From: marco poloni (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 05:15:52 PST
I'll try to keep my reply short to try to avoid an escalation which might be annoying to the rest of this community.
My question as to whether this was the appropriate place to debate politics was a question to the community, not only to you. A handful of sensitive answers followed which bring good perspective.
My response to you was an attempt to confront your arguments, which somehow had a totalitatian flavor to them. I am not particularly interested in engaging in a debate on Christian guilt and the media. What I'm after are facts: who are Hamas in relationship to Fatah, what are the hidden motives that help explain why Israel waging war now (c'mon it's not the rockets!)--the real stuff; stuff that is difficult to find on the media--, and images (eg. what can indie images do in times of war, how can images provide a deeper perspective than the illustrations we read in most media).
In that sense I fully agree with your last argument.
>From: malgosia askanas <email suppressed>
>Sent: Jan 11, 2009 12:09 PM
>To: email suppressed
>Subject: Re: Cameras for Gaza
>I love it: first you question whether Frameworks is the right place
>to debate politics, and then you follow it up with a provocative
>reply to my post - to which, however, I am not supposed to reply (if
>I want to be a good citizen) because Frameworks is not the right
>place to debate politics. Oy, it's all smoke and mirrors.
>And I also love the fact that you are attacking me for one-sidedness
>and flawed arguments, but you are not impelled to make any such reply
>to the people who emit idiotic one-liners, like "a replay of the
>Warsaw ghetto". These are neither one-sided nor flawed?
>And then you proceed to put things on my mouth - another hallowed
>technique. No, I did NOT say anywhere that the entire 800 casualty
>figure is a result of Hamas using human shields. Most of it is the
>result of Israel doing what it has set out to do - striking back at
>Hamas. And you know what? To say that "the weapons of Hamas are
>the weapons of the poor", as if that qualified Hamas' actions for
>some special dispensation and Israeli tolerance, is condescending
>toward Hamas. And so is the "what do you really, really know about
>Islam" argument. These kinds of "arguments", which are designed to
>stir up the interlocutors' bad conscience and Christian guilt, are
>only too ubiquitous in the discourse about this war. And, contrary
>to what several of you have been implying, they are just as
>ubiquitous and pervasive in the mainstream media as they are on this
>list - after all, bad conscience and Christian guilt is precisely
>what nourishes and sustains mainstream media these day.
>Frameworks may not be the right place to debate politics, but it
>definitely is the right place to debate the meaning and political
>usage of images. This thread started with someone asking for
>donations to send cameras to Gaza. In these days of routinely
>staged and doctored images, is a "documentary" image really worth a
>thousand words? What IS a "documentary" image worth - without
>knowledge of the matter, without understanding and thought (all of
>which require words) - other than as a tool to stir up a knee-jerk
>>Wow, that's really one-sided, and with flawed arguments.
>>First of all, a question to FRAMEWORKS: is this the right place to
>>debate politics ???
>>Second: Your point about 800 dead palestinians vs 14 israeli dead.
>>Right. Are you somehow implying that those 800 died because Hamas
>>used them as shields, maybe as a way to attract international media
>>attention, and pity? What view you have of the ethical precepts of
>>Islam? What do you really, really, know about Islam? I don't think
>>your argument is admissible nor sustainable.
>>I think that the ratio of 800 (of which 200 children?) vs 14 (only
>>soldiers if I'm not mistaken) says what is what. A massacre is
>>taking place before our lazy eyes. The rockets of Hamas are weapons
>>of the poor, the only thing left to them to say that they exist and
>>will resist Israeli's state massacre.
>>I suggest that, before making empty claims about how to reach peace,
>>you steer away for a while from whatever newspapers and news you
>>read, and carefully examine facts, which are actually easily found
>>on non-aligned internet sources than in American media.
>>>From: malgosia askanas <email suppressed>
>>>Sent: Jan 10, 2009 3:24 PM
>>>To: email suppressed
>>>Subject: Re: Cameras for Gaza
>>>Shelly Silver wrote:
>>>>800 palestinians dead
>>>>14 israelis dead
>>>We truly live in a new world - where wars are required to be waged
>>>in such a way as to make sure one's own casualties are comparable
>>>to those of the enemy. Well, I propose that if Hamas doesn't like
>>>these figures, they should agree to a real cease-fire, recognize
>>>Israel's right to exist, and stop terrorrizing the Israeli
>>>population. This would be a very hope-inspiring first step towards
>>>an acual peace-process.
>>>And if the Red Cross is "shocked" at civilian casualties, they
>>>should carefully examine Hamas' own treatment of Palestinian
>>>civilians - such as Hamas' practice of using homes and schools for
>>>warehousing of weapons and launching of missiles, or their practice
>>>of using civilians as living shields.
>>>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>Marco Poloni, Korsörer Strasse 1, D-10437 Berlin
>>gsm +41.78.6322028, skype marcopoloni
>>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
Marco Poloni, Korsörer Strasse 1, D-10437 Berlin
gsm +41.78.6322028, skype marcopoloni
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.