Reading Response: War and Peace

The Crusades have always been a surreal, distant event to me. I learned dates and names in middle school world history; I am familiar with current-day pop culture references; I know of the brutality and bloodshed they entailed. However, it was not until reading the Armstrong chapters that I truly began to understand how much I did not understand.

As we have worked our way through the first half or so of this book, it struck me time and again how often the Jews and the Muslims worked together in Jerusalem to keep the outside enemy away. At no point was this more apparent to me than the years leading up to and during the First Crusade. Persecution, originally from local Christians but later almost entirely from those from Europe, gave Islam and Judaism sufficient common ground to walk on. The religions, at their core, also share many of the same principals: both groups placed the highest value on social justice and considered themselves the be the descendants of the great Abraham.

When the Franks arrived and decimated the city, they not only slaughtered thousands of previously peaceful and contentedly coexisting Jews and Muslims, they exiled many of the local Christians as well, determined to make Jerusalem the holy city of their Western imagination. I practically laughed aloud upon reading of the disgust of the pilgrims a generation later: the "Westerns" who had grown up in the Eastern culture of Jerusalem were "going native"-- they took regular baths, lived in houses, and wore soft clothing-- much to the horror of their "countrymen".

I have grown up in a culture and an age where the Middle East is a war-torn region of the world and Jerusalem is the center of a conflict between the Jews and Muslims who call it both home and holy. To remember that is was once a place of coexistence between Judaism and Islam-- and in a time when the West had yet to discover the virtues of bathing regularly no less-- is important, and especially important to those of us, like myself, who know nothing else. Griping over ancient grievances will get you nowhere, but to know that peace had existed in the past makes it that much more a realistic goal for the future.

Journal: Dwell Not on the Past

One afternoon last fall, my aunt called me.

"Kellie! I just read the most interesting article. I know how much you will enjoy it. You must look it up."

"I will," I replied. "What's it about? What's it called?"

"Israel and Palestine; it's so fascinating. New York Times I believe. Sunday paper."

The article was an opinion piece called Two State Illusion, written by Ian S. Lustick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. At the time I was reading it, September 2013, I knew little more than a basic outline of the conflict in Israel-Palestine. When I read the prompt for this journal assignment, I found the article and with my slightly more expanded view, I read it again.

While I don't agree with everything the author puts forth, the basic message and the last line of the piece  in particular rung true for me. Lustick emphasizes the importance of "ending the stifling reign of an outdated idea and allowing both sides to see and then adapt to the world as it is."

As an outsider looking in, the most prominent aspect of the conflict is an obsession with the past. This is both a good and bad thing. The New York Times article focuses on the two-state solution as an obsession from the past: Lustick believes it is outdated and, over the decades, has frozen the peace process. I don't feel that I am yet well enough informed to determine whether one or two states are a more agreeable outcome for both sides, but I whole-heartedly concur that nothing will be accomplished if Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans treat this conflict as if it is the same one they were dealing with in 1948, 1967, or even just ten years ago. Generations have passed since the first creation of the state of Israel. New people mean that there is a new problem, and a new problem calls for a new solution. No good will come of pretending we're in an era we're not.

A simple acceptance of the change of times seems trivial, but I believe that the next steps towards a peace process are impossible without it. This may mean the end of attempts at a two-state solution, or it may not, but so long as the politicians and the people of both nationalities are act as if nothing has changed over the years, they will continue forward on this current trajectory of nothing more than a stalemate. The "world as it is" is ever-changing. We need to keep up.

Discussion Response: Prejudice

I have always most valued discussion-based classes for the chance they offer to realize one's own preconceptions and then to have them challenged in a thoughtful manner, and to do the same for others. Every person comes with prejudices and judgmental ideas, often unbeknownst to their holder, and this is both the division that causes conflict and the source of the creativity that finds solutions. Questioning is how we as people learn, and questioning oneself is both the hardest and most important part of any education.

In discussing Karen Armstrong's book today in class, I noticed in myself a preconception differing from many others in the room. Most of my classmates were at the very least raised in a religion, and many still practice. This is common among people around the world, but not myself. My parents are not at all religious, so I grew up without much exposure to any of the major faiths. I did not, for a long time, know their foundations, their stories, or their core beliefs. So, when reading the first several Armstrong chapters, I did not have the collective memory of the history of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. It was simply an interesting history lesson, nothing more, nothing less.

Then, in class, many people commented on how the reading paralleled or conflicted with what they had been taught growing up or what they believe now. While I thought I had understood before, it was not until today that I truly began to appreciate the gravity of the conflicting histories of not only several religions but also secular studies. As someone who does not have a first hand experience growing up in faith, I will never fully be able to grasp the connection so many feel with Jerusalem and its past. I most certainly come with my own preconceptions, but, as is usual, not the ones I expected. I hope that as the semester continues I will be able to better understand religious significance of the three faiths tied to the city now knowing I view it in such a foreign way.

Reading Response: Verbatim

Last semester I took a class in the Classics Department called Introduction to the New Testament. As someone who was raised in a secular household, I had always felt that I was missing some essential part of my basic education. This lack of knowledge of major faiths and the influence they exert on modern culture has led into a deep fascination of religion. It also led me to that New Testament class, and to this class about a city so sacred to the three major monotheistic belief systems.

In the Introduction to the New Testament, I came to realize how disputed the historical life of Jesus was. The only major written sources we have are the four gospels of the Bible, the earliest of which was written decades after the death of Jesus and all of which contain the bias of being written by Christians. In Karen Armstrong's brief summary of the life, death, and rising of Jesus I recognized stories and passages from all of the gospels (whose plot lines do not always agree).

Such dissonance within just one faith of the three that hold Jerusalem so holy exemplifies just how deeply the conflict runs. The first seven chapters detail the history of the city from the earliest records thousands of years ago. However, just as the four gospels are a disputed source for "facts" about Jesus, all records, especially those so removed from the modern era, undoubtably have faults. In a city already plagued by differing beliefs about the "truth" and religious events, even the secular "history" will never be verbatim. This is a reality that emphasizes the importance of belief. This conflict has been going on far too long for what "really" happened to be much of a concern. Any solution will come only from a combination of the acceptance of today's reality, respect of "belief" as equally valuable as "fact", and a focus forward instead of back.

Journal: Week 1 Reflection

I like to think of myself as generally open minded. Throughout my life, I have always made an attempt to look at any given situation from as many points of view as possible and to respect and acknowledge others' opinions. I know that no one does this perfectly, but this first week of class was a good reminder of just how much work I still have to do.

I don't know enough about Jerusalem or the Palestine-Israel conflict to have an informed opinion on it, but the little I have heard about each side's argument I respect. However, I, like any other person, have my own personal, and sometimes unrealized, prejudices. In the readings and discussions in class this week, the depth and complexity of the tension in Jerusalem has become apparent to me in a way that it was not before. I was surprised to hear about communities of Jews that spoke primarily Arabic and Arabs who also consider themselves Israeli and hold citizenship. My preformed ideas about the culture in Palestine-Israel was not so much about generalizations as it was about the fact that I have never taken the time to sit down and really consider this city and environment that is a daily reality for millions of people.

I hope that this class will force me to spend much, much more time sitting and down and truly considering this place, these religions, these people, and these cultures in a way that will allow me to appreciate what it means to be Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Christian, Muslim, Jewish... the list goes on. The more people, even just the nine students in this class, that make an attempt at this understanding, the closer Palestine-Israel is to peace both within itself and the world around it.

Reading Response: Jerusalem, the Name

The name "Jerusalem", as the city is known in English, comes from the Hebrew word "Yerushalaim", meaning the city of peace. In Arabic, this same city is called "al-Quds al-Sharif", or the noble holy place. Despite such majestic names, Jerusalem is a city that has been in conflict practically since it began as a small village thousands of years ago.

Before beginning this class, I was only knowledgeable about the most basic facts of the Israel-Palestine conflict. While reading the essays for this week, I felt that my eyes were opened to a more thorough history of the place, the people, and the cultures, and I was able to understand the divide through the eyes of both Israelis and the Palestinians instead of as a disconnected, faraway outsider.

In this city known internationally for violence and political debacles, the beautiful meanings of the names the local people gave their home centuries ago stood out to me. Jerusalem is both a divided city and one rich in many religions and cultures. Yerushalaim and al-Quds al-Sharif represent what Israelis and Palestinians love so much about this place, the same things that are lost when Jerusalem is placed on the international political stage. When the wonders of the city, everything from the al-Asqa Mosque and the Western Wall to the favorite local bakery in a small neighborhood, are brought the forefront of the city's image, the people will be that much closer to a solution to their differences.

Questions:
1. Could the names Yerushalaim and al-Quds al-Sharif one day represent united peace and united holiness for the whole city to its residents, or are they inherently applicable to only the religion and culture the names come from? How the locals currently view this?
2. Does a place's name affect one's perception of it, even when the name is so familiar is loses meaning in daily use?

Hello!

Hi, I'm Kellie, and this is my Living Jerusalem blog. Enjoy!