Monday, August 09, 2004

Gildenlow: basis of Israel: "1937 Winston Churchill said that he didn’t see the Palestine people as having the rights to their nation, just because they lived there, just as the native American Indians or the blacks of Australia should not have any claims on their lands. In this context, his whole argument rested on the case that some races are more refined and evolved and should therefore have a natural right to whatever land they found suitable. This is the political, and dare I say philosophical, point of departure displayed by the British government, as well as the US government, and even by UN when they 1947 split the nation in two, giving the Zionists 55% of the country (still a country they did not have any other right to more than a right based on racist ideologies). Within a year, the Zionists had taken 76%. 1948 the state Israel was announced, acknowledged by the US government within a few minutes."

"In 1969 the Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir claimed that there were no such thing as a Palestinian. Prime Minister Menachem Begin called them animals on two legs, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them locusts that could probably be crushed. These are not the hillbillies talking at the local bar after a few beers to many – these are the political governmental power talking, laying the foundation for a serious disaster with no winners. The Israeli government has always had the support from US, Britain and even UN, and just like the two former ones, terrible crimes against human rights have been committed, dressed like something else. The “War on Terror” is the perfect excuse to finish the job and put a glossy furnish to a decade long genocide. Simply put; poke the dog long enough and it will bite you, unfortunately giving you the perfect reason for its termination.

"After this historical escapade, I must begin with stressing the point that terror actions are always wrong and I feel strongly with all the victims. I emphasize this very strongly! However, I must also add that I see both sides as political victims in this situation. If you corner someone and take away all his/her status, rights and land, you create an enemy with nothing to lose – I claim that every human being can be turned into an avenger or stressed out animal, it’s all about how the surroundings form this being."

"As with the US way of dealing with political issues, today’s media knowledge makes it very important for every government to make sure that their agenda is supported by a language that has a morally charged connotation in their favour. Thus, we get used to seeing two sides from only one side, so to speak."

"All the atrocities performed by the Israeli government will not be called “terrorism” simply because they are calling the shots, rolling the dice. Nevertheless, there have been countless acts of terror towards the marginalized Arabic population of the area today known as Israel. It was seemingly a grand gesture to give away parts of a nation to the Zionists, and I’ll be the first to agree they deserved it, but unfortunately it wasn’t really theirs to give; it was stolen goods.

"As for the solution then… It is hard to see a good way out of this – it has gone way out of control and everyone involved are so emotionally biased and hurt, blind in many ways to the human value of the “enemy”.... So, can I claim that the Israeli people should be thrown out of their country and Palestine be reformed? Of course not. Can I claim that the Palestinians be thrown out from the country they once owned? Of course not. At some point you will always cross that line beyond which there are no right answers (even though, in my own words, we are always looking for a painless redemption), and a painful compromise must ultimately be made."

"I’m not a Christian, but there are certain aspects I wish that all creeds could take to heart (and I mean Christians too, since they seem to have missed these bits totally). It’s about turning the other cheek, not kill and treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Basic humanism. The interesting thing is, it took until the end of the 20th century to scientifically prove that this behaviour is in fact the most rewarding, both for the individual and on the bigger scale. In other words, cooperation will make you reach your goals to a much larger extent than any act of greed or violence. Take less and you will get more. Being kind is being clever. It is called Game Theory. War and violence has now been scientifically proven to be a dysfunctional means of achieving any purpose whatsoever. For any side. Now, how has that knowledge changed our behaviour?"

"the Israeli ambassador’s behaviour at the exhibition in Stockholm last month? Terrible. I’m sorry to say this and I do not mean to offend anyone, possibly apart from Mazel and Sharon. Art is a way of dealing with difficult topics, and Zvi Mazel was not to judge the value of that piece of the exhibition better than the artist himself, or any other spectator for that matter. I can understand that it stirred a lot of emotions and I could have forgiven him for his action, but I cannot forgive his defence of that action. And for Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister (and, let us not forget, the former Foreign Minister) of a supposedly modern society to officially support this kind of action is deeply disturbing! A travesty of governmental power and a mockery of political communications and relations. If a piece of Israeli art would offend, say the French, would it be correct of their ambassador simply to go there and destroy it? And would that be accepted by the Israeli government? Of course not. No nation would consider that proper procedure, were it the other way around. What then, in Sharon’s opinion, should be an ambassador’s role and rights? I mean; these are two grown up men we are talking about, with high political positions – if they cannot be rational and communicative, then who can we expect to be? Talk about setting a moral example supporting rouge justice. Mazel broke Swedish law (which, I daresay, is not unlike any other nation’s law in this matter) by destroying a piece of art at a museum, and was applauded by his own government. Perspective, please! There are so many things and patterns that need to be destroyed to make this a better world – that was simply not one of them. Nor, I might add, are human beings."

"I am simply unwilling to submit to the misleading contemporary, however unspoken, concept that being opposed to Israeli politics means you are anti-Semite, just as little as being against Bush means you are pro-terrorism. Those leaps of logic are huge, and very dangerous! I strongly oppose violence of any kind, just as I oppose narrow-mindedness and political persecution, and nationalistic and patriotic hypocrisy and ethnocentrism. It must end, and walls are not the answer. FBI agents on the flights are not the answer. Bombing is not the answer. Fear is not the answer. Understanding is. A worn down and naïve concept? Well… Sometimes the truth starts to sound like a cliché, simply because in our hearts we have known it for so very long. We just fail to live by it."

"To all our Israeli fans I want to add: take care until we meet! And once again: I hope I haven’t pissed people off with my political answers. I thought many times about simply skipping those questions, but I figured silence was never a good way of dealing with problems. I have tried to find my way through these difficult issues and mine fields, but as we all know, language is a very blunt tool and I can only hope you see what I am trying to express.
I only wish for every human being to be respected and have good lives without fear and hate, regardless of race, nationality or creed. But for that to happen, I think we must all start to make amends and learn the gentle, but difficult, arts of forgiving, modesty and understanding. It has a word. Empathy."

No comments: