http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Sorry here is the link

Is peace between Palestinian factions closer to a solution?

In this article, it appears that the United States do not believe so. Obama remains cautious of this treaty, saying that a government influenced by Hamas cannot be trusted. Yet, this is exciting in that this may be exactly the momentum that Palestinians need to free themselves of the occupation. It would be interesting to see if the Palestinians barter for land as I have represented in "Our Solution". If this happens there would be no doubting the Palestinian nationality. Personally though, I believe that this is just a political ploy attempting to scare the Israelis into backing off. This government unity faces two massive problems: 1. Who will be calling the shots? and 2. Can they come to terms over whether they will push for a one or two state solution?

Be careful not to let this exciting event blur your lens of credibility. If anything, this should be a time where critical thinking is handled with caution.

Final Project Idea

I am strongly considering writing my final research paper on how Arabs, especially those in Palestine, are (mis)represented through media. This includes but is not limited to how Islamic societies censor media, Western countries sympathize with Israelis, lives of Arab journalists, and corruption of Arab governments. Do I need to focus on Jerusalem?

Our Solution

OK so first things first, there has been talk about so-and-so's solution and "The solution" but one particular point that this class has taught me so far is that there is an insurmountable, possibly infinite, number of possible perceptions for any given situation. It is profound how much words can affect someone's outlook... ie. How do you feel when you hear the phrase "The Ohio State University"? Proud, excited, involved... I hope to achieve the same effect although with more emphasis on unity by using the term "Our solution" to present that everyone involved is searching for some sort of peace. I cannot remember the source (possibly from the Said readings) but my inspiration comes from an article in which the author wishes to see the day when Palestinians and Israelis alike can use "Our Jerusalem" referring to both Palestinians and Israelis. And although this is a beautiful wish, it seems implausible as a possibility.

One-State Solution: Why not just pay them to leave?

Without exterminating or completely forcing out one demographic, a one state solution seems almost impossible. Some have brought up the idea of paying off one side to move them out of Israel/Palestine. If anything, Karen Armstrong's book on Jerusalem has pointed out that the "holy land" is more than just dirt and the buildings more than just brick and mortar. No amount of compensation can buy off either Palestinians or Israelis for the priceless history that it holds. Whether it be Jesus quote from the Bible, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:23) or wisdom from the Quran "And if you are killed or die, in the cause of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all (the wealth) they can cumulate" (3.157). This tells me that there is something much deeper here.

One-State Solution: Can't we just all get along?

If this were the late 600's or 1100's or even the summer of 1969 then I would most likely reply with an emphatic "Yes!" But sadly Doc has yet to create a realistic model of the "flux capacitor" that allows humans to travel back in time... so the clock continues to tick as the curious 4th dimension moves forward. Let me take a quick moment to iterate that the stubborn nature of Jerusalemites to view history so objectively has been a major influence on progress towards resolution. The fact of the matter though is that the two groups have not lived in a peaceful collective for hundreds of years and there is no reason to believe that they will anytime soon. Especially now, it would be humiliating for Palestinians to give in to the Israelis who have almost ethnically cleansed the Palestinians of their homes as well as their culture. Vice Versa, the Israelis cannot unite under a Palestinian nation because they are so influenced by Judaism which promises them the holy land of Israel.

OUR SOLUTION: Third time is the charm.

I say let's be pragmatic and make use of what is already in place. OK so there are two major religious divisions, two major language divisions, and two major ethnic divisions so it sounds like two unique nations should be created. This seems the most logical given the circumstances. In this situation, Jerusalem needs to be neutral ground (not a capital of Israel nor Palestine). Jerusalem's holy sites should not be reserved for Israelis or Palestinians but for everyone of all religious affiliations concerned including Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In order to be profitable, this should be extended to everyone so that tourism can spur the economy. The money collected in Jerusalem should not go to either state but to the collective good of the city and its holy sites: cleaning up the city, restoring historical buildings, and modernizing the area.

In order to make Israel and Palestine sustainable nations, they must also be weaned off of the foreign aid on which they heavily rely on. This makes me skeptical of creating Jerusalem an "international city". Rather, I believe that it should be controlled by a theocracy of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim elected officials who can govern the cities financial resources as they see fit. Hopefully the influx of tourists will bring about better times for Jerusalem which will also hopefully spread to the surrounding countries of Israel and Palestine.

Palestinians need to be allowed equal rights as citizens. They need to be given the ability to build homes in the same areas of Jerusalem that Israelis can. Those in the city of Jerusalem should not belong to either Israel or Palestine but should be called only Jerusalemites. This should spark culturally different families to live side-by-side with one another which will hopefully create a sort of domino effect in Palestine and israel that they are accepting of all cultures.

Palestine must unite the West Bank with Gaza in order to ensure stability. This shouldn't cut through major Jewish towns but will allow all inhabitants of Palestine to move through the country with more ease. Here, there should be a checkpoint set up that includes both Palestinians and Israelis (like any international border).

The capitals must then be moved away from Jerusalem so that these can become secular states. This will hopefully also draw attention away from Jerusalem and onto the forming nations of Israel and Palestine. Cutting the nations off from any influences they could have on Jerusalem and the holy sites is the best plan of action in creating 2 secular states.

Sorry for the way that the pictures came out but I cannot figure out how to move them in the blog. The picture of proposed states of Israel and Palestine that I drew are at the top and below is the Ohio State University logo. The logo relates to the first paragraph and the picture later on. Enjoy.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths... Take 5 (THE FINALE)

It has been a long and arduous mental and moral journey through Karen Armstrong's book, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. The greatest piece of wisdom that I could hope to earn from such an adventure is that nothing is as simple as it appears. Surveying the book's credibility by uncovering Armstrong's own biases, analyzing how her word choices reveal a slant, and reviewing the credibility of the works that she has cited shows its complexity making it more than just a list of words on a page. No, with this physical object comes mental, emotional, and spiritual concepts which every single reader portrays differently. This vast, almost overbearing, amount of information should symbolize the difficulty of the conflict in Jerusalem with which citizens and public policymakers must deal with everyday.

And although my last paragraph should pose as a statement against the overuse of generalizations, I do acknowledge that they do help people understand the "basics" (which they need to build upon to really understand). First, I have discovered that civilians under Muslim rule have been the most moderate of socieites throughout history. Preceding the Crusades and before the Ottomans particularly, the land was seized peacefully and inhabitants were granted freedom of religion. Only recently, due in part to their loss of homeland, propaganda, and Western exaggerations in the media have the Muslims become a sign of terrorism.

Another general trend that should be noticed throughout history is that groups that attempt to integrate God into government have seen or dealt the greatest atrocities. Jews have had experiences with violence greater than most other cultures which probably comes as a result of their kingdoms being ruled as Jewish regions. This does not come as an accepting or tolerating environment to surrounding nations who most likely feel that the Jewish nation is an attack on other religions. This leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other nations. The Crusaders led relgion in their politics as well, except in the reverse scenario. They were a group of like-minded individuals who saw that it was their duty to kill in the name of the Lord. When there are no other views to keep them in check, groups like this can and have committed deeds that in our eyes are crimes worthy of death themselves. As Christians have become moderate and secularized over time though, great nations like the United States have been formed.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths... Take 4 (Killing for God?)

Okay so this week was a mental rollercoaster for me when digging into chapters 11-13. Not only did my trust for Karen Armstrong's unbiased analysis waver strongly but my affection for the Christian religion has fallen to an all-time low upon reading about the treachery of the Crusaders and their war on religion that they brought to the Middle East. In other news, Muslims are awesome!!

Not too far into chapter 11, Ms. Armstrong presents the reading audience with a statement, "Not only was Muhammed a spiritual genius, he had political gifts of a very high order." Wait a minute is she actually speaking highly about a prophet? Jewish figures like Abraham and Moses reap no favorable attention in the earlier chapter "Israel" and Jesus, symbol of the Christians, is presented worse with words such as "provocative" and "apocalyptic" followed by her conclusion at his death, "that should have been teh end of that matter." Personally, I am catching some undertones that she is biased in her attempt to show other Christians what she has discovered on her journey away from sisterhood. And even though I find that this is needed especially in the United States' Christian-dominated society, for this reason I also cannot call her unbiased.

Yet, these feelings of an unbalanced writing style were slightly reversed in the next chapter when she recites an acount of Muqaddasi. She talks about how he writes of Jerusalem as beautiful, intellectuallty stimulating, and almost paradise... yet, she points out that he is a little off in his synopsis saying that some places were filthy, expenses were heavy, and the "Christians rude." Although she continues to belittle the Christians, it shows me that she really is doing her research in checking her sources before she includes them as 100% accurate. This is nice.

Surprise, surprise! Yet another chapter where Armstrong bashes the Christians of this era. But seriousldoes anyone disagree with her questionable outlook on the Christian faith upon reading this chapter? It makes me sick to even call myself a Westerner after learning about the ethnic and religious cleansing that they fullheartedly engaged in. Why haven't the Muslims and Jews of today directed more of their anger towards the Christian sector of Jerusalem? Once again though kudos to the Muslims who have been generally very moderate during their reign over Jerusalem. I am starting to see why many of the Muslims of today could be defenisve of their territory because of how they have been treated in the past.

Questions for Mariam Said.

1. Why does the orchestra include 20% of musicians that are not from Israel or Palestine?

2. Are there any upcoming performances in the United States?

The Power of Music

This topic particularly resonates with me. I have been playing the saxophone for 7 years now. Classical and Romantic music of the famous European composers gave me a solid foundation in technique, but I was actually more interested in jazz. I bring this up because unbenownst to many, jazz music has had a profound effect on breaking down the black-white barrier that began right here in the United States. Knowing this gives me hope that music can provide a common ground for people on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Parallels & Paradoxes gives is powerful in that it provides first hand evidence that music can bring people together. Something that I remember particularly from the book is how an Israeli student spoke up about how he was told that " ' I'm Jewish and they said to me ' you can't play Arab music ' ' ". That same student went on to teach Yo-Yo Ma how to tune to the Arabic scale.

In "Music as Social Medicine", David Washington talks about how the transcendence through music has allowed many to destress. He lists the physical benefits as well as the necessary social benefits, showing that this is an understanding of beauty that humans all share. A good point is raised that small boycotts in Alabama led to radical social reform in the United States so the negligible size of the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra in comparison to the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not mean that its effects are negligible.

Noura's thesis on a "Homeland Redefined: Spaces of National Belonging" points out how political boundaries seriously conflict with boundaries of homeland on each side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The problem is that many people from both groups believe their homelands run from the "Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River". She concludes that in order to mitigate the mutual hatred, acceptance of the opposing idea of homeland must be achieved. If both sides studied the rich musical influences from both Arabs and Jews in the area, this would give proof to the legitimacy of both groups' claim to some territory.

The videos help to display the difficulties of the project. The Palestinian violinist expresses the stress that she faces set up by the political borders. Daniel Barenboim acknowledges that one of the saddest parts of the project though is that the orchestra cannot play in many of the hometowns of its own musicians. In the video and on the "Knowledge is the beginning" website, Daniel recognizes that this will not solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The culmination of the orchestra can only hope to allow differing peoples to understand one another which it has.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths... Take 3. (Chapters 8-9)

Aelia Capitolina is a perfect representation of Jerusalem's existence (or rather nonexistence) during the reign of the Romans upon the defeat of the Jews by Titus. The once sacred temple had been reduced to the same composition as the mundane dirt that outlined the mount. Jews and Christians of this era were forced into making the decision to adapt or die, stubbornly clinging to the past. Two particular themes resonated with me throughout the chapter. First, the Jews were gradually able to refocus their attention from the physical holiness of the old temple into their own homes. Their tables were altars and their candlesticks were the menorahs. Secondly, they emphasized the rule that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself". This makes obvious sense considering the Jews were under the occupation of the Tenth Legion, forcing them to show respect in order to survive. Together, these coping techniques allowed the minority of Jews to continue their legacy near Jerusalem's borders. The fact that both groups were able to modernize in order to fit their circumstances gives me hope for the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As the Jews were coping with hardships, the Christians were flourishing into the widespread religion that it is today. They began to build churches and foreigners were making pilgrimages to the newfound holy sites surrounding the city. The Romans became lenient and the culture punctured by Christianity as its people started turning away from paganism to this new trendy religious concept. An aspect that probably drew a large portion of pagans and Jews alike is the focus on searching for God on earth rather than in some deep cosmic dimension. The new idea that God is actually present in the community keeps people from feeling lonely. As Christians gained comfort, they became wary not to sacrifice this comfort at the hands of the Jews who were still angry at the way their old city had been humiliated. As follows, the majority will persecute the minority of Jews once again, leaving them to build up unrelieved pressure until one day it will explode upon the world.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths... Take 2. (Chapters 5 - 7)

As the journey continues throughout Jerusalem's rich history, I am excited that I am able to recognize many of the regions and people: Babylon, those "good" Samaritans, and of course the magnificent villainous star of 300, Persian King Xerxes. The further I delve into Armstrong's historical analysis of Jerusalem, the more I picture J.R. Tolkein's tale of Middle Earth unfolding before my eyes where transcendental beings roam and introverted society of Hobbits set out on an odyssey to retake their homeland. This definitely makes history on such a specialized topic more interesting, yet no good news can come without bad news. This mythical representation appears to be just that. When analyzing Armstrong's sources, 53 of the 59 citations come from the Bible, a higher percentage of citations than any of the previous chapters. These accounts may be biased to the writers' socio-economic status'. Considering the high illiteracy rates of the time period, it's probably safe to say that the writers were of relatively high status'.

Progressing through chapter 6, the events discussed make it clear why the Zionistic Jews of today would be so cautious of any outsiders near them. From the invasive nature of the Hellenes to the persecution brought about by other Jews to the sacrilegious acts committed by the Romans, this was a long and distraught time for the Jerusalemites. There are two major themes that I have spotted as follows. First, Jerusalem has been influenced by a wide range of views which eventually split Judaism into different sects with surprisingly powerful influences. This has made it difficult for the people of Jerusalem to unite and ward off "enemies" that may want to claim the sacred city as their own. Secondly, in tough times, the people have generally turned fluffed off modernization from outsiders in search of introspection within the Jewish religion. These are vital to note because the zionists of the current era may still be influenced from these concepts from their past. This would make it very difficult for any outsiders to attempt negotiation with them for their country and may actually polarize them in favor of their own Jewish faith.

Upon reading about the destruction of Jerusalem, it is much easier to understand why the Israelis would be so dead set on keeping the city for themselves. They have faced treacherous conditions and battles in the name of their holy city (particularly the temple) and can not let the work of their ancestors die in vain. As quoted from the text, the temple was held in regard as "a microcosm of the entire universe". This sense of spirituality for an object is held at the same level today which makes it difficult to just tell the Israeli citizens, or even the Palestinians for that matter, to give up already. As greek will ever forget the glorious battle that was fought against the Persians with a band of 300 spartan soldiers, neither will the Jews forget the stand that was taken by their ancestors within the temple against Titus' Romans. The argument over Jerusalem is more than just location or possession.... it's a battle over history.

Take 1 Continued...

I have realized a few things from the third chapter. First, I found it amazing that even when Karen Armstrong tries to be funny, she continues to cite her sources. She makes a joke about how the citadel perhaps "paraded the blind and lame of the city on the walls" of which she then cites her correct sources. I am not sure if the source is credible but it does show that her main purpose is not to amuse but to seriously recount an accurate history of Jerusalem. Second, Jerusalem has hinged on the idea of tzedek or social justice for centuries. When social justice has been forgotten, the city has fallen, yet it has remained in tact when the people were treated fairly. If Jerusalem is to survive today, they must utilize this important concept when making decisions on what to do with the city today.

The reign within the City of Judah amounted to trying times for the citizens. Armies entered their city, human sacrifice was reimplemented by the "worst" king in Jerusalem's history, and the city eventually was reduced to rubble. Their god had let them down and they were no longer an imprenable city. Yet, I am curious to find out how they rebuilt the city to the create the diverse city that we see today. What gave them strength?

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths... Take 1.

I thoroughly enjoy the way that Karen Armstrong has structured her writings thus far. The way she presents arguments in favor of either Israel or Palestine's ownership of Jerusalem just to turn it around showing an argument for the opposite is cute to say the least. More so I find it extremely important to her credibility in that she has no strong fundamental slant that she seems to be fighting for. Particularly in the introduction she makes the assertion that her purpose in writing this book was not to present a solution to the problem of Jerusalem but rather it was "to find out what a holy city was". This must have been a gravitating line for the team working on the Jerusalem Project because it reveals her neutrality. This is only augmented by the fact that she is not even from Jerusalem but rather a "British citizen" (xiiv). Yet, if anything these statements make me even more cautious of the writing style because it sounds too good to be true. The question is that even though she presents both sides to an argument, do both arguments hold equal weight? And that is something that I will be keeping my eye on personally.

When reading the earlier chapters of this book, a line from Rashid Kalid's essay has been circling throughout my brain that most of Jerusalem's "history" is actually not historically verifiable. Obviously with such an extensive timeline, historians cannot expect to present all of the information accurately whether that be cause by miscommunication error or lack of sources to compare texts with. What I found that was particularly amusing was how on page 14 she said that "we should pause briefly" to look at how a new god, Baal, might affect the city's spirituality. She continues on for 6 pages with a skeptical topic that at best she states that "some scholars believe" may have happened. Of course I am not saying that Baal was not a part of Jerusalem's history but the basis comes from her statement that "some scholars believe" may have happened. What is the importance of this? If the Hurrians did not bring the new god then the Ugarit similarities with the Israelite cult of Mount Zion take no precedence in Jerusalem's ownership. Thoughts?

Although skeptical in the first chapter, I am regaining my trust in Armstrong's neutrality as a historian. Her structure allows for the book to flow easily through the chronologically history and her comments appear significantly unbiased. She talks of how the "Bible speaks of terrible massacres" (22) and how many historians do believe this was true. Yet, she also adds that others also have evidence that says that this was not true although a minority of the population. I also enjoy the way she does not just debunk arguments and leave it at that. She continues to explain why the group may have thought that way (ie. the bible's "mythologized" style would not "satisfy modern historians" but she goes on to say the Jews needed these passionate stories to survive daily hardships).

In Response to Jerusalem's History...

Let me start by saying that I have noticed that a majority of the readings tend to carry with them a Palestinian slant. With that said, I personally do believe that it was unfair for the Zionists to so spontaneously invade the Arab nation of Palestine in 1948, but I would still like to better understand the Israeli reasoning behind taking over half of Palestine as their own separate nation. Secondly, I must say that I have learned very important details about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that of Jerusalem in general.

Please do not laugh at my ignorance here, but I originally thought that Israel, specifically Jerusalem, was occupied by a majority of Jews over the past 2000 years. Throughout the readings I have learned that is most definitely not the case. It seems that I have fallen into a cultural trap from living in the United States. As Rashid Khalid explains, most of Jerusalem's history is actually not verifiable. Even though I and most likely many others like me who grew up within a Christian/ Catholic/ Jewish upbringing, as often occurs in western culture, also grew up hearing about the Jewish prominence within the Holy City, that happened 2000+ years ago. This western undertaking for the Israelites has been a significant part of their success and in the destruction of the Palestinian state. The Israelites have been able to buy superior weaponry from the United States whereas the Palestinians have had to settle for less sophisticated defenses from the Soviet Union as Jeremy Pressman explains. Going further back into his article, it can be seen that this western pro-Israeli slant is rooted in the diplomatic relations that were started by the Zionists during the Ottoman Empire's collapse. This slant is causing the western nations to view this conflict in biased eyes which should be reason enough for us to reconsider why Israel is gaining so much sovereignty.

One of my favorite quotes from all four of the readings comes from the Zionist slogan presented by Pressman that states, "a land without a people for a people without a land." This is completely incorrect in that the land was populated with a large and prosperous Arab culture at the time. With the Zionist movement following World War 2, thousands of Jewish nationalists flooded into Palestine which severely devastated their historical way of life (Mick Damper). In their way of forcing the Arabs out of their homeland, the Jewish people only continued the process of persecution that had been brought upon them over the past few decades. I do not agree that "Jerusalem is an integral part of the state of Israel" as narrated in the article by Reba V. Rubin. Think about the millions of people living in surrounding Arab nations who have lived such devout Islamic lifestyles without needing to be within 50 miles of their amazing holy city of al-Quds. I find it greedy and irrational for the Israelites to be demanding a state in control of one of the most sacred cities in the world while they are still so vulnerable.

Finally, I will close with the complexity of the issue. Jerusalem has obviously been under Jewish control at some points in time, yet for the past 2000 years it has been occupied under a majority Islamic people. Yet, in both cases, the people have always been a majority of Arab in culture until recently over the past few decades when the Zionist movement began spinning into action. Since then, these differing cultures have forced themselves upon this nation expecting acceptance. This reveals the cultural implications but even more pertinent over the past decades are the religious implications. Jerusalem is a holy site for three major religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Israel's need for Jerusalem spawns from the Jewish need for religious security. The problem is that they are combining religion with nation-state making everyone else viewing the conflict worried about offending a side. The idea of religious equality has carried over into politics now making a partition of Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine seem correct. Add this to the geographical mess of the area that is lacking resources while squeezed between desert and cliffs and this makes for a massive disaster. The population is reaching a high density (Damper) which adds to the tensions.

Amongst all of the injustice, the only way that this conflict will be resolved is if both sides stop arguing over the past and start considering the present. Although unfair, Palestine should concede to an agreement that allows for two separate sovereignties. They need to gain their own political status before anything else can be done. If not, I fear that the Palestinian culture may be eliminated from the map.

My thoughts on the Jerusalem Festival

First off, I was amazed to hear in Dr. H's article that most of the festival's planning took place over the span of six months! I am already a little antsy about writing the 5 page final paper due in ten weeks; I cannot imagine the stress that would accompany a task that carries with it international political implications as well as such a large audience. I have drawn the connection that studying the Jerusalem Festival also seems very pertinent to developing a successful web blog. Not only does the blog need to include all sides of the topic of in way that is as respectful as possible but it also must take into consideration spatial representations. For example, if the blog is split into two columns with one side representing Israeli information and the other representing Palestinian information, then this will tend to imply separation of states whereas including them together in one column may represent more of a unification. These are ideas that I will be considering as I build my blog further.

I am glad to hear that women are gaining status, slowly but surely, in the public sphere. I am not particularly educated on which names are typically male or female in the Arabic language which surprised me when I learned that Suad Amiry is a woman. Leading a team to research and design an event on the scale of the Jerusalem Festival seems very significant to the future well-being of the Palestinian/Israeli nation(s). I have always understood that "women's work and culture was more in the private domain" as she states in the article on "Representing Jerusalem" but the fact that she could attain her public status gives me hope for the rest of the nation. I agree full-heartedly that empowering women in the area will be a crucial step to bringing about the cooperation and compromise that many are hoping for.

It is vital that the Palestinians and Iraelites find a common ground if this conflict is to ever subside. Again I agree with Amiry when she writes that cultural events are important to bringing about unity by allowing us to "see the human face of the Palestinians" (Researching East Jerusalem). We can read about the conflict as much as we want, but the only way we will truly be able to comprehend the complexity of the situation is through experience. The Jerusalem Festival would allow many Americans who are interested in cultures but who are worried about the dangers and expenses induced in international travel a chance to experience life in Jerusalem.

Something that particularly caught my eye amongst reading about what information was researched in the creation of the Festival's design was the issue of boundaries. Before I learned anything about recent events in Jerusalem, I had the image of the wall that separates the eastern and western sections of the city. The failure of this wall to prevent conflict is a vital metaphor for the city's ethnography. It's just not that easy. There is no one line that can split such a complex society into halves. There are cultural, temporal, and spatial boundaries that all come into play when considering a project like the Festival. The fact that surrounding villages to Jerusalem have their own distinct rituals, musics, and artforms shows that Jerusalem cannot be viewed so generally. As Dr. Horowitz asks, what should be done about musicians who play in Jerusalem but live outside of it? Are these distinct cultures?

I am still confused as to whether or not the Festival has ever been presented or not. This is a fantastic idea that reveals the diversity of cultures with such lush histories. "Mise en abyme" describes the situation well as Galit Hasan explains that representing Jerusalem within Washington, D.C. is difficult, artful, and complex.

Anonymous artist tries to change the world with art

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAy1zBtTbw

Talks specifically about Israeli-Palestinian Conflict @ 5:30.

This video is fantastic for two reasons: Not only does it let us know how something like art could become common ground in times of hardship but also how important web media is in transferring these ideas. I particularly love his quote right at the end of the video (23:30) that says that "what we see changes who we are". And although maybe not 100% true, obviously in the case of those that are blind, it does contribute significantly for those that can. So if we are shown that Israel/Palestine is a horrible place with all of the destruction and rubble and fights taking place then that's all that it will ever be. Pasting those pictures throughout the cities shows that there are Israelis or Palestinians on the other side of the wall and allows them to see that there are two viewpoints to this conflict. This may help them to see that they need to find a middle ground somewhere if this conflict is to end.

My initial thoughts on this class

Creating a college course that incorporates recent advancements in communications such as weblogging and web media with the current events in Jerusalem is a fantastic idea! Finally, a class where applications of real-world examples are just as (if not more) important as the theory behind the ideas. As a science major (specifically in the Biochemistry department), I am coming from a background of problems that usually deal with x and y rather than human beings. I am not saying that science courses are being taught incorrectly, but it will be an interesting change of pace to start with applicable problems and work towards general theories for once rather than visa versa. The beauty of the world wide web and all of its uses is that we, as students of the Living Jerusalem Project, will be able to experience the ongoing issues second hand through the miracle of web conferencing.

Possibly arising from all of the graphs and figures that I have studied in the sciences, I am a strong believer in the saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words". The internet is so valuable for its incorporation of both text and media, which includes the display of videos which add that crucial fourth dimension of time into the perspective. Pictures also bring with them a sense of purity and truth in the information that they display because it is typically more difficult to portray biases through visual media rather than textual media.

As a person who has often strayed from literature instead in pursuit of numbers and equations, I apologize in advance if my writing ability is not refined. I am a little nervous about the possibility that so many people could be reading what I post on this blog throughout its entireity. I am also nervous about how those reading this blog will interpret my opinions and while I do hope that they are not offensive, I cannot promise anything so again I apologize in advance. Although challenging, this class should help me to develop my writing skills.

Above everything else though, I am most excited about hearing the accounts of those living in Jerusalem. I have always been interested in understanding different cultures and their unique ways of life. More specifically, I met a Palestinian citizen in my high school with the first name Hussein. I had always sided with the Israeli idea of Zionism before I met him. He explained how much of what we hear on the news is often slanted in Israel's favor which now leaves me torn in making a decision on what we should do with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I have much to contribute and much to learn which makes me excited for how this class will go.