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.