I really learned so much from this reading because it talked more of the history of Palestine and how it got to where it is at. It was very important that they stressed the fact that Palestine is a land that is made up of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from what I have read it shows that the Arabs were not the ones who kicked out the Jews out of Palestine. The graph goes into great depth about the rulings in Palestine but if we look at the graph from the end we see that it was "roman and the Byzantium" that took land from the "Maccabean Jews" and it was not till Arabs gained more territory that they took over from the romans. Even after we had Arab rulers in Palestine they were kicked out by the "Christian crusaders" and in 638 AD they were defeated by the Arabs. No where did I read that the Arabs were the ones to kick the Jews out of the holly land. This is an important part of Palestine's history. Not to mention that even after that the land was colonized and was never given a chance to grow on its self! the people of the land never had time to set up a governmental system but instead foreign countries donated the indigenousness peoples land to the European Jews.
The history of Jerusalem: an Arab perspective.
He talked a lot about the history of Palestine, stating that Palestine was a country that was populated by three religions. he goes into depth about the Muslim rulers and how they had political impact in Palestine. I like how he said that if it was not for the Arabs Palestine would have been under the rule of the crusaders, so if anything they regained control of the land that they had taken out of there hands once again and that time it was by Brittan who gave it away like it was a piece of candy.
Jerusalem: the Holy City through Ages.
Again a lot of history talk about Jerusalem or "Israel" as the writer said; but in reality I dont know how I really feel about this article because I feel like I have read too many article that are some ways similar. They both talk about the history of the land, but use different vocabulary which makes the articles more one sided. There is just one thing I do remember reading about and that is the six day war; it said that this event is what reunited Jerusalem. that in my opinion is not true, in fact it is the reason of the separation between the two sides.
I don't think that, historically speaking, it often comes down to an issue of who kicked out whom--that is to say, Israelis/Jews don't harbor ill will towards modern Italians for something the Romans did 2000 years ago. I'm glad it doesn't come down to that, because that would make the politics of history even more complex and difficult.
ReplyDeleteWould it make things easier if there was a single adversary both sides could hate, instead of arguing with one another?
Joseph ! first thank you for taking the time to reading my blog and taking the time to actually comment ! I appreciate it !
ReplyDeletesecond, could you please just clear up what part of the blog that you don't agree with ? :) I'm not sure if you are talking about the whole post or one specific response to a certain article, because I have three different ones up there... :)