Mike Dumper's article 'Jerusalem Then and Now' does an amazingly thorough job of dissecting and explaining Jerusalemin her changes throughout time. I really appreciate the timeline he included. This helps me visualize the many challengers and conquerors of the city, giving a flat-line to follow while his article builds the flesh and form of the city's history. I may be looking at this through odd lenses, but looking at this timeline and reviewing Dumper's article, I can't help but feel that the 'frenetic pace' he alludes to is the result of Jerusalem beating either with more than one heart, or one heart out of synch. I don't know which.....more than one heart can only result in continued divisions within the city, although they could beat together while maintaining independence. If Jerusalem has one heart, it's irradic and unsynchronized rhythm is not healthy, and I don't see how healing can begin until the beat is steady. Dumper says that international pressure is the only way to shift Israeli position toward change, or expect the same frenetice pace. I think he offers that Jerusalem has only one heart, and the Israeli beat needs to get in synch. Could it be that we expect Jerusalem to exist as one and that the various peoples within learn to exist as one? Is it possible to expect three hearts within one city, with each beating independently yet strengthing the whole?....I suppose that is the question.....
Rashid Khalidi's 'History of Jerusalem' started out solidly from an historical approach. I understand the importance of archeological and textual evidence. Yet he quickly offered aspects that do not follow this approach "(Palestinians generally believe...what scholar's generally hold to be true....Muslims regard Jerusalem...."). I felt that Khalidi leaned heavily on sentiment (acquired and present) while presenting his article, though standing on the premise of history. His conclusion of East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital with "religious freedom for everyone at the holy sites sacred to the three Abrahamic faiths" seemed the driven purpose of this. Well written, but I don't think he presented his argument from an historical slant.
I loved Reva Rubin's 'Jerusalem: The Holy City Through the Ages. Smooth, flowing and positive, it left me feeling like there actually could be a 'happily ever after ending' to the story of Jerusalem: "...and Jerusalem, with all its municipal and political complexities, where Jews and Muslims, some secular and others religious, could live side by side..." Oh how peaceful. And the gentle offering of togetherness: "Archeological digs carried out around the city each revealed something about Jerusalem's unique history, providing rich insights into Jerusalem's role as a sacred city to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." There is hope, there is hope. Why can not the rich history recounted provide a basis of understanding so all could live side by side, soft eyes and sincere smiles of the youth able to live happily ever after?
I want to mention that there is much that interests me in regards to our final project. I enjoy people and would love to work with ideas about how the youth perceive their neighbors and their future, and how the older ones might have felt as youth regarding the same information; how they might have felt and how they feel now about their people, their city, their culture, etc... I would be happy to work with any ideas. Also, I must add that I commute almost two hours each day to attend IU and do not have the luxury of spending evenings on campus. So, if that might seem to infringe on working with any of you on our project, I have no problem just writing a final paper. Either way, project or paper, works for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment