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?
No comments:
Post a Comment