The Tower of David Museum’s establishment took place between 1967 and 1989, the years in which the State of Israel’s involvement in the development of the Old City and its environs, the areas that had been conquered and annexed to Israel after the war, was at its height. The city’s reunification was accompanied by an extensive process of creating Israeli symbols. The many archaeological excavations that were conducted in the area, the development of the Western Wall, and the renewal of the Jewish Quarter were all part of the State’s efforts at symbolization of the Old City as a space under Jewish-Israeli sovereignty. This was the backdrop to the process of the museum’s establishment in the Tower of David—a time period in which pointed questions about the site’s goals and target audience arose. Would the museum serve the city’s residents or the masses of tourists that visited the city at the time? Would it be a museum of history, focusing on the city’s chronicles in general and its Jewish history specifically? Would the museum have national-Israeli goals, much like the other symbols in the Old City and East Jerusalem, or would it be a local urban museum serving the city’s residents—Jews and Muslim and Christian Arabs alike—while emphasizing the city’s unique fabric? These issues accompanied the central question that the museum’s organizers encountered over the years: if and how to bring the complex history of Jerusalem, filled as it was with religious and political conflicts, into the citadel. Was there a need or possibility to describe museologically the chronicles of the city and the process of building the Temple Mount, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Dome of the Rock, when these sites could be visited, as could the walls, gates, roads, and historical remains of Jerusalem, located a stone’s throw away? These questions, it emerged, were very complex, especially in light of the postwar political reality; as a result, the museum’s establishment stretched over two decades, highlighting the different dilemmas that were tied to the State’s attitude toward Jerusalem generally and the Old City in particular.