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.
Or maybe visionary leader that helps cease this conflict will in turn be the messiah that we've all been waiting for.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
Tonight at Ohio State's Hillel, the group Buckeyes for Israel hosted Duncan Kirkwood, who is a very strong student leader from Alabama State University. As a recent graduate and current graduate student, he is a nationally recognized advocate for Israel, and he spoke to students as well as community members about his connection to Israel as a Christian and an African American.
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.
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.
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.
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.
