resolving the conflict

I believe Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abba, is taking the right steps by formally seeking membership for a state of Palestine from the United Nations Security Council. Continually sourcing the pre-1967 borders of the UN mandate is not relevant today. Palestine realizes it must present itself as a legitimate entity to the international community in order to obtain its sovereignty. I believe they are taking the right steps by seeking membership from the UN and not negotiating with Israel and the United States. The US and Israel use their strength to push the terms of negotiation in their favor. Palestine will have a much more favorable outcome if it involves the entire international community. This will allow for more transparency in negotiations and less back door deals cut between allies of either Palestine or Israel.

As for Jerusalem being the capital of either state...I do not believe Jerusalem should be the capital of either state. I believe the city should be owned by no country and should be an international city. The residents of Jerusalem can choose either to be a Israeli or Palestinian resident for their citizenship and pay into that state. As for running and retaining the city of Jerusalem, a body will be elected democratically to run the city and the people who do live in the area of Jerusalem will not only pay into the state they live in, but will also pay a residential tax for living in the city of Jerusalem.

ideas for final project

My final project will have to do with the identity of Jerusalem. I will focus on the music which is created and celebrated in the city. I will research music from a variety of religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. My objective is to describe the city of Jerusalem, acoustically. Music is a mode of expression which is loved universally among people. It is one of the only outlets in the world which all people can relate to in one way or another. I believe presenting identity through this mode of expression will enable me to show an encompassing and hopeful view of Jerusalem.   

Question for Naomi...

In Armstrong's text she tells that on 31 July 1988, King Hussein made a declaration in which he relinquished Jordan's claim to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This relinquished territory was then turned into Arab hands and became the Palestinian nation. From a political stand point, what was Jordan’s reasoning for handing over the territory?

Can we begin to think of Jerusalem in terms of her own identity?

I will focus on the concluding chapter, Zion, to share my final thoughts of “Jerusalem, One City, Three Faiths”.  In my Foundations of Modern Political Thought class we have just finished reading Plato’s “The Republic”. I find Armstrong’s comments in the chapter Zion quite relatable to Plato’s statements in “The Republic”. Plato says a city must have its pieces in a harmonious balance, in order to function; but first the individuals, who live within the society, must harmonize their souls. Without focusing on balancing the soul of the citizens, the city will fail, for the people will act unjustly, even though the institutions are set up for success.

Armstrong strongly asserts that the “deep fissure within Israeli society’ (Page 408) has deeply hurt the Jewish people individually and as a whole. She points to the Holocaust as a major reason why the Jewish people felt so torn. “The Nazi catastrophe had inflicted a wound that was too deep to be healed by more cerebral consolidations.  The old myths- an ancient form of psychology-could reach to a deeper, less rationally articulate level of the soul. The new Jewish passion for the holiness for Jerusalem… was powerful not because it was legal or reasonable but precisely because it was a myth.” (Page 406)

Although the Jews had possession of Israel, they have not found wholeness within themselves. Within a few months of the ‘unification’ of the city, there was a new ‘partition’ at the Western Wall. The southern end was now a historic, ‘secular’ zone; the old praying area was the domain of the religious; and in between was a neutral zone- a new No Man’s Land. On two occasions in the summer of 1969, the worshippers actually charged through the barbed-wire fence in order to liberate this neutral area for god. (Page 409) From the disputes between the Orthodox and Secular Jews on how to build their Zion and treat their sacred places, to how to treat the Palestinians and their sacred places, different sects of Jews where constantly disputing the future. A major a defining blow came to many Israelis when in November 1995; Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was murdered after speaking at a peace rally in Tel Aviv. “Israelis learned that the assassin was another Jew, who declared that he had acted under God’s direction and that is was permissible to kill anybody who was prepared to give sacred land of Israel to the enemy.” (Page 425) Armstrong makes a moving comment on these travesties by saying, “as soon as the prime duty to respect the divinity enshrined in other human beings is forgotten, ‘God’ can be made to give a divine seal of absolute approval to our own prejudices and desires. (424)

Another moving comment made by Armstrong is when she says, “Sometimes when confronting a shrine Jews, Christians, and Muslims have felt that they have had a startling and moving encounter with themselves. This can make it very difficult for them to see Jerusalem and its problems objectively. Many of the difficulties arise when religion is seen primarily as a quest for identity. One of the functions of faith is to help us build up a sense of self: to explain where we have come from and why our traditions are distinctive and special. But that is not the sole purpose of religion.” (Page 423) I believe this comment parallels nicely with Naomi Chazan’s article, Owning Our Identity. Chazan says the Israeli state of today should be striving for the right of self-determination, not self-definition because introducing a loyalty oath and demanding external recognition of a ‘Jewish State’ is not sufficient way to legitimize the state of Israel.

From the text which has been read thus far in this course, I have become much more knowledgeable of the history of this region. Although I am more knowledgeable, this does not make the question of peace within the region a more attainable answer. On the contrary, it generates more difficultly.  At this point, I believe that re-defining, re-thinking what this territory is and what it means for the many people who call it home is of major importance. Can we begin to think of Jerusalem in terms of her own identity, not defining her by the majority population who possess at the present time?  Jerusalem has a rich religious, cultural, and ethnic heritage which should not be over burdened by manmade entities such as political power and borders.  

Armstrong ends the text with mixed image, that of violence and hope. Violence has been a re-occurring theme in this land since its birth, but if peace can be found, “Zion would indeed become a beacon of hope for the whole world-a light to the nations.” (430)

Owning Our Identity

Naomi Chazan’s article, Owning Our Identity, had a rational tone, which I appreciated when reading her argument for an Israeli state. She speaks of the Prime Minister’s demands for Palestinians and the international community to recognize a Jewish state. She responds to this by pointing out that instituting a loyalty oath and demanding external recognition of a "Jewish state" is not a sufficient way to legitimize the state of Israel. She says this strategy ignores the complexities of the conflict and such recognition is both useless and impossible.  Chazan argues using majority population, as the defining element of its political system, is a problematic concept of a state.  Chazan says, “The fact that Israel has no straightforward route to citizenship for non-Jews and no viable immigration policy mirrors the contradictions and inequities of a ‘Jewish state,’ in which the machinery of government is geared to the well-being primarily of the majority population.” The point I believe Chazan is trying to make is that the Israeli state should be striving for the right of self-determination not the self-definition and recognition.  This self-determination should be held by all citizens of the state (majority and minority) so as to remain an open, egalitarian, and just democracy.

comments on the video conference

I really enjoyed our video conference with Salim Tamari. Two things which really triggered my interest during the discussion were identity building and international involvement in the peace agreement. I have always been interested in the way that people perceive themselves and others. I found it interesting when Salim pointed out that many of the people in Jerusalem come from the same genealogies and blood lines, but categories themselves as different. The differences they see in themselves has to do with the religion they practice. This religion tells the story of different histories, although in reality, their ancestors where and are interconnected.

I also found it interesting when we spoke of what identity is built from or shifted by. The examples we came up with deal with time and space; war, travel, feeling of loss, ect.

Lastly, I enjoyed Salim's perspective on the international's community’s influence on the peace talks. I agree with Salim that mediating counties should lend a helping hand in diplomacy, rather than military resources. Also I found in interesting that Salim pointed out we must understand that Palestine and Israel do not have equal resources and leverage in the situation. I liked the image he created, of Palestine and Israel forced to stay in a room, alone, until they came up with a viable solution. The image helps us understand that it is ignorant to look at the situation in a elementary way and mediating countries must understand the complexities in order to offer a true helping hand.

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.