remarks on first week reading

I have read the articles over a month ago, before our first video conference. At the time I was extremely moved by the articles. Now that I have read everyone comments [or a lot of people’s comment, those that wrote] I feel more inclined to write about what people wrote and not the articles.I sensed that people were writing their comments from a political point of view. I wondered if these were good articles to read for the first reading. I would have preferred to read something that felt less divided. In this case it is two articles on the same subject. Each one representing their “side”. This is a very divided way to initially present Jerusalem.As a Jewish Israeli Jerusalemite, I have the privileged of seeing the situation as one that can be resolved. I attempted to look at the conflict between the two sides and try to find ways to bridge the conflict. This may have been one of the reasons that I had a difficult time reading Amiry article. I felt that she was blaming the Jewish Israelis for taking away the right of the Palestinians to have there own folklore. I would have rather she said that due to the Israeli occupation the Palestine folklore has changed. Instead she writes that the folklore is buried beneath. I think that there is folklore but the folklore is of occupation.Galit’s article was interesting to me to see how a folklorist attempts to portray an entire diverse religiously folklore in one exhibition. I feel that I would have done the same. I also wish that I would have been a student at that time so that I may have been able to take part in the gathering of folklore