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?