Biometric Data

So I had my biometric data collected today. I had to get it taken for my visa application. It seems a bit strange that I have to pay an addition $200 to get permission to enter the country. Oh well. 

They scanned my fingerprints and took a horrible photo of me. Is it possible to look half decent in a passport photo. I think not. Oh well. I sincerely hope no one will actually have to look at it. 

Now I have to mail in my completed application to the British Consulate. I'm excited! 

Channels of Rage

I really enjoyed this video, though it was sometimes hard to understand and follow. The video really helped to illustrate the diversity of Israel.

It also really illustrated how music can be a bridge to peace or a tool to divide. It's all in how you interpret it and make it.

The video also reminded me of something Dr. Hasan-Rokem said. She said that may of the younger generation seemed right wing. Both Tamar and Sublime were interpreted as being right wing when neither of them really thought they were. They were both friends who wanted violence to end and to perform their music. To me, this illustrates a generation gap.

Final Project, Part II

So I didn't really expect that response. My intent was not to my people angry, rather to make people think. I firmly believe that a wall should not ever be a solution. I believe they are a weak solution for severe diplomatic failure. But beyond that, if one wants to sink to the level of wall building, at least attempt to do it fairly.

When I was a freshman in high school I participated in a program similar to this. A small group of us were chosen to correspond with high school students from Israel, culminating with an end of the year video conference. At that video conference one of the students asked an interesting question. This student, who was two years away from compulsory military service asked me what I thought about the possibility of building a wall. Then, as I would say now, I told her that building a wall only divides us further. We should be trying to pull together, not be divided so clearly. I used the example of the US during the time of segregation to illustrate this point. There was once a point in our own nations history when violence was big possibility and racism permiated. But instead of continuing a flawed strategy of "seperate but equal," the US chose to change their strategy. This change in strategy is an improvement which I believe this entire classroom has benefited from.

Do not reduce me based on this final project or things which I have written or said. These are parts of me, and do not add up to a whole. I can forgive someone for lashing out at a moment of intense emotional pain. Believe it or not I can. I've been there, I understand. But I will have a much harder time forgiving someone for not respecting me or attempting to reduce me.

This quarter has been amazing. Thanks guys!

Evaluation

Overall, this class has been a very big challenge. I have learned things about myself and how I interact with others that I don’t think any other class could have taught me. I would like to thank Dr. Horowitz and the entire class for pushing one another and have the compassion to see that we are all trying to be on the same page.

I really enjoyed the Final Projects. They gave us a chance to be really creative, and let some who don’t speak much in the class express themselves in the open forum. Though I think that in the future students should not have the option of doing just a research paper without a powerpoint or similar presentation.

The Class Discussions were very interesting. I almost always learned something new, but sometimes had a hard time remembering that we are all different people who come from extremely different background. I wish there was a better way fro me to understand how difficult it is for people with certain backgrounds to sit at the table. I approached this as just a class, and I think others approached it as a life changing experience. Understanding this better at the beginning might have made class discussion more profitable.

I’m not so sure about prerequisite courses. That might discourage students from other academic backgrounds from taking this class. I know I probably would not have taken the course if I had been required to take a Middle East politics or history course first, simply because it would not have fit into my schedule. Keeping the class open allows for a more diverse group of people to take the class.

In general, I would say that the size of the class was too big. I think there might have been a problem, had everyone chosen to speak the same amount. If this class becomes a study tour, then it might be useful for there to be a short essay to accompany the request to join the class.

The video conferences and guest speakers were amazing, especially the video conferences. They helped to put a different spin on the topic. It might be helpful for the class to discuss the reading in class before discussing it with the experts. It seemed like we were slow to get questions rolling, and this might make it easier.

The web blogs were actually quite helpful. I was surprised, but they helped me to get my thoughts in order, and present my ideas better. I definitely hope these stay a part of the class.

Having a smaller class would increase the communication amongst the blogs. Also, when I was in high school I took AP English online. We had to comment on what we were reading in a similar discussion forum. Our instructor made us comment a minimum of 3 times on every subject. Though it was sometimes forced, it really helped to get conversation rolling. It would also help increase international communication if we added students from Hebrew University and Al Quds University to the blog. It might not be as cool as video conferencing, but it’s easier and allows for us to learn from our peers.

I also think it would be appropriate to add active listening to the course. At the beginning we discussed what we weren’t going to do in the class, but adding an element of what we should do might be helpful. I know some students think this is a waste of time, but I think it could help conversation.

Israel's Unhappy Birthday

This article brought several things to the front of my mind. I would like to say that the tone was decidedly depressed, which is not good for Israel.
First, for a while I have been trying to understand what it would have been like for a minority group who just survived a genocide, to intentionally place themselves in a situation where all those surrounding you would prefer you to leave. Regardless of what God has willed, I feel that this would be a very uncomfortable and impractical situation. What did you expect to happen? Did generations of Israeli's really think the Palestinians would just get bored and give up? That sees so far-fetched and so naive in the worst kind of way. In that sense, it feels like (from the tone of the article) the Israeli's are starting to waking up to what originally happened. Dr. Mueller said that moderate Israeli's were more likely to leave, and this seems like the right time, if Morris' descriptions are true. That's not to say that Israel should be whipped off the map, definitely not. It just seems like there are some internal existential issues the government and the people need to discuss.
Second, the idea of a Jewish state which is also a democracy seems like a non-sequitor to me. I guess I've always thought of a democracy as a form of government free of religion.


I really enjoyed Dr. Mueller's talk with us on Tuesday. He was very helpful.

Today

I really enjoyed today's class. I feel like we kind of wasted some time at the beginning, but once everyone got comfortable the conversation was very rewarding.

There was one thing that kind of bothered me though. I thought Dr. Tamari's question about the revelance of his paper was very interesting. I absolutely believe that learning about people like Tawfiq Canaan is not only interesting, but important. Further, it is slightly horrifying that those who hold on dearly to their history of oppression and struggle, can seemingly fail to see the significance of a man who attempted to understand the history of this very important group of people. It almost seems like selective memory to only choose to address the parts of history that affect ones particular agruement. This seems to be one of the flaws in the whole situation. People are quick to remember what is most beneficial for their arguements. To me, this action gives the impression that certain parties are not interested in peace, which should be the supreme goal.

Another part of the Jerusalem situation that was brought up today which really bothers me is the possibility of peace in our lifetime. Why are people so quick to dismiss the possibility of peace in our lifetime? Both of the professors we have talked to have had similiar points of view on this. Each expressed that the present political situation wouldn't actually support total peace any time soon. It may appear more realistic to say that due to the political climate or external actors we won't have peace anytime soon, but what's the point of that? There isn't one. Saying it can't happen is a self-fulfilling proficy. It may sound idealistic, overly optimistic, or even naive, but I believe that if we actually want peace, then we should express that opinion to others. Gandhi once said that we should, "be the change we want to see in the world." I know it can be tacky to quote Gandhi, but I really believe that if we aren't vocal or active about the desire for peace, then it will never happen.

Lepers and what not

I enjoyed Dr. Tamari's article. It highlighted an area of the battle over Jerusalem that is not often discussed, and shed new light on the people associated with the modern beginnings of the conflict.

I have never personally been a fan of nativism. It has always sounded like a crappy counter to colonialism. This was reaffirmed on page four when he quotes Mehrzad, "resurgence and reinstatement of native or indigenous cultural customs...privileging one's own 'authentic identity.'" Earlier Tamari pointed out that in the US nativism was used by non natives to argue against new immigrants. When we look at this construct, it seems clear to me that nativism is a bad idea used in a reactionary manner by angry people who feel they have little choice. They feel threatened, and consider this the best way to respond. I believe it is possible to advance as a society, while maintaining the traditional culture of a society. That many believe the two are mutually exclusive is worrisome to me.

It also seemed like Dr. Tamari was framing the origins of nativism in Jerusalem as an excuse to claim exclusive rights to the land (pg.8).

Tawfiq Canaan and his group of intellectuals also came off as condescending. These are well educated, intelligent scholars, who, according to the article, are all members of the Jerusalem community, who are glorifying the life of the peasant. They don't actually live the life of the peasant. Grant the culture associated with peasants may carry much mystique, but don't attempt to glorify their lifestyle if you yourself are unwilling to live it. This is compounded by the fact that they mostly wrote in English and German.

Final Project

So I have two ideas for my final project

1: Multimedia Presentation entitled, “Boundaries/Borders”

My project will explore the stages of building a wall through three main parts.

Part I: Building
Part II: Guarding
Part III: Tearing it Down

The project will incorporate three specific locations along with an examination of internal class dynamics. All three portions will focus on areas of Jerusalem, with images from other familiar locations with similar wall structures.
The building portion will focus on the US-Mexico security fence, which is currently being constructed. It will use pictures and quotes to create the sense that building a wall is an unproductive action. Along side of these images will be quotes from the beginnings of our blogging and possibly video footage.

The transition to the second portion will be a quote from Ben (if he ok’s it).

“what would you have america do if mexicans started walking across the border with the sole mission of killing american civilians?”
The guarding portion will feature the Israeli security fence and how it is guarded. There will also be portions of the Green Zone in Baghdad.
The transition to the third portion will be a photo of a blown out security fence tower.
The third portion will focus on tearing down walls, with specific evidence from the Berlin Wall in 1989.
All three parts will feature quotes from important leaders and music which will fit with the theme. The purpose of this project is to incorporate what I have learned about Jerusalem with what I think it can teach us about certain political situations.
Throughout the project, there will be seemingly contradictory imagery that fits together. This is my perception of Jerusalem, and I would like to represent that in my project.

2: I was thinking it would be interesting to do some exploration into different kinds of identity, mainly, how our background affects the way we think about Jerusalem. I'm not 100% sure how I would do this, but I think it could be really interesting.

Folklore

I guess I've never really thought about folklore. This article really forces us to see the distinction between high, pop, and folklore. This is a distinction I've never really thought about before. I guess it seems like make the distinction is a bit unnecessary. All three effect us, why is it important to understand if they are effecting us in the same way? I think the author made a good point when discussing Mozart's "Magic Flute." How we define things is all relative.

And now I have more questions...

It seems like the more we talk and discuss and read the less answers I have and the more questions. I guess that's more a function of the educational process than of Jerusalem in particular. But still...

Here are a few more questions that I would like to pose to anyone wishing to answer.

How can you put up sanctions against violence without impacting an entire population?
Are we creative enough to find solutions?
Can a place be holy if it has caused so much pain and suffering?
How can we have progress if we just hear the extremes?
Do the extremes represent a major portion of society, or are they by nature and definition fringe ideas?
How does the public become ready and what can the government do to get them there?
How do people learn to live together without gigantic amounts of fear?
When will history stop us from progressing?
Why is an event that occurred 1,000 years ago still at the forefront of the Muslim mind?
Why is the Israeli government/Jewish faith so willing to forget that 1,000+ years have lapsed since Jerusalem was their homeland?
Out of all the cities in Israel, why did the Israeli government choose Jerusalem as their capital?
How do we make sure Jerusalem does NOT become Berlin?
Why does building a wall sound like a good idea to anyone?
Why is it so important for either side to have complete control over the state?
Which pushes the process more- belief or history?
Why did we have to add a dimension of women's rights? Isn't this situation already complicated enough?
Can you love something and still tolerate people who love it in a different way?
Why can't we just leave the Israeli's and Palestinians alone to solve their own problem? Why does the international community have to butt in?
What makes people religious extremists?
Can studying this issue really open your mind? Or does it just depress you. Or does it just make you really cynical about the whole process. Or does it push you further to your side.

Wow...that's a longer list than I had intended to write. Don't feel obligated to answer, I just needed to vent a bit. If you'd like me to elaborate, I'd be more than willing.

Week Five Reading

I really appreciated this weeks readings. They put a human face on the conflict. I don't often consider that people living in a war zone still have to get their dogs shots. It's something I don't really think about. The interaction waiting for the gas masks was especially human. The Palestinians weren't necessarily hostile towards the Israeli's, just frustrated with the process. It also showed that there is differences of opinion within the Palestinian community, which is also something I haven't considered before.

I think war becomes easier when you remove the human face. Adding the human face, and allowing interaction on the most basic of levels can help to stop the problem. This is something that neither side has been quick to do.

Amiry's use of terms was also interesting. When she references Israeli industrial zones, she also adds the term illegal Jewish settlements. The difference in these two terms is very interesting to mean. They both are loaded terms that carry extra baggage.

I really appreciate the sentiment of Galit Hasan-Rokem's piece. Striving for a single, peaceful city is a noble dream, and one which many people may not have the most pure of intentions.

Holy Wars

The idea of a holy war is just really perplexing to me. I feel that, regardless of the differences in religion, violence is never the answer. It saddens me that either side felt like it was necessary to resort to hurting one another. I think Fredrick II and al-Kamil had it right (pg. 302). There's no need to shed any blood. Sharing is more holy than violence.

pg. 282: "These solider monks embodied the two great passions of the new Europe, war and worship, and they quickly attracted new recruits."
It seems like worship was just an excuse for war. Blood lust appeared to be more powerful than any doctrinal teachings of Christianity. War and worship never go together. They are mutually exclusive. I guess that's my exclusive truth claim.

pg. 285: : "The Crusaders were not breaking down the barrier of hatred that now existed between Western Christianity and Islam but erecting massive stone walls against their neighbors."
We're still doing this today. Defending your nation from terrorism is one thing, but not at the point where it divides a city in two and does more to generate terrorism than diffuse it. This would appear to be a place where the modern Israeli government has fallen down on the job. They have fallen into the old Crusader problem of building walls instead of tearing them down and figuring out the issues that exist between them.

Al-Quds

pg. 245: "Muslims had a more inclusive notion of the sacred, however: the coexistence of the three religions of Abraham, each occupying its own district and worshipping at its own special shrines, reflected their vision of the continuity and harmony of all rightly guided religion, which could only derive from the one God."

It think we often forget that we are all decendants of Abraham. We may be very different, but that is what we have in common. When it comes to having a conversation, this should be the common ground necessary to make it productive. This seems to be what many people forget. We all come from the same religious beginnings.

pg. 253: "Construction had long been an ideological weapon in the city; since the time of Hadrian it had been a means of obliterating the tenancy of previous owners."

Sacred architecture should stand for more than domination.

Bayt Al-Maqdis

pg. 220: "Islam's brith had been violent, but the Qur'anic ideal was harmony and unity."

The paradox between religion's violent foundings and harmonious chorus are very interesting to me. None of the three religions we have studied have been able to hold to the ideals they were founded upon. Each of them has been influenced by the desire for power and the urge to establish themselves through violent means. This appears to be another fatal flaw in the modern faiths. Granted, to error is human, but an error so big seems just plain hypocritical.

pg. 223: I wonder how the Muslim students in our class feel about the evolution of the hajj from pagan traditions.

pg. 224: The Night Journey just sounds unbelievable to me. I guess I think the Islamic faith had it right when they suggested that it is unlike that a prophet as powerful as Jesus could die on the cross. But that realistic attitude doesn't seem to translate into their own myths.

pg. 229-231: The differences in conquering techniques is very illuminating. It's refreshing to see that it is possible for groups of different people to live together peacefully. They might not have been completely equally, but Armstrong makes it sound like they respect one another, which is more than can be said about earlier regimes.

Christian Holy City

I don't get it. Why has no one learned the lessons of history? That's what's most aggravating about the situation in Jerusalem. We've seen it before, and we'll probably do it again. Instead of abiding by their true faith, and being charitable, the city seems to go to the heads of those who claim to be the most pious. At least that's what I got from this chapter.

pg. 196: "They had become so accustomed to seeing the decline of Judaism as the essential concomitant to the rise of their own church that the Jewish workmen below seemed to be undermining the fabric of the Christian faith."

Why does one have to fall for the other to rise? To me, at least, and especially with religion and faith, there are no exclusive truth claims. Exclusive truth claims cloud our mind and stop us from living according to what we claim to espouse. This is where organized religion fails us the majority of the time. Faith is not about being right, it's about living correctly. If you are willing to make the effort to live correctly, then it shouldn't necessarily matter how others live their lives. The problem I have with the early Christians and the Jews of that time is they forgot this.

The New Jerusalem

pg. 174: "Yet he would not promote Christianity at the expense of other faiths."

Good idea, but what happened? This appears to be the problem with established religions. Armstrong details in the chapter how, in a short period of time, the way Christianity was practiced changed. These are lessons that must be learned in order to make any progress in modern terms. We all have to know how things have moved from generous and spiritual to possessive and hurtful.

pg. 177: My minister has always stressed the importance of the Council of Nicaea. He seriously had the entire congregation memorize the date and everything. It was an interesting exercise Biblical history for sure. But I haven't really investigated why the main issue was at the Council itself. The differences in how Jesus was viewed in the early church is very interesting to me. I definitely think there is still differences of opinion in modern Christianity. I was always taught that Jesus is a manifestation of God that He sent to earth to redeem us of our sins. Jesus is the son of God, but not God Himself. I guess I didn't realize that there was such a powerful disagreement over this in the early years of the church.

pg. 185: "Persecution does not always make its victims compassionate."

Ben and Josh please read this all the way through before coming to a conclusion. (Just a bit of a warning I guess ;))
This line definitely seems aimed at the entire religious establishment. It can also add to our conversation about the Holocaust. Grant the Jewish community may learn about the atrocities of the Holocaust and the many persecutions their community has endured, they may even attempt to live their lives in a struggle to avoid recreating a similar situation. But sometimes actions speak louder than words. Ms. Armstrong obviously has a bit of a grudge against organized religion, but here I think she may have a point. Sometimes the organization of our religion makes the practice of it more difficult. This comment makes that much clearer.

Aelia Capitolina

pg. 159: "Innovation and novelty were suspect, and it was crucial for religious people to know that their faith was deeply rooted int he sanctities of the past."

I thought this passage was interesting because it's still true now. Look at Scientology. Granted there are some odd tax issues associated with the young and purported religion, but people today have very strong reactions to it. It's refreshing to see that these are not new reactions. This is another part of the book that puts human interaction with religion into perspective.

pg. 161: "Hadrian's plan filled the Jewish people with horror."

Not necessarily this passage, but the entirety of the chapter didn't portray the Jewish faith in the most optimistic light. I feel like being Jewish in the Biblical times would be incredibly depressing. Religion today seems more positive.

pg. 168: "Indeed, God's presence with Israel had made the Jewish people a temple for the rest of the world."

This attitude totally contradicts the crappiness of the Jewish situation at the time. They had lost their temple, their city and were beaten into submission by a conquering power who did quite understand them, and they still had the gaul to believe that God spoke through them. This is the point were I would be losing my religion. It's one thing to believe God has a plan for us, but it's another to see how the plan has gone, and come to a new conclusion that elevates your position for no apparent reason. It is very possible that Armstrong has exaggerated or not told the story completely, but that's just how it appears to me now.

pg. 171: "In his view, Christians should liberate themselves from the physical world and seek the wholly spiritual God. They should not cling to earthly places but 'seek the heavenly city in place of the earthly.'"

Maybe we create the holiness of a site through our own perception?

Armstrong and the Jewish faith (1-7)

This book is really dense. I'm having a hard time getting through all of it simply because every paragraph contains a big statement that has to be further analyzed. With that in mind, I decided I would try to organize my thoughts on the book by major religion. Here goes Judaism...

There are two aspects of Armstrong's writing that really jumped out at me. First, I really appreciated the details associated with the creation of a Jewish state in Biblical times. The lessons that were learned there seem to have been forgotten in the modern age. This was especially clear to me on page 26 when she says, "the process of establishing themselves as a nation in their own land was painful to others and morally perplexing." Statements like this force us to look at the modern situation in an attempt to understand why there is strife. This also really put the length of the conflict into context for me. It's not necessarily about Israeli's fighting Palestinians as it is often portrayed, but rather, a group of people who feels that it is their right to establish their own sovereign nation on this land. When we look at it in this context, I think it makes the battle less personal, less about us versus them, and more about a human quality of life.

The second aspect of the first seven chapters that popped out at me, was the success of rulers who were accommodating of other faiths. The best example is of Herod, a Jewish King who was able to transform his city into a prosperous one that was accepting of many different faiths and peoples. This appears to be a lesson that the leaders of Jerusalem are not necessarily able to accept at the current time. People respected him. Not just Jews and not just Gentiles, but everybody, according to Armstrong, seemed to think that he was very capable of leading the city. Maybe the right leader hasn't been found yet. Maybe peace is something that you can work really hard at, but in the end what you really need is someone who forces people to relax. Maybe that's a gross oversimplification, but I really don't think so. Herod is an example of a person who was able to make his religion and his politics work together for the greater good of his city.

Religion and Me

Today's class definitely showed me that I need to better define myself religiously. You all seem to assume that because I have made clear that I come from a background where religion is not the most important thing, I take other things in place of religion. This is definitely not the case. The reason why I have prefaced many of my comments by saying that my upbringing was not very religious was to ensure that a lack of knowledge on my part was not assumed to be insulting. I definitely do not know as much about religion as many people in our class, so I have been attempting to be respectful.

Believe it or not I am a rather religious person, it's just something that I find to be deeply personal. Not only is it personal, but it is also confusing. Having an omni-religious background has not been easy. So please do not assume that I take academia as my religion. It is not. Academia is often easier for me to understand, so in class situations I often revert to it.

I hope this clears some things up...

belief vs. history

Our class discussion about Armstrong's first four chapters and the beginnings of the Jewish religion sparked several more questions for me.
1. Why does religious belief seemingly trump historical evidence?
It appears to me that the faithful are less likely to consider history when coming to conclusions about biblical times. While I can appreciate having a strong faith, to me, it becomes a problem if that faith effects one's ability to interpret data. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe in history. I also believe that the Bible, Torah, Koran, et al., are simple books there to give us examples as to how to live a good life, and not set in stone historical descriptions of what actually was. A literal reading of the material stunts ones ability to add new knowledge.

2. Using social justice as an example, when does a religion forget why it was created and start pursuing other paths?
Even though we are reading a historical text now, I feel that it is important to look at what is happening now in Jerusalem and compare. Armstrong was adament that the begins of the Jewish religion were founded in the idea of social justice, and understanding that it was important to be respectful to others. I especially like the example of Jerusalem during King David's time. He conquered the city, yet ensured that the previous residents weren't prosecuted or taken advantage of. He allowed them to maintain the majority of their lives. Why wasn't the state of Israel able to do this?

Week Two Readings

This week's articles seemed to represent to me the interplay between peace and religion. The Dumper article, though it was very short, did a very good job of explaining the city of Jerusalem has become such a contested area. It was especially interesting to me to learn that, geographically, Jerusalem is in a very undesirable location. It just seems ironic that it has become one of the most important cities on the planet and drought is a very real possibility. I think this is the place were religion starts to overwhelm politics. The Israeli government moved their capital to Jerusalem regardless of the fact that it's a war zone which is largely disconnected from the rest of Israel. That seems like a very bad political move. It also seems like a very expensive move. Instead of spending millions of dollars to resettle people or create barriers, that money could have been better spent on developing industry, education, or (God forbid) peace.
The Dumper article also seemed to highlight times when there was peace as times when religion played a much smaller role in politics. There's a reason why the United States has a seperation of religion and state. Government functions much better that way. Without having to think about religion, a government is better able to make rational decisions for the nation. It's just a shame that a secular government lead by those who are the best at their job doesn't seem possible in the near future.
The other two articles, written by Israel and Palestinian historians, did not seem as strong in comparision to the non-biased article. Both seemed to give an idealized account of modern history while glossing over their counterparts contributions to the complexity and rich history of the city. I also am having a hard time excepting the strategy of their approach. It does not make sense to me to have two different people telling two different sides of the same history. This doesn't create dialogue. If that is the main goal of this project, then I don't know if it will work. Having parallel papers allows readers of both to dismiss the one they don't believe in. While it may work on an academic level, I'm not sure if the average Jerusalemite would really be persuaded to read both sides of the story and take them seriously.
Class on Tuesday also got me thinking. We spent a long time talking about what to call people who are important to each religion. This was an actual dialogue, which was refreshing, but it was very tedious. It may just be a result of my liberal semi-Christian upbringing, but it seemed like a debate over semantics rather than an actual conversation about issues affecting the entire city of Jerusalem. This would also indicate a situation in which religion has overtaken politics. Instead of being able to talk about the issues we were bogged down in the religion.

That was just a thought, please don't take offense, because that is definitely not how it was intended. Please let me know what you think. I'm not easily offended.

Identity Symbols

I guess I don't really think my life has too many identity symbols. There are not very many material possessions I have that I believe define me. I know that sounds a little presumptuous, but things have never really been important to me. The few materials things that might define me are definitely books. I love books. They are every where in my life. There isn't any particular favorites, I just love to have them around me. I guess, if I had to choose three they would be, the dictionary,
"Candide" by Voltaire, and "The World According to Garp" by John Irving.
Art-wise, there are a lot of reminders of where I come from and where I want to go. Literally. There travel related and family photos all around me.
Religion definitely doesn't have a very big role in my everyday life. Sure I go to church every once and a while, but you probably would not be able to tell by looking around my home.

Week 1 Reading Response

Overall, the four articles seemed very similar to me. They all detailed the plan, research and problems associated with the Jerusalem portion of the Smithosian folklore festival. Each highlighted several key points.
The article written by Prof. Horowitz posed several questions. It was very clear that she was concerned with the festival not becoming to Disney-like. But I don't feel like this was ever qualified. Disney has the ability to grab our attention, and create awareness on the broader topic. This, to me at least, appears to be the most important aspect of a potential festival. Ensuring that people understand the goal seems like a more attainable goal than portraying an entire multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city in its entirity without offending those in charge. Maybe sensationalizing isn't always bad, but should be utilized as a tool to create awareness, used in moderation. Attempting to create the exact city itself seems like an idea bordering on Disney. Had the organizers embraced this, it might have been an opportunity to expand the scope of the project and ensure completion and funding.
The interview and article by Suad Amiry seemed to address similar points. Amiry's tone in the interview seemed rather pesimestic about the entire process. It was a bit disappointing to hear someone so involved in the process of peace become almost disenchanted with the process. I do greatly appreciate the respect she has for the diversity of Jerusalem. It is refreshing to see somebody admire the multiplicity of an area such as Jerusalem. It did feel that her analysis was overcomplicated. I know this is not a simple thing to do, but it seems like the team was overthinking it and making the process even more difficult. By defining the scope a bit more, the project would have become more manageable and less improbable.
The language of Hasan-Rokem's article seems rather disjointed. It also got me thinking that the approach of the project was a bit off. Had they decided for focus on one or two particular areas, then the team would be better able to give a complete picture of life in that area. Maybe the National Mall is not the best place to completely describe the entire city of Jerusalem. Changing the scope of the project would have helped it to become more successful.
These articles have definitely peaked my interest in the project. All those involved seem to be very intelligent, insightful and idealistic. These are all characteristics which I believe can change the world. Hopefully, given the correct circumstances, they will be able to.

A bit about me...

Hey guys! I'm very excited to be taking this class. The issue of Jerusalem is one that has always interested me, yet there aren't many forums where young people can express their views in a neutral environment. My motivation for taking this class is better understand why people, who appear to have things in common, can be so divided.
I have never been able to understand why there are such extreme positions on the issue. It's probably because I don't have a very strong religious background. My family is very tolerant, liberal and multi-religious. For example: We celebrated my sisters bat mitzvah two weekends we had a wonderful Easter celebration. My mom jokes that if I marry a Muslim man we will have completed the set of world religions.
From this background, violence over sacred ground seems unnecessary.