how many ways can we argue a point?

The Nativist Ethnography of Tawfiq Canaan was another way to justify a group of people's claim to the disputed land of Palestine and Israel. There have been so many ways in which people of this area have claimed that the land belongs to them. Quoting religious text, pointing to blood lines, occupation history, political agreements, history of rule; the list can go on and on. What Canaan aimed to do was find another way of justifying the Palestinians' claim to the land by showing ways in which  Palestinian peasantry culture has influenced the traditions of the area. An interesting point brought up in Salim Tamari article is that the ethnographic evidence was written not for an Arabic intellectual class, but written in English and targeted to an European audience, i.e. the Mandate political elite, Western biblical scholars, archeologist, and historians. With his work, Cannan was trying to challenge a colonial policy that questioned the authenticity of Palestinian roots in the land.

In my opinion it is a waist of time to use intellectual energy to create new claims to the disputed land. In the end, there will be a counter argument, and no forward progress will be made in creating solutions to the conflict. I hope that one day people can re-evaluate what is important, and funnel their knowledge and energy appropriately. We are speaking of a piece of disputed land yes, but this in no ordinary political situation, which will have an ordinary solution. We are speaking of a disputed piece of 'sacred geography' which people have been making claims of ownership to for thousands of years.

What is it going to take? Of course I do not have the answers, but I feel that this far, no one has come up with any answer which is well thought out enough or novel enough for this sacred space.
    

paradise lost?

I was anxious and excited for Armstrong to begin speaking of Islam and its influences on the world. I do not know much about Islam. I found it very interesting that Islam was founded on the idea of turning back to "orginal perfection of God..." and "the whole of Islam, therefore, can be seen as a quest  for wholeness, a return to paradise that human beings had lost." (P218) I knew that Judaism, Chiristainy, and Islam where all founded on similair foundadtions and build from the Abrahamic traditions, but it seems to me, atleast in its beginings, Islam was more of a rethinking, not a new religion within itself.

Also, in comparsion with  previous talk of the sacred, orgianlly Muhammad had no interest in placing importance on a sacred place. It was important to intergrate daily life into their faith, because God created the earth and the people, which is sacred within its own. It was only after Muhammad realised that, "human beings need symbols to focus on..." that three different places where regarded as sacred to Islam.

I also found it quite interesting that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque, but a shrine. The shrine surrounds the area in which Muslims believe Muhammad had ascended to heaven after his Night Journey. Even though the Dome was more extravagent than most Islamic sites had been in the past, the space represted. "the primal harmoney of paradise."  

Frustrations

What makes people turn to tangible objects in order to feel whole? By the end of the reading for tonight, the Christian populations in Jerusalem where claiming the land as their holy place as the Jews had done previously. It is interesting to me that human nature has not changed much throughout history. People are still fighting over a piece of land as they have in the past, yet now we have more variables which make the situation all the more complex. Today we not only have religion, tradition, and politics, which inflame the issue, but also the claim to history. Just the mere fact that Jerusalem has been a focal point of three of the main religions of the world for thousands of years is enough of a reason to make the city a complicated issue. Yet, it seems that this issue will never be resolved because I do not see that humans have learned from the past. It does not seem that the issue of Jerusalem has found any compelling answer, and worse than stagnation of answers, I just see a continuous destructive cycle. I feel that Jerusalem is one of the best real world examples (historically, traditionally, culturally, politically), which sheds light on the fact that the world will change around us, before we, who inhabit this world will budge, even slightly. 

images which shed light on me...

camping and being outside

always supporting and jamming with my best buds' band

cooking for my friends every sunday night

going to see live music!!!

playing with my our kitty, Peanut

hanging out on our porch

collecting quotes

riding bikes

reading

my room!

arts and crafts

hanging out with friends!

"If a stranger lives with you in your land, do not molest him...You must count him as one of your countrymen and love him as yourself- for you yourselves were once strangers in Egypt."

I find the evolution of Judaism very complex and interesting. I never knew that in the ancient past, people felt they had to be in their homeland, at the shrine they created for their God, in order to make contact. Today religions still have symbolic and scared places in which the few have the opportunity to visit and place of worship where people go daily, weekly, monthly, but there is no loss of hope if these places are not visited. Religious people of today can feel close to their God, in all or most circumstance. Armstrong shows the importance of the place in the past when she says, “The loss of homeland meant that the link with heaven, which alone made life supportable, had been broken. In the sixth century, the Judahite exiles expressed this by saying that their world had come to an end.”

I also found it interesting that in the time period of Ezekiel, the goal of creating a holy city was to radically separate the place and it’s people from the rest of the world, “just as God is radically separate from all other beings, so too Israel…” Not only was the city being isolated, but laws were put in place in an, “attempt to make Israel a ‘holy’ and separate people [and] marriage ‘outside’ was equivalent to leaving the sacred enclave and going out into godless wilderness…”

“A ruthless tendency to exclude other people would henceforth become a characteristic of the history of Jerusalem, even though this ran strongly counter to some of Israel’s most important traditions.” This quote, along with the ones above, shed light on the dynamic of religion and politics intertwining. The exiled were treated well and encouraged to participate in Babylonian life when there, and religion gave them hope of the return to their homeland. Yet, once the exiled returned, kindness and openness to others, in return, was stricken down by a religious- political agenda. This, as in many cases in the past, show to me, why religion and politics cannot co-exist in formal policy making and why Jerusalem has always and will always be a overwhelmingly complex case. 

idea for class blog design

After reading Armstrong's intro I have come up with an idea for the imagine representing Jerusalem. Creating a collage of symbolic images, which Jerusalemities religiously connect to, ranging from the most natural (mountains and gardens) to the most man-made and politicized (walls and infrastructure) would be wholly inclusive. We would have to find symbols which represent each religion in both ways and find a meaningful way to place them all together. Maybe find one image, to place in the middle, which all three populations feel connected to. 

stepping out of our academic comfort zone...

To ask if a writing on Jerusalem is a balanced account seems like a paradox within itself. I have come to feel that no matter how eagerly someone tries to be objective when writing on Jerusalem some personal belief and political attitude will seep through your well thought out words.

With this being said, I do believe that Armstrong's thesis question is a interesting way to look at the history of Jerusalem. She says in her concluding paragraph of the introduction, "this book will not attempt to lay down the law about the future of Jerusalem. That would be presumption. It is merely an attempt to find out what Jews, Christians, and Muslims have meant when they have said that the city is 'holy' to them and to point out some of the implications of Jerusalem's sanctity in each tradition." With this thesis, she sets up the reader for a history saturated with sacred, mythical, and symbolic context. If there is any other way to look at the history of Jerusalem, I would not know how.

I also like how Armstrong plainly lays out the importance of mythology when speaking of a holy city. She says, "mythology was never designed to describe historically verifiable events that actually happened." It was an attempt to express their inner significance or to draw attention to realities that were too elusive to be discussed in a logically coherent way." She then goes on to say stories of Jerusalem should not be dismissed because they are only 'myths'. The mythical attributes are vitally important to Jerusalem's history. Instead of dismissing the myths, for their not so historical backing, we should study, understand, and critique them on the basis of their relevance to Jerusalem and her people.

Jerusalem's uniqueness

When reading the Pressman article an important question arose…why in May, 1967 did the UN willing leave the Sinai Peninsula where they had been since late 1956 when it was requested of by Egypt? Immediately after the UN peacekeeping unit left the area, Nasser announced that Egypt course of action was to liberate Palestine and enter in battle with Israel. It seems irresponsible of the international community to comply with Egypt’s request in light of the continual conflict in the region. I am wondering if there were any bilateral agreements between UN countries during the time of the decision or some other explanation for this move.

Another interesting comment that was made by Dumper in his article was why Jerusalem has been disputed over throughout the years. He says that geographically and economically, the growth and importance of Jerusalem just does not make sense. He claims Jerusalem’s uniqueness is essentially political and religious. I completely agree with this statement and feel that this is why the Arab-Israeli conflict is all the more complicated. When a conflict is entrenched with religious, political, and ideological confrontation; irrationality and passion will override reasonable solutions.