Monday, January 28, 2013

Weblog Journal

Well, I prematurely posted my thoughts on the readings I guess but there are no regrets right now (just a little embarrassment - standard.) I'm just going to blame it all on the million cold medicines I'm taking while trying to get out of my sick bed.

I honestly have no idea how I would handle Arab/Israeli negotiations. It's the kind of thing where you can read as many articles as you can find, or watch a million documentaries on YouTube, and still feel as though you have no idea how to grasp the situation. It's not like you can sit the two sides down, offer them a cup of tea, and be like, "Hey guys, let's be rational here, what's happening with this whole war thing? We're still on that, right?" For a lot of people, this conflict has spanned their entire lives, and if not the entirety of their lives, at least most of it. Both sides want it to be over, sure, but how do you just end something that has taken up every day of your life for sixty years? How do you get over hurts, perceived or real, that have lasted generations? So many people have tried to analyse the conflict and come up with solutions, but I don't think anything right now is going to appease both sides and nothing is going to end while both are hurting.

I think the heart of the conflict right now is Jerusalem. The (illegal) settlements are one thing - yes, Israel needs to stop building them if any peace is going to be achieved - but ultimately even if the question of the settlements is met there is still the issue of Jerusalem. Both sides want the city as their capital and reject the idea of leaving it independent from both, so how to keep both happy? Plans have been made to split the city, but I'm not sure how that would work leaving the capital of two states who have fought for so long in such close proximity.

It's not like it's an issue of understanding each other either - it's not like Palestinians or Israelis  have never interacted, it's not uncommon to find people who speak both Hebrew and Arabic there fluently, or at least understand SOME of the other language. You'll also find people from both sides standing up for rights or protesting the conflict and calling for an end. I feel like half the battle lies with either government, not the people themselves, but how do you get two governments to stop bickering? There's also the problem of extremists on either side to deal with and satisfy. There's just no feasible way to meet everyone's needs here, so somebody in charge is going to have to suck it up and compromise.

I know it's been said before, but I think the first step to peace will be removing the Wall and any illegal settlements. Israel should not be above UN laws - I mean, until recently, Israel and the US pretty much controlled it and everyone else had to follow the law. I understand that Israel feels that removing the Wall is a security risk, but considering that as long as it's up no lasting peace is going to be achieved, isn't that just perpetuating the risk? It doesn't have to all come down in one day, and at least stop adding on to it! The IDF is one of the best armies(?) in the world; I'm sure they can come up with a plan to keep Israel safe AND get rid of the wall.

Another thing that could help end the conflict are the groups that condone Israeli and Palestinian cooperation. There's a summer camp that my friend told me about that takes school children from both sides (and I think from the US as well?) and they all spend the summer swimming and making crafts and getting along, and I know it sounds all rainbow-y and utopian, but if that camp can be successful, who's to say that an adult version wouldn't work out? I mean, sure, camping and crafting doesn't sound very adult, but I think it sounds like a great time. Realistically though, I like the idea of having groups and maybe charities that would promote Palestinians and Israelis interacting outside the sphere of politics.

There's so many ideas that have been put forward though, and I feel like this topic can be debated endlessly and you can find the flaws or the benefits to any one of them. It's so difficult to say what could work and what won't.. I'm really looking forward to seeing what everyone says in class tomorrow.

Reading Responses! Armstrong, Pressman, and Slater.


Is it really week four, you guys? How did we get to almost a month in so quickly?

Reading through the Armstrong chapters for this week there were a couple things that instantly stuck out to me, the first and foremost being that she seems against Christianity in some way. She says things like, “The Christians of Aelia did not seem to have got off to a good start here: it did not seem as though the experience of living in the city where Christ had died and risen again had inspired them to live up to their noblest ideals,” (p 47), and “Yet Christians had thought that they were above this type of piety. They had proudly proclaimed that theirs was a purely spiritual faith that was not dependent upon shrines and holy places,” (p189/16). I mean, I’m not an expert in this field or this time period or anything, nor am I particularly religious, but it seemed as though she was putting down Christianity (at least during this period) more than commenting on the history. Oddly enough though she also seemed to have something against the word synagogue too, referring to it only once (that I found) and mentioning it as “synagogue” – quotation marks and all (p189/16 for those interested), or calling it “their church.” I mean, I don’t see a connection here but I just thought it was interesting that she seemed a little biased against Christianity but still preferred to call synagogues ‘churches.’

There were so many interesting new facts in these chapters though – I kind of loved it. I had no idea that earlier Jews practiced praying in the direction of Jerusalem if they were travelling (like Islam and Mecca!) – does anyone know if that’s still in practice? Let’s be honest, I know next to nothing about Judaism but I thought that was a really cool link between Judaism and Islam, even if the cities in question are/were different.

Another fun new fact was that she repeatedly said that Christians were not interested in the physical city of Jerusalem, but more in the heavenly Jerusalem, and that not many Christians came to the city as tourists. Eusebius could only name four pilgrims, and one of them, Melito, only came for scholarly reasons. “Thus Jerusalem had no special status on the Christian map.” P46 She also showed how that evolved over the chapters, and how it became an important city. And then there was the whole “Jesus was Logos in the flesh” / Paganism combining with Christianity concept fascinating. I’ve never given much thought about how the religions clashed during that time period – I mean, I knew in theory that Christianity had Pagan elements in it, and I knew that they had to mix them to make it better accepted, but I’ve never sat down and actually thought about the people during the time period who were experiencing it and who believed it or anything.

I’m going to have to admit though, the whole “great balls of fire erupting from the earth and a giant cross appearing in the sky” thing was weird. As was the practice of licking the holy places - Kissing religious places and stones in Jerusalem is a common thing, but I cringed when I read that people licked the stones! I’ve kissed the star in the Church of Nativity and the tomb in the Resurrection Church, but licking them?! No, no, no. Nope.

In regards to the Pressman article, I have a lot to say.

I like that he mentions that the slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land” was false as Arabs lived there, and that he mentioned the rising Arab nationalism as a response to Zionism. He also mentions that Arab literacy was comparatively low and as a result the spreading nationalist ideologies were limited, but he doesn’t mention the oral component of Arab culture at all. Arab traditions were spread orally through songs and plays and coffee shops – socialising is an important part – it would have been interesting if he found some sources that mentioned how nationalism was affected by that (though obviously understandable that he couldn’t find sources).

I did find it interesting that he did not mention that a country in South America (I forget which one) was also a possible location for a Zionist/Jewish state when they were looking for one. Palestine/Israel was chosen for political reasons, though some people pushed for it because of religious reasons (Herzl being one of them). I thought he skimmed over a lot of the initial conflicts. He doesn’t mention that initially, Arabs and Jews got along fairly well and were not in direct opposition to each other. It was the British officers and the Jewish settlers who initially began to disagree, and that around the time the British military left the area that the Arabs and Jews were in conflict. He also doesn’t mention the reasoning behind the rejection of the resolution – I used to know why it was, but it was something about being perceived as unfair and Jerusalem itself. I’ll have to look it up properly. I wish he would have mentioned it more specifically because I feel like that was a very important point in the conflict that could have impacted everything following it!

I liked that Jeremy outlined the history so we have a timeline, but I didn’t like that he skimmed over a lot of important points and didn’t mention others. “Arabs and Israelis did not fight again until 1967” implies that there was little or no conflict at the time, and that’s not true. Sure, no major fighting/wars broke out, but there were daily struggles and miniature fights as would appear between any two people trying to occupy the same land. I like that he tries to remain unbiased, but I think he could have improved upon his article by elaborating on why the conflict started and going into the history of each people more. I mean, sure, it would have been a lot longer, but skimming over their history and saying things like “Arabs and Israelis did not fight again until 1967” seems to me like it was a bit oversimplifying a very complicated period/conflict.

I really liked Slater’s article compared to Pressman’s. Yes, it condemned Israel’s methodology, but only in the way that it was against the war crimes. It was shocking to read that the then chief of staff of the IDF Gur actually believed that civilians deserved to be bombarded. I’d heard about people saying that Israel had militants who believed that (and obviously there are Palestinians/Arabs who believe the same of Israeli civilians) but to actually see it written out is kind of shocking.

Slater’s article was an easy read, and I liked that he elaborates on war moral philosophy – something that I would never seek out or know anything about. There was a lot of history in his article and sometimes it got a bit dense, but for the most part it was an interesting read.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Palestinian rap: Shadia Mansour

This has nothing to do with the class, but I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in this.

I don't know how many of you guys would be interested in this because it's in Arabic, but Shadia Mansour is fantastic (I'm slightly biased - though usually not into rap so maybe not that biased?). She's known as the "first lady of hip-hop" and she's kind of controversial because she sings about politics and the war/conflict and she's a woman, but what's rap if not typically controversial and in your face, right? She's from Haifa, but grew up in the UK and spent her summers in Palestine and she does feature in a few English bands (though she herself typically sings/raps in Arabic). Anyway, I had a bit of a tough time deciding which one to show you because she sings to/about Israel/is a lot, but a lot of them are controversial and I guess this one is the least so? I don't know, but the music video is pretty cool because she wears a traditional Palestinian dress throughout and it was all shot in Palestine/Jerusalem so the background is pretty great. I tried to find one that was subtitled but that didn't go very well, so I'll just post the lyrics to go with it so you'll know what she's all about. The song is called "The Arabic Scarf" (the koffeyah is that black and white/red and white chequered scarf that people wear.)

Fair warning: it's all Palestinian nationalism and pro-Arabs from here on out.
Also, I couldn't be bothered/didn't quite have the time to translate her myself so I stole the translation from online and read through it. It's fairly accurate, though it sounds really weird reading it out in English. As an English song I don't like it, but in Arabic I do, if that makes sense? I don't really know how to explain it, but at least the lyrics will give you an idea about the song.


Good morning, cousins; welcome, come in.
What would you like us to serve you, Arab blood or tears from our eyes?
I think that's how they expected us to receive them.
That's why they got embarrassed when they realized their mistake.

That's why we rocked the kuffiyeh, the white and black.
Now these dogs are startin' to wear it as a trend.
No matter how they design it, no matter how they change its color,
The kuffiyeh is Arabic, and it will stay Arabic.

The gear we rock, they want it; our culture, they want it;
Our dignity, they want it; everything that's ours, they want it;
Half your country, half your home; why, why? No, I tell 'em.
Stealin' something that ain't theirs, I can't allow it.
They imitatin' us in what we wear, wear; this land is not enough for them. What else do you want?
They're greedy for Jerusalem. Learn how to say "human beings".
Before y'all ever rocked a kuffiyeh, we here to remind 'em who we are.
And whether they like it or not, this is our clothing style.

[Chorus:]
That's why we rock the kuffiyeh, cuz it's patriotic.
The kuffiyeh, the kuffiyeh is Arabic.
That's why we rock the kuffiyeh, our essential identity.
The kuffiyeh, the kuffiyeh is Arabic.
Come on, throw up the kuffiyeh (throw that kuffiyeh up for me).
The kuffiyeh, the kuffiyeh is Arabic.
Throw it up! Come on, Greater Syria!.
The kuffiyeh is Arabic, and it will stay Arabic.

[Verse 2:]
There's none yet like the Arab people.
Show me which other nation in the world was more influential.
The picture is clear: we are the cradle of civilization.
Our history and cultural heritage testify to our existence.
That's why I rocked the Palestinian gear,
From Haifa, Jenin, Jabal al Nar to Ramallah.
Let me see the kuffiyeh, the white and red.
Let me throw it up in the sky; I'm
Arab, and my tongue creates earthquakes.
I shake the words of war.
Listen, I'm Shadia Mansour, and the gear I'm rockin' is my identity.
Since the day I was born raisin' people's awareness been my responsibility.
But I was raised between fear and evil; between two areas,
Between the grudging and the poor, I seen life from both sides.
God bless the kuffiyeh; however you rock me, wherever you see me,
I stay true to my origins: Palestinian.

Reading Response 3: Armstrong 1-4


When I was reading Armstrong’s introduction, I definitely had to agree with her about the idea that “history is a dimension of the present.” You just walk through the streets of Jerusalem, and suddenly it doesn’t feel like you’re in 2012 or 2013 any more, everything is just so old and beautiful, and sure, there are modern things there like cars and technology, and people aren’t dressed like they belong in the 1800s or anything, but the city itself – the walls, the streets, everything just feels so old, and by extension you just feel like you’re part of it all.  I also like that she addressed the idea of religious pluralism, and people seeing the city in different ways, because it’s so true: it means different things to different people, and you can know it going in to the city, but actually feeling it and seeing it makes it feel more real than a romanticised description told to you by someone else.

She also brought up a good point that, for me at least, seems to reflect on the conflict at large: the whole concept of being FIRST. We were here first, we built the city first, it was important to us first. My five year old brother does that too: he saw that candy first, so it’s his. I didn’t include that last part to belittle the conflict or the people fighting every day, but just to point out the childishness of it all. So what if you were here first? It doesn’t change the fact that others have been there for a long time, that they’re still there, and that they’re probably going to continue to be there for a very long time. I understand that this part of it is small, that there are greater issues to deal with before the conflict can be resolved, but people do bring this argument up thinking it’s a valid point (my own family included) and I think that as long as anyone using it believes it, then progress can’t be made beyond this point.

Alright, that last paragraph was a huge rant and slightly off-tangent, but I think I’m going to leave it in as I genuinely do believe it.

I also really liked the part where she was talking about the similarity between art and religion, and the importance of practicing charity and compassion in every day life in order for the city to be considered ‘holy’ within religious circles. I’d never really considered that comparison before, and then she went on to say how some of the most uncharitable and atrocious acts had been committed to people within Jerusalem, and it just made me reconsider my own definition of ‘holy.’ She talked about how every major religion required its practitioners to practice charity and compassion outside the place of worship, but if Jerusalem is such a religious city, then why are there people living in fear of rockets or suicide bombers or being forcibly removed from their house?

Ultimately though, I liked the reading this week. It was a bit difficult for me to get into it once I passed the introduction and started in on the first chapter, but once I was in the zone it wasn’t that hard to keep reading. Sometimes all the information was a bit dense and I felt like it was going in one ear and out the other, but it was great to see a mix of the historical and religious history that Jerusalem had, especially its history from the ancient days. I also liked that so far Armstrong seems pretty impartial and hasn’t been “pro” anything and is more informative than editorialising. (Is that even a word? Did I use it properly? I’m not sure.)

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Journal Entry #1

Aah, I can't believe it's already Wednesday night in our second week. Where does all our time go?! I feel like I only just got lost trying to find the radio building (we had a radio building?!) and it's already the start of term proper! I'm pretty excited about the class, everyone seems really friendly and open to discussion, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what everyone has to say. I'm kind of nervous about talking in any group over four or five people, but I think this would be an easy class to speak up in because everyone seems pretty open. I'm also pretty excited about the people in my group! Not to have favourites or anything.. ;)

I'm really horrible about this whole five pm deadline though, so I need to be more on the ball. My only excuse is that as an Arab, I feel obligated to be late to everything but I don't think it'll fly this time! If I'm ever late to anything, anyone reading this (if anyone is) can feel free to just tell me, "Yalla, Yasmine!" which is basically just, "Hurry yourself up!" I can't promise anything, but it could work! Other than that, I think I like the idea of this blog. It's kind of weird thinking people are/may/could be reading things I post on here, especially since the internet isn't exactly a friendly place to put your ideas and opinions out on, but it's so different from my other classes that it hardly feels like classwork and feels more like fun. Let's just see if it stills feel fun once we get into the controversial stuff!

Also, is anyone else a little nervous that our classes are recorded? Haha, now all my silly comments and lame jokes can be caught on camera. I don't know if I want people in Jerusalem knowing I'm as lame as I am! (Granted, we've got some pretty intelligent people in our class, so hopefully everyone's listening to them. Crossing my fingers.)

I guess I'll see everyone tomorrow, bright and early!

Monday, January 14, 2013

Reading Response # 2:


The reading due for this week consisted of three articles: “Jerusalem: Then and Now” by Mick Dumper, “The History of Jerusalem: An Arab Perspective” by Rashid Khalidi, and “The Holy City Through the Ages.” Each of the readings was an analysis of Jerusalem’s history and its ties to religion, and how quickly the city expanded and was built upon.

After reading Dumper’s article, it’s crazy to think how rapidly the city expanded during the 20th century compared to expansion prior to that, and especially around the 1980s and 90s. I kind of wonder exactly what was expanded, and what changed in the city. Whenever I visited Jerusalem, I usually stayed within the Old City and it doesn’t have a modern feel to it. Ramallah felt more modern than the Old City did, and Beit Sahour had areas that were kind of an in-between. I wish I’d had time to explore Jerusalem more to see how different it is in other neighbourhoods. From Dumper’s article, I think I really liked his line; “As a holy city it [Jerusalem] serves as a symbol, vehicle and embodiment of spiritual beliefs and aspirations, and so was given an elevated status which overcame its unpromising environment and location.” I mean, it’s true: despite not having any natural resources to export, Jerusalem is an incredibly important city, both culturally and politically, so you have to assume that it’s from its ties to religion. When I think of Jerusalem, I can’t really separate it from religion.

Considering this and what Khalidi wrote about how a lot of Jerusalem’s “history” can’t be proven empirically, and that a lot of it is based on lore (which could be based on actual events), you have to wonder how much of its history relating to religion actually happened, and how much of it was exaggerated by the victorious party after it was conquered, and how different the conflict would be today if invading armies during that time had been more secular than religious.

Rubin’s article only cemented the tie between the historical political and religious aspect of Jerusalem. When going over its military history, it seemed the new developments and expansions or conquering armies all had a tie to one of the three major monotheistic religions. It’s still the same way today. The sentence she wrote that I found particularly striking was, “Nevertheless, by the end of the century, Jerusalem was impressed upon the Muslim consciousness as Islam’s third holy city, the place where the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on his Night Journey.” Jerusalem is so important in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that it has to be accepting in order to accommodate the diverse religions that are essentially the foundation of the city.

Reading Response #1

-->
Our first reading assignments for this class are all centred on a research project that took place in 1993. There were two ‘sides’ to the project; one ‘team’ was to analyse and represent East Jerusalem, and the other West Jerusalem, and the final project would be hosted by the Smithsonian at the Washington Mall in an attempt to show an audience the diversity Jerusalem presents. I really liked reading the articles about the project, and I really wish that something like this would be something I could go to.

Reading El-Amiry’s article and seeing the difficulties the researchers faced when trying to balance the different ethnic groups was very interesting. I haven’t been to Jerusalem in a very long time, and I was mostly limited to East Jerusalem, but I remember visiting Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and I couldn’t imagine trying to accurately represent two religions, let alone three, as well as all the diverse ethnic groups and cultures within Jerusalem alone. There are similarities, but the differences as well as the sensitivity of the topic would be so difficult, you have to respect everyone who worked on this project, especially everyone who tried to find the funding necessary.

The article written by Galit Hasan was another perspective about the research project, and the first thing I remember sticking out to me about the project was finding out that it was part of three projects as a whole, and that the other two were about Cajun culture and North American social dancing. I thought it was a little strange at the time, especially since the idea of the Jerusalem research project is not only different, but also is so diverse that there’s so much information to cover. It is interesting that neither the El-Amiry article nor the interview mentioned that the Oslo agreement affected the project; though it was mentioned in both Hasan's and Dr. Horowitz's articles. Looking back on it, I feel like that should have been an obvious mention but if I hadn’t read Hasan’s article then I would never have linked the two together despite the fact that I knew the project took place in 1993.

Additionally, while reading Hasan’s perspective on El-Amiry, it was interesting to see that fieldworkers from both sides of the project didn’t meet. While I understand that they were each working on different angles of Jerusalem – one regarding Arab Jerusalem and one regarding Jewish Jerusalem – I don’t understand how they couldn’t have met, if at least a few times, once they were done collecting research as they were completing their parts. Wouldn’t the final step of the project be to at least understand the research from the other side? I really liked reading Hasan’s report because it also gave me the Israeli side of the project, and especially the information that she was giving about the ethnic holidays and different ethnic groups within the Jewish side of Jerusalem.  Hasan’s analysis was different than Amiry’s in that it also gave us more information about the Jewish culture, and not just the difficulties the project faced.

I think my favourite part of all the articles though was in Dr. Horowitz’s article, where she talked about how they went about ordering ice cream to suit the Palestinian or Israeli colours, or had designs laid out with those colours to look vaguely like the flags, and the jokes the Palestinian and Israeli researchers were making about the white tents at the Smithsonian. It was hilarious, and it shows that there is the potential to make cooperation work between the two parties, despite cultural and political differences.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Introduction

Hello! My name is Yasmine Khoury, and I am a senior this year majoring in NELC and History, with a minor in Psychology. I am half Palestinian, half American, and spent my childhood in Amman. I came to the States for my senior year of High School, and aside from a year abroad in the UK, have been here ever since. My father's side of the family is from Beit Sahour, and I go back every summer to visit my Taita and Sedo. Generally speaking, my family and I do not discuss politics very often so what I know of the region is limited to the culture and language, so I am hoping that this class will allow me to learn things from different angles and to hopefully allow me an Israeli perspective of the conflict.

I have only been to Jerusalem a couple times, mainly because I have my Palestinian hawiya (ID) from Beit Sahour so it's very difficult for me to get into the city without special permission. That being said, I absolutely love the city and would love to go back if it were possible. My stepmother is from Jerusalem, so she brings back goodies like cakes and breads that are a little different from what we usually get. I named my blog for my half brother, Zeid, who is nearly two and absolutely loves to eat zayt o za3tar, which is a thyme and olive oil dish.