I do have to say, in general this article did not entice me as much as other articles we have read. In general though, the topic of architecture in terms of the disputed area is an aspect that I have never thought about. This conflict really covers large areas of ground and includes many aspects in it.
I was really surprised when they were saying that "the architecture of Zionism modernism had failed to create the mandatory sense if belonging between men, community and place" (237). I personally never really take much into account of how much of an impact the architecture has on an area, but in consideration of this area, I would think by having ancient architecture it would help to create this sense of belonging. I was also surprised that at one point in the article they were discussing not continuing to build based on the ancient structures that were already there. To continue this history and create that feeling that was intended form Jerusalem, I would think it would be essential to keep those visual stimulants. I was glad that later in the article they said that they abandoned that idea and decided instead to stick to what was there.
Of all things, I think before I read this article I assumed that architecture would have been one thing that the Jews and Arabs could agree upon. In history, there was so much transition between power, and the architecture probably changed with it too, but I think because I have been to Israel and I have seen the ancient architecture I assumed that it all came from a similar background. However, we all know what they say about assuming, and I was probably naive to think that Jews and Palestinians would agree on anything regarding the creation of a new homeland for Jews.
Reading about PYALARA is really interesting to me. I think I've mentioned this before, but in high school I was really involved in my temple youth group and NFTY (Northern Federation for Temple Youth) and although NFTY doesn't focus specifically on Israel, it was a large part of our programming and discussions. I never really thought about Palestinian Youth movements in America, and now that I know about it, it would have been a really interesting program idea to get NFTY kids and PYLARA kids together. I'll just have to save that idea for when I'm an advisor in a few years!
I was not engaged honestly in any architecture activities within the Palestinian organizations as Pyalara and others, although my parents always wanted me to join such groups and organizations.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that they cannot agree on the architecture of a place that is home to both groups of people. For some reason I was naive towards this problem as well. I assumed that since it is such ancient history and that both of these groups have backgrounds that are very similar, they would be able to agree on that. I guess that's not the case.
ReplyDeleteI posted this comment in Malak's blog but thought it would be good to post it again on this one and maybe see your opinion about it:
ReplyDelete"How I understand the situation is that Israel is a country established only 63 years ago on the ruins of another nation that was destroyed then. It was established based on a claim from thousands of years ago. In order to protect its existence and legitimize their claim, they need to prove some connection to the land and the city in particular. In order to do that, they had to adopt a policy to disconnect the land from its Arabic and Islamic surroundings and create a new culture and image for the land and city that legitimizes their claim. one of the best examples on this is that roman olive tree's which are thousands of years old were uprooted from the Palestinian peoples lands to build the Apartheid Wall and re-planted in Israeli illegal settlements in the west bank. and this was not to protect the nature but to find a connection somehow for these settlements with the land and history."
and this is a core thing in the conflict, The Zionist movement did not just intend to establish a homeland for Jews in the area, but also do displace the people living in the land and remove any connection that had in it which is mainly found in the architecture as well as culture. They wanted a "Land without people for people without a land" and this is how they have been working on making it a land without people.
I'm not really sure if I understand what you're saying, but in general I disagree. I don't know enough about architecture, but I would think that the difference of the architecture between the groups couldn't have been terribly different. Jews and Palestinians have been thrown around so much in history, and I feel like the architecture would have been something that would have gone back and forth with the various groups that lived there. Granted, I don't know enough about architecture, but I frankly I feel like it's just another thing that the parties are trying to make an issue out of and I think that it's the least of our worries.
ReplyDelete