temple. However their influence on the government and the population of Israel is negligible. Therefore under Israeli control all 3 major faiths (including Israel's Arab population) would have access to their holy sites. The Palestinians often quote UN resolutions to prove that they should have control of East Jerusalem. This is somewhat disingenuous. The reason we have been at war for the past half century is that the Arab people refused to accept the division of Palestine that was voted upon by the UN. One can't pick the UN resolutions that one thinks are "fair" and insist that these are the ones that have to be implemented. Due to their stance in 1948 the Palestinians lost everything. Now they stand at the threshold of regaining the West Bank, statehood and final selfdetermination. It would be a tragedy if they let that opportunity pass by because of their insistence that Israel must give up Jerusalem.