Fifth Reading Response

I found this section of reading rather unenjoyable. It was difficult to follow and understand the development of the different religious groups and the nuances of their specific beliefs. There were some facts that surprised me, as they differed substantially from the historical narrative that I had in mind. I was well aware that the Byzantine empire began to accept Christianity and that this greatly assisted the spread of the religion. However, I was surprised to read about the rule of Emperor Julian and his strong opposition to the Christian faith and that he went so far as to allow the Jews to at least attempt the reconstruction of the Temple Mount as part of an effort to revive non-Christian religions throughout the empire. This reading was also important in how its explanation of the early conflict between Christians and Jews gently foreshadowed future religious conflicts of a far grander scale that would rock the Middle East and reverberate across the entire globe.

Journal #2

Like many who observe the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I am not particularly optimistic that a resolution is likely to develop in the near future. I see two main reasons that a resolution is not soon at hand. This first is the decreased incentive that the Israelis have to make concessions towards the Palestinians. The second is the changing political climate in Israel. The recent elections have shown that designing a peace deal doesn’t appear to be as important to the Israeli populace as it once was.

            Although there is a diminished incentive for the Israelis to push for the implementation of a two-state solution, some advantages remain for the pursuit of peace. It is true that there isn’t an Intifada raging at this time, but Hamas’ resistance has ensured that violence has maintained its place within this conflict and probably will for the foreseeable future. Recently, though, the dynamics of the fighting around Gaza have changed. The engagements associated with Operation Pillar of Defense ended in a way that I wouldn’t have predicted; there wasn’t a ground invasion by the IDF. There are really two main reasons an invasion was prevented. The first is that there was an intense and surprisingly successful effort to negotiate a truce. Israel was approaching an election season and politicians often want to avoid fighting wars that can damage their popularity. The second is that the Israelis were able to defend themselves in a way unlike during Operation Cast Lead of 2008-09 or the 2006 Lebanon war.

Israel has always been making strides to improve the capability of its military, and this march has only continued in recent years. One system in particular symbolizes this technological dominance and greatly enhances overall security. Iron Dome allowed the Israelis to down the rockets that posed the greatest threat to population centers; as a result, only a few Israelis were killed during last November’s hostilities. While it would be a mistake to deem Iron Dome the “magic bullet” in Israel’s long search for the ability to substantially quell Katyusha rocket attacks, it has allowed the Israelis to more effectively weather upticks in violence. This system does have its limitations; Iron Dome will never provide ironclad protection. With each missile costing around $50,000, and the fact that no system like this is fail-safe, the Israelis will still suffer casualties from rocket attacks. While less likely, the situation may arise where Israel must send its military back into the Gaza Strip. Israel is certainly more secure than in the past years, but current policies regarding the Palestinian community leave open the possibility for future conflicts and therefore there will always be benefits, albeit lessened ones, to working towards implementation of a two-state solution.

            While an increasing military dominance does play a role in the likelihood of a two-state solution being adopted, the ideologies of Israel’s main political parties are of equal importance. The weakening of Netanyahu and his Likud party has come from both the rise of conservative and liberal-secular cadres in recent elections, and when one looks at how wildly different these groups are it becomes difficult to imagine how a coalition government is going to agree to push for a real solution to the issue of the Palestinians. Netanyahu has advocated varying policies relating to the Palestinians. He has voiced his support for eventually implementing a two-state solution, yet has also continued the expansion of Israeli settlements within the West Bank – settlements which make it difficult to create a viable Palestinian state. It is also crucial to realize that the conflict with the Palestinians is not the security issue that Netanyahu focuses on. He directs a great deal of attention to the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program (a threat that I feel is overhyped). Other parties and individuals in the Israeli government are also mainly directing attention toward issues aside from the two-state solution. Yair Lapid’s new centrist party, Yesh Atid, is focusing on domestic issues that the government has failed to address, issues such as: widening income inequality, education reform, and the tens of thousands of ultra-orthodox Jews who are exempt from military service and subsidize their religious studies with government stipends. Lapid supports a two-state solution, but says that any acceptable deal includes Israel keeping its largest settlements in the West Bank. While Yesh Atid did become the largest single party in the Knesset, the conservative forces also made significant gains in the recent elections. Naftali Bennett, who leads the conservative party known as Jewish Home, opposes granting statehood to the Palestinians. He advocates that Israelis settle the rural areas of the West Bank while letting the Palestinians govern themselves in the remaining areas under the watchful eyes of Shin Bet (Israel’s domestic intelligence service).

            It is hard to predict where the politically diverse Knesset will find common ground and exactly what policies it will advocate and what issues it will tackle. It is true that many Israelis want to see a two-state solution come about, but there are also those who are indifferent and those who are expressly opposed. I have a tough time imagining how Israel will make the collective decision to grant full statehood to the Palestinians. Dismantling settlements and working to relocate whole communities doesn’t strike me as something that the ideologically diverse Knesset will call for.

            If a two-state solution were to be adopted, what would it look like? It would probably consist of the Israelis dismantling the unauthorized and the smaller legal settlements in the West Bank, but also require the Palestinians to accept that the largest Israeli settlements will stay in place. With this continued Israeli presence the Palestinians would have to accept the construction of an Israeli controlled road system to connect these settlements to Israel proper as well as the presence of some Israeli security forces at the permanent settlements.

            Predicting the fate of both Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip is of the greatest difficulty. The symbolic value of Jerusalem makes it hard to imagine how the Israelis would be willing to cede any annexed areas to the Palestinians, if not take even more of the city. I can hardly guess how peace could come to Gaza. The Israelis have shown no desire to negotiate long-term peace with Hamas and Hamas hasn’t shown any real signs of ending its rule of Gaza and its armed resistance against Israel.

            There certainly are difficulties with defining exactly what a two-state solution would look like, but this isn’t why a solution is unlikely to materialize in the near future. Improved security has lessened the incentives to make concessions in the name of peace. And ideologically distant parties are unlikely to build common ground around the creation of an independent Palestine. These facts greatly diminish chances that a two-state solution will be achieved any time soon.

Fourth Reading Response

As I read through this section of reading I struggled to keep straight in my mind the specific reasons for the Jews different revolts against outside rulers and the names and philosophies behind the varying groups that advocated different forms of rule in Israel. Putting aside this confusion I still learned a lot about the ancient history of Israel/Palestine. Before I had read these chapters I was already familiar with the fact that the Romans ruled Palestine, but I was unaware that the Greeks and Babylonians had also ruled this land for a time. 

I am not a religious person, and therefore have never been very knowledgable about the intricacies of how different religions practice their faiths. What I did learn about the Jewish faith and the practice of religion in general was very intriguing. I knew that animal sacrifice had formerly been a part of the practice of Judaism, but I didn't know to what extent. I was surprised to read how animal sacrifice was the predominate activity at the Temple Mount. I found Armstrong's explanation interesting, how ancient religions focused much more on ritual animal sacrifice than upon organized prayer that we see so much more today. I am curious as to what led to the decline of sacrifice. Was it seen as being wasteful? Did people no longer see a benefit in its practice? This is a question that I would like to know more about. 

Third Reading Response

While I did find it somewhat difficult keeping the names and the different stages of rule straight in my mind, I really enjoyed this first reading assignment. My knowledge of modern Israeli history is rather strong, but I am virtually clueless when it comes to the ancient history of this land. I actually gained a lot from completing this first section of reading.
One point that Armstrong made that I found to be of particular interest was from the very beginning of the book. She wrote about the concept that religious beliefs are often a very important factor in the creation of new settlements around the world. Armstrong points out that the belief that a certain area can allow for one to easily connect with the divine world can play a major role in the creation or expansion of a particular settlement. This fact makes it seem somewhat ironic that humans have historically seen Jerusalem as the city that uniquely developed out of the evolution of religions. It is interesting to wonder just how many cities initially developed out of the human desire to expand upon their faith. That said, I still do believe that Jerusalem is a unique city due to its history. It is undeniable that no city has ever been so intensely connect to major world religions and the conflicts that develop around them.

Journal Response #1

Like nearly all classes, this class did not immediately grab my attention. The first readings were indeed quite boring, and the first conversations did not grab my attention in any serious way. That will of course, begin to change as the class begins to study and discuss more specific regional issues. This is something that I honestly do look forward to, as I have always maintained a great passion for Israeli history.
I enjoyed listening to how the conversation started to become heated as it was debated who was really responsible for initiating the conflict in Gaza. While it is interesting to have the blame discussion, I do feel that it can become quite repetitive. I have always been a rather strong supporter of Israel, but at the same time I am understanding of the Palestinian's grievances and while there is little chance that it will bring a solution to the regional conflict I understand why some individuals resort to armed resistance. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak once made the comment that if he were a Palestinian he would have joined a terrorist organization. I think that this point is quite telling. It emphasizes the notion that one cannot easily brand one side as being the "bad guy" regarding this particular conflict. Most individuals looking at this conflict generally sympathize with one side or the other, and that is perfectly natural. I personally see debates weighing the morality of the Palestinians and the Israelis as being of little value. No matter which side one sympathizes with, it should be easy to see the legitimate reasons why the other side continues the fight.
For myself, our end of the semester project is a bit of an issue. I am completely undecided as to what I would like to make a presentation about. I am contemplating some very basic ideas, but I'll have to think about this a lot more. Its hard to come up with a topic for a presentation. I am too used to having to answer a question posed by the class instructor. Maybe I have too much freedom regarding my research?

Second Reading Response

There were two important facts touched upon in these readings that I found to be of particular interest. The first is how the Sephardic Jewish populations that were expelled from the Iberian peninsula during the Spanish Inquisition played an important role in adding to the overall size of the Jewish communities in Jerusalem. Of course, it was through the immigration of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the Jewish population of Palestine reached that levels allowed for the eventual creation of a Jewish state. I would be interested to learn more about the immigration that developed as a result of the Inquisition and the experiences of the communities that were established in Jerusalem.
The second bit of information that I found to be intriguing is how Jerusalem is a city that is actually of little value from a geographic perspective. Due to the dynamics of the surrounding land the city has historically been rather difficult to access from the outside, and until the development of a system of aqueducts, was plagued by a nearly constant water shortage. While it is a well known fact, it is amazing to just think about how humans can fight with such vigor for a city that has been of limited economic value. Jerusalem's value truly does come from the emotional attachment that people have to it.

First Reading Response

I certainly would not consider our first batch of class readings to be the most intriguing. Essay's presenting a basic outline of a city reenactment that never materialized probably are not at the top of most people's reading lists. That said, these essays are rather useful in helping readers to understand the wonderful cultural diversity of Jerusalem. Just reading the descriptions of the myriad of traditions that program leaders had to decide whether or not to include in their Jerusalem program effectively highlights this point. I would consider it to be a bit of an extrapolation to use these writings to help one develop a deep understanding of the conflict that has become such a significant part of the lives of Jerusalem's inhabitants; general readings regarding the city's history would serve this purpose much better. These essays have their purpose.
As I went through the readings I thought that the idea of placing a Jerusalem exhibit on the national mall was an interesting idea. Most people will not travel to Jerusalem, but an exhibit could be an effective way to educate significant numbers of individuals. It is unfortunate that the Living Jerusalem exhibit never materialized.

About Me

I am a third year international studies major here at Ohio State. Currently, I have not yet decided precisely what job I will pursue following graduation. For now I am content with focusing on finishing school. I have sustained a serious interest in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Taking this class is of the utmost importance to me, as I will be joining the May trip to Jerusalem. Visiting Israel is something that I have always wanted to do, and I am thrilled that I will finally have to opportunity to do so.