Final Project

So, for my final project, I plan to go around the campus and ask people at random (probably largely on the Oval and in the Union) the following questions:

- What are you studying?

- What's your age?

- Where are you from?

- How do you identify yourself politically, if you do identify yourself politically?

- How do you identify yourself religiously, if you do identify yourself religiously?

- What do you know of the situation in Israel-Palestine?

- How do you think Jerusalem is crucial to the conflict?

- Do you think there is any possible resolution to the conflict?

I'm then going to make a video of the responses (or, at least some of the responses). I'm interested to see if any patterns emerge as well!

Jerusalem International Chamber Music Festival

Well, in exploring the web and looking for musical events in Jerusalem, I found The Jerusalem International Chamber Music Festival.

This caught my attention for a number of reasons, but the first was that the site is available in English and Hebrew, but not Arabic. So, it seems to me that it's clearly meant for a particular audience. Then, I looked at the sponsors and benefactors, and many (most) of the sponsors and benefactors are based in the U.S. and Europe, and my guess (based on names) is that many of those who provide funding for the festival are Jewish or connected to Judaism in some way. Also, it's interesting to note that the music being featured is mostly European.

I wonder, what are the political ramifications about a festival like this that seems to be intentionally exclusionary? (And this is not to say that Palestinians don't have festivals that are exclusionary as well.) What might the Arab Jews in Jerusalem think of this? I find that question particularly interesting since they can at least access and read the website, etc. yet it seems that "Europeanness" is very important in this festival.

Nativism and The "Holy Land"

I’m wrestling a bit with the term “nativism,” especially in regard to the conflict in Israel-Palestine. I have heard “nativism” used in both the positive and the negative ways that Dr. Tamari outlines in his article – as an identity-based political tactic aimed at restoring land, economic, and cultural rights, and I have also heard the term use in pejorative, essentialist, and colonizing ways. In some ways, I see the value of nativism. In the U.S. context, for example I think that American Indians, as native to the land, are absolutely entitled to land rights that reach far beyond the tokenized, oppressive gesture of reservations. But then I wonder, which nations could really call themselves native? Certainly some American Indian nations have suppressed – or even killed off – other nations in order to secure land. In those situations, does nativism apply?

This quickly becomes a slippery slope. If Palestinians claim nativism, yet are suppressed by Israelis, are Israelis then “the next in line?” And, if a dominant force doesn’t buy into claims of nativism, what, then, is its use value? In the Palestine-Israel situation, claims of nativism can be met by claims of a “Promised Land,” so it seems to quickly reach a kind of stalemate. In the U.S., European colonizing forces made claims that what they were doing was for the American Indians’ “own good.” So, it seems doubtful that during these periods of conflict and occupation that claims of nativism would sway the dominant forces, and could risk essentializing and belittling the cultural practices of native communities. But, outside of the direct conflict – either temporally or geographically – perhaps nativist claims can still be a legitimizing force.

Is idolatry by any other name still . . . idolotry?

Right near the end of her book, Armstrong writes, "In montheistic terms, it is idolatry to see a shrine or a city as the ultimate goal of religion. Throughout, we have seen that they are symbols that point beyond themselves to a greater Reality. Jerusalem and its sacred sites have been experienced as numinous" (423).

This is SUCH an interesting perspective - and one I hadn't thought of before. But, it totally makes sense. This is idolatry, really. I'm surprised that I didn't see it, because I can go on and on (but I won't!) about the ways in which the contemporary practice of the monotheistic religions is thick with idolatry (sometimes it even seems that idolatry reigns).

So, I do have some questions about this. First, do you think that practitioners of the monotheistic religions do see Jerusalem as "the ultimate goal of religion?" I don't think that Christians do, and Dr. Sessa solidified that on Tuesday. What about Jews and Muslims? Is Jerusalem the end-goal? Or, is it cast as the religious goal in order to give "weight" to political and territorial claims?

Also, how is this vying for Jerusalem as idolatry not a more common thread in the discussions of it? Now that I've read it in Armstrong, it seems so obvious. Yet, I don't know that I've ever heard this come up in a conversation about contemporary Jerusalem and the conflict there. It seems that perhaps this is another example of religion "picking and choosing" in order to advance political claims. (i.e. Using Leviticus to claim that homosexuality is "wrong," but ignoring other laws presented in this same book of the Bible, some of which are QUITE disturbing.)

Questions for Guest Presenters

GAH! BLOGGER! Why do you despise me??

Okay. Taking a moment.

Here are my questions (that won't show up in the comment section on the class blog, for some reason):

I'm sorry if this ends up showing up twice; it got deleted the first time!

1. Where does Christianity and its followers fit in in regard to the current situation in Jerusalem? It seems that so much of the centers around the relationships between Jews/Isrealis and Muslims/Palestinians. Yet, there are Christians living in the city and Christians who pilgrimage to Jerusalem because it is a holy site. What is their impact on the current situation?

2. We talk a lot about the misconceptions that are in circulation regarding Islam and its followers - perhaps this is especially true for those of us who study the Middle East in some way. What would you say are some misconceptions of the other religions involved here, and how do those misconceptions play into the conflict in Jerusalem, as well as the global/media response to it?

Ch 10-13 Response

This may sound really weird, but for the last few chapters of Armstrong’s book, I’ve found myself wondering, “Where have all the Christians gone?” Throughout this text – well, the more recent chapters anyway – we’ve seen how the monotheistic religions and their expansion have played into this destruction-rebuilding-repeat cycle in Jerusalem. I’m sure that this will become clear as we proceed through the text, but I keep thinking about this as I’m reading – how did we get to the point where we are now, where the conflict is really between two of these monotheistic religious groups? Where are the Christians in the contemporary conflict?

I mean, obviously, they are there. Obviously, Christians also pilgrimage to, and live in, Jerusalem. But, why aren’t they vying for space in the same way that the Israelis and the Palestinians are? Or, are they aligning with Israel, since Judaism and Christianity or born out of the same tradition (or, rather, Christianity is born out of the Jewish tradition)? Armstrong’s text has shown us that no religious group was “good” or “bad.” The situation is complicated, and all of the groups have both been dominant and oppressed. But, in the more contemporary period – or maybe even since the Crusades? – Christianity has been so closely associated with imperialism, colonization, etc. So, why not in contemporary Jerusalem? (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that Christians should try to colonize Jerusalem; I’m just intrigued by the question.) At first I thought that maybe it was the fact that Jerusalem, while also a site of praise for Christians, is also a site of anguish, given the crucifixion, etc. But, then, isn’t Jerusalem clearly a “mixed” location for all of the religious groups?

Swirling Thoughts

Blogger and I are having some relationship troubles. Well, actually, it’s not blogger at all. It’s my five year old computer that feels like it should short circuit occasionally, and in the process, eat the occasional blog post. (I’m getting a new computer this week – weeee!)

Hence, my blog post that I wrote Thursday morning never got posted. So, I’m going to write three this week (sorry to inundate you; please bear with me!). Rather than redoing my post on the chapters we’ve already discussed in class, I’m going to go somewhere else with this blog entry (I hope that’s okay!). I have A LOT swirling around in my head right now, so I apologize if this seems disjointed or rambly. I’ll try to make it make as much sense as possible!

Part of what inspired this mental tangle (or, at least, part of what made it more complicated that it already was) is the fact that I watched “Promises” this weekend. Dr. Horowitz mentioned this move in class a few weeks ago, so I netflixed it to check it out. In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a trailor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySJaH7OXzOA (Also, the whole move is on youtube if you don’t mind it being choppy.

In short – without giving anything away – the movie traces the experiences of a number of Jewish and Palestinian children who live in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Some of these children (two secular Israelis and a number of Palestinian children) decide that they want to meet each other. They spend a day together and then, two years later, the filmmaker asks them to reflect on their experiences. I’m not going to mention what they say, because I don’t want to spoil anything.

Watching this, for me, really resulted in a feeling of dislocation. And perhaps this is not surprising, given all of the instances of exile, destruction, rebirth, colonization, etc. that we have been reading and talking about in class. I feel like the more I learn, the less I can separate myself from world events. And the less “at home” I feel in the U.S. – yet I have no other home. I found myself feeling sad that I’m not able to go on this year’s trip to Jerusalem because I started having this feeling of . . . there must be something there. In that space. I had this feeling that Jerusalem must have something to offer, something to give in the way of explanation. And then I think, this is just me. U.S. born and raised. I have no explicit ties to Jerusalem. And I still have moments of feeling pulled to it. I can’t imagine how strong Kasa’s feelings must have been! And then to get there and . . . there is no explanation. It’s all so perplexing.

“Promises” also made me think of a couple of other projects. One – mentioned by Dr. Horowitz on Thursday – is the Compassionate Listening project. (Started, in part, by a Quaker. Yay!) Here’s a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZM69RV6OjI And their website: http://www.compassionatelistening.org/ It also made me think of the Seeds of Peace Camp, which I’m somewhat familiar with because I’m from Maine, which is where the camp is located: http://www.seedsofpeace.org/

So, all of these things bring me back to questions about dialogue. Does dialogue work? Does “humanizing,” listening too, empathizing with “the enemy” work? Is this simply idealistic?