Monday, May 24, 2010
Final Project...again
I think I want to write my final paper on settlements. I have been unsettled (no pun intended) between the Dome of the Rock and Israeli settlements. I have found some interesting opinions from both sides about these settlements. Its so interesting to me. I think I am going to write about that...in fact, I am. I would like to spend most of the paper looking at these settlements from different people's views. Ultimately, I want to discuss how they are affecting present day Jerusalem. What divisions are they causing for peace negotiations in the future? I know it seems late to change my topic, but I've been thinking about it for a little while now. Our conference call last week pushed me over. It was crazy to hear him talk about the wall and these settlements as they impacted his life. The impacts they are having on real people's lives. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this...
Also, it's 2am? When did it get to be so late...?
Also, it's 2am? When did it get to be so late...?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Crater Lake
This has nothing to do with anything but since Amy brought it up today I wanted to show you guys a picture of Crater Lake. It's beautiful and also really cool. I love Crater Lake (in the "I have never been there and probably will never go" kind of way). Regardless, here it is...
That little guy in the middle is Wizard Island. Know nothing about it except I think it sits on a lava dome. It has a pretty cool name though.
That little guy in the middle is Wizard Island. Know nothing about it except I think it sits on a lava dome. It has a pretty cool name though.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Reflection on Professor Herrmann
Having professor Hermann come in was great. I feel like I learned a lot from hearing him talk. One thing that really stuck with me was about the two state solution. I guess I didn't realize fully how close they were to making an agreement in the nineties and how it crumbled. It was really interesting to talk about the peace conflict in relation to our government. We don't understand. "You don't understand. Too much has happened. Too much has happened over the past ten years and it cannot be forgotten." Maybe this sounds foolish but I never considered the severity of 9/11 on this issue. It made so much sense when he was talking about how Palestinians are able to bomb Israel but then they have to deal with all the terrorist publicity from the US. They don't really have many other options outside of that. Anyways, I am interested to see what our government tries to do now that the administration has changed...guess I need to pay more attention to the news.
Another thing that has really stuck with me was about the western wall. We have been talking about the wall recently but seeing those pictures was crazy. The image of that Palestinian city that is completely surrounded like a prison. We saw pictures of kids leaving through the gates to go to school, does anyone get to leave the city or are they trapped there? It looked like they lost a lot of their farm land when the wall went in, are they still able to use this land or not? How has the loss of these farms affected the ability for people to support themselves?
Another thing that has really stuck with me was about the western wall. We have been talking about the wall recently but seeing those pictures was crazy. The image of that Palestinian city that is completely surrounded like a prison. We saw pictures of kids leaving through the gates to go to school, does anyone get to leave the city or are they trapped there? It looked like they lost a lot of their farm land when the wall went in, are they still able to use this land or not? How has the loss of these farms affected the ability for people to support themselves?
Reading Responses Week 8
I found the first article about unifying Israel through architecture to be difficult. It did not keep my attention. Was the architectural design of the city and infrastructure really that big of a deal? Why did it matter so much? I understand the idea of unifying a city through distinct cultural practices and traditions but why all the controversy about how buildings, neighborhoods, and city blocks were going to look?
The other article or book rather was really interesting. I found myself constantly checking the page numbers to validate that these documents were in fact in the same text and that I didn't skip a few pages. The way the text is set up kept me interested but I wonder why the author chose to do this? Besides that, I really enjoyed the the poems and narrative in the beginning. Maybe I liked them because it was so different than the first article. I liked the picture that Oleibo paints as he talks about his experience with the city. Every little detail reminds him that this is his home and he knows that this city is also the home of other people. He isn't concerned at all with his specific culture, race, or religion. He cares about Jerusalem. He was born their and it is his home, just like plenty of other people.
I also really like his poem. I feel like I can relate to how he takes in his surroundings. He feels a unique tie to his home, his culture, his Jerusalem because he knows it so well. He talks about waking up in the morning and recognizing where the dome is above his pillow and how the walls look. He notices details. I do this all the time. I can't help but keep track of details. Numbers, sounds, the way the sky looked, or the color of someones T-shirt. I know the room I live in. I know where the wall is cracked and dented. I know where the floor creeks. I know that there is a black spot on my ceiling that looks like a bug...but isn't. I am constantly taking in information that makes me feel tied to my surroundings. I feel like I have claim on it and I appreciate it more. I am not saying that this is the same to Oleibo's thoughts about Jerusalem but simply that I understand the way he is thinking. I understand that our surroundings are complex. These "silent witnesses" have plenty of stories to tell.
The other article or book rather was really interesting. I found myself constantly checking the page numbers to validate that these documents were in fact in the same text and that I didn't skip a few pages. The way the text is set up kept me interested but I wonder why the author chose to do this? Besides that, I really enjoyed the the poems and narrative in the beginning. Maybe I liked them because it was so different than the first article. I liked the picture that Oleibo paints as he talks about his experience with the city. Every little detail reminds him that this is his home and he knows that this city is also the home of other people. He isn't concerned at all with his specific culture, race, or religion. He cares about Jerusalem. He was born their and it is his home, just like plenty of other people.
I also really like his poem. I feel like I can relate to how he takes in his surroundings. He feels a unique tie to his home, his culture, his Jerusalem because he knows it so well. He talks about waking up in the morning and recognizing where the dome is above his pillow and how the walls look. He notices details. I do this all the time. I can't help but keep track of details. Numbers, sounds, the way the sky looked, or the color of someones T-shirt. I know the room I live in. I know where the wall is cracked and dented. I know where the floor creeks. I know that there is a black spot on my ceiling that looks like a bug...but isn't. I am constantly taking in information that makes me feel tied to my surroundings. I feel like I have claim on it and I appreciate it more. I am not saying that this is the same to Oleibo's thoughts about Jerusalem but simply that I understand the way he is thinking. I understand that our surroundings are complex. These "silent witnesses" have plenty of stories to tell.
Walls, Walls, and More Walls Week 8
I think it was professor Hermann who was telling us about the wall in detail. Remember when he told us that they call it a fence? That is not a fence. I guess call it what you want but you can't deny that it is a barrier. Whether it's for the protection of it's people, land, or culture...it's a barrier. The article talks about how this wall and the settlers that have moved in are creating a giant obstacle for future political discussions. These settlements are so intriguing to me. I guess it's because I can't fathom what is going on. It seems so shady. It seems like Israeli forces are pushing people further and further into "Palestinian land". It seems sneaky...manipulative. Am I wrong? Am I misunderstanding what is going on here?
"Israel is trying to contain both the territory and the population and to develop levers of control over them, instead of sharing rule with the Palestinians." This article clearly does not disagree with my thoughts. They are intentionally trying to cut Palestinian Arab's off from social, political, economic, and cultural ties. A quarter of a million people will be trapped? Trapped physically but also in all these other ways. Trapped from their families and jobs?
"The World Bank estimates that in addition to the 220 000 residents of East Jerusalem, about 60 000 Palestinians will be trapped between the border system separating them from the West Bank and the walls separating them from East and West Jerusalem. Israel does not intend to grant them residency or the status and rights possessed by East Jerusalemites. It certainly does not intend to offer them the Israeli citizenship that was rejected by almost all the residents of East Jerusalem."
Who are these people then? What do they do now that they are physically trapped? How do they view themselves? This is more than confining Palestinian's into the West Bank...it's saying "you can't be in Jerusalem, you can't be in the West Bank, and you can't have citizenship to anywhere." They are trapping people...physically, culturally, personally...
The article claims, "It has to do with the Israeli vision of destroying East Jerusalem metropolitan functions in order to assure Israeli domination."
What do you guys think? Is this Israel's vision or is this a massive overstatement?
"Israel is trying to contain both the territory and the population and to develop levers of control over them, instead of sharing rule with the Palestinians." This article clearly does not disagree with my thoughts. They are intentionally trying to cut Palestinian Arab's off from social, political, economic, and cultural ties. A quarter of a million people will be trapped? Trapped physically but also in all these other ways. Trapped from their families and jobs?
"The World Bank estimates that in addition to the 220 000 residents of East Jerusalem, about 60 000 Palestinians will be trapped between the border system separating them from the West Bank and the walls separating them from East and West Jerusalem. Israel does not intend to grant them residency or the status and rights possessed by East Jerusalemites. It certainly does not intend to offer them the Israeli citizenship that was rejected by almost all the residents of East Jerusalem."
Who are these people then? What do they do now that they are physically trapped? How do they view themselves? This is more than confining Palestinian's into the West Bank...it's saying "you can't be in Jerusalem, you can't be in the West Bank, and you can't have citizenship to anywhere." They are trapping people...physically, culturally, personally...
The article claims, "It has to do with the Israeli vision of destroying East Jerusalem metropolitan functions in order to assure Israeli domination."
What do you guys think? Is this Israel's vision or is this a massive overstatement?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Final Project
I had previously thought about interviewing some of my friends from Jordan and Syria about the unrest in Jerusalem. I was hoping to receive an outside perspective on the city but I don't think I will have enough information to give a clear picture. Needless to say, I did have some pretty interesting conversations. I began to rethink the final project and realized how interested I am in the Dome of the Rock. As we read through Armstrong's book I was amazed to see this holy site transform. First, I want to understand and explain the significance of this "holy site" for all three religions. Second, I would like to examine the changes that this site has undergone, specifically during the Crusades, and define the role of the Dome of the Rock today. Lastly, I would like to discuss the impact the Dome of the Rock has on society, varying cultures, and politics in Jerusalem. I hope that in this paper I will gain more perspective on the significance of the city by examining a space that is very sacred to Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A look back at Armstrong Week 4
Hasan-Rokem's article about Jerusalem as a mother, daughter, sister, helpless woman, etc. has made me think back on Armstrong's concluding thoughts of her book. I don't think that I ever posted on these thoughts, so here it is...
I love when she says, "Women of flesh and blood also deserve to be loved with less possessiveness and more equality. However, Jerusalem is not a women. It is a city, with a long, long history..." The article mentions that whoever is in charge of Jerusalem should see themselves as a small piece of the puzzle. She uses the word continuum, which I think is fitting in describing the circular and constant battle for claim over Jerusalem. This statement has made me think a lot about present day Jerusalem.
The battle for Jerusalem has been constant and power has shifted between cultures and religions. It makes me wonder, is another cultural or religious shift coming? I find it hard to believe that Jerusalem could be taken over and ruled again as a Muslim city--or even harder to fathom as a Christian city--but then I am reminded of Jerusalem's past. I would be a fool to dismiss this as possibility. But how? There seems so be so much inequality and oppression. How could it happen yet again?
The issue of present day Jerusalem seems more difficult than the past (maybe it's just because I am here and this is what I know) because now people are talking about peace. The question is no longer, "Who will take over Jerusalem next?" or "How can so and so reclaim power over their holy city?" The question has become, "How do we pursue peace in this area of great division?" Obviously peace and tolerance among people is harder to execute than just a complete power shift. Peace is much harder.
Armstrong talks about how quickly Jerusalem went from a predominant Islamic city to the capital of the Jewish state of Israel. I am reminded yet again how quickly power-shifts can happen. How did/do the Arab people feel? So quickly removed and detached from what they knew to be theirs for so long. For many people I'm sure the battle is still about complete control of Jerusalem, but the idea of peace (or at least tolerance) between peoples, cultures, and religions is a growing discussion. Armstrong states at the end of the book, "the prospect of peace looks bleak. But the history of Jerusalem reminds us that astonishing reversals are always possible and that nothing--not even mortal hatred--is permanent. There are still many Israelis and Palestinians, many Arabs and Jews, who long for peace and are prepared to make the sacrifices that peace requires..." (pg. 430) This brings hope. Hasan-Rokem and Armstrong seem to agree that things are never permanent in Jerusalem. The city is constantly turning and changing. My question is, what is on the horizon? What will the next change be? Will it be another reversal of power or could peace become a reality? I think Jerusalem's past will remind us that it is nearly impossible for any of us to predict Jerusalem's future.
Hasan-Rokem Reading Response Week 7
"There is room here for many loves. There is no room here for coveting."
This sentence caught my attention. I feel like this is contrary to almost everything I have heard about Jerusalem. I have heard multiple groups of people--ethnic, religious, and cultural--say, "There is only room for one love and it is mine. This city, this land, it is mine." I have heard the oppressed long for a city that they believe to be theirs and cannot obtain. I have seen Jerusalem be fought over by people who are clinging to their culture, god, and homeland. Needless to say, Hasan-Rokem's perspective was refreshing to read. She loves Jerusalem deeply and seems to see a bigger picture. It was interesting to hear her say, "Maybe the most important is recognition that the population of Jerusalem has real, concrete needs to be taken care of..." She then goes on to suggest things like education and human rights. Isn't it obvious that these things are more important than the imagery that surrounds Jerusalem? She doesn't say that there is no place for this imagery and that people should all together stop "dreaming of Jerusalem" but maybe if people could set aside this romanticized image of Jerusalem in order to address the cities basic needs. This article is bold because it challenges many people's emotions. It asks people to change the way they think about their home and holy land. I think it is wise that she does not ask people to completely dismiss their views or emotional ties. She knows that there is a place for all of this and she challenges people to see beyond their emotions and romanticized imagery.
This sentence caught my attention. I feel like this is contrary to almost everything I have heard about Jerusalem. I have heard multiple groups of people--ethnic, religious, and cultural--say, "There is only room for one love and it is mine. This city, this land, it is mine." I have heard the oppressed long for a city that they believe to be theirs and cannot obtain. I have seen Jerusalem be fought over by people who are clinging to their culture, god, and homeland. Needless to say, Hasan-Rokem's perspective was refreshing to read. She loves Jerusalem deeply and seems to see a bigger picture. It was interesting to hear her say, "Maybe the most important is recognition that the population of Jerusalem has real, concrete needs to be taken care of..." She then goes on to suggest things like education and human rights. Isn't it obvious that these things are more important than the imagery that surrounds Jerusalem? She doesn't say that there is no place for this imagery and that people should all together stop "dreaming of Jerusalem" but maybe if people could set aside this romanticized image of Jerusalem in order to address the cities basic needs. This article is bold because it challenges many people's emotions. It asks people to change the way they think about their home and holy land. I think it is wise that she does not ask people to completely dismiss their views or emotional ties. She knows that there is a place for all of this and she challenges people to see beyond their emotions and romanticized imagery.
Channels of Rage
The Channels of Rage film was interesting. It put this conflict of peace and rights into different terms. (I was confused who Kobi was. Is he Subliminal or someone else?)
There was a conversation that happened in the very beginning of the film that I cannot stop thinking about. They said something like, "The problem isn't between Tamar and Kobi, because if it was then they would just battle it out and then it would be fine." And someone else replied, "That's just the thing, the problem IS between Tamar and Kobi."
I think that this scene was profound. These two guys are friends. They are friends from very different backgrounds, with different political and religious views, and they are actively pursuing change through rap. They have similar interests but are also very different. In this scene one of the guys, who I think was Tamar, is stating that there is no problem between him and Kobi; they are fine. Someone else states that the problem is between him and Kobi. It is between them because of all that they stand for. There is baggage behind this friendship and it cannot be fixed by simply rap-battling. This scene reinstated how deep political, cultural, and religious views run. They are sometimes impossible to look past. These are not just two rappers but rather men that stand as icons for their cultures. While the problem might not be directly between these two men, the problem IS between these two men because of all that they stand for and represent. Peace is hard...
There was a conversation that happened in the very beginning of the film that I cannot stop thinking about. They said something like, "The problem isn't between Tamar and Kobi, because if it was then they would just battle it out and then it would be fine." And someone else replied, "That's just the thing, the problem IS between Tamar and Kobi."
I think that this scene was profound. These two guys are friends. They are friends from very different backgrounds, with different political and religious views, and they are actively pursuing change through rap. They have similar interests but are also very different. In this scene one of the guys, who I think was Tamar, is stating that there is no problem between him and Kobi; they are fine. Someone else states that the problem is between him and Kobi. It is between them because of all that they stand for. There is baggage behind this friendship and it cannot be fixed by simply rap-battling. This scene reinstated how deep political, cultural, and religious views run. They are sometimes impossible to look past. These are not just two rappers but rather men that stand as icons for their cultures. While the problem might not be directly between these two men, the problem IS between these two men because of all that they stand for and represent. Peace is hard...
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Settlements
Thought these were interesting and helpful. They may be a bias selection but there are a lot of news stories on this settlement issue. Check it out.
Thoughts Following Salim Tamari
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Former deputy leader of Israel speaks negatively about the possibility of a two-state solution. In this interview he states, "The geo-political con that have been create in 67 is irreversible. You cannot unscramble that egg."
In the end of the clip they are speaking to a settler lady about how long they plan to remain on the land, with passion she states, "this is the mission to hold strong to the soil of the holy land."
I thought it was really interesting that Salim was trying to provoke a debate today about a two-state vs. one-state (uni-state?) plan. I felt like he wanted us to disagree with him. I was sitting there thinking, "I know that you want someone in here to disagree with you, to fight against what you're saying, but I just don't know enough." I have been interested to see what other people think. What is the best solution? What is the likelihood of ever being able to implement this solution? I found this story 60 minutes did on the two-state solution. I thought it was interesting. While it answered some questions I had it also raised more questions about Israeli settlements. It is a vicious cycle. (More to come on these settlements...)
Monday, May 3, 2010
Pre-thoughts and info for this week.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/tamari_ex.html
I don't know if a lot of you have already looked at this but it is an interview with Salim Tamari. He is explaining his opposition to the wall in Israel.
He believed that the main problem with the wall is that it is not between Jews and Arabs but between Arabs and Arabs.
When asked about the wall in relation to human safety and preventing further suicide bombers, Tamari responded, "instead of preventing violence, I think Israel is contributing to this desperation by creating a very strong atmosphere for violence of suicide bombers and for other kinds of desperate acts, some of which we haven't seen yet."
"A musical hope for coexistence"
Here are some things I found on the Channels of Rage...
I found a lot of summaries and movie reviews but they all seem to be pretty cliche. I wonder how much these writers know about the conflict in general? Does being informed change the way you critique the movie? I am excited to see the movie for myself on Thursday.
http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2004-01/channels.htm
This article summarized the film and states negative thoughts about the film's ability to reflect cooperation of peace between these two rappers. She states that they have different views on how to reach their peace goals. She also suggests that they are equally tainted by the government they seem to hate. I wonder if her analysis here is accurate?
http://www.ruthfilms.com/films/docs/art/channels-of-rage.html
this website didn't talk about the film in very much detail but it gives a list of the awards it has received, the festivals where it has been shown, and the Universities using it for educational purposes. I thought this was interesting.
I don't know if a lot of you have already looked at this but it is an interview with Salim Tamari. He is explaining his opposition to the wall in Israel.
He believed that the main problem with the wall is that it is not between Jews and Arabs but between Arabs and Arabs.
When asked about the wall in relation to human safety and preventing further suicide bombers, Tamari responded, "instead of preventing violence, I think Israel is contributing to this desperation by creating a very strong atmosphere for violence of suicide bombers and for other kinds of desperate acts, some of which we haven't seen yet."
"A musical hope for coexistence"
Here are some things I found on the Channels of Rage...
I found a lot of summaries and movie reviews but they all seem to be pretty cliche. I wonder how much these writers know about the conflict in general? Does being informed change the way you critique the movie? I am excited to see the movie for myself on Thursday.
http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2004-01/channels.htm
This article summarized the film and states negative thoughts about the film's ability to reflect cooperation of peace between these two rappers. She states that they have different views on how to reach their peace goals. She also suggests that they are equally tainted by the government they seem to hate. I wonder if her analysis here is accurate?
http://www.ruthfilms.com/films/docs/art/channels-of-rage.html
this website didn't talk about the film in very much detail but it gives a list of the awards it has received, the festivals where it has been shown, and the Universities using it for educational purposes. I thought this was interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
