Nature Theatre of Hebron

[tom h.]

The conflict is only ethnic (what else is conflict ever?). I lived in

Dublin until age 28, and two hours north of us we had a little

conflict of our own. In Belfast, for example "which side of the

fence" you were on could dictate anything from where you could

socialize, to whether you got that job you applied for or not.Poor

Israelis, never killed anyone. Neither did the British government.

Or the IRA, or the PLO. All poor innocent victims. With killers of

every type at their (literal)disposal.

 

Tom

[nesrani]

Well, I will make a couple of points.

 

First of all, the Palestinians do not have a "human side", Asher - they _are_ human. And they exemplify human qualities that I would be proud to possess in even a small measure.

 

More than one person has said that there are no winners in a war. This is not true. Israel has won vast concessions diplomatically and economically - in fact its entire economy is based on continuing this conflict. The Israeli victims of terror attacks are a price the Sharon government is glad to pay because they know that if the conflict-driven contributions to Israel from the US were to stop as a result of lasting peace in the ME, Israel would soon go down the tubes. One of the points of my piece was that the soldiers themselves are to be considered the targets of this cynical policy as much as the Palestinians and Israeli civilians who get caught up in it. As for the settlers, it is hard to have much sympathy for them, except for their children.

 

As another example, it is generally assumed that the US lost the Vietnam war. This is of course not true. They had to withdraw militarily, but their fundamental aim, of suppressing emerging democracy in Indochina and crushing the potential economic threat from that region, was achieved. 58,000 US dead and a booming war economy, against 3-4 million dead in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, their economies destroyed � it is evident who came out on top here. The domino effect was successfully thwarted and the region is still impoverished thirty years later. The aim in the ME is very similar.

 

Monkey God - I didn't do the layout; one of the pictures is indeed about the girls being threatened by the soldiers but it has been placed much further down on the page. I wouldn't have done it that way myself. My fault for not doing the layout myself.

 

I have a plan to do a project about the "victims" on both sides, but it is very complex and expensive. Who knows, though, maybe next year. (I use quotes around the word victims because I dislike the word as such; I don't see the Palestinians as victims, they are too intelligent and active for that. I'm not talking about the PA or Hamas cynics here, of course.)

 

I am of course anti-Israel, in the sense of deploring Israel's policies. No doubt this will make me an anti-semite in the eyes of some of my readers.

 

Finally, anyone who thinks the press is not structurally biased towards Israel must be illiterate, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

[cd thacker]

Robert, <p>

 

Much of what gives the piece dimension and resonance and makes it work for me is the sympathetic way you represent the soldiers. I had occasion to spend some with a couple of young Israeli soldiers in my travels, and like many young soldiers post-conflict, their sense of "patriotism", once so strong and sure, had been shattered. What was left was a bottomless hole of loss and mourning, for all sides, and regret - a hole that very little light and few words could escape from. These soldiers were determined to refuse to serve any longer on their return home - a determination that came, they told me, out of love for their country as much as growing hatred for their government . I really can't describe the depth of sympathy I felt for them. Your piece brought some of that back to me.<p>

 

Why don't you try sending this (after maybe tweaking the layout) to Aperture?

[eric__damn_those_seagulls_1664877331]

"I did wish evilness on one overly intellectual/ obnoxious troll"

 

You fear my powers Franky-boy! Seeing as you seem to be behaving yourself I'll let it be. I gave you enough of a factual spanking last time.

 

Xinbad: I've seem many images of the Palestinians' suffering, both moving and still, but your work has a singular impact. Very gritty, very atmospheric. Where can I see more of your p.j. work?

[msitaraman]

Rob the Xailer,

 

The quality of your work has jumped up by a large quantum! I guess the divine light got to you in the desert wilderness, eh?

 

But seriously, I for one am very very happy to see how very effective your work (and style) have become. The imagery now completely serves the moral message, having no extraneous aesthetic qualities, which is of course, exactly how it should be.

 

No small achievement. This is top stuff, folks.

[john_perkins2]

Hebron again? It's an interesting city anyway. But despite the nice colours, I can't help feeling I've seen this before. Liked the pictures of the press. I've seen a couple of nice pieces on settlers, one by Jan Garup of Rapho, and I don't remember who did the other one. IMHO the settlers hold the key to the situation. 500 people bringing a city of 80,000 to a standstill is an amazing feat if nothing else. As one IDF soldier there told me, "we have to protect our citizens". Yeah, right. The situation has improved a little now, the university is open again, and parts of the market are working. I'd be interested to see something more current, and more distinct in content as well as style - something that's not AFP or Reuters. It's not easy.

[asher]

<I>....the Palestinians do not have a "human side", Asher - they _are_ human. And

they exemplify human qualities that I would be proud to possess in even a small

measure.</I><P>

You missed my point completely, X. I'm not debating the humaness of the

Palestinians, not even the radical militants who run the PA and are doing as much (or

more) to hurt the Palestinians as the Israelis. I'm pointing out that your piece, while

photographically excellent, is blatantly one-sided, the missing piece being the Israeli

<U>civilians</U> (i.e. not just the Israeli soldiers) who have been murdured by the

PA.<P>

It is your kind of mis-guided, uninformed anti-Israel bias that I see perpetuated in

much of the Western world's media, particularly the European and US media- i.e.

protect human rights, so long as those humans are not Israelis.<P>

<I>..anyone who thinks the press is not structurally biased towards Israel must be

illiterate, that's the only explanation I can come up with</I><P>

Illiterate? Perhaps on some dimension I am, but at least I'm not selectively self-

blinding. Not a good characteristic for you, as a photojournalist, to have.

[nesrani]

"... which helped mellow the vietnamese transition."

 

Yes, they really needed mellowing out after Uncle Sam came to visit. I think the cynicism is on the other side, Frank baby.

[Robin Smith]

Fascinating and bizarre conspiracy theories as-per-usual, RobX.

 

"The Israeli victims of terror attacks are a price the Sharon government

is glad to pay because they know that if the conflict-driven contributions to Israel from the US

were to stop as a result of lasting peace in the ME, Israel would soon go down the tubes."

 

I also doubt that you have Sharon's motives correctly. He (and his party) believes at heart that Israel has a right to that land and is therefore very very loath to give it up -- you of course know his arguments. One could argue that he is making it very difficult for himself and the nation by holding such an uncompromising position - it would be easier for international opinion if he was much more conciliatory - certainly all outside nations would find it so. I therefore seriously doubt that the economy is at the heart of this - it is about the land. If the conflict ended tomorrow Israel's economy would improve immensely independent of US aid. I do not care for Sharon and his ilk, but I doubt his motive is quite as cynical as you point out. But of course, you do tend to believe that as everything has a simple economic cause.

 

It would indeed be very interesting for you to do a similar story on Israeli civilians. Perhaps in many ways it is easier to depict the oppressed, so (as someone else mentioned) why not depict the oppressors next time? That, from you, would be very interesting and I suspect much harder: you might be surprised by what you find. I'm glad that it is on the horizon.

[cd thacker]

<i>X if you think there are winners in war then you are as guilty as those whome you have condemned with the use of a conspiracy theory based pseudo economic lefty claptrap argument.</i> - Peter A.<p>

 

But of course there are winners in war. And sometimes you have no choice but to wage it. (Think of the Russians and where they would be today - for that, where we all would be - had they not waged, and won, a war brought to them.)<p>

 

Sometimes the only thing to do is fight. Unfortunately this leads some to think that fighting is <i>always</i> the only thing to do. And that wars will always occur - so the best thing to do is to crush your enemy and win (I'm sure this rationale occured to many Wehrmacht soldiers on the Russian front).<p>

 

Clearly, wisdom makes distinctions between wars, deciding which of them to fight; and between various ways of waging them. Only an <i>idiot</i> (Hitler comes to mind, but not only him) thinks that greater military might entitles one to unchecked aggression. <p>

 

In winning there is aways a bit of losing, right? Sometimes there is so much losing that any victory is a hollow one (for all except very narrow interests, who care about no one and nothing but than themselves). And sometimes, might notwithstanding, victory shows up on the other side, or just never reports at all.

[Spearhead]

<i> While the USA certainly made many mistakes in Vietnam, the alternative would have been a "democracy" controlled by China or the Soviets - perhaps along the lines of another North Korea? </i><P>

 

I'm traveling and shooting in Vietnam for most of December. As preparation, I've done a tremendous amount of reading on the history and culture. I would say that this is a major mis-reading of what happened and what would have happened in Vietnam had things been different.

[nesrani]

"Aslo I have to withdraw my previous staement regarding your lack of bias - if you are making images with a predetermined political view then they are just adornments to your political prose - mere conveniences, you arent presenting a view you are delivering propaganda, which makes you one of those politically correct lefties that know what is best by definition."

 

Peter - I could write a book about the naivety of this statement. All documentary has an agenda, political, socio-economic etc. It's early in the morning and very cold here so I won't go on about it, but the idea that there is somehow an objective ground to stand on in doing this kind of work is really naive. There isn't. Of course the position of someone who has a more adversarial viewpoint will be more "biased" than that of someone who espouses the establishment view, which is naturalised and needs no defense. Nothing personal, but I'm surprised to hear such an unsophisticated position from you.

 

John Perkins - this is just the tip of the iceberg, believe me. Only pictures about the most obvious conflict-related things. BTW - did we meet in Tabasco in April last year before you went to Bethlehem during the siege? Your name rings a bell. Hebron again? Well, it's a pretty fascinating situation.

[._._z]

Nice photos, you dirty hippie.

[leslie_cheung]

very interesting work. not that it matter much but was it slides?

negatives? or the tiny minolta digicam i remember you were getting?

[Allen Herbert]

Thanks for sharing, Rob. Democracy, isn't it about being able to share your thoughts?

 

Enjoyed your photos, enjoyed your essay. Thanks.

[h._p.]

Well, having come late to all this I'll make a few comments which will no doubt cause me grief...

 

Firstly, I think Robert's prose is much stronger than his photography in this case. Having read it I can see that much of what has been written above must reveal misunderstanding, obtuseness or a failure to read what he's put there. It is a strong and thoughtful piece of prose that seems well balanced to me.

 

On the other hand, I really think Robert should lose that wide-angle for a bit. The pictures seemed to me to be too stylised and they seemed to objectify the subjects rather than reveal them - the exact opposite of the text. I'd also have liked to see pictures which expanded on the text, such as the confrontation between the soldiers and the schoolgirls which was so vividly described and which was a very telling comment on the situation.

[nesrani]

It is indeed well-documented, Peter, and I base my interpretation on those documents and my experiences in Israel and Palestine. I'm not an academic, but I have read a good deal about the conflict and its background, and I follow it on a daily basis in a wide range of publications, Israeli and others. So I must beg to disagree with you. I think I have a good grasp of the situation.

[eric__damn_those_seagulls_1664877331]

"I'm not an academic, but I have read a good deal about the conflict and its background"

 

Why do people assume academics are any less biased or more authoritative in their interpretations than others? In fact, academic historians are more likely than most to twist the truth as they are part of institutions ingrained to the core with reactionary establishment values. Trust me, I've studied it and experienced it first hand.

 

The history of crimes against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel (and it's chief sponsor, the US) is clear to any fair-minded person analysing the evidence at hand. A fair interpretation of primary and secondary source material is not the same thing as �bias�. Thus Rob�s depictions of Palestinian suffering are not �biased� but are in fact a representation of the reality of life under occupation.

[nesrani]

Eric, you are so... naive/cynical/marxist/biased. You choose ;-)

[Robin Smith]

"Trust me, I've studied it and experienced it first hand."

 

Right everyone. Talking's over! Eric knows best - got it?

[eric__damn_those_seagulls_1664877331]

Robin, bless you, you cheeky monkey!

 

"I therefore seriously doubt that the economy is at the heart of this - it is about the land."

 

If you can't see the blatant contradiction in that statement, then no one can help you. Reading your arguments is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

 

p.s. Seagulls are dirty creatures, damn them!

[asher]

Frank, X: It's clear you've both made up your minds and don't want to be confused by

the facts.<P>

How is it that revealing only one side of an issue is not a biased view?<P>

I look forward to X's promised story of the Israeli families of victims of European-

funded and UN-sanctioned PA murder.

[asher]

Correction: My previous comment is directed to Eric seagull and X, not Frank.

[edward_zimmermann]

Some Xinbad quiped "<cite>First of all, the Palestinians do not have a "human side", Asher - they _are_ human.</cite>"

<P>

Of course the Palestinians are human.. Humans are, like

their cousins the chimpanzee, a vicious, mean tempered

and destructive animal prone to gleefully commit genocide.

Deep in the human spirit is the urge to kill. So the gleeful

men in the Baltic who for fun and game chopped off breasts

of Jewish women before tossing them into mass graves just

as the Hutu chopping off Tutsi heads in joyish ecstasy or

the Palestinaian blowing themselves up in the ultimate

organism of envisioning how many Jews they can kill..

The millions on the Haj are human. The dead and smashed

corps under their feet were all human. The dead Tutsi was

human. The Hutu holding his severed head is human. The dead

Liberian is human. The kid eating his

heart is human. The Arkans, Osama Bin Ladens, Sadam

Husseins and George W. Bushs, All Human.. Hitler and all

the brutal dictators to have ever walked the planet were

all human.. The dead in the killing fields were human.

Skin heads are human. So the KluKluxKlan and the Nation

of Islam.. even Ian Paisley is human... and maybe even this Xinbad.. human.

[nesrani]

I suspect you mean "orgasm", Edward - but let's not quibble.

 

Me human? - not bloody likely.