Re: Cameras for Gaza

From: Matt Helme (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 12:09:32 PST

When i made the first post i did not mean it to get out of hand like this.

From: salvatore h <email suppressed>
To: email suppressed
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:45:28 PM
Subject: Re: Cameras for Gaza

Very hard to do this subject justice in a forum such as this and although I think the initial post asking for cameras for Gaza was absolutely justified and I support the idea of arming civillians with cameras I think the political discussion is not well served here nor is it well argued thus far. That is not a criticism only a solid fact. Simply impossible within this forum. Granted the subject is more important than experimental cinema but there are many places I can go to discuss politics. I signed up here to discuss and participate in discissions on experimental cinema. Sending cameras to Gaza is not in itself a political act. No reason to make it one here.

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:53 PM, malgosia askanas <email suppressed> wrote:

Well, I may agree Frameworks may not be the place for political debate - but for long as others continue the debate with provocative posts directed at me, it's a bit of a stretch to expect me not to respond. Sorry, James Cole.

Eli Horwatt wrote:

It seems very strange that this conversation initiated from the rather neutral call for images from Gaza to be recorded.

The call was not really "neutral" - very few such thing are.

Most of the time, I think Zionists become angry amidst legitimate critiques of Israel because they presume that critics either a) believe the country shouldn't exist or b) believe that Palestinians have the right to violently resist the occupation through the killing of civilians. Is it possible for you, Malgosia to accept that someone may not support either of these positions AND YET still critique Israel?

Ah, another little handful of insinuations. First, I am not a zionist - unless by "zionist" you mean any person who thinks that the Jews have just as much of a right to a state of their own as any other people who want a state of their own. And no, I do not subscribe to your (a)-(b) disjunction. And I have no quarrel with intelligent, thoughful, informed critiques of Israel, may of whose policies and actions I deeply disagree with. But I sure haven't seen any such critiques in this "debate".

Everyone know Hamas is a violent terrorist organization launching rockets from schools and civilian domiciles; i doubt anyone here condones that. BUT, you are effectively stating that it is sad, but civillians are justifiably killed when Hamas launches rockets from these areas. I think this is ethically short sighted. As a democratic state that all people should demand act responsibly in times of war, it is INDEFENSIBLE for attacks to occur against schools. What should the army do? They should send in ground forces. I know that this is difficult and may at times be ineffective; but you know what? Too Fucking Bad. No matter who is using a school rocket attacks (which is more than a provocation, but Hamas' means of winning the P.R. battle against Israel by causing more Palestinian civilian deaths) Israel cannot justify shelling schools. Doing so implicitly suggests that the civilians are complicit (which is obviously not always true) or that Hamas is
 somehow directly responsible (which is absurd).

Eli, this is a ridiculous argument. It implies that Israel, because it is a democratic state, has a stronger obligation to protect Palestinian civilians than Hamas does. Another appeal to bad conscience and Christian guilt. No, to the contrary: if Hamas cares for the Palestinian civilians, then it should not endanger them needlessly by launching rockets from schools and civilian domiciles. Too Fucking Bad.


For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.