Steps to a Solution

Tensions may be too intense right now to implement a successful solution.  But we can take steps to improve the situation and then a solution can be successful.  There needs to be a focus on improving tolerance and acceptance of the other side and I believe this should start with the children.

 If the Children living in Palestine and Israel are only told the stories of how the other people have done their people wrong, the conflict will never improve.  This only encourages the “Us vs Them” mentality that is why I think tolerance programs need to be emphasized in classrooms.  Hands in Hands are schools that focus on bilingual education and the school has an equal number of Arab and Israeli students with one Israel teacher and one Arab teacher.  Students learn side by side and play with one another.  Arabs have sleepovers at Israelis and vice versa.  This is a link goes to a Youtube video that explains the school’s setup:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seblkkKosXk

To the Isreali children, the Arabs are their friends with many similarities to them.  The same is felt by the Arab children.  Below is an excerpt of an article entitled Peace Studies: The Children of Israel:

Two members of the fourth-grade class, Yazid Ershed, the Arab boy, who asked about the drinks machines, and Aviv Pek, the Jewish girl, who asked about the library, have grown up together in the school having been at the kindergarden together. Discussing what the school means to them yesterday, they completed each other's sentences several times. "I like the school and I really like the teachers," says Aviv. "I have lots of Arab friends. One of my best friends is an Arab girl and, of course, she comes to my house."

The point is echoed by Yazid: "I have Jewish friends too," he says. "We go to each other's houses. We play football, we play with computers or we just talk."

My thinking is that if kids begin to see the enemy as people with feelings and many similarities, acceptance will increase.  The more people stop focusing on the differences and get to know people from the other side, I believe the focus will shift to how to deal with how to improve the situation.  According to the students at Hands in Hands:

Conscious that outside the school Jewish and Arab children remain segregated, Yazid says: "If they all went to school together there would be no war. They would live next to each other in peace and not fighting each other." What did their friends from segregated school think about them coming here? "When I tell them I go to a Jewish Arab school, they are very surprised," says Yazid. "They don't understand it." Aviv recalls: "A woman who is a neighbour started shouting at my father: 'Poor girl, what is she going to learn from the Arabs?' She doesn't understand that Arabs have a life, they are nice people and not the monsters of the city."

The students understand and know their friendships are not accepted but this does not stop Israelis and Arab children from becoming friends at this school.  These children will grow up with the memories of these friends they made at this school.  Even though their lives may end up going in separate directions, these children will still have the understanding the other side is not that much different.  Then maybe, they can take the steps to improve life in Jerusalem.

Final Chapters of Armstrong's Book

These final chapters of Armstrong’s book, in my opinion, were the one of the most confusing chapters in this book.  I believe this is because so many different events took place during this time that I am already familiar with.  I was trying to tie things in that I knew with Armstrong’s account, and this is the first time I had prior knowledge of the history. 

These chapters made me wonder what would the region and conflict be like today if the Holocaust had never happened.  The holocaust intensified the Zionist movement and it almost solidified the argument that the only way Jews were going to avoid discrimination was to have their own homeland.  Armstrong seems to have implied an almost pity to the people who suffered from the Holocaust.  To make up for the atrocities they faced, the UN and other western countries wanted to give the Jews what they desired so they supported the movement to Israel.  It seems the Holocaust was a contributing factor to the creation of the state of Israel.  I do not know if the UN would be so supportive the initial Israeli movement without the guilt many of the world leaders felt when they realized how long the Holocaust lasted without their help. 

This past weekend, I celebrated Easter and because of this class, I find myself more focused on the land Jesus walked than the story of his Resurrection.  This land is a holy land, arguably the most holy grounds on Earth, therefore, it should be the very last place for such a conflict as this.  Yet, Armstrong has shown that it is part of the history of Jerusalem and this land was battled over since it has been inhabited.    

Chapters 11-13

I learned a lot from these chapters and I really enjoyed the description of how Islam came to be.  I found it quite interesting that Muhammad really did not have much intention in creating a new religion.  He was trying to perfect the old one, yet his works led to one of the most influential religions in the world today.  I also did not know the split between Shiite and Sunni sects happened so early in the religion. 

A common motif I am finding throughout the history of Jerusalem is that the majority of the citizens at any given time are able to coexist.  Problems happen when a minority start voicing their strong opinions and taking action.  This was clear in these chapters.  In al-Quds, Armstrong mentions multiple times how the Islamic caliphs did not try and wipe out the Christian religion.  Although there was some competition between the groups, they seemed to live together and respected the others’ faith.  Then al-Hakim became the Fatimid caliph and he started attacking Christians and Jews, and then eventually Muslims.  Also, the way in which Armstrong describes the Crusades paints the picture in my head that people of different faiths were coexisting until outsiders came in and decided to take control.  After the first one, relationships improved and some Franks took up Islamic traditions, like the women wearing head scarves.  Again, different faiths were able to coexist…until again, people from the west decided otherwise.  It seems to me, the majority of people were able to live their lives without being surrounded by people of only their religion.  The majority of people had some sense of tolerance and acceptance of their neighbors.  Applying this idea to the situation today, I find it quite similar.  There are so many people in Jerusalem, Palestine, and Israel, and European countries, Asian countries, and countries of the Americas all trying to have dialogue and find solutions to this conflict.  It seems to me, the minority are the people standing in the way of tolerance.  I do understand the problem is much more complicated than what I reference to in the previous sentence.  However, it makes me question, with so many people, with the majority of the people, working through dialogue, why does the solution to this conflict seem so impossible? 

Differing views of Homelands

Questions for Ms. Said:

1.        Over your twenty years of work, how have your views over the conflict in Jerusalem changed?

2.       In one of the interviews we watched, Mr. Barenboim said he would like to have more performances in the West Bank and other places enduring the conflict.  Have there been any more performances in these areas or is there still an effort to try and make this possible?

Response to Readings:

I found “Homeland Redefined: Spaces of National Belonging” to be very interesting and have a great understanding   of how this land means much more to establishing their “collective identity”.  Both groups are attached to this land because it has taken on a powerful meaning of their identity.  I found this a very interesting contrast when in “Parallels and Paradoxes” Mr. Said and Mr. Barenboim talk about where they feel at home.  They feel at home when they are able to play music.  It does not depend on the land they are standing; rather, it depends on the feelings they get when they produce music.  “The sense of identity is a set of currents, flowing currents, rather than a fixed place or a stable set of objects” (5).  I find this an interesting idea, and I have been questioning myself on how much I agree with this statement.  Both of these men admit to not holding special memories to specific objects.  They do not keep memorabilia or many photos for nostalgic purposes.  I am very different in this sense because I do keep little mementos of important happenings in my life.  When I get these objects out, it takes me back to that specific place in time.  I also know, when I go home and visit my family, I feel at home more than I do at my apartment in Columbus.  So when I first read Barenboim’s argument that “home” is not a specific place, I disagreed.  However, then I began to think why my hometown home gave me that feeling.  It is not because of the land my house is on, but it is because it brings me back to the feelings I had when I had a steady home base.  Since college, between dorms, apartments, internships, and coops, I have not stayed in the same area for more than a couple months so when I go home, I get the feeling of a steady home base and that it is comforting to me.  After thinking of it in these terms, I realize that Said and Barenboim to have a point when they say identity is flowing currents. 

Another point that becomes apparent in Dabdoub’s article is the Palestinians and the Israeli have an “Us versus Them” mentality that is enforced in the children’s education.  “Palestinian children learn…they have common struggles against a common enemy…the Jews” (Nabdoub 18) and similarly, “Israel teaches its children that they are a part of a primordial national community…[and] that in building that state, they encountered an unpredictable and irrational enemy, the Arabs…” (Nabdoub 13).  This is what I believe is the underlying problem to the conflict.  The people of this land think in an “us versus them” state of mind where a victory to one is seen as a defeat to the other.  Dialogue can only go so far when people have this mentality.  The fact that this is taught at such a young age will only make the conflict last longer and it will be more intense.  I believe the par t of the solution to this conflict lies in changing this mentality, starting with the young citizens.

Chapter 8-10

I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Armstrong is not a fan of Christianity in Jerusalem.  Constantly throughout these chapters, she seems to have a derogatory tone when she discusses Christian’s presence in Jerusalem.  She seems to constantly question Christian’s legitimacy when they claim a site is holy.  According to Armstrong, “Jerusalem had no special status on the Christian map” (171).  Christianity was not based on one site like Judaism focused around the temple.  One of the main teachings Jesus taught was one can find God anywhere.  Armstrong explains this when she talks about Origen who believed one would get “a spiritual experience by visiting a mere geographical location” (171).  This is true in the teachings I grew up with, we are supposed to live like Jesus, like a poor man, and you are able to be close to God at any place in the world.  Also, she states at first, Christians thought Jerusalem was a “Guilty City” because it is where Jesus was betrayed.  However, she then uses this fact to question why Christians move back and make a claim to Jerusalem.  “As soon as the tomb had been discovered…Christians started to evolve their own mythology” (183).  According to Armstrong, Christian at the time “claimed” that this cave was the tomb with little proof and therefore reformed their religion to make claims in Jerusalem.  I do not think Armstrong is saying important events of the religion did not happen in Jerusalem, but I believe she is presenting an argument that Christians should not be able to make claims to this land.

I also question her knowledge of certain aspects of the history of Christianity.  According to Armstrong, “he had very little understanding of its theology and delayed his baptism until he was on his deathbed, he would continue to be loyal to the church” (175).  Constantine has been thought of as a man who did try and study theology and learn as much as he could about Christianity and not getting baptized until one is on his deathbed was a common practice in early Christianity.  At this time in history, sacraments were not instituted and baptism was seen as a way to cleanse away all earthly sins.  Thus it made sense for people at this time to wipe their sins right before they died.   I believe she does not have an understanding of the history of Christianity and therefore she comes off, to me, as slightly biased against Christianity.

Chapter 5-7

The Chapters 5-7 gave me a slightly better understanding to why the Jewish Zion movement chose Jerusalem as their settlement.  In chapter 5, Second Isaiah focused his Zion for Yahweh in Jerusalem and the main focus was the rebuilding of the temple.  The people became focused on building this temple back in Jerusalem.  Then in chapter 6, Armstrong talks about how the teachings of apocalypse became fundamental to the religions of the days.  The teachings of the End of History centered around Jerusalem as well.

 “God would gather the twelve tribes of Israel together from all the lands of their dispersion and bring them to Jerusalem…Now the people of Israel would eliminate all their enemies, who incarnated the evil of chaos and destruction, and create a better world…The setting for this final act of redemption was always Jerusalem” (115). 

This gave me a greater understanding of the connection present Jews have to this land.  It seems to be an integral part of the religion; the apocalypse brings the people back to Jerusalem so clearly it is a holy land in their hearts. 

I am not saying that this is the basis for justifying Israel’s position.  As we said in class, we are to look at this history to get an understanding of how things became important to these people.  These chapters definitely aided my understanding of the importance of Jerusalem to the Jewish community.

Reactions to Chapter 1-4

I really enjoyed the explanation of the religion of this land in ancient times.  Each city praised its founding god and for Jerusalem this was Shalem but then the Hurrians brought the new god, Baal.  Then Baal was replaced by Yahweh.  According to Armstrong, once the temple was built for Yahweh, “Yahweh was now the ruler of Jerusalem and because Israel was his people, the land became theirs” (53).  I find it interesting that the temple was the requirement for the city to belong to that god.  The reason I enjoyed this part of Armstrong’s history is because, rather than just give a documentation of events that happened, we get an idea of their culture and how their lives were shaped.  People needed a god for their city but it’s interesting to me that this god changed with different rulers.  The temple becomes the central focus when Isaiah came to power.  He strives to make the temple the center of the world where all creatures would live in harmony.  The idea of harmony revolved around this one temple for Yahweh.  Also, showing the importance of the temple, when the Babylonians destroyed the temple, it was seen as proof that the kingdom of Judah was gone.  “In the ancient world, the destruction of a royal temple was tantamount to the destruction of the state, which could not survive without a “center” linking it to heaven” (77).  I find the extent of how the city relied on the temple quite remarkable.

Another aspect of their lives I thought was interesting was their idea of holy places.  According to Armstrong, cities were considered holy places and human beings could never decide where to build a city, temple, or any kind of shrine.  The area had to be chosen somehow, by a god.  Although Armstrong explains that almost any incidence or unusual feature could be seen as holy: “the unknown, the alien. Or even the perfect seemed to the men and women of archaic societies to point to something other than themselves” (9).  Thus mountains were often seen as a holy center because it brought one closer to heaven.  Thus, these peoples’ lives revolved around what they saw as holy.  Also, David’s first attempt to bring the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem failed because a man had died by touching it.  To the people, this meant that Yahweh did not approve of this move.  As Armstrong put it, “It was not up to human beings to establish a holy place on their own initiative: the sanctity of a site had to be revealed” (41).  To me, this shows the piety and of the people at this time.  Even though much of the history has to deal with battles and new kingdoms taking over other kingdoms, the reader still gets the sense that these people are humble.  The picture is of the Ark of the Covenant.  I decided to include the picture because it was so important to the people and I wanted to get an idea of how ornate this object was. 

History of the Jerusalem Conflict

The conflict happening in Jerusalem is so complex that it makes sense that the history of the city is just as, if not more complex than the current status.  It seems to be a land that has had to deal with so many different leaders.  I believe Khalidi says it best in his beginning paragraph, Jerusalem’ has “a history rooted in the ancient religious struggles of the past and the nominally religious disputes of today, embellished with the thick stratum of nationalist rivalry.”  The reason I am so interested in Jerusalem is because of the complexity given in this statement.  People today are motivated by the suffering and passion of their forefathers; each group has great pride in their people and wants what their forefathers wanted and fought for. 

 I enjoyed Rubin’s article because she took extra time to explain the history of Jerusalem before the commencement of Christianity and Islam.  I also enjoyed the biblical references and it reminded me that this city was treasured many centuries before my faith came about.  Although there were times of peace between the different religions, I feel these times were few and far between.  Between the attacks by the Persians, the Byzantine take over, and the crusades, the fight over the land seems to have be ongoing since the beginning of Jerusalem.  The more modern history is just as complex, and I found the modern history harder to understand and “keep up with” than the entire history.  After reading Pressman’s article, I know feel I have a better understanding of the current conflict, however, by the end, my brain was aching trying to keep track of the different mandates, and failed peace efforts.  I find this fact that the modern history gives me more confusion than the ancient history very ironic; however, I believe it represents my feelings about the current situation.  It is such a multifaceted issue that it is sometimes hard to keep up, but I also feel that this is why peace dialogues are extremely important.