We have been reporting recently about the significant role ancient ruins might play in the current political dialogue regarding the Middle East peace process. Benjamin Netanyahu, as we noted a week ago, presented President Bush with a 2,000-year-old coin bearing a Hebrew inscription, revealing the depth of Jewish roots in the region around Jerusalem.

One of our readers alerted us to a story that appeared in the South China Morning Post on January 3 (subscription only). In recent years, the article explains, a right-wing settler group known as Elad has transformed the City of David into one of Jerusalem’s most popular tourist attractions—drawing 350,000 visitors a year, most of them Israelis.

The location of the archaeological park is what makes it so controversial. It’s imbedded in the low-income Arab neighborhood of Silwan—in the annexed half of Jerusalem that Israel captured in 1967. Silwan has about 40,000 Arab residents. Since 1991, according to Elad spokesman Doron Spielman, about 300 Jews have moved into the neighborhood, most of them proudly flying Israeli flags, behind heavily fortified property lines.

Within the archaeological park, there are numerous ongoing excavations, both above ground and below—the best-known being King David’s palace, discovered in 2005. The scmp article points out how some “dovish Israeli archaeologists” either disagree with the conclusions of their peers who are excavating the City of David or take exception with the strong emphasis tour guides place on the Jewish history being uncovered at the park.

Notice how the article related these developments with the present political discourse in the lead-up to President Bush’s Middle East trip:

The question of to whom Jerusalem belongs is one of the thorniest issues on the agenda of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that resumed last month as a follow-up to the Middle East peace conference in the U.S. in November.U.S. President George W. Bush hopes to encourage both sides to overcome their differences during a visit to the region next week. The talks have thus far been foundering amid Palestinian protests against Israeli plans to build hundreds of new housing units at Har Homa, a settlement inside occupied territory Israel annexed as it expanded the borders of Jerusalem after its victory in the 1967 war. Israel, for its part, has voiced worry about Mr. Abbas’s ability to meet security obligations. …Israeli public opinion is divided over relinquishing territory in Jerusalem. Settler groups are dead set against such a withdrawal, and the dovish archaeologists maintain that the tours of the City of David enable Elad to spread an anti-compromise message. “They see the tours as a way of drafting thousands of people on their behalf,” Tel Aviv University archaeologist Rafi Greenberg said. Mr. Spielman denied this, saying any guide who discussed politics would be dismissed.

Jewish housing in Silwan hasn’t attracted the same level of attention as other settlement proposals, like at Har Homa. But as the article points out, some Silwan residents are not happy about what is going on:

Abed Shalodi, a Silwan resident who helps the alternative archaeologists conduct their tours, views Elad as an threat. “They want to take over all the land here. We can’t live with them because they don’t want us here. They want the land without the people.”Mr. Spielman said it was not “realistic” to expect the area to become completely Jewish. “Our goal is that it should be as strongly Jewish or Jewish-identified as possible,” he said.Palestinian fears of Israeli intentions are not entirely baseless. In 2005, Jerusalem municipal engineer Uri Shetreet announced plans to demolish an entire section of Silwan—88 homes—to make room for an archaeological park. Amid an international uproar, Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski distanced himself from the plans.

The article concludes by quoting a dovish archaeologist who said, “Archaeology should not be a political tool.” Dr. Yoni Mizrachi, who wonders aloud if King David was anything more than a mythical figure, offers this tidbit of convoluted self-hatred:

If I find a synagogue or a mosque or a church [and] it tells me about the past of a place … that doesn’t mean that one person has more rights in a place because the find belongs to his culture. The past also belongs to those who live here now. Even if they found the palace of David, it doesn’t mean that what existed 3,000 years ago needs to be resumed today.

He should apply that same “logic” on both sides. If it’s wrong for Jewish settlers to lay claim to the region by raising the ruins of their historical legacy, where does that leave Islamic scholars who inexplicably deny that those ruins even exist, or work behind-the-scenes to destroy them in some cases, all while holding the position that the Jewish nation is illegitimate and should be obliterated?