Klein Response

One of the most interesting parts of the Jerusalem Report was the recognition that both those who call for an undivided Jerusalem and those who support political division actually want the same things: "security and sanctity" (8). It's crazy how both sides want the same thing but they believe that it must be achieved in exactly opposite ways. To me that says that either there are other reasons why they want to divide the city or keep it unified, or it says that the prospect of an agreement should not be so unreasonable if the goals are exactly the same.

The author also says that Jerusalem was often depicted in the media as the poorest city in the country, but he does not confirm that statement. Is that true? Or is that just the media's portrayal?

One other aspect that I noted from the Jerusalem Report was the thematic emphasis on American politics. As we have discussed in class and as I've known, America is a major player in what goes on in Jerusalem. But until now I had not really seen that as much in the literature, whereas in this article, it is throughout. It's kind of sobering to think that one country so far away can impact another country so dramatically.


Overall I thought Klein's article was very interesting as well. I had never thought about the difference between frontiers and borders before, but the perspective he lays out was incredibly relevant: "A boundary marks the point up to which each collective reaches, while the frontier directs its gaze to the other side of the boundary, to encounter and confrontation with an opposing entity or culture. Each of the contending groups seeks to control or defend its territory against being physically taken over by the “other,” the “invader.”" This distinction, while subtle, makes a lot of sense in view of Jerusalem. If each side views its boundary as a frontier, either one that they want to cross to gain more land, or one that they must protect, conflict seems inevitable from this perspective.

I had also never really thought about the effects of the Intifada (specifically the Second Intifada) on the Palestinian people. Klein describes Israeli actions in response to the uprising, and then the paragraph immediately following states: "Poverty, desolation, and neglect have spread throughout East Jerusalem. Eastern residents report these phenomena not only in the Shua'fat refugee camp but also in Abu-Tor, Silwan, Wadi Qadum, and Wadi Joz. There has been an increase in open drug use and trafficking. Fraudulent land sales have become a widespread phenomenon, and because income has shrunk, more people have become dependent on communal or religious charitable organizations. The press has reported a rise in the number of minor girls marrying in order to ease the brides' families' financial distress. The Jerusalem Municipality estimates that in 2000, a majority of 57.7 percent of East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents lived beneath the poverty line, including 68 percent of Palestinian children." This paragraph struck me as a sad and striking reality. As a result of the Intifada, Israeli police and armed forced increased their restrictions, which in turn led to a decrease in services in East Jerusalem. It just kind of seems ironic that an attempt to make things better contributed to making some things worse. (Maybe that's a reflection on how groups should pursue making things better...).