Play About Demonstrator's Death Is Delayed

[Englander]

By JESSE McKINLEY

A potential Off Broadway production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," an acclaimed solo show about an American demonstrator killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to stop the destruction of a Palestinian home, has been postponed because of concerns about the show's political content.

The production, a hit at the Royal Court Theater in London last year, had been tentatively scheduled to start performances at the New York Theater Workshop in the East Village on March 22. But yesterday, James C. Nicola, the artistic director of the workshop, said he had decided to postpone the show after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work.

"The uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy," he said.

In particular, the recent electoral upset by Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, and the sickness of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, had made "this community very defensive and very edgy," Mr. Nicola said, "and that seemed reasonable to me."

The play, which received strong reviews in London, follows the story of Rachel Corrie, an idealistic American demonstrator and Palestinian-rights activist who was crushed to death in March 2003 in the Gaza Strip.

More at;
New York Times

[Englander]

1. Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie'

Gary Younge

So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought.

The play My Name Is Rachel Corrie, directed in London by actor Alan Rickman and due to open in New York City in March, has been canceled for fear of controversy.

The play adapts the diaries of the 23-year-old woman from Seattle who was murdered in Rafah in 2003, when she was deliberately run down by an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer. Rachel had traveled to the Gaza Strip during the last intifada as an activist for the International Solidarity Movement.

My Name Is Rachel Corrie has enjoyed two sell-out runs in London at the Royal Court Theatre and great critical acclaim; it was due to open at the New York Theatre Workshop in the East Village.

>snip

During a period of such intense reflection about freedom of speech and the so-called "clash of civilizations," the play's cancellation is a useful reminder of the forces at work in constructing and limiting America's freedom to access the views and experiences even of other Americans.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=64288

[4freethinking]

7. Don't want to piss off the Thought Cops

During a period of such intense reflection about freedom of speech and the so-called "clash of civilizations,"

That's because everything must be made to fit the propaganda that this is a "war of civilizations" anything outside of that must be erased from American consciousness.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Well...

..."pissing off Muslims" = bad.

..."pissing off Jews" = good?

[Violet_Crumble]

12. The film's about Rachel Corrie. How does that piss off Jews??

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Wasn't asking you.

Nor did you get the implication.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Yes, but now I'm asking you...

What sort of implication exactly are you making when you ask another poster '..."pissing off Jews" = good?' in a thread about a film that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with Rachel Corrie?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Read my posts...

...instead of trying to say something it doesn't.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. It might help if you'd answer questions...

..and not tell me to infer what I like :)

btw, the question you asked the poster was exactly what I quoted with my question about what the implication was...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Then, you should really read the whole thread...

Had you really read the whole thread...well...you might had a different question.

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I've read the whole thread and my question remains the same...

So could you make things easier and maybe just explain it for me?



Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Simply...

"...he had decided to postpone the show after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work."

[Violet_Crumble]

60. A bit too cryptic...

How exactly does that explain a question saying 'pissing off Muslims = bad. Pissing off Jews = good?'?

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

31. Many Jews (and others)will be offended that this Play will not be produced

at that venue. Not only because of some abstract belief in "Free Speech" but because many (Jewish, Arab Americans, and us others) think the story of Rachel Corrie should be known and remembered.

As i say elsewhere, i think it is good this venue does not produce it. Mr. Nicola is not worthy of it. It is his loss.

[4freethinking]

27. The difference is........

As Karma pointed out that no one bothered to ask whether or not the cartoons pissed off the Muslim community at large.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. So what?

Because they weren't asked, Jews shouldn't have been asked?

[4freethinking]

41. Double standard

play that may offend Jews and supporters of Israel = find out what the consensus is.

cartoons that may offend Muslims = no need to find a consensus.

No one should have been asked. No person or group by law or right needs to be queried when it comes to freedom of speech and expression of others outside their group or individual thoughts. But the theatre owner does have a right in how he/she conducts their business.

[Karmakaze]

2. I wonder if those European newspapers...

polled the local Muslim community to see how they would feel about cartoons of Mohammad? I can understand the theatre owner not wanting to get in the middle of a shit storm, but I'm waiting with baited breath for all the people who talked of free speech in regards to the cartoons to make their complaints heard about the supression of free speech in this case.

Hmm, on second thoughts maybe I better NOT hold my breath...

[4freethinking]

3. Very good post

When it comes to certain things we don't have freedom of speech.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. And that would be? n/t

[4freethinking]

8. Are you interested in my thoughts...........

and whether or not they will be to your liking?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. What don't we have freedom of speech about?

On edit: had to change "expression" to "speech."

[4freethinking]

25. What don't we have free speech

when it comes to chains of thought that modern day thought inquisitors like yourself don't like.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. What?

I am a "modern day thought inquisitor?" What an odd insult.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Apples and Oranges.

Open the play! Like Islamaphobia, anti-Semitism sells! Although I haven't seen the play, I can't say it is really "anti-Semitic." Therefore, I will say, like anti-Arab sells, so does anti-Israeli.

So, since you are so 'free speech,' were the cartoons OK too?

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Nothing in the articles said anything about anti-Semitism...

The only mentions of anti-Semitism in this entire thread have been from you. And the person you were replying to was talking about freedom of speech. Given the 'apples and oranges' comment, am I right to assume that you think that the whole freedom of speech argument only applies when it comes to bigotry?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

16. infer what you want.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I'll infer what you appear to be trying to argue...

..and that's freedom of speech arguments must be comparmentalised so that an argument on freedom of speech as it affects trade unions must only be talked about in the company of other examples of unions being affected by freedom of speech or attacks on it. And very loud arguments that freedom of speech rules and it justifies the repeated publishing of cartoons that offended Muslims can only be equated with the same freedom of speech arguments when it applies to other forms of bigotry. Which is totally wrong. If someone has recently spent time loudly arguing that it's okay to publish offensive cartoons in the name of freedom of speech, and that the media shouldn't be expected to practice self-censorship, then there's something very wrong with their idea of 'freedom of speech' if they'd then turn around and support self-censorship in the withdrawal of a film about Rachel Corrie (which I'll mention again isn't anti-Semitic)...

If that's incorrect, then please let me know and hopefully explain what yr argument is...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

22. What?!

I said "Open the play!"

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Huh?!

I know you said that. What does that have to do with what I said in my post?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

35. .

"Although I haven't seen the play, I can't say it is really "anti-Semitic.""

[Violet_Crumble]

61. ..

"I know you said that. What does that have to do with what I said in my post?"

[4freethinking]

13. I'm open to free speech and free thought

whether it offends me or you.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. So the cartoons were OK too? n/t

[4freethinking]

26. Yeap

just like my thought and freedom of expression and your thought and freedom of expression is okay.

[pelsar]

28. no problem with the play...however..

for those who felt the cartoons were in "bad taste" since they offended and shouldnt have been printed..well i would guess that in the same light they would be against the play, since that too it seems will also offend....one standard for all

"The uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy," he said.

[Tom Joad]

29. It is not just offended... but the cartoons were an attack on the whole

Muslim religion. Cartoons that are critical of govt. policies are often printed without incident (though they may get some flak from govt. censors, but it is certainly accepted on the streets).

That is not the case here. This is not about the Jewish religion, it is about Israeli policies that are killing Palestinians, destroying their homes, and even killing a few internationals who seek to show solidarity.

[pelsar]

32. your not very sensitive..

whereas i have no idea of what the problem with the cartoons are..i understand that its something that i just dont understand...however i do understand the "the attack upon israel and its jewish population and its jewish supporters via the play.

it may be that you dont "get it"...but then isnt that whats the "sensitivity thing is all about?...accepting what one doesnt understand?....or can one be so ethnocentric and declare that your understanding is THE understanding ...

because i disagree...the play is an attack upon not just israel, but the right of it population to defend itself...a population with a direct linkage to progroms and hitlers little experiment.......so now...are you going to declare that my sensitivites are "not valid?"

[Tom Joad]

40. Defend itself??!! By killing unarmed internationals with megaphones?

This is a play you didn't see, i thought. Yet you pretend to say that this is a play "is an attack upon not just israel, but the right of it population to defend itself".

How can anyone take that seriously.

Gaza was a killing zone, that was a punishment against all the Palestinian people. Ask the family of countless Gazans. Ask the Corrie family. The Hurndall family (ask the soldier convicted of killing him), the family of James Miller.

[pelsar]

45. some jewish people disagree..

James C. Nicola, the artistic director of the workshop, said he had decided to postpone the show after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work

so they're sensativities are to be discounted?....and yes the play that glorifies someone who confused a war zone with a civil rights protest is part of the demonization of israel...you may disagree, thats democracy, but then dont go and pretend that cartoons shouldnt be shown because they offend "non jews", while a play which offends certain jewish groups is "fine" because it agrees with your own view point

the test of freedom of speach is not when you agree....its when you disagree, but are willing to defend the right of those you disagree with.....you seem to be on the wrong side, the side of the book burners....

[Tom Joad]

46. I know the great hate that some have for Rachel Corrie. It seems at

times those that support Israeli military policies the hatred for her is equal at times even than the hate for the Palestinian people. (Yes, i have seen all the "pancake" jokes)

I can only guess why that may be. I think it is partly out of fear for what she represents. Because in her death the brutality, the barbaric actions of the Israeli military were laid bare for all the world to see. An unarmed young American woman, speaking through a loudspeaker to demand that a military man in a Caterpillar Bulldozer not demolish yet another home, after the thousands that have already been demolished in Rafah, she did not want to see the home of her friends taken too. She was then run over. The man in the machine just kept going straight. Nothing gets in the way of orders. (oh yeah, actually the home was not destroyed that day... it was destroyed months afterwards... after the internationals left the scene... there was a little attention paid to a pr problem... so i shouldn't say nothing gets in the way)

I have seen men and women, Jewish and Palestinian, African American and white, who are deeply appreciative of the life Rachel lived, of the words she spoke, of the sacrificed she made. These people were not polled by James. So be it. This story will be told.

[pelsar]

50. its not hate.....

she was just a fool...military missions are designed to be carried out whether or not there is loss of life....thats what being in a war zone is all about. She simply didnt understand the concept....and yes there is a PR aspect in this war..but in the end the house went since the IDF deemed it part of the infrastructure (of which the owners got paid well by the tunnellers before they started)

but thats not the point...her niavity has been costly both to her and to the state of israel, by those who believe that their wasnt a war in gaza....hence the movie celebrating her foolishness might actually bring in more supporters who might have the same confused idea (civil protests in a war zone....)....

Personally i have no problem with her story being told...nor do i have a problem with the cartoons...both insult and tell only part of a complex story....for those who believe that the "story" that insults the muslims should not be told, and those that insult jews who support israel...well lets just call it censorship....

or do you have somekind of PC lightweight excuse version for limiting expression of one group and not the other?

[Englander]

58. Would you prefer to call the attitude "intense dislike"?

It's clear that's what it is, to call a murdered activist such things, is clearly
indicative of an attitude of "intense dislike".

[Violet_Crumble]

62. What military mission? They were demolishing a Palestinian home!

There's a reasonable assumption made that the military of a democratic country in occupied territory where the Fourth Geneva Convention applies will not go round destroying homes of civilians 'whether or not there is loss of life',..

What sounds like complete propaganda is the baseless claim that the owner of the home in question was paid well by the tunnellers before they started. Nothing quite like turning the victims into the aggressors, is there?

Violet...

[pelsar]

66. just informing....

the tunnlers would pay in advance for the home owner before starting the tunneling.....

the simple fact that the tunnels were used (are) too smuggle in arms makes the home a military target. Whether or not the IDF was correct in destroying all the homes in the rafah area is a different question.

I wouldnt now whether or not the home owners were "aggressors" or just caught up in the situation...but they were a part of it and made some choices

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Are you talking of owner of the home Rachel Corrie was trying to protect?

Or is some vague line about tunnellers and placing all blame on Palestinian civilians enough to justify the destruction of any Palestinian home by the IOF?

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

89. You don't even know there was a tunnel under that home or near it.

No the Nasarallah family was not paid by the underground, there is no evidence that they came near there home.

They sure as hell were not compensated by the terrorists/soldiers in the Cat bulldozers who eventually finished the job of destroying the home.

Their homes are being rebuilt by the folks who were brought together by Donna Baranski-Walker who i am proud to know, in the Rebuilding Alliance.
http://www.rebuildingalliance.org

Please give generously, Pelsar.

[barb162]

79. Wrong; no houses were demolished that day

The report also states that the army had not, in fact, intended to demolish a house, but was searching for explosives in the border area designated a security zone or "no man's land" by Israel. No houses were demolished on the day of Corrie's death, but one of the houses she believed she was protecting — the home of pharmacist Dr. Samid Nasrallah — was damaged six months later when the IDF knocked a hole in one of its walls. The IDF eventually demolished the house in January 2004, according to the charity Rebuilding Alliance, because it stood in the security zone. <9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie#Responsibility_for_Corrie.27s_death

[Tom Joad]

81. Security Zone. The new name of ethnic cleansing.

Razing Rafah:
Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip

These houses should have been demolished and evacuated a long time ago … Three hundred meters of the Strip along the two sides of the border must be evacuated … Three hundred meters, no matter how many houses, period.
—Major-General Yom-Tov Samiya, former head of IDF Southern Command

I built homes for Israelis for 13 years. I never thought the day would come when they’d destroy my house. … They destroyed the future. How can I start all over now?
— Isbah al-Tayour, Rafah resident, former construction worker in Israel

Over the past four years, the Israeli military has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian houses in the occupied Gaza Strip. Nearly two-thirds of these homes were in Rafah, a densely populated refugee camp and city at the southern end of the Gaza Strip on the border with Egypt. Sixteen thousand people — more than ten percent of Rafah’s population — have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many of whom were dispossessed for a second or third time.
Human Rights Watch http://hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/

It is no wonder folks who support Israeli policies wish to talk about cartoons and "free speech" It all sounds so ....liberal. But while some are saying they are protecting "Western civilization", this is what has been happening on the ground in Gaza. While protecting a newspapers desire to print anything it wants is nice and dandy, mass demolition of homes is the mark of a brutal military occupation, that should and must not be tolerated.

It certainly should not be subsidized with US tax money.

[barb162]

82. Are suicide bombers ethnic cleansers

[Karmakaze]

92. What has that got to do with murdering an unarmed civillian?

Except for being legally and ethically the same crime?

[barb162]

102. what is "that"

your sentence : what has "that"....

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Okay, that's the strangest answer to a question I've seen in ages...

Mental note to self: do the grammar and spelling cleanser routine on this post before hitting the send button ;)

[Karmakaze]

122. No need...

because anyone who speaks English knows that "What has that got to do with" is correct while "What is that got to do with" is illiterate.

[Karmakaze]

123. It's called English...

I'm not sure if it is your first language, so let me explain. "What has that got to do with..." is the correct form.

"What is that got to do with.." is not.

But thanks for trying.

[Englander]

109. Why are you talking about "suicide bombers "?

Is there relevance, beyond being a reactionary, knee-jerk response?

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Read my post carefully. I didn't say the home was destroyed that day...

You didn't mention what report was being referred to, so I went and took a look, and sure enough it's the IDF report where they totally absoloved themselves of any responsibility at all. I hope you weren't expecting anyone to take that as some sort of credible version of what happened...

Violet...

[barb162]

103. So are you trying to claim this sentence of yours below in quotes

means they weren't demolishing a home?

"They were demolishing a Palestinian home!"

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Try reading the thread in context, barb...

I've already said I know the home wasn't demolished that day, but that they were trying to demolish it when Rachel Corrie was crushed by the bulldozer. I'm not quite sure why yr continuing what seems very much like a trivial nitpicking of every word I say. I make the assumption when I post here that most folk have the basic reading skills needed to comprehend what's being said in the context of a post, and for those who don't have those skills, there's not much I can do...


Violet...

[Karmakaze]

124. No I believe the poster...

Was saying that "They were demolishing a Palestinian home" did not mean "They DEMOLISHED a Palestinian home". One is past tense meaning the act was completed. The other talks in a future tense, meaning they were attemping to carry out an act. The difference is quite clear.

English is a powerful language but can be a bit confusing at times.

[eyl]

104. Yet the ISM version

you treat as gospel?

[Violet_Crumble]

107. No, I don't treat it as gospel...

..though I noticed you don't appear to have any problem with anyone treating the IDF version as gospel :)

Violet...

[eyl]

111. Of course not ;)

The thing is that the IDF version (at least regarding the accident itself - I don't know one way or another regarding what they were trying to demolish that day) tallies with my own analysis based on news reports and a limited knowledge of D-9s; hence, I give the IDF version more weight.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. If you don't believe me, why bother asking in the first place?

I'd be pretty safe in assuming that the news reports that were analysed would have been so convincing coz they had quotes from the IDF in them?

Violet...

[eyl]

128. ???

I'm sorry? Where did I say I didn't believe you?

And actually, very little of my reasons for believing it to be an accident have to do with IDF statements.

[eyl]

131. Looking over my post (111) again

I think I see what happened - my "of course not" comment was meant as a (jocular) reply to your comment about my not objecting to taking the IDF version as gospel, not as a reply to your statement that you didn't take ISM claims as gospel.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Violet_Crumble]

138. Yeah, I did read it that way...

On rereading yr post this morning, I've read it the way you actually intended it. I was in a bit of a narky mood last night, what with giving up smoking (yet again) and just coming from a pointless and frustrating subthread, so I was more inclined to read things rather negatively than I should have been...

On the Rachel Corrie accident vs murder thing, I have to admit I gave up on trying to work out what had happened a long while back. I just go on what my gut tells me, which is that I doubt she was intentionally crushed for a few reasons, one of which being that the PR fallout from murdering an American citizen is not what the IDF would have needed or wanted. I tend to think it was more likely an accident, but that accident came about because of carelessness on the part of the driver and any troops there. I don't think my opinion falls into either the 'she was murdered/it was an accident' camps, so before anyone confronts me with reams of reading material, I'm going to warn them that I'm not interested in reading it, mainly coz I've just started a new semester and I've got a massive reading brick to get through on the dark subject of genocide, and in this particular instance I prefer my gut feelings to anything else...

Violet...

[norml]

166. Loathsome

Simply loathsome.

[pelsar]

70. but you didnt answer the above question.....

censorship......is censorship....free speach is for those you disagree with....and its not "selective" based on ones political views...as some seem to think so

[Karmakaze]

91. So why are YOU doing it?

Why are YOU saying that cartoons of Mohammad should be shown, while defending the censorship of this play?

Double standards.

By the way, I wasnt really interested in getting into this topic, but since when does "confused a war zone with a civil rights protest" or even the "demonization of Israel" constitute justification for an instant death penalty without trial?

How you can bring yourself to justify the MURDER of an UNARMED civillian, no matter what their belief is, is beyond me. That is just sick. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

[eyl]

105. How exactly was the play censored?

Was the play cancelled because of government interference? Because of threats of violence? Because of threats of any other sort of retaliation? Those would constitute censorship. This doesn't.

As for Corrie, you're making the assumption her death was murder (rather than accidental). Care to try to support it? There are several points which would support a claim of accident.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I've been waiting for the correct definition of censorship to come out...

Looks like I'm still waiting, even though you did use that really crucial word 'government'. Only governments can carry out censorship, eyl. Tacking on those last two questions is merely an attempt to wiggle out of pointing out their error in using the word to people who were throwing 'censorship' round with gleeful abandon during the embarressing mess that was the multitude of cartoon threads...

You seem to be making the assumption that her death was an accident. I'm hoping you can support that with something a bit more credible than what the IDF claimed...

Violet...

[eyl]

130. Fair enough

Though I think that trying to force self-censorship by means of violence or the threat of violence is also functionally equivalent to censorship (for purposes of the discussion, at least), though it might not meet the techincal definitions.

I have no idea why you're excusing me of trying to "wiggle out" from something- it was Karmakaze who accused the IDF of murder, and I was replying to him.

As to why I think it was an accident; let me turn it around - since the general assumption is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, I have no reason to think it wasn't an accident.

When you strip out all the rhetoric and the natterings of "the IDF (and Israel) is always guilty and evil" types, the only support for the argument that it wasn't an accident seems to be, as far as I've seen, "the driver must have seen her". Note, not the driver did see her. This assumption is based on the testimony of one of the ISM members, who claimed she was standing in front of the bulldozer, which then ran her over, backed up over her, and ran her over again.

However:

1) I assume you've seen the photos of Corrie post-collision. She doesn't appear to have any external injuries. Had the bulldozer in fact ran her over twice, backing up in the process, her body would have been completely mangled.
2) It's assumed the driver saw her because of the claim that she was standing in front of the D-9. On the Internet, this impression was strengthened by the "before" (the one showing her standing in front of a D-9) and "after" (after the collision) photos which were placed side by side on the ISM website and later captioned as being taken just before and just after the accident. As it later turned out, they were taken hours apart. However, there are at least five or six different versions of what she was doing at the time (mind you, this is only from the ISM and Palestinian witnesses - it doesn't even count the IDF version); depending on the witness, she was standing, sitting, or lying down in front of the bulldozer, climbing on a mound of rubble, or falling down it, or trying to climb the bulldozer's blade and falling (I used to have some links, but they're dead by now).
3) I don't know if you've ever been near a D-9. those things are big. The driver has very limited visibility, especially of things which are directly in front of and close to him (since they're obscured by the blade). The machin is extremely noisy as well. In a miltary D-9 this is compunded by the windows, which are thick armored glass (or plastic, I'm not sure), and not very easy to see through. Normally, safety regs require that someone walk in front of the D-9 and guide it. Howver, in operations of his sort, those rules are often relaxed because anyone walking out in the open risks getting shot; and the the soldiers were in any case busy chasing away the ISMers (who by their own testimony were trying to disrupt the operation).

What I assume happened was along these lines. The operation began, and the ISMers came in, trying to disrupt it. It was stopped until they were chased away, resumed, and then the ISMers came back; repeat. After several rounds of this, I suspect the commander of the operation decided to not stop this time (remember, all the time the soldiers are exposed to the risk of being attacked), assuming anyone could outrun a D-9. Corry assumed the driver could see her; he couldn't; no spotter was in position; and we know the rest.

From what I've heard, the ISM started the habit of playing "chicken" with IDF bulldozers and vehicles long before this incident; frankly, I consider it a minor miracle that no-one was killed as a result before or since.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

56. Again, that's not correct.

--the play is an attack upon not just israel, but the right of it population to defend itself.--

It isn't, the play is not an "attack.. upon Isreal", that's something that you've, appartently,
just made up. It's clear that you're arguing a case that has zilch to do with *this* play, it's
clear that you're commenting on a non-existant play, & not "My Name is Rachel Corrie".

On the issue of the cartoons, if you don't understand what the fuss was all about, then how
can you compare it to this play, which, obviously, you haven't seen? For a play, which you
clearly, haven't seen, & have also stated that you have no problem with it, there does seem
to be a concerted effort to portray this play as offensive, & illegitimate comment.

[pelsar]

59. im comparing.....and only asking the same

for some the cartoons are clearly an attack upon islam....me...i have no idea where they get there.

you cant see where the play is "clearly an attack upon israel"..well thats what tolerence and "sensitivity is all about.

if you sensitive toward islam and against showing the cartoons, then I respectfully ask for the same. You may not understand why i am sensitive toward such a play, or why i find it as an attack, but then I come from a different culture and ask only that what you are giving islam...respect and tolerence.

or is there a problem here with giving us "equal" sensitivity?

you mentioned that i just made this up
It isn't, the play is not an "attack.. upon Isreal....of course i did, just like the cartoons of allah are "an attack upon islam-they too just made that up....or is their ability to interpret some media some how better than mine?

[Englander]

63. No, it isn't.

But 10/10 for effort, for trying to compare something that was clearly offensive
with something that clearly isn't. Again, if you don't see what the fuss was about re
the cartoons, & you haven't seen/read-enough-about this play, then why are you doing
yer damnest to portray this play, which you haven't seen, as illegitimate comment?

And *I'm* insensitive now? Oh, my!

[pelsar]

67. "not fair"....

i can claim the the any play making a hero out of foolish girl based on what my country did as "offensive"....and that is simply my opinion..and it appears that of other jews in New York as well.

It may be i am super sensitive, but i would make the same claim for all those muslims that rioted, killed people, burned embassys, when on TV and cried racism over some silly cartoons

i and find it absurd that people would actually censor themselves for fear of hurting the sensibillies of one bunch of people, while intenionally hurting others

btw, how far does the censorship go?....does it includes images of christ? movies? ...or is its just limited to islam.....

[Englander]

69. No, it isn't.

Yer making false claims, based on non-existant opinion, & based on inaccurate info.
If someone were to make such false claims, who would take such folks seriously? The
argument yer constructing is aimed at an entirely different play, & not the play that's
the subject of this thread. I don't recognise at all the offered description of this play,
or the false premise that any criticism of this play is because it's, quote, "offensive".
Just repeating the line doesn't make it so, it isn't. You've haven't offered any actual
evidence that anyone considers the play to be "offensive", & you're providing an analysis
of the play which isn't based on the actual contents.

[pelsar]

71. facts?....

i dont have them...nor do i need them if one is complaining that NOT playing the play is censorship while not showing the cartoons is not.

i can claim that just the subject matter of the cartoons ...er i mean the play is enough to be insulting....and that should be enough for the cartoons, i mean the play not to be shown.

one standard....thats whats missing here....either the cartoons go to print and we say fuk em and the play goes on as well......and we say to those pooor sensitive jews....screw you.....

[Englander]

72. Again, false premise, & false analogy.

btw, the concept yer describing, the concept that any comment, or political view doesn't
need to be based on *facts*, or informed comment, that all that is needed is one's instinct,
is something that was covered by Orwell;

'Bellyfeel

In Newspeak terms, the word "bellyfeel" means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea.

The word likely comes from the idea that any good Oceanian should be able to internalize Party doctrine to the extent that it becomes a gut instinct - a feeling in the belly.

From George Orwell's 1984;

Consider, for example, such a typical sentence from a Times leading article as "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc." The shortest rendering one could make of this in Oldspeak would be: "Those whose ideas were formed before the Revolution cannot have a full emotional understanding of the principles of English Socialism." But this is not an adaquate translation. ... Only a person thoroughly grounded in Ingsoc could appreciate the full force of the word bellyfeel, which implied a blind, enthusiastic acceptance difficult to imagine today. (page 304)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellyfeel

[pelsar]

73. good...

so then you agree that the cartoons should be printed without worrying about any "muslim reaction"...


without an informed opinon how can people make up their own minds about whether the cartoons are offensive or not...with out them being printed all we have is "blind acceptance of an idea" (they are offensive or they arent?)

so does this mean you are now on the side of the anti censure "liberals"...the ones who are for free speach? be it a play or a cartoon?

[Englander]

74. For the fifth, & final time;

There isn't anything offensive about this play, which you've (probably unwittingly)
proved, by refusing to offer any arguement/evidence that it is, & by preferring to
mention anything but this play. But, again, 10/10 for effort for attempting to link
legitimate, informed political theatre with offensive cariactures. You know which is
which, right?

[pelsar]

75. you missed the point...

i have not seen the play....i've heard where it might be offensive (above article)...many have "heard the caricactures are offensive and yet have not seen them, since many newspapers and TV news shows have refused to show them.

both should be seen since there is no reason to keep informed political cariactures or an offensive play from the public
___________________
I noticed that you didnt answer the question last post....guess its time to try again....

or are you against informing the public? so they can make their up their own minds (I believe there are those who prefer to have someone else decide for them...are you one of these people?) or do you prefer your own example of people deciding without knowing?

it really is one of the other...inform the public or dont...which side of the line are you on..and can you answer?


btw who decided that the cariiactures are offensive...i actually saw them.....they werent
___________________
oh yea...whos on the "censorship committee?"...

[Karmakaze]

94. So obviously you are all for the censorship of the cartoons then?

Can you post a link to ANY of your posts on that topic where you state that? Because you are clearly saying that they are the same kind of act, and you are advocating the censorship of the play here, so you MUST have advocated the censorship of the cartoons, right?

Right?

[pelsar]

100. one standard....

i'm saying (you missed the sarcasim) that for those who propose censoring the cartoons then they should be equally adimate about the play....very simple.


me? I'm against censorship...i think those cartoons should be plastered all over the front pages of the papers so we all can see what the fuss is all about...and the play?....i may not be too enthused about it, but then neither was i too excited about the Passion of christ, nor englands awared winning anti semetic cartoon...but i will defend their right to print, play and advertise them.....

[Karmakaze]

120. Defend their right?

Where? When?

"I have no problem with the play"? In fact two statements out of how many posts calling people who point out the difference in the treatment of these two cases hypocrites, is your idea of defending their right?

Plenty of people have been saying the cartoons should have been treated the same way as this play was - ie the feelings of Muslims taken account, Muslims being consulted etc, but you see your "one standard" didn't apply. The feelings of Jews WERE taken account of in this case, yet not with the cartoons, and you are calling people who point that out hypocrites.

Sorry, but your attempt to claim to be all about defending free speech seems a little shallow to me.

[pelsar]

144. so the movie is not playing?

seems to me it was a local decision....but thats about it. The cartoons dont have to be printed in Saudi Arabia...though they were in Egypt. Local decisions are find.....however

The play is being played all over the world in general cinemas...the cartoons are NOT being printed or seen on intl TV...so what are your comparing?

[Englander]

113. Don't encourage him.

:)

[pelsar]

145. censorship..

yep, its hard to defend censorhip....its pretty muddy, one has to avoid a single standard

[Karmakaze]

93. Ah, but the cartoons DID go to print...

And many people supported that vociferously, then attacked Muslims with racist comments for being upset. Now the shoe is on the other foot and suddenly tolerance is the order of the day.

I sure don't remember seeing you helping me to denounce the statements some posters made about Muslims in general because of these cartoons - such as "all Muslims are inbred and uneducated". Yet here you are defending the censorship of this post with an argument that is essentially "although we didn't censor the cartoons, if we had it would be the same thing as if we censored this play, and thus you shouldn't argue against the censorship of this play."

Using something that never happened, and that people like you would have been up in arms about had it happened, to justify something that HAS happened is not very convincing.

[pelsar]

101. you lost me....

i missed your posts about the "musims being inbred and uneducated"... The cartoons went to print..caused an uproar...and are now many papers are not printing them/nor are they shown on TV?..meaning they are being self censured. How can we know what the cartoons look like if the papers wont reprint them?...should we ask for old copies of the egyptian papers in Oct that printed them? (not everyone has internet).

(compare that to the photos from the prison in iraq..which are now being reshown-its news..so everyone should see it)

and there is much argument if other papers should print them...strange isnt it...something which is very very big news all over the globe, yet the networks wont even let us see what the fuss is all about?.....

and people here are advocating exactly that: keeping information from everyone else, so they cant decide for themselves.....what would you call that?

[Karmakaze]

121. If I had search abilities I would find the post for you...

The fact is a DUer (and not a low post count DUer) made the claim that the violence over the cartoons was not because of the bigotted treatment Muslims had received on this and many other issues recently, but because they were inbred and uneducated. When I confronted him (or her, hard to say) about this obviously racist statement, he (or she) defended the statements by claiming that Muslims marry first cousins and are thus inbred. This received a chorus of agreement on the thread.

The entire episode was appaling, yet even though I alerted on the post, it remained there for as long as the thread was active.

As for self-censorship, are you saying that no media should have the right to decide whether they display offensive material? Are you saying because you as a non-Muslim want to see what the fuss is about, that the images MUST be shown? Verbal descriptions are not enough for you?

"and people here are advocating exactly that: keeping information from everyone else, so they cant decide for themselves.....what would you call that?"

Yes, as in the case of the play, sometimes offensive is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes media organisations should refrain from printing them simply in order to not offend. Especially when tensions are high in regards to racism. American media has no problem blurring inadvertant buttcrack shots in shows like Survivor, yet apparently we should all be able to see racist cartoons so we can make up our own minds?

But, once again, it is clear you are talking about the cartoons. Yet, again, you have barely said ANYTHING opposing the self-censorship of the play. I'm sorry but your supposed support for freedom of speech and expression seems a little asymetric.

[pelsar]

134. self censorship....

as i mentioned before i have no problem with the play...and in principle i also have no problem with local self censorship since i recognize that cultures on the local level can be very different: the hassid jews of new york, vs the evangalist of the southern states vs the village...all have different cultures and should be respected...up to a point.

However...what happens in culture A within the bounds of that culture is within their rights....as long as they are keeping within the law. When what they do is taken out and showed to a different culture..and that culture then complains.....thats going to far...and that is what the cartoons are all about...and the play is well.

I would say that cartoons of allah shouldnt be shown in local papers in muslim areas....and if a play is deemed a problem in a predominatly jewish area, then they views may be considered....and that is the extent of it.

If various cultures want to join the democratic world with its values..then the above are what its all about. The law is the equalizer and within that there is some room for the local cultures..but its stays within those subculture groups.

as far as the cartoons go...no text/verbal description can actually describe them, since most are hardly "offensive" in the western definition of the word

______________________________________

as far as the muslim violent reactions...well thats more of "group mentality"....it would be an interesting study to discuss why as a group many within the muslim community has such reactions, but its not due to lack of education probably because of iit

[Karmakaze]

140. Ok so now we are getting somewhere...

"and in principle i also have no problem with local self censorship"

Which is exactly what most people were saying in regards to the cartoons - that the newspapers involved should have been responsible enough not to run them. The fact is they did, and they did it solely because it WOULD offend Muslims. This wasnt a case of accidentally offending, the intention right from the beginning was to offend, simply because they could.

"what happens in culture A within the bounds of that culture is within their rights....as long as they are keeping within the law."

And therein lies the rub, because in Denmark "insulting religion" is actually AGAINST THE LAW. Thus printing those cartoons, specifically because they would offend a religion, was, in a just society, illegal. But the Danish government decided not to apply the law in this case, which in itself smacks of racism. The editor involved tried to avoid the racism accusations by saying he would print cartoons about the Holocaust, only to find himself suspended by his bosses. The clear double standard is what got Muslims so pissed off.

Print cartoons insulting Islam, receive the support of the Western world, while the laws against it are ignored. TALK about printing cartoons that would insult Jews, get suspended and have all support vaporise.

Your own hypocrisy has also come to the surface. In this case you have no problem with the self-censorship of a play that might be offensive to Jews. But you have stated that you are against the self-censorship being carried out by news organisations in regards to the cartoons because people have a right to see what the fuss is about.

"If various cultures want to join the democratic world with its values..then the above are what its all about. The law is the equalizer and within that there is some room for the local cultures..but its stays within those subculture groups."

Pardon? Are you saying the democratic world has values? Are you insane? A world where someone can be imprisoned for three years for SAYING SOMETHING 18 YEARS AGO?? Are you saying that freedom of speech and expression in the democratic world means "say something nasty about Muslims" - free pass, "say something nasty about Jews" - 3 years prison? And you claim to be concerned about hypocrisy?

"as far as the cartoons go...no text/verbal description can actually describe them, since most are hardly "offensive" in the western definition of the word"

Pardon? Weren't you the one saying Jews should be able to decide what is offensive to Jews? But not Muslims? More of that hypocrisy?

as far as the muslim violent reactions...well thats more of "group mentality"....it would be an interesting study to discuss why as a group many within the muslim community has such reactions, but its not due to lack of education probably because of iit

Some Jews in Israel have violent reactions regarding things they find offensive. An Israeli Prime Minister was even assassinated by them. It would be an interesting study to discuss why as a group many within the Jewish community have such reactions. That's the same kind of statement. Do you think it is fair?

In fact, some Americans have violent reactions about football, even rioting when their team loses. Does that in any way mean all Americans are violent? Does that justify painting all Americans with the same Brush?

You are painting yourself into a corner.

[pelsar]

143. you make far too many assumptions.....

lets start with the easy ones...."group mentality" we find in within football games, certains israeli groups, groups against harming animals etc. its part of urban anthropology, sociology etc...however those are all limited to very specific groups and have limited influences on the society at large. The muslims that rioted about the cartoons cross a multitude of cultural lines, hence it should be an interesting study...or are you against sociological studies of groups?...you seem to think i would be "against the study of sub cultural groups in the jewish context_ WRONG!....if theres a value to it, which there is, then no reason why it shouldnt be done.

Or are you against studying some groups and not others?

_____________________________________________

Yes muslims have the right as do jews have the right to claim something is offensive...but thats it. It doesnt mean the society at large has to listen to them. So we see anti semetic cartoons coming out of England, that actually win an award

Are you against the award? against the protests from the jews and israelis...or is it because they never destroyed any embassys that it can be ignored?

__________________________________________________

as far as arresting david irving for "holocaust denial..i'm against it....you seem to have made another foolish assumption about my views. Democracies for all their imperfectness are infinitly better than dictatorships (or are you for censorship + dictatorships?)

_________________________________________________

This is rather funny " the clear double standard" is what got the muslims mad?....so why arent they up in arms about the massive anti semetic cartoons that are run everyday in the arab world, or englands award winning cartoon?.....that is the real double standard.

The cartoons were a mere exercise in free speach. Insulting religion?...no some were making fun of religion, which is what political satire is all about. Should that profession now "close down"

____________________________________________

when I mentioned "local sensibilties"...it is precisly that. The local media doesnt have to take into account the local sensitivies, its their choice. But something of national or international intersts takes precident. Furthermore...its LOCAL..and that doesnt not mean muslims in another country that dont know the meaning of free speach, due to their own intolerence and education should have any influence over a local decision in a western tolerent country.-that is simply wrong
_________________________________________

so as understand you for a limited form of censorship like in:

forbidding the movie the "passion of christ"

removing englands award winning cartoon

no letting the paradise now movie be played in jewish areas

or is your censorship more selective...just to groups that threaten to kill and riot if they're not listen to?

[barb162]

80. And anti-Christian cartoons published in the Mideast aren't

an attack on the whole of Christianity? Are you likewise against those types of cartoons? (paragraph 1 response)

Are you likewise against suicide bomber, kassam, etc., attacks against innocent Israeli civilians? (paragraph 2 response)

[Englander]

53. How do you know that?

How do you *know* that this play would "offend"? Have you seen it, or read any reviews?
The only people this play would offend, most likely, would be those who think that there's
no such thing as legitimate criticism of the ilegal activities of the GoI.

[pelsar]

55. original post

i was noting the original post as to why the they decided not to play it.....since some felt it would affend some....

so when does "offending some" become enough to limit ones freedom of expression...are you to infavor of censorship when it comes to islam? (because.....there are many of them?...which means self censorship is based on numbers and not principles?)

[Englander]

57. Read about it where?

Again, how do you *know* this play would offend? The op does *not* say this play
would be likely to cause offense, there's no mention of that. The reasons given are
nothing to do with any idea that it would offend certain groups, the reasons given
are political. There's nothing in the play that is likely to cause offense.

[Karmakaze]

42. Actually, I wasnt commenting on the content...

As I haven't seen it I can say whether the content of the play is anti-Jewish or not. In my post I also said I can understand that the owner would not want to get in a shitstorm if it is.

What I AM commenting on is the double standards that resulted in racist posts here on DU (for example saying that all Muslims are inbred and uneducated) and people demanding that these cartoons be shown over and over again, while in this case those same people that championed freedom of speech haven't said a word.

And people wonder why Muslims rioted? This is why - because it is NATURAL even in liberal groups like DU, for Muslims and Arabs to have to live under a completely different set of rules.

If I came here and called all Jews inbred and uneducated I would be banned. The poster that called all Muslims inbred and uneducated not only wasn't banned, his post wasn't even deleted and received lots of support.

In fact the whole reaction of Muslims to those cartoons was no more violent than many fans reactions to their team losing at soccer and American football matches - yet Muslims are the inherently violent ones. Even those trying to "defend" Muslims by asking people to look to the underlying cause still took it as though this was something special to Muslims. They overlooked the inherent violence in OUR societies, because when WE do it, it is somehow different.

Burning an embassy is violent and sick - running over an unarmed protestor with a bulldozer is self-defence.

Double standards such as that are the REAL cause of the animosity many Muslims have for the West.

[4freethinking]

43. Back to back home runs

NS

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

30. I am glad Nicola is going to have nothing to do with this play.

I think it is good in a way that this show was cancelled at this venue. James C. Nicola, the director is an extremely cowardly man who seeks to appease the powerful, to not offend his affluent funders, and evidently doesn't give a sh*t about truth, about justice.

He is unworthy of having anything to do with Rachel Corrie's legacy. May he spend eternity in some suburban shopping mall. There will be others who will tell this story.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. So what are you saying?

Tom:

James C. Nicola, the director is an extremely cowardly man who seeks to appease the powerful, to not offend his affluent funders, and evidently doesn't give a sh*t about truth, about justice.

The article:

But yesterday, James C. Nicola, the artistic director of the workshop, said he had decided to postpone the show after polling local Jewish religious and community leaders as to their feelings about the work.

(emphasis added)

[pelsar]

38. we seem to have a sensitivity issue here...

hmmm....cartoons that make fun of allah.....not sensitive, a play that the local jewish population calls insensitive....doesnt count?....

must be that creepy double standard showing its face.....guess the jewish sensitive stuff doesnt count because.....

[Tom Joad]

39. Pelsar.... again, this is a political play, not one that

discounts a whole religion. This play is not anti-Semitic. If it were, I would think it would be stupid to poll anyone... the proper decision would be not to show it at all.

The play is about the policies of a specific nation under a specific political leadership. Yes, it will offend those who support the status quo in Israel. Just like a critical play about Bush might upset Bush supporters. He would probably take a poll about that too.

[pelsar]

44. politics?

so ...i happen to believe that the cartoons of allah wearing a hat with a bomb is quite the political statement....your going to tell me that my values are wrong in that belief?

why do you believe your values of "whats political and whats not" is superiour to mine?

and since you seem to belive in censorship...does that mean "passion of christ" should not have been played?

[Tom Joad]

47. ....

[Tom Joad]

48. Where have i said that there should be censorship?

You are really reading things into what you imagine i have posted.

[pelsar]

49. here......

the proper decision would be not to show it at all. (about the cartoons)

by not showing them, your limiting the knowlege of people all over the world to learn what pisses off many in the muslim world.....

those of us who believe in freedom of expression and the press believe that making fun of allah is simply part of that expression-not showing them out of fear is not an expression of western culture..

i did notice you didnt answer the question about the passion of christ...pretty much anti semetic....should that have been shown?

[Violet_Crumble]

64. So people all over the world can only gain knowledge through cartoons??

And here I was thinking that words are a very valuable tool in gaining knowledge. I see how wrong I was now and in future when the media discusses porn or brings news of the latest fatal car smash, I'm going to demand they show us in pictures, otherwise it limits our knowledge! ;)

And the vast bulk of the media here that chose not to reproduce those cartoons didn't do so out of fear at all...

Violet...

[pelsar]

68. so no imagry?

well i could give a lesson on the different uses of media and when text has it uses and when pictures are more useful and finally when drawings have they're part or how some people are stronger in understanding things via pictures and others by text...but thats not the point. (theres are whole professions dedicated to drawings....).

I suspect your being very selective in your views of what can and cant be seen and which things offend and which dont.
I was personally offended by englands award winning cartoon.....it showed sharon eating a palestenian kid, very reminecsant of the typical anti semetic lible.

or perhaps the art exhibit celebrating suicide bombers in Sweden (I believe you were for it-despite that fact that many jews/israelis found it insulting,

perhaps all of those should be just had text explanations and no imagry...as its seems that is what you are proposing.

as far as the cartoons Not being show,...well how can people make up their own mind if they are "oppressive or not"...without being seen, one does not have the information....
or is that not a factor...letting the "people" decide how insulting or not insulting they are....It seems your proposing that someone should decide for them (I believe we call those kind of govts dictatorships)

[Tom Joad]

77. The imagery that provokes more anger than anything is

the destruction and mass murder by US forces in Fallujah, the torture at Abu Grahib, the destruction at Jenin, the demolition of tens of thousands of homes in Gaza. The death of so many Palestinian children. The death of internationals who stand with Palestinians. The starvation policies in Palestine, made by a choking military occupation. US military bases allowed by govts while the people oppose them (from Okinawa to Saudi Arabia) Crushing poverty. corrupt govts.

You just seem fixated on these cartoons. You do seem to have much in common with Muslim extremists.

[pelsar]

83. Im fixacted on hypocrisy.....

your list is one sided....you should have mentioned the palestenaians massacred by the lebanese christians, the arabs massacred by the syrian military, the arab slave trade, the massacres in dfur, the gassing of the kurds and sudanese, the jordanians massacres of the jews, the palestenians masscring israelis at schools, parties, bus trips, holiday dinners etc shall i go on? (my list will be a lot longer than yours....)

those cartoons represent freedom of speach, freedom of expression...no more than that. Your acceptance of an idea that "people should not make up their own mind but have someon else do it for them is right out of George Orwells 1984...... (are you the one with the superior values that "the people" cant decide for themselves?)

and your post 39?...so? you claim its political, i claim its slander.....in a world of freedom of speach and expression that disagreement would be the end of it, but the blantent hypocrisy is really too much.

since some muslims dont like some cartoons: Freedom of Speach must be stopped...since some jews dont like a play.....ignore them.


and the cartoons?...you claim its slander..i claim the people have a right to know, to be informed, to decide for themselves.....you dont.-you must have a very low opinon of "the people"


a footnote:
Israelis ask Oscars to drop Palestinian suicide bomb film

By Reuters

A group of Israelis who lost children to Palestinian suicide bombings appealed on Wednesday to organisers of next week's Academy Awards to disqualify a film exploring the reasoning behind such attacks

so.....should the film be dropped since its very insensitive to israelis who lost their children....or are you know going to claim "freedom of speach?..

[Karmakaze]

96. You're fixated on hypocrisy?

Not once have I seen you say this play should be shown - offensive or not. NOT ONCE. Yet you claim to be pointing out the hypocrisy?

LOL

[pelsar]

98. re read my posts...

i have written several times that i have no problem with it being seen....

posts 50 and 28

[Karmakaze]

125. Actually...

You've written TWICE that you have no problem with the play. You didn't extend that to no problem with it being seen.

Two lukewarm statements out of how many posts?

If you consider that defense of the right for the play to be seen, or a condemnation of the censorship of the play, then I sure would hate to have you defending me on anything.

[pelsar]

147. your confusing two different aspects.

the play LOCALLY may or may not be seen, On an intl level it is, parts are on Tv, etc

the complaints against the cartoons is that they should not be printed anywhere, anytime by anyone
______________________________________

one is taking into acount a local sensitivity, the other is an attempt to limit free speach all round the globe.

some flexibilty is allowed in freespeach, on a local level, not when it closes down countries on what they can and cannot do. (see denmarks artists situation for the result of that-they all in hiding for their lives)

[Violet_Crumble]

88. What the hell??

as far as the cartoons Not being show,...well how can people make up their own mind if they are "oppressive or not"...without being seen, one does not have the information....

What's this "oppressive or not" stuff? Why are you saying that people need to decide if they're "oppressive or not" when oppression had absolutely nothing to do with why they were offensive?

And I was talking about the MEDIA in my post. If you can't tell the difference between MEDIA and ART, then I'm not going to sit around trying to explain the difference to you...

btw, I noticed on a recent thread you admitted one cartoon of Mohammed was bigoted, but in this thread you've changed it back to 'making fun of' etc. What's with the change of opinion?

Violet...

[pelsar]

90. no change of opinion....

some may be bigoted..some arent...some may be "opressive/offensive to some"..others arent...some are making fun of allah....depends on how one looks at them...i sure cant decide for someone else....why should you?

and i too was talking about the MEDIA..the media as in art exhibits that glorify suicide bombers -should that have had a text explanation?..... text cannot explain in words if the images were insulting or not...and why should big brother decide for me.(who is this big brother?)


btw ...the cartoons are an art form.....and have artistic value or are you now going to tell me what is art and what isnt?

George Orwell would love this

[Violet_Crumble]

108. Like hell there hasn't been a change of opinion...

Now the one of Mohammed with a bomb on his head has gone from being bigoted to merely 'may be bigoted'...

The day when I see you say 'may be bigoted' and give a spiel about 'depends on how one looks at them' and 'why should big brother decide for me' about something that's anti-Semitic, I'll keel over of shock...

For fucks sake. The media and the arts are two different things. What is so difficult to understand about that. I shouldn't have to tell you because it should be blatantly obvious...

Violet...

[pelsar]

135. may be bigoted..is bigoted..

depends upon ones point of view......the media and the arts are not so seperate...ask a cartoonist if he believes his work is artistic...as a photographer for a magazine how he sees his work..both will mention the artistic value. You many not agree, but then thats why we dont like censorship

the problem with censorship is that it doesnt know where to stop..start with the media and you find yourself in museums and plays.....

[Violet_Crumble]

137. Waffle, waffle...

Make up yr mind, pelsar. Was that cartoon bigoted or not?

And what does this mean? 'You many not agree, but then thats why we dont like censorship' I don't agree with yr simplistic attempts to claim that cartoons in a newspaper are art and not the media, so how does that lead to 'but then thats why we don't like censorship'?

Y'know, it'd help if some of you actually knew what censorship actually was....

[pelsar]

150. bigoted cartoon?

some are some arent...its not relevant since thats what satirical cartoonist are all about..There is no single defintion that everyone will agree upon. Art, be it commerical art or not is meant to be interpreted. Hence i find Englands award winning cartoon to be bigoted (is my value of that wrong?....is yours "somehow superior?)

.as far as media and the arts...ever hear of commercial artists?...those are artist who make a living via drawings and orignal illustrations in order to make a living...and they consider much of their work artistic....ask them.

start censoring them...and you'll have to censor the same artists when the succeed in getting something into a museum.....or is there some magical line between getting paid by a newspaper or TV newshow vs getting paid by a museum?

speaking of "art"..how about the movie:

Submission”. The film, which was written by Islamic dissident Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and directed by Dutch social critic Theo Van Gogh, portrays the plight of women under Islam, including being beaten and raped as proscribed by the Koran for women who “misbehave”. Islamic death threats against Van Gogh and Ali followed the film’s release, and on Nov 2, 2004, Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight on a Dutch street.

since it is "art" i assume that you are for it, and that it should be showed in theaters....

[Violet_Crumble]

153. Uh, you didn't answer the question I asked...

I asked you a very simple question, pelsar. You claimed in another thread that you thought the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head was bigoted. So, do you still think it's bigoted or not?

Violet...

[pelsar]

161. yes...

i think some can be intepereted as bigoted.(i cant decide personally, they're rather borderline for me, if the satirical aspect can be defined as bigoted?).....not that it makes a difference.

i find a lot of movies bigoted, some art exhibits bigoted, articles bigoted, plays bigoted, news reports bigoted, UN reports bigoted, award winning catoons bigoted, etc etc etc.

and none should be censored.....its that simple. ESPECIALLY if there are threats against those who make the bigoted art exhibits, satirical cartoons etc. In those cases everyone who is against book burning and other forms of censorship should rise up and say NO to censorhip, what ever the excuse.

[Tom Joad]

76. Read post #39 carefully and get back to me

But i'm busy. I don't think i should be obligated to answer your every question. I don't expect that from you.

[pelsar]

84. see above post...

hypocrisy is blatant...George Orwell must be proud

[Karmakaze]

95. You took that quote out of context, then added your own false context

Here is what was said:

This play is not anti-Semitic. If it were, I would think it would be stupid to poll anyone... the proper decision would be not to show it at all.

How did you get that that statement was about the cartoons? I don't think you did. I think you just changed the context to suit your argument - the act of someone on the losing side of an argument.

those of us who believe in freedom of expression and the press believe that making fun of allah is simply part of that expression-not showing them out of fear is not an expression of western culture..

I am going to assume you are not a hypocrite, and that I must have just missed it, so can you please point me to the post where you denounce the censorship of this play? After all, you are all for the freedom of expression, right?

[pelsar]

99. plays ok with me...

#50 Personally i have no problem with her story being told...nor do i have a problem with the cartoons...both insult and tell only part of a complex story....for those who believe that the "story" that insults the muslims should not be told, and those that insult jews who support israel...well lets just call it censorship....

#28 no problem with the play.

__________________________________

as far as the play not being anti-semetic.....perhaps it should be up to the jews to decide that (isnt it up to the muslims to decide if the drawings are anti muslim?)...one standard please.

and it appears that the director and the nearby jewish community feel that it will have an anti semetic backlash on their community....kind of like the claim against showing the cartoons

ONE STANDARD

As far as loosing the argument on freedom of speach and expression vs censorhip.....i'll take freedom of speach anytime over hypocritial statements that try to keep information away from the general population or prefer to have others tell me what i can or cannot see, or tell me what i should think (by refusing to let me decide for myself...i really dont like censorship or dictatorships....

[Karmakaze]

119. So in your mind...

arguing that people who denounce the censorship of this play are hypocrites because some people denounced the lack of censorship of the cartoons, is denouncing the censorship of this play?

Your strongest statement regarding this censorship is "I have no problem with the play"? Talking about a "foolish girl" who "didnt know the difference between a war zone and a civil rights march" is denouncing the censorship of the play?

With "friends" like you, who needs "enemies"?

Two lukewarm statements that don't directly comment on the censorship at all, merely the content of the play, do not constitute denouncing the censorship of the play in my mind. Your posts have been defending the censorship by saying the people who denounce it are hypocrites.

"as far as the play not being anti-semetic.....perhaps it should be up to the jews to decide that (isnt it up to the muslims to decide if the drawings are anti muslim?)...one standard please."

You are talking about "one standard" THAT DIDN'T APPLY. If this play was treated by the same standards as the cartoons, then Jews WOULD NOT have been consulted, the play would have been shown, and Jews would have been mocked for being insulted. Of course that would be considered anti-Semitism. One standard indeed.

By the way, you didn't address my comments regarding your seemingly intentional attempt to mislead in regards to the statement you quoted out of context. Is there a reason for that?

[Tom Joad]

141. You can see why i did not reply.

Seems you just can't figure some people out. :shrug:
For the record, i support Free Speech. Even Free Speach. I don't burn books.
I support literacy programs.

[pelsar]

146. but...

i believe you support limiting the creative arts of satirical cartoons....thats not supporting free speach

[pelsar]

148. how about this movie....

submission:

Submission”. The film, which was written by Islamic dissident Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and directed by Dutch social critic Theo Van Gogh, portrays the plight of women under Islam, including being beaten and raped as proscribed by the Koran for women who “misbehave”. Islamic death threats against Van Gogh and Ali followed the film’s release, and on Nov 2, 2004, Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight on a Dutch street.

do you think it should be seen in movie theaters...as well as its sequel, now being directed in a secret location with no credits showing?....

freedom of speach and expression and art?....or "sensitivity" (in this case to those who beat up on women)....which one?

[pelsar]

149. so plays shouldnt be censored....

so you all for movies like:

Submission”. The film, which was written by Islamic dissident Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and directed by Dutch social critic Theo Van Gogh, portrays the plight of women under Islam, including being beaten and raped as proscribed by the Koran for women who “misbehave”. Islamic death threats against Van Gogh and Ali followed the film’s release, and on Nov 2, 2004, Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight on a Dutch street.

correct...you'll defend its showing plus the sequel? (who participants are doing it in a secret location with no credits showing up.....)

[Jim Sagle]

136. " local Jewish religious and community leaders"

You can't GET any more powerful than that.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Englander]

51. "My Name is Rachel Corrie".

'Taken from the writings of Rachel Corrie, edited by Alan Rickman & Katherine Viner'

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1854598783/102-1820456-2589747?v=glance&n=283155

[Englander]

52. A message crushed again

By Katharine Viner
March 1, 2006

THE FLIGHTS for cast and crew had been booked; the production schedule delivered; there were tickets advertised on the Internet. The Royal Court Theatre production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie," the play I co-edited with Alan Rickman, was transferring later this month to the New York Theatre Workshop, home of the musical "Rent," following two sold-out runs in London and several awards.

We always felt passionately that it was a piece of work that needed to be seen in the United States. Created from the journals and e-mails of American activist Rachel Corrie, telling of her journey from her adolescence in Olympia, Wash., to her death under an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza at the age of 23, we considered it a unique American story that would have a particular relevance for audiences in Rachel's home country. After all, she had made her journey to the Middle East in order "to meet the people who are on the receiving end of our (American) tax dollars," and she was killed by a U.S.-made bulldozer while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes.

>snip

It makes you wonder. Rachel was a young, middle-class, scrupulously fair-minded American woman, writing about ex-boyfriends, troublesome parents and a journey of political and personal discovery that took her to Gaza. She worked with Palestinians and protested alongside them when she felt their rights were denied. But the play is not agitprop; it's a complicated look at a woman who was neither a saint nor a traitor, both serious and funny, messy and talented and human. Or, in her own words, "scattered and deviant and too loud." If a voice like this cannot be heard on a New York stage, what hope is there for anyone else? The non-American, the nonwhite, the oppressed, the truly other?

Rachel's words from Gaza are a bridge between these two worlds — and now that bridge is being severed. After the Hamas victory, the need for understanding is surely greater than ever, and I refuse to believe that most Americans want to live in isolation. One night in London, an Israeli couple, members of the right-wing Likud party on holiday in Britain, came up after the show, impressed. "The play wasn't against Israel; it was against violence," they told Cindy Corrie, Rachel's mother.

I was particularly touched by a young Jewish New Yorker from an Orthodox family who said he had been nervous about coming to see "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" because he had been told that both she and the play were viciously anti-Israel. But he had been powerfully moved by Rachel's words and realized that he had, to his alarm, been dangerously misled.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-viner1mar01,1,2229722.story?coll=la-news-comment

[Behind the Aegis]

54. .

:eyes:

More propaganda...not at all surprising considering Israel is the target. Makes for good press, here and abroad.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. You haven't seen the play, so how would you know?

On the use of propaganda, I was reading Robert Fisk's new book this afternoon on the bus ride home and he quotes a historian called George Antonius, who in 1938 warned about the prevalence of propaganda...

"...it (the already copious amounts of literature available even back then) has to be used with care, partly because of the high percentage of open or veiled propaganda, and partly because the remoteness of the indispensable Arabic sources has militated against real fairness, even in the works of neutral and fair-minded historians. A similar equality vitiates the stream of day-to-day information. Zionist propaganda is active, highly organised and widespread; the world Press, at any rate in the democracies of the West, is largely amenable to it; it commands many of the available channels for the dissemination of news, and more particularly those of the English-speaking world. Arab propaganda is, in comparison, primitive and infinitely less successful: the Arabs have little of the skill, polyglottic ubiquity or financial resources which make Jewish propaganda so effective. The result is, that for a score of years or so, the world has been looking at Palestine through Zionist spectacles and has unconsciously acquired the habit of reasoning on Zionist premises."

If I haven't already mentioned it in this forum, 'The Great War For Civilisation' is a really great book which everyone should read...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

78. i wasn't talking about the play!

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

85. Oops. you were talking about an article about the play!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

97. you almost got it!

:applause:

[Violet_Crumble]

116. I'm going to die of excitement waiting for the punchline here...

There was no propaganda in that article, btw...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

117. Of course not...it was simply a review and outrage about the situation...

:eyes:

We all know there is no anti-Israeli propaganda in the American media. :sarcasm: (since I am sure you'd miss that)

[Violet_Crumble]

118. Well, actually it was...

but to those who think that any and all criticism of Israel or the mere mention of Rachel Corrie in a sentence without the word 'pancake' is anti-Israel propaganda, I can understand there'd be immense confusion...

Violet...

[Karmakaze]

126. What the hell???

That is just damn crazy.

[Englander]

114. My Name Is Rachel Corrie transfers to Playhouse

My Name Is Rachel Corrie, based on the writings of a young American activist who was killed in the Gaza Strip, will transfer to the Playhouse, following two sell-out runs at the Royal Court in 2005. It runs from 29 March and is directed by Alan Rickman.

Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement and travelled to the Gaza Strip on 18 January 2003. Just under two months later, she was killed at the age 23 by an Israeli army bulldozer while she was protesting at house demolitions.

>snip

Her writing has been edited by Katherine Viner, an award-winning journalist and editor of the Guardian's Weekend Magazine, and Alan Rickman. Rickman, who also directs, has worked extensively as an actor on stage and screen. He has most recently appeared in all four Harry Potter films, Love Actually, Dogma, Michael Collins and Sense And Sensibility. Stage credits include The Seagull and The Lucky Chance at the Royal Court, Private Lives (Albery), Les Liaisons Dangereuses for the RSC (also West End and Broadway) and Antony and Cleopatra at the National. He directed The Winter Guest by Sharman Macdonald at West Yorkshire Playhouse and the Almeida Theatre.

Megan Dodds makes a solo performance in the play, reprising her role in the Royal Court production. She has appeared on television in Spooks, Malice Aforethought and Love In A Cold Climate. Her work for theatre includes This Is How It Goes (Donmar), Up For Grabs (Wyndham’s) and Hamlet (Young Vic).

My Name Is Rachel Corrie was due to be staged in America by the New York Theatre Workshop but it has been postponed. The New York Times reported that the company had concerns about the political content. Tickets were due to go on sale on 5 March, according to the theatre’s website. In a statement quoted by the Guardian, Alan Rickman denounced the decision as “censorship”.

http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/display?contentId=88259

[Colorado Blue]

127. What's the big deal? This doesn't mean the play will NEVER

be seen, or that it won't be seen at this playhouse, or that people can't buy the damn script and read it.

So, a little sensitivity is being shown. This is so terrible?

Apparently, if Jews are involved, sensitivity is wrong, equals censorship, whereas in other cases, sensitivity - as in NEWSPAPERS, which are supposed to disseminate news - not showing newsworthy cartoons(ie REAL censorship) is correct and proper?

As several posters have pointed out this is most certainly a double standard.

Finally, it should be noted that producing a play is a commercial venture. People want to make money when they produce a play. Perhaps this is the wrong location for this particular play to make money.

Not producing it in this case isn't censorship, it's a business decision.

Does this make any sense? I hope????

[idontwantaname]

129. whats the big deal indeed...

i think the folks objecting to the play should just withdraw their objections... and while theyre at it leave paradise now alone too. sheesh.

[Colorado Blue]

132. They have a perfect right to object. Last I checked this was

still America.

The fact that you may disagree with them is your right, as well.

But don't try to keep people from expressing their opinions. That's wrong - considerably more wrong than protesting.

[idontwantaname]

133. "censorship born out of fear"

i have a "funny feeling" theres more going on than just "people expressing their opinions"

-------------------------

'Since when did theater come to be about those who don't go to see it? If the
play itself, as Nicola clearly concedes, is not the problem, then isn't the
answer to get people in to watch it, rather than exercising prior censorship?'


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-viner1mar01,0,2734495.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[Colorado Blue]

151. Oh come on. Fear of what? You're assuming the people of

New York are complete ignoramusses who will suddenly become True Believers if they see this play?

Nobody says the play can't be shown.

But it sure would be a better play if the victims of those tunnelers had a voice in it also and I think that's the basis for peoples' objections.

[Englander]

154. And you know this how?

--But it sure would be a better play if the victims of those tunnelers had a voice in it also and I think that's the basis for peoples' objections.--

How do you *know* that's the "basis for peoples' objections"?

Also, the suggestion that this play, or the incident it's based on is linked to the
smuggling of explosives, is, imo, an abhorrent use of hateful propaganda, do you have any
credible evidence that there's any linkage?

[Colorado Blue]

155. Oh calm down.

The house demolitions were ALL connected to fears, usually based on good intelligence, that they were being used as terminals to tunnels and/or repositories for weapons, explosives etc, or otherwise being used for terrorist purposes.

Court orders were generally sought and homeowners appointed attorneys.

That said, I always felt demolishing homes was an extreme reaction and hurt too many innocent people. I was very upset by them and thought it was wrong, although I'm not sure how else the explosive stashes and tunnels could have been dealt with. When civilian populations and their homes are being used for military purposes it always creates unhappy situations: how do you deal with the threat without harming the innocent?

By the same token, however, Rachel Corrie was hardly a saint. Eyl has posted photos on this forum of Rachel burning an American flag, with Jewish Stars, in front of little kids. She was actually inciting hatred, not morely trying to protect people.

Incitement in and of itself causes violence and death.

And given that the purpose of the bulldozers was to try and stop the smuggling and storage of explosives that were used to kill innocent Israeli civilians, you can't separate Rachel's actions from the big picture.

People were dying on the other side of that coin, m'dear. They deserve to be remembered as well.

[Englander]

159. A simple "no, there isn't any evidence" would have sufficed.

btw, the propaganda yer spouting here, is more hateful than usual, the concepts & language
used are more repugnant than usual. I'm curious, are there any illegal acts by the GoI that
you wouldn't support? If the situation in the future was that "transfer" of the population in
the OT was the policy of the Israeli Govt, would you "explain" & support that, or would that be
a step too far? Because the case yer constructing would suggest that there's some ambiguity as
to whether you'd support such a policy, the arguments used in this thread & others, if followed
to their logical conclusion, would suggest that anyone using such arguments was more inclined
to supporting such a policy than not supporting it. I don't know if you'd realised that.

[pelsar]

152. so true....

thats why the cartoons have never been seen on CNN..........the people have no right to decide for themselves.....thats why the cartoonist are now hiding and armed guards protect others.....

the play?....havent seen any riots....i did see several reviews on it on TV showing parts of it...(and that was in israel)...

[Englander]

142. Priceless.

Top quality spin, there, CB. Misrepresent the reasons why this play, "My Name is
Rachel Corrie", is being pulled, insinusate, ever-so-subtly, a-s, misrepresent the
content of the play, & then finally introduce a logical fallacy or two.

[Colorado Blue]

156. I'm not spinning. I'm trying to explain why people are upset.

Period.

[Englander]

157. Oh, aye?

By using the tactics of spin, & fabrication. That doesn't explain anything,
beyond spinning, & making-stuff-up. Clueless, subjective opinion doesn't tend
to help explain anything.

[Colorado Blue]

158. LOL! When in doubt, string a bunch of words together.

Do you have anything to contradict my point of view?

[Englander]

160. Wot, no poems?

:shrug:

[Colorado Blue]

163. You want a poem? I got one!

The Diameter of the Bomb

The diameter of the bomb was thirty centimeters
and the diameter of its effective range about seven meters,
with four dead and eleven wounded.
And around these, in a larger circle
of pain and time, two hospitals are scattered
and one graveyard. But the young woman
who was buried in the city she came from,
at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers,
enlarges the circle considerably,
and the solitary man mourning her death
at the distant shores of a country far across the sea
includes the entire world in the circle.
And I won’t even mention the crying of orphans
that reaches up to the throne of God and
beyond, making
a circle with no end and no God.

-- Yehuda Amichai

[Tom Joad]

139. Memorial celebration set in Oakland CA for Rachel --- not banned.

http://norcalism.org/events.htm

One of the speakers is Delores Huerta. For those who don't know, she co-founded the United Farm Workers movement with Cesar Chavez. Karenna Gore Schiff (daughter of Al Gore), who has recently written the book "'Lighting the Way: Nine Women Who Changed Modern America". Along with Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Mother Jones, & others, she includes Delores Huerta. Delores certainly belongs in that group of history-changing women. like Chavez and King, she epitomizes nonviolent struggle for justice.

Notice also the co-sponsors of this event represent a broad spectrum of people. Certainly included are Jewish, Arab American, as well as peace and justice groups.

There is also a whole really cool group of speakers and performers. So hey, while i do think it is crazy that this guy in NY is not showing a play that maybe someone, somewhere might be offended by, i would rather just concentrate on involving myself in something positive.

[Colorado Blue]

165. Nonviolence? That would be awesome.

The Diameter of the Bomb

The diameter of the bomb was thirty centimeters
and the diameter of its effective range about seven meters,
with four dead and eleven wounded.
And around these, in a larger circle
of pain and time, two hospitals are scattered
and one graveyard. But the young woman
who was buried in the city she came from,
at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers,
enlarges the circle considerably,
and the solitary man mourning her death
at the distant shores of a country far across the sea
includes the entire world in the circle.
And I won’t even mention the crying of orphans
that reaches up to the throne of God and
beyond, making
a circle with no end and no God.

-- Yehuda Amichai

[IndianaGreen]

162. The article makes the NY Times but it gets buried in Judaic Park!

Perhaps the reason why Israel is so hated is because hatred is cheap! It is just as easy to paint all Palestinians as terrorists and Israelis as pure innocent victims, as it is to paint all Palestinians as long-suffering victims and Israelis as brutes. The truth is not even in-between!

I read the article when it was posted upstairs, and I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, as well as the article by Alan Rickman that was published in Common Dreams.

There are people that don't want this conflict to be settled except on their own terms. A play about Rachel Corrie doesn't pose a threat to Israel, but using pressure to keep this play from the NY stage (and a Palestinian film on suicide bombers from the Oscars), contributes to the general ignorance the public has about the Middle East. Perhaps that is the intent all along. The less we know about the Middle East, the more likely we are to support imperialist policies in that region.

Let's take off our rose colored glasses, shall we? Israel has made mistakes in her dealings with the Palestinians. Many Palestinians desire peace and are willing to live alongside Israel. There are people on both sides that hate the other side. Palestinian leaders, prior to the Hamas election, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. Hamas wants peace, but it is a peace in which there no Jews!

As to the Left, there is downright ignorance and blatant anti-Semitism in there. One leftist author went as far as writing in the March edition of Political Affairs that "now it is time to wholeheartedly support Hamas" simply because it represented a rejection of Fatah's corruption. The author goes to great length to enlighten his reader with the history of Palestine, a history in which Jews are covered with burqas. To him, Jews never existed or had a presence in Palestine until the emigrations in the late 1940s.

[Colorado Blue]

164. Bravo - awesome post.

Thank you.

[Englander]

168. Rachel's story needs to be told, now

By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
P-I COLUMNIST

If there were poetic justice, if Hollywood or the publishing industry had true courage, the story of Rachel Corrie would be coming to a big screen or bookstore near you.

For now, the streets of Seattle will have to do. Tonight marks the third anniversary of the day Rachel died. A public reading of her mature writings will be held at 5 p.m. at Westlake Plaza.

>snip

When I spoke with Craig and Cindy Corrie a few weeks ago, they'd just come back home to the Seattle area after a rattling episode. In the Middle East, Palestinian activists had tried to kidnap them. The activists had a change of heart when they were told the couple's last name. If that is not a powerful testament to Rachel's legacy, I don't know what is.

Rachel's story has the incendiary aspects of "Crash," the political and corporate machinations of "Syriana," the death-on-foreign-soil intrigue of "The Constant Gardener," and the socially conscious punch of "Brokeback Mountain."

People would get to see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in all of its convoluted craziness -- and see courage in action. To paraphrase the Oscar speech of George Clooney, they'd get to talk more loudly about an issue that remains, relatively speaking, a whisper.

Rachel Corrie is ready for her close-up. Are we?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/263218_robert16.html