Khalidi made a point of emphasizing that "the historian cannot afford to ignore what people believe simply because it is not verifiable using rigorous historical methodology", and also that "Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs...must be considered with the utmost gravity".
These are crucial points that must be acknowledged as rules when listening to historical or cultural narratives, especially in this context.
When engaging in discussions (often arguments or debates) about the "original inhabitants" (Khalidi, p.1) of an area, the old adage about the tree falling in the forest applies: if a certain people were the "original inhabitants" of an area, but no one engaging in the debate today believes that, does it matter that they lived there at all? No, it doesn't. What matters is the beliefs of the parties engaging in the debate of what is historically accurate, and unfortunately these beliefs are often staunchly held and sometimes based in inaccurate/non-verifiable sources such as religious texts. I appreciate his recognition of the practice of taking narrative as common sense/indisputable fact.
The Rubin and Dumper pieces were pleasant, easily digestible, objective pieces of historical summarization--I don't have much to say about them other than the fact that they are good texts to include in a historical context.
The Pressman piece was a perfect assignment for this class, one I've encountered before, and one that is difficult for me to read simply because it is sad. It is sad that colonialism/imperialism played a part in the manifestation of the concept of Zionism, it is sad that Palestinian leadership has been so completely abysmal and ineffective, and it is sad that today we still only seem to be getting further and further away from peace. I am a proud Jew and a proud "anti-settlement Zionist", a label I made for myself, and after a lifetime of one-sided pro-Israel indoctrination it was difficult for me to face (about 5 years ago), acknowledge, and process the truth that the founding of my beloved homeland was not all rainbows and blue and white butterflies (Israeli flag reference). From this text spring countless issues, questions, gut reactions, feelings, memories both personal and cultural/shared....
What are peoples' experience with the narrative of the state of Israel/Palestine?
What are your reactions when confronted with the gruesome details of the decades of fighting?
What personal connections do you have to this conflict that influence your feelings and opinions?
Many of my close friends claim (to my dismay) that there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of Zionism. What do you think?
How was your weekend(trying to lighten up the mood a bit after our discussion tomorrow, which is sure to be rich and fascinating and exciting and sad and heavy)?
Hi Sophie.
ReplyDeleteI really agree and understand your falling tree analogy. It really is mind boggling that arguments and debates are continuously made discussing the "original inhabitants" of the holy land (or any area for that matter). While sad, we all know the truth that is if you want something badly enough you have to work and fight towards it. Certainly applicable in the situation regarding Jerusalem, though I wish there existed an easier answer to the question.
On another note, it's funny to me though that we contradict ourselves by saying religious texts present inaccuracies perhaps not verifiable by historical evidence, but base our values, beliefs, and in some aspects entire life on these same questionable texts. Not to be taken as a criticism of religion, but rather an observation that has always fascinated me.
Nevertheless, great post!
Sorry for the late response, but YES--the contradictions that can be found by the slightest critical look into some of our daily behavior or opinions is sometimes shocking. This definitely proves the value of objectivity when in situations where we are forced (for the better) to analyze ourselves and our words/actions.
DeleteMy weekend was great, thanks for asking! :) All joking aside, I really enjoyed your blog post and think I learned more about you as a person. I agree with you that Khalidi's point about historically verifiable facts is important--it's one that immediately resonated with me when I read his piece too. I agree that people's opinions of what is historically accurate is what's important. However, I think what's equally important if not more important to acknowledge is that it is people's perceptions of what is historically accurate that motivates their actions. I think beliefs in themselves are not necessary problematic until they are translated into actions.
ReplyDeleteAfter having read the first seven chapters of Armstrong's book, one thing I wanted to mention is that I think it's unfortunate that there is even a debate about who the historical inhabitants of Jerusalem were. From my reading of Armstrong's piece, people ascribe holiness to a city or site in order to experience a form of redemption and reconciliation from the pain and hurt of the world--sensations that all human beings are accustomed to. My opinion is that if people believe they can get comfort from holy sites, then they should have as equal right as anybody to experience this redemption, no matter what their faith is.
Hey Brian, sorry for responding so late. I agree completely with the point you made towards the end of your post; the fact that the debate around "who Jerusalem belongs to" even exists is quite problematic, and shows the hypocrisy of each group that claims it has personal ties(that ought not to be challenged) to the area.
Delete...Does that mean no one else can have those ties?
...Does that mean that yours matter most?
...Does that mean that everyone else regardless of their beliefs has to succumb to yours?
As someone who does hold personal ties to the land of Israel and to Jerusalem, this has been an incredibly interesting, difficult, and rewarding set of question to explore throughout my life so far.