Reading Response for Monday, Sept. 12

In chapters 1-4 of Karen Armstrong’s work Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, Armstrong shows the reader the BCE history of Jerusalem and the region of Israel. These chapters helped explain the history in greater detail than I have ever been given. It was interesting to hear the Bible stories and hear about people in the Bible from her historical point of view.  Her account of the history seems very balanced, despite the fact that most of her evidence comes from the Bible. She does not claim that anything belongs to a certain group; Armstrong simply informs the audience on what evidence exists and what scholars have been able to determine.  I learned very much regarding the development of Jerusalem and the early stages of the creation of Israel and the progress of religion in the region. 

In chapter 1, Armstrong discusses the creation of sacredness to people. She points out that despite modern developments and rationalism, one thing in our existence that still hasn’t altered is the importance of sacred places. In her description, a place becomes sacred when it is tied to our identity in some way. Somehow, these places are different than any other places we have been, and even if a person is not religious, he or she still holds certain physical locations to a higher importance than others. In the creation of the sacredness of Jerusalem, Armstrong describes King David’s creation of Israel as a holy spot. David made Israel an important spot but claiming it his capital of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Not only did he improve Jerusalem from its prior status, but he made it the center of the religion of Yahweh. According to Armstrong, the Covenant of the Ark was hidden and protected in another city. David decided that he wanted to transport the Ark from this location to Jerusalem. History claims that this physical representation of Yahweh would not move by human force; it decided where it would move. David successfully had it moved, and this therefore showed the people and the believers of Yahweh that Jerusalem would become a sacred spot because it became the resting place of the ark. For this reason, Jerusalem became the important Jewish city that it remains today. 

Throughout the chapters, Armstrong alludes to several events or beliefs that resonate with the ideas of today regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For instance, in chapter 1 she cites “Terror in stories of Jerusalem,” the idea that there is always two opposing forces in the city. There is the sea and the desert and the stark contrast between the two strong ideas. It reminded me of the two opposing ideas that would challenge the peace of Jerusalem thousands of years later. In addition, Armstrong also describes the state of Jerusalem and the phenomenon that “War was waged for the sake of peace” (18). This idea also echoes in modern day.  And the section that stuck out to me the most was when on page 31 Armstrong states, “As always the new creation depended upon the destruction of others- a motif that would frequently recur in the future history of Jerusalem.” In the Pressman readings from last week, he highlights the fact that in the creation of Israel in the 1940s and 1950s, Israelis wanted to cleanse their land of Palestinians to create their homogenous nation-state. The concept of coexistence seems like a lofty goal.

Finally, the description of the way people used to think and conceptualize ideas is very different than today. I was surprised to realize that in the early days of Judaism, King David still worshiped many gods. In addition, his son Solomon created the Temple, yet he also allowed for other pagan gods to be worshipped there as well. In contrast from the way God is viewed today, I find it fascinating that the creation of a Temple was incredibly important because that was where a human could communicate with the divine. In present day, the common thought is that one can communicate with God no matter where he or she is or what he or she is doing. The temple that Solomon built on Mount Zion became a manifestation of the people’s religious beliefs in Yahweh, but is still extremely different than the way people worship today. Most interestingly, Armstrong concludes this thought with her statement that the “Temple was an act of conquest, a means of occupying the Promised Land with divine backing” (54). It was not enough for the people to claim that Yahweh wanted them to occupy this area; they legitimized the religion and their beliefs through a physical structure.

The readings allowed me to visualize the region more and understand the history from 1000s of years ago that still has relevance to today’s world.

Reading Response for Wednesday, Sept. 7

The readings for September 7^th, “Jerusalem: Then and Now,” by Mick Dumper, “The History of Jerusalem,” by Rashid Khaladi, “Jerusalem: The Holy City through the Ages,” by Rehav Rubin, and “A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” by Jeremy Pressman, all give detailed accounts of the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the implications of that in today’s world. In the article, “Jerusalem: Then and Now,” Dumper gives a historical account of the different conquests of Jerusalem and the different religions that all revere Jerusalem. He notes that the popularity and sacredness of Jerusalem must come from religion, because it does not have natural resources or a good geographical location (5). As all the articles touch on, Jerusalem belonged to the Canaanites, then the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Maccabeans, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, then back to Muslims, Ottomans, British, then Israelites. This long string of leadership and different ethnic and cultural groups that have ruled the city make it an important site for many people. Most news articles support the idea that Jerusalem’s original citizens were the Jewish people. However, from the perspective of Rashid Khalidi, an Arab, the Palestinian people are the descendants of the original people, not the Jewish people. Throughout his article he reinforces the idea that much of history has been taught wrongly, yet people do not question its validity because it has always been said or told in such a way. It is interesting that Khalidi would have this different perspective because he is Arab, and it reminds me of people having told me that they were raised to believe Israeli is “their land” because they are Jewish. Khalidi must have been taught the exact same thing. 

The readings also discuss the present day conflict, beginning in the early 20^th century with the Zionist movement gaining popularity. The different authors more or less relate the same story, however, the usage of different words and the framing of the story differs. For instance, Pressman, Khalidi and Dumper allude to the ‘uprooting’ of the Palestinian people, and although they discuss some of the attacks carried out by Palestinians, mostly focus on the wrongs of the Israeli state. In Khalidi’s eyes, Jersualem still remains a highly segregated city where confusion reigns, while Rubin states, “Jerusalem, with all its municipal and political complexities, became a united city where Jews and Muslims, some secular and some religious could live side by side” (5).  The author’s background and religion has a major impact on how he or she views Jerusalem. 

Finally, in “A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” Pressman gives detailed accounts of the modern-day struggle for autonomy and Israel’s fight for recognition. In regards to the value of this reading, I believe that it gave me a lot of insight and information on matters that had previously been confusing. As the author explained the years leading up to the creation of Israel and how Israel has had so much success, I understand the disorganization of the Palestinian people and the organization of the Jewish people. Through this article I was surprised to learn about the extent that Palestinians have suffered. Loss of freedom, lack of economic means, and lack of citizenship among refugees all show the plight of the uprooted people. However, his article rarely focuses on the struggles of the Jewish people in Israel. Pressman also touches on two very important effects that the struggle has had on both nations. He states, “Palestinians still lack a nation-state, the basic unit of international affairs. They are widely dispersed, and the original generation that lost their homes in 1948 is gradually dying off” (14). He also highlights the struggle that Israel has: “…lacks a sense of normalcy with its wider region. Recognition, legitimacy, and normalcy remain elusive objectives” (15). 

I was interested in learning the different perspectives of the authors and how their backgrounds affected the way they saw the problem. Through the readings I also gained a better understanding of what the creation of Israel meant for different groups. What was liberating for some was a death sentence for others.

Weblog Journal Assignment 1: Reflections on the first week

After our first session of the class Living Jerusalem, I am really looking forward to diving into the discussion and dialog. I do understand, however, that this class will be a challenge for me as I am still unfamiliar with all of the dimensions of the conflict. That being said, I do think that I need to realign my thinking in regards to the conflict. As I learned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict growing up, before learning about the religious and cultural differences of both involved parties, I would always wonder, “Why can’t they just get along? I have Muslim friends and Jewish friends and we all go to school together. These people need to give it up and move on!” Then I quickly realized it was much more than a simple problem that could be fixed. Not to mention, as an American Christian, even though Christianity has important roots in Jerusalem, I do not (yet!) feel any personal connection to the city, and this poses a problem when examining the issues. For a long time I could not comprehend why people feel so strongly about this certain issue. Because I am taking Arabic and am often surrounded by Arabs, I am exposed to intense opinions about the topic. On the other hand, an Israeli friend of mine has also exposed me to his side of the story. After discussing the conflict with friends and seeing their points of view, I do not feel more enlightened or as though I may have a solution; on the contrary, I feel even more confused and helpless. In this aspect, I see the difficulties that this class may present. For example, after seeing the film, Bridge over the Wadi, a documentary that explains the challenges that accompany a bilingual, bicultural school in Israel, I felt as if there was no way to change the ways and the mindsets of both groups. In the readings I was even struck by the fact that the researchers for the Smithsonian Folklife Festival in D.C. from both the Israeli and the Palestinian side felt the tension during the planning of the exhibit. Where is the hope when the people in charge and motivating the peace dialogs still feel frustrated? I hope that through this class I can begin to understand the progress that is taking place between Israelis and Palestinians and become more aware of solutions. It is also my hope that the people in Israel can see that we as Americans are interested in trying to help find a solution and not complicate matters more. I hope that they can see the diversity in our classroom and know that we believe it is possible that they achieve peace. Most importantly, however, as the readings discussed, I want to learn more about the individuals living their daily lives in Jerusalem. I have so many political ideas clouding my view of daily life and I hope to gain more of an understanding of that. It is my goal to not just think of Jerusalem as a “disputed city,” but as a place where people have lives and families and friends, just as the Israelis and the Palestinians working toward the exhibit at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival attempted to show. I am looking forward to learning from my classmates and understanding their personal connections to Jerusalem and how their backgrounds and experiences have shaped their opinions.