Reading Response for 10/05/11

     Although we were only given the epilogue to read for tomorrow, I really enjoyed this reading. Compared to Armstrong, his narrative style is a little less formal and is much easier to read. Besides being easier to read, I feel that its brief descriptions of contemporary Jerusalem/Israel are much more immediate and easier to relate to. It's definitely an "extension" into the here and now because it focuses on some of the more recent events that are more easily relatable to the conflict today. The events he discusses (such as the Day of Atonement in October 1973 and the 1977 bombing of King David) are the basis for some of the animosity in the conflict today. The aspect of his writing that I enjoy the most is how he makes is more personal. He included a personal narrative about his time spent as a youth with palestinians in Israel; it provided a human aspect that we could all envision or perhaps relate to.
     As for Naomi Chazan's article, I also found it very interesting. I agree with how ludicrous this law is. This is what needed to NOT happen, all this does is further seclude Palestinians from the country in which they inhabit. People whose families have been in Jerusalem for hundreds of years would all of the sudden be forced into feeling even more out of place. Something needs to be done to allow all of the people in not only Jerusalem, but Israel, to feel included. Netanyahu's further cultural isolation of non-Jews is not helping in settling disputes. I wish the politicians, activists, and people of Jerusalem would look to a place like Singapore for guidance. This city-state has more people than Jerusalem, and almost as much as the entire nation of Israel, but is far more diverse. The country has five religions that are equally proportioned (more or less) amongst its citizens, and some of which are seen as adversaries (Christians and Muslims) in other parts of the world. But here, all notions of religion are separate from the state and any act of inequality on the basis of religion is highly punishable; it's kind of a forced egalitarian state. Perhaps taking any reference to religion out of the equation could help remedy some of the problems here, but I know this is impossible because Jerusalem is more or less based on religion, and I don't see addressing religion ever being taken our of this conflict. I want to say it would be easy for people here to follow other's lead and separate religion and politics, and promote equal rights (whether it be over land, nationality, or civil rights) , but I know the problem is so deeply ingrained into people that we could be far away from such a dream.