The IGU conference started on Monday, July 12. Right from the very first day in Israel I hEve started asking around conference people about political tourism and/or danger-zone tourism. I talked to Israeli researchers as well as international ones. ‘What is your topic? What are you going to present on?’ were types of questions I was asked. I would say ‘I am looking at the interconnection between political situation in this region and tourism. When I felt more courageous I would reply bluntly and directly ‘Danger-zone tourism’. ‘Oh, like tourism in areas with volcanoes and tsunamis’… ‘Not exactly, tourism that thrives in areas of political instability. I am looking at those enticed by political conflict, at those not scared off by violence but rather attracted to it, those who consider danger more of an impetus than a put off factor. Danger zoners’.
At an informal level, during coffee breaks, reactions ranged from approving to mildly disapproving. A Mexican geographer would say, ‘oh that is really interesting, in Chiapas, Mexico tourists do the same thing, go there to see the conflict.’ A Romanian-American researcher seemed proud that together with his colleagues went on a conference trip, which took them close to the West Bank, thus being closer to the political conflict. An Israeli political geographer opined that ‘normal’ tourists in Israel are not interested in dark sites, that she hadn’t met any such dark tourists. However political geographers like her are interested in war zones when they go abroad, so she might understand this fascination with war zones.
With my presentation the situation was a bit different. I was the last one in my panel, thus, soon after I finished presenting, questions started and for 10-15 minutes all but 1 question were directed to me. The image that best describes how I felt was like a prey devoured by a pack of wolves. Three Israeli women (including the chair and one researcher at Hebrew University of Jerusalem) were shocked to say the least. ‘We’ve never heard of danger-zoners, and for sure not here in Israel. Here people come for pilgrimage, for culture … when there is an uprising like the Intifadah in 2000 tourist numbers drop significantly… you cannot look for something where there is not’. ‘You’ll be in trouble, you will not find anything here and for sure not in Jordan. Jordan is the safest and friendliest country in the region. Everybody loves the king… you’ll be in trouble… who are your supervisors?’
‘You know western people have this exaggerated idea of danger, what they see as danger for us is normal… How would you feel if a westener would go to your native Romania researching poor tourism, you cannot simply come here and look for danger and danger-zoners…’
A German person in the audience compared it to the case of visits to the Berlin Wall saying that such motivations of witnessing death & danger cannot be found as individual, stand-alone motivation factors but interwoven with other ‘more serious’ ones. The Croatian presenter in our panel liked my presentation and the idea of danger-zone tourism, he even asked for my business card and whisperingly he admitted he was a bit of a danger-zoner too.
A Mexican researcher asked about methodology and ethics surrounding my topic.
These were very emotional comments, especially the ones coming from the chair of the session. I answered these comments to the best of my ability. Prof Lex Chalmers was there LUCKILYYYYY!!! Thus I felt supported. I talked to him at the end of the session ‘those Israeli ladies did not get it. I followed your slides and presentation, it was nice & clear, I did not like the slide on modern & postmodern. I think you did fabulously answering the questions'.
