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.