Reading Response - Writing on the Wall

This article was incredibly interesting for me because I have always found special interest in the way that society expresses its views and interests visually. The article mentions that, "As a cultural device in a communicative process, graffiti fashioned and spoke to multiple audiences."

I think this is interesting, because, just as we discussed on the topic of photography, people can interpret the visual expression in many different manners.

The most interesting thing to me though, is the numerous varying forms of graffiti. There can be two pieces of graffiti that appear completely different, and raise different emotions, and yet are based on the same idea. I have some photos of graffiti that I took while in Israel and the West Bank that I would like to share.

Here we see a depiction most likely of an Israeli (designated by the sandals) holding up a gun. This was taken in Bethlehem. I see anger and can picture the action of such an individual upon simple viewing. 

I find this humorous, how a popular culture reference has been appropriated to the political issue at hand.

Then there are people who just are mad at everything, at anybody who is passing by. Taken in Abu Tor, just South of the Old City.

This is harmless, but gets the message across. I like it.

This is a wonderful quote that I loved immediately when I saw it. The great thing about graffiti is that it is illegal, but can push across such a beautiful message sometimes.

This angers me. This is the barrier/fence/wall outside of Bethlehem. Banksy's work is just a few meters to the right of this graffiti. But it is troubling that signs and words representing the Holocaust are being used in this situation. While I can see the conflict from both sides of view, I cannot imagine or put up with the idea that it is anything like the Holocaust. Honestly, this is insulting.

An interesting call to action. Very troubling. 

I support this idea. We will not get anywhere if we don't try.

The world is a canvas. And some will use it however they wish I guess!

Reading Response: Parallels and Paradoxes

I want to first start out by commenting on the preface written by Ara Guzelimain. It mentions that "Edward Said had the gift of conversation." It is a beautiful manner in which conversation is portrayed as a gift. Many say that the dialogue and relationship formed by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said was a model for individuals and communities from related backgrounds in the future. It is important to note that nothing could have been initiated if not for conversation. Wars dont solve problems, and neither do isolation from one another. Conversation does.  So let's keep the dialogue going and show others how it can be done just like Said and Barenboim have done before us.

Later in the reading, Guzelimain asks about differences between Said and Barenboim. Said responds by mentioning historical narratives. He argues that one problem with the current situation is that negotiations are apolitical. When I read this, I started to feel as if I was going to disagree, but I read on. Said mentions the idea of historical tolerance. We don't need to assume each others history, but just recognize the fact that different historical narratives exist.

I think this is important, because we can never agree on everything, but if we respect and recognize our differences, rather than closing off to anything but our own interests, then there is more platform for peaceful and potentially successful negotiation.

He mentions the importance of intertwined but different histories in discussion. Guzelimain agrees with this point by mentioning that one of the pleasures of the dialogue is to observe the wresting with parallels and paradoxes. It is important that throughout all of this discussion and dialogue and argument, we continue to wrestle with our own ideas and the ideas of others.

Final Project Ideas

I'll be looking at Palestinian representation of the political situation. I hope to do this through a variety of sources.

Movies I want to pull clips from:
“5 Broken Cameras” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125423/
“Encounter Point” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0783517/
“This Narrow Place” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587353/
Top 10 Israeli/Palestinian Conflict Movies: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/cultist/2011/07/top_10_films_about_the_israeli.php

I want to look into the claims of apartheid in the region. Here is an interesting article that I may start with. http://electronicintifada.net/content/oscar-nominated-films-prove-israel-apartheid-state/12168

 Photographs from local photographers: how do they see it? (reality) 

-I know of a few Palestinian photographers and hope to look at more, such as photojournalists, who will be able to represent the reality of the political situation and life.

News (Palestinian) (reality) 

-Newspapers in West Bank cities (Bethlehem has English publications, I believe also Ramallah and Hebron. I hope to find news sources from cities such as Nablus and Janin)

"Facts" shown in educational materials in public school: what are kids learning when they learn history and government in public school? (reality or representation?)

Politically charged art
Al-Mammal Foundation
Poster art: http://electronicintifada.net/content/review-poster-art-israeli-palestinian-conflict/3457
“Made in Palestine” exhibit: http://aljissergroup.org/nymip/made-in-palestine.html 

Reading Response- Prep for Mariam Said

The two videos we watched for this week were quite interesting and captivating, and caused me to think in a new manner.

I want to point out three ideas mentioned by Daniel Barenboim in the Al-Jazeera interview.

1. Barenboim mentions the idea of human solidarity. This is in context to bringing the orchestra to Gaza, but the idea of human solidarity is a very strong one that is often pushed to the side. Much like the United Nations, we should sometimes take a step back and look beyond personal interests and agendas to observe the treatment of humans. In the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, there exists a mistreatment of humans on both sides. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians should be forced to live in a hostile region where they are frequently fearing for their own lives and the lives of their loved ones, and where they never know what tomorrow will be. The instability of the region is unfit for human lives, and this is the point on which we should work towards a solution. Put a hold on the "who is right/ who is wrong" conversation, and worry about the people. The humans who are unable to live normal lives like you and me.

2. He mentions that Israeli security will be measured by acceptance by Palestinians. This shows a few things. First, security is not a process that can be achieved unilaterally. While steps can be made by either side, and have varying degrees of success, we can not reach complete security without cooperation. The security wall/fence/barrier put in place in recent years has taken great steps to increasing the security of Israeli human lives (Christian, Muslim, and Jewish individuals of Middle East/Arab, European, and African descent). It has proven to be successful in some places by stopping the bombings, terrorist attacks, and retaliations during times such as the First and Second Intifadas during which lives were lost on both sides. For the time being, this has worked. My greatest hope is that the security apparatus does not become permanent. And it will not be if we work to create communication and acceptance of the existence of one another. This is an interesting and fitting way to view security which can lead to peace.

3. Lastly, he talks about the division of East and West Jerusalem as political capitals of both entities. Then he mentions that despite this, Jerusalem will forever belong to the World on the base of culture, intellect  religion, and emotion. This is a beautiful way to view Jerusalem and one which I wish more political and religious figures could understand.

Reading Response- Nassar Reading

This reading was very intriguing to me. As someone who 1: has spent a lot of time in Israel/ Palestinian Territories and 2: is a photographer, the ideas in Nasser's writing hit home for me.

He mentions that "Photography bought 'the past into the present more than ever before, changing the way people experienced their personal past and the collective past of history'" This made me think, because while I fully agree with the personal past idea, the idea of collective past is a little out of focus for me. As I believe I have mentioned in past blog posts, the idea of the collective is very vague. The way in which individuals identify with a collective interest or narrative is determined by each individual, and so I am not quite convinced that photographs are able to properly project the images of collective past.

Furthermore, Nassar mentions that "Not only do photographers manipulate reality through the use of special settings, effects  techniques, lighting and positions, but the photograph itself acquires various meaning depending on the viewer's previous knowledge of its subject and his/her reaction to it." This statement is loaded with ideas. First, I agree that there is a level of creative license that each photographer takes in displaying the images which he/she sees with their own eyes. Nonetheless, the subjects are still the same. In the world of socio-political photography, there could be two photos of the same subject, for instance a protestor at a large rally, that could portray the individual in two different manners. The subject is still the same. To an individual viewing the photo, the photo could either be taken at face value as they see just the individual, or could be seen by either opposing viewpoint, as the background and other subjects in the photo are taken into consideration. So while the image documented by a photo is largely up to the portrayal of the photographer as well as the viewer, the subject always stays the same. Furthermore, I think that the work on the photographers side largely effects how "good" the photo is, rather than how viewers read into such photo.

Nassar later brings up the idea of captions. I'll be completely candid and say that, while photos that I have taken are frequently published in the newspaper and various websites, I often disregard the captions. Yes, I have to write captions for my own photos, but when I am viewing the photos of others, I most often focus strictly on the image itself. This may be a result of my background in art, which led me to photography, rather than a foundation in journalism, but viewing photos this way also allows me to create my own interpretation.

When I choose not to read captions, I am able to visualize myself in the photo, and create my own experience and interaction with the subject(s) rather than attempt to understand the experience of the photographer. I think that captions are extremely limiting, and in many cases, even when not opinionated, can alter one's view of the photo.

That's my two cents, I'll leave you with a few photos that I took in Israel and the West Bank. I will not caption these in order to leave them up to your own interpretation, but if you want the backstory, leave a comment and I will try to give you the most unbiased story as possible.

Response- Tamari Readings

These readings were different. Joni Mitchell's "Big Yellow Taxi" comes to mind..."You don't know what you've got till its gone"

 I'm not saying that I'd prefer Armstrong, but I think the concise history was sometimes easier to process with relevance to my political thinking on Jerusalem, the region, and the conflict.

Nonetheless, I found  “Lepers, Lunatics and Saints" to be most interesting. I was really intrigued by Tamari's analysis of the idea of nationalism and nativism. He mentions that "Much of Palestinian nationalist revivalist writings of this period was a reaction to Zionist attempts at establishing their own putative claims to the Israelite and biblical heritage."

The idea of nationalism, Israeli or Palestinian, is very complex. If we look at Palestinian nationalism, it has long been contested by proponents of Israeli nationalism or Zionism. One could argue that Palestinian nationalist agendas have less of a base when compared to the basis of Zionism. Palestinian identity is not formed off of the need for a religious home, for there is not even a uniform religion among them, opposed to Jews, many of whom were oppressed in the diaspora, creating the need for a place for Jews to prosper and live out religious lives in freedom.

Yet if we look at recent Palestinian identity, there are more and more individuals who are passing as Palestinian and assuming such identity as a result of more recent oppression from Israel. So as time passes- is the need for nationalism and nationalist states for both peoples growing?

In another class, I am learning about racial and ethnic identification. One trend we study is the idea of self-identification. Many modern Zionists who have moved to Israel to live out a Jewish life were doing perfectly fine in diaspora countries such as the UK and the USA. Some could argue they don't need Israel for the same reasons on which it was founded. Similarly, many individuals who assume Palestinian nationality are originally of Jordanian or other Middle Eastern descent. So the question arises: what is the role of self-identification and self-recognition of a need for a nationalist state in contrast to the identification and recognition as performed by the international community?

This is all very confusing, and my analyses only lead to more questions, but I would like to hear more on the issue. I understand and relate to many forms of Zionism, but many extreme actions taken by others who identify as Zionist often deter me and make me wary of classifying myself in the same group in them. Similarly, as I have learned first hand of the Palestinian narrative, while I find it hard to see relevance to their cause based in history, I am very sympathetic for the current situation. I believe that the Palestinian nationalist agenda deserves more recognition and appreciation, even if only to protect the welfare of human beings.

Who is more legitimate? Who's nationalism is more nationalist than the other? Who knows...

Reading Response- Armstrong 14-18

So we have reached the end of Armstrong, and I have mixed feelings. I have begun to gain a better understanding of the history, especially from the Palestinian narrative, but my opinions on the matter have remained fairly constant. I am eager to delve into the upcoming readings and hopefully challenge my views rather than just learn a history.

I have decided to write about one very little thing that I noticed in Chapter 18. On pg. 405, the following map is shown:

The one element of this map that piqued my interest was surprisingly the Jerusalem airport at the northernmost point. I have lived in Jerusalem, and travelled quite a bit around it, and never have seen or even heard of this airport. So I decided to look into the matter a bit.

I found that "Atarot Airport... has been closed during the intifada; the thousands of rocks covering the now-idle runway explain why." The airport, which has been known as Kalandia Airport, Qalandia Airport, and Jerusalem Airport, was closed due to violence during the second intifada. The airport was the first airport in the British mandate for Palestine and was used for commercial and military air traffic. It's abandonment is representative of the surrounding city of Atarot, which like so many others, was deserted because of its dangerous proximity to the West Bank during the second intifada. 

A recent photo of the overgrown and abandoned Jerusalem airport

I'm not an airport buff to any degree, but as I was reading into the Jerusalem airport, I found another interesting story. The Yasser Arafat International Airport is another closed and abandoned airport in Gaza just north of the Egyptian border. Similarly linked to the Israeli/Paestinan struggle, this airport was closed in 2001 following significant damage by the Israeli Air Force in retaliation to the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Years later, the runway was ruined by locals hoping to sell the recycled stone and cement on the black market for construction. Here's an interesting video showing what happened. 

I am unsure what relevance this all has to the greater situation, but I will mention two ideas. 1: It is sad to realize the vast amount of ruined infrastructure that has resulted from the conflict. 2: In many ways, both sides are equally hurt by the violence. This makes it much more difficult to "choose a side" in the issue. I find that it is often easier to observe and strategize for the future by optimizing what we have now rather than play the blame game.

Initial Ideas for Project

There is a whole dissertations' worth of ideas that have been discussed in the politics group.

The group I will be working with is going to focus on the embargo and supply chain. I am very interested to look into how the different institutions involved in the conflict play a part in this matter. I am particularly interested in looking into political interests on both the Israeli and Palestinian side. The embargo on the Palestinian territories is a big political conflict - (let's also maybe look at this idea within refugee camps?) - I would be interested in seeing how different political groups and institutions within Israel and Palestine, as well as around the world, play into this matter.

Response- Armstrong 11-13

"Nasir suggests that there were about 20,000 families living in the city  which would put the overall population at about 100,000. He was impressed by Jerusalem's excellent markets and high building. Each craft has its own sūq, the town had many excellent craftsmen, and good were plentiful and cheap"

This quote from Ch. 12 of Armstrong's "Jerusalem" really hit home for me. It pinpointed two ideas for me. 1: There are so many people living in Jerusalem who have a rich history in the city. This is valid on both the Jewish and Palestinian side of the matter. People don't want to be forced out of their homes, and Jerusalem is, in a way, a home to all.

2: There is a rich culture in Jerusalem that is rooted in historical tradition and is what really makes Jerusalem special. I am a White Jew from the United States. When I am deep in the sūq, I stand out. Yet as I used to wander through, talking with people, hearing their stories, and debating politics, sports, or anything else with strangers. My favorite time to go was thursday afternoons- the market was always calm, and I could always make a friend. Sometimes I would use my camera to become friends with kids- they loved to smile for photos and then look at them with me. The kids had not yet been exposed to the negative stigmas that often exist among peoples within the city, and so we were friends. I also used to sit with shop owners, and learn of their lives. One time, I sat for 3 hours hearing about Hassan's desire to move into the city, because it was too much struggle to commute from Ramallah every day. Ramallah to Jerusalem is not close, and I was blown away to see what a gentleman would do to work in a city that was so important to he and his family.

As I read about the market, and the people who have such long histories in the city, I read something familiar. Not all that much has changed. The images, smells, sounds, and people are much the same. Yet the conflict has grown.

In another class, I am learning about the intergroup contact theory. This is to basically say that people will begin to find they are more similar to one another and begin to respect each other once they interact on greater levels. Keeping this in mind, I must rant for a moment.

A huge part of Israel's economy is based off of tourism. Yet these tours, take Birthright for example, or many other Jewish-life heavy tours, shield participants from the reality. Many people will at most walk through the market, and maybe haggle for a shirt or something. What they aren't open to is the idea that the merchant from whom they just saved 3 shekels has a story. They don't see the Jerusalem that Armstrong described in Ch. 12. We read of history, but not much has changed.

Maybe we need to understand each other before we can judge. Maybe we will learn that all the peoples who fight for Jerusalem are really not that different after all. Maybe if we interact on higher levels than 3 shekels, we can boil the conflict down to something simpler, and maybe even agree to work towards a solution.