my confirmation code is 3BFDE99A-C683-4D76-79E43B0F2F713824 for the completed survey.

Reading Response 17

When we think of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I believe that most people would not even let transgender, gay, lesbian or bisexual issues cross their mind in terms of the role it plays as both a solution and as part of the conflict. We so far have covered the viewpoints that the conflict takes on music, partially on politics, security, a little geography and of course, religion. I can see so many parallels that these websites present that greatly resemble and resonate with similarities between that of Palestinians being treated as unequal, and that of gays and lesbians, etc... being treated in a prejudice manner. One thing bugs me though. There is a gay pride parade every year in New York City where the population is well over 13 million people. In Jerusalem, the population is over 700,000 people, less than 1/20 the population of New York City. Yet violence emerged in an extremely quick and volatile manner against these people like the example of the ultra-orthodox man in the shortened documentary video who tried to stab and kill several people. It shows how singular minded some people can be when it comes to differences in sexuality and even gender. I posted earlier before break a picture of the wall in Jerusalem, where men are separated from the women, and it shows that not only that extreme prejudice against sexuality occurs, but between men and women.

Amiry Suad and Hasan-Rokem Response

Anyone can look at a map of current or old geography and see that Jordan is and has for a long time, been a neighbor of Israel. the chapter of the book that Amiry Suad wrote brought up a good point. An ongoing struggle between Jordan and Israel when it comes to displacement of Palestinians has become ever clear to me especially after reading this chapter of the novel. Jordan itself has displaced well over 700 Palestinians from their homes near the border touching Israel. Its disturbing to me that both governments are easily and strategically removing Palestinian residents from their countries. It is literally true when Palestinians claim that they are removed from homes to be displaced else where and not allowed to return because they are denied permits or passports of state recognition by both governments. What happens is Israel will remove Palestinians, trick them using excuses and lies to give them permits or in this case, "gas masks," and send them through Jordan's border when it sees a weakness in their border security. Also perhaps and not confirmed, but maybe border patrol officers and soldiers in Jordan were payed off by the Israeli government to let Palestinians in considerable numbers be allowed through the border during times of crisis like during the Iraq War.  The same goes for Jordan, they do the exact same thing sometimes. And this cycle repeats and Palestinians get shoved back and forth between Jordan and Israel. As for the Iraq War, sure, Israel told Palestinian residents near the border that they needed gas masks because of a potential chemical weapons threat. But now that we know that Iraq never had WMD's (weapons of mass destruction), we know that they never had large scale capability of chemical warfare to expense on Israel or other countries. The fact is, the Bush Administration lied to the media and American citizens when they said that Saddam had chemical weapons and WMD's. The Israeli government was clearly informed of this lie as well and exploited it, using it as an excuse to remove Palestinians in the example given to us by Amiry Suad. It's disturbing, the ability of Israel to pacify a portion of its country with false information in desired areas to remove or get rid of Palestinians. And at the end of the day, I'm sure their government passed it off as a removal of Hamas involved individuals in that region, not of regular and innocent Palestinian citizens. Better media platforms with honest reporters need to rise and face this challenge, but I fear it won't be anytime soon.

My Father's trip to Israel

I have taken the liberty of asking for photos by my father that has recently visited Jerusalem and other parts of Israel such as the West Bank. One thing I found to be very interesting about the wall in Jerusalem, is that when families come together to pray, the women are separated from the men.But  he has given me the following photos from his business trip.

Homeland Redefined-Noura Dabdoub

We constantly see in the article "Homeland Redefined," that a two-state solution is emphasized as the major and most widely accepted political position to hold according to Noura Dabdoub. It might seem like a great idea up front to suggest the idea that the conflict will end when both the Palestinians and the Israelis have their own land to call home, but realistically, would it stop here, and is this the best option? I see the idea that Noura is trying to get across, but I don't believe it will help emotionally and physically, the suffering that Palestinians have gone through in any category except for identity. They would have a place to call home, but would this ultimately satisfy the needs of most of their people. One has to take into consideration other examples where similar situations have been carried out. One example of this would be Sudan. Sudan just recently was split into two different countries, one in the north, and one in the south. Where problems come into play, and I might be wrong, is that in Sudan, both governments fought over pipe lines for oil distribution, agricultural farms, and many other resource related issues. This caused a war for a short period of time between the two countries. Of course Israel's situation is different in many aspects, but do you believe that where there is resource such as oil that Israel is interested in, that after the separation of Israel into two states, they wouldn't try to sanction those resources and fight for them? Also, the US would never allow for a two state solution that separated Israel from any oil source within its boundaries. the reason for this is that the US would stop all military funding to Israel if they cut off a major source of oil supply for our economy. I love the idea of a homeland for Palestinians, but the main issue we face is figuring a way around resource distribution between the two states when formed that would not conflict with the US agenda.

Weblog 4

When we were young we had a different taste at least in most of our cases in music than we do now. It can change from time to time depending on the friends that you make, the people that you meet, and those you create relationships with. I can say that for me, it has become a very strange transition from just listening to breaks and dance music as a young student in middle school and high school to listening to country. Country music in the part of Bloomington where I used to live was always a big part of "living out in the country." It describes life for people that live on farms, love hard partying and cowgirls. It wouldn't be until much later in my life when I accepted going to IU which I would miss the old country; living out in the middle of nowhere life-style. It was always a part of me but I never liked the music and respected it until I no longer lived there anymore. It was a bad choice on my part because now it may not be until I'm middle aged when I am able to afford a house of my own at in the middle of nowhere like that again. It's unfortunate. But when we ask about music and if it can take avenues of different meaning of influencing another's life, it is very difficult to place a genre on it being gospel, or country for example. I now listen to two different kinds of music, and I think blending two  kinds of music can open your eyes to two different worlds. It's like taking no sides on a conflict that involves two groups of people but listening to "music" from both sides and creating the best opinion using facts that you can about the situation.

Reading Response - Murad and Broza

"As violence intensifies in this small corner of the world, people retreat to their side, often placing their national identity far before their human identity." I have quoted this sentence from the homepage of the Heartbeat Project website. Recently I have to say I have become ever increasingly animated yet held back on my position towards the conflict in Israel that suggests singularity prejudiced combat between Israelis and Palestinians (with that being the Israeli Government picking on Palestinian citizens). The fact is, although Israel is technically a very small country located on the Mediterranean Sea, it becomes much bigger when it comes to politics and the involvement of other countries; primarily the involvement of the USA and other first world powers. There are important issues that I would like to present concerning the following information which is what is what opinion most people hold on the state of Israel and its current situation: Israel was a state created in 1947 as a homeland for persecuted and non-persecuted Jewish people. Currently with the knowledge that I have gained on the subject I maintain that a pacifistic state of mind such as producing music and peaceful negotiations are not the only solution to this conflict in Israel. I will continue to keep an open mind. I do however have friends that are not so open minded, but that also happen to be much more educated on this subject than I am. I do not agree with everything they say, but some bring up valid points. In fact, while we are at it, what is the conflict? It's Palestinians against Israelis correct? I have to say that after hearing quite a remarkable story from one of these friends of mine who works with and trains Israeli soldiers (an American citizen by the way), I find it hard to believe much of the critics and stories that are portrayed in the media concerning persecution and hatred of Palestinians from the Israeli government. I told my friend who shall remain anonymous that I was working on a school project for a class on Jerusalem. I had sent him an email two months ago and was unable to get in contact with him until now. Over Skype, he had showed me leases for an apartment that was requiring a payment that the owner could not afford and stopped paying months ago. Before he elaborately explained to me what it was about, I gave him the details of the assignment reading response which was due this week. Out of his own words he said, "music, diplomacy, and reaching out a call for peace in Jerusalem, is like asking the US government to cut off all connection to the outside world commercially, capitalistically and militaristically." I replied by saying I thought it was a bit extreme to think this way and create such an analogy. I kept questioning and arguing with him until he surfaced an idea that blew my mind. This is what he told me in a quick summary:                                                                                                 Rap music and orchestras created for the welfare of people's imaginations (which I had explained to him in details about) and the need to find a peaceful solution to a problem that doesn't exist is irrational and foolish. I personally found what he initially said to be quite rude and inappropriate, but the facts he spilled opened many doors about the true policy of Israel, and what the real truth is that hides behind closed doors to an extent. He nor I are morally disconnected with the rights of others, but I did agree on some minor points that he made. But anyways, I shall continue with what he told me. He hit two very important controversial areas of discussion; eviction of Palestinian residents from Jerusalem, and how the state was formed and why. He continued with this reasoning per most of his words: The state of Israel was created not as a homeland for Jewish peoples, but as a forward operating base, refinery and port of trade for several of the leading world powers on a majority vote at a UN Convention in 1947. These three powers that allowed for this were the United States, Great Britain, and France. Other much smaller countries played a role as well, but these were the main powers that allowed the vote to go through in acceptance of creating the state of Israel. These mentioned countries now have military bases throughout the country whilst the countries that conned the vote for a State of Israel were, China and the USSR, and other smaller countries like those who voted with the USA, France and Great Britain. With a majority vote, it was decided that Israel would become a country, but that it would and can only be a country based on the following ideal; "Israel will be established solely as a homeland for the Jewish people." He then mentioned that even though this is what the UN decided on, it was not the actual reason for why Israel was created. He said that it was silly for anyone to believe that it was created for any other reason than as a military port for the USA. Simply put, the reason the term "homeland for the Jewish people" was used was so that the first world powers, China and the USSR could not place their military in regions of Israel. this was because they voted against the creation of the state of Israel. Each country that voted on the creation of the state of Israel had to wait in line to place military ports in Israel. The USA, holding the most influence at the time was strategically placed as first in line to create military bases in the new state in order to politically and economically support Israel so that oil reserves and a firm and stable ally could be created in the Middle East on the terms of American Policy. The next in line to support Israel and create bases was Canada, then France, then Great Britain. The USSR and China were not given permission to create embassies and military ports in the country at the time. This was the process and reason for the creation of the Israeli State as he described. Another point he wanted to make, which is what really angered me at first, is that he said that there is no conflict between Israel and Palestinians. He described the current conflict as an engagement of the government evicting the ever increasing impoverished population on the outskirts of Jerusalem from payments they can't make, while creating new homes, and replacing and renovating new complexes and apartments with bulldozers and construction equipment, so that internationally it is viewed as modernization and Industrialization of the economy of Israel, increasing the dollar value and strengthening their economy. I didn't believe his story but continued to keep an open mind to his opinion. But Wow... Sounds crazy right? well he flashed me 10 leases that were signed and contracted by individuals who lived in such apartments; oh, which by the way he helped evict while working with training and working with the local police force. out of ten residents, two of which they arrested that day from a Palestinian blockaded sector, 3 were Jewish Israelis, and 7 Palestinians. fro security reasons he was unable to tell me exactly where. But I thought the Government was only sanctioning Palestinians? The "ironic" part which he explained, was the fact that the majority of the people living on the outskirts happen to be Palestinian, but from what he showed me, the Israelis who live here as well were persecuted just as bad by the police force he worked with. when I asked him what the majority of the force thought in terms of the conflict, they said that they have nothing against Palestinians, and argued that "Israelis are the hardest to evict." "The two men we arrested were Israeli, not Palestinian." When I asked him why the blockade and fencing was needed, he simply replied," because we screen individuals who we evict, and if they come up with past data supporting they are involved with criminal activity or just fight and argue with us, we arrest them. If enough people screened in a sector throw red flags, we cordon it off and fence it up, so when people come in and out or try to hop over a fence, we can easily detect them and better screen everyone and make sure no one can get away that has involvement with Hamas, and or one of 13 recorded gangs in the area, and so forth regardless of their race or cultural identity." My questions are the following: how can music regardless of genre identity, change the political situation directly in Israel? My other question is: Since you use cultural identity based music to create awareness for this conflict, would you also be willing to help establish proceeds from these musical organizations to go towards better construction and building materials for these new homes created for  non minimum-wage earning individuals, but those who can actually pay the rent for their apartments to further grow the economy to help all people as a whole?

Parallels, Paradoxes: Homeland Redefined Response

In Islam, a devout Muslim prays five times a day towards the direction of Mecca. Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said both come from different backgrounds that they would consider themselves to be home, but each in their own way connect to one another as friends like one does with their family. "Home is where the heart is," is a famous well known quote, but what does it really mean? In the case of two individuals that have very distinct but contrasting personalities, it is translated for them, through their orchestra. The West-Eastern Divan become the home for not only these two remarkable people, but for many others who cared just as passionately about the orchestra as they did. This became home, with new friends in the orchestra apart from their original homes in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, etc. On page 6 of Parallels and Paradoxes, a contrast between the minds of Daniel and Edward is realized in full. Daniel had his own goals while Edward had his initially. After watching the movie, I noticed they argue with each other incessantly about politics, government, and culture more than any best friends would. They became closer and closer with the more they interacted with one another and debated arguments as they said for hours on end at times. I can tell you that I have never had extensive periods of time where I argue about politics with any good friends of mine on a regular basis. This ultimately brought them to their similar ideology of wanting peace between Arabs and Israelis. And I think commonly, here in the United States, it is rare for best friends to come from such different backgrounds, but become so close over such controversial issues. Not only the orchestra showed that peace can weld between groups that dislike one another, but as clique as it sounds, a simple bond of friendship can gather a group of people with dislikes for each other, and bring them closer. Edward focused greatly on this on page 6 of the article when mentioning that Daniel's Oslo Peace Process was his goal, while he had another, but still combined together unconsciously to create that unique bond. I think most of all though, it shows that two individuals even with biased perspectives can negotiate and use educated opinions to reach a fair goal. Edward Said said per quote on page 11, "Music is transition too, I am happiest when I can be at peace with the idea of fluidity." What I found to be most important-Though this disconnects him from reality during a performance for a short time, he expressed from my understanding, that home is where one should not have a historic identity, but a feeling of diversity and ability to stand in with the others. I think this weighed heavily on his personal decision to take part in the orchestra. I think he wanted to create a home for the musicians that involved diversity, traveling from one location to another instead of staying at a single place.

WEDO Response and Questions

I remember at the end of last semester when I attended a group meeting whose sole purpose was to watch a movie starring the orchestra lead by Daniel Barenboim and then discuss both pros and cons of the progress the movie might provide for future relations between Palestinians and Israelis. I would estimate that around 15 or so students participated in this get together to meet and discuss about the movie. I also believe if I am correct Professor Horowitz; that a guest speaker came in that was native to the region experiencing the turmoil. I can not recall her name, but she, in my opinion gave a very biased account of her experience in Israel. The movie was incredibly long, but at the end, several comments were made incorporating both my viewpoints from one speaker and the other. The woman that was from Israel argued tenaciously to defend her point that the movie representing the orchestra did not have any long lasting effects on the populations of people from both Palestinian and Israeli sides of the conflict. As she described, the outcome from the video was not effecting, in her opinion, any portion of the conflict in any positive way. Although I agreed with her on this issue, I pressed the importance of giving more valid points when I spoke. "Peace can't solve everything." It is a good first step to introducing the issue. But from what we have seen through statistics and facts, is that the Israeli government will not subdivide its region into smaller less economically deficient sectors for the creation of a new state. In fact it would be foolish to do so, unless forced under particular circumstances. I have to say, I liked the message though that Daniel Barenboim and his orchestra presented. When his best friend, Edward, died, i think it gave fire to the musicians that gave motivation and determination to get a very clear and strong point across. I believe as a side message it instilled, "we can overcome death," and grow stronger, but only if we fix what was done. By the end of the trip when all of the individuals that were part of the orchestra met up in Ramallah after extensive planning, it was clear that they were going to have the performance of a life time in front of a diverse audience that held hatred for one another. Daniel was much more than a peace keeper. He established an identity of similarity between the two groups that works to further slowly but surely, better relations amongst the two peoples. After the orchestra was finished, and a successful, safe night was behind them, cheers and crying filled the grounds where they parted ways into their own cars. This excitement I wouldn't say was fully because of the work that Daniel Barenboim created, but a result of each performer being so close with one another to the point where they may have disregarded the issue at hand and friendship became important above all else which is both a good and bad thing. I think by doing this, he strayed the group away from the main message at the end that was intended. The procedures and goal that Daniel had was important to keep in mind. It is the safest way to go about the issue, but not the most effective. It is time consuming to realize his goal and accomplish safely what needs to be done. Overall, fantastic film, but critical errors need to be pointed out.these errors include the prolonged effect of the peace process on the military establishment of Israel and how it works. I think Barenboim mentions issues with the security of Israel.

Reading Response 9

I have to say I am sorry for not having the availability and time to post this response. But after reading the articles that we were provided and actually having gone to class today and hear Nasser speak in person via Skype or group session, I have to say I am actually a little perturbed by the responses to the questions that we were given. Though this response should pertain to the article. I have to say that I thought the meeting and the results that we got from it were very biased and one side focused. I mean absolutely zero disrespect for him, but many indicators by the answers that he gave seemed in a majority, opinion set instead of factual and educative supported. I believe, in all honesty that these set ups that we have with the Skype sessions hit a plateau to an extent. We are told to bring in note cards and questions for the speaker who is going to present to us for the day. although I do like to hear someone give their side of the story to an audience, I find it very unnerving that we create the class and setting for those days under the basis of a biased response to factoids and note cards style of approaching a solution to the problem. I am not going to give a name of the student that aggressed a very important point today in class in terms of apartheid settlement, but this pros a much better question than that which is offered by factoids to reach a conflict resolution. I think debating with the speaker has brought in an element that I didn't expect. And although it can be disrespectful to the guest past a particular point, a productive meeting can be gathered from such classes. Just an idea...

Webjournal 3

I have to say that after extensive researching into the livelihoods of Israeli families, I found some intriguing information. I was unable to pull photos off of my phone showing the surrounding areas of my room and what I consider to be my home, but instead I will just describe it to you. In a typical Israeli and most Palestinian homes, families do not take in over excessive items and material objects and place them around the rooms of their household like American families do. We have things that we don't need placed all around our houses in most cases. In a typical Israeli household, there might be a few pictures or memorabilia of family members, necessities, light sources, and other useful items, but not many posters or extra fu fu stuff that brings out our personalities in each individual room. For example, in my room, I have a few target practice sheets from indoor shooting ranges because I participate in Army ROTC. This gives me that connection to what it is that I like to do. Other things hanging around my room are Indiana University items with the school logo on them. I'm sure in a similar way, Israeli and Palestinian children and families have what they connect to, just not in the numbers that we do. Family dinners are also more common than here in the United States. I can't recall the exact date of when it was that I last had dinner as a large group with my family. The cultural differences between the United States and not just us, but other countries as well, in comparison to Israel, can show why some of these differences and bits of conflict are occurring.

Reading Response, Last Chapters

We have now as a class, finished the book. The information in the novel that AKren armstrong provided. "One City, Threee Faiths," had ultimately lead me to a deeper and much more clearer insight on the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict. I feel a little lost and confused though as to how Armstrong focused on literally zero points of political outside ofcus in order to analyze the present situation. She solely used ancient history and analysis of hte past to clear in her opinion, what hte present has been created because of. I am not entirely sure if she is just divying away from main points politically, or if she has little knowledge, datat and information about outside influence on the conflict. I kept waiting and waiting in anticipation for when she would incoorporate other countrie's involvement in Jerusalem and Gaza, but it ceased to happen as I read through the entire book. It seems that her only goal was to use religion as a center focus for defining the entire conflict, which is absurd in my opinion. Sure it seems that she writes in a non-biased form, whilst in reality, she opposes political incorporation of statistics in a sly way to get around the fact that she was once religious and ultimately from her form of writing; creating a deliniation of the fact that she is almost completely pacifist. She makes it clear to any insightful reader. I am not saying that being pacifistic is a bad thing by any means, but it can be more dangerous than being the opposite. "Walking into a battle blind and with negligence, can be deterent, while walking into a battle with knowledge and a goal can save lives." I like the points she tries to make in her book, but she fails to reach out to multiple genres of readers. At least in this novel, it is the case and it honestly aggravates me. I feel she is intelligent, but she redirects information to manipulate particular readers into a negative avenue of approaching the conflict for future resolvement.

Reading Response Chapters 11-13

In chapters 11 through 13 of "One City, Three Faiths, Armstrong introduces to us a new player in the religious and spiritual battle of Jerusalem. We introduce and incorporate Islam, a very widely practiced religion world wide today. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam still to this day battle for control over people and territory in Israel. I learned a lot about the origins of Islam which personally I can admit to not being very knowledgeable about previous to reading these chapters of Karen Armstrong's book. she expressed an integral meaning when Muhammad wanted to not necessarily unify the religions but create one out of them that combined all beliefs. As of course you could imagine, strong believers of Christianity and Judaism were discontent with this. I will try my hardest not to generalize the views of the American Public, but there are many individuals domestically that have given stereotypes to all people of Middle Eastern decent because of the 9/11 incident. My heart goes out to the victims of the attack. This is not to say by any means though that the majority of attackers on the Trade center were not Middle Eastern, because that would be a lie, majority of them were Saudi Arabian. The reason I mention this is because most of the extremist Christian groups claimed that Islam right after the event was a "deadly religion," which is completely false. In the earliest days of the creation of Islam, it seems that people were forced to cooperate with one another and give faith to the weak and not initially help them off the bat, but give them something to believe in, a faith and small amounts of supplies to help get their lives on track. These groups and people domestically here in America that watch media and movies showing believers of Islam blowing themselves up for Allah do not see the whole picture. This is the equivalent of the Christian and even Amish extremist groups of the 1800's that would battle for their land in the west during the early days of pioneering the new United States undiscovered territory and claim it in the name of "God."
This conflict can be difficult for me to fully understand, but I like the fact that Armstrong constantly uses ancient and modern examples to make a connection between the old world and the new. The entire idea of living together as part of the Islam faith came as an immediate shocker to me just because of the media and how much influence in modern American politics it holds over uneducated citizens and voters.

Chapters 8-10 Reading Response

So, I noticed something right away when diving into these new chapters provided for us by Armstrong; she continually makes analogies to the modern era of Jerusalem and where it stands as a country and as parts, and throws us back in time to when religion converted itself into a new age for its people and their practices. As we were told by Armstrong, people in ancient Jerusalem were controlled by the Roman Empire for quite a long period of time. During this time, the Jewish population was either revered, hated, or removed from the city through out the span of about 150 years. For majority of this time, Jews were not allowed to practice Judaism within the city and especially near the Temple Mount which was destroyed and replaced with temples of gods that belonged to the Roman Empire. Of course at this time, we are told that before this era of time, it was impossible to pray to your god if your religion incoorporated them, without having a temple of worship.When the Roman army placed their Tenth LEgion withint the city walls and destroyed the Judaist Temple, it destroyed the divine world for Jewish people living wihtin Jerusalem, and then not soon after, to those who lived further away that eventually recieved the news. What I am trying to do for those of you reading my response; I am simply making a connection or an analogy that shows that with change in religion according to Armstrong, she is also metaphorically synapsing it with the present. To continue; she describes that in order for the Jews and other much smaller secular cults and religions that did not pray to Athena, Zeus and many others amongst the Roman gods, it became unfathomable to continue their religion without a temple, but this idea was radically redefined and the idealism through knowledge and persuasion of Rabbii's allowed for Jewsish people by the turn of a hundred years of prejudice and exile, to pray where they stood, at any time during the day. I must say this makes a strikingly similar resemblence to that of which the modern Israeli governemnt is showing towards Palestinians today. Now whether or not the case is true that Armstrong tried to make these similarities between, I am not sure. For Palestinians today, the removal of their homes and the "exile" from their living space is the analogy placed with ancient Jerusalem and the removal of the Jewish Temples. It's not that the Israeli Governemnt is seeking revenge and has been for 2,000 years (because that would be perposterous), but it appears as if the tides have changed and the roles have been reversed. thsi is my view from what I gathered by the chapters we read.

Weblog Journal Assignment 2

I researched more about this conflict between Israeli's and Palestinians over the weekend and found some disturbing news and history about not only the seriousness of the agenda of Israel, but also their willingness to cover up publicized information even when dealing with peaceful protests. You ask me where I see the direction of this conflict and the relations between the two parties heading. I think it can only go downhill from here. There will be little to no negotiations amongst Israeli's and Palestinians. In 2012, it was reported during a "peaceful pro-Palestinian activist event" that individuals were being dangerous and considered armed that primarily wanted equality between the two peoples and ultimately the aversion of their homes being destroyed. I found this article and with it, a song written by artists called "The Goldishack Guerrillas," that seemed to have strikingly similar connections and lyrics to the event and what occurred in the article. the song is called "Bulldozer," and I have looked and looked for lyrics that contain no vulgar language for the sake of the class and the fact that this is a school related blog, so instead of posting the video, I will give the name below for those who are interested in listening to it. It is amazing how much publicity one small event that resulted in only one Palestinian death can attract. This issue is much bigger than one life though, it is the lives of not only the Palestinians at stake, but we must also look into the past at the life style of the Jewish Israeli's involved in manipulating the present.



The article:
The song: Goldishack Guerillas-Bulldozer
Images link location: https://www.google.com/search?q=bulldozer+in+Israel&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=j8IFUdjLAcH20gHTq4CwCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1680&bih=920#imgrc=5v-63Z_kymQIoM%3A%3BU-XoLLpuUMpQbM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Felectronicintifada.net%252Fsites%252Felectronicintifada.net%252Ffiles%252Fartman2%252F1%252Fstevenivawall483.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Felectronicintifada.net%252Fcontent%252Fdangerous-illusion-why-israels-barrier-will-fail-provide-security%252F5190%3B483%3B321

Reading Response 4

In Karen Armstrong's book, through chapters 5-7 she describes and gains detail using what we had learned from the previous chapters about religion and the quest/path to riotousness which very few according to historic script were able to achieve. The mentioning of Israelites and exiles was used to create a connection between modern Israel and the era of years from 400 to 800 AD. The exiles were both metaphorically and religiously lost during this time. They were thrown from their land spiritually and Armstrong makes a good point to make this clear in the first chapter of the reading. These many exiles were spiritually disconnected from the land that they had come to call home and praised. This lead to the continuity and connection of Noah and his journey on the ark. I thought it was interesting that Karen mentioned this. And not to question any one's belief in their own religion, but it is scientifically and historically inaccurate to say that the entire world was flooded and that Noah had to make a journey to save the animals of the earth. This was an intentional metaphor that Armstrong used to make a point about the exiles and the loss that they experienced. When they made the trip to Jerusalem, they found their city in ruins religiously for their god, "Yah-Weh." This, being the center fold of society caused a lot of distress within their society. Prayer was a hard gain in these ancient times as mentioned. IT was very difficult for someone to experience their faith and live it without a temple of worship . When the temples of Yah-Weh were destroyed (everyone of them) it created that sense of loss for the exiles that resembled that of Noah and his need to "save the earth." Karen, from what I read does a great job of making all of her chapters readable for most people. This is one of many issues though that I wish to address about her full knowledge of the history of Israel and Jerusalem. She does a great job using facts and history to clarify events. But as we were told from the beginning of the course, a lot of the history of Israel has been misconstrued and is not entirely accurate. She disposes of this and continues to cite information that may be false. The religious background of the site in terms of conflict and war may be accurate, but the articles she sites and uses to create the information she used in the book is controversial and often contradicted by another author. I verified this and read articles by other seemingly credible sources pertaining to information of the time period and it creates an annoying atmosphere for someone who might be educated of the subject that has also done the same as I have. I have come to the conclusion thus so far that uses few outside sources delineating from solely conflict and war, geographic maps, and other subject areas, and sources from religion based articles and novels. This disrupts the facts on a timeline and can irritate some readers like myself and is quite annoying. This is my take, and she would be wise to incorporate other sources if redone.

Reading Response 3

Karen Armstrong chapters 1-4 After having read the first 4 chapters of the book, you learn a lot about the author and her main intentions for the reader. Though I am giving my opinion after the fact that we had class and discussed this in detail, I came to the conclusion combining others' opinions, that she devotes her novel to equality and sharing the truth in an unbiased manner from her point of view on the controversial subject of Israel/Palestine. In the first chapter we get a lay down of what to expect from the book. a description in the form of a timeline describes the conquerors and the conquered dating back to 3200 BC. One problem I immediately picked up on with the explanation that Karen gave for Jerusalem was the fact that Religion played the biggest role in the occupation of the city from the beginning of time until now. The mentioning of geographic location was only vaguely touched on by Armstrong a little at the beginning. The highlands were described as being an unusual place for a city to develop in the first place, when in reality if you look at what she said, it wasn't until after 1200 BC when the "village/town" transformed into a city in itself. The reason for the religious influence though is from what was said mainly in chapter one of "One City, Three Faiths." repeatedly at the end of the chapter she mentioned the Israelites journey to Jerusalem from the hardship of Egyptian slave masters. It was said that they conquered the holy land by force which is the issue I would like to bring up. Armstrong mentions that it was probably a false statement to say that they conquered instead of convert. People flocked from all around according to Karen because of their desire to avert slavery and hardship from other regions and cities surrounding Jerusalem. I don't believe that religion even played a role in this process. freedom can be gained without moral intensity and desire of divinity to accomplish a goal. People migrated to Jerusalem for safety and protection, and whether or not religion was used as a vice to control and convert the immigrants I believe personally, to be untrue, though Armstrong puts a great influence and majority of her first four chapters convincing us it is so.

Weblog Journal Assignment 1

I have personally found this course so far to be very inrigueing and different from the typical course offered at IU. If I could give any corrections thus so far, it would be the ease at which we set up personal blogs or profiles. It is slightly difficult to use this new format and I am not necesarily someone you would describe as technology savy, but none-the-less, figured it out and have enjoyed the course so far. MY expectations for the near future include getting more in depth conversation with not just one class, but with individuals from across theworld that would be willing to put in the time out of their busy days to have a conference call-in with us. I liek the diversity of opinions in the classroom. It really shows, especially when we have people from different nationalities coming together in one group to percieve the same issue and potentially solve it in a different way. I am looking forward to teh next week and enxt class and what this course holds for me and the potential future of the State of Israel.

Week two Response

Dumper, Mick, suggests a strong argument supporting International involvement in Jerusalem. What he believed to be a good approach of using a timeline to represent the history and conflict/fighting and recapturing of the old and new city, was a useless attempt to ask for UN or International accommodation in support of Palestinians. Though he makes little notion or mention at the beginning of Palestine and its slow removal of residents from Jerusalem, it makes it hard and barely credible for someone to make an argument when close to no correlations exist between Ottoman, British and especially, Roman culture. 5 pages were wasted in this aspect for his argument in the article. a different approach must be taken if his goal is to be accomplished. As for Rashid, immediately, he sets a tone for being biased against the Israeli dominant control over Jerusalem. This is not a bad thing necessarily. He makes a point that religion is misconstrued and commonly historically inaccurate, such as the beginning of time in the holy bible 6,000 years ago. I agree a lot with Rashidi in the sense that religious example in the form of monumental structures sets a foundation for occupying regions of Jerusalem in order to gain control as a side excuse to their Israeli beliefs. The point he is trying to make is that modern occupation of Jerusalem is contradicted by the Israeli Government because history of non-religious uses of monuments were set in stone long before Jewish authority. The problem I have with Rubin's article,is that he expresses a sense of peace at the end that denies going any further into the future past the mid-twentieth century. He makes extremely accurate claims to history and revival of each religious group, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, but does not fully enter the realm of the modern problems faced with Israel today. Whether or not he wants to argue a point or not in the future of Israel is unknown to the reader, but it would have been wise for him to do so. What is confusing is the lack of connecting history of Jerusalem to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict it consumes today.

Galit Response

Jacques Poirier 01/08/13 Galit-Hasan Article Response In order to make my point, I will skip half way through the article to where I found a mention of “The declaration of the state of Israel.” On page 7 in the top paragraph, an explanation describing in what is simpler terms, says in my interpretation, that Israel is the basis of the history and culture of what was once Palestine solely. At the festival, which was cancelled in Washington DC, I believe it was due to heated debate and arguments between the three religious groups composed between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel claims religious dominance over Palestine which embodies the state of Israel. “Seven species of produce” were described as being defined by the Israeli culture. Also, much later in the article, representation of neighborhoods being in sect with the “Mall” in Washington DC to stem from the borders within Israel give us a hint to how cultural and significant religious values are misconstrued between the two groups (Palestinians and Israelis). Of course financing was the excuse given for not hosting majority of what would be the festival, but inner lying evidence suggests that it was not necessarily the case. The excuse that it was also postponed to a future date definitely clarifies in a non-absolute sense that it was cancelled for reasons within the program responsible for setting up the festival, no particular individual. In the article, the mention of not fully educated 5 star individuals were chosen for participating in certain fields of the event to represent both nations of Israel and Palestine. The event meaning to bring together the two groups was separated by the confusion of falsified facts on both sides claiming religious, cultural and agricultural references to history of Jerusalem and surrounding areas. There were not a lot of historians chosen in the first place that could verify or deny the existence of such facts due to costs of bringing these high paid people over to DC for partaking in the festival. What do we need to do? We need to find better avenues of approach that involve funding for the festival and establishing better connections with respectable figures in future festivals managed by highly non-secular, even slightly prejudice accounted peoples. This is what I believe. Let’s not confuse this with all individuals involved with the festival though. Many did their jobs perfectly, but were not given the right funding and time to perfect it.