Outline of Final Project

Lila and I are continuing with our movie idea. We have spoken with UITS employees and have been reassured that our movie will work successfully.
In our movie we will:

* Discuss the three different religions in Jerusalem: Islam, Judaism and Christianity
* Analyze the followers of the three religions and their personal connections to Jerusalem
* Understand the correlation (if any) between an IU student's major and his or her knowledge of the conflict

Reading Response 10

After reading a bit from Parallels and Paradoxes and seeing the film Knowledge is the Beginning, I can begin to understand how these two influential men teamed up to help promote peace in the region. From every online website or biography on either Daniel Barenboim or Edward Said, it seems as though both of these men were extraordinary individuals that have a constant hunger to make a difference in many aspects of life. It was only a matter of time before they met each other and began as what many described a ‘passionate and intense’ friendship. I am amazed by both of their biographies and the many identities that they both have. While Barenboim is Argentine, Russian, Israeli and Jewish, Said is in many forms America, Palestinian, Egyptian, and Christian. It seems as though because both of these men possess multiple identities they are able to see the world as they do. Through their dialog in Parallels it shows their intense humility (very difficult with such credentials I can imagine) and also their ability to look at a situation such as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (or occupation, if you will) in a different way. For instance, in the first chapter, Edward Said says “There’s a lot of sentimentality about “homelands” that I don’t really care for” (4). If only every felt the same way. Barenboim also comments on this: “The sense of belonging to different cultures can only be enriching” (6). And once more, I must comment, wouldn’t things be easier if everyone felt this way too?! A project such as the Barenboim-Said foundation and the West-Eastern Divan orchestra had to have developed from minds such as these two. I think it’s a genius idea to create a youth orchestra with equal numbers of Palestinians and Israelis. Art is a universal language that connects all people. After reading the excerpts and information on them, I begin to understand how they were able to put their identities and opinions aside and form this project. It makes me think for a moment, ‘peace could be so easy!’. But then of course, it’s not. 

We were reminded by this after speaking with Jenna from Ramallah at the movie showing on Thursday. She had the exact opposite view of these two men. She was against normalization and the pretending as if everything is okay and happy. She said you travel to this setting and live in a bubble, then return to Israel/Palestine and relive the same problems that you already had. I can understand why she may feel this way, and of course I see things differently because I did not grow up in her situation. However, it really upset me to hear her opinions especially after seeing the film that gave me some sort of optimistic high. It really brought me back down to reality to realize how difficult this all is. I do want to ask her though, if she is against this sort of situation, I do not understand what she proposed instead then? Obviously something has to be done, and if she is not against this type of dialog, what can be done?! She says that it’s not helping anything, but can it really make the situation worse?! I would like to hear more from her about her ideas and what she would propose as an alternative. 

Questions to ask Mariam Said:
1. How involved were you in the process of beginning the Barenboim-Said Foundation?
2. Were you ever against this type of ‘normalization’? What do you propose as peace measures? 

Questions about Knowledge is the Beginning:
1. How has this project affected the lives of individual kids?
2. Have you begun to see the benefits of the project?
3. What has been the most rewarding aspect?
4. What has been the most challenging? 

More questions for Mariam:
1. How did you make the transition from the financial sector to helping run the Barenboim-Said Foundation?
2. What do you think is the most influential aspect of your husband’s work? 

Reading Response 9

I enjoyed both of the readings for today, Old and New Walls in Jerusalem by Menachem Klein and The Writing on the Walls: The Graffiti of the Intifada by Julie Peteet. While both of these article focus on the idea of the wall and its functions, Klein discusses the physical and imaginative walls that segregate the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Peteet is interested in the wall and the function of graffiti as a component of the Palestinian struggle. 

In Klein’s article Old and New Walls in Jerusalem, the author first explains the principal functions of walls. He says there are five different types, and the types of walls that are used for protection and shelter are not present in Jerusalem; rather, the walls found there are the excluding walls and walls of aggression (58). Klein also reinforces the idea that the walls serve as segregating agents. Hey  quotes Passi  saying, “Boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘others’ are critical elements in establishing ‘us’ and excluding ‘others’…boundaries become a part of everyday life and an identity narrative” (57). The difference between traditional walls and the walls that Klein refers to is that these walls further promote the differences between the two people and strengthen the idea of the ‘other’.  While reading Klein’s article, I am again surprised to discover all of the manipulative measures the Israeli government has succeeded in carrying out. Klein states, “The wall that Israel established, by virtue of its superior strength, was meant, by bureaucratic means, to contain and limit the weaker side’s demographic development and to perpetuate the stronger side’s domination” (63). Klein goes into more detail in regards to this statement and emphasizes the degrading procedures that the Palestinians are required to go through. For instance, to be able to cross between West and East Jerusalem Palestinians are required to go through several checkpoints that could take hours. The limited mobility only heightens anti-Israeli sentiment. 

I was fascinated by Peteet’s article on graffiti. I loved hearing the different examples and seeing some of the pictures she included. This article was especially interesting because in my bubble I had never thought about graffiti as more than an activity for kids who had nothing to do. When here we see graffiti we tend to automatically assume it is a gang symbol. In regards to the graffiti of the Palestinians, it became a powerful tool with many different purposes. Peteet says, “The Palestinian community thought “out loud” in graffiti” (141), and “Graffiti constituted a voice for those who felt voiceless in the international arena” (145). Some of the graffiti is resistance, as one would expect. However, I was surprised to find out that is it also a way of connecting the community, of communicating the news and other events, of informing, warning the population, resisting traditional cultural norms, and of commemorating martyrs. While the wall may segregate and dehumanize, as Klein mentioned, it also becomes an area for dialog and freedom. Furthermore, I was shocked to understand that because graffiti is illegal, many of the Palestinians who participate in the paintings will be beaten or even shot if they are caught, and many of the graffiti is painted over with black paint even minutes after it was just put up. For this reason, it becomes even more of a romanticized idea; these Palestinians will potentially risk their lives for a picture or painting that could last no more than a few hours. In the article, Peteet quotes a woman from Ramallah, “Of course, when I wake in the morning and see new graffiti I know that resistance continues. It tells me that people are risking their lives and that they live right here in this neighborhood” (151).  The community appreciates the graffiti and it becomes not only a way to connect the people and create solidarity, but it becomes entertainment. Some of the graffiti on the website was hilarious and laughable. I really enjoyed seeing pictures of it and seeing the diversity of themes that it dealt with. 

On the website, there was footage of part of a wall and the different graffiti there. One of the sayings caught my attention: “Give them justice and they will reward you with peace”. I thought this was a very curious statement and very distinct from other social and political movements throughout history. Most struggles are later commemorated for their non-violent nature. In contrast, the author of this graffiti believes that peace will only come once justice as served. He or she is clearly not afraid to use violence. 

Overall, the graffiti serves as not only beautiful artistic expression but it carries important and social and political meanings. In contrast to Klein’s analysis of the walls, these walls give the Palestinians a voice and help continue the social movement. The many different voices and opinions on these walls inspire dialog and stimulate political discussion while reflecting the variety of viewpoints among the Palestinians. I can’t help but wonder about graffiti and Israelis. They might not need graffiti as a way to speak their mind because they do not have the censorship that the Palestinians do. However, is graffiti still important on their side of the wall? Do they participate in this as a political act? What are their main themes? 

My friend AJ went to Israel/Palestine this summer and put a lot of cool pictures on facebook of some of the graffiti he saw. Here are a couple of the pictures. The last one makes me laugh a lot.

Weblog Journal Assignment 5: Jerualem Project

This class has already been a great experience and we still have half of it left. I know the project members of the Living Jerusalem project are doing an incredible job of teaching us about Jerusalem and the history of its people. However, it is not void of its challenges. I think the biggest challenge for the Jerusalem Project is continuing to be able to form classes and effectively educate more and more people about the conflict and the history of Jerusalem. There is much more information out there than a class will ever have enough time to cover. In addition, I also think that the current state of the situation might deter support. The project will encounter some pessimists who will shoot down the idea and claim that there is nothing that can be done. As Professor Hermann mentioned today we are in a tough spot because each side is reluctant to move forward and unsure of the consequences of any path they might take. Some people might see this as a frivolous class.

I am unsure of the feasibility of this, but I would propose to project members that the trip to Jerusalem be mandatory for all of the classes (and it would be covered in tuition.....). That way, students would be able to fully take advantage of all of the knowledge they would have just gained.

Weblog Journal Assignment 4: Ideas for Future Negotiations

Speaking from my basic knowledge of the conflict, my ideas for future Arab-Israeli negotiations are that the solution should start from the people. Instead of politicians from the United States who have limited understanding of the area trying to put forth their ideas, I would rather see the negotiations being driven by people similar (or those people) to those that we have read from or talked about in class; cultural anthropologists, ethnographers, geographers, and historians. People such as Salim Tamari, Karen Armstrong and Naomi Chazan all had insightful analysis of the situation. These people have an in-depth understanding of the cultural and the area and they should initiate the peace talks. If these people could help each side of the conflict to understand their similarities and help them stop hating and discriminating, then we would be on our way. If the majority of the people in this area, both Palestinians and Israelis, could begin mixing and creating relationships with each other, then that would make a significant difference. Mutual respect and understand would help facilitate the process and create more peaceful negotiations. 

Continuing with this idea, I echo what Naomi Chazan touched on: Jerusalem should be the first place for negotiations. If this city can show the world that many groups can peacefully coexist, not just live segregated, then it would become an important model for the rest of the area. Negotiations should begin in Jerusalem and continue throughout the rest of the region. Jerusalem should be a neutral zone with no one group governing. With that being said, there should be an attempt to mix the different populations and make sure that they live side by side. 

The future negotiations cannot exclude politics of course. However, I would like to reaffirm that the politicians should center their views and shy away from extremism. They should take notes from the people and attempt to find the most peaceful solution possible. Easier said than done.

Reading Response for Wed. Oct. 5

In the readings for today, both authors echoed some of the same sentiments. The epilogue by Montefiore gave an overview of much of the same information as Armstrong did in her book; however, I felt that through these pages surfaced much more subjectivity and emotion. It provided a nice comparison between the two authors. While Montefiore’s last chapter was rich with beautiful language, the passionate words suggested more of personal connection. For instance, the way in which he describes the return of the Jews to Jerusalem evokes emotions in even the most secular: “The capture of Jerusalem elated even the most secular Jews. The craving for Zion was so deep, so ancient, so ingrained in song, prayer and myth, the exclusion from the Wall so longstanding and so painful, and the aura of holiness so powerful that even the more irreligious Jews, across the world, experienced a sensation of exhilaration that approached a religious experience and in the modern world was as close as they would ever come to one” (523). These words have a much more expressive tone to them. Furthermore, Montefiore’s chapter gives great detail on the changing attitudes of the residents of Jerusalem and the harsh opinions of its leaders. I was unaware that Arafat at one point had claimed that “Jerusalem had never been the site of the Jewish Temple, which had in fact existed only on the Samaritan Mount Gerizim. The city’s holiness for Jews was a modern invention” (531). I can’t believe that he would advertise this idea and further propagate the violence. 

Although Armstrong did not shy away from exposing the violent nature of Jerusalem and the different groups, I also felt that the author in this epilogue was more explicit about it. He says, “Jerusalem today lives in a state of schizophrenic anxiety. Jews and Arabs dare not venture into each other’s neighborhoods…” (531). This sense of chaos is shown throughout his descriptions of past events. What I found most interesting about this epilogue was that feeling of tension, as if each group will take an eye for an eye and call it justice. 

Finally, I was very much moved by Naomi’s Chazan’s article Owning Our Identity published in the Huffington Post in October 2010. Chazan’s strong voice and conviction show through her criticism of an amendment to the Citizenship Act. Chazan states that Israel should no longer be referred to as a “Jewish State” because of the many problems that this name causes. She explains that the complexity of who is Israeli goes beyond religious labels. Her call for equality of all citizens and peace of Jews in Palestinian territories and Palestinians in Jewish territories is a stark contrast from some of the narratives we have seen from other leaders. I really appreciate at the end of the article as she discusses the possibility of changing to Israel to the 1967 borders.  She explains that although there should not be a question  of the legitimacy of Israel, Israelis must understand that “our independence came at the price of what Palestinians call the nakba (catastrophe)” (2). 

I am very glad to have seen Chazan’s point of view. Often times we are shown the Israeli point of view as very adamant about protecting what feel is inherently theirs. My questions for Naomi Chazan are:

As the President of the New Israel Fund, do you see the difference your work has made in the peace process? How does the government respond to your work? What criticisms have you received because of this? How have the people you have worked with acted as a catalyst in the peace process?

Final Project Ideas

For the final project, I will be partnering with Lila and we will attempt to create a video.

We would like to focus on the religious aspect and sacred aspect of Jerusalem. Specifically, we are looking to understand how college students view Jerusalem. For them, is it considered a sacred place? If they attend some kind of religious service will this affect whether or not they view it as sacred/ important to their relationship with God? And furthermore, we also want to know how much people understand/know about the conflict. We want to advocate the importance of this class. Does someone's religious beliefs or someone's major in school affect their knowledge on the topic?

In order to answer these questions, we plan on asking students on campus and also visiting a church, a synagogue, and a mosque in Bloomington.