blog 3/20

            While living in Jerusalem last spring I was very curious about how accepting a community full of different religious groups were towards LGBTQ.  I knew that in Tel Aviv there was a large LGBTQ population, however I was unsure about Jerusalem.  I found the websites assigned in class extremely informative and I wish I had spent the time to do the research while living in Jerusalem.  It would have been really fascinating to attend one of JOH’s events.

            The first aspect of JOH that caught my attention was the explanation about Jewish Pluralism.  The 2012 annual report stated, “Since so many of our community members are in fact religious, all of our activities are essentially working to navigate the all too familiar divide between religion and LGBTQ acceptance.” This sounds like an extremely difficult task.  I imagine that it must be very frustrating because the majority of religious Jews follow what the torah says in an extremely strict manner without any room for different interpretation or lee way.  I am curious to see how successful JOH will be with achieving this sense of Pluralism in the future. 

            I was also interested in the Open counseling Service JOH has to offer.   It was stated in the 2012 annual report that “A recent UK study found that 1 in 6 therapists have used reparative techniques to change someone’s sexuality. In Jerusalem, a much more conservative city, clients report that number to be much higher. The JOH team offers a group of volunteer therapists and clinical social workers providing various types of therapy, all of whom have been chosen based on their unique competence and understanding of sexuality as a diverse phenomenon.”  I was shocked to hear that there is such a high percentage of therapy that engages in “reparative” techniques in the UK and even more in Israel. While JOH offers therapy that is “understanding of sexuality as a diverse phenomenon” I am curious whether or not it is at all supportive of  therapy that engages in “reparative techniques” or if it is completely opposed.   

         On the website that for the film “City of Borders” I was really awestruck by the quote “When I read the bible that I could be killed by being gay, I understood what it was like to be Palestinian”- Israeli Bar Owner.  In the clip about the film it was stated that the divide of religion and LGBTQ was the second largest issue behind the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  I didn’t realize that this was such a prominent issue in Israel.  I think that this quote really communicated the sophistication and I am interested to learn more by watching this film. 

reading response 3/18

            I thought that this reading assignment was very captivating and stood out from the material we have read throughout this semester.  After reading the brief section from Amiry’s book I immediately wanted to buy it and recommended it to a friend.  There were many parts of the reading that grabbed my attention.  In the chapter, “A Dog’s Life” I thought that the complexity of gaining a Jerusalem ID was discussed in a very clever way.  When the narrator was getting his dog, Nura, vaccinated he stated, “neither Nura nor Dr. Tamar realized how damn serious I was about replacing Nura’s photograph with mine.  I don’t think either of them know how difficult or impossible it is for Palestinians to acquire a Jerusalem ID, let alone a Jerusalem passport.”  I think this very intelligently touches upon one of the many difficulties Palestinians faced and how complicated this issue truly was.  When the narrator was driving through the Jerusalem checkpoint he decided to try and use the dogs document to get through.  He explained that he was unable to pass through the checkpoint because both his car and narrator himself need a permit to get through.  However the narrator told the Israeli guard “I don’t have one, but I am the driver of this Jerusalem dog….I am the dog’s driver. As you can see, she is from Jerusalem, and she cannot possibly drive the car or go to Jerusalem all by herself.” The narrator was in fact able to pass through and “thought to himself all it takes is a bit of humor.”  I think that this situation clearly depicts the absurdity of some of the laws that were established during this period of time.

            I also thought that Hasan-Rokem’s article depicted the situation of Jerusalem in a distinct and creative way.  Throughout the semester we have spent a lot of time exploring the strong connection many different groups of people feel to Jerusalem and the reasons why they feel this way.  However, this article’s portrayal of the connection through the feminist perspective is something that I never was exposed to previously.  I found the following quote very interesting “it is only natural that each one in his turn was filled with passion to fondle the roundness of the bulging hills and to adorn them with pearls of stone and brick, to seal his one and only covenant with the bride; or to enter the cleavage of winding wadis, to leave there the signs of their vitality and virility.” Here it is emphasized that people have a bond with Jerusalem that resembles a bond one has with a women.  The author brings it to attention that women deserve to be loved in a less possessive and more equal way, “however Jerusalem is not a women, it is a city with a long, long history, in which many peoples have lived and many cultures have teemed”.  After reading this article I agree with the authors perspective, that there should be “a higher order of open-mindedness, less blinded by ones frustrated emotional needs,” however I am interested to see how the author feels it is possible to implement this change. How does she expect peoples emotional “need” for Jerusalem to disappear?     

music n me

Throughout my life music has always served as my own personal “get away”.  Looking back, I would say that my life has been and continues to be very goal-oriented and focused.  Starting in the fifth grade I decided to pursue being a tennis player.  I took lessons multiple times a week and joined the United States Tennis Association at a very young age and played competitively in tournaments.  I also took school very seriously and challenged myself with honors classes.  Working hard just became a part of who I was.  However the one aspect of life I have always taken far less seriously is music.

I joined the school orchestra as a fourth grader and to say the least, learning to play the violin was very unnatural.  I was well aware that what came easy to other students just wasn’t clicking for me.  It didn’t take long until I decided that the orchestra wasn’t for me.  In fifth grade I joined the band and started to play the trumpet.  Once again- it didn’t come naturally to me, however band was a blast.  I realized that the 45 minutes I spent every day in the band room was a time for me to simply have fun. 

I have kept this same mentality ever since fifth grade band class.  I stayed in band through the 12^th grade and also learned some guitar, however it remains in a separate category from school, tennis, and all other aspects of my life.  Music is my escape; allowing me to feel light, free, capture where I am at a given moment and take me somewhere else. 

When I listen to a song I often relate it to a specific feeling.  Either a past feeling that I experienced when I listened to the song before or sometimes the lyrics can make me feel a certain way or remind me of something that happened.  For an example, my boyfriend in high school wrote the lyrics of Pink Floyd’s “Wish you were Here” on a card he made me when I was gone for the summer.  When I came home he played me that song on the guitar.  I predict that for the rest of my life I will think of the 2 of us when I hear that song, even though I haven’t seen him for years and no longer feel the way I did about him at the time. 

Another example is the song “Walking in Memphis” by Marc Cohn.  When I was young, my parents used to turn this song on really loud and my family would all dance together in the family room.  Whenever I hear this song I immediately feel a sense of warmth and happiness.  Music also provokes less personal feelings.  For an example, when I hear the song “Tiny Dancer” I think of the scene from the movie “Almost Famous” and how the characters were feeling and going through during this time.  They were feeling the stress of strain of being on tour as musicians. 

In conflict, I think that music is used as an outlet.  It allows each side or team to express themselves and what they are after.  It allows them to share their hopes and desires with the rest of the world, reflect on what has gone on in the past, and where the hope to see themselves in the future. 

Blog 3/4

“Channel’s of Rage” focused on depicting how the political situation can have an impact on only the music and arts, but people’s lives. It was stated “rap will have the power to bring about a much needed peace and coexistence in the Middle East.”  When I first came across this quote I was very curious how this was possible.   In my mind, at least in America, rap has the ability to reflect on a situation (such as a political situation), however I don’t see it as being a means for change.  I was also curious if there were any American films that used music to discuss the impact of the political situation in the United Sates.  As I continued to read this article I came across another quote “The real difference between rappers-differences that were not created by violence or society, but reinforced by them.  Perhaps the struggle between 2 deeply divided people is the best way to encapsulate the conflict after all.” I thought that this perspective was very interesting- if the difference between the 2 rappers was not created by the political situation- what was it created by?  Or was it just saying that each individual is different and that the political situation strengthens these differences? 

            I thought the article “ How an Obese Comedian and His Band of misfits revived Israeli Rap” was extremely interesting.  The second half of the article was particularly fascinating because if focused on the path to become a “rocker” in Israel.  Unlike in America, there seems to be one specific path to become an Israeli musician.  It was stated that “to become a rock star you must first serve in one of the army’s official bands and sing some rousing patriotic anthem, then record a tender album thick with poetic love lyrics to soften your militaristic image, then skip a bit to the left and position yourself as a brooding rocker.” This really clashes with American culture because it appears that every musician in America has a unique story of how they caught a break to become famous.  Shows like “American Idol” try and help musicians become known and ultimately sell records, however it is debatable if this path has proved to be successful.  I also think that it is interesting that “Israeli rockers were a homogenous group- Ashkenazi, well education, and hailing from Kibbutzim or Tel Aviv.”  To me, part of what makes music interesting is that every musician has a distinct background.  However this does not appear to be the case in Israel because “practitioners were always a step removed from their roots as singing soldiers.”  The last part of this article discussed Mizrahi Music.  It stated that these musicians were uncultured, used makeshift studies, and were not viewed in the same was as Ashkenazi singers.  I wonder if this is how it will always be in Israel or if the political situation or some other force will create change.  

Reading response 2/27

There are endless articles on this topic, however I want to focus on four that I found most interesting.

The first article “Creative Responses to Separation: Israeli and Palestinian Joint Activism in Bil’in” by Maia Carter Hallward focused on creative ways in which activists, both Palestinian and Israeli, interact with one another and the forces that separate them in their search for peace.  There are many barriers- administrative, physical and psychological that counteract joint activism.  This article examines symbols and “out of the box” strategies that challenge the occupation and resume the peace process.  A small agricultural town of Bil’in, in the Ramallah district of the Central West Bank, is discussed because it has been the site of non-violent resistance since February 2005.  In Bil’in, Palestinians and Israelis creatively use resources to confront Israeli administration and military power through non-violent activism.  This really captured my attention because this often goes unseen in the media today.  One of the strategies that I found most interesting was “Creating Alternative Stories”.  Using this strategy activists shifted from representing Palestinian resistance from “terrorism to a non-violent struggle against and oppressive occupying force” by focusing on “common places- frequently cited words, phrases, or events in their sociopolitical context while selecting slogans and demonstrating themes.”

The next article, “The Separation Wall: A symbol of Power and a Site of Resistance?” by Polly Pallister Wilkins also focuses on joint Israeli Palestinian activism.  This article explored activism in response to the separation wall.  The author claims that “tactics of resistance witnessed are informed by the networks of power bound up in and represented by the physical structure of the wall.”  The author expresses that the wall has created an opportunity for Palestinians to resist a visible aspect of the occupation because “the comprehensive bantustanistation of Palestinian socio-political space makes engagement on a national level difficult.”

The next two articles I am going to discuss were found in the Israeli news site/newspaper Haaretz.  I chose these because wanted to also focus on some more up-to-date articles in order to understand where the issue of the separation barrier stands today. 

The first article I want to discuss is written by Amos Harel on February 25^th, 2013, “Israel preventing development of Palestinian owned land near the separation barrier.”  The article stated that Israel is preventing development and building in Palestinian lands adjacent to the separation barrier despite these areas being under Palestinian civilian control according to the Oslo Accords. While the Oslo Accord Peace Process has come to a halt, Israel is still using several clauses in the accords to prevent Palestinian development.  An example of this is the Israel Defense Forces preventing building and development in 4700 dunams on the Palestinian side (Area A and B according to the Oslo accords) for security reasons.  While it is claimed that Palestinians enjoy “semi-independence of these areas under civilian control” military decrees are still issued.  The Defense Ministry of Israel has stated that these decrees are in fact legal.  It has been reported from Security sources that the bans were meant to “prevent effective us of flight weapons against the IDF patrols near the fence and make it harder to plant explosives or place observation posts”.  This article interested me because it expresses how the Israel forces view the purpose of the separation wall. 

The last article I will discuss is “On the path to blood, sweat, and tears” written by Salmon Mashalha on February 26, 2013.  The article started by showing a picture of Palestinians throwing stones at Israeli Security forces at the Jalama checkpoint on February 24^th.  It stated that the “short sighted” leadership of the 2 nations are at blame for the current situation.  The fact that neither recognizes the other has “left to coals of the national conflict smoldering beneath the surface suffused with vapors of bloody memories.” The article also mentioned that Israel is striving to strengthen Hamas in Gaza and the PLO in the West bank in order to separate the 2 regions even further and “deepen the rift” so that Palestine will not appear as 1 body.  Lastly, it summed up by stating that the “Israeli right and Palestinian right need each other as much as they need air to breathe.”  Because the land is not fairly divided they are forced to think out of the box to establish other ways to share the land.  Without a fair solution to divide the land it results in “blood, sweat, and tears.”  I found this article really captivating because it discusses the consequences of the separation.  I was able to find many articles about how Israelis and Palestinians deal with the separation, but this article was unique because it expressed the result of the seperation.  

Elissa and Robyn Project

Robyn Silver, Elissa Schooler

We are going to make a video/documentary using imovie. We will interview people from all religious Jewish backgrounds who practice different sects of Judaism. For example we will interview two different rabbis, orthodox students and reform students, and individuals who are connected to Judaism culturally instead of religiously.

Possible Questions:

How would you feel if Jerusalem was no longer part of the Jewish homeland?

Why is it part of who you are?

What does Jerusalem mean to Judaism?

How did you feel different about your religion after you visited Jerusalem?

Jerusalem has a lot of meaning to other religions too, how do you feel about sharing the city with this other religions?  

What if the Western Wall was part of Palestinian territory?

·      Depending on the person we will ask different questions or just let them elaborate on one or two questions. This way it will be more meaningful to the speaker and the video will showcase different peoples stories instead of the same question for each person.

·     

The interviews will be conducted in a way that  allows interviewees to go in their own direction- while we have some questions already written we will create more questions during the interview

·    

  Each person will have about 3-5 minutes of talking time for the video.

·      

We will use our imovie on the mac to create the video.

·      In between each person’s interview we will showcase some pictures of important aspects of Jerusalem that were talked about in the video and some pictures that relate to the individuals personally

1)   Rabbi Ben Burger or Rabbi Zalman

2)   Karen Cohen (Israeli living in the U.S.)

3)   Ilana Nurko

4)   Avi Hannano

5)   Nathan Meese

6)   Regan Siegal (someone that has changed their lifestyle and now is an orthodox Jew) 

Blog 2-25

As an American Jew I heard a lot about the First and Second Intifada, however I was unaware of the role graffiti played in allowing Palestinians to express their opinion. It was stated that the “Palestinian community thought out loud in graffiti.  Issues of gender, religion, and politics were charted and debated.”  I thought it was really interesting that the situation made Palestinians inclined to break the law in order to express themselves.  The article stated numerous times that in the morning the graffiti would be covered up, however I am curious whether or not Israelis often responded to the graffiti with their own graffiti. 

I also found it interesting that “on occasion graffiti proclaimed the unity in resistance of a spatially and experimentally fragmented community.”   I understand that using graffiti as an outlet helped unite Palestinians, however it was erased in the morning and didn’t create any permanent change.  I am curious what particular aspect of expressing themselves through graffiti created the sense of unity.  Was it simply having an outlet? Or was it that it created a sense of optimism and hope that the occupation would end?

It also fascinated me when the article mentioned that “a writer and scholar explained that he paid particular attention to the graffiti as he rode in the shared taxi in the morning. He found it useful in getting a reading of the street.” I was surprised to come across the fact that the graffiti itself was able to depict the situation and communicate it so effectively.  It is also very impressive that this art was done in a way that caused people to respond.  It was mentioned that “for one elderly lady I used to visit in Jerusalem graffiti was often a point of departure for political discussions with her children.”

Lastly I found it interesting that Israelis reacted to the graffiti in different ways.  “Some soldiers read them as defiance to be met with a violent response.  For others their presence and content reaffirmed the sense that it was time to withdraw from the territories- to heed the writing on the walls.” To me this shows that the graffiti did in fact have the strong influence that it was after.

Parallels and Paradoxes

This was my favorite reading that we have done so far in class.  I really enjoyed this style of writing; it was extremely personal and it really made me felt like I knew Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said.  While I was reading a few parts really stuck out to me.

Ana Guzelimian posed the question at the beginning of chapter 1, “Where do you feel home?”.  Since our last assignment was to explain what makes you you and we have spent a good portion of class discussing why Jerusalem feels like home to so many people I was immediately drawn in.  Daniel Barenboim explained that not Jerusalem, but the “idea of Jerusalem” makes him feel at home.  He expressed that “due to the lack of tolerance shown by some of the extreme populations of Jerusalem” the spirituality, intellectuality, and cultural curiosity has disappeared.  This brought me back to the idea that maybe the current situation of sharing Jerusalem destroys the elements that people are drawn to.  It was upsetting to read that an Israeli citizen did not feel like the current reality of Jerusalem could be considered home.  Also in response to this question Barenboim expressed that he is “not a person that cares much for possessions” and that he feels at home “when in the company of very close friends” such as Edward.  I can relate to this idea; like I expressed in my last journal entry, what makes me me  are the people in my life. 

I also found Edward’s description that “my feeling of being at home somewhere is really a feeling of transition, as everything in life….I am happiest when I can be at peace with the idea of fluidity. And I’m unhappy when I cannot really let myself go and give myself over completely to the idea that things change, evolve, and not necessarily for the best.”  This quote really resonated with me.  It is really interesting that what comforts Edward is the idea that things are constantly changing; people are often very uncomfortable with change.  I think this point of view is interesting and it is something I have experienced but never consciously thought about before.  I agree that I am happiest when I feel confident and ready to tackle the next stage even though it may take me out of my comfort zone.  When I am dreading the future because it is unknown I do not feel happy.  After being accepted to study at to Hebrew University for the semester I started to second guess whether or not this was a good idea.  I realized that I was very happy at OSU and may or may not be in Jerusalem.  This really began to bother me….how was I supposed to trade the known for the unknown?  After thinking about it for a while I realized that I applied for this program for a reason, and I needed to become comfortable with the fact that going to Israel for 6 months was an unwritten tale.  However I also realized that I was ready for this mystery.  My attitude changed and I was prepared to deal with the next 6 months of my life would be transitional and changing; I couldn’t have smiled more during these 6 months.

What makes me, me!

First and foremost what makes me me are all of the people in my life.  Over the past 21 years I have been lucky enough experience many meaningful, fun, challenging, and maturing experiences.  While I could sit here and explain how much I learned during my study abroad experience in Jerusalem or how much I have matured as a college student over the past 4 years, I know that what has truly made these experiences great is the people that surrounded me.  I want to start this journal by introducing some of the closest people in my life.

This is my family.  I was fortunate enough to grow up in a very close-knit and loving home.    My brother and sister are twins and sophomores in college.  Even though we don't live at home together we make an effort to stay up to date on each others lives.  Growing up I never thought I'd say this, but my bro and sis are truly my best friends.  

This is my extended family (well one side).  We are in florida celebrating New Years together.  My  grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles have always played a big role in my life.   Growing up we had dinner together every Sunday night.  While we don't get to see each other as often anymore,  we still make an effort to keep up with each other's lives, celebrate holidays, and go on vacation.

Here is a picture of me and my cousins close to 15 years ago! Can you tell which one is me?

These are 2 of my oldest friends.  Our mother's were roommates  in college.  We attended play group, preschool, kindergarten- high school together. We have pretty much gone through everything together, and I can't imagine growing up without these two people besides me.  We are all three the oldest in our families so we all had a very similar experience. Samantha (on the left) is still my best friend today.   Joe (middle) goes to Michigan.  The three of us love to spend time together when we have the opportunity.

It was a pretty big deal for me to move away from home.  My brother and sister still had 2 more years of High School left.  Luckily I was able to quickly feel at home freshmen year when I was introduced to the sorority Alpha Epsilon Phi.  What I loved about AEPHI was that it really felt like home to me.  Many of the girls had a similar set of values and enjoyed the same type of activities.


While it was difficult at first to be away from home spending time with the girls in AEPHI made OSU truly feel like home.  Here we are on the football field after beating Michigan (I think it was that game).  I think that without these friends I would have never gained the sense of comfort here at school as I do at home.  

While I strongly believe that what makes me me are the people that I have become close with throughout my life, I also want to share some of the symbols and more materialized objects that are important to me and my family. 

On all of our doors at home we have Mezzuzot.  A mezuzah looks like the picture above.  It contains a piece of parchment inside with the Jewish prayer "Shemah Yisrael".   By putting a mezuzah on the door it is fulfilling a mitzvah (biblical commandment).  All of my family members and most of my friends who are Jewish follow this tradition.  

These are two different types of soup my grandmother makes.  The top is Matzah ball and the bottom is Kreplach soup.  Kreplach can be compared to a wonton; it is a noodle with meat inside.  There is a sense of warmth that I feel with every spoonful of my grandmothers soup.  I know how many hours she spends making it and how much she loves to see us eat it together as a family.  

This is the necklace I where around my neck everyday.  It is a hamzah.  I got it in 2006 in Israel.  It was my first trip.  I am sure that there are many interpretations of  the meaning behind a hamzah, but I was told that it is an arabic symbol that is meant to protect you.  I chose this necklace and chose to wear it everyday because I believe it will protect me and allow my family and I return to Israel like we did together in 2005. 

Lastly I wanted to mention something that I love to do:  running.  I know that at an end of a run my mind will be in a different place.  Sometimes I run when I feel distressed.  It can give me a sense of control and allow me to refocus.  Other days I run simply because it is beautiful outside and running allows me to see the things around me at a different pace.  This is a picture of me close to the end of the half marathon I ran in October.  I have also formed a lot of close friendships through running and it is something that I hope to continue doing throughout my life.

Salim Tamari

I thought Tamari's articles were both very interesting however I felt a greater connection to “The Arab Jew in Palestine”.  Prior to reading this article I was familiar with the divide in Israel between Mizrahi (Jews from Arab countries) and Ashkenazi Jews (Jews from European countries).  I studied their differences in culture, treatment, and prejudices against both groups.  It was evident that their distinct cultural backgrounds caused a lot of tension and difficulty to achieve a sense of cohesion.  Since Zionism is a European movement, Ashkenazi Jews had greater opportunities and Mizrahi Jews suffered severe discrimination.  I was aware of the many prejudices against Jews from Arab countries; however, I was never exposed to the perspective of the internal struggle of “Arab Jews” that Shalmi highlighted.  He expressed despair regarding the religious tensions in Israel by attributing them to his fate, “Everything has lost its worth.  For what is the use of anything if we are unable to reach our goals?....This is the secret of my tragedy: when I look back at my life, I realize that everything was distorted and wrong from the foundation. 

            I found many of Tamari's other quotes from this article very interesting.  “We viewed ourselves as Arabs of Jewish Extraction, we felt even more Arab than Arabs….we did not feel we belonged to a place but that the place belonged to us.”  To me this quote depicts the difference in connection between Arab Jews and European Jews to the land of Israel. Ashkenazi Jews had a Zionistic perspective and felt as if they were returning to the land that they were entitled to in order to escape discrimination and persecution.  On the other hand, Arab Jews viewed this land as Arab land, and “the move to Palestine was not seen as a move to Zion, but from one area of the Arab world to another and thus was not considered to have any ramifications in terms of sacred geography.”   I think that the comparison of how Arab Jews and Ashkenazi Jews connected to the land clearly sheds light to the lack of cohesion amongst Jews in Israel at this time and today.

             I also found the quote, “their socialization in the reconstructed Hebrew culture was achieved at the price of disintegrating their Arab roots” interesting.  I was unaware that Arab Jews had to make a conscious effort to let go of their Arab roots in order to fit into Israeli culture.  This must have been really difficult and frustrating; moving to a land that they felt belonged to them, however being forced to drop everything to fit in a new culture.  I am really looking forward to the videoconference in class tomorrow and learning more on this subject mater. 

Last blog for 1 City 3 Faiths

            This last section of reading was really interesting.  In particular, the discussion of the British Government’s pledges to both the Arabs and Jews sparked my attention. Prior to this reading I did some research on whether or not Israel was “twice promised” and have formed my own opinion on the mater.  Since this relates directly to this section of the reading I thought I would share this research. First I am going to share my interpretation of the three documents all of which were created between the years 1915 and 1917.

In 1915-1916 in the MacMahon-Hussayn Correspondance the Sheriff of Mecca, Hussayn, and the British High Commissioner at Cairo exchanged multiple letters regarding Great Britain recognizing the independence of Arab countries.  MacMahon wrote to Hussayn that Palestine is part of the territory that “cannot be purely Arab” and is not included in the boarders that Great Britain supports the independence of the Arabs in.  MacMahon also explained to Hussayn in this exchange of letters that Britain’s ally, France, is involved in some of the regions he demanded, and Great Britain must carefully continue to communicate about this region before supporting Arab independence.  Palestine is part of this region that must be further communicated about (Laqueur and Rubin, 11-12).  The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was a secret agreement between the UK and France, which divided up the Ottoman Empire’s territory in the Middle East into areas that the French and the British would control.  A portion of Palestine lying West of the Jordan River was assigned to be under French authority.  However, a large portion of Palestine, which included Jerusalem, was to be administered internationally.  The international administration would be decided after consulting with Russia, the other allies of France and Britain, and the sheriff of Mecca (Laqueur and Rubin, 13-16). The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated that the UK is in favor of the establishment of a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine and will do everything in order to achieve this.  The agreement also included that this national Jewish homeland must not prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities existing in Palestine, in addition to the rights of the Jews who will not be living in Palestine (Laqueur and Rubin, 16).

Based off of these three texts, I believe it would incorrect to say that Palestine was twice promised.  On October 24^th, 1915, as part of the MacMahon-Hussayn Correspondance, it was specified that Britain would support the independence of the Arab state, however “the two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying west of the Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab.” This statement excluded Palestine from the agreement as part of the costal territory lying to the West of the Damascus Vilayet.  MacMahon also explained in this letter that Britain would be safeguarding the holy places against external aggression.  If Palestine were not included in the “holy places” the British were protecting, it would not be necessary to add this statement to the agreement (MidEastWeb).  These two statements show that Palestine was not promised in the MacMahon-Hussayn Correspondence to the Arabs.  In addition, in this correspondence Britain agreed to help the Arabs maintain certain territories, establish policies, and assist in gaining liberation from Turkish rule.  There was no such promise to actually create an Arab state.  The agreement made by the letters exchanged between MacMahon and Hussayn was political and not legal by international law, therefore none of the land mentioned in this correspondence was legally promised (Fry, 219).   The 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement did not conflict with the MacMahon-Hussayn Correspondence.  Both of these arrangements clearly stated that any decisions regarding the Middle East would have to take French interests into account (Review Essay: A Twice Promised Land, 569).  In 1917, the Balfour Declaration stated that the UK cabinet is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people.  This declaration was a separate enterprise that had its own conditions that only show that Britain is in favor of a Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine and does not specify anything more.  It does not state that the Jews will be in full rule over this territory and it did not take anything away that was promised to the Arabs (Fry, 219).

After examining these three documents closely, I have come to the conclusion concluded that Palestine was only promised once.  In both the MacMahon-Hussayn Correspondence and Sykes-Picot agreement Palestine was not promised to the Arabs, however in the Balfour Declaration it is clearly stated that the British are in favor of the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. I realize that there is a lot of “grey” and many interpretations can be made.  I am interested to hear how you guys react to my interpretation and your opinions on this mater.  

Ideas for Project

Robyn Silver, Elissa Schooler

We are going to make a video/documentary using imovie. We will interview people from all religious Jewish backgrounds who practice different sects of Judaism. For example we will interview two different rabbis, orthodox students and reform students, and individuals who are connected to Judaism culturally instead of religiously.

Possible Questions:

How would you feel if Jerusalem was no longer part of the Jewish homeland?

Why is it part of who you are?

What does Jerusalem mean to Judaism?

Have you ever visited Jerusalem?

How did you feel different about your religion after you visited Jerusalem?

Jerusalem has a lot of meaning to other religions too, how do you feel about sharing the city with this other religions?  

What if the Western Wall was part of Palestinian territory?

Possible People:

Rabbi Ben Burger (modern orthodox), Zollman at chabad (traditional orthodox, very religious), Sarah (chabad- Rabbis wife), Karen Cohen (Israeli living in U.S.), friends living in Israel, Nathan Meese, Regan Siegel, random friends in the Jewish community/people at hillel, Ilana Nurko.

Chapter 9-11

In the chapter “Bayt- Al-Maqdis” I found the section that discussed Muslim policy really interesting.

 “The vision of the essential unity of the religious quest of humanity would profoundly affect Muslim Policy in Jerusalem.  Muslims had a rather different sacred geography from their predecessors.  Because everything came from G-D, all things were good, so there was no essential dichotomy between the “sacred” and the “profane” as in Judaism.  The aim of the ummah was to achieve such integration and balance between divine and human, interior and exterior worlds, that such a distinction would become irrelevant.”

Prior to this reading assignment I haven’t been exposed to the beliefs of Muslims in great detail.  I was surprised by the fact that there isn’t an “essential dichotomy between the sacred and the profane as in Judaism.” I had assumed that all three faiths (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) placed Jerusalem on a pedestal and viewed it as a more sacred than every other place throughout the world.  However, since it had been expressed that there was no dichotomy between sacred and profane I didn’t understand the Muslim connection to Jerusalem.  How can a group of people feel so passionate about a city that they viewed as was no more “holy” than the next city?  As I continued to read I wondered whether or not I was taking this section too literally. I am looking forward to talking to some of the students in class whom have a Muslim background about this topic.  

In the chapter “Al-Quds” my interest was captured in the first sentence ,“The Muslims had established a system that enabled Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in Jerusalem together for the first time….The experience of living together in a city that was sacred to all three faiths could have led monotheists to a better understanding of one another.”  However as I continued to read my hope was shattered when a tone that depicted reality was expressed. It was stated that the difficulty of obtaining coexistence existed because  “each faith assumed that it- and it alone- is right, the proximity of others making the claim becomes an implicit challenge that is hard to bear.” Like I said before, I am not too familiar with Muslim beliefs, however this sense of openness continuity was extremely impressive.  I want to continue to explore material about these beliefs in order to understand why religions such as Judaism and Christianity do not express this same desire to achieve harmony, and how things would change if they did. 

I sensed an immediate shift when I began the chapter “Crusade”.  This section resembled the stories I read when studying the Holocaust way too closely.  I started to feel very upset when I came across the quote “Whoever first entered a house, whether he was rich or poor, was not challenged by any other Franks.  He was to occupy and own the house or the palace and whatever he found ti it as if was entirely his own.  The streets literally ran with blood. Piles of heads, hands and feet were seen….Muslims and Jews were cleared out of the City the Vermin”.  I can not get over the fact  that the land in which Jews and Muslims called “home” was also the land that their dead bodies filled the streets.  

Chapter 8-10

I found this section of reading very interesting.  What first drew my attention was the section in chapter 8 that talked about the Jews who turned to Asceticism.

“In rabbinical writings we hear of Jews who wanted to ban meat and wine, since these could no longer be offered to God in the Temple.  Life could not continue as before: Jews must express their changed status in rituals of mourning and abstinence.  The loss of the temple was a profound shock…..there was no need for the earth to bring forth a harvest nor the vine to yield grapes; the heavens should withhold their dew and the sun dim it rays: For why should light rise again, Where the light of Zion is darkened?”

This quote kind of took me by surprise.  I understand the magnitude of the loss of the temple, however I am surprised that mourning was focused on so heavily.  In such a tragic period of time I would have imagined that the Jews would have strived to remain strong; spending so much energy on the act of mourning would make it hard to hold on to any strength.  In addition, this quote has a very negative tone.  Again, I understand the pain, however to me it sounds like the Jews have nearly given up. 

Chapter 9 also sparked my interest.  In the beginning of the chapter the emperor Constantine was introduced.  It stated “He would not promote Christianity at the expense of other faiths.  Constantine was a realist and knew that he could not afford to antagonize his pagan subjects.”   I think this is a very interesting approach.  During this time period it seemed as if one ruler after the next focused on spreading and enforcing their beliefs and their beliefs only.  It was quite refreshing to come across an emperor that was realistic enough to realize that antagonizing individuals for dissimilar beliefs would likely not prove to be successful.

Also in chapter 9, Eusebius, one of Constantine’s most ardent supporters in the early years of his reign expressed the belief that “the fate of the Temple was clear proof that God no longer wanted that showy type of sacrificial ritual. He wanted them to follow the spiritual religion preached by the Jesus, which did not depend on temples or holy places….G-d would not come to those who sought him in a ‘lifeless matter and dusky caves’ but only to ‘souls purified and prepared with clear and rational minds’.  It is interesting compare the frame of mind mentioned in this quote to the previous quote (mentioned above) about how the Jews reacted to the destruction of the Temple.  Here we see two extremely contradicting reactions.  As we continue to explore this time period it will be interesting to see how the Jews react to Eusebius attitude since they place such an enormous amount of value on the Temple.  I am very curious of how will this clash of values will play out. 

Journal #2

            When asked to explain my own ideas for the future Arab-Israeli negotiations I immediately felt a sense of panic. When the Prime Minister Rabin attended a peace rally in Tel Aviv in 1995 he was assassinated.  The extent of this issue was clear to me and I questioned how I was supposed to devise a plan for issue had been so persistent throughout time. I decided to approach this task by reviewing the background of the conflict and developing an understanding of the ideas that have already been proposed and why they were argued for and against.

            After reviewing many different peace negotiations that have existed throughout history, I found the Lieberman plan extremely feasible and thought that it was viable to meet the goals of both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli political party leader Avigdor Lieberman proposed this plan in 2004.  The main point of this plan is an exchange of territory by both Arabs and Jews between Israel and Palestinian Authority.  This exchange would not cause the forcible removal of either side.  Instead, the Palestinian and Israeli communities are redrawn; Palestinian communities are included in Palestinian territory, and Jewish territories are included in Israel.  The idea is to have the 2 populations live together but not inside on another. I found this plan extremely interesting because it creates 2 homogeneous states. I am under the impression that Israelis and Palestinians have separate political goals and leadership, and believe the most efficient way to deal with this is to have a 2 separate states.  I establishing 2 states without removing people from their homes will be an effective way to help both Palestinians and Israelis obtain their objectives while maintaining a sense of harmony. 

However, after exploring many of the negotiations I came to the realization that there must be a deeper problem.  Many very logical plans have been proposed however there has never been any change implemented.   As I pondered what the underlying problem was, I came to the realization that the manner of how the public engages and reacts to the conflict and talks of peace must be a major reason why it has persisted throughout time.  I serve as direct evidence of this.  As I mentioned earlier, when I read over this assignment I was immediately nervous.  I think it is safe to assume that I am not the only class member or individual who is anxious when involved in discussions about the conflict.  Therefore I propose that the first step to making any headway regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiation lies right here.  The overall attitude regarding the issue must change. Doubt and uncertainty are contagious; if the public holds the opinion that it is a permanent issue I think it is highly likely that it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy and will in fact be an enduring conflict.  However, I realize that it is not easy to change the public opinion.  I began to question if it is even possible to change public opinion and decided to do a little research.  I came across Daniel Yankelovich’s 7 distinct stages of changing public opinion.  Yankelovich is an author, public opinion analyst, and co-founder of public agenda. He has proposed, “Public pinion is not static.  People’s views about an issue can develop and change over time from disconnected, poorly informed reactions, to more thoughtful and considered conclusions” His 7 stages include:

1. Dawning Awareness
2. Greater Urgency
3. Reaching for Solutions
4. Wishful Thinking
5. Weighing the Choices
6. Taking a stand intellectually
7. Making a responsible judgement morally and emotionally

These stages can be further explained here: http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/seven-stages-public-opinion.  While I don’t want to spend too much time discussing this research, it has given me a sense of optimism that in the future the Palestinian and Israeli population will hold a more confident attitude that the conflict will be resolved.  If the perception that coexistence without violence and conflict is preached, taught, studied, etc. I feel that it is the first step to it becoming a reality.

Chapter 5--8

I was really impressed by how descriptive Armstrong was in Chapter 5, “Exile and Return”.  Throughout the entire chapter I imagined myself, family and friends, and how we would react to being in exile.  I struggled to understand how we would cope and be able to remain productive somewhere other than home.  The following quote made me begin to develop an understanding of how these individuals survived the distress of the exile:

 “The history of religion shows that in times of crisis and upheaval people turn more readily to myth than to the more rational forms of faith. As a form of psychology, myth can penetrate deeper than cerebral discourse and touch the obscure cause of distress in the farthest reaches of our being.  In our own day, we have seen that exile involves far more than a change of address. It is also a spiritual dislocation.”

Prior to coming across this quote it had never crossed my mind that myth would be relied on in times of difficulty.  I consider myself a rather logical and realistic thinker, and when under stress I attempt to create a plan and stick to it.  However, this quote made me realize that in some instances it can be beneficial to take a step back from reality and focus on ideas and themes that have been passed down throughout time, in this case stories of Zion, can help one regain a sense of peace. 

I also found it interesting that another reaction to the exile was concentrating on the “Law of Moses”.  Exiles engaged in practices that made them stand out from the others around them such as circumcising their male children, adopting special food laws, not working on the Sabbath, etc.  Armstrong stated that “They were to be a ‘holy’ people, as distinct and separate as their god”.  This made me question why I follow Jewish practices.  Is it because it separates me from those who are not Jewish?  Would I consider myself a Jew if I did not follow these practices?  Why do we feel the need to act distinctly if we already have a clear set of beliefs and practices to follow? As I continue to read more throughout this class and explore my religion, I hope to gain the ability to answer these questions.