Mural celebrating Edward Said and Palestinian culture a theat to Jews?
Posted on February 26 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Educational Institutions.One of these murals is not like the others. Guess which one.


The General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) at San Francisco State University is asking people to sign a petition to urge the SFSU president to approve what could be the first Palestinian mural on a college campus in the United States. The mural, which celebrates the great Palestinian scholar Edward Said and other elements of Palestinian culture, would join the other murals above that honor Cesar Chavez and Malcolm X, as well as Filipino and Asian Pacific Islander communities.
In a February 7 open letter to conservative columnist Debra Saunders about free speech issues at the school, SFSU school newspaper editor Ian Thomas wrote:
Last summer the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) completed the process to send a mural to President Robert Corrigan for final approval. Associated Students Inc. had approved the mural through a democratic student government process by a 6-2 vote.
Corrigan blocked the mural from going up by immediately placing a moratorium on all new murals, stating the mural is “conflict-centered” and it “runs counter to values that we hope have taken deep root at San Francisco State, among them, pride in one’s own culture expressed without hostility or denigration of another.”
In an October meeting Corrigan reportedly called mural supporters “bigots,” which is the same term some people give to say… the Minutemen, which the Repubs have also rallied for on campus. [X]press supports this expression as well.
A character in the mural, “Handala,” by acclaimed Arab cartoonist Naji al-Ali is shown holding a pen and a key. The key represents the Palestinian “right of return” to what they deem their homeland. Some say that “right of return” represents the destruction of Israel. Through research and interviews I have found that Handala is a refugee child and is a used in many different contexts, depending on the specific use and the viewer. He is normally depicted as poor, with his hands held behind his back, sometimes he is shown throwing rocks.
The General Union of Palestine Students writes:
After over a year of painstaking efforts by the mural committee to follow the established process, the President of San Francisco State University, Robert A. Corrigan, prematurely denied the mural just before the final stage. It is 2007 and the mural is in jeopardy and needs your immediate help The SF State president, Robert Corrigan claims the mural represents a “culture of violence” and is “hate to Jews.” He is saying that the Palestinian house key and Handala are offensive but he does not explain why or what to support his claim.
He allowed other murals up on the Cesar Chavez Student Center, such as the Malcolm X mural, the Cesar Chavez mural, the Filipino Mural, the Pan Asian and Pacific Islander Mural, which depict struggles of refugees and colonialism, (http://www.sfsustudentcenter.com/about/murals.php) however the administration has been trying to stop our mural since day one before they knew anything about it.
SFSU newspaper editor Thomas goes on to say:
In my opinion the story…started when Corrigan limited the free speech of GUPS and the democratic process of ASI. What is he teaching us? I, and many on this campus, posit that Corrigan has set a poor example by limiting expression when he and/or his advisers didn’t like what the mural had to say.
So what exactly is it about the image of the Handala, the small boy with a red shirt in the right side of the mural, holding a traditional Palestinian key in one hand and an ink pen in the other, that is so offensive? Why has Corrigan unilaterally decided to halt the mural because of these “hostile” images?
One clue can be found in this op-ed published in the Bay Area’s Jewish newspaper J back in October. The executive director and board president of San Francisco’s Jewish Community Relations Council write approvingly of Robert Corrigan’s move in SFSU president keeping Jews safe with mural censure:
The proposed Palestinian mural focused on the life of Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor, and incorporates numerous symbols of significance to Palestinians. Permanent murals at SFSU are expected to focus on the ethnic American experience and to express pride in one’s culture.
At first glance the mural appeared to be relatively benign. Upon closer examination, however, it was clear that symbols of political resistance and hostility to Israel had been included, with enormous potential to create a divisive atmosphere on campus. While there were several troubling symbols, two stood out as explicitly offensive — an image of a key with the Arabic term “return” representing the purported Palestinian “right of return” and the concomitant destruction of the state of Israel, and a cartoon-like character known as “Handala” holding a sword. Handala has been used by Palestinian artists to represent active and often violent resistance against Israel.
Yitzhak Santis, JCRC’s Middle East Affairs Director, did invaluable research on the significance of these two symbols and why they would, as permanent fixtures on the side of a public building, send a chilling message to Jewish students and all on campus who support Israel’s rights. In short, the Palestinian key is more than just a key, just as a conical hat on the top of a man dressed in white robes is more than just a hat.
In fact, the key represents the many keys and deeds still held by Palestinians who left behind their homes and their belongings in 1948, with suitcases in hand, assuming they would be returning shortly. It represents not just the lost of their homes, but the loss of their homeland.
But in this op-ed, the symbolism of the key is unsubtly compared to the KKK, because the mere evocation of that history threatens Jews and the existence of Israel. By this reasoning, Palestinian students should equally never be forced to endure an image of an Israeli flag because it would send a “chilling message” to them about the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians in 1948 to make way for the State of Israel, and the ensuing repression experienced since 1967 by those living under an illegal occupation.
Hastings law professor and Palestinian American George Bisharat has written extensively about his own family’s experience in a cosmopolitan pre-1948 Palestine, both befriending and even protecting Jews, and then being displaced by the early Zionist military that took their home and thousands of others belonging to Palestinian families. With laser clarity, in this essay originally published in the San Francisco Chronicle, he gets to the heart of the mural controversy, and the attempt to deny Palestinian memory or resistance to occupation and exile in any form:
A recurrent theme, however, even among the most compassionate, was the assertion that, in resolving issues between Palestinians and Israelis, “We cannot go back to the past,” and indeed, that we Palestinians must forget the past.
It struck me as ironic that such an admonition could issue from people whose claimed attachment to Palestine goes back 2,000 years. What this says is that who can remember, and who can be made to forget, is fundamentally an outgrowth, and an enactment, of power.
Viewed in this way, our remembering, is a form of continuing resistance to the defamation and erasure of our history.
But remembering Talbiyeh of the pre-1948 period is more than a form of resistance. Recalling that era, and the people it produced, involves envisioning a possibility for another future. Talbiyeh was a place of tolerance, compassion and enlightenment, its sons and daughters cosmopolitan, broadminded and welcoming.
In recalling and claiming this heritage, we are also promising that when Israelis are ready to recognize Palestinians in their full humanity, as no lesser beings than themselves, we will be there, in all our ingenuity, imagination, strength and, ultimately, even love.
To forget this rich legacy, then, is to deny our humanity, to negate our identity and to abandon a future in which Christians and Muslims are equal to Jews.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
February 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Interesting. Now this site has expanded its focus from allegations of anti-Israel Jews who feel their opinions have been muzzled, to Palestinians who feel that they should have the right to symbolically demand the destruction of the state of Israel, whether or not the intended recipients of their message want to sponsor a forum for them or not.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:46 am
The Edward Said mural certainly appears to be less threatening than the Malcolm X mural. The critics are reading far more into the Handala character than is really there. Handala is much like the “little tramp” creation of Charlie Chaplin. Methinks they protest too much!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I think this site was founded because of:
1. a collection of people who disagree with Israel’s policies, and/or behavior, who felt like their views were not given adequate visibility - and perhaps being intentionally stifled.
2. a collection of people who disagree with Israel’s existence as a Jewish State, who felt like their views were not given adequate visibility - and perhaps being intentionally stifled.
Alternative views include:
1. These opinions are more widely heard than they realize.
2. The organized Jewish community in particular is under no obligation to air views that they consider hateful to Jews (probably most of point two above, and much of point one above).
3. These views receive the reception that they deserve (or possibly a larger reception than they deserve!), and, those that hold these views are unwilling to accept this.
Is this a fair characterization of the situation?
If yes, or if it’s close, I think it would be interesting to see a summary to date of the “muzzling” that has been fairly established.
And why not, also document the muzzling of those that are more receptive to Israel’s current policies, or considered more hawkish? (e.g. the shouting down of Daniel Pipes in Berkeley or the Israeli consul in San Francisco).
Muzzling is muzzling, right? The point is that we don’t want to see opinions about Israel muzzled just because we disagree with them.
Probably some of the muzzling complaints are valid. Others not. For example, Joel Beinin’s un-invitation in San Jose turned out to be due to the fact that he was incorrectly invited to counter an anti-Israel speaker.
It could be that this blog was created just around the time of a tipping point, where commentary opposing Israel’s policies are more widely accepted.
Ironically, I have personally witnessed increased “muzzling” activity among those opposed to Israel’s policies; that is, disruptions designed to “muzzle” the speakers that agree with Israel’s policies or are even more hawkish. I also frequently listen to speakers opposed to Israel’s policies, and have not witnessed the corresponding disruptions - with the exception of one disruptor widely known among both sides in the Bay Area.
This is all a digression on the point of the mural. Moderator, you are under no obligation to post this comment here. However, it is something I’ve been thinking about, relevent to the blog as a whole, and I’m not sure where to post it. (Yes, I know some of you are ready to tell me “where to post it”
February 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Art M.,
No doubt you are technically correct. However, your point has no context. In reality there is overwhelmingly more muzzling going on from one side than from the other. And the little one is no doubt an attempt to retaliate for the big one. Can you figure out which one is which?
Secondly, as to the mural, I am not in favor of displays that will help intensify the situation even more. However, it does force me to think what exactly is my position on the right of return.
I think the right of return is a legitimate right, because the expulsion was illegal. However, there are questions as to: (a) who exactly it applies to, and (b) among those it does apply to, what exactly should be done.
Assuming one possesses a legitimate “key,” I think the right of return has to be recognized and honored — but reality dictates that in most cases it has to be honored in some other way than actual return — namely, by compensation, etc. Just like Jews are being compensated for stolen property in Europe.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Hi itzikl. I read and hear at least as much criticism of Israel policies these days as I do advocacy of them. My experience on this issue seems to differ strikingly from yours.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Hi Art,
Really the relevant question is not how much you or I read of one or the other; it is how much the Jewish public, the American public, and American decisionmakers, respectively, are exposed to.
I am coming to the conclusion that American Jewish public opinion is the crucial element in turning things around, because American jews are the only ones who could effectively challenge AIPAC, etc. — not that they do yet — and i can say that in actively searching, mainly on the Internet, for writings intended primarily for the Jewish public, over the past several years, I have found it far more difficult to find articles or discussions critical of Israeli policy and American policy that supports it, than the reverse. Since I started looking, maybe four years ago or so, it HAS gotten easier to find, but i still do not find anything remotely like parity, and this is with me actively looking for it.
For example, I know of only 15-20 Jewish blogs that specifically explore alternatives to current israeli and American policies in the Middle East — I leave the leeway because about 5 of them are so secular/internationalist that it’s not so easy to classify them as Jewish, although technically they are. How many pro-AIPAC or just go-along-to-get-along Jewish blogs are there? A LOT morethan 15-20, I dare say. This must mean something, unless the Jewish world has some mysterious aversion to the blog format.
What about lobbying politicians? Is there anything in the Jewish world to remote compete with AIPAC?
February 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I used to notice this when I would visit the New York City area; Jewish people that I encountered seemed largely oblivious to criticism of Israel, unless they listened or read socialist-era leftist media, or perhaps Ha-artetz. Now they seem a lot more aware. That’s my experience, anyway.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Perhaps your perspective isn’t a popular perspective. After all, no one is preventing bloggers from blogging about anything. Is there a particular reason that you’d like to “compete with Aipac”? Whats your precise criticism?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
R,
All evidence is that my perspective is extremely popular and urgently necessary. No one’s preventing bloggers, no, but lots of people have been and are being muzzled, and the idea of being able to speak openly about these things without being labeled either an ‘antisemite’ or a “self-hating Jew” is exactly what’s holding back open criticism of Israeli policies or AIPAC.
What’s my precise criticism? Do you know what blog you’re on?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Is “R” pretending that the source of the censorship of the SFU mural is not the lobbying of Jewish organizations?
February 28th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Are Jewish organizations and SFU managemnet - objecting to the entire mural or just a portion of it that they find particularly designed to generate hatred? That may be literally censorship but not usually what we consider problematic censorship. We expect hatemongering to be censored. As I understand, the argument here is that those objecting to that portion of the mural may be misinterpreting a particular symbol on the mural.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
[i]Is “R” pretending that the source of the censorship of the SFU mural is not the lobbying of Jewish organizations?[/i]
‘R’ is what we call a troll, who adds nothing to a board but acts as an ongoing nuisance to serious posters. I suggest you do as I do and skip his posts.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Its quite alright if you call me names, I’ve been called alot of names in the past, “Kelbe Yahud, Jew Bastard, Jew Boy, Jew Dog, Chr-st Killer, etc. So feel free to call me names like other haters, butif my ideas are a “nuisance”, it seems like code to have my ideas “muzzled” simply because you disagree with me.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
to be realistic, wouldn’t the mural have to display suicide bombers and other acts of agression? hatred of israel and jews is taught in palestinian schools, little kids are trained to wear bomb-belts. if you’re going to represent palestinian culture, don’t leave these important elements out.
in all seriousness, it’s an offense to real peace and justice activists like chavez to have this mural next to theirs.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I would like to know if Art, bhakti, et al have ever been to the West Bank or Gaza.
Little kids in Palestine are not “trained to wear bomb-belts.”
And please don’t recite to me the story about the photo of the kid dressed up as a suicide bomber. Imagine if we were all judged by the prank of some dumb American at a party.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I would like to add that I think the Malcolm X mural is inflammatory. They should have had a mural of MLK or perhaps all the civil rights leaders.
I can’t really see the Filipino mural in this post.
The Chavez mural is ok.
I like the Said mural. There’s absolutely nothing controversial in it. This is another example of the pro-Israel lobby inventing things.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I’m grateful to Muzzlewatch for having posted an actual image of the proposed mural, particularly in the context of other murals that are displayed on the same campus. As a Jew who respected Edward Said enormously, and who learned a great deal from him over the years,I certainly was in favor of the *idea* of the mural; but I had no way of knowing how incredibly moving I would find it. Thank you again for providing the opportunity to view it–as well as to link to the petition–on Muzzlewatch.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:51 am
Unless I’m missing something, there is nothing in the other murals that advocates violence or suggests destruction. The Said mural has an image associated with violent Palestinian terrorism and another icon associated with the destruction of Israel.
Yes, one of these murals is not like the others.
Thankfully, the organized Jewish community was able to explain these symbols to the powers at SFSU so that President Corrigan could understand how this mural would not only be harmful to relationships at SFSU, but would be endorsement of sentiments that not only have no place at a public university, but have no place in civilized society.
When I first saw this mural, I could not believe that GUPS could be so overt as to put the Handala and the key in such prominent display.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
I’m always intrigued by the peculiar type of zero-sum thinking that underlies the thinking of people like Dan: You win, I lose. I win, you lose, except you don’t exist so you can’t lose. It must be a new kind of logic–people can be threats and yet not exist at the same time!
The “Dans” of the world are fond of saying that if the Palestinians return they would “destroy Israel” (apparently the presence of Arabs somehow means the destruction of Jews), while at the same time they claim there are no Palestinians…but if that were true how could they return?
As for the Malcolm X mural, “By any means necessary” does imply violence. We’ve gotten so used to thinking of Malcolm X as a saint that we’ve forgotten that he had controversial views. It often happens after someone dies and their movement becomes inconsequential. They become “safe” and we can lionize them. I bet a lot of the people who painted that mural didn’t even think about what “by any means necessary” implies.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Theres a reason that people think that the “right of return” of everyone that ever had an Arab ancestor that once lived within the British Mandate of Palestine is part of an Arab effort to destroy Israel. The reason is that why the Palestinians state openly they’re asserting a “right of return!” Its only the supposed “left”, that ignores what the Palestinians say and do and replace it with what the”left” THINKS they would do were they the Palestinians. Its not only misguided but its also condescendly racist as it treats the Palestinians as if they weren’t responsible for their words or actions.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“Theres a reason that people think that the “right of return” of everyone that ever had an Arab ancestor that once lived within the British Mandate of Palestine is part of an Arab effort to destroy Israel. The reason is that why the Palestinians state openly they’re asserting a “right of return!”
There seems to be an entire paragraph missing in between your two sentences. What was it you were trying to say??
I don’t think anyone interprets “Right of Return” as meaning “anyone who ever had an Arab ancestor in Palestine…” Needless to say, that would be impossible to determine. Obviously the Right of Return would mean the right of people alive today who actually lived in Palestine, and perhaps their descendants.
A right is a right is a right…People don’t lose their rights when their rights become inconvenient to others.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 am
“By Any Means Necessary” means just that. Use the necessary means to achieve justice and equality. It does not mean use and celebrate violence like the Handala holding the sword implies. It does not mean throw the white people into the sea. It means he advocated equality for blacks living in the USA.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 am
Elizabeth, it is people like you who undermine groups like JVP and add to their lack of credibility. Of course, you could just be a troll trying to discredit JVP like the MoveOn stunt last year. I do understand that anonymous postings on this board do not constitute an endorsement by JVP, no matter how much they appear to conform to JVP statements, actions, and associations.
You claim
“I’m always intrigued by the peculiar type of zero-sum thinking that underlies the thinking of people like Dan: You win, I lose. I win, you lose, except you don’t exist so you can’t lose.”
I have no idea where you got this, but inventing straw men the main strategies of anti-Israel activists.
Having a Jewish state is not “Zero sum” for anybody. Just ask the Arabs who immigrated into pre-state Palestine in the early part of the 20th Century. Just ask the Arabs who come in from the territories to work there now.
Some of us believe that peace benefits everybody.
“It must be a new kind of logic–people can be threats and yet not exist at the same time!
“The “Dans” of the world are fond of saying that if the Palestinians return they would “destroy Israel” (apparently the presence of Arabs somehow means the destruction of Jews), while at the same time they claim there are no Palestinians…but if that were true how could they return?”
Can you point to a single time I or anybody else have said that Arabs do not exist? Can you point to a single time that I said that Palestinians do not exist?
In case you do not know, and based on your posting you do not, there are 1.3 million Arabs living as citizens in Israel. There are another 250,000 Arab “permanent residents” with the option to become citizens living in Jerusalem and the Golan.
On the other hand, anti-Israel activists claim that the existence of 250,000 Jewish settlers somehow precludes the creation of a Palestinian State.
You claim that the demographic overwhelming of the world’s only Jewish state is not the destruction of Israel. This is very similar to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s statements that when he called for Israel to be wiped off the map, he just meant the political establishment, not the land itself. Of course no one believes him, and only the malignant or the blind will believe you too.
It is axiomatic that if you flood Israel with the people that claim to be decendants of anyone who lived in the area prior to 1948 for two or more years, this will mean the destruction of Israel. It will be the dreaded “bi-national” state at best, and, at worst another Arab nation that Jews will be forced to flee, just like the other 22. This time, however, just like prior to 1948, there will be nowhere to which to flee!
Israel is all too familiar with the hazards of the “bi-national state” with Lebanon just to the north and Iraq one country to the East.
Those of us who are not fooled by neo-con utopian fantasies and who know history understand the dangers of this situation.
Some of us believe that we need less civil wars and more peace.
March 4th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Dan, I still can’t make sense of most of what you say, but I would like to clarify that I am not a member of JVP and I was not under the impression that one had to be a member to comment here, since most people here do not appear to be JVP members.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I’ll leave aside the question of whether or not the “Right of Return” for refugees symbolized by the key in the Handala’s hand necessarily equals a call for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State (that, it seems to me depends on the way that right gets validated or not in political, economic, and geographical terms–there are different ways of doing that; some of them would make the Jewish character of the state impossible, others would preserve that by establishing terms of compensation other than residence and citizenship within Israel itself, presumably made possible by a Palestinian state. What the muralist him or herself means by the key is not at all clear).
One thing is clear, however: the Handala in the version of the proposed mural posted on this site is NOT holding a sword in his hand, but a PEN. The meaning of that difference should be obvious, I’d think. And it ought to at least recognized in this debate.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Whoever claims “by any means necessary” means anything but violence (or revolution for that matter) shows a really poor knowledge of Malcolm X and his movement.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
http://caraudi.prophp.org/audi-a5.html Then of the audi a5 in unsurpassed
March 20th, 2007 at 10:37 am
What on earth was that last post about?
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
[…] Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if SFSU’s president Corrigan will do the right thing and let students go ahead with the Palestinian Edward Said mural. The National Lawyer’s Guild’s Carlos Villareal writes in Pres. Unfairly Censors Palestinian Students’ Views : Our position is that the denial of the Palestinian mural is content-based censorship and appears to be an attempt to silence a particular political viewpoint, We fear that this mural is being singled out because of the ethnic group it represents, and that students’ due process rights have been violated. This would appear to be State Action in violation of the students’ constitutional rights and thus actionable under 42 US Code §1983. […]
May 8th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
free sheet music bars 42…
Hi! http://24.crykrasavchegi.com/1_0.html . Thanks!…