In the readings for today, both authors echoed some of the same sentiments. The epilogue by Montefiore gave an overview of much of the same information as Armstrong did in her book; however, I felt that through these pages surfaced much more subjectivity and emotion. It provided a nice comparison between the two authors. While Montefiore’s last chapter was rich with beautiful language, the passionate words suggested more of personal connection. For instance, the way in which he describes the return of the Jews to Jerusalem evokes emotions in even the most secular: “The capture of Jerusalem elated even the most secular Jews. The craving for Zion was so deep, so ancient, so ingrained in song, prayer and myth, the exclusion from the Wall so longstanding and so painful, and the aura of holiness so powerful that even the more irreligious Jews, across the world, experienced a sensation of exhilaration that approached a religious experience and in the modern world was as close as they would ever come to one” (523). These words have a much more expressive tone to them. Furthermore, Montefiore’s chapter gives great detail on the changing attitudes of the residents of Jerusalem and the harsh opinions of its leaders. I was unaware that Arafat at one point had claimed that “Jerusalem had never been the site of the Jewish Temple, which had in fact existed only on the Samaritan Mount Gerizim. The city’s holiness for Jews was a modern invention” (531). I can’t believe that he would advertise this idea and further propagate the violence.
Although Armstrong did not shy away from exposing the violent nature of Jerusalem and the different groups, I also felt that the author in this epilogue was more explicit about it. He says, “Jerusalem today lives in a state of schizophrenic anxiety. Jews and Arabs dare not venture into each other’s neighborhoods…” (531). This sense of chaos is shown throughout his descriptions of past events. What I found most interesting about this epilogue was that feeling of tension, as if each group will take an eye for an eye and call it justice.
Finally, I was very much moved by Naomi’s Chazan’s article Owning Our Identity published in the Huffington Post in October 2010. Chazan’s strong voice and conviction show through her criticism of an amendment to the Citizenship Act. Chazan states that Israel should no longer be referred to as a “Jewish State” because of the many problems that this name causes. She explains that the complexity of who is Israeli goes beyond religious labels. Her call for equality of all citizens and peace of Jews in Palestinian territories and Palestinians in Jewish territories is a stark contrast from some of the narratives we have seen from other leaders. I really appreciate at the end of the article as she discusses the possibility of changing to Israel to the 1967 borders. She explains that although there should not be a question of the legitimacy of Israel, Israelis must understand that “our independence came at the price of what Palestinians call the nakba (catastrophe)” (2).
I am very glad to have seen Chazan’s point of view. Often times we are shown the Israeli point of view as very adamant about protecting what feel is inherently theirs. My questions for Naomi Chazan are:
As the President of the New Israel Fund, do you see the difference your work has made in the peace process? How does the government respond to your work? What criticisms have you received because of this? How have the people you have worked with acted as a catalyst in the peace process?
No comments:
Post a Comment