STEPHEN FRY

yes, i mean that letter signed by him - but, you see, i did think maybe there was something in it - the celebration is not of the state of israel (unless i am missing something) but a religious celebration, that's what's confusing. stephen fry is a entertainer and we can't expect him to be a politician too - also he may have been importuned in some way - but i think it is misguided and will also be ineffectual, so why bother and kind of also take a rather anomalous stance.

do you see a separation between the state of israel and the religion?

just one more thing for now,
why hasn't anybody asked the surrounding arabs countries who are so angry at us for not accepting these 'refugees' to take them in to their own countries. "oh, yeah, when we meant someone should take care of the refugees we didn't mean it that way"

btw i'm fourteen so i find it surprising that i know more about both sides of these political situations than these 'informed' peopole

there are several directions this discussion could go - and several issues - although i do not think Stephen Fry has followed up after he signed that letter in the guardian, should we expect our performers to engage politically much more than this? (i am Just back from Rome where a fascist mayor has proclaimed that people like George Clooney are not welcome [ ahem, he does own a property there so he cannot be disincluded...silly mayor] because clooney supports a more left wing scenario..there are many pics of him shaking hands with the opposition leader Veltroni..

so one issue is about what political maneuvers we expect from our performers. (do we classify the HIV and bipolar discussions as political moves by stephen fry?)

the other issue is a matter really of how to go about being effective - does a dollop of honey, i.e. sending messages of festive greetings because israel celebrates a historical event do better than sending messages referring to withdrawal from associating with them - two different ways.

as for myself, i think the honey approach is more effective - convince them that there is something to talk about and it may not be too painful. after all to do so..

Egypt and Jordan, incidentaly, have been taking refugees in.

Have you read the article?
The article is available on-line here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/israelandthepalestinians
You can find signatures bellow it.

leslieann wrote:
...a witty and interesting article defending the BBC's more up-market programing ...can anyone find the link for that and put it up?
It's not the article but here's the link to a speech on the BBC-topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/video_fry.shtml
On the Israel topic: why not just accept Mr. Fry's opinion? Just because Israel is the subject?

I don't know enough about the situation in Israel to voice and informed opinion one way or another. I do know that cultural boycotts can have an impact, as in the cultural boycott of Apartheid South Africa. Not the same situation, but still undesirable. Those of us who are in the other nations can do little except voice our opinions, and forming those opinions into anything with any focus at all often involves individuals or groups in the public consciousness taking the lead.

If your point is that Stephen Fry shouldn't hold this opinion because it's different than yours, then I'm sorry that you have found someone you respect has a different idea of the world than you do. It can be hard when that happens and I sympathise. If however you feel that he shouldn't hold this opinion because "celebrities" shouldn't make public their political opinions, then I disagree most vigorously. Indeed, you only have to point to something like Apartheid, or Band Aid (yes, Geldof's a pain, but he's done a lot of good too) to see that the cultural sphere is just as important as the political sphere, in some cases even more so because it can act with more spontinaity and speed than the UN could ever manage. And if not, it can at least raise awareness that there are important things in the world, to those who cannot bear listening to PM's Questions.

Personally, I think it's a great shame that so few "celebrities" are willing to take a stand. I'd like to think that a few athletes could have seen past their personal records to the situation in Tibet, and decided to take the humanitarian path, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

*climbs off soapbox*

[/url]

do you think searching for the truth is the way to find a solution? probably not. boycotting celebrations seems futile and just like thumbing your nose at people to no effect. there seems lately to be some movement toward peace, which is really the end goal, not finding the truth. the truth is, strangely, something different for each person or group. the reporters of fact have an angle when they report fact, and so we can never trust quite what we are learning in newspapers or on radio or TV anyway. but i suspect even if you were to be on the spot, seeing it yourself, your interpretation of what was happening would be tilted toward who you were and what you wanted to get out of the situation. an opinion that tolerates the notion that there are many perspectives to be accomodated could lead to open thinking about what has so far been an intractable problem. maybe new ideas will emerge.