Jerusalem in a nutshell?

Excerpt taken from The Daily Universe, April 8, 2008 link

BYU Students Experience Tension of the Middle East
By Abigail Shaha - 8 Apr 2008

She said it was cold, even under the hot desert sun. All 436 feet of it - like a cold scar on the landscape.

"There was this ancient world and then a new wall, with hate and malice splashed across it," said Kira Dockum, a junior from Kennewick, Wash. "It looks so abrasive, so big and imposing. The people on either side are exactly the same."

...

City Divisions

Within the city itself, Jerusalem is divided into East Jerusalem, the trash-littered crumbling portion of the city inhabited mostly by Palestinians, and West Jerusalem, the Israeli side with modern buildings and clean streets. Locals call the street straddling the divide "no man's land." The entire country follows a similar separation pattern.

BYU associate professor of geography Chad Emmett said the separation is more than a physical distinction.

"They're segregated, not intentionally but by the people's choice," Emmett said. "[Areas controlled by Israel] have more parks, play grounds, community service organizations, they're just nicer towns - it's where the money is spent."

Laker said there was never trash in West Jerusalem, while in East Jerusalem "we were constantly trudging through garbage." East Jerusalem reminded Merrell of a dysfunctional society, while West Jerusalem felt like an American city.

"You can just feel the tension," said Trevor Tuttle, a sophomore from Orem. "They never interact."

The agitation spilled into other areas too. Hunt had locals stare at her unashamed for her blonde hair. Mike Infanger, a junior from Gooding, Idaho, had fruit thrown at him by Palestinian children who mistook him for an Israeli. Brooklyn Roeller, a sophomore from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, was shunned by local shopkeepers for being a woman. Emily Hixson, a junior from Los Banos, Calif., even had to dodge stray donkeys roaming the streets.

But students said the clear divisions and obvious tension didn't scare them.

"They take really good care of you at the Jerusalem Center," Hixson said. "I felt more unsafe living in Long Beach than in Jerusalem."

... [end excerpt]

So what confuses me is the disjointed feeling I got when I read this article in The Daily Universe about student reactions to the Holy City on their sojourn to the BYU Jerusalem Center. In the beginning Shaha quotes Dockum who describes this wall with "hate and malice splashed across it..." and then notices that the people on either side are exactly the same.

So with this idea of hate and malice, Shaha continues to describe the two divisions, "East Jerusalem, the trash-littered crumbling portion of the city inhabited mostly by Palestinians" and "West Jerusalem, the Israeli side with modern buildings and clean streets." She continues to note reactions from several people. Emmett, "[Areas controlled by Israel] have more parks, play grounds, community service organizations, they're just nicer towns - it's where the money is spent" and Laker mentioned that he never had to trudge through garbage in West Jerusalem and the apparent dysfunction that plagued East Jerusalem. This is in addition to the local Palestinians who stare at the blonde American and throw fruit at another, not to mention the rampant sexism and stray donkeys. But at least the Israeli soldiers are there to protect them from the hate and malice of the other.

To put it bluntly, Shaha comes off as very one sided and surprising content to assign the blame to the "dysfunctional" Palestinian society without regard to the political complexity of the situation. Some things she, her interviewees, and her readers may consider:

What are the political undertones of a story such as this?

Where does Israel's money come from?

What effect does international recognition of a country's government have on basic social services such as trash collection?

What biases do American students and faculty have when they enter the Middle East?

What effect does one-sided journalism have on perpetuating the demonization of "the other"

In a conflict lasting more than half a century, can either side justifiably claim the "morally high ground"?

If "the people on either side are exactly the same," why would one produce seeming chaos and the other pleasant organization?

Each of these may be loaded questions, but I hope we recognize that there are two sides to every war, and every commentary has a bias and an agenda. Unfortunately we cannot assign recitude according to who has the nicer park.