::I wouldn't go rocking that particular boat here again.  It took months of effort, repeatedly, with copious, nearly interminable and often acrimonious discussions, to achieve the existing wording and structure.  Its balance, whatever you may think of it, has been stable and is functioning.  The re-floated "old idea" probably failed to take hold because of inherent problems, not simply because of which editors were active in the last round of discussions or prior to that.  Contrary to your claim of avoiding "recentism", your proposed opening is skewed almost entirely toward emphasis on current (1947-2011) conflicts.  A lead should most of all tell what a city is, which is the case with the existing opening, and even the case in the article on Rome.  I fail to see any neglect of Jerusalem's rich and long history in the article or in the lead section.  If indeed "Jerusalem is more important for its past than its present", its past, and the significance of that past for the present, is well covered.  I counsel leaving well enough alone.