(via Canonist)
Subscription required to view the article but here is the relevant info:
Ms Manning would say only that “as an editor, I am entitled to choose what to print. It is my prerogative.� Mr Kaul was more forthcoming, telling the JC: “We are opposed to the occupation. If any company in Israel co-operates with us by adding a disclaimer saying it is opposed to the occupation, settlements and everything else, we will co-operate with them.�
The website of the 17,500 circulation magazine includes a link to the website of the Palestine El-Funoun Popular Dance Troupe. Asked why the Palestinian company was not required to provide a disclaimer against suicide bombings, Mr Kaul responded: “There’s a reason for people to become suicide bombers. Their land has been occupied.�
UPDATE: Allison has more.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
OK from now on if anyone anyone at all, ever wants to communicate or work with me, he or she must first disavow in writing every position his/her government takes with which I disagree and find pointless. because, you know, you are either for us or you’re against us.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:47 am
And there is a reason Israel occupied Palestine. Because it was afraid of ruthlessly violent, hateful neighbors. Like the latest form: Palestinan suicide bombers. I don’t think either side is right. I don’t think DE’s half-baked, hypocritical righteousness is either.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Israel won the territories of Gaza and what is now called the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan respectively, in the 67 war, just like any other country takes territory in war. After the war, Israel tried to give them back, and neither country would take them, because they wanted to make trouble for Israel. You make it sound like Israel just up and decided to “occupy” these territories.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
“And there is a reason Israel occupied Palestine. Because it was afraid of ruthlessly violent, hateful neighbors.”
“Israel tried to give them back, and neither country would take them.”
Is this the Twilight Zone?
March 16th, 2006 at 5:48 am
So what’s the next logical step? Do we refuse to dance with any dancer who won’t sign a disassociation document from their government’s actions? So I’ll be asking any US citizen if they condone their country’s illegal detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay against either the US constitution and international law (you can’t have it both ways), the transportation of suspects to non-aligned countries for the specific purpose of interrogation under torture, support for right-wing dictatorships over benign left-wing parties, refusal to signup to the Kyoto agreement despite the scientific evidence (unless SUVs actually fall from the skies you won’t believe they’re damaging the environment!) and breech of WTO agreements on bananas, cotton, sugar etc. while quashing any support for minor nations in the West Indies.
Dance should embrace a ‘one world’ philosophy without segregation on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political belief or sexual orientation. (the exception being where there might be an artistic reason, e.g. visually a black woman in white and a white man in black are used for contrast). Let’s draw a line under this discussion and leave it for the bigots and warmongers to fight it out in the political journals. There are many excellent contributors to Dance Europe (such as Kelly Apter, Mary Brennan
and Donald Hutera) – the editorial team should hold up there hands they made a mistake ever getting involved in this. Others should take it as a lesson not to go down that path.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Just read the Neil Nisbet article (no relation!). Looks like we overlap a bit but I’d admit though admiring Judeism I’m not naive enough to believe that Jews are just as capable of being ruthless terrorists as anyone else, witness the attrocities committed by the (pro-Nazi!) Stern Gang in the 40s and who’s sympathisers remained in high office in Israel.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Yehudit, since I think your comment was aimed at mine, I didn’t mean Israel “just up and decided to ‘occupy’ Palestine”, although I see how my flippant tone might have suggested it. I also understand the word “occupy” as being a sensitive and highly debatable point, which I will leave for another forum. The main point I meant to underscore was (my understanding) that Israel has long felt threatened and isolated, and more often than not for very rational reasons (like really violent, hostile, bigoted neighbors), and that it is short-sighted for the magazine to empathize one-sidedly with Palestine. I also meant to state that I am not in entire agreement with all the Israeli leadership’s conduct with regard to Palestinians and Gaza, even if I can empathize with some of the fears seem to fuel it. Nor do I condone Palestinian suicide bombing as a response–it’s abhorrent. And most of all, I meant to say I think this magazine in question is totally out of line.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Shouldn’t have commented, Tartanleotard now marked ‘forbidden’! mmmm