Homeland Redefined: Spaces of National Belonging By Noura Dabdoub

This is a very interesting paper.  It makes me wonder how people think about 'homeland' and political borders.  I like how this research notes that 'homeland' is a concept that can be imagined space.  It goes on to say that through this mind set can one begin to think about 'shared space'.  It would be wonderful if both sides of this conflict could accept each other's idea of 'homeland' and share the space.  My question is still how the official borders would look under this mind set that would allow for shared space within each other's homeland.  Is this a way through which both parties are to find it possible to accept one another in each other's territories?  Or is this a step towards a one state solution?
This paper does not comment on if there should be a one or two state solution.  But I wonder about how even in imagined space there is still area for conflict.  I would think that in the imagined space of the each respective homeland, that the land would be devoid of the 'other'.  Hasn't part of this current conflict arisen from people who wanted to make their imagined homeland into a reality?  If both parties agreed to shared spaces, what will prevent people from trying to make the idea of their homeland into a reality once again?

I feel that the city of Jerusalem has gone through many transformations that have either heightened or lessened its physical importance.  When the city was controlled by another  party, the city, as an idea, as an imagined place, became more important than the physical place.  However, once the city was back into the ousted party's hands, the physical place became more important.  I feel that since both parties are on part of the physical space that makes up their imagined homeland, that the physical locations are quite powerful since the link between the imagined homeland and the physical land appears to be so close to becoming one.   How does one change the idea of 'homeland' so that there is not the desire to control the physical area?

Parallels and Paradoxes

I found it interesting how identities change to fit the context the members of the orchestra were put in.  It is mentioned in the article, how some of the divides went deeper than Arab/Israeli, but rather between the two groups divisions emerged.  However, even though there are these divides, they all were able to identify as the 'musician' and play music together.  There really are different layers of identity to each person, that can either be used to draw similarities or exaggerate differences.

It is also interesting how people can think about their identity in relation to others without seeing any contradictions.  There was the time when a player was excluded from an improvising group, because of the excuse 'only Arabs can play Arabic music'.  However, the very same person who excluded the non Arab musician, showed Yo Yo Ma how to tune his cello to play Arabic music.  Somehow being 'Chinese' did not challenge the 'Arab' identity and so it is okay for Chinese to play Arabic music.  But somehow it becomes a challenge when an Israeli plays Arabic music.   Or at least, this is what I feel might have gone through the person's head when he excluded the Israeli and included Yo Yo Ma.  

The concept of 'home' for Edward and David are unique.  Both are detached from physical locations.  It is curious how Edward's place to call home is New York.  He likes how you can be 'in' the city while still not being 'of' the city.  I think this concept speaks a lot to those who are in any type of diaspora.  The notion of being in a place/culture, and yet still being a spectator of sorts.  Then David as well, cites the 'idea' of Jerusalem as being more like home to him, than the actual city of Jerusalem.  It is what the city represents that he finds comfort in.  But the reality of the city just does not match the idea it represents.
To both, the ability to make music brings them the feeling of home.  Reading about how they define where they feel most at home makes me think about where home is for me.  I feel that home for me really is where my family is.  It does not matter too much what city that is, just as long as my family is there.  I call Chicago my hometown, but without my family it is not my home.

Banksy and the Wall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e0IJSOq0xg&feature=player_embedded#!

I had not heard of Banksy before watching the videos about the graffiti.  His work is really intriguing and I feel like he can say a lot through what he creates.  The silhouette of the girl floating over the wall via balloons says so much without any words.  I am not sure yet how I feel about the organization that lets people send messages and money to have their message posted onto the wall.  On one hand, it is a good way to spread the issue or the wall, and of what people are trying to say.  However, I also feel that some of the messages are really detached from the reality that the wall poses for so many who live with it daily.  In my opinion, documenting the art/messages that are created and making them available for the world to see would be more constructive.  I really am curious as to how, and does it even happen, that those who live with the wall constantly in their lives actually see what is written on the other side?  What could change or be sent in response to Banksy's picture of the balloon girl?  I think there is potential for a unique dialogue between both sides if they are able to see what the other side creates in response to the current situation.

From my personal experience, I have only become familiar with the graffiti from the Palestinian side.  What does the other side create?  Could there be an organization that tries to create collaborative art that would take viewing both sides to get the whole picture?

The Wall

http://www.mideastyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/pal04.jpg
his image from the Cultural Anthropology website (http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/can.1996.11.2.02a00010)  really stood out to me.  The amount of detail and the size of the mural, or graffiti, is amazing!

It is interesting that a city can be called 'open' and yet have so many barriers running throughout it.  However, these walls, although hard to pass through, are not completely impossible to pass by.  I like how there are some areas of life that a wall just cannot prevent cross over interaction.  The labor market and the health services provide a platform where the two sides come together.  While this 'togetherness' does not mean that everything is fine, it does mean that each side needs each other.   It would be interesting to see what an average day is like for a taxi driver who may have to pass through the gates multiple times in a day.  The other area where the two sides interact is in the health care.  I found it interesting how Israelis would go to see Palestinian doctors and vise versa.  If people from either side can come together to work, as well as to provide care, it makes a unified city seem possible.  However, it seems like it is cumbersome to return to one's side because you did not want to stay overnight in the other side's hospital.  Perhaps it is through the labor and health care services that there is hope for a truly 'open' city to be realized.  It is on this platform that people who live in a severely divided place cross the lines.

The second article about the graffiti is quite interesting.  I liked how the author put it in that it is a 'game of cat and mouse for the final word'.  The messages are painted on the wall by night, and by the next day are covered up.  Images and powerful.  The race to capture the images is important for those who wish to spread the graffitied messages.  Once the image is preserved, it can be spread throughout the people.  However, if the message can be blacked out before cameras or onlookers can see, the message is lost behind the paint.  Since the soldiers are so quick to cover up graffiti, I wonder if the cost of paint is particularly high, or if it is in any way difficult to purchase spray paint.  Also, from reading this article, it would be interesting to look into if there are graffitied images from the settlement side of the walls.

There is that saying that a picture speaks a thousand words.  Even though I have not seen this wall in its entirety, nor even decent amount of images of the graffiti, I still get the sense that there are several stories left upon that wall.  Over time they have been influenced by that day's politics, the difficult present, and an unseen future are displayed for those to see.  Images send a message whether or not the onlooker wants to communicate with the artist.  It would be a very intriguing project to look into how the graffiti has changed over the years and what has remained the same.  Even though there is some interaction between people on either side of the divide, I wonder how much people really know about the life and people of the other side.  Would feelings change if both sides were to circulate images about how they feel in their current situation and their hopes or discouragements towards the future?   would like to see how people would communicate only in images with the wall as its canvas for both sides to see.

Jerusalem Project 2011

The challenges that I feel the Jerusalem Project 2011 faces is dealing with the current state of affairs, with regards to Palestine's recent bid for statehood.  It seems like the talks are at yet another stalemate.  The challenges that have faced past projects are the same that are faced this year.  The struggle to get people to come together with mutual respect and the desire to really change towards peace.

For an activity for the future, I think it would be an interesting exercise to look at other countries who have gone through struggles about borders and how the issue was or not resolved.   Jerusalem is a unique case because I cannot think of any other city where three prominent religions claim as their own.  However, insights might be gained through looking at other struggles over borders, as well as, countries where there is conflict between cultures.  I also think it would be a good exercise to look at the importance of names.

The Future for Negotiations?

One thing for sure that everyone can agree on is that this is not an easy conflict.  There are so many points of view and a long list of travesties endured by both sides.  However, something has to be done, and I think there is a way.  What really stood out to me from the Naomi Chazan article, is how, right now people are willing to misunderstand each other.  In order for negotiations to really take hold and make headway is for each side to come to the table willing to understand each other.   There are people on both sides who want to be able to live in peace.
We are asked to think outside the box for a solution to this issue, and my idea is based off the notion of what is a sate, as well as a name?

People are constantly fighting over places, borders, and what to call each thing.  What if the solution lies in how people are able to refer to the areas in question.  Let the Israelis call the land Israel, let the Palestinians call the land Palestine, and take down the walls that are separating the two.  Does the land disappear if people call it by two, or three different names?  Jerusalem has at least three names, so why not the whole area?  It would be a lot to fit onto a map, but already we have maps that show the area as the publisher wants the reader to see the borders.  I am not sure what this will mean for government.  But something could be set up through a system of checks and balances so that the different groups within the region are required to work together to keep the state running.

Maybe through this people can get along, but again, as with any solution, requires people to respect each other.  This defiantly a hard question to tackle, and in some ways it is very hard to think outside the box since the box is what we know and have grown up accepting.

Self Determination

I really enjoyed reading Naomi Chazan's article.  It touches a lot on what I am looking at in my final project.  She stresses the arbitrariness that is requiring outsiders to recognize a 'Jewish State' when there are so many variations on the definition within the Jewish population.  The way in which people choose to label themselves, or have themselves be labeled by others is important.  She knowingly points out how "a word  or phrase can touch off a new set of controversies on issues where many seem willfully determined to misunderstand each other. Careful analysis and historical sensitivity, on the other hand, can defuse seemingly intransigent demands and irreconcilable narratives, and provide the insight we so badly need in order to go forward."
I found it interesting how she commented that people are 'willfully determined to misunderstand each other'.  It is sad, but it does seems to be true that people are ready to take offense and end conversation, instead of practicing 'careful analysis and historical sensitivity'.  I do want to ask her, if there are words or ways to describe time and place in a way that is devoid of controversy?  It sounds that is people are willing to misunderstand, how can we call people to the table to talk in an analytical and sensitive way?   Also, does this 'willingness to misunderstand' something that happens within the state of Israel?   I had thought that there was a clear definition of the Jewish identity, but this article left me feeling that some people who call themselves Jewish have an in 'limbo status'.  For example, the immigrants from the former Soviet Union.  They would identity as Jewish, but the rabbinical authority of Israel does not?  All parties need people with the willingness to understand.  
Self determination is critical.  I did not realize how dynamic the Israeli population is until I read this article.  I knew that there are Jews of both Arab and of other national descents, as well as for the Christian and Muslim populations.  However, I did not know how there is a substantial immigrant population from the former Soviet Union who are not considered Jewish, as well as the general issue  of how to define being 'Jewish'.  I feel like her article has flipped the typical conversation that typically happens, which is to recognize what is Jewish from an outsider looking in.    I am not sure if this is her exact point, but it is almost as if since the creation of Israel was done by outsiders, that is has felt the need to be defined by outsiders.  However, it is not the responsibility of the outsider to define.  It is the Israelis who must do this, as she puts,  'Asking others to define us by our Jewishness will not make us more Jewish or more secure. It will not give us more legitimacy. Only we can decide who we are as a people. Only we can determine the nature of our multicultural and diverse society. Only we can mold our state, and our democracy.'  


I am very excited for the opportunity to hear her speak tomorrow in class.  I would like to know how or what Israelis are doing to determine their identity.  

What is in a name?

القدس
ירושלים   (This is 'Jerusalem' according to Google Translate in case Hebrew readers notice a misspell.)  
Jerusalem
I have no idea how this ended up being highlighted and below not, but I have not figured out yet how to un-highlight it.
For the final project in this class I want to look at what a name means.  Shown above are just three ways in which a person can refer to the city of Jerusalem.  My goal for this project to to look at the motivations behind each title, and how the process of naming is important in how a person perceives place.  For example, 'Judea' elicits a different response from 'occupied territories', as well as from using the term 'Palestinian land' versus 'Israeli land'.  Language is just as important as the sacred geography in how it is used to stake claim to certain areas.  The way in which a person chooses to describe a place could mean the success or failure in a dialogue based on the feelings that are attached to names of places.  


I am not sure yet how broad I am going to look with regards to names for places, if I should stick to looking only at the oldest parts of Jerusalem, or on a broader scale.  There are two hurdles that I can see at the earliest stages of this project. 
 First, that I am unfamiliar with the language of Hebrew.   I will have to find, not only translations into English, but also a way to find the phonetic pronunciation of the Hebrew to see if it is similar to the Arabic pronunciation of a particular place.  
The second obstacle is that regardless of how big or small I look for names, is that I am still very unfamiliar with the geography/places.  Where should I start comparing titles?  However, I think that there are enough resources available that will be able to help me with these two obstacles.  

Nothing is Irreversible ....p426

The city of Jerusalem has shown to the world that nothing is permanent, or in Armstrong's words, irreversible.  Jerusalem has been built up, destroyed, and built up again throughout history.   For as long as it feels like there has been violence, we cannot forget that there has been peace as well.  Nothing is permanent.  

I have always felt that is was unfortunate how, in the stages of state building, that the Palestinians were not as organized or as linked to foreign powers to have any real sway after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.  There were also a lot of position changing on the foreign side that did not help the Palestinian cause at the time, and you can say even still today.  

Reading these last few chapters has brought me back sort of to where I was at the beginning of the book.  At a glance, the conflict appears to be never ending.  There are people on both sides who do extreme and deadly acts, which greatly affect the attitudes of the populations  against each other.  However, when people take the time to look deeper into the conflict and the history of the region, the conflict begins to look not quite as inevitable.  

There is a chance for peace.  I get the sense that there are many on both sides who do want peace and are willing to compromise.   However, these people are either overshadowed by political leaders, or prevented by extremist activities that turn many away from thinking compromise is possible.  

Since politics has shown throughout history to be a major factor in peace and violence, Palestine's current push for statehood could be a turning point.  If the world came to see Palestine as legitimate, this would give the Palestinian side a little bit more weight in peace talks.  I feel that as a state dealing with another state that is has to come with a different attitude than a state dealing with people without a state.

  

Negotiations fail when people refuse to bend in the slightest.  We saw how after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that the Palestinian's decision to wait, refuse to accept anything, left them without a state.  Maybe now we are in a part of history when the decision of compromise may have the biggest repercussions for the Israeli side, and maybe for the United Sates as well.  There is wide support for a Palestinian state around the world.  However, Israel is against Palestine being recognized as a state by the United Nations, and the United States has voiced the intention to veto Palestinian statehood.  There is a possibility that if Israel and the United States are left as the two countries who prevented Palestine from becoming a state, that peace talks will continue to fail, and if Palestine becomes a state by other means, a lose of a potential ally or deals regarding shared resources.  It may be a stretch to compare the lack of compromise by the Palestinians in the early creation of the Israeli state, with the current lack of compromise as Palestine attempts to become a state, but I think there are similarities.    

As Armstrong concludes in her book, nothing is permeant, and there are people, both in Jerusalem, and in the region, who want there to be peace.  Now is the time for the politicians in charge to look back on their shared history and mark the moments where there was coexistence and prosperity, and what actions can and did destroy peace.