A look back at Armstrong Week 4

Hasan-Rokem's article about Jerusalem as a mother, daughter, sister, helpless woman, etc. has made me think back on Armstrong's concluding thoughts of her book. I don't think that I ever posted on these thoughts, so here it is...
I love when she says, "Women of flesh and blood also deserve to be loved with less possessiveness and more equality. However, Jerusalem is not a women. It is a city, with a long, long history..." The article mentions that whoever is in charge of Jerusalem should see themselves as a small piece of the puzzle. She uses the word continuum, which I think is fitting in describing the circular and constant battle for claim over Jerusalem. This statement has made me think a lot about present day Jerusalem.
The battle for Jerusalem has been constant and power has shifted between cultures and religions. It makes me wonder, is another cultural or religious shift coming? I find it hard to believe that Jerusalem could be taken over and ruled again as a Muslim city--or even harder to fathom as a Christian city--but then I am reminded of Jerusalem's past. I would be a fool to dismiss this as possibility. But how? There seems so be so much inequality and oppression. How could it happen yet again?
The issue of present day Jerusalem seems more difficult than the past (maybe it's just because I am here and this is what I know) because now people are talking about peace. The question is no longer, "Who will take over Jerusalem next?" or "How can so and so reclaim power over their holy city?" The question has become, "How do we pursue peace in this area of great division?" Obviously peace and tolerance among people is harder to execute than just a complete power shift. Peace is much harder.
Armstrong talks about how quickly Jerusalem went from a predominant Islamic city to the capital of the Jewish state of Israel. I am reminded yet again how quickly power-shifts can happen. How did/do the Arab people feel? So quickly removed and detached from what they knew to be theirs for so long. For many people I'm sure the battle is still about complete control of Jerusalem, but the idea of peace (or at least tolerance) between peoples, cultures, and religions is a growing discussion. Armstrong states at the end of the book, "the prospect of peace looks bleak. But the history of Jerusalem reminds us that astonishing reversals are always possible and that nothing--not even mortal hatred--is permanent. There are still many Israelis and Palestinians, many Arabs and Jews, who long for peace and are prepared to make the sacrifices that peace requires..." (pg. 430) This brings hope. Hasan-Rokem and Armstrong seem to agree that things are never permanent in Jerusalem. The city is constantly turning and changing. My question is, what is on the horizon? What will the next change be? Will it be another reversal of power or could peace become a reality? I think Jerusalem's past will remind us that it is nearly impossible for any of us to predict Jerusalem's future.