Another Newsflash!

PLO's Erekat welcomes Hamas acceptance of two-state solution

Ahram Online , Wednesday 30 Jan 2013

Palestinian reconciliation is advancing, says top PLO official, as Hamas expresses acceptance of the principle of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hamas's approval of the two-state solution reveals the tendency of the movement to cooperate with the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told the Saudi Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper Wednesday.

Erekat, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, stated that the decision of the Islamist movement to accept a state based on pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital stems from its willingness to pave the way for further inter-Palestinian reconciliation.

"Hamas has to maintain this orientation in case of a future revival of talks with the Israeli side, as the two-state solution signifies the cornerstone of the PLO's position towards the peace process," he noted.

Meanwhile, Erekat welcomed the recent meeting between Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and Jordan's King Abdullah II, calling on the international community to understand that Amman is a "partner" to the Palestinians.

Meshal said Monday that the world "must respect" Palestinian reconciliation talks during a visit to Jordan, a palace statement said.

"I am optimistic about Palestinian reconciliation. The international community must respect the Palestinian need to end division," AFP quoted Meshal as saying after meeting Abdullah in Amman.

"A two-state solution is the only means to achieve security and stability in the Middle East," Meshal added.

Meshal visited Jordan twice last year. Relations between Hamas and Amman have been strained since 1999 when authorities expelled Meshal and three other Hamas members after the group was accused of threatening the kingdom's security and stability.

Hamas had previously expressed firm rejection of the two-state solution and granting recognition to Israel, a situation that led the West, especially the United States, and Israel to exclude the movement from all rounds of peace talks.

However, at their first meeting in almost a year, Meshal and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed this month on reviving the stalled 2011 reconciliation deal between the rival Palestinian factions.

The two Palestinian leaders also agreed to allow Hamas a degree of representation in the PLO, which has historically been led by Fatah, indicating the urgency of further rapproachment on remaining disputed issues, including the peace process.

Hamas declared support for Abbass' successful UN bid to grant Palestine non-member observer state status in the world body, approved by the General Assembly 29 November.

Abbas, in return, backed Hamas during the latest Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, including destructive attacks on buildings and media centres across the besieged territory, killing more than 162 Palestinians in a week of non-stop airstrikes.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government recently announced plans to build almost 3,000 settler units in the occupied West Bank, just before the UN vote on Palestinian recognition.

The construction will take place in the highly sensitive "E-1" area of the West Bank, which lies between annexed East Jerusalem and the nearby Maale Adumim settlement. Netanyahu claimed that Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for "3,000 years."
________________
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/63654.aspx

Reading Response -Armstrong 8-10

Through these chapters, I have begun to grasp how the modern situation has really come to be. While the older history is important, and gives much of the backstory to the conflict, chapters 8-10 allowed me to really envision how the modern arrangement has formed. 

I really appreciate Armstrong's use of thorough descriptions. By describing the images and the sounds of the story she is telling, I am able to feel as if I am part of the story. (Am I part of the story? If so, when do I come in?) 

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Israel, the Palestinian territories, and specifically Jerusalem, reading Armstrong's descriptions of places and people brings me back to many memories. It is really amazing how not much has changed. While technology, people, and politics change over time, the geography and the cultures are so similar to what they used to be. 

Anyway, these chapters introduce some modern ideas. It is important to note the variations of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity that exist in the world and within Jerusalem. As I read about the way Christians and Jews interacted, I could not help but see similarities with how Jews interact with other Jews, and Christians interact with other Christians. I know I've written about this before, but I keep returning to the idea that religions must get along with their own people before they can get along with others.

There is so much tension as a result of religion in the region. I wonder in what other ways we could divide the people into social/cultural groups. Would the situation be different if all the people in Jerusalem were classified along a one-axis political spectrum? How would right- or left-leaning Palestinians interact with right- or left-leaning Israelis? 

I think it would be very interesting to look at identity data from Jerusalem. What can the ways that individuals classify themselves teach us about the conflict? Could this data be used to stop violence and conflict?

News Flash!!!

"Jerusalem is not only a place, it's also an idea, it is the heartbeat around which the new State of Israel was built."

Below is the text of a really interesting article from a fairly left-leaning Israeli newspaper. It discusses politician Yair Lapid's stance on Jerusalem, and some interesting ideas for it's future. Lapid is making lots of noise in the Israeli political world right now, I urge you all to read some news about him. (He recently announced that he will be the next Israeli PM)

But take a look at the article... could this be the future of Israeli politics, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Jerusalem?
_________________________________________________________________________________

Will Yair Lapid divide Jerusalem?

In his election campaign, the founder of Yesh Atid was vehemently opposed to the partition of Jerusalem in any future peace agreement, but he has not always been against it.
By Barak Ravid | Jan.28, 2013 | 8:43 PM


Throughout his election campaign Yair Lapid insisted on his adamant opposition to the partition of Jerusalem under any future peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Back in February 2012, when he first began communicating with potential voters, he declared that Jerusalem "belongs to the people of Israel and no one else."

Months later, giving a campaign speech in the West Bank city of Ariel in October 2012, he underlined the message:

"The second principle is that Jerusalem will remain under Israeli sovereignty and will not be divided. Jerusalem is not only a place, it's also an idea, it is the heartbeat around which the new State of Israel was built. The return to Zion was not to [Tel Aviv's] Azrieli Towers but to the Tower of David, and the heart of Jerusalem is also the heart of Israel."

A week later, speaking to Israel's Council for Peace and Security, the founder of Yesh Atid explained how the Palestinians can be made to relinquish their demand for East Jerusalem as their capital:

"Why did Abu Mazen (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) suddenly say that he no longer demands the right of return for Palestinian refugees? It was because the Palestinians recognized there was a complete consensus in Israel on the issue, so he moved on to the next tope. The same should apply to Jerusalem …We must not blink. There should be no compromises in Jerusalem. If the Palestinians understand that unless they give up on Jerusalem they won't have a state, they will relinquish that demand as well."

In an interview to Germany's Der Speigel from May 2008, Lapid expressed a contradictory position. Speaking together with his mother, the author Shulamit Lapid, and his late father, the journalist-turned-politician Yosef "Tommy" Lapid, Yair Lapid unequivocally supported the division of Jerusalem and fiercely attacked the Jewish West Bank settlers whose votes he courted in his recent election campaign.

"The greatest tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that everyone knows how it will end. We will divide up the region. Israel will return most of the West Bank, and the Palestinian flag will fly on public buildings in East Jerusalem. The only unanswered question is how many more people will have to die along the way. And so we will fight against the extremists on both sides, including our extremists, the settlers."

Could Lapid be adopting the tactics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, taking a soft, moderate stance when speaking to a foreign journalist, in English, but talking tough when the language is Hebrew and the audience is local?

A possible answer comes from Yesh Atid's own "Mr. Security," the former Shin Bet security service chief Jacob Perry. Israeli Peace Initiative, an organization that counts Perry among its leaders, calls explicitly for Israel to accept the Arab League peace initiative, which includes the division of Jerusalem.

In an interview to Israeli journalist Oshrat Kotler broadcast on Israel Channel 10 television on Saturday, Perry explained that Lapid's stated position on Jerusalem was the starting point for negotiations:

"When we speak about a unified Jerusalem we mean what we say," Perry said. "I know the Palestinians see things differently. We will enter negotiations and present our position as written in the party platform. Still, just as in the coalition negotiations there might be issues on which we might have to agree to compromise, or to reject, in negotiating with the Palestinians, today's declarations, I believe, might be altered one way or another," Perry said

In response to a request for comments, Lapid adviser Nili Reichman said only, "We stand behind the political platform of Yesh Atid."
_________________________________________________________________________________

(http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/will-yair-lapid-divide-jerusalem.premium-1.496913)

Ideas for a Solution

If there ever was an impossible assignment for a class related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this would be it. There have been so many ideas for how to end this conflict for good, but thus far, none of them work.

Why is this so hard? I've come up with five reasons that make a solution hard to come by.

1. It must please the Israelis.
2. It must please the Palestinians.
3. It must please any interested religious institutions.
4. It must be accepted by the UN and other international communities (i.e. must protect human rights, etc.)
5. It must last.

These are just a few reasons that I will work off of, but there are plenty more.

So is there really any way to fulfill all these requirements? It seems impossible if we were just working with the first two. Alas, I will make an attempt anyway.

The two state solution, as discussed by many (predominantly American political figures) will not work. 1967 is out of the picture, because we have come too far since then. There is new development within both conflicting sides that has spawned since 1967.

But a two state solution sounds beautiful, no? So maybe we reconsider the supposed divisions, and begin to consider other ways of splitting land. I think the West Bank is a good place to start. Let's say the West Bank goes to Palestine, and, I'll even go so far as to say that since they have long been connected to the Palestinian situation, Jordan should give some land to the creation of Palestine too. But Israel worries, because it is a security threat if Palestine is not watched from it's Eastern front also. So we leave a small part of land in Israel's hands. But then there's Gaza. Do we work with Gaza also? If we are going to work with Jordan, we might as well work with Egypt and do something down South too.

There are just way too many facets of this, and the two-state solution is not so easy to come by. So lets forget it.

It's a sad reality, but I just don't see a two-state solution ever being possible. So maybe the best solution is what we have now? How can we idealize the current situation? Can we create a sense of peace, even if the agreement is based on the idea that "we don't want our people dead, and neither do you, so let's stop."

If this is possible, what do we do with Jerusalem? I suppose we look to the world for help on this. If we can't come to an agreement on our own, then there is a dire need for international help.

One last idea- maybe we un-incorporate the whole area of land at conflict. Every community could build it's own, self-governed, city-state. And maybe everybody with interest in the region could live out their own agendas in their own small lands? But this is 2013, that wouldn't work.

To be honest, I could pitch ideas all day, but in the end, I will always revert back to "that wouldn't work."

I don't think that either side wants to stop fighting enough to come to a solution. The international community can't actually make things happen... only propel ideas. So my answer to the question of "how do we end this?" is... "I don't know... and neither does anyone else."

Response #4

It's all political. Even when it's not politics, this is political. Or is it?

A quick google search defines politics as "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area." So is it fair to define the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as political? I seem to sway back and forth. Having studied quite a lot on the subjects of both religion and politics, it is not clear how we can define the situation.

Chapters 5-8 of Karen Armstrong's Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths do not help me clarify any of my confusion. "Exile and Return" tells the story of the Jews and Jerusalem following the destruction of The Temple in 586 BC. We learn of the proceedings of the Jews with relation to the covenant with God and the Jewish law. These stories are based in religion.

Yet one interesting anecdote was when Armstrong states that "Yahweh chose to be with the exiles, not the Judeans who were still living in Jerusalem." So I have to ask, why Jerusalem? If following the destruction of the temple, God followed the Jews who gathered elsewhere, why wouldn't a supposed God do the same in the modern day? Besides the clear history in the city, is it really important on a religious basis? Or have institutions just caused it to be religiously important over time?

Taking this idea into consideration, I return to the question of religious vs. political. In a modern context, it is very easy to see everyday happenings in Jerusalem as religious, political, or a combination of both. But if we look at the definition of politics, and take religion as organized institutions that provide spiritual communities, then what is the best way to approach this?

In a purely governmental context, this situation does not need to be political. The governments, Israeli or Palestinian, don't necessarily need to be organized based on religion. Yet many governmental responses to the conflict are religiously rooted. What I am getting at is this: maybe this situation is more difficult to combat because of recent religious institutional developments. If God follows the people wherever God's people go, then is Jerusalem really important? Or have we just made it that way? Maybe the situation just gets worse as time goes on and life in Jerusalem becomes more religiously based.

I'm not saying that Jerusalem isn't important, just that maybe we need to focus less on religion, and more on politics. And what I mean by politics is intergovernmental relations, not government based on religion.

To finish, I have a slightly related video. There was, at one time, a movement (including Theodor Herzl- the father of modern political Zionism) to develop a Jewish state in Uganda rather than Palestine. What would life have been like? Take a look at this modern Israeli music video based on the idea:

Reading Response #3

The first readings from Armstrong's book were fairly expected. I read of unrest, power struggle, and change in ownership of the city of Jerusalem, and began to pick up on some trends.

Without belittling the complex narrative of Jerusalem, what I see in the early history of the city is actually quite similar to today. In Ch. 3, "City of David", Armstrong mentions that there are three words in the Jerusalem psalms that recur quite often. Mishpat (judgement, verdict), tzedek (justice), and shalom (peace). As I thought about this recurrence, I couldn't help but think that these three words perfectly outline the cyclical nature of Jerusalem's history. Somebody makes a decree, attempts to bring justice, and hopes for peace.

It seems that everyone wishes the best for the holy city, but the disagreement and fighting over the matter never cease. So I had an idea. In the end of Ch. 3, Armstrong projects the idea of political ties, and that "Kingdoms had fallen because of social unrest." Throughout the ages, Jerusalem has changed hands from one leader to another and across political, religious, and economic lines. The one constant throughout all of this is the dissatisfaction of it's citizens. No matter who is in control, there is always dissent from those who try to live a successful, pious, and happy life in the city.

I always like to use history to try to formulate ideas about the present or the future. Considering the aforementioned idea, I believe that Jerusalem is a platform for a very different type of city. (And now the idealist inside of me will expand) What if Jerusalem wasn't ruled by a religious doctrine? Members of three of the largest monotheistic religions pray to Jerusalem. What if instead of discussing ownership, land divisions, political entities, and the like, we focused on religious importance. There are sites that are of enormous importance to many, so why are they so controversial? If people really care about these places because their religious texts tell them too, then it is time they actually respect them. What if we just let the people pray?

Now I know this is 2013 and there are other factors to consider. Do we set taxes? Is there a police force? Who runs the non-religious side of matters? My answer to this is anybody. But let these "matters" remain non-religious. From early on, Jerusalem was governed via religious decree, such as in the City of David. What if this was put to an end? It is possible that if Jerusalem were governed by an outside entity, and the only religious influence was in the temples, churches, mosques, and other holy sites, things may just be a little less conflicted. Maybe then, we could learn about politics, and we could learn about religion. Because after all, should religious politics really exist in 2013?

Of course, this is just a thought, and possibly a totally confused one. But hey, it's okay to have complex, confused thoughts when learning about something complex and confusing, right? I'd love to hear reactions to this. Would it work? Am I just crazy? What problems would still exist?

Weblog Journal #1

Well we are just a bit more than a week into this class. I am already blown away. I love the dialogues I have taken part in, and I think the blog platform of this class is a very interesting new approach to formal education.

In just the first few days, the ideas and opinions that both the assigned readings and posts from other students have brought to the table have pushed me to see everything with an open mind. I have quite extensive experience with Israel and education on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yet I confirm everyday I am in "Living Jerusalem" (online and in class) that I have more to learn. I am eager to get into the nitty-gritty details of the conflict and really dissect a variety of issues stemmed from the deep rooted Middle East situation.

I think that the blog format is a very productive manner in which to learn this material. The conflict is so multi-faceted that it is vital that each individual have an opportunity to express what they see in the matter. I also love the "bonus posts" that many students and myself have already provided which give light to the issues via alternative ideas, visual aids, and more.

Before attending the first class, I had only a small notion of what the project would entail. I have been blown away. From the use of technology, to the openness of opinions, to the connections that I hope to make as we engage and learn about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict together with individuals from all sides of the issue, I have only the greatest expectations for what is yet to come.

A Valuable Resource

I often need to visualize things in order to fully understand them. This is especially true when it comes to geopolitical change. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides a very thorough history of Israel through maps. I highly recommend taking a look. Parts 1 and 2 offer a visual aide to the second set of readings, such as pre- and post-1967 borders. 

History in Maps - Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Reading Response #2

As I read through these readings, I noticed something very interesting. I have learned in a variety of settings, about Middle East history and politics. Yet very rarely do these settings offer an opportunity to get into the depths of the history of Jerusalem. I believe this is because, as these articles proved, the history of Jerusalem is a subject matter in and of itself.

All three articles recounted numerous power shifts, with which came changes in development, economy, geography, culture, and religious life in Jerusalem. There are numerous narratives about the development of how Jerusalem came to be situated in the modern day, commonly referred to as the post-1967 makeup. Each of these narratives varies from one another, so it is important to be objective in understanding this history.

Rehav Rubin's article ends by stating that "Jerusalem was reunited during the Six Day War of 1967... and Jerusalem, with all its municipal and political complexities, became a united city where Jews and Muslims, some secular and others religious, could live side by side." This is a beautiful statement, but as Rashid Khaladi's history of Jerusalem from an Arab perspective (which, it should be noted that there are more than one perspective from the Arab population in Jerusalem) tells us, modern day Jerusalem is not so simple after all. A personal experience of mine has furthered this thought for me. 


An Israeli national holiday comes around every late spring called Yom Yerushalyim, or Jerusalem Day. This day is to celebrate the reunification of Jerusalem by Israel, and consists of ceremonies, celebrations, and festivities to appreciate modern day Jerusalem in all its glory. I mustn't criticize this day too much, as nations around the world celebrate independence and recount the times in which they reclaimed a specific land, but some of what I experienced was deeply saddening. I will say that celebrations in West Jerusalem were exciting and fun. I celebrated with friends and strangers as we took recognition to the urban success that West Jerusalem has become. Though, as I wandered into the Old City in the late afternoon, I was exposed to a completely different scenario. I watched as bands of teens, adults, and children, mostly of the Orthodox Jewish persuasion, marched through the Muslim, Armenian, and Christian quarters (all heavily populated by Arabs) as they chanted songs of pride and banged on the doors of shops and homes of innocent Arab citizens. I was conflicted. I am very proud of Israel and all of it's successes, but this sight was embarrassing. It was abuse. It was disgusting. As I read Rubin's words, I could not stand but to recount this image, and realize that even post 1967, as has been all throughout it's history, there are massive problems in Jerusalem. 

These problems, as all three articles suggest, are much due to religious conflict. With holy places such as The Dome of The Rock, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and The Western Wall, Jerusalem is of great significance to the three prominent monotheistic religions in the world. Clearly, there are conflicts of interest when it comes to deciding who has control over what. Yet I believe there are conflicts we must face before we can approach the bigger issue. Dumper's article tells us that there are "social tensions... within the Israeli Jewish community itself." Issues with Orthodoxy and religious law are very prominent in Jerusalem. As an example, many progressive Jews feel out of place and even under attack while praying at the Western Wall, because they must adhere to Orthodox religious practices. Similar conflicts occur at the important Christian site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where different sects have fought over who has control of different parts of the Church for years. While I am not familiar with them, I am sure there are similar difficulties within the Muslim population of Jerusalem, possibly dealing with the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. 
I believe that these issues must be resolved before there is even a chance at resolving the bigger religious issues that encompass Jerusalem. This situation is not a simple one, so any steps that are taken to resolve it will also be complex.

Final Project Interests

Everything relates to politics in one way or another. This is what I have found to be true with regards to Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, and much of the Middle East in general. Thus, for my final multi-media project I hope to focus on the politics of Jerusalem.

The political situation in Jerusalem is multi-faceted and constantly changing. I have a few ideas of how to go about this task. First, I want to learn more about the politics of the Palestinian territories, placing an emphasis on the West Bank. While I know quite a bit of Israeli politics, and understand it reasonably well, I cannot claim to know anything about Palestinian politics. The extent of my knowledge on Palestinian politics stems from what I learned from my barber in the Old City during my gap year (an experience I will discuss in depth at a later date) and from the book "Son of Hamas," which is a must read if you are interested in these kinds of things. It gives a very non-traditional view of the situation from someone who has first hand experience in both sides of the issue.

I digress. I hope to learn of the structure and daily proceedings of government officials in the West Bank (possibly focusing on East Jerusalem, Ramallah, Hebron, and Bethlehem). I am also very interested if and to what degree the Palestinian political infrastructure communicates and works with that of the Israelis.

I would also be interested in learning about the social aspect of political systems and activity in the region. How do the people project their political opinions? Do what degree are citizens engaging in the Israeli/Palestinian political situation? I would be very interested in looking at politics and the people through art, media, and the like.

Reading Response #1

Just a few readings into this project and I am already diversifying my own opinions and feelings toward Jerusalem. Saud Amiry begins "Researching East Jerusalem" by hinting at just how complex the problems with Jerusalem are. She mentions the physical and psychological boundaries between East and West Jerusalem. Clearly, there were perceptions of how these different types of boundaries played into the mix from both the Israeli and Palestinian teams in 1993. 20 years later, I wonder if these perceptions have changed. Is one type of boundary more prominent than the other? How has the security barrier (a clearly physical boundary) affected the psychological boundaries that both Israelis and Palestinians perceive to be evident?

I also found Amiry's comment on her peers' attempts to discredit each other as a "real Qudsi" very intriguing. It reminds me of times I have experienced the slightly humorous yet relatively dismal occurrence of Jewish Israelis in Jerusalem trying to discredit each other as a"real Yerushalmi." What I believe I will find on many occurrences through Living Jerusalem and in future interactions with Israelis and Palestinians is that the two populations often have many of the same problems, arguments, and dealings with friends, families, and peers. Maybe similarity of interpersonal relationships within the two divided communities could be used as a connection point on which build relations?

In the interview with Saud Amiry in "Representing Jerusalem" as well as Galit Hasan-Rokem's "Dialogue as Ethical Conduct: The Folk Festival That Was Not", we hear of theories of why the folk festival did not happen in 1993. We learn that that even funding became a politicized issue. Despite efforts to assemble a balanced program, many sources of funding refused to participate for fear of appearing political, or because they believed that the project leaned one way or another. Hasan-Rokem emphasized the political setbacks due to (mis)representation at the festival. There was, both symbolically and physically, much division to overcome in the planning stages. As the geographic division of Jerusalem transferred into the festival, questions arose. How could they divide the shared cultures? As mentioned, "Whose is the falafel?" Also relevant was the need to divide the actual land for the project. In their attempt to plan the folk festival, organizers were required to, in a way, formulate yet another partition plan dealing with Israel and Palestine. The National Mall in Washington, D.C. is 1/50000 the size of Israel, so if it was so difficult to divide 146 acres (National Mall), one can only imagine how difficult it would be to divide the whole State of Israel. Suddenly, the "beautiful idea" of a two-state solution seems much farther off. 

Professor Horowitz's article, "Living Jerusalem: Cultures and Communities in Contention" brought a level headed approach to understanding the geographic and demographic complexity of Jerusalem and how to represent it in a feasible folk festival. I found it very interesting how she mentioned that "In Jerusalem, culture is not only a reflector and activator of human landscape. In this disputed context, simple cultural acts may seek to occupy, even capture, geographical and political territory." One of the reasons that the planned folk festival was culture based was because culture was perceived to be less controversial than other bases on which to structure the festival. Yet Professor Horowitz tells us that cultural acts can occupy and capture territory. So as I read I began to ask myself, "Is culture really the best base on which to portray the two demographics, and the Jerusalem fiasco to the United States' general public?" How does culture play into other geographic and political divides? What would happen if we tried to have a folk festival focused on Southern Texas and Northern Mexican cultures? 

Welcome

Hey, I'm Ethan Bennett. I am a Junior studying Political Science. I'm from St. Louis, MO, and am excited to be studying and experience the diverse culture, society, and political situation of Jerusalem from Bloomington, IN. I have had a long standing relationship with Israel and Jerusalem, and while on a gap year program in 2010-2011, that relationship strengthened and became more twisted than ever. While living in Jerusalem, I really began to understand the hugging/wrestling relationship that I and so many others have with Jerusalem. A large part of this relationship for me is the political side of matters. I am constantly drawn to the craziness of Middle Eastern, and especially Israeli-Palestinian politics. I plan to work in Middle East foreign affairs, and hopefully can do so one day while living in Israel or the Middle East working on behalf of the US. I am very excited to expose myself to more opinions and experiences relating to Jerusalem and its politics, and hope to get to know and learn from all those currently engaged in this project.