The Art of Language

I thought it was cool that we got to read Nora's paper as a part of the class, to know more about someone that has learned from Professor Horrowitz just as we do. I was thoroughly impressed with the concepts she outlined when confronting the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Most particularly, her interest in the reframing of homeland and the notion of "the other" as central to the conflict.

The first definition that she gave as a background was particularly appealing to me, in a sense that I had never really thought about it. She is quoting Benedict Anderson who defines "a nation is an imagined political community" An "imagined" political community? I feel like if more people heard this definition, they would be more open to having a broader appreciation outside their own political realm. If the public of many nations realized this "imaginary" sense, I feel as though they would think they had opportunity to more greatly affect the community.

Here notion of the inside vs outside is one of prominence in this conflict, and it goes hand in hand with the idea of the "other" and the definition of homeland. Social Constructions have forced humans into a continuous competitive mindset, always wanting to be part of something better, and always having an enemy to beat. The idea that every group needs to have a counter part is pretty disappointing, when in reality, we are all the other. This need for competition is what pushes us to find what is ours, what belongs to us, a home. When in a search for this home while "the other" is doing the same, it can only lead to conflict. That is why I think that is we were to re-establish what is a homeland, so that can incompass not just those that are similar to you culturally, but bound to all for hope that they too find a homeland.

Exciting Said

Uhh, I was beyond enamored to listen to Miriam Said talk the other day in class. The thing the struck me most about her, was her willingness to continue her husbands life long work after he passed away. Not a lot of people would do what she does, but it shows how much this Project means and her hopes and aspirations for the future of the conflict.

When it comes to the reading on Parallels and Paradoxes, I was pleased with the writing of Daniel Barenboim and his admiration for Edward Said in the intro. And then in Edward's introduction, at one point he explains " the difficulty lies in the fact that this conception of world cannot be described in words- because were it possible to describe in words, the music would be unnecessary " It's as if the music is speaking to both the Israelis and the Arabs in a way that  nothing else can. I mean, think about all of the word vomit and arguments that have occurred and the little that it has been able to accomplish. So many times, when I can't express what I feel, I can express it through music. In a conflict like this, where everyone has high emotions and value in what is happening, its hard to come up with the words to explain it to someone else without getting frustrated or confused. But, here, they are able to join their music in an ensemble to communicate.

One of the very first things said in the first chapter, kind of harks on the same idea as the music speaking for the words, but with hitting a little harder on the core of the conflict, or at least I think. He mimics the cliche "I am home when I make music." For two groups of people that feel their home is in Jerusalem, yet they aren't able to be at home because of the ongoing dispute. However, here in the Orchestra these kids don't have to look for their home in Jerusalem and feel lost, but they can be together with others that also believe it is their home and play music. Playing the music and experiencing the feeling they get as they do it, is home, there is no longer a question of who's home the music belongs to, but that the music belongs to all.

Peace by Music

Everyone listens to music. Whether it be classical, rap, hip-hop, rock, whatever. Not everyone loves the same type of music, and people have many different opinions on what is good music. Similarly, Palestinians and Israelis love their heritage and background, they may have different opinions on what side of the conflict is more valid, yet they should be able to see that they feel this way for the same reasons. Music bridges the gap between these differences to open Palestinians and Israelis to acknowledge different views, but same goals. 


 For Daniel Barenboim to come up with a way to parallel these two by starting the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra,I find it quite remarkable. He talks about how both groups of people will never settle the argument, yet they reach out to see that they can coexist and understand why the others see it the way they do. What better way to start an orchestra that allows both groups of people to express a love and talent of music, regardless of their past, they all play the same music as one. 

It's so important that as a people, we realize the ability to be around people that are different than us, yet still be equally as happy. Our culture today defines us by our heritage and consumer needs, and forces us to put up a fist against those that are different. Whether it be based on class, gender, race, sexual orientation,religion, or every other stereotype. We forget that these things will probably never change, there is ALWAYS going to be these differences, yet we shouldn't let that stop us from being able to coexist and live peacefully together. Be proud of who you are but also be proud of others for being who they are. 

I can't describe how please I am to see someone work through this conflict through music, our universal language. For in music, we see differences in time, instruments, melody, voice, and etc. Despite those differences in songs and tune, we value the differences and the preferences we share with it. Regardless if you like listening to Beyonce or Bach, there is an understanding between the two. 

photobible

You can learn a lot more from a photograph than you think you can. You couldn't even know where the picture was taken or when, but just by identifying with objects or scenery in the photograph, we are able to make pretty educated guesses.

It's not surprising to me coming from a Christian upbringing, that Jerusalem would get framed Biblically like this. In Sunday school growing up, we would hear about tails of Jerusalem often. To me, it was just a city of the past, a city of the book. Most of my childhood , it still had that mysteriousness to it. After indulging in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict freshman year of high school. I finally had the chance to see that it was in fact a city today, and a city with more than just my Christian faith. 

So as Nassar described the pictures that were framing Jerusalem as a Bible city, this is what was going through my head. When I was young, these pictures in the article are the ones that I would have imagined it would look like. I can just picture palm branches and the many people of the Bible strolling the streets like they own it. 

It's interesting now, to see my point of view from my childhood to my point of view now.... very different. But when you are taught something your entire life, if no one ever tells you any different, that is truth right? That is why this dispute has so much at the core of it. Kids just like me, that believe the truth they know.

Tamari

I think I would really have a good time talking to the Canaan and Palestinian ethnographers. The idea that they are looking to not only biblical text, but song and other cultural heritage as a link to their belonging in Jerusalem is so cool to me. To think about how people use music to describe their connection with a place or memory is awesome, because I think often times when you don't know how to explain something, music is the best way to try.

When Tamari makes the statement in this first article, "Jerusalem became the arena for an intellectual circle that regarded the peasantry as the soul of the nation- the salt of the earth, uncontaminated by radical intrusions of technology and a Westernizing culture," I think I had to re-read it a couple times to really grasp what he was trying to say. By referring to Jerusalem as an arena, I am first caused to assume that is because of the "battles" (or disagreements) between the Israelis and Palestinians. However while, the peasants normally stand to lose a fight for being poor and weak, they triumph and show how their intellectual capacity to understand the problem far outweighs their opponents. They are not afraid of the western support and aid to the "big guys" through technology, because they know the true answer to the battle lies somewhere else. Now, I may have taken this completely too far, or over thought it. But it really made me think.

I really enjoyed reading this first article also for the ethnographers take on the "lunacy" and how it affects people, why it's caused, and what it means. To me, I think of myself as quite the loony. However, it is because I grow passionate about things that I have a connection to. Whether it is a connection to my past, my present, or my future, when there becomes an issue that hits home to me, I am damned well pleased to express that feeling in what may seems crazy to everyone else. But similarly to the way the ethnographers describe the connection that to the divine by the Palestinians has caused them to feel this sense of madness when it comes to finding a way to get a connection back. When something really means something to you, you will do and say anything to prove yourself.

In the next article " The Predicament of the Arab Jew" this is the first time I have heard the term, which he quickly  reminds me to remember that seems almost like an oxymoron. However, the fact that it exists leaves hope for situation, for me at least. If only we can  find a way to help those embedded in the conflict that they can work together, they do have similar roots, and they both deserve equal access to their land.

I can't wait to hear this Speaker tomorrow.

Last of Armostrong

" It is difficult to be optimistic about either the future of the Middle East peace process or the future of the Holy City." It is incredibly hard to be optimistic, however it is possible. It is possible to be optimistic when everyone around you is incredibly pessimistic. But if I have learned anything in this book, it is the optimism and hope of the people that has lead to the great times of Jerusalem. It is the small amount of people with optimism that keep the struggle going. A goal of peace is probably irrational to most people, but I do believe there can be an end to violence.

While it is endearing that Karen continues to make remarks about her own faith "Christian Jerusalem offers a particularly striking instance of the dangers of leaving compassion and absolute respect for the rights of others out of the picture", I think she mainly does it to present herself as more biased towards her own faith and less towards the others, especially Islam.

Ultimately what this book has shown me is that there are a lot of sides to the story, and Armstrong presents all the rulers and all the religious sacrifices particularly well. She tries to not miss a beat when it comes to how much the city has been through. However the side she yields to present is the human perspective. Leaving out the religion could have given her a spin on the city so that in fact we don't decide at the end of the book who the city should belong to, but instead that it belongs to all people because of all of it's important history and landmarks.

I believe she believes there is a possibility for coexistence, but in order to do that I think that it is important to factor in to do that, we must look beyond our differences to see our neighbors as people with love in their hearts for all. It doesn't matter what faith you have, where you have been, but all that matters is that you are trying to provide for your family, the best way you know how.

mixins'

In these readings I found a lot of things that made me question the ability to see things in a clear view. In one sentence, Armstrong writes that " The Muslims' arrival in Jerusalem was an event of immense importance." and then one page later, "the Jews and Christians of Palestine became "protected minorities", they had to give up all means of self defense and could not bear arms." What did she mean by immense importance? Was she talking about the fact that later led them to inhabit the city as all three faiths before Crusades or was she saying it was important for the Muslim Identity? It becomes unclear to me in these two pages by how she feels about the Muslim effect on the cities already disputed territory. But then, I continued reading to hear more about this idea of maybe allowing these religions to take their differences and unite them through their similarities.

She writes about how just a temple can mean something to both religions, even though they think of each other so different. "Both Jews and Muslims came to regard the Rock as the foundation of the Temple, the center of the world, the entrance to the Garden of Eden and the source of fertility."I wonder if the world thought about all things like this. For instance, every person on this earth is a part of a community of all living things, and some of the things that are naturally a part of this world are immensely important to all people. Say you get to climb Mount Fitz Roy in Patagonia or stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon or bathe in the Dead Sea, no matter what background you come for I imagine the feeling all people that get to experience it.

 "The experience of living together in a city that was sacred to all three faiths could have led monotheists to a better understanding of one another." We all are a part of something so much bigger than we realize. Living among people who are different in an area that is special to all, can make you respect and love those differences. If only our governments and leaders of faiths  fought for a world where we can agree to disagree.

ch 8-10