Sunday, October 30, 2011

Reading Response 12

I very much enjoyed the selection from Galit Hasan-Rokem. Of our readings, Not Mother of All Cities speaks most to my perception of the conflict. As a history student, I tend to overemphasize historical considerations when regarding contemporary issues; however, recognition of history is absolutely crucial for the city to see peace. Thus, I appreciate Hasan-Rokem's emphasis on the necessity or recognizing the city's broader historical continuum. The contemporary conflict is the product of shortsightedness, an egotistical refusal to acknowledge how one "got here". Hasan-Rokem's denouncing of the the anthropomorphic consideration of Jerusalem is especially apt. Creation of some sort of family/lover bond between citizen and city is inherently exclusive and prohibitive. Ideally, more individuals would recognize this, as if the last few decades or so haven't been evidence enough.

Suad Amiry's Sharon and My Mother in Law is a nice change of pace as far as reading material is concerned. I very much enjoyed Amiry's excellent blending of darker humor and introspection. One gains a sense, even for a moment, of the maddening qualities of life under occupation. These recollections truly actualize a previously murky and undefined situation. The results are seemingly unbelievable. The vet chapter particularly epitomizes the conflict, which seems to have progressed into some sort of twisted comedy. In general, I enjoy reading people's histories or simple diaries; they provide an excellent context unavailable through other means.




Tentative Project Outline:

I. Introduction
a. Sport as societal expression (e.g power dynamics)
b. Historical account of sport as divisive/uniting
i. WW1 "friendly" / "Football War"
II. Sport at national/international scale
a. International clubs
i. Composition
1) Maccabi Haifa
ii. Divided teams
1) Player dynamics
iii. Cases
1)Israeli Hapoel Abu Ghosh - Mevasseret Zio
2) Abna Sakhnin
b. National Football as case
i. Politicized sports
1) AFC Exile
ii. National team composition
iii. Player experience
1) Identity with ethnicity/religion relative to state.
III. Sport in Jerusalem & Occupied territories
a. Multifaceted
i. Religious opposition / social component
b. Divisive
i. Beitar Jerusalem
1) Politicized sport - "apologies"
2) Supporter behavior
c. Uniting/normalizing
i. Jerusalem Boxing Club
ii. Twinned Peace Sport School
iii. PACES
IV. Conclusion

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Reading Response 11

I very much enjoyed Knowledge is the Beginning. The West-Eastern Divan Orchestra certainly has accomplished something special. The Orchestra's musical accomplishments are easily visible and very noteworthy; however, one must look deeper for the true success. Owing to Said and Barenboim's great intellectual partnership, the project transcends "mere" music (for an extreme lack of better words). The project affords a diverse group of young individuals the opportunity for real, honest dialogue and exchanging of narratives. The nature of collaborative music reinforces this aspect by allowing its participants to "bring down the walls" between each other. In the end, the project succeeds in true "normalization"; fostering bonds between parties while maintaining honest dialogue.

While the Orchestra is a worthwhile endeavor, I believe it has a few shortcomings that prevent the project from becoming a broader model. I do support normalization; as noted, the project succeeds with its participants. However, the there is a degree of contradiction involved. The orchestra players are "normalized" through segregation; their interaction occurs through removing the participants from the conflict zone and placing them in their own isolated sphere. I understand that this removal is necessary due to the international composition of the participants. Is normalization really normalization, though, when it occurs in an artificial environment? It would be interesting to know how much interaction occurs between orchestra members outside of the "season".

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Reading Response 10

I'd like to continue Monday's unfinished conversation regarding the Peace and Freedom Youth Forum. This is the first time I have heard of this group and I am extremely impressed, both at the group's ingenuity and overarching purpose. I like that the group permits any message, save for explicitly offensive slurs. This allowed freedom of expression has multiple effects. First, it allows the forum to transcend a limited conflict and instead take a general and encompassing platform for individual expression, even if that expression is mere levity or personal messages. This allowance symbolically destroys the wall. Where political graffiti maintains the wall as a symbol, this group relegates the wall to mere idle and blank space. For all intents and purposes, the wall could be any random urban alley wall. Finally, avoiding censorship (except in extreme cases) ensures that the group does not devolve itself into the behaviors of prohibitive Israeli (or militant Palestinian) forces. At its heart, this movement is a strong example of direct democracy.

The sums drawn from these message and their destinations also represent the group's noble aims. However, I feel the Dutch involvement somewhat diminishes the group's standing. Of course, I do not know what economic/political factors resulted in the charity's Dutch incorporation. On one hand, the multinational approach has the same effect as no censorship; it draws the group's message out of a narrow framing. The group is designed to benefit the wall's victims, though, so I feel that some effect is lost by not making the group a wholly Palestinian operation.

I am also conflicted by the Banksy videos. His work is certainly admirable and a worthy addition to the political art already present on the wall. However, as the "old Palestinian man" noted, the wall is not a chic easel. Banksy may come in for a week, send his videos to British news agencies and then leave. What understanding does he have of the wall's greater context? Perhaps I am being cynical; however, I have a hard time doubting an action so publicized was truly done out of pure altruism.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Reading Response 9

I enjoyed reading Julie Peteet's The Writing on the Walls. While somewhat familiar with graffiti, I had not previously fully considered its implications. I was particularly intrigued by graffiti's use as a disruption tool within power dynamics/hierarchy. As Peteet noted, graffiti is synonymous with the stone; they are both ubiquitous and accessible means of overcoming power disparity. Furthermore, graffiti's use, in itself, is expressive of the intifada's motivations. Specifically, the presence of graffiti is indicative of an extremely marginalized population. Its use represents desperation for expression. "Legitimate" means of discourse have been suppressed or made unavailable; thus, the population's opportunities for expression are relegated to vandalism. This expression of marginalization, both direct and implicit, can be considered as a representation of the broader conflict.

I also agreed with Peteet's presentation of a "war for the last word". The use of censorship is directly representative of this marginalization. However, censorship is also counterproductive; I do not understand how Israeli forces or civilians do not recognize this. As noted, censorship further exacerbates the root problem, by continuing the suppression of discourse. Furthermore, any censorship inherently legitimizes the censored material. Censorship states that something should not be viewed, thus giving value to the censored material regardless of its original content. Such an action only serves as further motivation; censorship creates a cyclical state.

Question: Palestinian narratives are expressed in an extremely diverse manner. Often, these presentations are generalized, contradictory or demeaning. Are there any particular popular representations you disagree with? Similarly, are there "positive" representations that are not fully expressive?

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Weblog Journal Assignment 4 - Living Jerusalem Project Overview

At least in my opinion, the Project succeeds in establishing, among (potentially previously uninformed students), a strong objective and historically/culturally orientated understanding of Jerusalem and the region's problems. This method erases the black/white boundaries that this subject is often constrained by. This success makes the Project quite valuable. Thus, I feel that the Project's greatest challenge is increasing visibility, both on campus and in sheer numbers/availability, as well. The Project is still in a relative "infant" phase; however, it would be extremely beneficial if the scale was increased. The Project is very "personalized", so understandably finding additional instructor(s) may be difficult. However, I believe that the Project is most restrained by its relative lack of visibility. Even within an institution's campus, there are numerous student organizations that would be related in aspects of the Project's mission. I may/probably am wrong, but I just do not see any sort of expansion outside of the classroom. The move to IU represents an expansion; however, it is, to a degree, more of the same with regards to operations. Of course, there are behind the scenes factors that we are not privy to, so practically probably is a large factor in the Project's current iteration.

A potential solution is to further the Project's virtual presence potential. Due to negligible differences in timezones, multiple locations within the United States could simultaneously participate in a single class. Of course, there are a myriad of issues associated with a "virtual professor"; however, I feel that the class' format would allow for a multi-location single class, compared to "traditional" classes. On a related note, the class experience (and thus the project) would benefit greatly from more integration with peers from different institutions. The Project is already structured around the strong and forward looking notion of virtual engagement; I do not see why this ideal should not be furthered. Instantaneous digital cooperation represents the future for academic work; this Project already represents a substantial movement towards that direction.

Update: I was very impressed by the Project's recent workshop at IU. The discussions were enlightening and stimulating, as expected. The workshop's true success is connected to the increased visibility that the workshop provided the Project. This public forum allows a wide array of individuals, representing multiple disciplines and interests to benefit from the Project's collective knowledge. The workshop provides an excellent template for future expansion. Perhaps in the future, notions of a "virtual workshop" or decentralized workshop can come to fruition, thus further increasing visibility and availability.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Weblog Journal Assignment 3

I am in favor of the Arab Peace Initiative. This initiative calls for border settlement along the 1967 borders including a withdrawal from East Jerusalem, normalization of relations with Israel from surrounding Arab states, "just settlement" to right of return in accordance with UN Resolution 194 and mutual recognition of right to exist. I favor this initiative due to its comprehensiveness, as well as an even-handed approach. Specifically, no plan for the future will succeed unless it is built upon a willingness to work with each other; mutual respect must be built upon, but mutual tolerance should be a given. This initiative succeeds because it emphasizes the normalization of relations between various factions.

The initiative has been endorsed by the Abbas and the PA, EU, UN Secretary General, Quartet on the Middle East, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and United Kingdom. President Obama has expressed support for the "spirit" of the initiative (but not the specific details). The initiative also has divided support within Hamas; the military wing has rejected it, but others within the organization have voiced official support. Numerous left wing Israeli groups support the proposal. Unfortunately, the point of contentiousness has reached an extreme. As noted, the militant wing of Hamas rejected the proposal on grounds that it requires recognition of Israel. Of course, Israel's government rejected the proposal due to its requirement to cede East Jerusalem. These two rejections (Hamas/Israel) highlight the poor state of the conflict's attempted resolution. Each population has elements within it that have been completely driven to the idealistic edge; this radicalization dominates the forefront of discussion. Each population must fully recognize this state of affairs and demand that negotiations stop being framed by constructed ideological notions. I would think that "normal" people do not have much room for "ideology"; they are too busy trying to get on with a normal life in an abnormal environment.

I am also in favor of a solution of a different manner. I can not claim ownership of the idea; however, the name of the documentary has escaped me. As one of the documentary's participants noted, the conflict would end within a week if Israelis and Palestinians were required to buy cigarettes on each other's side of the wall/border/etc.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Reading Response 8

Montefiore:

I found Montefiore's epilogue a fitting conclusion to Armstrong's work. The epilogue was thorough and conveyed a solid understanding of the contemporary situation. However, there are differences compared to Armstrong's work. Specifically, Montefiore is not as concerned with maintaining a general sense of objectivity in judgement. Montefiore often uses value laden words; for example, he refers to Israeli actions as "colonizing" or "invasive" rather than use strictly technical or balanced terms. Perhaps this tendency is only present in the epilogue; however, Montefiore emphasizes his personal judgement, relative to Armstrong. This trait does not devalue the work; however, it must be actively considered when reading.

Chazan:

As I wrote about last week, the contemporary conflict is often framed by very simplistic interpretations. To this end, I appreciate Chazan's essay, Owning Our Identity. I agree that Netanyahu's recent actions are continually pushing the conflict towards "black and white" when it should remain (and be solved) firmly within a shade of grey. Identity is fluid; the region's distinct peoples have changed their self conception innumerable times over the course of history. Thus, identity cannot be concretely defined; it is very much the construction of popular or powerful opinion. Thus, Chazan is absolutely correct with her assertion that attempts to codify a state-endorsed "Jewish identity" represent dangerous trends. The ultraright attempts to mandate "loyalty oaths" and brand secular-Israel as a Jewish state can be seen as responses to perceived increasing isolation, both domestic and abroad. Unfortunately, such reactionary measures will like only increase said isolation and fracturing of opinion.

Initial proposal:

Ideally, my project will focus on Jerusalem and the Arab-Israeli conflict through the context of sport. Sport is an extremely powerful entity. Sport has the ability to erase difference and breed unity while simultaneously heightening existing conflict. This paradox is revealing; the pitch (or ring, field, etc) is a microcosm of the societal setting. My project will incorporate research and findings from a previous class; this previous project investigated the role and effects of internationalization in sports teams. This focus on the effects of cultural diversity within a team is especially relevant in this class' context.

At this time, I am not completely clear on the exact direction my project will follow. Israel has numerous internationally prominent sports teams, such as Maccabi Haifa and Maccabi Tel Aviv. I could look at the cultural dynamics of these terms, with regards to player/supporter demographics. I also could take a more micro approach and investigate the place of sport specifically in Jerusalem. To this end, I would incorporate suggestions given in class, specifically with regards to local soccer leagues and boxing. This micro approach would focus on the direct interaction of Jerusalem's various social and religious groups.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Reading Response 7

This last selection really highlights an overlooked trait of the contemporary conflict. Too often, the contemporary conflict has been framed as exclusively a religious struggle, rooted in fundamental and irreconcilable differences. This explanation ignores immeasurable complexity. Yes, the contemporary conflict has overt religious aspects. However, it is incorrect to consider these religious aspects in isolation. As demonstrated by the Israelite response to the destruction of the first temple, religion is used as a means to concentrate identity within an uprooted and fractured society. In the face of extreme hardship, both Jews and Muslims use religion to establish consistency; in an ever changing situation, a concrete reference point is highly desirable. Contemporary extremists epitomize this trend. I do not believe it is coincidental that religious extremism, both by ultraconservative Jews and Muslims, arose after extended periods of hardship and subsequent desperation. Thus, religious emphasis is a byproduct of the conflict, not the root of the conflict.

I consider the contemporary conflict to be the result of an extended series of unfortunate events. Whether by the hands of the empire-building aggression of ancient Babylonia, post Dark Ages Christian revivalism, or WW1 era British scheming, the region has experienced millenia-long sustained upheaval. The consequences of these events has, over the years, compounded to a perfect storm. In a resigned perspective, the contemporary conflict can be compared to witnessing a car crash. The witness knows what is going to happen, can't stop the forces in action and can only close his eyes and wait for the inevitable crash. Unfortunately, too few individuals are willing to look at the conflict outside of a narrow framing. The factions in play are very much falling victim to a gambler's fallacy. After investing so much into the conflict, they can't escape the hope that eventually the investment will pay off, instead of recognizing the futility of being a sole "winner" and cashing the chips.

On a general note, I very much enjoyed reading Jerusalem - One City, Three Faiths. Armstrong's account was extremely well crafted. Jerusalem is an expository work; however, it is not dry or pedantic. With regards to actual content, I enjoyed Armstrong's thoroughness. The subject is ambitious; 6000 years of history is much to cover in a few hundred pages. Armstrong succeeds in conveying the city's historical trends; furthermore, she does so without the stark subjectivity often seen in discussions concerning the city. To this end, Jerusalem is an enlightening read and well worth its inclusion in the class' curriculum. All actions create reactions.