Living Folklore

Is the author of this reading Martha Sims? Martine Stephens? Whatever....the author, on page 3, talks about the interdisciplinary-ness of folklore, how it draws methods from sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, and other fields of study. I like the idea that folklore differs from all of these fields in the way it looks at the culture of the masses, as opposed to that of the elite. Folklore is about how people express themselves everyday, not about the "formally acknowledged canon that we learn about in institutions." I like this idea a lot, however, it's not without its flaws. 

The author is attempting to draw lines between what we call high culture, pop culture, and folklore, which is, admittedly difficult. But even when the author tries to defend the drawing of lines, it seems like they're just splitting hairs. The passage about Pokemon is a little ridiculous. Pokemon characters are not necessarily part of folklore, but when kids play with the cards every recess, that interaction becomes part of folklore? What's the point in even making this distinction? 

The definition of folklore on page 8 is particularly absurd. Folklore includes folk costume, folk dance, folk music, folk toasters, folk tables, folk sneakers, folk this, folk that, folk sandwiches, folk breakfast, folk folks, and so on. What a circular definition! Folklore is the cultural expression of the folk. Don't get me wrong, I love all the things this article talks about: traditions of the real people, family customs, old memorabilia. I've always been interested in old things, especially my family's history and stories. It's just weird to think that a scholarly field exists to study EVERYTHING. 

If you read one thing this weekend...

While I was home for Passover, I spent three hours combing the newsstand at Barnes and Noble to avoid spending time with my crazy family. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read this article. The author interviews a leading Israeli author from the Peace Now camp, as well as Ehud Olmert, the current PM. I could really relate to the questions poignantly asked by Jeffrey Goldberg in this piece, I feel like these tough issues are being ignored by Jews worldwide. I'd like to solicit as many reactions as possible.
<- CLICK

In other news.... Jimmy Carter is out of his league, Israeli intelligence calls Arab-Muslim anti-Semitism a strategic threat, and Libya's Israel-Nazism comparison prompts a walkout at the UN Security Council.

Oh happy day.

THANK GOODNESS SOMETHING ELSE TO READ

A welcome break from reviewing Armstrong's book. I liked both articles by Hasan-Rokem and Amiry. First off, Hasan-Rokem's feminist critique brings up a lot of issues that Jaime's post on the Ottomans also made me think of. Pursuing my degrees in Middle East studies and international relations/diplomacy has given me the chance to study a huge number of very interesting and esoteric issues which will probably never help me find a job. Global governance, geopolitics, and most importantly, THE STATE. I think I agree most with the constructivist camp in international relations, which says a lot of things I won't bring up here. Basically they see the state as a social construction; the state exists because people say it exists and legitimize state sovereignty in many ways. Hasan-Rokem sees Jerusalem as a city for everybody, with a diverse historical tradition written by all sorts of authors. She wants to see Jerusalem become an undivided city that is the same capital for two different states. This would be TOTALLY revolutionary in the current international system. But then again, go back 500+ years and the very idea of a state that exists today would have been revolutionary. She expresses an urgency to move beyond the model of THE STATE in order to achieve peace. I like this idea, but it comes from the anarchist side of my brain, which is now fighting with the Zionist part. Hasan-Rokem has a great style, I was especially amazed/a little creeped out when I read that, personified as lovers, each conquering power "was filled with passion to fondle the roundness of the bulging hills and to adorn them with pearls of stone and brick." Alarming and poetic sexual imagery.

Exerpts from Suad Amiry's book were great, and sad. I had just remarked the threat Israel faced from Iraq in 1991 on Marissa's blog. Then, reading this, I was shocked to learn that the Palestinians weren't given gas masks by the Civil Administration. I'm a little disgusted. Things like this make me hate Israel. The absurd situation that makes it easier for a dog than a person to get a Jerusalem ID also makes me hate Israel. The stories put a human face on a group of people who are too often completely demonized by Israel supporters. So many Zionists are blinded by their nationalism, they forget that real human beings are suffering. But I can't help but wonder, if the Peel Commission or UN Partition actually went down; if Israel wasn't invaded by its neighbors in 1948; if the Arab League considered making peace after 1967, would Palestinians have a state of their own today? If Palestinians were treated just like every other group of refugees; if Arafat was serious about dismantling terrorist groups; if the Arab media stopped printing blood libel cartoons.... things would be different. Sure that's easy for me to say, I'm a Zionist. But you can't just blame Israel for the sitauation today. Sorry for rambling...great readings.

Bayt al-Maqdis continued....

I need to clarify.... I don't think Karen Armstrong loving Islam is a bad thing. I just don't think she treats it as critically as Judaism and Christianity. You might think, "Oh, easy for you to think, Jewboy." Yeah well I'm sorry for being biased I guess. From this point on, I just find Armstrong's style to favor Islamic positions on things, glorify certain elements of the religion or the Prophet's life... and there is much to glorify! Don't get me wrong, the Islamic empires contributed hugely to the world as we know it today. I just keep thinking of things that Armstrong DOESN'T include in her book and I wonder.... Are my objections valid or are they merely a product of my own prejudices? Just don't call me an Islamophobe. She's just so quick to highlight the early Muslims' struggles with Jews but fails to give any evidence for coexistence between Arabs and Jews before Islam.... evidence that abounds. 

I've learned in other classes here that the Prophet chose Jerusalem as the first quiblah to win converts, out of pure pragmatism. Armstrong cites the early Muslims desire to reject the pagan Ka'bah and pray towards the center of the Jews and Christians. Then Armstrong claims that "the change of quiblah has been described as one of Muhammad's most creative gestures. It marked a return of the Muslims to the primordial faith of Abraham before it was split into warring sects by the Jews and Christians" (p. 223). Excuse me? WHO EXACTLY regards the change in quiblah as the Prophets most creative gestures? And had not both Jews and Christians already asserted their exclusive relationship to Abraham? I wonder how many Arabs traced their lineage to Abraham, through Ishmael, before the rise of Islam.

I see one of the greatest ironies of Israel's history to be the coexistence achieved under Muslim rulers. I truly want to believe that Islam emerged in Arabia with great respect for Judaism and Christianity. I know Islam did not spread as viciously as many detractors claim. But, how did we come from this tradition of respect to visceral hatred in some circles? Islam is a religion of peace. Yes. Extremism exists in all three religions. Absolutely. So why didn't any Palestinian Christians blow themselves up in pizzerias in the last intifadeh? 

Sorry if I come off anti-Muslim or whatever. I honestly think that most people are only exposed to the extreme elements of Islam, for whatever reasons. Is it because the media pays more attention to the most extreme strand of thought? Absolutely... ever new Osama bin Laden tape is much more intriguing than a bunch of moderates getting together to work towards peaceful resolutions of conflict. But could it be also that Islamo-fascism dominates the far too much of the message coming from this peaceful faith? Moderates in the Muslim world have been silenced out fear of reprisals from the crazies. What a shame. 

I can't focus on this stupid book. I'll try to ramble less, I dunno how many of you guys are even gonna read every post every other person makes. 

Bayt al-Maqdis (Ch. 11)

I need to be frank. I think Karen Armstrong loves Islam. I find a serious imbalance in the amount of skepticism she throws at each religion, having come to her first real serious look at the final religion of Abraham. Armstrong spends much time reminding us that the author of the Torah is impossible to pin down exactly, claiming that many different groups had a hand in producing the heart and soul of Judaism (Deuteronomists, the Chronicler, Pslamist, or she simply refers to a single letter). I see none of the similar skepticism in dealing with the Qur'an. She tells the story in plain and poetic terms: Muhammad felt overwhelmed by a terrifying divine presence and found the words of a divinely inspired scripture pouring from his lips (p. 217)

In both cases, Armstrong doesn't really mention more literal interpretations of both the Torah and the Qur'an.... which are remarkably similar. Elements in both religions claim that their holy books existed before creation, and represent the will and word of G-d. Both were  indescribably manifest in the physical realm. Like early Christianity, Armstrong represents Islam as the third iteration of the "TRUE" faith of Abraham. Religious tolerance is stressed over and over again in the Qur'an, and Muslims are called on to unify all human activity under the "aegis of the sacred" (p. 220). Why, then, did Muslims demand the dhimmi identify themselves with different clothing, or prohibit them from building houses of worship without permission or from riding on horses? 

People have brought up how they can't understand how the State of Israel has strayed so far from the ideal Jewish morals and ethics. I find this question ignorant of historical context and I hope people react with similar amazement at the gap between doctrine and practice within Islam. 

Christian Holy City - Ch. 10

The idea of a Christian Holy City seems antithetical to the religion, is the argument I get from the middle of this book. These chapters (10 in particular) hold very little relevance for me. Most of the institutions of early Christianity had an inbuilt hostility to Jews (p. 205). Armstrong recounts here the formation of Christian theology. This religion had issues to work out that were unlike any found in Judaism or Islam. The way I see it, there was this person on earth who affected a lot of people in many different ways. For a few hundred years, escaping persecution for believing in this new religion superseded the need to actually iron out all the details, such as the real nature of Jesus. After Christians were allowed to worship in the open, they all decided to hate on Jews for rejecting and forsaking their saviour. Apart from this, Christians had very little they could agree on. Besides establishing a separate identity from the Jews, Christians had to determine whether Christ was divine, man, half and half. 

This process always seemed sketchy to me, I'll be very honest. Christianity, I know the least about, despite it being the most ubiquitous of faiths in America. Especially about the divisions between different sects. I've been spewing my own opinions too much, I should ask more questions. What do the Christians in the classroom have to say about these Ecumenical councils? 

Also, I noticed in two separate occasions, Armstrong used the word "catholic" as an adjective and "presbyter" as a noun. Anyone know about the usage of these words outside of referring to Catholicism and Presbyterianism?

New Jerusalem - Ch. 9

Whereas the Jews perceived the destruction of the Temple to be a punishment for not living up to expectations of Hashem, early Christians saw it as a sign that G-d had no use for sacrificial ritual. With Emperor Constantine, the new faith became the Roman state religion and the world changed forever. Armstrong claims that Constantine wished Christianity would become a "cohesive force" for his gigantic empire (p. 174). Yet the singular Great Church with a single rule of faith descended into the same problems that had plagued Judaism for 1000 years already. I find the fracturing of Christianity fascinating and I always learns something new when I read about this history.  Internal divisions continue to hamper all parties involved, whether religious or political. 

On page 175 I find (I think) the earliest example in this book that Abraham is claimed to have been a straight up monotheist, who's faith had been corrupted. Jews think he's the first Jew, Muslims insist he's the first Muslim. I never knew Christians regarded him as the first Christian. Whatever, these divisions will never be solved. I can't harp on them any longer or my head will explode. 

She's starting to focus on the other religions, so I have less of a critical view on these chapters...THANK GOODNESS. Having Karent Armstrong tell you about your own religion is like...I dunno something really horrible. I can't really think of any good metaphors. I'm sure someone could. I think Armstrong gets the holiness and the meaning behind the infinite number of symbols for all faiths. She just misses the point and tries to be all poetic about it. Talking about how the tomb of Jesus rose from the dead just like Christ himself? Please. Just stick to the facts, ma'am. 

We see Christians start to establish their very own sacred geography, even as they proclaimed to be a "purely spiritual faith that was not dependent upon shrines and holy places" (183). I don't get this. First of all, what kind of faiths aren't spiritual? And does believing in holy places make a faith unspiritual? What the crap. Pg 185.

She also says something about the Jewish-Christian myth that Adam was buried at Golgotha. Except Jewish tradition puts Adam's burial place at The Cave of Machpela, purchased by Abraham as a burial plot for his wife Sarah. She fails to expound on this point, like many many others throughout the book. 

And now for something completely different...

Aelia Capitolina - Ch. 8

I've commemorated the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash by fasting on the 9th day of the Hebrew month Av...every summer since I was bar mitzvahed. OK so one year I accidently bit into a peach at summer camp but I felt really bad afterwards... 70 CE is a year I've learned from so many people since elementary school, the end of the Second Jewish Commonwealth. Armstrong introduces us to the insanely confusing discrepancy between Mt. Zion and Mt. Sion on page 154. I don't know about any of you, but this confused the hell out of me, I couldn't quite follow my she used both for the rest of the book. During these early years of Christianity, the Jerusalem Church remained primarily Jewish (pg. 155). I don't quite know how to wrap my head around this. Same page, we see  another reference to Judaism as a cult: many Jews rushed to the new church with hopes that a crucified messiah would revive their old "cult." Thanks Kar-Bear. 

According to Armstrong, this is the point at which Judaism as we know it began to develop. The Jews would need all their creativity to adapt to the catastrophic loss (nakhba?) of their Holy Temple. She mentions Yohanan ben Zakkai, a disciple of Hillel, who practically saved Jewish scholarship by establishing a school at Yavneh, which also became the seat of the Jewish governing body, the Sanhedrin. This great rabbi and a few generations-worth of other bocherim gave us the Mishnah, one half of the Talmud. He also preached the revolutionary idea that social justice could replace animal sacrfice. 

This law code, compiled by the Amoraim and the Tannaim, seems to have sprung from nowhere as a novel way of adapting to a radical shift in the Jewish cosmos. Orthodox Jews believe the Oral Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai at the same time as the Torah. This was passed down generation to generation. Jews became afraid of losing this valuable knowledge after their second dispersion from their historic homeland, so they decided to write it down. The Talmud represents but one layer in the vast compendium of "Jewish Law." Further codifications released in later centuries were viewed skeptically at first because rabbis worried they would distract the primary sources like the Talmud and Torah. With time, certain compendiums become acknowledged as primary sources themselves. For instance, Yosef Karo's Shulchan Aruch. 

The second dispossession of the Jews from Eretz Yisrael had broad and deep impacts on the religion. By giving Jerusalem a name after such and such general (p. 161), the Romans attempted to erase the Jewish connection to their spiritual focal point. But the Jews never forgot Jerusalem. Armstrong talks about how the Jewish home, daily prayer, and social justice all became new "Temples" in which Jews could and should experience the divine. But they still never forgot Jerusalem. 

Destruction - Ch. 7

This chapter continued to challenge my perception of my own faith. Having finished the book and pretty much finalizing my view of Armstrong as a historian, I wish I took better notes of all the things that pissed me off. Chapter 7 is about the Temple, its history, its nature, its significance, and all these things. I grew up knowing how important the Temple was/is but I feel like it is become so far removed from the consciousness of most Jews today. Which is sad because so much of Judaism deals with the rebuilding of the Third Temple and the re-establishment of Davidic reign. Armstrong cites a few examples. 

This chapter is challenging because it tries to detail exactly how Jews went from animal sacrifice in the Temple to worship in synagogues. The simple answer is because the Romans destroyed the Temple and the Jews were forced to adapt their religion in exile. A deeper explanation put forth by many rabbis is that the Jews themselves brought the destruction upon themselves by violating the covenant with Hashem. But what actually happened is lost to history and I simply cannot swallow most of Armstrong's speculation. Maybe it's her writing style or I'm just stubborn but I just can't find much evidence for much of her claims and I remember so many sentences that included "the must have....." or "this probably made them feel....." and a large number of could haves, would haves, and maybes.

The idea of an accurate representation of Christianity's emergence from Judaism sounds pretty great. I don't think we'll ever really understand exactly how a new religion is established. There's so much behind it, I'll bet a thousand theologians would take a million issues with Armstrong's story. It's crazy but another thousand would also praise her. I guess I have to give her credit for trying. She talks about how people began to believe they could find the divine in human beings, rather than Temples.... it's almost impossible for me to imagine a time when this thought seemed "blasphemous to many Jews" (pg 147). Armstrong loves talking about how this is a universal thing but in my own biased framework, thats a belief that Jews gave to the world. I dunno, if it's even worth debating things like who came up with what first. So much of this discourse is about who established different precedents, who shot first, the exact sequence of certain events. Too bad we're never gonna know. 

Speaking of Jihad...

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1739.htm

This is a video, courtesy of MEMRI, an organization dedicated to the analysis of Middle East media. I'm posting this video for a few reasons. First and foremost I need to know how accurate the translations are. MEMRI has an agenda and if there are any glaring mistranslations I would love to hear them. The second reason, I'll be honest, is to solicit reactions, to be perfectly honest. A lot of people like to say that there is extremism on all sides... it's a very popular (and completely true and legit thing to say) idea when talking about the Middle East. I know that most Muslims probably see this guy's speech as a perversion of the "real" Islam. Abdul mentioned the "acceptable framework" or something like that I think. And I totally agree! This guy is way off base and out of his league, I'm all about seeing Islam as a religion of peace. But isn't there something to be said when this is being broadcast on Palestinian television? 

Lets review....

1. Rome has declared war on Islam?
2. Jews/Israelis are the brothers of apes and pigs???
3. Islamic conquests will take over Europe and Americas???!?!!?

I mean, how are we supposed to end this conflict peacefully when there are streams of thought in some cultures that are trying to conquer the world?! Look I'm not blaming one side or the other here. Israeli occupation sucks, civilians are dying, the whole thing's a mess. I'm trying to start a dialogue here about this type of rhetoric, I'm starting to hate Karen Armstrong and I want to talk about what's going on NOW. I hope I do not offend anybody but I hope this clip does. 

Armstrong Chapter 6

So I've read this colorful history before: Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and on it goes. Armstrong tries to do a good job of describing "what really happened" in the city but I still find so much speculation even as we move further from the haziness of antiquity. It's impossible to tell just the history of Jerusalem without also discussing the history, development, and philosophies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Someone mentioned how they could not imagine the fusion of church and state. Back in the day, the church or religion WAS the state. There was no state as we know of it today, there were empires with kings who ruled by divine right. Some placated their conquered subjects by making overtures to existing religious traditions or by visiting shrines. Others asserted their religious supremacy by destroying these shrines.

One such group who tried to assert their way of life on others, in the Jewish tradition at least, were the Syrian-Greeks led by Antiochus. The chapter called Antioch in Judea introduces us to Hellenism and the story of Chanukah. Armstrong actually does a pretty decent job at recreating the the background to the story. Obviously, the military victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks represents something far greater for Jews than Armstrong lets on, but in the long history of Jerusalem, the Hasmonean Kingdom is but a blip. The Hasmoneans were great warriors who saved Jews from persecution and Judaism from assimilation. However, as we see time and time again, they turned into brutal oppressors themselves. That really sucks. 

Are You There Yahweh? It's me, Margaret... (Or Armstrong Chapter 5)

The whole idea of Yahweh just weirds me out. These chapters continued to challenge me because Armstrong still refers to the religion of the Temple Mount as Yahwism, or the cult of Zion, or the cult of Yahweh. It seems to me that she doesn't consider any of what went on in the 1st Temple as Judaism, which conflicts with mainstream Jewish historiography...I think. For instance, Armstrong quotes Psalm 137:4 on page 83 as: How can we sing one of Yahweh's songs in an alien land? This is interesting but it's difficult for me to explain why. I want to say that Yahweh doesn't exists in Judaism but that's probably not entirely accurate. What exists for sure is what Jews refer to as "the ineffable name," referring to The One True G-d, King of Kings, Master of the Universe, and so on and so forth. The Hebrew spelling of this name of G-d can be translated as YKVK (with H's in stead of K's...it's complicated) but I can assure you that no Jew today thinks that they are worshipping a deity named Yahweh...they are worshipping G-d, who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is everything and nothing and exists outside the realm of human comprehension. And, contrary to what Armstrong would have you believe, the same G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

To explain this conflict better, refer back in Chapter 4, to page 73. The last sentences of the first full paragraph read: 

"The Deuteronomists were not yet monotheists: they believed that other gods existed, but thought that Israel had been called to worship Yahweh alone."

The footnote says: This ideal is enshrined in the Sh'ma, the Jewish profession of faith: "Hear, Israel, Yahweh is our elohim; Yahweh alone!" (Deuteronomy 6:4). I can't quite fit into words how this makes me feel and, no offense, but I don't think any non-Jew would ever really  understand. I'll try anyway... Armstrong is correct about two things. 1. That the Sh'ma is the Jewish profession of faith and 2. that there is something enshrined therein. What amazes me is how patently incorrect her interpretation is. Maybe she's referring to what she believes is the original intent of the biblical author. I guess this is plausible if accept her theory of multiple authors. But she says that the Deuteronomists believed that other gods existed... this is in direct opposition to one of the most basic tenets of Judaism, which I always believed, was enshrined in the Sh'ma!

If you ask any Jew who knows anything, they probably still remember the first two lines of the Sh'ma from Hebrew school. And they do not translate it as "Hear Israel Yahweh is elohim, Yahweh alone." Jews translate the Sh'ma as "Hear Israel, Hashem our G-d, Hashem is one." This simple sentence encapsulates multitudes of meanings. Among them, that there is only one G-d. Not only is there one G-d, but nothing exists apart from G-d, the whole of creation is a veiled manifestation of G-d. Simply put, the Sh'ma is an affirmation of many things, most importantly the oneness of G-d, and by default, the oneness of EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE! Mind blowing.

So what bothers me is that Armstrong does not mention any of this! In fact, she makes completely divergent claims, chief among them is that the Israelites acknowledged many gods but chose to worship Yahweh alone. Who IS this Yahweh fellow anyway?

Class today

was pretty freakin' sweet. I feel like everybody shared a lot more than in past weeks and started opening up to each other. I can really tell how nervous some of us are and if that's you, then you should take some nervous pills or something and speak up! Seriously though I won't badger anybody for not talking or whatever. Ghada's question at the end was great....even though I disagree and was eager to continue that conversation for another two hours.

My friend Alec was really impressed. I completely spaced out the fact that Josh and I told him to come by sometime so I was a pleasantly surprised to see him there. Does anybody have any problems if he comes around once in a while to contribute? I think he's pretty great.

I guess I won't go into the whole Holocaust comparison right now because I'm in too good of a mood. I'll just say a few things. The Holocaust was unique for a million (eleven million?) reasons and really cannot compare to the situation in Israel. As a socially-minded Jew I want so desperately to see a peaceful resolution to this whole conflict, but as a pragmatist, Israel has a right to protect her civilians and to exist in peace with her neighbors, with secure borders. It's an ambiguous claim to make, I did that on purpose. But that's all Israel has been fittin' to accomplish since May 14th, 1948 when David Ben Gurion declared independence...

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

Hitler was an insane despot, hellbent on destroying the world in order to eradicate the Jewish "race," who were only trying to fit in. If you think that conditions today are vastly different than those of 1948, you would be right. But you still would be wrong if you think what's going on in the Middle East is another holocaust.

Response to Karen Armstrong

So I've read Karen Armstrong's book The Battle For G-d back in high school. It's about fundamentalism in all three Abrahamic religions and I remember it being a pretty decent book with sound arguments and a good style. I remember loving it and hating it at the same time, and these four chapters from Jerusalem reminded me why. From a scholarly standpoint, I guess it's a decent piece of work. She does a good job accurately explaining the functions, features, and intentions of religion. But as a spiritual/religious/whatever point of view her analysis of religion, and especially of early Jewish history, really pissed me off. Her narrative of blending and transforming the gods based on the military or political situation makes sense to me, I suppose. But her views really conflict with my Jewish beliefs. First of all, your average Jew probably can't tell the difference between Saul, Samuel, and Solomon, much less the years of the two different Israelite commonwealths. Armstrong sticks mostly to history, which is commendable, but the analysis seems cold and almost heartless in my mind. For instance, Armstrong points out at many points that most scripture is written generations after the events they recount. So are we to believe that it's a lie or a misconception? I dunno it's a troubling read but I'm excited to finish it.  

Shabbat News Roundup

A hospice in Jerusalem offers its services to both Arabs and Israelis. The article makes it seem like this place is the only site ever of coexistence. 

Two Israeli mothers appeared in Jerusalem courts this week for separate, but equally grisly cases. There is a larger story here, the one of the Beit Shemesh woman who began advocating full-length burkas for Jewish women. This is an issue in itself, but the icing on the cake is that this zealot was caught abusing her children in unimaginable ways. This is freakin lamentable because this can be seen to represent the entire religious Jewish Israeli community. And its not! Some religious Jews are really nice people, I promise. 

The Sephardi-Hasidic blogger/up-and-coming-hip-hop-star Y-Love has an old post about the Jewish burka phenomenon here.

The blog Jewlicious has an interesting story about a clothing manufacturer, No Sweat Apparel, which is trying to revolutionize the global clothing industry. I don't know much about the company, but it buys clothing from all sorts of textile factories, one which is a Jewish-owned shop in Bethlehem. Check it. 

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend and I'll see you on Tuesday. 

Tel Aviv = Sin City

I forget who asked this question but I read someone's blog who asked why the radio DJ in the film equated Tel Aviv with Sin City. Based on my own limited experience I'll try and answer the question. Tel Aviv emerged in the early 1900s outside of the ancient city of Yaffo or Jaffa depending on who you ask. If Jerusalem is the religious center of Israel, Tel Aviv is the economic and cultural hub. Also, since most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, pretty much all of the international embassies are in Tel Aviv, as well as the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and some 20 out of the 35 major arts centers of the country.

So anyway, since Jerusalem is all holy and everything, it shuts down for the Shabbath. Or at least the religious Israeli parties want it that way. So the DJ was making the joke that the government officials make their way to Tel Aviv because it is a modern, global metropolis that doesn't sleep. That's basically the joke... but the issue of modern secularism vs. religious traditionalism is HUGE DEAL in Israel.

Dichotomies

Somebody titled their reaction to Khalidi/Rubin as Arab vs. Jew. I just wanted to know how everyone conceives this comparison? I think people love to create dichotomies and put one monolith against the other monolith. A lot like Pepsi vs. Coke....or Burger King vs. Mcdonalds. But come on, you can drink orange soda or you can go to Arby's. 

I reject the idea that this is a conflict between simply Arabs and Jews, Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians, or Israelis and Arabs. It puts an infinitely diverse array of opinions into two simplistic camps. But this is natural because it's really easy to immediately label Khalidi and Rubin as members of different groups. But Arab and Jew are not opposites. 

With this in mind, I do identify Khalidi and Rubin with certain political or religious groups with different conceptual frameworks of complicated topics. It's only natural, as soon as you look at the names "Rubin" and "Khalidi" you think Jew and Muslim. It's also only natural for me to be completely pissed off with Khalidi's article because of my own biases and inclinations. He brings up a lot of ideas and explains them within his own viewpoints. Case in point: Resolution 242. Khalidi says that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem, pursuant to this Security Council resolution "stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." This basically paints Israel as the aggressor in the War of 1967. I don't see this as historically accurate, you can disagree, let's talk about it.  

What Khalidi does NOT include in his analysis of Res. 242 is that it also demands the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."  In my eyes, the war was started by Israel because she was facing an existential threat from all of her neighbors who refused to accept her existence for almost 20 years. The bellicose rhetoric of Egyptian and Syrian leaders about the destruction of Israel are in the public record. Why doesn't any pro-Palestinian author, like Khalidi, cite this piece of Resolution 242? For the same reasons that Israeli supporters never quote the clause about the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war: because they do not fit either of the other groups' agendas. 

I honestly can't say I learned much from either the Dumper, Khalidi, or Rubin articles. I'm not going to sit here and claim I know everything, but I also cannot say that I'm completely ignorant about Jerusalem because Israel is a part of who I am. I've been forced to obsessively study her history in order to effectively advocate. I'm not close minded, I read all sorts of crap.  These types of articles, like I said in class, frustrate me because they try to be about EVERYTHING while succeeding at explaining NOTHING. C'est la vie. 

Identity

Well I've tried to take some pictures that might show a little bit of who I am. The problem is I don't really know who I am and my identity is constantly shifting. I once heard a rabbi say that every Jew, and probably everybody with a religion in general, goes through the same kind of challenge that I'm experiencing. Everyone is raised in a certain religious tradition (unless you're atheist, whatever) and are told certain things over and over enough until they believe them as True. So every person, when they get old enough are forced to decide which beliefs are True and which are custom? So this is an important question, one that I'll have to answer my whole life.

So this is the most obvious symbol of my identity hanging up in my apartment right now. I got this flag from a hotel gift shop in Jerusalem in April 2004. It's a typical souvenir from a Jew's first trip to their Homeland. It's kind of an important souvenir for me because it reminds me of that first trip I took there and all the great friends I made and have since lost touch with. 

Next are my collections. I used to collect stamps and semi-precious stones and Legos and all sorts of other dorky crap. Now I collect music and have just started building a library. I picture myself in 50 years, drinking a brandy in my very own wood-paneled library filled with books and other sundry items. 

        

I love listening to music, finding new bands, and talking about shows. My parents really influenced my tastes, I love the music they listened to when they were my age: Allman Brothers, Grateful Dead, Beatles, Bob Dylan. I just don't think any music that will come out in my life time will be as good as these gems. As far as reading goes, I have far too little time to read all those books I have, I'm in the middle of about 8 of them. If you look at the titles you can get a bigger picture of who I am. 

This is my religion, a mezuzah, some kippot, tefillin, a siddur, and a chumash. In English these are: a thing you put on your door, head coverings, phylacteries, prayer book, and bible. I made some of those kippot, it's kind of dorky but a dear friend taught me and I'm currently trying to make a giant blanket to send down through my family one day. 

This is the staff picture from Camp Wise in Chardon, Ohio, 30 miles east of Cleveland. I was a camper here for 5 years and a staff member for 2. It's a really special place, I would even call it holy. The friends I made there are the best, we all grew up together even though we lived in separate town. 

 

So I keep my clothes in milk crakes... so college. I was born in Wisconsin, three years after my brother, David. My mother and her family are all from there. We moved away soon after and grew up in Toledo, OH. My dad and his family are from Columbus so I'm damn proud to be a Buckeye, but I can't stop loving Wisconsin. When I go back, we check out our old house in a really nice neighborhood right on Lake Michigan. I always wonder what I would be like if we hadn't moved away. I guess we'll never ever know.