Reading Response #1

I really enjoyed these readings simply because it feels like I now know something about the issues we are discussing.  These basic, fundamental outlines of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict within Jerusalem allowed me to feel like someone who can actually add to the conversation rather than being completely confused.  In the Dumper article, it struck me how much emphasis was put on the fact that Jerusalem was being argued over not because of any natural resource or economic matter, but solely on the fact that Jerusalem is the homeland of multiple religions that all feel as though they deserve a stake in the city.  I also found it interesting that Dumper included some of the reasons for the city's connection with the different religions.  For example, he cited that the Christian devotion to the city was originally founded in the visit to the city by Queen Helena, mother of the first Christian emperor of Rome.  I enjoyed this reasoning because it completely ignores the Biblical references that allowed for members of the Christian religion to feel at home in Jerusalem.  In the Pressman article, I enjoyed the way he outlined the movement of Mid European Jews (Zionists) into the Holy Land and how the British government, in the form of the Balfour Declaration, supported and encouraged this mass movement of Jewish people.  I can now understand how this mass movement of Jews into the Palestinian land must have felt like a severe encroachment to the Arab inhabitants.  Following this movement, the Arab militias revolted against British rule in 1936.  At this point, tensions have been increasing and it is understandable that the Arab people must have felt as though they had no choice but to fight in order to protect what could be taken from them.  I also appreciated how Pressman continued on with the history and showed how UNSCOP tried to split Palestine into two separate states, giving the majority of the land to the Jewish state.  It seems strange to me that they made the separation unequal and allowed for the remaining three percent of the area to be an international zone.  This makes me wonder why the UNSCOP allowed for an unequal devision and if it had something to do with geographical borders or some other form of reasoning.  The next interesting argument is when Egypt came into the picture and encouraged Arab unity and somehow ended up creating yet another dispute between the Palestinians and Israelis. Israeli, British and French militias fought against the Egyptian government which was lead by an Arab leader who encouraged Arab unity against those attacking Egypt. This obviously drove another wedge in between the two major inhabitants of Israel and gave them just one more reason to hate each other.

This whole conflict is just beginning to unfold for me so please let me know if I have misunderstood anything.  I am so much more interested in the topic now that I have some sense of understanding the Arab and Israeli conflict and hope to become a more educated member of the class.