Armstrong Reading Response: Why Jerusalem?

One of the things that I’m finding increasingly interesting about Jerusalem as a city is its history of destruction and recreation. Or, perhaps, its recreation through destruction. For example, I wonder if the final destruction of the temple that left all but the Western Wall standing actually somehow made the site even holier than it would be otherwise. I’m sure that people would still go there in droves, but would so many people make pilgrimages there if the history was not full of this destruction? (Similarly, would so many people travel to ground zero in NYC if the twin towers hadn’t fallen?)
So, again, this raises the bigger question for me of, why Jerusalem? We’ve already talked in class about how Jerusalem’s appeal is fairly surprising given that it’s geographically not in a very desirable position. (Though I do wonder how much this has to do with the fact that Jerusalem is on a hill – “the city on the hill” - and thus is so noticeable.) But, still, an endless number of cities and civilizations have come and gone. They’ve been lost in destruction and never rebuilt. They’ve faded overtime. What is it about Jerusalem that keeps it holding on? Obviously, the fact that it has deep meaning for the three main monotheistic religions is part of it, but other holy cities do not garner the attention that Jerusalem does. And other cities that have been destroyed, well . . . that’s been it. They’ve been destroyed. So, again, why Jerusalem? And why all of the attention now? Is part of Jerusalem’s ability to survive its history of destruction? Would Jerusalem be a city of such meaning if it were not currently such a contested, conflicted, explosive site?