Today

I really enjoyed today's class. I feel like we kind of wasted some time at the beginning, but once everyone got comfortable the conversation was very rewarding.

There was one thing that kind of bothered me though. I thought Dr. Tamari's question about the revelance of his paper was very interesting. I absolutely believe that learning about people like Tawfiq Canaan is not only interesting, but important. Further, it is slightly horrifying that those who hold on dearly to their history of oppression and struggle, can seemingly fail to see the significance of a man who attempted to understand the history of this very important group of people. It almost seems like selective memory to only choose to address the parts of history that affect ones particular agruement. This seems to be one of the flaws in the whole situation. People are quick to remember what is most beneficial for their arguements. To me, this action gives the impression that certain parties are not interested in peace, which should be the supreme goal.

Another part of the Jerusalem situation that was brought up today which really bothers me is the possibility of peace in our lifetime. Why are people so quick to dismiss the possibility of peace in our lifetime? Both of the professors we have talked to have had similiar points of view on this. Each expressed that the present political situation wouldn't actually support total peace any time soon. It may appear more realistic to say that due to the political climate or external actors we won't have peace anytime soon, but what's the point of that? There isn't one. Saying it can't happen is a self-fulfilling proficy. It may sound idealistic, overly optimistic, or even naive, but I believe that if we actually want peace, then we should express that opinion to others. Gandhi once said that we should, "be the change we want to see in the world." I know it can be tacky to quote Gandhi, but I really believe that if we aren't vocal or active about the desire for peace, then it will never happen.