I do have to say, in general this article did not entice me as much as other articles we have read. In general though, the topic of architecture in terms of the disputed area is an aspect that I have never thought about. This conflict really covers large areas of ground and includes many aspects in it.
I was really surprised when they were saying that "the architecture of Zionism modernism had failed to create the mandatory sense if belonging between men, community and place" (237). I personally never really take much into account of how much of an impact the architecture has on an area, but in consideration of this area, I would think by having ancient architecture it would help to create this sense of belonging. I was also surprised that at one point in the article they were discussing not continuing to build based on the ancient structures that were already there. To continue this history and create that feeling that was intended form Jerusalem, I would think it would be essential to keep those visual stimulants. I was glad that later in the article they said that they abandoned that idea and decided instead to stick to what was there.
Of all things, I think before I read this article I assumed that architecture would have been one thing that the Jews and Arabs could agree upon. In history, there was so much transition between power, and the architecture probably changed with it too, but I think because I have been to Israel and I have seen the ancient architecture I assumed that it all came from a similar background. However, we all know what they say about assuming, and I was probably naive to think that Jews and Palestinians would agree on anything regarding the creation of a new homeland for Jews.
Reading about PYALARA is really interesting to me. I think I've mentioned this before, but in high school I was really involved in my temple youth group and NFTY (Northern Federation for Temple Youth) and although NFTY doesn't focus specifically on Israel, it was a large part of our programming and discussions. I never really thought about Palestinian Youth movements in America, and now that I know about it, it would have been a really interesting program idea to get NFTY kids and PYLARA kids together. I'll just have to save that idea for when I'm an advisor in a few years!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The City that is as Complicated as its Walls
I thought that the reading these two articles together was a really interesting combination. Reading about how the city is divided and the actual physical presence of the walls and then reading about what people have done to the walls was an interesting contrast
One part that stuck out to me was in Klein's article on page 54. He was talking about how in 1967 Jerusalem was intended to be a place of holiness for Jews, Christians, and Muslims under Israeli sovereignty. Even though I believe that this can happen, I see the immediate flaw with the statement under Israeli sovereignty. After being in this class for seven weeks, I have learned that any sort of agreement that allows for one group to have supreme rule is not going to be effective.
With that being said, this also goes against the laws of Zionism. Zionism says that Jerusalem is meant to be for Jews and only Jews. The selfish Jewish part of me agrees with this. But the other part of me, the inclusive, pleasing, and harmonizing part of me, strongly disagrees with this. Yes, Jews have a right to the land, but so do other religions. We all have history here.
We all agree that Jerusalem is a holy place. Even those that do not identify with a religion can feel the holiness of this place. What if this idea of a unanimous holy place could take hold? What if we just all agreed to have not one particular religion in power, and instead work to become a modern holy city? People in the modern world are already turning to this idea of secularization and spirituality. What would happen if Jerusalem did the same?
With that, the idea of walls in such a city would be an utmost disgrace. I thought that the classification of the kinds of walls was really interesting. In prison, walls are used to keep dangerous people in, while at the same time keeping the common man out. Walls for barricade are used for protection. However, we all know the story of the Great Wall of China. Walls of aggression are used to inspire fear. Sheltering walls provide privacy, and castle walls are meant to separate the upper part of society. The presence of any of these walls takes away the holiness from the city, and instead the focus becomes the walls.
The focus on the walls brings the attention of graffiti artists. Recently, graffiti has become what would have been considered a nuisance and has now gotten its deserved attention as art form. There have been many graffiti exhibits in art museums around the country. Popular artists such as Banksy and Shepard Fairey have become renowned. I think these artists have become so famous because of their exquisite talent but also because they have chosen an arena to do their work where people cannot avoid it. I think that is why so many Palestinians have chosen this route to display their emotions and opinions towards this topic because of that reason as well.
There was another part that jumped out at me in Klein's article when he was talking about the medical field. I was interested to see that many doctors cross the boarders more fluidly than anyone else. Sure, they cross to help the sick, but it's also curious that many of the people in the hospital are potentially there because of bombs or attacks from the other side.
Essentially, the presence of the walls distracts from the overall meaning of the city. However, an interesting questions is has the presence of the walls in itself created something new and meaningful?
One part that stuck out to me was in Klein's article on page 54. He was talking about how in 1967 Jerusalem was intended to be a place of holiness for Jews, Christians, and Muslims under Israeli sovereignty. Even though I believe that this can happen, I see the immediate flaw with the statement under Israeli sovereignty. After being in this class for seven weeks, I have learned that any sort of agreement that allows for one group to have supreme rule is not going to be effective.
With that being said, this also goes against the laws of Zionism. Zionism says that Jerusalem is meant to be for Jews and only Jews. The selfish Jewish part of me agrees with this. But the other part of me, the inclusive, pleasing, and harmonizing part of me, strongly disagrees with this. Yes, Jews have a right to the land, but so do other religions. We all have history here.
We all agree that Jerusalem is a holy place. Even those that do not identify with a religion can feel the holiness of this place. What if this idea of a unanimous holy place could take hold? What if we just all agreed to have not one particular religion in power, and instead work to become a modern holy city? People in the modern world are already turning to this idea of secularization and spirituality. What would happen if Jerusalem did the same?
With that, the idea of walls in such a city would be an utmost disgrace. I thought that the classification of the kinds of walls was really interesting. In prison, walls are used to keep dangerous people in, while at the same time keeping the common man out. Walls for barricade are used for protection. However, we all know the story of the Great Wall of China. Walls of aggression are used to inspire fear. Sheltering walls provide privacy, and castle walls are meant to separate the upper part of society. The presence of any of these walls takes away the holiness from the city, and instead the focus becomes the walls.
The focus on the walls brings the attention of graffiti artists. Recently, graffiti has become what would have been considered a nuisance and has now gotten its deserved attention as art form. There have been many graffiti exhibits in art museums around the country. Popular artists such as Banksy and Shepard Fairey have become renowned. I think these artists have become so famous because of their exquisite talent but also because they have chosen an arena to do their work where people cannot avoid it. I think that is why so many Palestinians have chosen this route to display their emotions and opinions towards this topic because of that reason as well.
There was another part that jumped out at me in Klein's article when he was talking about the medical field. I was interested to see that many doctors cross the boarders more fluidly than anyone else. Sure, they cross to help the sick, but it's also curious that many of the people in the hospital are potentially there because of bombs or attacks from the other side.
Essentially, the presence of the walls distracts from the overall meaning of the city. However, an interesting questions is has the presence of the walls in itself created something new and meaningful?
ברכה שלום- Take 2
Here is my redo of the last blog assignment that I didn't understand the last time.
This is my desk. I chose this image because it represents me for many reasons. The first reason being that I am very messy. I try my hardest to keep clean, but sometimes it takes more effort for me to be clean than it does for me to just let it be. I really prefer things to be clean, but I also tend to keep a very busy schedule, and with that my organization seems to go to the wayside.
Another reason I chose this photo is because of what's in it. First of all, my Mac is probably my favorite thing that I own. Not only is it important for schoolwork, I also use it as a creative outlet.
Believe it or not, the water bottle also has significance. It is important for me to be healthy, so I drink water all the time. That water bottle has helped me survive the gross taste of dorm water!
The picture in the back covered by all my other stuff is a picture of me and my sister. She is a really important person in my life. Even though we're related, we look nothing alike, which I think has contributed to both of our lives. We are so different, which means that neither one of us feels overshadowed by one another. We make a good team. She also made the birthday card in the back left corner for me.
I chose this picture because I love sunglasses. I wear them even it's only slightly sunny out. I currently have five pairs of sunglasses sitting on my desk. I refuse to buy a pair of sunglasses for over $10 because I buy so many, and if I lose a pair it's not the end of the world.
In this picture, my sunglasses are sitting on my sketchbook. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to draw as much as I would like since I've been away at school, but art and drawing are my favorite hobbies, which you can also tell by my many doodles I make in my notes in my classes.
This is a drawing in my sketchbook.
This is my ukulele. It sits next to my desk. I play it when I'm bored or stressed. I also play piano and am a big fan of music and concerts.
This is my favorite ring. You'll rarely see me not wearing it. I also am always wearing my Jewish star. I feel weird when I'm not wearing either.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
הבית שלי
Unfortunately I do not have actual pictures of the articles that make my home a Jewish place, so I will be pulling pictures from the internet.
One item that you will find in most every Jewish household is a mezuzah (shown above). Mezuzot, meaning doorpost(s) in hebrew, can be found "affixed to the upper third of the doorpost on the right side as one enters the house or room. If the doorpost is wide enough to permit, the mezuzah should be tilted with the upper part slanting inward toward the house or room" (Jewish101.com). Mezuzahs come in many shapes, sizes, and styles. Under the mezuzah houses the sh'ma, the most holy prayer in Judaism. The basic prayer is "Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad," which means "Hear o Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." I have one on my bedroom door at home that was given to me as a gift for my bat mitzvah.
Another thing you will find in every Jewish household are Shabbat candlestick holders. They are lit every week at sundown on Friday to honor the Sabbath. At my house, we have a variety of different ones ranging from ones that were handed down from my great grandparents to ones that I painted as a child.
May of the Jewish items at my house represent different holidays. We have a variety of menorahs for Hanukkah, and a seder plate for Passover.
Another thing that I classify in this category is the Jewish star I wear around my neck. I have been wearing it practically every day since middle school. I feel weird when I don't wear it.
Questions for Yonatan Gher:
1. I watched the video about the men who crossed the border to go to the gay club. Have people been caught doing this? If so, what are the repercussions?
2. Have you seen friendships formed between the two opposing sides?
3. The struggle for gay rights is its own political battle entirely (at least in the United States). Do you see this struggle benefitting or being harmful to the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?
4. Just a general question, is the fight for gay rights as political as it is in the Unites States?
Another thing you will find in every Jewish household are Shabbat candlestick holders. They are lit every week at sundown on Friday to honor the Sabbath. At my house, we have a variety of different ones ranging from ones that were handed down from my great grandparents to ones that I painted as a child.
May of the Jewish items at my house represent different holidays. We have a variety of menorahs for Hanukkah, and a seder plate for Passover.
Another thing that I classify in this category is the Jewish star I wear around my neck. I have been wearing it practically every day since middle school. I feel weird when I don't wear it.
Questions for Yonatan Gher:
1. I watched the video about the men who crossed the border to go to the gay club. Have people been caught doing this? If so, what are the repercussions?
2. Have you seen friendships formed between the two opposing sides?
3. The struggle for gay rights is its own political battle entirely (at least in the United States). Do you see this struggle benefitting or being harmful to the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?
4. Just a general question, is the fight for gay rights as political as it is in the Unites States?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Reading Response, Sharon and My Mother-in-Law: Ramallah Diaries, The Promised Gas Masks, A Dog’s Life,“Jerusalem: Not the Mother of All Cities”
I really enjoyed these stories. I think they were a nice contrast to the usual history we have been reading. I like that they were more personal, and we got to hear stories of individual people.
In "The Promised Gas Masks," one part that stuck out to me was when they were talking about the straight lines. "They all have a fetish for making Palestinians stand in an orderly line. They complicate our lives with all sorts of permits, make them unbearably chaotic, then insist we stand in straight lines" (89). I wondered why the Israelis are so persistent about the straight lines. For some reason this brought images of the Holocaust to my mind. (Which might be because of Holocaust Remembrance Week here at OSU and Yom Ha'Shoah [Holocaust Remembrance Day] on May 1st). The Germans would make the Jews line up every day, and the Jews had no choice but to obey. Inadvertently the Jews have imposed this same kind of strict demeanor when dealing with their opposites, just like the Germans.
I thought of an analogy for this. It reminded me of games of pretend that children play. They imitate their teachers by playing school, imitate their doctors by pretending to be doctors, and imitate their parents by playing house. Maybe what the Jews went through in the Holocaust is unintentionally and subconsciously being played out by people whose relatives survived the Holocaust.
I really enjoyed "A Dog's Life." Animals are an aspect in the conflict that I have never even thought about. The conflict is between people and history, and animals are neglected. In fact, animals are completely separate from the situation. The identity of animals is completely dependent on the owner. I also never thought about sexism extending to animals. Despite this, I found it extremely ironic and slightly sad that a dog was able to get a passport but its owner could not.
I also have never really thought of the idea of sexism extending to cities. Sure, boats and cars can be given gender. Occasionally a city can be given a gender. I have never personally thought of Jerusalem as a female city. However, I can sort of see a connection between the gender of Jerusalem and the way the female dog was treated in the last story.
In general I really found Suid Amiry's story interesting.
Questions for Galit Hasan-Rokem:
1. Have you had the chance to teach any Palestinians in your time as a Professor?
2. How do you arrange to meet with Palestinian women? Do you go to Ramallah?
3. As a scholar and a feminist, what is your view of a solution?
In "The Promised Gas Masks," one part that stuck out to me was when they were talking about the straight lines. "They all have a fetish for making Palestinians stand in an orderly line. They complicate our lives with all sorts of permits, make them unbearably chaotic, then insist we stand in straight lines" (89). I wondered why the Israelis are so persistent about the straight lines. For some reason this brought images of the Holocaust to my mind. (Which might be because of Holocaust Remembrance Week here at OSU and Yom Ha'Shoah [Holocaust Remembrance Day] on May 1st). The Germans would make the Jews line up every day, and the Jews had no choice but to obey. Inadvertently the Jews have imposed this same kind of strict demeanor when dealing with their opposites, just like the Germans.
I thought of an analogy for this. It reminded me of games of pretend that children play. They imitate their teachers by playing school, imitate their doctors by pretending to be doctors, and imitate their parents by playing house. Maybe what the Jews went through in the Holocaust is unintentionally and subconsciously being played out by people whose relatives survived the Holocaust.
I really enjoyed "A Dog's Life." Animals are an aspect in the conflict that I have never even thought about. The conflict is between people and history, and animals are neglected. In fact, animals are completely separate from the situation. The identity of animals is completely dependent on the owner. I also never thought about sexism extending to animals. Despite this, I found it extremely ironic and slightly sad that a dog was able to get a passport but its owner could not.
I also have never really thought of the idea of sexism extending to cities. Sure, boats and cars can be given gender. Occasionally a city can be given a gender. I have never personally thought of Jerusalem as a female city. However, I can sort of see a connection between the gender of Jerusalem and the way the female dog was treated in the last story.
In general I really found Suid Amiry's story interesting.
Questions for Galit Hasan-Rokem:
1. Have you had the chance to teach any Palestinians in your time as a Professor?
2. How do you arrange to meet with Palestinian women? Do you go to Ramallah?
3. As a scholar and a feminist, what is your view of a solution?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Reading Response, Salim Tamari Articles
The two articles I chose to read were "Lepers, Lunatics and Saints" and "Ishaq Shami and the Predicament of the Arab Jew in Palestine".
The first article I read, "Lepers, Lunatics, and Saints", raised a few questions for me. The first question was about Talbieh Leprosarium. I have never heard of this, and when I tried to Google it the first link that came up was to this particular article. This question was answered a little bit more as I read the article, but I wonder why I wasn't able to find out more about it. I have heard of leprosy, and the particular Torah portion that it is always falls sometime in April, which was always comical to me because that particular portion would always fall over the weekend of my youth group region's biggest kallah (study, or convention) of the year. While socializing and learning about the particular theme of the weekend we would also coincidentally be learning about the biblical disease of leprosy in an amusing fashion.
While I was reading this article, sometimes I found myself getting confused and forgetting that the doctor, Tawfiq Canaan, was a person and not the land of Canaan. The fact that I had never heard of him probably makes sense, because much of the work that he did was swept under the carpet. I also find it ironic that in a time when two biblically historical groups of people were fighting for the same plot of land, a supposedly biblical disease sprung up again.
I also noted the mention of Edward Said in this article. We had talked about in class that he acts as a sort of beacon for Palestinians, and I thought it was interesting seeing his name pop up as a reference.
I also thought the exploration of "awlia" was interesting. The idea of saints is an interesting concept that religion has encompassed throughout history. "[They] experienced in their own flesh all miseries, difficulties, diseases, and woes of our life. They also know human falsehoods and intrigues. Thus they feel with us in our afflictions and understand us better than God does" (15). I thought the idea that these people that are essentially worshipped were once people. What makes a person worthy of sainthood? I also found the distinction between tolerant and irritable saints (good and evil) interesting.
Onto the second article. There were a lot of points that I found interesting in this. The first was the concept of language as a barrier, but also as a uniter of people. Before the creation of modern Hebrew, Jews didn't have a common language. I often wondered what language was spoken before Hebrew was revived, and I thought that the fact that Jews spoke Arabic at one point a pertinent point. Although the creation and revival of Hebrew as a spoken language was something that bonded Jews at the beginning of the history of Israel as a state, is it also something that but an even bigger barrier between Jews and non Jews?
The existence of Arab Jews is something that isn't always paid attention to. However, the exile and diaspora of the Jewish people set everyone in a different direction. When people aren't around each other, it is inevitable that ideas will develop in different ways due solely to the influence of geography and culture of surrounding people. Jews in Spain obvious evolved in a different way from Jews in Eastern Europe. The same is true for the Jews that were still in Palestine. They evolved to blend in with their Arab neighbors through language, food, and just general proximity. The overall socialization of Jews in the world is not just based on the premise of religion alone. Are these Arab Jews any different from Jews from other parts of the world? Another question is, are Jews really that different from their Arab neighbors?
On the whole, I found Shami's story really interesting. In a way, the creation of Zionism was meant to unite Jewish people with the idea of a homeland. However, with the creation of this idea, it united people but at the same time alienated people as well. The counteract to Zionism had the same effect. It united people under the idea that they didn't believe in a Jewish state, and their claims to the land were just as valid, even though their beliefs depended heavily on their geographical location. There is something to be said about duality. There is distinction between good and evil. However, what happens when there is duality between ideas, but one is not better than the other? So the real question is- are we as different as we think? Or has the polarization of two ideals done more harm than good?
A few questions that I have for Salim Tamari are:
1. What is your background?
2. What role do you play in politics currently?
3. The existence of Arab Jews is something that would have been an issue at the partition. Do you think this is an issue has gradually lessoned over time with the distinct divide between Palestinians and Israelis?
The first article I read, "Lepers, Lunatics, and Saints", raised a few questions for me. The first question was about Talbieh Leprosarium. I have never heard of this, and when I tried to Google it the first link that came up was to this particular article. This question was answered a little bit more as I read the article, but I wonder why I wasn't able to find out more about it. I have heard of leprosy, and the particular Torah portion that it is always falls sometime in April, which was always comical to me because that particular portion would always fall over the weekend of my youth group region's biggest kallah (study, or convention) of the year. While socializing and learning about the particular theme of the weekend we would also coincidentally be learning about the biblical disease of leprosy in an amusing fashion.
While I was reading this article, sometimes I found myself getting confused and forgetting that the doctor, Tawfiq Canaan, was a person and not the land of Canaan. The fact that I had never heard of him probably makes sense, because much of the work that he did was swept under the carpet. I also find it ironic that in a time when two biblically historical groups of people were fighting for the same plot of land, a supposedly biblical disease sprung up again.
I also noted the mention of Edward Said in this article. We had talked about in class that he acts as a sort of beacon for Palestinians, and I thought it was interesting seeing his name pop up as a reference.
I also thought the exploration of "awlia" was interesting. The idea of saints is an interesting concept that religion has encompassed throughout history. "[They] experienced in their own flesh all miseries, difficulties, diseases, and woes of our life. They also know human falsehoods and intrigues. Thus they feel with us in our afflictions and understand us better than God does" (15). I thought the idea that these people that are essentially worshipped were once people. What makes a person worthy of sainthood? I also found the distinction between tolerant and irritable saints (good and evil) interesting.
Onto the second article. There were a lot of points that I found interesting in this. The first was the concept of language as a barrier, but also as a uniter of people. Before the creation of modern Hebrew, Jews didn't have a common language. I often wondered what language was spoken before Hebrew was revived, and I thought that the fact that Jews spoke Arabic at one point a pertinent point. Although the creation and revival of Hebrew as a spoken language was something that bonded Jews at the beginning of the history of Israel as a state, is it also something that but an even bigger barrier between Jews and non Jews?
The existence of Arab Jews is something that isn't always paid attention to. However, the exile and diaspora of the Jewish people set everyone in a different direction. When people aren't around each other, it is inevitable that ideas will develop in different ways due solely to the influence of geography and culture of surrounding people. Jews in Spain obvious evolved in a different way from Jews in Eastern Europe. The same is true for the Jews that were still in Palestine. They evolved to blend in with their Arab neighbors through language, food, and just general proximity. The overall socialization of Jews in the world is not just based on the premise of religion alone. Are these Arab Jews any different from Jews from other parts of the world? Another question is, are Jews really that different from their Arab neighbors?
On the whole, I found Shami's story really interesting. In a way, the creation of Zionism was meant to unite Jewish people with the idea of a homeland. However, with the creation of this idea, it united people but at the same time alienated people as well. The counteract to Zionism had the same effect. It united people under the idea that they didn't believe in a Jewish state, and their claims to the land were just as valid, even though their beliefs depended heavily on their geographical location. There is something to be said about duality. There is distinction between good and evil. However, what happens when there is duality between ideas, but one is not better than the other? So the real question is- are we as different as we think? Or has the polarization of two ideals done more harm than good?
A few questions that I have for Salim Tamari are:
1. What is your background?
2. What role do you play in politics currently?
3. The existence of Arab Jews is something that would have been an issue at the partition. Do you think this is an issue has gradually lessoned over time with the distinct divide between Palestinians and Israelis?
Project Idea
For my final project, I have decided that I am going to take the multimedia route. I have always wanted to learn how to make and edit videos more efficiently, so I figured that this would be a good opportunity to do that.
The idea I have for my video is to focus on culture. There are many student groups at Ohio State that focus on ethnicity and religion, and I think it would be interesting to make a video on those student groups, but specifically ones that relate to Israel and Palestine.
I was thinking that I can also focus on the interactions of these students at Ohio State. For this, I was thinking I would film a little bit of our dinner next week. I think it would be cool to encompass this kind of overlap in my video.
I know that there are a lot of Israel independence day events coming up on campus. I think it would be interesting to share the views of Ohio State students regarding this subject in my final project.
The idea I have for my video is to focus on culture. There are many student groups at Ohio State that focus on ethnicity and religion, and I think it would be interesting to make a video on those student groups, but specifically ones that relate to Israel and Palestine.
I was thinking that I can also focus on the interactions of these students at Ohio State. For this, I was thinking I would film a little bit of our dinner next week. I think it would be cool to encompass this kind of overlap in my video.
I know that there are a lot of Israel independence day events coming up on campus. I think it would be interesting to share the views of Ohio State students regarding this subject in my final project.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Moving Towards Peace
Earlier in the quarter I accidentally answered this journal response. However, now that we have gotten more in depth with the subject, I don't necessarily think I think the same thing.
When we broke up into small groups to discuss this in class, my group and I found ourselves in the same vicious cycle of a discussion. We spoke about the one state solution, and for a moment we all agreed that that would be a good solution, but then again we found ourselves contradicting our arguments for a one state solution and then began discussing the two state solution. We found arguments that supported the two state solution, but then again there were major contradictions.
So what is the answer? We have two groups of people that have built up so much tension and hatred for each other. Each group is guilty of violating basic laws of humanity. Each group has responsibility for the situation that we are in today. However, what do you do with a land so full of history, and so intertwined with major world events?
Here is what I think we should do. I don't think that there should be any decision made on the basis of a one state or a two state solution. I think that peace will come through the influence of leaders. (We were talking about this a little bit in class). Leaders have such a huge impact on the atmosphere of a country. I think that we need a visionary leader- someone that step outside of the fire line and lead the people of Israel to a place of thought that doesn't have boundaries.
In Judaism, we talk so much about the coming of the messiah. Well, it's been 4,000 years. I personally think that if the messiah were actually going to show up in the way that we think they will, it would have happened by now. Maybe we're all just waiting around for nothing.
When we broke up into small groups to discuss this in class, my group and I found ourselves in the same vicious cycle of a discussion. We spoke about the one state solution, and for a moment we all agreed that that would be a good solution, but then again we found ourselves contradicting our arguments for a one state solution and then began discussing the two state solution. We found arguments that supported the two state solution, but then again there were major contradictions.
So what is the answer? We have two groups of people that have built up so much tension and hatred for each other. Each group is guilty of violating basic laws of humanity. Each group has responsibility for the situation that we are in today. However, what do you do with a land so full of history, and so intertwined with major world events?
Here is what I think we should do. I don't think that there should be any decision made on the basis of a one state or a two state solution. I think that peace will come through the influence of leaders. (We were talking about this a little bit in class). Leaders have such a huge impact on the atmosphere of a country. I think that we need a visionary leader- someone that step outside of the fire line and lead the people of Israel to a place of thought that doesn't have boundaries.
In Judaism, we talk so much about the coming of the messiah. Well, it's been 4,000 years. I personally think that if the messiah were actually going to show up in the way that we think they will, it would have happened by now. Maybe we're all just waiting around for nothing.
Or maybe visionary leader that helps cease this conflict will in turn be the messiah that we've all been waiting for.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Reading Response, Chapters 14-18
So we've reached the end of the continual saga of Jerusalem...
Or should I say that we have reached somewhat present day?
One idea that I found interesting the this reading was that the acting of making aliyah was not an idea that sprung with the Zionist movement, which is what I sort of thought was the case. However, it makes sense. The Jews were experiencing persecution, so they went back to holy land. Their ancestors were once exiled from Jerusalem, but now they are returning.
However, at the same time we know that with the influx of various different leaders brings a new attitude towards certain cultural groups every time in Jerusalem. The fate of the city lies so much on what is happening in the world at the time. I think that sometimes we forget that the world was much more interconnected than we think it was, even without the use of technology. I think this goes along with the idea that no belief comes without its reasoning. Everyone may have experienced the same events, but the individual viewpoints hinge on personal opinion.
Much of what we identify with about the world is due to the influence of modernity. This wave of intelligence did not skip over Jerusalem. "People in Europe and the United States had lost the art of thinking in symbols and images. Instead, they were developing a more linear, discursive mode of thought. New ideologies, such as socialism and nationalism, were beginning to challenge the old religious convictions" (363). Sometimes I question the strength of religion and belief. What we know as religion is vastly different from what it would have been thought of back the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, etc. However, even throughout its tumultuous history it hasn't altogether disappeared. What is it about religion that makes it able to withstand history itself?
Today is Easter, and also the tail end of Passover. This weekend has been a very odd weekend at Ohio State because campus was absolutely dead because everyone went home for Easter. As I was hanging around on campus, I was thinking a lot about Easter, Passover, and what we have talked about in this class. Today I had a thought- why is it that Christians don't celebrate Passover as well? The divide between Christians and Jews may have become as vast as the parting of the Red Sea, but when the Jews left Egypt there was no such thing as Christianity. Therefore meaning that Christians were also Jews at the time. I just think that it's interesting that events in history have diverged Christianity so far away from its roots.
I think that reading Armstrong's book has been very helpful to the overall experience of this class. I was telling the Israeli fellow at Hillel about this class, and besides being fascinated by the idea of this class, he also said that too often this conflict gets overly simplified. We have definitely broken down the details and are not overly simplifying it, and I think that's really important. However, what about the people that don't know the history? How do we explain it in a fair way without taking a 10 week class to explain it? How will the conflict be solved until we can all come to a basic understanding? Only time will tell.
Or should I say that we have reached somewhat present day?
One idea that I found interesting the this reading was that the acting of making aliyah was not an idea that sprung with the Zionist movement, which is what I sort of thought was the case. However, it makes sense. The Jews were experiencing persecution, so they went back to holy land. Their ancestors were once exiled from Jerusalem, but now they are returning.
However, at the same time we know that with the influx of various different leaders brings a new attitude towards certain cultural groups every time in Jerusalem. The fate of the city lies so much on what is happening in the world at the time. I think that sometimes we forget that the world was much more interconnected than we think it was, even without the use of technology. I think this goes along with the idea that no belief comes without its reasoning. Everyone may have experienced the same events, but the individual viewpoints hinge on personal opinion.
Much of what we identify with about the world is due to the influence of modernity. This wave of intelligence did not skip over Jerusalem. "People in Europe and the United States had lost the art of thinking in symbols and images. Instead, they were developing a more linear, discursive mode of thought. New ideologies, such as socialism and nationalism, were beginning to challenge the old religious convictions" (363). Sometimes I question the strength of religion and belief. What we know as religion is vastly different from what it would have been thought of back the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, etc. However, even throughout its tumultuous history it hasn't altogether disappeared. What is it about religion that makes it able to withstand history itself?
Today is Easter, and also the tail end of Passover. This weekend has been a very odd weekend at Ohio State because campus was absolutely dead because everyone went home for Easter. As I was hanging around on campus, I was thinking a lot about Easter, Passover, and what we have talked about in this class. Today I had a thought- why is it that Christians don't celebrate Passover as well? The divide between Christians and Jews may have become as vast as the parting of the Red Sea, but when the Jews left Egypt there was no such thing as Christianity. Therefore meaning that Christians were also Jews at the time. I just think that it's interesting that events in history have diverged Christianity so far away from its roots.
I think that reading Armstrong's book has been very helpful to the overall experience of this class. I was telling the Israeli fellow at Hillel about this class, and besides being fascinated by the idea of this class, he also said that too often this conflict gets overly simplified. We have definitely broken down the details and are not overly simplifying it, and I think that's really important. However, what about the people that don't know the history? How do we explain it in a fair way without taking a 10 week class to explain it? How will the conflict be solved until we can all come to a basic understanding? Only time will tell.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Reading Response, Chapters 11-13
In our reading, I think that these chapters are the ones I was most looking forward to. I have heard the Jewish side of the story many times, and the first chapters that we read were somewhat new information to me but at the same time I had a general idea of what was happening.
In these chapters, we delve into an area that I do not know much about. Again, I know the general idea, but I do not know great detail of the creation of the religion of Islam.
What I found interesting was that the idea of coexistence appears very early in the history of Jerusalem. "Muhammad had not expected Jews or Christians to convert to Islam unless they especially wished to do so, because he believed that they had received valid revelations of their own" (227). If this idea shows up in the early history of this city, why is it that in present day we can't accept that other religions exist and that they have right to be there?
I don't think there is any validity in denying that the Jews were present in the land of Israel first. The Jews many have struggled and were exiled many a time by many different groups of people, but in the long run their presence is the oldest. If we were in kindergarden, we would be hung up on the idea of "first come first serve", or "finder's keepers". However, with the occupation of Jerusalem being so ambiguous throughout history, I think that multiple groups have claim on the land. And when I say groups, I don't necessarily mean just the Jews and the Palestinians. What keeps the Greeks from coming in and saying "this is our land as much as it is yours"? Has it come down to that the two groups that are fighting for it place greater emphasis on the idea of sacred space and that we want that sacred space to be where it actually was in history?
As I see it, the religion of Islam felt out of the loop. As a religion, they did not have a monument to identify with. For some reason, they chose the sight of the temple of the Jews to build their sacred monument on. I wonder why. Why is it that they chose to build it there? There are so many other places to build it. I think about it like this. Had the Muslims chosen to build even just a little bit to the left, the Jews could have their holy space and the Muslims could have their holy space. There could be a clear cut line drawn, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could be solved in a pinch.
There was one point that I highly disagreed with. I disagreed with the idea that Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian, but a Muslim. In the time that Abraham lived, there was no such thing as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Abraham can be accredited with the contribution to the creation of all three of them, however Abraham was commanded to become circumcised, therefore making him a Jew. His offspring may have gone their separate ways, but I strongly believe that if Abraham were to be defined as one of the three that he would be a Jew.
Another thing that was mentioned in these chapters is the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I really don't know much about them, but I would really like to learn more about them in the future, because I think the idea of them is really intriguing.
Tonight is the second night of Passover, so I have been immersed in the idea of freedom and pilgrimage to the land of Israel. To those who celebrate, !חג שמח
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Home
Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, "Home"
"So what I mean to say is that I feel at home in the idea of Jerusalem. Otherwise, I feel at home in the company of a very few close friends. And, I must say, Edward to me has become the one friend with whom I can share so many things, a soul mate. I feel very at home whenever I am with him." -Daniel Barenboim (4)
When I read this line, I immediately thought of the song "Home" by Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros. This song may have nothing to do with the topic of the class, but I thought that it was ironic that Edward Sharpe wrote the song and that Daniel is talking about his friend Edward in almost exactly the same words. I accidentally read further than the assigned reading in Parallels and Paradoxes, but I'm glad I did because I really enjoyed what they were talking about. "In literature, the words are shared by everyone. Everybody uses language. The words you see in a poem, play, or novel, although they're arranged in different ways and have a highly artistic finish to them, are the words of everyday life, I find music fascinating in part because it encompasses silence, even though it is, of course, made of sound Music doesn't explain itself in the same way that a word in relationship to other words" (23). I though this idea was really intriguing, especially because so much music nowadays encompasses the use of linguistics and music.
(And of course this song was stuck in my head while reading the rest of the article....)
Moving on...
I am really impressed with the website of the Barenboim Said Foundation. I think it is very artistically and aesthetically pleasing. I love the blue color scheme and the use of black and white photography. I think the photos depict a very candid image of this project. I enjoy that. I also enjoy the music playing in the background. And of course, I think it does a great job of conveying the intended information.
Exploring the Knowledge is the Beginning website and watching the videos of the interview with Daniel Barenboim and the one with the musicians really makes me want to watch the film. I hope that we are able to do that at some point.
In exploring the Knowledge is Beginning website, I read the biographies of each Barenboim and Said. I had read about both of them in Parallels and Paradoxes, but I was glad that the biographies on the website went a little bit more in depth to their accomplishments. However, in reading each of their stories, there was something that stuck out to me. Both of these men have their individual claims to being Israeli or Palestinian, however I notice that neither one of them really grew up solely under the influence of those individual claims. They both have Western or European influences that I can see great contribute to who they are as people and their individual accomplishments. I think that this fact is to their advantage, but can also be to their downfall. However, I think their efforts in bringing together people from these territories refutes this disadvantage and together they triumph many stereotypes.
In reading "Homeland Redefined: Spaces of National Belonging", I thought that it was really important that the definitions of Israeli and Palestinian were clarified in the beginning. I think there were a lot of interesting points made regarding sacred space and the need for a homeland. There were points that I agree with and certain points I don't necessarily agree with, and I look forward to talking about them in class discussion.
Questions for Mariam Said
1. What are some of the repercussions or effects that you have experienced or noticed from the Knowledge is the Beginning project?
2. What is your favorite part of the role you play in this project?
3. What is your relationship with Daniel like?
2. What is your favorite part of the role you play in this project?
3. What is your relationship with Daniel like?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Reading Response, Chapters 8-10
And so we continue forward in history...
It's really interesting for me to be going through such a thorough cover of the history of Jerusalem because I am noticing where aspects that I identify with in Judaism developed. One example is of the Shekhinah, or God's presence on earth. Going back to the discussion of sacred space, it was really at this time where Jews had to redefine how to go about practicing religion. Desperate times call for desperate measures. When one's religion requires for the use of a certain space but the space is not available, one must make do and rethink ways of doing things. I also find it interesting that the rabbis reformed the idea of animal sacrifices through charity and compassion, two things that seem inherently opposite. Also, I see that this is around the time when Jews really began to question God and what the displacement of their people meant.
In this time when the Jewish were exiled from the holy land and the Romans were in charge, I noticed how so much of what happened was really dependent on one man's opinion. Whoever was in power at the time had final say and influence as to whether the Jews could be there or not. I question why there was so much variation.
Another thing that stuck out to me was how at the beginning of this reading, Armstrong was talking about how Jerusalem "had no special status on the Christian map" (171). I think that this shows the nomadic nature of the Christian faith. However, towards the end of the reading she was talking about how Christians were licking the tomb of Christ. I thought that that was a big jump, going from not much connection to practically idolizing.
I also noticed that in these chapters the Christians went from being the "Jewish Chrisitians" to just "Christians". I also find that the tension and dissonance between the two groups diverged rather quickly. I find the spread of Christianity fascinating, but at the same time I wonder how the two groups came to hate each other so much. As I was reading I found myself thinking, "are they forgetting that the person responsible for starting their faith was a Jew?"
I find that as I'm reading more and more about the history, I'm seeing the triggers that lead to where we are today. Sometimes I forget that what I'm reading is history. It's like I'm watching a movie for the first time in a long time. I remember the overall idea of what happens, but when I'm watching it I begin to remember what eventually happens. While I'm doing this I also am rooting for a different ending, even though I know what is going to happen. When I was reading about the reign of Emperor Julian, I was surprised because I didn't know where were Romans that liked Jews. As I was reading about him I noticed that I liked him, but then I began to wonder why things did not work out like they were described in the beginning of chapter 10. Then I saw that he was killed in battle and it all made sense, and the fate of the Jewish people was placed in different hands.
The Jews have been struggling so long for the holy land throughout history, sometimes I wonder if the fighting will ever end.
It's really interesting for me to be going through such a thorough cover of the history of Jerusalem because I am noticing where aspects that I identify with in Judaism developed. One example is of the Shekhinah, or God's presence on earth. Going back to the discussion of sacred space, it was really at this time where Jews had to redefine how to go about practicing religion. Desperate times call for desperate measures. When one's religion requires for the use of a certain space but the space is not available, one must make do and rethink ways of doing things. I also find it interesting that the rabbis reformed the idea of animal sacrifices through charity and compassion, two things that seem inherently opposite. Also, I see that this is around the time when Jews really began to question God and what the displacement of their people meant.
In this time when the Jewish were exiled from the holy land and the Romans were in charge, I noticed how so much of what happened was really dependent on one man's opinion. Whoever was in power at the time had final say and influence as to whether the Jews could be there or not. I question why there was so much variation.
Another thing that stuck out to me was how at the beginning of this reading, Armstrong was talking about how Jerusalem "had no special status on the Christian map" (171). I think that this shows the nomadic nature of the Christian faith. However, towards the end of the reading she was talking about how Christians were licking the tomb of Christ. I thought that that was a big jump, going from not much connection to practically idolizing.
I also noticed that in these chapters the Christians went from being the "Jewish Chrisitians" to just "Christians". I also find that the tension and dissonance between the two groups diverged rather quickly. I find the spread of Christianity fascinating, but at the same time I wonder how the two groups came to hate each other so much. As I was reading I found myself thinking, "are they forgetting that the person responsible for starting their faith was a Jew?"
I find that as I'm reading more and more about the history, I'm seeing the triggers that lead to where we are today. Sometimes I forget that what I'm reading is history. It's like I'm watching a movie for the first time in a long time. I remember the overall idea of what happens, but when I'm watching it I begin to remember what eventually happens. While I'm doing this I also am rooting for a different ending, even though I know what is going to happen. When I was reading about the reign of Emperor Julian, I was surprised because I didn't know where were Romans that liked Jews. As I was reading about him I noticed that I liked him, but then I began to wonder why things did not work out like they were described in the beginning of chapter 10. Then I saw that he was killed in battle and it all made sense, and the fate of the Jewish people was placed in different hands.
The Jews have been struggling so long for the holy land throughout history, sometimes I wonder if the fighting will ever end.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Reading Response, Chapters 5-7
A theme that I want to draw attention to early is the recurring theme of the creation and destruction. I daresay it begins back at the time of Adam and Eve, when this perfect place of the Garden of Eden was created but then destroyed by the "plague" of knowledge. Regarding the chapters that we had to read, the building of the first temple, the destruction, the rebuilding, and the destruction again are prominent parts.
History can sometimes be glorified. Certain events or times in history can be framed as magnificent, but on the other hand different times or events can be seen as some of the worst. I do not believe that the history of Jerusalem is excluded from this trend. I think that because of this theme of creation and destruction, Jerusalem and the land of Israel probably have the most dissonant set of events in history. There are times in the history of Jerusalem where Jews had everything. They had a beautiful temple and Jerusalem was the "center" of the world. What is interesting about that is those that recollect the history of Jerusalem "the rabbis would say that whoever had not experienced this festival had never known joy in his life" (137). Statements like this are what I mean when I say that history has a tendency to be glorified.
However, there are times when Jerusalem was not this way. The Jews were exiled. It would be one of the firsts, but unfortunately, definitely not one of the lasts. This constant back and forth, this constant struggle, is what makes Jews so persistent on holding onto this little bit of holy space that we have. The word Israel literally means "to struggle." We have struggled, are struggling, but hopefully the struggle can end soon. Jews have been fighting and defending sacred space for far too long, and it is evident in Armstrong's recollection of the history.
Another thing I noticed in the reading was the intermingling of history. In grade school, we would learn about different events in history in units. This week we're going to learn about the Greeks, and the next week we're going to learn about the American Indians. Like I've discussed in previous posts, the linear view of history is not always the best. While I was reading these chapters, I noticed how much influence the Greeks and Jews actually had on each other. They were separate entities, but there is also much crossover.
Jesus also appears in these chapters. This is sort of how I picture it. Jesus is a Jew. A normal human being. He was given the blame for destroying the temple, therefore sentenced to death by crucifix. He dies quickly, and when he his body isn't there when they go back and look for it, a few select people thought Jesus had risen from dead, therefore becoming a distinct group of Jews, but eventually branch of from Judaism entirely because their viewpoints just stop aligning with the conservative Jewish ways, therefore creating an entirely new religion called Christianity. In my opinion, I don't think Jesus' followers had any clue that what they were doing then would some day control the world (to an extent). I think that this is another place where the idea of history being glorified is viable. As for Jesus being the son of God, that's an entirely different discussion that I'm definitely not going to get into right now.
I also want to draw attention to the mention of Hillel, the scholar mentioned in these chapters. I was very involved in my Jewish life in high school, and since I have been in college I have continued to be involved. One of the Jewish student centers on campus is called Hillel. Hillel is the foundation for Jewish student life and are present on over 500 college campuses. This organization is founded on the basis of what history says about the character of Hillel, who believed that the most important mitzvot of the Torah were charity and loving-kindness. The organization Hillel is based on these principles, and I personally thought it was very interesting and appealed to my taste because of his contrast to the negativity in the chapter about destruction.
Speaker, Duncan Kirkwood
A brief explanation of how Kirkwood became so passionate about Israel is through his active participation in leadership and in his fraternity. As an undergrad, he had the privilege of going to Washington DC and participating in different dialogues about Israel with leaders in the government and with AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
After his trip to DC, he was given the chance to actually travel to Israel himself. He explained his experience there as the Bible coming alive to him. The conflict that exists there does not exist to him, because to him he sees Israel as this holy place. In regards to talking about the conflict, he gave us some advice. He said to be proactive instead of reactive. When operating in a proactive manor, we are all able to accomplish something and move forward.
How do you be proactive instead of reactive? His advice was to be involved and be a student leader. He said this because the student leaders now are the ones that become the leaders outside of college. All of the people that are going to be in those high up government positions such as senators or representatives in two or three election terms are currently college students.
Towards the end of his speech, he also spoke a lot about the idea of justice. To start off, he told a story about a mouse that finds a trap in the farmer's house. The mouse goes to the chicken, but the mousetrap does not concern the chicken and the chicken does nothing. Then the mouse goes to the pig, and the pig does nothing as well because it does not affect his life. Later, the farmer's wife hears the trap close and goes down to find a snake caught in the mouse trap. The snake bites her and the wife falls ill. Because she is ill, the farmer goes out to the yard, kills the chicken, and makes chicken noodle soup. Then, the family comes over to visit his sick wife, so he kills the pig to feed the guests. The wife passes away. The farmer then kills the cow to feed all of the people that attend the funeral.
This story is a metaphor for how we sometimes operate in life. We sometimes do not realize the we are all connected, and that one act of justice can disrupt this chain. This also encompasses the idea of being proactive. One can be pro-Palestinian and not be anti-Israel. It is not black and white. As Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." It is up to us to break the chain.
interesting article ---> http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=215811
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Reading Response, Chapters 1-4
I realize that I misinterpreted the syllabus update, so here is my response to the first four chapters of Karen Armstrong's Jerusalem.
One of the first things that struck me about Armstrong's recollection of the history was her discussion of sacred space. Throughout this year, I have spent much time learning about what defines sacred space. I think it's really important that she brought up this idea that these ancient conceptions are still very much pertinent to the history of Jerusalem, and that this history even affects people who do not consider themselves religious. It is the history that makes this place sacred. Without understanding the history, one does not have an understanding of the holiness of this place. However, if one were to be completely unaware of anything about the city of Jerusalem, one would not be able to understand the holiness.
In the first chapter about Zion, I really enjoyed when she was talking about how the ancient peoples were searching for "lost wholeness" of the Garden of Eden in the place where they lived, and that she compared it to how in modern day people seek out this peace in art, drugs or sex. I thought it was an interesting parallel to draw, and I think the idea of Jerusalem encompassing this ancient idea makes a lot of sense.
While I was reading these stories, I was imagining that I was back living in those times. Were these ancient people that we consider holy now be considered holy outside the light of monarchy? Also, would these people be considered holy today? I also began to think, did the people living there ever imagine that their presence in this land would be so heavily sought after in the present day? What was happening for them was probably just as political as it is now. We have talked about in class how we have to separate politics from religion, but has that ever actually happened?
In my life and in present day Judaism, the idea of tzedakah is something that is very evident. The literal translation of the word is charity, but that word extends to social justice and also the idea of tikkum olam, or repairing the world. This idea is omnipresent in not just Judaism, but many religions, specifically Christianity and Islam. The fact that this idea dates way back to this time in history is fascinating. It is amazing how long human beings have understood the importance of helping each other and the world itself. However, in this time I believe that we have forgotten this in this struggle.
In my studies, I have never ventured this far back. I also found it interesting that apparently Judaism was not always a monotheistic religion. I question this. I personally wonder why in all of my time as a Jew and being involved in many aspects of my religion I have not run across this.
However, much of what we read was familiar to me. I have heard many of the stories, especially of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so on. I am very curious to continue reading into the later history, or the history of how Palestinian ideas came to be.
One of the first things that struck me about Armstrong's recollection of the history was her discussion of sacred space. Throughout this year, I have spent much time learning about what defines sacred space. I think it's really important that she brought up this idea that these ancient conceptions are still very much pertinent to the history of Jerusalem, and that this history even affects people who do not consider themselves religious. It is the history that makes this place sacred. Without understanding the history, one does not have an understanding of the holiness of this place. However, if one were to be completely unaware of anything about the city of Jerusalem, one would not be able to understand the holiness.
In the first chapter about Zion, I really enjoyed when she was talking about how the ancient peoples were searching for "lost wholeness" of the Garden of Eden in the place where they lived, and that she compared it to how in modern day people seek out this peace in art, drugs or sex. I thought it was an interesting parallel to draw, and I think the idea of Jerusalem encompassing this ancient idea makes a lot of sense.
While I was reading these stories, I was imagining that I was back living in those times. Were these ancient people that we consider holy now be considered holy outside the light of monarchy? Also, would these people be considered holy today? I also began to think, did the people living there ever imagine that their presence in this land would be so heavily sought after in the present day? What was happening for them was probably just as political as it is now. We have talked about in class how we have to separate politics from religion, but has that ever actually happened?
In my life and in present day Judaism, the idea of tzedakah is something that is very evident. The literal translation of the word is charity, but that word extends to social justice and also the idea of tikkum olam, or repairing the world. This idea is omnipresent in not just Judaism, but many religions, specifically Christianity and Islam. The fact that this idea dates way back to this time in history is fascinating. It is amazing how long human beings have understood the importance of helping each other and the world itself. However, in this time I believe that we have forgotten this in this struggle.
In my studies, I have never ventured this far back. I also found it interesting that apparently Judaism was not always a monotheistic religion. I question this. I personally wonder why in all of my time as a Jew and being involved in many aspects of my religion I have not run across this.
However, much of what we read was familiar to me. I have heard many of the stories, especially of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so on. I am very curious to continue reading into the later history, or the history of how Palestinian ideas came to be.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A resolution
Prominent Israelis Will Propose a Peace Plan- New York Times Article, April 4th, 2011
-----> Israeli Peace Initiative
In Israel, Time for Peace Offer May Run Out- New York Times, April 2nd, 2011
The present concern for peace talks in the Middle East are evident in the vast amount of news articles that have been written lately. It is clear that with the current state of the Israel and outlying countries there is consensus for a change to further along the peace process between the Jews and the Palestinians.
It is a common thread in these articles that war is not going to be the answer to this conflict. The presence of war just escalates the problem. One man may have five guns, and because of that the other man feels like he needs to have six. It is a vicious cycle that must be broken through the mutual agreement to have peace talks.
In the Israel Peace Intiative (IPI), it proposes the prospect of two separate states. In order to make this realistically occur, the states must be created with the mutual agreement that the subjectivity of history will never be clarified, and with that being the case each side must recognize the other fully. Although we can read about the history, but what is clear is that the ambiguity of the history is something that we will NEVER be able to know every full detail about, so we might as well give each other the benefit of the doubt, exist as two entities, and continue practicing our own respective religions. With regards to those that fall into either category, each can choose to live in either place.
To follow the agreement of no war, it is stated in the IPI that there will be lessening of IDF control in certain areas. I see this situation almost like the children's game of red hands. This is the game where one places their hands on the tops of another's palms, and must avoid being slapping on the tops of the hands. The Israeli army stands poised ready for an attack that may or may not come. We need to lessen this stress and simply remove our hands from the other side.
It is probable that the IPI was a result of the information in the second New York Times article posted. I hope that this new peace initiate curbs the advances of Palestinians and that we all can cut a fresh start from recent and past events. What has happened in the past will never be clear. We live in the present and must start acting like it. We must do this while still keeping ancient traditions in tact and learning how to coexist.
-----> Israeli Peace Initiative
In Israel, Time for Peace Offer May Run Out- New York Times, April 2nd, 2011
The present concern for peace talks in the Middle East are evident in the vast amount of news articles that have been written lately. It is clear that with the current state of the Israel and outlying countries there is consensus for a change to further along the peace process between the Jews and the Palestinians.
It is a common thread in these articles that war is not going to be the answer to this conflict. The presence of war just escalates the problem. One man may have five guns, and because of that the other man feels like he needs to have six. It is a vicious cycle that must be broken through the mutual agreement to have peace talks.
In the Israel Peace Intiative (IPI), it proposes the prospect of two separate states. In order to make this realistically occur, the states must be created with the mutual agreement that the subjectivity of history will never be clarified, and with that being the case each side must recognize the other fully. Although we can read about the history, but what is clear is that the ambiguity of the history is something that we will NEVER be able to know every full detail about, so we might as well give each other the benefit of the doubt, exist as two entities, and continue practicing our own respective religions. With regards to those that fall into either category, each can choose to live in either place.
To follow the agreement of no war, it is stated in the IPI that there will be lessening of IDF control in certain areas. I see this situation almost like the children's game of red hands. This is the game where one places their hands on the tops of another's palms, and must avoid being slapping on the tops of the hands. The Israeli army stands poised ready for an attack that may or may not come. We need to lessen this stress and simply remove our hands from the other side.
It is probable that the IPI was a result of the information in the second New York Times article posted. I hope that this new peace initiate curbs the advances of Palestinians and that we all can cut a fresh start from recent and past events. What has happened in the past will never be clear. We live in the present and must start acting like it. We must do this while still keeping ancient traditions in tact and learning how to coexist.
Monday, April 4, 2011
In regards to history
The history of Jerusalem, as we all know, is a messy, tangled and complicated past. It is difficult to find a compilation of unbiased history, yet understanding the history of this city is essential.
What I find very interesting about Jerusalem is that the existence of the city itself is geographically unsound. The location of Jerusalem, high on the hill with no natural access to water, does not provide a place where life can flourish. In all technicality, Jerusalem is a desert. What is so magical about this place is more than what it physically is, but what has happen there. The city itself is the history, and that's really where its worth lies. The ancient crumbling walls and the structures that hold the ghost of what Jerusalem used to be hold more history than anyone in present day can ever imagine.
Another thing that stuck out to me while I was reading about the history of Jerusalem was in the article "Jerusalem: Then and Now." "Following the Muslim conquest, al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, both built upon the former temple plateau, became the third holiest site in Islam, and evolved into a meritorious 'second leg' of the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca" (5). What baffles me the most about this is the fact that Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem, the city of peace, the holy land of Israel is the only place that is important to the Jews. It is where the ancient kings once ruled and were forced out by more than one force to drive the Jews out. How can it be fair that Islam can have multiple holy sites and the Jews cannot even be respected enough to occupy the only holy place in our history?
Following that and moving towards more present day arguments, just prior to the creation of the state of Israel, the Jews accepted the partition of the land while the Arabs rejected it. I believe that this is where this major problem could have been eased. Even though the partition was a puzzle piece and geographically did not make sense, the Jews accepted the partition because it was better than not having a holy land at all.
I think that the rejection of the partition by the Arabs gave free reign to open fighting. In my opinion, the rejection of the partition is what set the tone for many wars. I also believe that wars were fought fairly, and there were enough of them to prove that Israel has a right to exist. There was a point when the Jews did not have tremendous military reign. However, with the animosity and hostile environment that Israel is surrounded by, Israel had no choice but to create itself into a military threat. Surrounding Israel are numerous Arab and Palestinian nations, while there is only one Jewish state. This chain of events in history has led to the situation that exists in Israel today.
The solution to this situation is going to be as complicated as the history itself. The numerous attempts for peace are obviously temperamental and rely heavily on the individual in charge at the time. Only time will tell, but in the meantime I believe that learning about the history is essential yet dangerous in terms of understanding this deep-rooted conflict.
What I find very interesting about Jerusalem is that the existence of the city itself is geographically unsound. The location of Jerusalem, high on the hill with no natural access to water, does not provide a place where life can flourish. In all technicality, Jerusalem is a desert. What is so magical about this place is more than what it physically is, but what has happen there. The city itself is the history, and that's really where its worth lies. The ancient crumbling walls and the structures that hold the ghost of what Jerusalem used to be hold more history than anyone in present day can ever imagine.
Another thing that stuck out to me while I was reading about the history of Jerusalem was in the article "Jerusalem: Then and Now." "Following the Muslim conquest, al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, both built upon the former temple plateau, became the third holiest site in Islam, and evolved into a meritorious 'second leg' of the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca" (5). What baffles me the most about this is the fact that Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem, the city of peace, the holy land of Israel is the only place that is important to the Jews. It is where the ancient kings once ruled and were forced out by more than one force to drive the Jews out. How can it be fair that Islam can have multiple holy sites and the Jews cannot even be respected enough to occupy the only holy place in our history?
Following that and moving towards more present day arguments, just prior to the creation of the state of Israel, the Jews accepted the partition of the land while the Arabs rejected it. I believe that this is where this major problem could have been eased. Even though the partition was a puzzle piece and geographically did not make sense, the Jews accepted the partition because it was better than not having a holy land at all.
I think that the rejection of the partition by the Arabs gave free reign to open fighting. In my opinion, the rejection of the partition is what set the tone for many wars. I also believe that wars were fought fairly, and there were enough of them to prove that Israel has a right to exist. There was a point when the Jews did not have tremendous military reign. However, with the animosity and hostile environment that Israel is surrounded by, Israel had no choice but to create itself into a military threat. Surrounding Israel are numerous Arab and Palestinian nations, while there is only one Jewish state. This chain of events in history has led to the situation that exists in Israel today.
The solution to this situation is going to be as complicated as the history itself. The numerous attempts for peace are obviously temperamental and rely heavily on the individual in charge at the time. Only time will tell, but in the meantime I believe that learning about the history is essential yet dangerous in terms of understanding this deep-rooted conflict.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Week One Journal
As a Jewish American woman, I enter this class with a mix of experiences that contribute to my viewpoints on the subject of Jerusalem. As a Jew, I am at the core a Zionist, or a person that believes that there should be a Jewish state, the state of Israel. Throughout my life, I have been active in Jewish youth movements and in the Jewish community, and I have traveled in Israel with my American peers as well as Israeli youth. I feel a deep connection to the land of Israel.
Due to my experiences, I am aware of the fact that many of the viewpoints I have been exposed to and that I have contributed in discussion about revolve around the Zionist perspective. When I am talking about Israel, I am talking to other Jews. It is a rare opportunity to be able to discuss this delicate subject with the opposing side. As a Jew, the typical view of Palestinians that is shown is a very negative image. I am sure that the Palestinian view of Jews is the same. Though each side would like to claim its innocence and declare their actions as self righteous, I think that it is safe to say that through many years of conflict neither are free of guilt.
There were a few points that arose to me in my reading of the assigned text. The first was the division of the research teams, and their focus on the east versus the west. They spoke about the border, and how they believed that it should be zig-zagged because it is "less political." I found that this statement was very contradictory and almost comical, because the reason for the border to exist in the first place is religion, and second politics. Both teams were searching for the essence of the culture and were trying so hard to adequately represent this rich but complex city. What I found interesting about all of this was that even though they put so much effort and thought into bringing "Jerusalem, Yerushalyim, Al-Quds" to Washington, D.C., their efforts were fruitless because of a supposed financial struggle. There is struggle in the city of Jerusalem, and it is a great challenge to find culture devoid of political strife. In a time when the thought of peace was so evident, it is a shame that they were not able to somehow transplant this city justly in this span of time.
I thought that the articles were an interesting way to delve into this subject. When I think of a festival, I think of cheesy, showy displays that may or may not accurately portray the reality of a place. After all, you don't really get the full experience of a place until you go there and experience it yourself. However, I did like the parallels Hasan-Rokem drew between the festival and the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. I'm interested to see what other angles we look at in future classes.
I think that this class is going to be a very cool and unique way to learn and discuss the city of Jerusalem. The class defies the Western way of learning, and my western I mean through memorization and regurgitation of facts. I am very excited that this class also takes full advantage of technological resources. Just a few years ago, this class wouldn't have been possible. However, with every advantage that technology brings, it also holds its disadvantages. Statements can be misread easily online, so proof reading before posting will be slightly more necessary with this touchy subject.
I can recall a select few times when I had the opportunity to meet and talk to Palestinian teenagers in my travels. Even though it was for a limited time and with a heavy language barrier, it is through experiences like these that I have been able to see the similarities between Israelis and Palestinians. I come to this class with a strong belief in a Jewish homeland, yet with an understanding that the differences we draw between each other are often not actually as different as we perceive them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)