Content uploaded by Varda Wasserman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Varda Wasserman on Jun 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Israel Studies . • ./israelstudies...
Orit Ramon, Ines Gabel, Varda Wasserman
“We Were Here First”:
Guiding Jewish Israeli Pupils
at Christian Sites
ABSTRACT
e article examines the image of Christianity and Christians as expressed
in the narratives used to guide Israeli pupils at Christian sites in Jerusalem.
Based on an analysis of tour observations and interviews with tour guides
and those who prepare the itineraries, it explores how the presentation of
Christianity and Christians serves as a means of constructing a modern
Israeli identity. It argues that despite the power of Jews in the Israeli state,
there is a growing sense of victimhood in Israeli society, one that leads to
the introduction of Jewish-Christian polemics into the Zionist narrative,
and to the transformation of tours—ostensibly designed to expose students
to cultural/religious pluralism—into a means of perpetuating the notion
of hostile “others”.
INTRODUCTION
C,
Jewish world, viewed itself as replacing Judaism, whose role in history
ended with the revelation described in the New Testament.¹ Christian the-
ology sanctied the Hebrew Bible as the basis of holy scripture, the Land
of Israel as the Holy Land, and Jerusalem as the holy city and a pilgrimage
site. e shared textual, historical, and ideological platform of Judaism and
Christianity, while creating similarity between the faiths and the societies,
also spawned debate between them, in the shadow of which Jews in Europe
lived as a minority alongside the Christian majority. e inevitable con-
tact between Jews and Christians, the exposure to each other’s’ values and
• ,
lifestyles, contributed to the construct of the notable identity of each of
the communities. Great importance, both in terms of Christian theology as
proof of Christianity’s justication, and in the construct of Jewish identity
as a persecuted group—was attributed to the Jews’ oppressed condition in
exile.²
One may assume that with the acquisition of political power and the
establishment of the State of Israel in , the Israeli control of Christian
holy sites in Jerusalem after the Six-Day War, and with Christians in
Israel being a tiny minority, exilic Jewish attitudes toward Christianity as
hegemonic oppressor and the role of Jewish-Christian polemics in Israelis’
approach to Christians and Christianity would wane. Apparently, Israel’s
Jewish citizens have not shed the historical image of Christianity as a
competing and even threatening entity.³
Based on an analysis of tour observations and interviews with tour
guides and those who prepare the itineraries, this study ()addresses the
image of Christianity and Christians as expressed in the narrative used by
tour guides leading Israeli pupils through Christian sites in Jerusalem; and
()constitutes an inquiry into how the presentation of Christianity and
Christians serves as a means for constructing a modern Israeli identity.
Further, the study describes and analyzes three main inquiries into how
Christianity is presented to Jewish pupils, and how the pupils respond to
the images transmitted to them.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
JEWISH-CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AND “COUNTER-HISTORY”
e dispute between Jews and Christians that formed the cornerstone of
both societies’ identities surrounds, rst and foremost, the interpretation of
the Bible, the book holy to both communities. Its intellectual-theological
expression was manifested mainly in extensive polemical literature, whose
objective was to strengthen the religious beliefs of each group by attacking
the opposing group. At the same time, polemics were being conducted
among the lay folk in the course of everyday life, and manifested also in
genres of writing that were, on the surface, detached from the polemical
literature. One such genre, whose function was in fact polemical, and like
the literature of religious argument, was intended to construct the reader’s
identity, is called “counter-history”. Its “method consists of the systematic
exploitation of the adversary’s most trusted sources against their grain
... [Its] aim is the distortion of the adversary’s self-image, of his identity,
“We Were Here First” •
through the deconstruction of his memory.” Counter-historians take the
sources of their adversaries, reframe them, and thus reverse their initial
meanings. erefore, not only theological arguments but also the way in
which Jews narrate, or counter-narrate, Christianity, can reect Jewish
identity construction. Further, although the goal of the counter-historian
is to deny the adversary’s identity by basing his own identity on the denial
of the Other, the polemicist subverts his own identity as well, so that
counter-history narratives can be seen as “a reective mirror” of changes
in the polemicist’s own identity denition.
Academic research on Jewish-Christian relations, from Christianity’s
beginnings, in the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the Modern Era—
has become an expanding eld in recent decades. Yet research on these
relations in modern Israel is scarce. Even less common is research on the
teaching of Christianity and Christian-Jewish relations, and the media-
tion thereof in Israeli schools.us, this study constitutes an important
contribution to the discussion of current Jewish-Christian relations, not
necessarily from a historical or theological perspective, but rather in the
context of the construction of a national identity.
THE TOUR-GUIDING DISCOURSE AND HISTORICAL MEMORY
Tourism and the tour-guiding discourse have been discussed widely in aca-
demic research. Most researchers cite the importance of tourism as a tool
for shaping the tourists’ social and cultural identity through their encounter
with “the other”, and consider it to be a highly meaningful ideological and
cultural phenomenon. As such, the tour guide lls the roles of mediator
and interpreter and, in fact, becomes an agent of socialization of hegemonic
values.¹
e narratives used to lead educational tours have also been studied
and are perceived as a means of constructing spatial political entities that
in turn shape place identity.¹¹ e hegemonic narrative transmitted to
pupils confers political and ideological meaning on a given geographical
and human locale. In the Israeli context, educational tours are intended
to construct historical memory and link young people to the land and to
their heritage, as articulated by the pre-state Zionist leadership. As such, the
choice of which sites to visit and the information transmitted to the pupils,
as well as that omitted, are intended to serve the awakening national sense
and the connection to the place.¹²
Research on historical memory and the role it plays in creating com-
munal identity, marking a community’s boundaries, and shaping its char-
acteristics and imprints, is extensive.¹³ e use of historical memory as
• ,
a tool for conferring legitimacy on national and political aspirations is
noticeable in the Israeli context particularly as it concerns establishing the
legitimacy of the Zionist movement as a national movement that sought the
Jews’ return to the geographical place where the Jewish people originated
and from which they were forcibly exiled. ese studies note that by using
historical sources and archaeological testimonies, Zionist historiography
stressed the ancient Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.¹
At the center of the discourse in this historiography is the Zionist
movement’s leaders’ grappling with the Palestinian presence on the land.
Yet researchers choose not to address Jewish-Christian polemics in the
construct of the Israeli identity in general, and the construct of its modern
incarnation in particular. Nor has research looked at certain aspects of
the Jewish-Christian polemics as an expression of transformations in the
components of Israeli national identity in recent years. ese objectives lie
at the heart of this article.
METHODOLOGY
To examine how the presentation of Christianity and Christians serves
as a tool for constructing modern Israeli identity, we focused on visits of
Jewish Israeli pupils to Christian sites in Jerusalem. e study included
interviews with tour guides, interviews with itinerary coordinators, and
observations of guiding. Most of the groups observed were made up
of , , and graders attending secular¹ primary schools.¹ All the
guides observed were trained through the Ministry of Education’s course
on guiding schoolchildren in Jerusalem. For only one of the high school
groups was the tour part of their curriculum in “the land of Israel studies”.
For all the others it was an extracurricular activity.
e observations and interviews were conducted in –, and all
were transcribed. We examined eld trips that included at least one site
connected to Christianity and Christians. In all cases this was a four-hour
tour entitled “Jerusalem—A Holy City for ree Religions”. Since only
two guiding institutions oer student visits to Christian sites, and no other
tours to Christian sites are available to pupils (unless the school makes a
special request), we were able to sample all of the tours that took place in
the period under examination. e percentage of groups visiting Christian
sites is even lower when considering school pupils’ obligatory visits to Jeru-
salem. According to Ministry of Education gures, , pupils visited
Jerusalem in .¹ Although the incidence of visits to Christian sites is
“We Were Here First” •
small and in itself testies to a lack of interest or to the o-putting nature of
the subject, we were able to draw from it much information on the content
and how it was transmitted to the Jewish pupils; on the pupils’, teachers’,
and chaperoning parents’ reactions; and on the choice of itineraries and
the “air time” devoted to the three faiths being covered on the eld trips.
Since we sampled all the tours to Christian sites, we were able to evalu-
ate them in comparison to other school tours in Jerusalem and to apply
generalizations from this case study to the broader social context. Our
premise was that formulating a theory based on a case study is a research
strategy that is especially appropriate for this subject, as it is rich and com-
plex enough to generate a grounded theory.
e analysis of the ndings employed a hermeneutic-interpretive
approach, which seeks recurrent patterns and themes in observations and
interviews. e texts were read several times by the researchers and research
assistants, with the aim of extrapolating from them the explicit and implicit
meanings of the repeated patterns. During these readings, three main
themes were identied—time and space, polemic, and historical memory—
all of which dominate the Findings section that follows.
FINDINGS
is section discusses the three main themes that emerged from the tour
guides’ narratives as observed during the eld trips, all of which convey the
characteristics of the presentation of Christians and Christianity in Israeli
eyes, and which facilitate an examination of their place in the construct of
an Israeli identity.
“BECAUSE WE WERE HERE FIRST”:
TIME AND PLACE IN THE GUIDING DISCOURSE
A central component in the guiding narrative at Christian sites in Jerusalem
was the presentation of the chronological development of Jerusalem, under
the assumption that depicting the timeline of events that took place in vari-
ous (chronologically arranged) periods aids in understanding the history of
the city and the site being visited. An analysis of the tour-guiding narrative
reveals that most of the guides constructed an ideological chronology, that
is, a timeline intended to construct and reinforce hegemonic perceptions
and values.
In a chronological presentation such as this, the choice of Jerusalem by
King David and its sanctication in Judaism, and only later in Christianity
• ,
and Islam, serves as a point of departure. is organizing principle’s objec-
tive (in and of itself correct) is used not only to testify to Judaism’s having
preceded the others, but also to show that it is a more indigenous, closer-
to-the-source, and therefore original faith, and, in particular, to testify to
its bond to Jerusalem being “truer”.¹
On visits that were dened both by the educational tours institution
and the school as addressing Jerusalem’s holiness to the three Abrahamic
religions, this type of ideological chronology was implemented. us, for
instance, in response to the question asked by one guide: “Monotheism.
Who [sic] is the rst religion?” the pupils replied, “We are!” to which the
guide added, “Afterwards, Christianity and Islam [came along].” Or, to the
guide’s query “So we understand why this place is important to Christianity
and to Islam, but who can tell me why it’s important to Judaism?” the pupils
replied, “Because we were here rst and we’re here now, and we were rst.”
e guide nodded his approval. e order of appearance of the religions
on the stage of history as presented by the guides is historically correct;
but even if the guides’ words had not been intended to negate or ignore
Christianity’s existence, they introduced into the discussion a competitive
element that pre-empts the chance for dialogue and leads to the negation
of other faiths’ connection to the place.
e ideological chronology is manifested not only in the tour-guiding
narrative, but also in the teachers’ involvement in the site visit. On one
occasion, when a guide explained the purpose of the visit to be acquaint-
ing the pupils with the three Abrahamic religions, a teacher demanded that
the guide place the religions “in the proper order: Jews, Christians, and
Muslims”. [mixed enrollment school, MES] e linear chronology acquires
concrete meaning on the site visit, as it aids the pupils in internalizing the
historical development of the various religions and the connection each
has to Jerusalem. On a visit to King David’s tomb, which is located just
beneath the room where the Last Supper took place, and on the roof of
which stands the minaret of David’s Tomb Mosque on Mount Zion, the
guide wrapped up the visit thusly: “In short, this building is holy to three
religions ascending chronologically: e ground oor to the Jews, then the
Christians, then the Muslims.” [MES]
By the very act of constructing a historical chronology that shapes the
collective memory, there is from the outset a constant attempt to create a
logical link between various periods or events perceived as important. e
site where the events occurred, or to which the site is related, constitutes an
important vehicle in creating the link that leads to constructing the narra-
tive chronology, and confers upon the narrative a sense of being anchored
“We Were Here First” •
in reality and a sense of continuity.¹ us, in the complex structure con-
taining David’s tomb, Judaism is presented visually as a chronologically
rst faith that is more tied to the soil and the place than the others, and as
a foundation for other faiths, a link that establishes the basis for the claim
of precedence and its genuine bond to the land. As such, it can be assumed
that the tour-guiding narrative, which in this way confers legitimacy on
the Jewish-Israeli right of dominion over Jerusalem, also grapples with
the possibility that the site itself will serve as an anchor for a competing
Christian (or Muslim) narrative or chronology.² us, this fragment of a
conversation was heard between teachers on a eld trip:
Teacher A: We were here rst, then them.
Researcher: And what does that say to you “We were here rst”?
Teacher A: [It says that] they owe us. ey want us here, and they’re glad we
exist.
Teacher B: If we didn’t exist, they wouldn’t either.
As part of the discourse on the subject of the precedence of the Jewish
relationship to Jerusalem and the ideological chronology that props up the
legitimacy of Jewish dominion over the city, many guides present the Chris-
tianity that was created after the crucixion as a faith lacking uniqueness
and that is a mere mimicry of Judaism, or in terms of “original” and “rep-
lica”. In nearly all of the eld trips observed, parallels were drawn between
the Christian story and the Jewish story. ese parallels, important as they
may be to both Jews and Christians, served the guides’ need to emphasize
the Jewish sources of the traditions from which Christian traditions are
drawn. Take, for example, the juxtaposition of the binding of Isaac and
the crucixion, or the presentation of the Magnicat as a Jewish prayer
adapted for Christian use. Each of the faiths that developed after Judaism
is presented as lacking originality, and as in fact being a cheap replica of
Judaism. Another example is the guide’s wrap-up at King David’s tomb:
“One holy site and all the religions that come to Jerusalem are pulled toward
it. What was holy to the Jews [became] holy to the Christians and later on
to the Muslims.”²¹ [MES] e same sentiment was observed in the tour-
guiding certication course, wherein the guide read aloud selections from
the Torah and added, “us they took a story from our Bible, and gave it
another context.”
e chronology presented to the pupils is largely incomplete and
ignores possible complexities and various historical developments. For
instance, the timeline of the guiding narrative begins, as mentioned earlier,
• ,
with King David’s declaration of Jerusalem as the capital, ignoring the
fact that the city existed previously. e timeline runs through the Second
Temple and the dawn of Christianity, then ends, ignoring the Byzantine
period, mentioning the rise of Islam (and the sanctifying of Jerusalem by
Islam as “only” the third site in importance in Islam), and skipping entirely
the later chronology, with the Israeli dominion over Jerusalem. On only a
few eld trips of those observed was any information presented about the
other (non-Jewish) faiths related to the course of the last centuries. In a
chronological presentation of this type, the periods during which there was
Jewish dominion over the space are emphasized, even in guiding Christian
sites: “e people we read about in the New Testament were Jews. At that
time, there still was no Christianity.”
e ideological chronology draws a direct line between King David’s
rule to our times. In fact, it almost completely ignores the period between
the destruction of the Second Temple and the beginning of Zionist settle-
ment in late century and the establishment of the state. In this sense,
the ideological chronology complies with the historiographic structure of
the hegemonic Zionist commemorative narrative²² that draws legitimacy
from the former periods during which “the People of Israel dwelt in his
Land” and is harnessed to the political aspirations of the Zionist movement
today. e following conversation between a guide and pupils serves as an
example:
Guide: What is the capital of Israel?
Pupil: Jerusalem.
Guide: Who in your opinion decided on Jerusalem as the capital? And how
long ago?
Pupil: Ben-Gurion.
Guide: [He] decided on Israel, but not on Jerusalem.
Pupil: King David.
Guide: Five hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? Two thousand?
Pupil: A million years [ago]?
Guide: Jerusalem is Israel’s capital for three thousand years already!
Moreover, for the most part, information on the past, which builds
on the historical collective memory, is not uniform, and there are sig-
nicant dierences in mnemonic density, that is, the scope of items
of information chosen for use or presentation of various periods and
topics.²³ Low density of memory regarding a given period or topic, one
about which few details are mentioned, is frequently an outcome of an
“We Were Here First” •
ideological decision and hints at an attempt to marginalize the topic in
the collective memory.
In contrast, a dense description of a historical period indicates the
intention to emphasize its importance. In the tour-guiding narrative of
Christian sites in Jerusalem, it is clear that most of the information trans-
mitted by the guides as they address the beginnings of Christianity is
relevant to Judaism in the Second Temple period; or, to quote one guide,
“e New Testament is an excellent reference for customs of Second Temple
Jews.” [tour-guiding certication course] In other words, any reference to
Christianity is merely a vehicle for deepening knowledge of Jewish history
of Jerusalem, and for tightening the visitors’ connection thereto.
e emphasis in the guiding narrative on the Jewish presence in Jeru-
salem’s past is also related to presenting Jesus as having lived and acted as
a Jew in the political and religious contexts of his period. Jesus’s Jewish
identity is referred to frequently in the guiding narrative: “Jesus was a Jew.
He was born a Jew.” Occasionally Jesus’s Jewishness is presented by way of
the Jewishness of his contemporaries: “Yokhanan’s [John’s] parents were
Jews of the priestly caste. His father [was] Zachariah and his mother [was]
Elisheva [Elizabeth].” On another eld trip, the Jewish names of Jesus’s
contemporaries were pointed out by one of the pupils:
Pupil: Miriam [Mary], Jesus’s mother, was here when she was pregnant with
Jesus, and she met Bath Sheba [sic—Elisheva] here, the mother of John
the Baptist, who was also pregnant with him [with John].
Guide: at’s right. Very good. Do you know why all their names were
Hebrew names?
Pupil: Because Jesus was a Jew!²
According to the guiding narrative, Jesus was a Jew who undertook to rec-
tify distortions in Jewish society as per the parameters of Jewish tradition.
As one guide explained: “Jesus said: ‘ings aren’t right’. He wasn’t intend-
ing to found a new religion, but rather to improve Judaism, and said: ‘What
you’re doing isn’t ethical’. And many people followed him.”
e guiding narrative emphasizes that Jesus lived a Jewish life and kept
all of the commandments just as we recognize them today: “Jesus was a Jew.
Proof: What do we do at Passover? Jesus [too] wanted to have a Seder.” In
this context, as in many others, the tour-guiding narrative that brings a
collapse of time periods serves as a means of warping time ²—or as a vehicle
to overcome the dimension of time and enable the construction of a time-
less experience in which the past merges with the present and the pupils
• ,
become part of a timeless Jewish existence that includes those who inhabited
Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, such as Jesus the Jew.
is merging renders the pupils part of the memory community,
which, though it is anchored in history, removes them from critical histori-
cal discourse.² In contrast to the Jewish portrait of Jesus, his followers are
presented as having distorted his worldview and in fact led to the creation
of a new religion that broke o from Judaism and then proceeded to per-
secute its adherents. is discourse, in fact, creates a contrast between the
image of Jesus the Jew who lived in Jerusalem, and the use that his followers
made of his image in order to create a congregation of believers outside the
Land of Israel. While Jesus experienced Jerusalem as a Jew, the Christians
who created a Christian image of Jerusalem did not live there, and likely
knew nothing about it.
e emphasis in the guiding narrative on the Jewishness of Christian-
ity’s central character, on his relationship to Jerusalem, and on the Jewish
milieu in which he lived challenges Christian claims regarding Jerusalem’s
Christian link. In fact, the guiding narrative positions Judaism as the only
religion with a signicant bond to Jerusalem. e beginnings of other
faiths, Christianity or Islam, are connected to other locales, and their
adoption of Jerusalem happened only later on and only through the Jewish
narrative. is presentation, though not necessarily incorrect, serves as a
precedent and thus legitimizes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. Yet the
contrast between Jesus’s activity and that of the apostles is reinforced not
by detailed information that is transmitted to pupils visiting the sites, but
is rather recounted in general terms.
Presenting Jesus as a Jew whose intention never was to depart from the
Jewish context creates confusion among the pupils, as observed when one
pupil pointed out: “Jesus started out Jewish and then became Christian?”
Another pupil asked, “So how did he become Christian?” is confusion
is manifested in the question, “So Jesus was Jewish, or Christian?” Pupils
from another school asked, “If Jesus is Jewish, how come he’s sacred to the
Christians?” [MES] e apostles’ Judaism also confuses the pupils: “If they
were Jewish, how come they spread Christianity?” [MES]
ese questions reect the clash between the guiding narrative, which
stressed Jesus’s Judaism, and pupils’ previous perceptions regarding the
relationship between Jews and Christians: “[If Jesus was a Jew], then how
come the Christians hate us?” e guides did not provide answers to these
questions, and in most cases they were left unaddressed. We can assume
that the absence of an answer reects lack of knowledge and a lack of clarity
regarding the relations between Jews and Christians. But we can also assume
“We Were Here First” •
that the failure to address these questions reects deeply-held beliefs on
the part of the guides regarding Jewish-Christian relations, and specically
reects the fact that the guides are part of the same memory community
for which Christianity constitutes a threat.
is type of presentation calls into question the description of the
eld trip, which simply promises a visit to Jerusalem, holy to three faiths.
However, through a presentation of Christianity of a sort shown above, the
Jewish link to Jerusalem is heightened through a kind of “counter-history”.
roughout the tour, while Jerusalem’s importance as a religious locus for
three religions is addressed, it is not presented as holy to them, but instead
as strictly a tourist site. e only mention of Christians as individuals and
not as a concept was in terms of Christian pilgrims, who were described
as “those visitors from abroad [who come] from all over the world to visit
Jerusalem” or, as one guide commented: “Just today, as I was waiting for
your group to arrive, I saw Italian, Indian, and German pilgrims. Look
at all those cultures.” e guiding narrative depicts the pilgrims’ presence
as temporary. ey might feel a certain link to Jerusalem, but they are
ultimately foreigners.²
is guiding narrative not only presents pilgrims as visitors from other
cultures, but regards them as curiosities that arouse interest by the very fact
of their otherness. us one guide drew the pupils’ attention with: “Today
we’ll be seeing pilgrims. What are pilgrims?” On one eld trip, the guide
even compared the pilgrims’ otherness to imaginary characters: “I know
that we’re proud to be Jews, but we have to know the Other. Did you
see Avatar? What nations are there [in the lm]?” us, is the distinction
constructed between local Jews and Christian pilgrims: while the pilgrims
are visitors, we’re the indigenous inhabitants whose link to this place is
eternal, and as such, our role is to respect the visitors. “Pilgrims come to
visit Christian sites, and we must respect them.” e conclusion expected
to be drawn is that great importance lies in Jerusalem’s spiritual experience,
not only for Jews, but to the entire Christian world, and its status confers
strength and honor to those who are its caretakers—the Jews: “What do
you have to say about our land, which is holy to three faiths? It’s a big
responsibility, as visitors from many dierent cultures come here. It makes
our land very special.”
“OUR SYNAGOGUE IS PRETTIER”:
RELIGIOUS POLEMICS IN THE GUIDING DISCOURSE
e complicated history of the relations between Jews and Christians since
Christianity’s birth manifests in the guiding narrative, particularly the sense
• ,
of competition between the two faiths and the felt need to present Judaism
as “truer” and superior.² Surprisingly enough, we could identify in the
guiding narratives the same issues Jews and Christians have debated for
centuries. Some of the issues are presented here with reference to medieval
polemics.
roughout their shared history, Jews have claimed that their values
and ethics, which are anchored in deeds and in the obligation to observe
the commandments, are greater than those of the Christians.² is notion
is expressed in the way guides address Christian ritual, which is perceived as
“lightweight” and demanding nothing of the celebrants. An example of this
claim can be heard in the words of a guide at Ein Kerem about Christian
prayer: “ey have prayers that are not obligatory. Let’s say we want to give
thanks; we can recite Psalms, which is optional. e Christians have many
types of prayers, but they’re all optional.” And at another site: “In Christian-
ity, there’s no prayer that one must recite a certain number of times a day.
ey have many dierent prayers, but none are obligatory.”
e matter of morals in each of the religions was crucial in Jewish-
Christian polemics. As such, asceticism has constituted a challenge for
Jewish polemicists, who were unable to deny its moral status and thus
tried to minimize its importance.³ Echoing religious polemic, asceti-
cism is disparaged in the guiding narrative. One group was guided in
the Byzantine exhibition room at the city museum by a guide dressed
as a nun, presumably in order to arouse curiosity and to acquaint the
visitors with the Christian concept of asceticism. Her explanation that
nuns do not marry, as they believe themselves to be married to God,
drew amazement and scorn, “Insane!”, and later, when a girl said that she
could understand the diculty in the life of a nun, the guide responded,
“Neither is being a Jew easy ...all the dietary restrictions and command-
ments.” e guide added, “My life [compared to those of Jews, speak-
ing as a “nun”] is easy: I only have one thing to wear, and no internet.”
[Middle school]
Christian places of worship and Christian relics also drew scorn from
the pupils, as Christian worship is spurned by Jewish polemicists as idola-
try.³¹ At the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the guide stated that the site is
believed to have been Adam’s burial place: “According to Christian tradi-
tion, the rst human is buried here,” to which a pupil countered, “ere’s
no skull to be seen,” and another pupil added, “What? Seriously?” Yet
another asked, “What? People believe that?” [MES high school] During the
same visit, the guide told the pupils about the Christian belief in the True
Cross, and how pieces of it are scattered around the world and considered
“We Were Here First” •
relics, adding in a sardonic tone, “If we collected all the [alleged] pieces
and put them together, they’d make lots more than just one cross.” [MES
high school]
e various Christian denominations active in Jerusalem today are
almost never mentioned in the course of any of the eld trips, and those few
in which they are mentioned emphasize the schisms and inghting among
them. Consider the words of this guide:
ey’re usually quarreling ... the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
are in the possession of Muslims, and the police intervene when there’s ght-
ing. We’ll talk about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the disputes
between the denominations. During Pope Francis’s visit, there were nine days
of prayers for peace. ink about how urgent it is ... there are so many clerics,
and each has his own leaders and garments. ey even celebrate Christmas
on dierent days. You might wonder: What’s there to argue about? It’s Jesus’s
birthday ... ere’s even a sect that believes that Jesus’s tomb is in a dierent
place entirely. How did they end up in this situation? ere’s [what we call]
a status quo, meaning “present situation” regarding their disputes. If the keys
weren’t held by a Muslim, it’d be pandemonium, anarchy ... there’re lots
of dierent Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and they
don’t all get along.
While the status quo at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre could be
depicted as embodying coexistence and cooperation among the communi-
ties, the guides invariably choose to stress the interdenominational inght-
ing instead. Just as in the historical dispute between Jews and Christians,
emphasizing the schism in the out-group is used to establish the in-group’s
cohesion, unity, and sense of the righteousness of its path.³² e choice to
emphasize the schisms in Christianity during visits to the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre hints at a lack of coherence, not to mention downright
deceit, in Christianity’s premise, and certainly there is material therein for
the perpetuation of the polemic.
Incredibly, the encounter with Christianity’s physical presence in Jeru-
salem, where it is the most impressive, also leads to its disparagement. On
entering a church in Ein Kerem, a pupil remarked, “ey pray here, but it
looks like a prison.” Other pupils, despite their admission that it is “pretty”,
claimed, “Our synagogue is prettier.” [Orthodox primary school] On enter-
ing the Dormition Abbey, a pupil said of the incense burning, “It smells in
here. e Christians smell.” e teacher accompanying the group agreed:
“It sure does. I’m choking.” [MES]
• ,
e heart of the polemic with Christianity is seen in comments that
express scorn toward its tenets, challenge its monotheism [MES], disparage
its belief in Immaculate Conception, “How did she get pregnant if she was
a virgin?”, and its presentation as inherently illogical. Snickering was heard
during the explanations of Christian beliefs, such as Mary being told in the
gospels of Jesus’s impending birth. [MES] Moreover, in presenting the story
of the binding of Isaac as a preguration of the crucixion, the following
was heard about Christianity’s being possibly primitive and certainly cruel:
“Recall that God told Abraham that He does not want human sacrice?
en along came Christianity, and did want human sacrice.” [MES] In
general, the tour-guiding narrative seeks to debunk Christian theology. As
one teacher told the pupils, “We don’t believe all these Christian tales. ey
didn’t really happen.” [Orthodox school]
e tour-guiding narrative contains topics that lie at the heart of the
Jewish-Christian polemic. Casting doubt on Christianity’s monotheism,
its being framed as an “easy”, non-binding religion for its followers, and
its being illogical and rife with contradictions, is not new; those appearing
in the Jewish polemic literature played a central role in demarcating the
boundaries of Jewish identity in exile. e same claims appear in the guid-
ing discourse, but the context therein is not explicitly theological, and the
objective is not to prove Judaism’s veracity, but to acquaint the pupils with
various facets of Jerusalem. us, the eld trip and the visits to Christian
sites, whether intentionally or not, become a vehicle for justifying Judaism
as a religion and a platform for reinforcing the visitors’ religious-Jewish
identity. Similar to the polemical literature, today’s tour-guiding narrative
facing Christianity mainly aims to reinforce the Jewish dimension of the
pupils’ Israeli identity.
“I’M AFRAID THAT THEY’LL CONVERT ME”:
HISTORICAL MEMORY IN THE GUIDING DISCOURSE
Besides the religious polemic, details of historical memory of the relations
between Christians and Jews are a main theme arising from our analysis of
the guiding narrative in Jerusalem. e conspicuous component of histori-
cal mention is Christendom’s grip on the Western world for many centuries
“... because they controlled the world.” Christian political control of the
West was interpreted as cultural hegemony that, according to the guides, is
manifested in (for example) setting the calendar that we use today. Accord-
ing to the tour-guiding narrative, Christian control “over the world” con-
tinues to inuence us even today and explains how other countries relate
“We Were Here First” •
to Israel. As one pupil said: “Yes. Most of the world is Christian, so most
of the world hates us.”
Christians’ hatred of Jews is perceived as a historical datum that
requires no proof. e questions that arise on this topic are mostly related
to reasons for the hatred or to its implications. For example, a pupil asked,
“So how come the Christians hate us?” Despite the guide’s eort to play
down the hatred by saying, “Look. Let’s not start with the assumption
that everyone hates,” the pupils continued to discuss the matter among
themselves: “Not everyone hates everyone. ey just hate us”, and “Yes.
e French hate us too.”
e explanation given for Christian hatred of the Jews is that Chris-
tians blame them for having killed Jesus, or, as one guide explained: “What
happened over the course of history is that the Christians blamed the Jews
for Jesus’s murder. So because of what’s written in the New Testament, there
was much persecution of the Jews.” Another guide said, “It’s a problem as
far as we’re concerned, because after the Last Supper, Judas betrays Jesus to
the Romans as King of the Jews [and after the Jews asked to free Barabbas]
they cried, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!’ Because of a single verse
in the New Testament, [there was] a wave of persecution and massacres of
Jews.” [MES]
is explanation for Christian hatred of the Jews occasionally left the
pupils confused, particularly after the guide pointed out that it was the
Romans who crucied Jesus. One pupil even asked, “So do Christians hate
the Romans?” e awareness of the link between constant persecution,
threat, and Christianity led one pupil to ask, “So what was Hitler?” [MES],
reecting the sense of fear manifested by pupils on many occasions.
Fear of Christianity, on the one hand, and scorn for it on the other,
were expressed in both word and deed during the guided tours. Alongside
claims of Jewish supremacy, we observed disparaging and even belligerent
ways of relating both to Christian theology and Christianity’s symbols and
images.³³ Pupils expressed these feelings very often in dierent ways: “You
know what ʥ”ʹʩis an acronym for? ‘May his name be blotted out’,” “Curse
them!”, “I spit on [their graves]. Die [Christians]!”.
Studies of group relations indicate that, in contrast to social groups
that lack inuence, powerful groups respond with force toward the Other
when the former feel threatened by the latter.³ On the eld trips, while no
actual belligerent responses were observed, violence toward the Christian
presence in Israel in general and in Jerusalem in particular was expressed,
and has been spreading in recent years.³
• ,
e fear of Christianity is expressed explicitly even in the absence
of clearly dened grounds for it. In some cases it is manifested as fear
of physical harm and, in other cases, as fear that Christians will try to
convert the tour participants. us, the acknowledgment of Christianity,
or what can be construed to be acknowledgment, is conspicuous both
in the pupils’ words and those of their teachers. For example, one pupil
explained his request not to sit down on the church front yard thusly: “I
don’t want to sit down, ’cause it’ll look like I’m bowing down to Jesus.”
[MES] A teacher explained, “It’s an inexplicable recoiling. It’s the parents.
If I draw a cross, I’ll turn into a Christian. ere’s peer pressure not to go
inside [the church].” us, the fear of conversion to Christianity is felt not
only by the children, but by their chaperones as well, and even by some
of the guides.³
Hence, Christians are presented as sly, stealthy missionaries who want
to lure Jews into their midst. According to this narrative, the New Testa-
ment was translated into Hebrew “because Christians want the Jews to
be able to read it”. us, at Christ Church, the tour guide opened with,
“Listen up. is is a mission [for converting] Jews. e Jewish Quarter is
at its back doorstep.”
Pupil: If it’s a mission, how come it has a Star of David, and not a cross?
Guide: Why? In order to lure people. It’s a mission in every respect. ey have
a cross, but it’s hard to see. It’s deliberately obscured.
[MES high school]
Although Christ Church was indeed a base for missionary work among the
Jews of Jerusalem in the century, the use of the present tense in intro-
ducing the place as a mission can be seen as an exaggerated actualization of
the past, but it nonetheless arouses fear.
e fear of conversion was also evident in the discussion among a
group of teachers who refused to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre:
Teacher A: I’m afraid of their proselytizing .. . that they’ll convince me to
convert.
Teacher B: ey need us in order to survive.
[Primary secular schoolteachers]
e fear of proselytizing and conversion, whether forced or by stealth,
is rooted in the historical memory of the Jews’ past in Europe and con-
stitutes a phase in the construction of the us/them paradigm. While the
“We Were Here First” •
Jews are portrayed therein as innocents who place their trust in others,
the Christians are depicted as manipulative folk who exploit their posi-
tion of power to lead the Jews astray and convert them. As such, some
of the guides attempted to calm these fears, oering assurances that “We
won’t be converted. It’s important that you realize this,” and “You ask if
we’ll be Christian by day’s end? No! We’re Jews.” [MES] On a visit to Ein
Kerem, when the guide suggested reading the Magnicat in Hebrew, one
pupil countered that it was forbidden, to which the guide replied, “We’re
not going into the church to pray or to show that we believe in Jesus, but
rather to learn from those who are dierent from us.” [Orthodox school]
Another guide tried to reassure the visitors by telling them, “[Don’t worry.]
It’s against the Israeli law to proselytize.”
Along with this, fears of Christians were expressed—for instance, of
the priests walking about: “I’m afraid of them. ey look strange. is
whole place gives me the creeps.” [Orthodox school] Such fears were also
expressed in other, non-verbal ways. For example, one pupil ran away from
his class so as not to go inside the Dormition Abbey. Others put their hands
over their ears so as not to hear the chanting, or even the guide’s explana-
tion. On one eld trip, some children refused to listen to other children
recite the Magnicat. [Orthodox school] Even on a visit of a guiding certi-
cation course, one student refused to look at a cross being passed around
among the participants.
e unmediated encounter with Christian sites appears to heighten
the fear of Christianity, despite this fear appearing puzzling on its face in
a reality wherein Jews form the majority and are in power, and Christians
are a tiny, non-threatening community that avoids proselytizing.³ e
explanation for the fear observed appears to lie in the historical memory of
the Jewish experience in Christian Europe, the changing nature of Israeli
society’s relationship to the Jews’ history in the Diaspora and the complex
negotiation between Israeli civil and traditional religion, and between Israeli
and Jewish identity.³
Zionism was a secular national movement that arose in the century.
Like other European national movements, it constructed its national aspira-
tions based on historical tradition and political claims. It thus attempted to
distance itself from the religious identity that had historically characterized
the Jews, and to move toward the construction of a national identity. As
such, it viewed itself as a revolutionary movement destined to deliver the
Jews from exile, which was perceived as a damaged and weak existence, and
sought to dene the national identity of the “new Jew”—the Sabra, whose
roots are rmly planted in the Land of Israel.
• ,
e “negation of the Diaspora” was embedded in Zionist ideology
from its inception. e waves of immigration to Israel in the s marked
a challenge to the negative image of the Diaspora held to that point. is
process gathered momentum following the Eichmann trial, the lead-up to
the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kippur War, ultimately moving toward a
pivotal transformation in how Israelis related to the Diaspora experience, or
“the negation of the negation of the Diaspora”.³ e disparaging view of
Jewish life in exile as characterized by weakness and passivity was replaced
by an empathic view of the Jews’ helplessness therein, and was reected,
for example, in expanded Holocaust studies in the schools. Alongside
this, interest in historical roots in Europe to a certain extent eclipsed the
heretofore fervent interest in archaeology and Biblical studies.
Although the concept of Diaspora continued to be held up as at odds
with the Israeli reality, its characterizations were perceived as a legitimate
contradiction, and as an intellectual basis for challenging Israeli Zionist
hegemony. Raz-Krakotzkin proposed using the term Diaspora as a frame-
work for criticism of the hegemonic Zionist narrative, as well as the political
institutions stemming therefrom.¹ He claimed that aggressive characteriza-
tions of the State of Israel stand in contradiction to the Jewish experience in
the Diaspora, and therefore co-opting the term Diaspora and reconstituting
it could possibly engender social and cultural sensitivity toward minorities.
Gur-Zeev even proposed a curriculum for Diasporism based on humanist
universalism, which would enable multiculturalism in Israel.²
Simultaneously, growing empathy toward Jewish life in the Diaspora
led to a dierent interpretation of the term in Israeli society, particularly by
Israeli leadership, that is, from identication with weakness and the aware-
ness of Jewish victimhood in the Diaspora, the consciousness of persecution
grew, which does not encourage cultural or social sensitivity to the other;
rather, to a great extent, it encourages fear and rejection of the other.
e fear of Christians, as well as of proselytizing and forced conver-
sion, haunted the Jews for centuries as they lived alongside Christians. As
such, a regression to the Diasporic experience of persecution was palpable
in the eld trips described in this study. e irony of fear of Christianity
and Christians in the Israeli context might testify mainly to the adoption
of consciousness and sensitivity components, considered Jewish-Diasporic,
into the Israeli experience. Note that these components, which shape con-
sciousness, sensitivity, and behavior, appear among observant and secular
Jews alike, as well as among both adults and children.³ ese fears do not
reect memory of the past; rather, they reproduce past fears in the pres-
ent experience of eld trip participants, and to a great extent reect how
“We Were Here First” •
collective memory dictates present behavior. It appears that ramping up the
habitual recoiling from Christianity in modern Israel serves Israelis’ con-
temporary need for preserving the consciousness of the national religion-
based collective, which in turn is fed by the sense of threat.
We suggest that adoption of the concept of Diaspora into Israeliness
is part of a process wherein Israeliness becomes more and more identied
with, and dened by, its Jewish religious characteristics, while its civic
components fade. Various researchers have claimed that from the outset,
Israeliness did not produce a secular identity, but rather was laden with
Jewish motifs and characteristics infused with secular meaning, which thus
enabled their Zionist adherents to isolate non-Jewish groups from the Israeli
collective. is claim serves to explain the rapid adoption of the trappings
of Jewish religious identity by the population that denes itself as secular.
Against this backdrop, interestingly, adoption of the Israeli interpretation of
the Diasporic narrative, while challenging the hegemony of the Zionist nar-
rative that negated the Diaspora, did not challenge its European-Ashkenazi
hegemony, nor did it challenge the historical baggage of fear of Christianity.
CONCLUSION
At the time of its founding and thereafter, Israel as a new country of immi-
grants acted to construct an unmediated connection between its Jewish
residents and the land—its sights and landscape. As such, eld trips, both
in schools and in extracurricular programs, played, and still play, a leading
role. e guides on these trips serve as a vehicle of the state for transmitting
the hegemonic narrative and values that reinforce the connection to the
land and the legitimacy of Jewish dominion, while challenging alternative
narratives and claims. As such, the case study that we chose to focus on does
not address tourism per se,—individual-sporadic or commercial tourism,
in which the tour-guide is expected to cater to the paying tourist’s world-
view. Rather, our case study reects a central component of an institutional
system whose objective is the shaping and strengthening of hegemony and
its values. As a result, the guiding narrative echoes the mindset and transfor-
mations taking place in the hegemonic narrative, as well as the construction
of the collective memory and Israeli identity. erefore, tracking the place
of the Jewish-Christian religious dispute in the Israeli tour-guiding narra-
tive enables one to identify the change that took place therein in dening
Israeli identity. As such, this study shows how the theological and historical
enmity toward Christianity that shaped the identity of the Diasporic Jewish
• ,
community is recruited in favor of emphasis on and amplication of the
religious dimension in the reconstruction of contemporary Israeli identity.
Despite the tiny Christian presence in Israel, the adoption of the sense
of a historical Christian threat from Europe to Israel positions Christianity
once again as a menace, and encourages the incorporation of the Dias-
pora consciousness in Christian Europe as well as the sense of persecution
embedded therein, into the Israeli context. is type of link to Diaspora
consciousness engenders identication with fellow Jews in the past and
present, but does not engender empathy with other minorities living in
Israel today.
We argue that harnessing the religious polemic with Christians and
Christianity to the guiding narrative reinforces the religious dimension in
dening Israeli identity and emphasizes the fragile, weak, and persecuted
history of the Jews, while obscuring the current reality wherein Israeli Jews
are in fact the majority and the rulers. is paradox rationalizes for the
pupils their fearfulness, on the one hand, and their belligerence, on the
other, toward the Christian presence in Jerusalem. But this is not directed
only at the Christian minority; it applies to other minorities as well.
e religious dimension, in turn, strengthens the denition of Israeli
identity as contrasted with Christianity, particularly in conferring legiti-
macy to claims on the land facing the real foe that struggles for it: the
Palestinian. Although God is hardly mentioned in the narratives (neither
is the Biblical promise of the land to the sons of Israel), the religious
polemic with Christianity enables the presentation of Judaism as the true
faith, and the Jews as the rst group who reigned over the Land of Israel
and therefore entitled to rule over it now. e Christians themselves, who
recognize Jesus’s Jewishness, are the prime witnesses of the Jews’ connection
to the land. is primacy confers legitimacy on the Jews’ national claims,
at the same time that the sense of threat enables negating the claims to this
land, whatever they may entail, of other groups.
N
1.
See Adam Becker and Anette Yoshiko Reed, eds., e Ways at Never Parted
(Tübingen, Germany, ).
2. Christians and Jews regarded the Jewish exilic conditions as a punishment,
but debated the reason for this punishment. See David Berger, e Jewish Christian
Debate in the High-Middle Ages, A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus, with an
“We Were Here First” •
Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philadelphia, ), , , , , .
On the inuence of Christian perceptions of the Jewish exile on Jewish perception,
see Israel J. Yuval, “e Myth of Exile—Jewish Time, and Christian Time,” Alpayim
(): – [Hebrew].
3. Amnon Ramon, “e Positions of the Jewish Public in Israel Toward Chris-
tianity, e Christian World, and the Presence of Christians in Israel: Public Opin-
ion Poll Summary,” in Christians and Christianity in the Jewish State ( Jerusalem,
), – [Hebrew].
4. See Ora Limor and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and
Medieval Polemics Between Christians and Jews (Tübingen, Germany, ).
5. Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, ), .
6. Ibid., –.
7.
See David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: e Western Tradition (New York, ).
8.
Existing studies mostly address the political context of the relations between
Israel and the churches. See Uri Bialer, Cross on the Star of David: e Christian
World in Israel’s Foreign Policy 1948–1967 ( Jerusalem, ) [Hebrew]; Amnon
Ramon, Christians and Christianity in the Jewish State ( Jerusalem, ) [Hebrew];
Ronald Kronish, ed., Coexistence and Reconciliation in Israel: Voices for Interreligious
Dialogue (New York, ).
9.
Shlomo Brinn, “Teaching About the Other in Religious Zionist Education,”
in Kronish, Coexistence, –; Joshua Schwartz, “Teaching Jesus in Halakhic
Jewish Setting, Kosher? Treif? Or Pareve?” in Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and
Exegesis, ed. Zev Garber (New York/London, ), –; Orit Ramon, “Pres-
ent Absentee: Teaching Christianity in Israeli Schools,” in Ramon, Christians and
Christianity in the Jewish State, –.
10. Catherine Palmer, “Tourism and the Symbols of Identity,” Tourism Man-
agement (): –; Michael Pretes, “Tourism and Nationalism,” Annals of
Tourism Research . (): –.
11. Jonathan Scoureld, Bella Dicks, Mark Drakeford, and Andrew Davies,
Children, Place and Identity: Nation and Locality in Middle Childhood (London/
New York, ), –.
12. Gil Gertel, By Way of Nature: Nature Pedagogy and the Educational Tour
(Bnei Brak, ), –, –. See also Ehud Prawer, e Role of the Field Trip
in Land of Israel Studies 1887–1918 ( Jerusalem, ) [both in Hebrew]; Shaul Katz,
“e Israeli Teacher Guide: e Emergence and Perpetuation of a Role,” Annals of
Tourism Research (): –.
13. Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, ed., Lewis A. Coser (Chicago,
), –.
14. is position is articulated in many cases against claims that the Zionist
movement is a colonialist one. See Yael Zerubavel, Recovered Roots: Collective
Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition (Chicago, ); Derek J.
Penslar, “Zionism, Colonialism, and Post-colonialism,” Journal of Israeli History
.– (): –. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin stressed that the concept of “the
• ,
return” was in itself Christian in “e Return to the History of Redemption (or,
What Is the ‘History’ to Which the ‘Return’ in the Phrase ‘e Jewish Return to
History’ Refers?),” in Zionism and the Return to History—A Reappraisal, ed., Shmuel
N. Eisenstadt and Moshe Lissak ( Jerusalem, ), – [Hebrew].
15. Secularism in Israel is a complex notion, and the denition includes people
with more traditional attitudes. See Yehuda Goodman and Yossi Yona, “e Gord-
ian Knot Between Religiosity and Secularism in Israel: Inclusion, Exclusion, and
Change,” in Secularization and Secularity, ed., Yochi Fischer ( Jerusalem, ),
– [Hebrew]; Charles S. Liebman and Eliezer Don-Yehiya, Civil Religion in
Israel (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, ).
16.
Special indication will be made throughout the text when referring to
middle school or high school groups, as well as to orthodox schools’ groups or
mixed enrollment (Torah-observant and non-observant children) schools.
17. For details on the groups, nature of the tours, and relevant quantitative
information, see our preliminary research report http://he.jcjcr.org/research.
18. Eviatar Zerubavel, Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the
Past (Chicago/London, ), –.
19. Halbwachs, ch. ; Zerubavel, Time Maps, –, –.
20.
Hagit Lavsky, “Zionism and the Land of Israel from a Historical and
Modern Perspective: Territory, Homeland, or Holy Land?” in Milestones: Essays
and Studies in the History of the People of Israel, ed., David Assaf et al. ( Jerusalem,
), –, – [Hebrew].
21. e tradition surrounding David’s tomb on Mount Zion is probably Byz-
antine-Christian. Jewish sources mention the site on Mount Zion only from the
century on. Ora Limor, “King David’s Tomb on Mt. Zion: e Origins of a
Tradition,” in Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine, ed., David
Jacoby and Yoram Tsafrir ( Jerusalem, ), – [Hebrew].
22. Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, .
23. Zerubavel, Time Maps, –.
24. Paula Fredriksen analyzed the various characteristics that researchers attri-
bute to Jesus in “What You See Is What You Get: Context and Content in Current
Research on the Historical Jesus,” eology Today . (): –. In this sense,
how Jesus is presented as Jewish in the tour-guiding narrative is not uncommon.
Great importance lies in the choice of precisely these characteristics, the place that
they occupy, and the extent to which they are incorporated into the tour-guiding
narrative.
25. Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, ; Harold Innis, “A Plea for Time,” in e Bias
of Communication (Toronto, ), –.
26. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London, ), –, –;
Pierre Nora, “Between Memory and History: On the Problem of Place,” Zmanìm
(): , , [Hebrew]; Yael Zerubavel, “Back to the Bible: e Field Trip and
Remembering the Past in Israel’s Tourist Discourse,” in Culture, Memory, and His-
tory: A Tribute to Anita Shapira, Part II, ed., Meir Hazan and Uri Cohen ( Jerusalem,
“We Were Here First” •
), [both in Hebrew]; David Lowenthal, “Fabricating Heritage,” History
and Memory (): .
27. According to Dean MacCannell, the word “tourist” denes anyone who
appears happy with the non-authentic experience that s/he is having in a given
locale, e Tourist: A New eory of the Leisure Class (Berkeley, ), .
28. Roderick Ninian Smart called for a dialogue of equals in the study of reli-
gions, whose purpose is discursive and not polemic. He sought to nd commonal-
ity between religions precisely in order to examine the uniqueness of each. Ninian
Smart, World Religions: A Dialogue (London, ), –. is dialectic approach
was used in an initial study that analyzes the various educational approaches in
teaching Christianity in Israeli schools: David Ben-Dor, “Teaching Christianity
as the ‘Other’: Jewish Teachers’ Perceptions in the Secular and Religious School
Networks in Israel” (MA thesis, Hebrew University, ) [Hebrew].
29.
For example, the th-century Yosef Kimkhi’s Sefer ha-Brit, ed., Frank
Talmage ( Jerusalem, ), – and Berger, e Jewish Christian Debate, –.
30. In Sefer ha-Brit (–), Yosef Kimkhi is full of admiration for monks, but
stresses that they are a small and insignicant minority in Christian society. See
Ora Limor, Between Jews and Christians: Jews and Christians in Western Europe in
the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, vol. (Tel-Aviv, ), [Hebrew].
31. For a description of Christian worship as “Avoda Zara”, see Berger, e
Jewish Christian Debate, , , . On Rabbinic writings on Christianity as
“Avoda Zara”, see Karma Ben-Yohanan, Contemporary Conceptions of Judaism and
Christianity in Catholic and Jewish Orthodox eologies (Tel-Aviv University, ),
[Hebrew].
32.
Particularly since the century and the Reformation, schisms and inght-
ing in both religions have preoccupied scholars, as unity was comprehended as a
reection of the one Godly truth. See Elisheva Carlebach, Divided Souls: Converts
from Judaism in Germany 1500–1750 (New Haven, ), –.
33.
On Jewish hostility proliferate see Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and
the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton, NJ, ).
34. Walter G. Stephan and Marisa D. Mealy, “Intergroup reat eory,” in
Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, ed., Daniel J. Christie (Oxford, ), ; Ifat
Maoz and Clark McCauley, “reat, Dehumanization, and Support for Retalia-
tory Aggressive Policies in Asymmetric Conict,” Journal of Conict Resolution .
(): –.
35. A few instances: the June arson of the Church of the Loaves and the
Fishes; inciting grati sprayed on the Romanian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem,
May ; inciting grati sprayed in Beer-Sheva, on Mount Zion, and other locales
leading up to the Pope’s January visit and again a year later.
36.
e fear of conversion to Christianity is clearly present in the public opinion
poll held in : Ramon, Christians and Christianity, –.
37.
Amendment to the Criminal Code forbids direct proselytizing to
convert minors; amendment to the Custody and Status Before the Law code
• ,
forbids adults from converting minors without their parents’ permission. See
http://www.dinimveod.co.il/hashavimcmsles/Pdf/sh.pdf; amendment to the
Penal Code (Stealth Conversion): http://fs.knesset.gov.il/CClawC
_lsr_.PDF,both accessed September .
38. Liebman and Don-Yehiya, Civil Religion in Israel, –.
39. Anita Shapira, Jews, Zionists, and the Connection Between em (Tel-Aviv,
), [Hebrew].
40. Uri Ram, e Time of the Post (Tel-Aviv, ), , – [Hebrew].
41. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Diaspora within Sovereignty: Critique of ‘Dias-
pora Negation’ in Israeli Culture,” Part , eory and Criticism (): –; and
Part , eory and Criticism (): – [Hebrew].
42.
Ilan Gur-Zeev, Toward Education for Diasporism: Multiculturalism, Post-
Colonialism, and Counter-Education in the Post-Modern Age (Tel-Aviv, ),
– [Hebrew].
43. On the sense of threat as shaping consciousness and behavior, see Stephan
and Mealy, “Intergroup reat eory.”
44. Nora, “Between Memory and History,” –; Zerubavel, Time Maps, –.
45. Ram, e Time of the Post, –. According to surveys conducted by the
Israel Institute for Democracy, the past two decades have seen a rise in commit-
ment to religion and a drop in commitment to democratic values. In ,
of Jewish Israelis dened their identities as “Jewish”, while dened theirs as
“Israeli”. Israel Democracy Institute, Israeli Jews: e Makeup, Beliefs, Observance
of Tradition, and Values of Jews in Israel ( Jerusalem, ), .
46. Uri Ram, Israeli Nationalism: Social Conicts and the Politics of Knowledge
(Abingdon, UK, ), –, –.
47.
Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “ere Is No God, But He Promised Us the Land,”
Mitaam () [Hebrew].
ORIT RAMON is a Lecturer in the History Department at the Open
University of Israel. Her recent publications include: Maharal in New
Light: Jewish Identity in a Challenged World Order ( Jerusalem, );
“Prague in Jerusalem and Jerusalem in Prague—Kristof Harant describes
the Holy Sepulchre (),” History (); “Confessionalization and
World Peace—A Close reading of Maharal’s commentary on the book
of Esther,” in Maharal: Overtures, ed. Elhanan Reiner ( Jerusalem, );
“Kristof Harant’s Pilgrimage to the Holy Land () and His Account of
the Christian Denominations in Ottoman Jerusalem,” Cathedra ()
[all in Hebrew].
INES GABEL is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Political Sci-
ence and Communication at the Open University in Israel. Her recent pub-
lications include: “Historical Memory and Collective Identity: West Bank
“We Were Here First” •
Settlers Reconstruct the Past,” Media, Culture & Society . (); and
“Juggling resistance and Compliance: e Case of Israeli Ultra-Orthodox
Media,” co-authored with Varda Wasserman, Culture and Organization
().
VARDA WASSERMAN is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Soci-
ology, Political Science and Communication at the Open University in
Israel. Her recent publications include: “Narratives of Success: e Case of
Ethiopian Women,” Society and Welfare () [Hebrew]; “Juggling resis-
tance and Compliance: e Case of Ultra-orthodox Media in Israel,” Cul-
ture & Organization (); “Spatial Work in Between Glass Ceilings and
Glass Walls: Gender-class Intersectionality and Organizational Aesthetics,”
Organizational Studies ().
CopyrightofIsraelStudiesisthepropertyofIndianaUniversityPressanditscontentmaynot
becopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder's
expresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesfor
individualuse.
