Week Two Response

“Jerusalem: The Holy City through the Ages” article is a historical detailed article about the different and consequences occupations to that land. It talks about the history of Jerusalem, a history that is thousands of years of age. One thing that took my attention while reading this article, beside its rick history, it was mentioned that “Jerusalem was reunited during the Six Day War” and in reality Jerusalem was occupied and that’s why we see the whole division between Palestinians and Israelis today.

“Jerusalem Then and Now” article goes deeper in the religious importance of Jerusalem to the three religions. It has been and still is a restless city. I liked the graphs in this article as they summarize the words. By the end of the article, the writer states the problem of Jerusalem, where Palestinians believe that it is a holiest city, and should be included (East Jerusalem) according to the UN resolutions and International Laws under the Palestinian control, while the Israeli leaders and figure consider the question of Jerusalem, unquestionable, undivided city as a capital for the state of Israel, something, that Palestinians no matter when or where will never agree upon.

“The History of Jerusalem, from an Arab Perspective” by Dr. Al-Khalidi is another article that talks about the history of the city. We can see the similarities between the articles in the early old history up to the point in 1917. In this year, the land of Palestine was given as a gift for the Jewish people around the globe, “A country with no people for people with no country”, the first of this statement is not true at any level, because as history states, Jerusalem and Palestine was populated by Arabs (Christians and Muslims) as well as Jews. In this article Khalidi also mentions the status of Jerusalem within the international law eyes, as an occupied land (East Jerusalem) and “the status of Jerusalem remains unresolved to this day”.

The article about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict summarizes the whole conflict. Few things to elaborate on, the word militia was mentioned more than once, Palestinians do not consider those who founded and fought for the Palestinian deprived and lost rights as militants, but freedom fighters. The report in 1947 by the United Nations was rejected by the Arabs and Palestinians, because of a simple belief, which is to think of simply as “if someone took over your house would you negotiate that with him”? “The “earliest predictable date” that was mentioned in the 194 resolution for Palestinian refugees till now, 63 years after the dispossession, this date did not come! One word that really grabbed my attention is “terrorism” when it was given to those lawful Palestinians that fought against occupation and land theft and for their rights. How can a deprived person fighting for his/her basic rights considered as terrorist? Armed struggle is way different from all aspects than terrorism. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian president was blamed by Israel and its best ally in history the US because simply he did not agree on what Israel offered, best agricultural parts of the West Bank stays with Israel, East Jerusalem not to be under the Palestinian control, and NO to the right of return, which is the bottom line for any peace treaty with Israel. I am not sure why when Palestinians fight against occupation is considered bloodshed and they are considered as militia, while when state sponsor destruction and apartheid is used, is not considered so! One more thing to point out is that Arafat was stuck in his quarter in Ramallah, not just stuck, but surrounded by Israeli tanks, with daily shootings and bombings to his office and quarter, something that no leader in the world faced.

My response is too long I believe, but if I want to be satisfied with myself, I would have written 10 pages long response to the history of the conflict. Few last comments to address, “A hero in one’s eyes might be a terrorist in others”, and “violence brings violence, it is a circle with no end”.