"... a book on the history of the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, published in 1925 in Jerusalem, uses the term Urshalmim in the title, and the term al-Quds al-Sharif to describe the place of publication. This vestigial reluctance to use the common Arabic name, with its Islamic overtones, even in works referring to the name somewhere on their title pages, represetns the last flcikering of a rivalry for control of Jerusalem between Islam and Christianity - a rivalry that began in the seventh century with the city's conquest by Muslim armies from Byzantium, was greatly intensified during the Crusades, and abated only in the early twentieth century. More recently, the devotion of some fundamentalist Western Christians to Israel, and their visceral hositility to Islam and the Arabs, shows theat a few embers of this ancient rivalry have not been entirely extinguished" (Palestinian Identity, 16)
One question by Thursday night
It’s interesting that this was written about a history book, as opposed to a work of fiction. The fact that historians are subconsciously, or even consciously, using terms to express their own opinions on historical event and not objectively commenting on the event is important to understand. Just like in Waltz with Bashir the question of historical accuracy is put into question, similarly here, we see how often we face this problem. If historical accuracy is questionable in history books, where is it accurate? Is it possible to write an objective view on history (according to this quote and waltz with Bashir it seems like it’s not possible)?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how calling Jerusalem "Quds al-Sharif" is reluctant at all, it sounds pretty Arabic to me, and i'm pretty sure "Urshalmim" is Arabic too when I googled it I found a bunch of Arab websites.
ReplyDeleteThe last lines of this quote really bother me. Aside from the many logical flaws in them (the argument is essentially: fundamentalist Western Christians have been in a historical feud with Islam, therefore their devotion to Israel and hostility to Islam and Arabs must somehow be correlated to the feud-post-hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy [how do you know there are other factors which have contributed or are even solely responsible to this reality assuming it is in fact the reality]-in addition to the assumption that devotion to Israel is linked to hostility to Islam and Arabs, which is not necessarily the case. But the biggest problem I have is how ambiguous and convoluted the argument is. Who are these fundamentalist Western Christians? Every single one really has these intentions or even supports Israel and not Arabs/Muslims? What is meant by support or devotion? In what form? Is it quantifiable? What is meant by Israel-the state, the idea of its existence, the people, the ethnicity, etc? The list of undefined and unsupported terms is lengthy and I sincerely hope the author does some clarification, if any is even possible, of such bold statements) I am bothered by my being bothered, once again. I don't understand why something as remote as a guy writing a book which claims a group of people don't genuinely support a state (or whatever is meant by Israel) I am not entirely sure yet how I relate to or to what degree I myself support! Is there any rationale to my being upset? Are there others who were bothered by this claim (which is essentially that Western Christians may not see Israel as "morally right" or perhaps may see its existence as davka "immoral" but have simply endorsed the enemy of enemy political doctrine--obviously I've oversimplified for space)? If it's not rational, is there still no way for me to understand why I'm disturbed by the slightest threat to something which is and/or could potentially become a part of my identity (not entirely sure what I even mean by it becoming a part of my identity)? I almost feel like those Israeli soldiers who overshoot at the slightest provocation-when they shell out that car upon landing on the beach without even bothering to check who was driving or when they continue to shoot the terrorist child with the RPG even after he's on the ground or using huge bombs for a tiny car-I just feel like my skin is too thin, that I panic too quickly, and I'm wondering if I'm unique and/or if I can at all understand why I react the way I do.
ReplyDelete"represetns"
ReplyDeletetypo ;)
anyway, why is this guy so frustrated by the the christian attempt to take over jerusalem? last i checked, there wasnt much of a fight between arabs (i use this term and not palestinian because this is the term he uses)and christians for israel.
like ariel said, these arguments are not so sound (or at least in this section alone), and i don't really think this holds much water....
Tani
Rashid Khalidi, mentions the Christian loyalty towards the State of Israel. Why would that be a sign of the Christian-Muslim rivalry over the historic land? Wouldn't the Christians dislike the Jews' control of the land by his logic?
ReplyDeleteIf it has not been entirely extinguished why haven't we been reading about hate crimes committed by the fundamentalist Christians targeting the Arab and Muslims considering their "visceral hositility to Islam and the Arabs"?
ReplyDeleteJonny Levi
It says "More recently, the devotion of some fundamentalist Western Christians to Israel, and their visceral hositility to Islam and the Arabs, shows that a few embers of this ancient rivalry have not been entirely extinguished"
ReplyDeleteThe western Christians are supporting a Jewish Israel not a Christian one so, how does the "devotion of some fundamentalist Western Christians" to Jewish Israel show the "their visceral hositility to Islam"