Weblog Journal 6

Music is very important in my life. It serves as an inspiration, a cure, and a force that acts as a soundtrack to my world.  The music I listen to when I'm working, writing, and living greatly influence my mood and my response to my surroundings.  I very much enjoy country music, some rap, and just about everything in between.

Music helps me define myself as a person because it defines where I go (concerts), who I will go with (friends that like the same music), as well as the way I respond to problems and events that come up in my life. I've often been listening to a song and relating it to my life.  Music provides a coping strategy as well.

Music is important in conflict because it helps people express themselves, give answers to each other. and keeps the situation calm. Because people can channel their grief, happiness, and anger all into their music, it keeps the situation more calm as well as allows for growth.

Mariam Said

Question about the "Israeli and Palestinian Musicians Get Talking" video: How did this idea to start an orchestra begin? What were some of the obstacles you came across when forming the group?

What do you hope for these musicians to understand about each other through the project?

In your opinion, do most of the members experience direct conversation with the "other" group for the first time in your Orchestra? If so, have there ever been any tensions among the group?

Missed Blogs

Hey guys, I had a medical issue so here is my response to the week:

As for the video conference with the Palestinian student, I felt this was the best video conference so far. In my opinion, it was very useful to speak with someone who is approximately the same age as me and is directly involved in the city of Jerusalem.  In some respects, it felt as though talking to him was like talking to a Palestinian representative of the city.  He made some things clearer for me and helped me understand that no one has a perfect solution for the creation of a peaceful Jerusalem.  I liked this video conference and am glad I was able to partake in it.

Also, I really like the Banksy art on the West Bank. I particularly liked the stencil of the little girl holding on to the black balloons as she attempted to get over the Wall.  This image represents such hope for a brighter future and is a truly peaceful and beautiful piece of art. 

In the article by Peteet, I enjoyed how she described the walls as archeological symbols of the different layers of Jerusalem.  As Peteet focuses on Palestinians' voices of graffiti, it is fascinating that she describes the art as less of a form of deviance and more of an act of expression.  In the US, it is common to associate graffiti with crime and the unwanted and it is less standard to think of the graffiti as artistic expression, as Peteet does in the article. 

For whatever reason, the thought of graffiti in Jerusalem had never occurred to me.  For the most part, I have always considered graffiti to be an element of the uber-urban American lifestyle that is not common in other parts of the world. It was interesting to read otherwise and to understand that graffiti means a lot more to people than just defiance and a quick thrill.

#5

The problems for the Jerusalem Project of 2011 will be exactly the same as the problems of the previous Jerusalem Fair in Washington, D.C. The topic of religious affiliation is a sensitive one and it doesn't help when members of opposing religions view each other as threats. In my opinion, the best way to go after the Jerusalem Project is through an academic lens rather than through any means of religious approach. I would say that members need to continue reading the Armstrong book because I feel the book got me in the door as far as understanding and articulating through the three religions of Jerusalem. Also, I would like to see the video conferences continue, as we are so much more apt to understand when we speak with an academic scholar.

October 9, 2011

After hearing many opinions, both in the classroom and through the readings,  I believe the country of Israel should be split into two states; one Israeli and one Palestinian.  I believe that this course of action would help put an end to some of the long-standing disputes within the area as well as ease political tension within the state.  My only concern is for the division of Palestine as it is being proposed, with two physically separate regions.  There would certainly be disputes among boundary lines as well as fear for those living along these borders.  As it stands, I'm not sure that this physical allotment to the state of Palestine is best for the hope of peace.  While I do understand that Arab people live along the West Bank, I feel like separating Palestine into two chunks would be unsuccessful. 

My proposed idea is to make a state of Palestine that closely resembles the 1947 Partition Plan.  The borders create less severe gaps between the two states as well as allow dual access to the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

My only concern for that the city of Jerusalem needs to be shared. It would be better if the 1947 plan was modified so that both Israel and Palestine would have equal political rights the the city.

Proposed boundaries of the Palestinian and Israeli States as of 2011.

1947 Partition Plan

Chazan & Project Idea

I really like this article by Naomi Chazan because  I believe she writes it without biting her toungue even though she knows she will receive backlash and hateful comments.  My favorite quote of this article is

"I am all too aware that a word or phrase can touch off a new set of controversies on issues where many seem willfully determined to misunderstand each other."


I feel this summarizes my thoughts over the course of the Armstrong book: it seems as though both sides are perpetually determined to misrepresent the other.


As for my final project, my idea is to interview people of various ages, identities, and walks of life, and ask each of them what they know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My objective is to understand how the average American (by using a small sample of approximately 20) understands and interprets the information on the conflict.
I am also interested in understanding what students at Indiana University specifically know in regards to the conflict. Prior to my involvement in the Living Jerusalem Project, I would have been hard pressed to come up with any response to such questions.  I wonder if I am not the only one who scans the international news of this part of the world.
I will conduct interviews based on between five and ten questions that will identical for all subjects. While I intend to understand what people know about the conflict, I will also be interested to understand what questions people come up with themselves and if I am able to stir any interest in the participants.

Chapters 16-18

In these last chapters, Armstrong does a good job of further explaining the conflict as well as trying to finish the book in a manner that is respectful to all sides of the arguments.  This part becomes more interesting to me as she moves into present-day Jerusalem from the 1960's and forward.  I think reading this section gave me a deeper understanding of the conflict because it allowed me to see the continuing frustration of all parties as they were consistently unable to live peacefully.

While it seems that the conflicts in Jerusalem may never end, this final section of the book actually showed me WHY the arguments continue.  There is no good way to section Israel into two separate countries. What about the disparity in natural resources (specifically water) as well as the division of the city of Jerusalem, which is clearly a focal point desired by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

As I consider these chapters with the current Palestinian statehood bid to the United Nations.  Is it possible to section Israel into two equally sustainable states?  As I understand it, the proposition is that the two states would share Jerusalem as their capital.  If this is the case, would anything actually be solved or would the violence be channeled directly into the Holy City?  I don't mean to insinuate that a resolution is impossible, but with centuries worth of grudges, what does it take to put an end to the violence?

The main thing I appreciate about this book is Armstrong's delicacy with *most* subjects and her academic approach to religious topics.  While it can be argued that she may have leaned toward her religious identity, as a Christian/Catholic woman, I believe that she did an excellent job of portraying the material as academic, rather than as religious.