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.