The stones of old Jerusalem

[PrinceMyshkin]

Any one of the stones of old Jerusalem
could crush a man or woman
far sturdier than you or me,
a family, an army, a nation,
an idea.

If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem,
may I also forget the others
who coveted you as I once did, who offered
to trade their blood for mine,
for you.

Jerusalem!
Your cellars are awash in blood!
The blood of your worshippers
have thrice three times made your streets
unclean!

Nothing will remain, in the end, but memories:
the ancient enmities, the Covenant
between man and “God,” the rise
of the Christians and their defeat,
the Mohammedans...

Each left their markers, their portions
of holy real estate, blood,
in the end, more enduring than stone.

Jerusalem, somewhere between Golgotha
and a spiritual Disneyland,
where is enacted over and over again
the raising of the temple, its destruction,
the rebuilding of it, the second destruction,
the dispersion of its people...

In the end there is always the problem
of distinguishing the real
from the real estate.

[AuntShecky]

The final strophe of this piece is the absolute best part of the poem. The first couple strophes masterfully employ the apostrophe (the poetic device used for invocation rather than the punctuation.) The dominating theme is contrasting the actual Jerusalem to the idealized one, "the real estate vs. unreal estate, just like Blake's "The New Jerusalem," except this piece takes a more jaundiced, 21st century stance.

My only criticism about the content is that the millennia-old enmity among the nations of the Middle East is multi-lateral; the hoped-for eventual peace in the region can never come to fruition until every side desires peace equally. All of us, not just knowledgable pundits, realize this.

The sole criticism about the style, although it's not really a criticism, is that I don't understand why some of the lines break where they do, especially in the beginning of the poem.

And finally, a question, if it's apropos -- is there a difference between the terms "Near" and "Middle" East?

[PrinceMyshkin]

The final strophe of this piece is the absolute best part of the poem. The first couple strophes masterfully employ the apostrophe (the poetic device used for invocation rather than the punctuation.) The dominating theme is contrasting the actual Jerusalem to the idealized one, "the real estate vs. unreal estate, just like Blake's "The New Jerusalem," except this piece takes a more jaundiced, 21st century stance.

My only criticism about the content is that the millennia-old enmity among the nations of the Middle East is multi-lateral; the hoped-for eventual peace in the region can never come to fruition until every side desires peace equally. All of us, not just knowledgable pundits, realize this.

My own position - as one who supports the idea of a Jewish homeland but feels that this one was imposed on a native people without their consent, is that Israel ought to offer the Palestinians the Old City as their homeland; which, alas might very well precipitate the ultra-orthodox among the Israelis to precipitate a civil war. Jerusalem is indeed a powerful symbol, but no symbol is worth the shedding of blood.


The sole criticism about the style, although it's not really a criticism, is that I don't understand why some of the lines break where they do, especially in the beginning of the poem.
I don't believe I could justify each of the line-breaks one by one. In general I work in a very intuitive way. If there is a principle it is to respect how one might pause between lines if one were speaking the poem. At times, as in 1,5 I will break a line to put emphasis on what follows the break.


And finally, a question, if it's apropos -- is there a difference between the terms "Near" and "Middle" East?

About the last question the best i could do was to look up both the Near: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East and the Middle East: http://www.google.com/search?q=middle+east+map&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7PCTA_en

[qimissung]

A very thought provoking piece, Prince, as usual. Is the poem supposed to be about Jeusalem giving part of the city to the Palestinians? Because I wouldn't have gotten it without that explanation. I did get a sense of majesty from the words and the the idea that you were comparing reality to an ideal.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Prince.Thank you for advancing the thinking in those words alluded to in your poem that have hovered for so long in the hearts of Diaspora Jewry; "im eshkachech Yerushalayim tishkach yemini". In the light of various attempts to make Jerusalem a formal international city, can the interpretation of "tishkach" now mean; "If I forget thee Jerusalem, you (God) forget my right hand, or my rights?".
I'm trying to draw a distinction as to the level of personal committment by Jews at the current juncture, especially those living outside Israel. For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace, I will not rest?

[PrinceMyshkin]

A very thought provoking piece, Prince, as usual. Is the poem supposed to be about Jeusalem giving part of the city to the Palestinians? Because I wouldn't have gotten it without that explanation. I did get a sense of majesty from the words and the the idea that you were comparing reality to an ideal.

Yes, there is argument enough between Israel and the Palestinians over space, actual living space, without either side endowing any of those spaces with "holy" or historic implications. Although all of us hold the past sacred to some degree or another, the only meaningful question to me is, "How shall we live - together or side by side - now?

[paperleaves]

"In the end there is always the problem
of distinguishing the real
from the real estate."

This evokes an incredible truth--an unavoidable confrontation to the unfortunate circumstances in which human beings can feel the "right" to a piece of property that they hold dear...respect inadvertently creates a sense of ownership that should merely be reverence...don't want to get too deep because I have strong feelings on this concept, but you did an excellent job portraying this, it is absolutely beautiful and such a shame that the world can't read this piece..
Love
Kate

edit;;
I also wanted to let you know I admire your structure and the comment about your line breaks got me to thinking...I believe I do the same thing with the line breaks...sometimes the pure poetry spills, drop by drop, and sometimes puddle by puddle, never can one judge where one idea belongs and it is such a beautiful idea!

[Virgil]

I'm afraid I only find this ok Prince. Nothing in there really overwhelms me.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm afraid I only find this ok Prince. Nothing in there really overwhelms me.

That's ok, dude, let's think of it as a line-drive or a bunt though I confess I dearly love the opening strophe (using AuntSheckyese), and I stand behind the argument of it, that however precious are the historical, spiritual associations with Jerusalem, they're not worth the shedding of even one drop of blood.


"In the end there is always the problem
of distinguishing the real
from the real estate."

This evokes an incredible truth--an unavoidable confrontation to the unfortunate circumstances in which human beings can feel the "right" to a piece of property that they hold dear...respect inadvertently creates a sense of ownership that should merely be reverence...don't want to get too deep because I have strong feelings on this concept, but you did an excellent job portraying this, it is absolutely beautiful and such a shame that the world can't read this piece..
Love
Kate

I'm guessing that we're in sympathy on this matter. Take a pebble, the merest pebble, and identify it as having figured in the life of the prophet, the messiah, the judge, the general, and men will fight to the death over possession of it.


edit;;
I also wanted to let you know I admire your structure and the comment about your line breaks got me to thinking...I believe I do the same thing with the line breaks...sometimes the pure poetry spills, drop by drop, and sometimes puddle by puddle, never can one judge where one idea belongs and it is such a beautiful idea!

Thank you.

[Virgil]

That's ok, dude, let's think of it as a line-drive or a bunt though I confess I dearly love the opening strophe (using AuntSheckyese), and I stand behind the argument of it, that however precious are the historical, spiritual associations with Jerusalem, they're not worth the shedding of even one drop of blood.


Oh I agree. That first stanza is very good.