Week 3

Coming from the Christian community, Karen Armstrong seems, at the outset, to be an appropriate objective analyst of the different connections that Jews and Muslims (and Christians) draw between Jerusalem and their core identities. After reading the introduction and these first several chapters, it is clear through her meticulous detailing of events and her untinted view of the history of the region that she really is giving her readers an objective look at this city that has been at the focal point of so much of human history. The many maps included in the book represent the borders drawn during every observable time period, and this inclusion of so many iterations of the Holy Land demonstrates visually how complicated the question is of "who Jerusalem belongs to".

Beginning the book by describing introductions to Jerusalem from both her Israeli and her Palestinian friends and colleagues, Armstrong shows how people often "see the same symbol in entirely different ways". She muses on the fact that people can interpret myths and facts differently, and people can ascribe different meanings to places and events based upon their individual points of reference created by years of different experiences. This acknowledgment lets us know that Armstrong is acutely aware and respectful of the differing narratives and claims of "legitimacy" that both Israelis and Palestinians hold in regards to Jerusalem. When she eventually states the purpose of her book, which is to ask why Jerusalem is considered "holy" by Muslims and Jews (she provides the Christian answer), it is already clear that she has a genuine fascination with this phenomenon and a true desire to learn where conceptions of holiness ("sacredness") come from in these two religions/peoples. 

Her observations (about objectivity being difficult, the deep sense of loss/incompleteness driving the connection to a physical place, myths being important whether they're true or not, and the indirect experience of the divine, etc) are remarkably deep and succinct at the same time. They resonated with me as true, as concepts that I myself had considered before and come to similar conclusions about but that I had never been able to articulate as well as she does in her introduction. This feeling of familiarity shows how much effort Armstrong put into getting to the root of human thought and emotion--complex ideas like the ones she presents here are rarely easily communicated like they are in this book.

The first words of the first chapter, ZION, are "WE KNOW NOTHING about the people who first settled in....the city of Jerusalem". What an excellent way to set the tone to a book that is preparing to be honest, straightforward, objective, and historically accurate. I agree completely with the assessment of those who see this book as being objective because it really is (there is nothing "at stake" for Armstrong, seeing as her Christian connection to Jerusalem is not what is being questioned or analyzed by this book). For example, Armstrong addresses mythology(included in this category, necessarily, are biblical stories) in her introduction as being "an ancient form of psychology, because it describes the inner reaches of the self with are so mysterious and so fascinating to us", and then continues on to analyze Jewish and Muslim narratives of history with this critical lens. Her mentioning of biblical stories and her immediate questioning of them was similar to the skepticism with which Pressman addressed biblical accounts of events. Her clear value of the cultures of both Israeli and Palestinian, both Jews and Muslims, was reminiscent of the respect that Khalidi and Hasan-Rokem had for both peoples.

Before I conclude, I would also like to share some of my favorite parts of her introduction that got me immediately addicted to her writing style (and earned her my full trust and respect):

*history is a dimension of the present.

*people are obsessed with "who had done what first".

*"they see Jewish Jerusalem rising phoenix-like from the ashes of Auschwitz".

*"everybody will have to make sacrifices; everybody will have to compromise in the interests of peace"

*at the heart of devotion to a physical place is a yearning for reconciliation and wholeness that the pain of living deprives us of.

*peoples' connection/OBSESSION to/with Jerusalem is arguably purely mythical--could there be a truer yet more threatening statement that one could utter? I don't think so. Good for you, Armstrong.

*"the sacred has never been experienced directly...", rather, it is often experienced through a physical space/place, and Jerusalem is that place for three religions. 

*the concept of imitate dei because we feel incomplete.

*there are 2 parts to religion: 1. experiencing the divine, and 2. manifesting that connection into compassionate actions within our physical spheres of existence.

I have really enjoyed the Bernard Lewis books that I've read, and I also respect Peter Beinart as a credible and objective author regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Questions:
1. For anyone in class who have never before encountered huge amounts of detailed historical information about such a tiny physical space, how do you view Jerusalem's complicated history?
2. How does each person relate to different myths? Do you have myths that you believe in that you never before considered were myths? How do you handle uncertainty in this regard?
3. In the context of personal story/narrative-telling, when was a time where you felt that you were really being listened to? When have you really listened to someone else? What was the outcome?

I cannot wait to get to the rest of this book! Excellent choice, Noura--thank you!