UKC

In reply to Richard:

that doesn't bring up the same emotions for me. It looks like some berk climbing on a very grand old building. Its the same to me as if someone was climbing on any old status or antiquities.
P

In reply to pete theobald:

Emotions are jolted by what you know is going on - it's only because you know what the wall in Palestine represents that it affects you. Doesn't Iraq, cradle of civilisation, provoke those feelings too?

In reply to Richard:

yes it does, but its offest by someone in big army boots standing on something which to me looks like quite old art and not something that should be climbed on. It also doesn't look very interesting to climb on. I guess you have different feelings to it than I do. The pic in the rampant brick poster is a man climbing a wall and it looks amazing and peaceful and the sort of thing that would be really enjoyable. The image of the wall is so totally opposed to the image of the man climbing on it. The iraq pic doesn't do it for me. Its an image of the excesses of a ruler, whether a dictator or the monarchy before it, and a a soldier whos invaded the country on top. To me this is totally different, as well as the fact hes trampling on some quite nice art in big army boots and basically showing off, I don't see anything good about the picture of the soldier.
P

In reply to pete theobald:

I'll change that a little bit. the picture of the climber on the wall in iraq actaully offends me. I find it offensive that the soldier is climbing it and it offends me that someone has taken a picture and is showing it to the rest of the world.
P

In reply to pete theobald:


This sums up why I dislike it; it's all symbolic. I agree - it's not a particularly good picture (unlike, as you say, the Isreal one), but it still provokes the emotions.

I think we're talking at cross purposes... this bit in your original post


was what triggered the link, at least in my head.

In reply to Richard:

The bit i find strange about comparing the two is that the israeli one is very symbolic and brings about totally opposite emotions but brings together the isreali issues and also climbing in the sun and brings in a bit of reality to teh subject of climbing. The iraq pic is some pratt climbing on something he should have a bit more respect for. Its best summed up by a word like 'tw4t' or 'prat' or something less or more offensive. It doesn't need much debate in my mind its just desecrating stuff just because you've got a gun and no ones there to stop you. I guess theres quite alot of danger involved in the israeli picture as hes climbing something which I assume people might try to shoot you for climbing on. The iraq picture has got all the debate here and no ones even mentioned the israeli one (you get the point anyway)

P

In reply to Richard:

yes. I like the israeli pic. I think its fantastic. It represents something amazing in the fun of someone climbing in the sun and also represents something dyspicable. The iraq pic is thoroughly dispicable in that the soldier was there doing that and also that the photo was taken. I have a sneaky feeling we agree on this thread.
P

In reply to pete theobald:


Probably so. I apologise for derailing, but at least the thread got bumped back up the stack...

In reply to pete theobald:

Photo relates to the current story at the top of World News here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Forgot to put that in. Its off the top story in the news archive. I've taken the text out, centred the pic and got it as my desktop. Looks very good.
P

In reply to pete theobald:
Yes, it's the wall between Israel & Palestine, on the Palestinean side. You can see the Mount of Olives behind.
I live nearby, we have a small climbing wall as well. But this picture suggest that when there's peace we will have the worlds's largest climbing wall, with the addition of a few plastic holds.

In reply to pete theobald:

It may come from here (about half way down):

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html

Here's another one taken during protest about the wall which cuts off a lot of Palestinians from land that belongs to them :

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/2004/8/29/4.jpg

More about the wall:

http://gush-shalom.org/thewall/

This is a book in German about the wall:

http://www.kultur-fibel-magazin.de/Kultur%20Fibel%20Buch,%20Avnery,%20Die%2...

A google translation, which make little more sense than the original!

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.kult...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I went to the Checkpoint Charlie museum recently, and someone had scrawled "No wall in Israel" in biro on the wall in one room - which I also found quite poignant.

In reply to Richard:

have a look at http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/2004/8/29/4.jpg

I'm sure there hand jamming there way up the wall.
P

In reply to MikeTS:

Well, I don't want to jump down your throat, but does phrasing it like that mean that you are assuming that anything on the "Israeli" side of this illegal war is Israel, and that "Palestine" is therefore limited to the part on the other side of the wall ? j
Just the fait accompli that is sought by building it, I suppose.

In reply to pete theobald:
"The iraq pic is some pratt climbing on something he should have a bit more respect for. Its best summed up by a word like 'tw4t' or 'prat' or something less or more offensive. It doesn't need much debate in my mind its just desecrating stuff just because you've got a gun and no ones there to stop you"

Get a grip man! As far as I'm aware the warriors of antiquity didn't wear tin helmets! My guess is this is one of Saddam's palaces, not some ancient monument (though I may be wrong)

Calling him a tw@t is fairly out of order.

In reply to George North:

do you know the man in question. I don't. My thoughts at looking at that pic are that hes bang out of order (you could of course be from the part of the uk where the word tw4t is a lot more offensive than it is in the bit i come from of course). I couldn't give a monkeys if its one of saddams palaces. Its a piece of art and it looks to me like a very good bit of art. To invade a country and then behave in that manner - i.e. climbing over everything with no regard for it is shameful.
P

In reply to pete theobald:

You're being silly here, don't you think? Have you never climbed a building in your own country. When I was a student in London it was one of our favorite activities from the Albert Memorial to the West London air terminal.

Maybe a bit silly but don't get too serious or you may implode!

In reply to pete theobald:

Just had a look at the photo again, it's a taty old bit of Saddamistic masonry - the soldier in the carving is wearing a tin hat and rangers. It's probably been reduced to pebbles for road stone by now anyway - certainly deserves to be from an aesthetic point of view!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

we are talking here about the differences between 2 pictures. One of someone climbnbing the isreali border wall and on eof a soldier climbing a building in a country hes helping to occupy. It is a serious thing. I've climbed buildings in this country and i'm sure that iraqis have climbed on that too since, but since were talking about the differences between the 2 photos it is kind of quite important that the context is kept, and in my mind the context is that the army the soldier is from has killed thousands of people, invaded their country and is then trampling all over there art. Bit insensitive if you ask me. Personally I hate the photo and it embodies what I don't like about the whole iraq thing. There is nothing in that photo that I see as good. The israeli one is a ver interesting picture though. I would say i'm being serious about it. Have you read the whole thread btw?
P

In reply to pete theobald:

forgot to say. The israeli one would be a pretty cool photo anyway evern if it was a totally innocent wall that just happened to be crossing some pretty chilled out happy friendly countryside with people who all helped each other across roads and such like. The iraq one isn't a very good photo, just illicits string emotions in people who don't like that sort of thing i.e. me.
P

In reply to pete theobald:

Did you find the destruction of statues and murals of Sadam by UK/US troops equaly dispicable. These pieces of "art" are, to my mind, much more a testament to the disgusting vanity of Sadam and his government than they are cultural history and I believe they should be treated with the contempt that they deserve. If they provide a bit of relief to a climber stuck in a flat land, then so much the better.

Mark

In reply to pete theobald:


That's awesome.

Let's start a fund to send some of those guys to Yosemite.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/2004/8/29/4.jpg

what grade does it go at ?

In reply to Anonymous:

My personal view is that saddam was a bad ruler but there are woirse in the world. The genocide in africa is a much worse crime than anything saddam did, and that is pretty bad. Remember that things are still bad even if theres worse. I think that if your liberating a country you should respect it. Everything that saddam put up is part of iraqs history no matter how dispicable people think he is and its up to the the iraqi people to decide what to do with it. Basically the pic in iraq doesn't show a soldier being very humble. It shows a sense of arrogance on the part of the soldier. My views are obviously from the point of view of being against the iraq war and being anti israeli and pro palestine, and should be read as such. I definitely think that saddam was not the worst ruler in the world at the time he was removed from power.
P

In reply to pete theobald:

Yes I have read the whole thread (I read too many!) and I posted all the stuff from gush shalom, BTW.

I still think you're wrong though. The photo of the wall in Palestine upsets me more in that it is an attempt at an aesthetic creation on the backs of the local people whose life is being screwed up by the wall (good photo though). I prefer the shots of Palestinians jamming up the cracks, would like to see one of them pissing on the top too - they'd probably get shot if they tried.

As for Sadaam, I'd say he was the worst established tyrant in the world at the time of his fall (near the top of the league, anyway). Didn't you see the photos of Iraqis tearing down all the hated pretentious stautes and monuments he had built? The palaces built with money destined for medical supplies.

Sadaam is a part of history like Hitler was but collecting and conserving Hitlerian relics is against the law in some countries, and rightly so. I think you'll find that many Iraqis think that the sooner Sadaam is forgotten the better too.

In reply to lost1977:

Dunno, perhaps HVS but serious for the grade, you get shot at the top!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

just written 2 responses and deleted them both. I'm sure we've got similar enough views really.
P

In reply to pete theobald:

Yes, perhaps, in theory, it's applying it to real life that is the tricky bit. It's not because I repeat myself a lot, and get offensive, that I'm really that sure of a great deal.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

well in the end it doesn't really matter. Iraq never had a great impact on my life. the only impact its had that affects my life is the fact that I can hardly afford the diesel to go in my car (counter productively as if i had some spare cash i'd get it serviced and it'd be a whole lot more efficient). The thing that gets me about htis thread is the lack of response it got. Its basically been us 2 debating why I think the soldiers a pratt and a few other people dropping in. tMy earlier thread about dj shadow got a much more enthusiastic response. Maybe twice as many people posted. Since iraq/isreal/palestine affects everyone in terms of this country going to war and dj shadow being of interest to people who are into really nice dance music which is probably only going to be (realistically) 10% of the population, I guess people don't really care the much about iraq/israel/palestine. Probably not that but a bit bored of the posts. The israel pic is a brilliant background on my desktop though.

P

In reply to pete theobald:

I felt that the photograph of the chap climbing on the wall was quite beautiful and etherial, it looked like he was having a good time in a bad situation. And you can, if you want see the picture of the soldier climbing on the Iraqi carving in the same way; just a climber doing what climbers do in the situation that he happens to be in.

I think the reason the pictures produce different emotions is because we have all these other cultural signifiers affecting the way we feel, and we impose our own personal narrative onto the shot - the way we feel about the Arab and Israeli conflict, the way we feel about the war in Iraq, the way we feel about American Soldiers.

Incidentally, I think the first picture is the better one. I like the geometry and the lines, the still feeling and the light.

In reply to Alsion Bnod:
Spot on.

I think Mr Theobald is probably seeing what he want's to see in the Iraqi picture: ie. A british/American soldier insensitively trampling over Iraqi culture, rather than taking a slightly more objective view and seeing it for what it is - just somebody having a bit of fun.

George.

In reply to Alsion Bnod:

Thinking about it a bit more clearly. I think there both people climbing things in a way that says 'up yours'. The difference being that I dont like americans and the suns out in the first one, and also its a better pic. Ain't life simple when you think of it like that.
P

In reply to George North:

don't worry about the not seeing the point in the iraqi pic. I know the soldiers just having a bit of fun. I just think its a bit insensitive to invade a country, kill thousands of people and then piss about on their heritage . Bit like killing someones mum then asking if you can nick their parking spot.
P

In reply to pete theobald:


Yeah, kinda depends what they're saying "up yours" to as well, doesn't it...

In reply to pete theobald:
"The difference being that I dont like americans"

All of them?

In reply to George North:

no i'm not the bigot you would like me to be. I also don't like scousers, glaswegians etc. I'm being stereotypical which means i'm referring to the majority rather than the whole.
P

In reply to George North:

by the way. Would you care to put your views down before you criticise others. I've been very open with my views here, I trust your happy to do the same.
P

In reply to pete theobald: He's a British soldier, what has your dislike of Americans got to do with it?
By the way this piece of "heritage" looks about 20 years old at most.

In reply to Lewis climber:

I wouldn't know the difference between british and american photos with just a photo of their back. Someone said they were american above. Of course the pics of some heritage. Its one of saddams palaces. Its one of the most important things in iraqs recent history so definitely heritage, in the same way that the scottish parliament will be heritage as is canary wharfe. Just because its not old doesn't mean it has no part in history. The remains of ground zero in new yourk are heritage and thye've only been like that for 3 years.
P

In reply to pete theobald:
"I also don't like scousers, glaswegians etc. I'm being stereotypical which means i'm referring to the majority rather than the whole."

Sounds quite biggoted to me.

(btw, I don't think our climber is American (though obviously you'd prefer it if he was (he might be a scouser though I guess.))

George.

In reply to George North:

I don;t see you laying your cards on the table george. Care to explain your views in the same way that myself and bruce have done. Or would you rather snipe from the sidelines. BTW, i was joking about glaswegians, i've never been there, half joking about scousers as I used to lilve there (still have scouse friends) and said americans to relate to the american people who voted seem to support their countries foreign policy. I'm sure there are some very nice americans, but half the merkins i've met i've not got on with, and i don;t recall explaining my political views to any americans so that can't be the reason.
P

In reply to pete theobald:
"by the way. Would you care to put your views down before you criticise others"

I don't really have any views on the photo to be honest - it certainly dosn't provoke any great feelings of outrage or disgust. I think it's just a photo of somebody doing what all climbers do - climbing things, as well as perhaps showing off slightly too.

As it happens I'm not particularly in favour of the war, but I wouldn't condemn somebody as a tw@t for taking part in it.

George.

In reply to George North:

never called the soldier a 'tw4t' for taking part in the war. Its just a job. Called him a tw4t for showing such arrogance. Big difference. But these things don't really matter. There only opinion and everyones entitled to one. I would be interested to know what your opinions are when you've thought about them a bit more (i'm taking it you don't really have one as you said so in your last post)

The threads been about 2 photos. One in israel and one in iraq and the difference between them. I find it quite interesting how everyone has focused on the iraq one and ignored the israel one. Maybe its easier to make a strong point in response to my response on the iraq one compared to my response to the israeli one.

P

In reply to pete theobald:
"never called the soldier a 'tw4t' for taking part in the war. Its just a job. Called him a tw4t for showing such arrogance. Big difference."

Come off it! I bet you wouldn't have been so harsh if you hadn't thought he was American. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion of course, but to call him a tw*t on a website where thousands of people are able to read your character assasination isn't really on.

I imagine the reason why your response to this photo got so much interest was because it was over opinionated twaddle! Personally I found your response far more interesting than either of the two photos!

George.

In reply to Red Sonja:

Just using the loose convention adopted by the BBC etc. There's no internationally agreed border; technically there's no Palestinean state. I have my views on where he border should be: so do millions of others and they're all different!
I also know you are asking a consciously provocative question.

The photo of the wall in Palestine upsets me more in that it is an attempt at an aesthetic creation on the backs of the local people whose life is being screwed up by the wall (good photo though). I prefer the shots of Palestinians jamming up the cracks, would like to see one of them pissing on the top too - they'd probably get shot if they tried.

It's relative. I live in Israel & Isrelis have been under attack all their lives. Since they started building the wall the number of "successful" homicide bombers has decreased dramatically. So there are probably several hundred Israelis walking (perhaps my daughter?) around who would otherwise be dead. You can always pull down a wall later (or turn it into a climbing gym) but you can't bring people back to life.

In reply to MikeTS:

And how many extra Palestinian children are dead because of the wall? You really see the world in a brutally selfish way, don't you?

Perhaps we should just beg to differ, we live on different planets.

In reply to pete theobald:

Slight diversion: what grade did the Berlin Wall go at? And was 1989 the worst case of chipping yet recorded?

In reply to pete theobald: Fantastic picture. Just can't help hoping he's Palastinian.

In reply to psd:

I think it was E0, but you'll have to check that out wit a certain "Fiend". He'll probably have some info about the chipping too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
name 3 dead because the wall was built

In reply to pete theobald:
check out the Everest Peace Project
www.EverestPeaceProject.com

This shows that Israelis (one a friend of mine) & Palestineans can come together as fellow climbers without hate. When you're actually there (as opposed to adopting an ideology or watching the BBC) life can work.

In reply to pete theobald:

Out of interest, Pete, would your comparative feelings of the two photos be any different if you found out that the guy in the Palestine pic was actually an American?

In reply to Richard Bradley:



why?

do they have more right to climb?

In reply to Dafydd y Diogyn Di-waith:

Very simple, mate. The Palestinian has a total right to climb wherever he likes, or on whatever he likes, in his own land. The Israelis, as the illegal occupiers, have no such right; and the Americans, who have turned a blind eye to the creation of this illegal wall, have much less right, by any logical argument.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
well, the issue of international legality.......

Under the UN charter Nations both have a right & an obligation to protect their citizens. This right & obligation is not limited by geography. Unless Israel is the only country without this right????

In reply to MikeTS:

What an extraordinary thing that you should be mentioning the UN in relation to Israel. I wouldn't push that argument too far. (Just how many resolutions have been ignored over the years? God, if the Americans hadn't liked them they would probably have been nuked about 15 times by now!)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
This is a strange thing. The UN created Israel in 47. It passed a resolution saying that it (& its neighbours) had a right to secure borders after the 67 war.

Now it wastes huge amounts of time & money on the "Israel Question." But does nothing observable on a host of evil, corrupt & murderous regimes that are also UN members: check out the new thread I started on why UKclimbing posters hate Israel for some suggestions.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Yeah. I do wonder about the UN....

I think the number of UN resolutions passed against Israel says more about general widespread Israel-hatred than about the wrongdoings of Israel.

Gordon, you make it sound as if you think Israel deserves to be nuked. You are losing my respect.

MikeTS: UKClimbers read too much of the Guardian to feel any human decency towards Israel. It's all black and white with them. Mind, the BBC is nearly as bad.

In reply to Dafydd y Diogyn Di-waith:
WHen I was younger I thought that the Grauniad & the Beeb were God's (or Britain's at least) gift to the world. Now I don't. Which of us changed?

In reply to MikeTS:

This an illustration of the problem, this simple phrase, that you have repeated several times, and clearly believe, is not true.

If you looked at any general history book you would find this.... the UN made a proposition to share the territory concerned between two economically linked states the 29th November 1947, after the British had announced that they wished to abandon their Society of Nations mandate. The sionist leaders accepted this, the native Palestinians and the arab states refused.

When the mandate came to an end on the 15th May 1948, the same day Ben Gurion declared unilaterally the creation of the state of Israel and war broke out, and it has continued to this day. These are the simple facts, copied from the 2004 version of Microsoft Encarta. Israel was not "set up" by the UN.

It is very difficult to debate when something as fundamental as this is either unknown to, or denied by, you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Britain was given the mandate from the League of Nations, the UN took over from the League, Britain wanted to leave Palestine, the UN voted with the majority position supporting partition, & the British left as soon as they could. The Jews announced they were a country within their partition, the UN recognised them as such, and the Arab League didn't, so it invaded & the invaders incoporated large parts of manadatory Palestine into gtheir own countries.
Sounds like "the UN created Israel in 47" is a pretty good short description of this sequence of events to me.

In reply to MikeTS:

If they were factually correct perhaps!

In reply to MikeTS:

>Under the UN charter Nations both have a right & an obligation to protect their citizens

The same Charter also enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination

Sooooo...Palestinians should stop their rather self-defeating attacks (at least on civilians) and Israel should get the hell out of the west bank to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Other than a relatively small number of illegal settlers, who could possibly object to that?

In reply to Enoch Root:

What about the rest of Palestine, do they just lose that for good?

I'm afraid that this proposition will never lead to peace anymore.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Your point is so subtle that I don't get it.
Are we debating the meaning of words?
Or whether Israel was established legitimately

In reply to MikeTS:

Both, wouldn't you say?

In reply to Richard:

Of course that's right as a statement of fact- there is no wall in Israel, its in palestine. Slap through Palestine.

In reply to pete theobald:
I dont like americans

Who does?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hi Bruce
How would I know what your talking about: it's your objection!
So: tell me what constitutes legitimate estblishment of a country if (apparently) recognition by the UN doesn't? I'm curious.

In reply to MikeTS:

When was the present state of Israel, within the borders it occupies at present, recognised by the UN? Did any such recognition ever have the validation of the indigenous peoples concerned?

Back to your history books Mike.