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.  

Jerusalem, One city, 3 faiths: Intro-Chapters 1-4

I was really impressed by the way in which Armstrong set up this book.  Armstrong’s introduction immediately grasped my attention with her explanations of the reoccurring interconnected concepts; notion of god or the sacred, question of myth, and symbolism. I found her last remark of the introduction particularly interesting; it stated “it is not enough to experience the divine or the transcendent; the experience must then be incarnated in our behavior towards others.  All great religions insist that the test of true spirituality is practical compassion.”  I feel that this quote really depicts what I have taken away from the experience I had in religious school as a child. Throughout my Jewish education two of the reoccurring themes were “Tzedakah” and “Tikkun Olam”.   In Hebrew the literal translation for “tzedakah” is righteousness, however it is commonly used to mean “charity” and “tikkun olam” translates to repairing the world.

Everyday at the beginning of religious school class, the teacher would ask if we had any loose change to put in a box designated for tzedakah.  My grandfather would give my siblings, cousins, and I money before each class so that we would be able to participate in this ritual. As a young child, I didn’t really find meaning in putting the money my grandfather handed me nearly 2 minutes beforehand in a tin box.  However at age 13, I became a bat mitzvah, the Jewish coming of age ritual in which one is treated more like adults and begins to understand the Torah.  In honor of this special occasion I received a lot of gifts and money from family members and friends.  I decided to donate a portion of my money to an organization that helps plan special events and provide services for children of families affected by cancer.  At this point I really started to grasp the importance of tzedakah and began to realize that how rewarding it was to help others.  I engaged in other service projects and began to feel a sense of purpose in lending a hand to others. 

One of the most memorable and fun experiences I had was packing and delivering bags of food to underprivileged Jews living in Cleveland. I think my experience really exemplifies Armstrong’s quote. Every year I felt that I have been able to reach the divine by praying on Rosh Hashanah.  However, knowing that I was able to impact others and help them reach the divine allowed me to experience a sense of purpose on this extremely sacred day. 

Prior to reading this quote I understood the significance of helping others to the Jewish religion, and I assumed that it was also meaningful to other religions as well.  However, I was unaware of the fact that  this was a commonality among many (or all) religions. As we explore religions with contradicting beliefs, I think it is important to keep in mind as it will help us discover that there is maybe more common ground among different religious group that we thought beforehand.

Journal #1

            Today in class Elisa expressed her concern that even when she attempts to begin a reading assignment with an open mind, it is often extremely difficult to keep her views aside.  I believe this is a very important point.  I was raised in a small predominantly Jewish suburb of Cleveland, attended Hebrew school starting in Kindergarten until I was 16 years old, became very involved in the Jewish organizations on campus at Ohio State, joined a sorority in which the majority of members are Jews, attended a Jewish overnight camp with Israeli staff members, and spent 5 months in Jerusalem on a program exploring Israel with other interested Jewish young adults.  While I listen, learn, read, and engage with the other class members, all of whom have of different beliefs, backgrounds, and their own connection to Jerusalem, my Jewish identity that has developed throughout the past 21 years will naturally influence my interpretation of what is discussed in class.  While we all know keeping an open mind throughout this semester is an extremely difficult challenge, it is also important to realize the extremely unique opportunity presented by the fact that each of us has a distinct background. 

Amphitheater at Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Here we are, a group of about 20 Ohio State students sitting in a room for an hour and 20 minutes two times a week; engaging in meaningful and respectful discussion about one of the most contested topics throughout time. Whether it be a religious connection, a connection relating to ones studies international studies/religious studies major, or simply the desire to learn more about a topic we are unfamiliar with, each and every one of us had a tie to Jerusalem before we even walked through the doors on the first day of class.  As we engage in respectful discussion of the selected literature, I anticipate that this class will be an eye opening. 

Growing up in a “Jewish World” it has always been easy for me to find Israeli support groups that defend Israel as the Jewish homeland, however I have not yet had the opportunity to meaningfully engage with individuals of an array of backgrounds.  While I think that there will be many times in which our strong opinions clash and slow down the flow of discussion, I believe the environment of this class has the potential to create a sense of understanding and tolerance that is rare in today’s day.  While it is important to maintain a certain level of open-mindedness, I think that there is also a lot to gain from having the opportunity to share our contradicting opinions in such safe environment.  I am truly looking forward to both the opportunity and challenge of looking at Jerusalem through the eyes of others.

While I am confident that this semester will be eye opening and extremely valuable experience for all of us, I foresee obstacles along the way. From what I have taken note of throughout the first week of class, it appears that many students are very knowledgeable about the subject mater at hand.  Personally, I came into class feeling like I have a relatively good understanding of the background of Jerusalem.  However after discussing articles in class, I realize that my current knowledge is extremely limiting to a Jewish perspective. My lack of exposure to other perspectives made me experience sense of intimidation; I felt nervous to say something that would offend another student’s beliefs. I predict that I do not stand alone in feeling this way.  Since we are discussing such controversial and long lasting issues, I hope that we will continue to strive to create a sense of tolerance and patience among our class so that we are comfortable enough to express ourselves.  So far, I feel that we are heading down the right path in doing so; while it may take a little bit of time, I am confident that I will soon gain a level of comfort that will allow me to open up. 

My friends and I traveling into the city center on the Train in Jerusalem

In Tuesday’s class I thought the discussion we had regarding representing Jerusalem in Washington D.C. was extremely interesting.  Despite our diverse backgrounds, it was really fascinating that a level of consensus seemed to be reached.  The majority of our class seemed see eye to eye in the fact that it is not really possible to experience Jerusalem in Washington DC. This led me to the realization that it is possible to reach a level of agreement; and I believe this will play a large role in helping me feel at ease when expressing my opinion.  

Blog #2

Before I began this reading assignment, I was well aware that one of, if not the most, fascinating aspects of Jerusalem was its intricate history.  In past classes I have read about the many empires and groups that have controlled Jerusalem throughout time.  However, when I came across the quote “in regards to Jerusalem what is considered to be history is not historically verifiable” a light bulb turned on.  Prior to reading this article I was confused how it is possible that the Bible, Gospels, Quran, and other sources can each make the claim that they are responsible for Jerusalem’s history.  I now see that what is responsible for the historical claims made by the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people is their extremely deep and sacred connection to Jerusalem.  I understand that this deep connection serves as motivation to create strong traditions relating to Jerusalem’s history.  Regardless of whether or not these traditions are completely based on fact, because they are practiced and held so strongly, they create history that is viewed as “verifiable” despite how factual it truly is.  I realize that it is important to keep this in mind as we study the history of Jerusalem and use this information to guide us in to comprehend the current situation. 

In addition to exploring and developing an understanding of the claims relating to the history of Jerusalem, I was fascinated by how rapidly Jerusalem is changing.  The article “Jerusalem then and Now” describes that an observer on an orbit of the earth every 10 years would gasp at the rapid change of Jerusalem.  In the 20^th century Jerusalem would require a yearly observer, in the 1960s a monthly observer, and in the 1980s a stationary observer. This depiction motivated me to gain an understanding of why there has been such a great deal of change recently and where Jerusalem is headed in the near future. 

I began to develop this understanding in “Jerusalem the Holy City Through the Ages” which stated that at the height of the war in 1948 Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, declared “Israel is an integral part of the State of Israel and its eternal capital.” After the war in 1949 the Knesset proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  However, stated in “The History of Jerusalem: An Arab Perspective” Jerusalem as Israel’s capital failed to receive international recognition and currently there is hope by Arabs that East Jerusalem will become the capital of Palestinian.  It has been claimed that there simply can be no state without a part of Jerusalem as its capital (Jerusalem Then and Now).  Comparing these 2 statements made by Israelis and Arabs, it is clear to me that both Israelis and Palestinians continue to view Jerusalem as a crucial aspect of who they are. 

The Israeli Jordanian partition of the city between 1948 and 1967 did not help either side of the city flourish. (Jerusalem then and Now) Knowing this, I don’t understand how Jerusalem can serve as a capital for both Israelis and Arabs.  After the 6-day war Jerusalem “with its municipal and political complexities, and became a united city where Jews, Muslims, some secular and some religious could live side by side” (Jerusalem the Holy City through the ages).  Since the partition of Jerusalem did not work in the past,  why is it not enough that Jews and Muslims can live side by side? What else can be achieved? I don’t know how it is realistic to believe that Jerusalem can serve as both the capital of Arab land and Israeli land since the past has pointed to the fact that a partition will not work.  Since there has been so much change in recent days, I am curious what it will take for Israel to shift from its “non negotiable position” and what needs to occur before serious negotiations on Jerusalem can start. 

About me

Hi Everyone,

I'm finishing up my fourth year at OSU :(.  I will be going to Occupational Therapy School next year, still not sure where, but keeping my fingers crossed that I will have the opportunity to spend a few more years here in Columbus.  I enjoy being outside, running, and spending time with friends and family.  I spent January-June of 2012 studying at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  I couldn't have dreamed of a better and more exciting experience, so here I am, excited to learn more about the city the I love.

I can't wait to get to know everyone throughout the semester!

Week 1

As I read this week’s readings, I quickly became aware of a common theme. In each reading the difficulty of contextualizing Jerusalem at the Washington Mall was expressed.

An interview with Suad Amiry was conducted that focused on her explanation of why the festival was postponed.  The question “What is your most difficult problem?” was posed to Amiry.  She explained that it was very difficult to contextualize Jerusalem; the Palestinian team was motivated to express the reality of everyday life which includes the miseries of bad housing, economic problems, etc. instead of conveying Jerusalem as the center of 3 religions (the way in which it was often seen by individuals abroad).  I was very surprised when I read that Amiry wanted to use the harsh realities of Jerusalem point of focus for this folklore festival.  I understand that ignoring the truth would not be productive, however during a period of time in which negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis were talking place, I assumed that the goal would be to focus on more positive aspects of the rich and unique culture of Jerusalem. 

As I continued reading I was reassured when Amiry stated in “Researching East Jerusalem” that the Jerusalem festival was “a valuable cultural venue to promote understanding, respect, and mutuality between our 2 peoples”. This led gave me a much more optimistic feeling about the inspiration of the festival.  However, it also crossed my mind that that the 2 goals of mentioned above by Amiry were extremely conflicting.  It is important to keep in mind that in addition to the Palestinian research team, the Israeli research team had their own distinct ideas about what how Jerusalem should be contextualized for the festival.  Given the fact that there are so many diverging opinions and ideas of how Jerusalem should be manifested, it makes sense that the planning for this festival came to a halt. 

At the end of “Researching East Jerusalem” Albert stated the quote “Jerusalem is a city where people are carrying mirrors. One holds a  mirror in one direction.  It is a city of many realities: every individual or community has a mirror of history of cultural realities. As a true Jerusalemite, if I can call myself that, I carry my mirror, but I respect all other mirrors.  The problem is when one big mirror seeks to marginalize all other mirrors except for itself”.  I found this quote extremely interesting and very applicable to the situation of the festival.  To Jerusalmites and outsiders it is obvious that Jerusalem consists of numerous diverging and opposing cultures.  Unlike the author, not all Jerusalmites are able to respect each other’s “mirrors” and only strive for their own to exist.  I believe that this accurately depicts the problem researchers had contextualizing Jerusalem for the festival.  Since groups of Jerusalemites each had a different idea of how Jerusalem should be represented and did not respect all of the existing “mirrors”, there was no possible way to contextualize Jerusalem in a unifying way.