Jews disagree over SF mural

From MuzzleWatch:

Homey mural

The San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) and the SF office of the Anti-Defamation League pressed the SF Arts Commission to change what they deemed offensive imagery in a new mural made by some 200 residents of San Francisco’s diverse Mission district under the auspices of HOMEY-Homies Organizing the Mission to Empower Youth.

JCRC’s Abby Porth said, “The imagery took a radical position on a complex geopolitical issue that was out of touch with the international community, San Francisco and the overwhelming majority of Jews.”

In fact, a number of Jews in the Bay Area took issue with either any efforts to change the mural, or the range of objections to the mural presented by opponents, and testified to that effect at the recent Arts Commission hearing.

Full story.

Here’s how the story ended, from the Examiner:

HOMEY and [artist] Norberg, however, have agreed to alter the images that some called divisive and hostile. The group has agreed to change the shape of the crack so it does not resemble a silhouette of Israel, add blue sky where the wall towered to reflect a brighter future, add an olive tree to symbolize peace, and remove the headscarf from the woman’s face. The Arts Commission approved the revisions Wednesday.

“Our intention was to draw parallels between the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and the Israeli-Palestinian security barrier,” said Nancy Hernandez, youth program coordinator at HOMEY. “We consider this section … to be a statement of solidarity between the residents of the San Francisco Mission district and global movements for oppressed peoples to gain self-determination.”

Full story.

12 Responses to “Jews disagree over SF mural”

  1. Our intention was to draw parallels between the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and the Israeli-Palestinian security barrier

    The problem with this parallel is that I cannot remember the last time a Mexican walked into a Honky Tonk in Texas and blew the place up.

    Whatever else Israel might be doing with the wall, THIS is its raison d’etre, and its effectiveness has been clearly demonstrated.


    Rich · September 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
  2. Th talk radio crowd would disagree, Rich. Although there might not be Mexican suicide bombers, there is a fear that porous borders mean opportunities for terrorists. Of course there are also those commercials that tell us that every time we smoke weed the terrorists have already won.

    And whatever, it doesn’t have to be an exact equivalent. The separation fence may serve another purpose, but the effect of dividing people is the same.


    Siviyo · September 21st, 2007 at 8:47 am
  3. “We consider this section … to be a statement of solidarity between the residents of the San Francisco Mission district and global movements for oppressed peoples to gain self-determination.”

    The thing that is holding back the Palestinians from self determination is the corruption of their own leaders. They’re sitting pretty while their people starve. That’s why I get sick to my stomach thinking about their suffering, not because of a wall that stops psychopaths from blowing up families on passover.


    Adam · September 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am
  4. I accept their claim. Close immigration to both.


    DK · September 21st, 2007 at 11:10 am
  5. The extent to which porous borders might allow terrorists entry into the United States really doesn’t make sense in the case of the U.S.-Mexican border. The 9/11 terrorists came in legally and in a few cases, over the Canadian border– but that’s not the border Americans are talking about fencing off.

    The West Bank Wall is an inelegant solution to an even uglier problem. The proposed U.S. Mexican wall is just xenophobia.


    IanThal · September 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
  6. The residents of the San Francisco Mission district that I know aren’t in solidarity. Hmmm.


    sarah · September 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
  7. Ever since the fall of communism, left wingers and liberals have looked for a movement to adopt to replace their defunkt association with socialism and communism.

    Anti-semitic Islamism is the perfect movement- they have a simple message, they actually get out there act on it via suicide bombing, terrorism, and other attacks, and they target a classic scapegoat for the worlds problems: the Jews.

    So the left wing and liberals, former lovers of peace and harmony, are now lovers of all things anti Jew and anti Israel. Whether its lobbying to reduce circumcision in hospitals, boycotting Israel at Rainbow Grocery, or painting threatening murals in the Mission, the former peace lovers sadly have joined a cause that brings them into the depths of depravity.

    I grew tired of the constant run ins in SF with so many people turned anti. So I moved to NYC where I now have Ahmenajad speaking at Columbia. At least he doesn’t paint murals.


    Shalom Yosef Melamed · September 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
  8. “Add blue sky where the wall towered to reflect a brighter future,”

    that is absolutely Orwellian. What brighter future? Penned inside walls w/limited access to land, water, schools and hospitals? Israel steals land and we must pretend it’s blue skies above? This reminds me of the sign Israel has posted on the Qalandia checkpoint that reads, “The hope of us all”


    xisnotx · September 23rd, 2007 at 4:01 am
  9. This is one left-wing Jew who does support Israel. It’s the most leftist regime in the entire region! It has courts that force the government to respect the rule of law and the rights of individuals, it has a free press, it has labor unions, it has rights for women and gays, and it allows people to peacefully protest if they believe they are being wronged by the larger society, there are multiparty elections, political parties are not allowed to operate their own paramilitary organizations, and the military answers to civilian authority.

    So please don’t paint the entire left the same color.


    IanThal · September 23rd, 2007 at 9:25 am
  10. Like I said above, it absolutely blows my mind how little is said about Palestinian officials beyond stories about fighting between Hamas and Fatah. And regarding land grabs, the first land they would grab if they really did want to push Palestinians across the Jordan would be Hebron. They would not be evacuating settlers from our second holiest city as they just did. The separation wall is not a land grab, it’s not about final borders, its about protecting Israelis.

    You wanna talk about desecration:
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reo1zw-k_8g
    This is like taking a buildozer to the Kaaba. They won’t let archaeologists dig because what they would find would disprove the Palestinians official line that the Temples never stood there. The saddest part is Israel is letting this happen.


    Adam · September 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 am
  11. “You wanna talk about desecration:
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reo1zw-k_8g
    This is like taking a buildozer to the Kaaba. They won’t let archaeologists dig because what they would find would disprove the Palestinians official line that the Temples never stood there. The saddest part is Israel is letting this happen.”

    And what gets me even more than that, Adam, is how Israel *walks on eggshells* to do necesary, respectful maintenance to the sides of the Temple Mount in deference to millions of Muslims who’ve been lied to by their “leaders” that the Jews want to destroy the platform on top.

    This is our history and the world’s history that the Waqf is systematically destroying. They’ve got no right and they need to be stopped.


    chillul Who? · September 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 am
  12. [...] Here’s him musing over the “parallels between the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border and the [...]


    J Street’s Israel Campus Organizer Drew Cohen – Israel Is “Unjust And Even Criminal,” Uncomfortable With “People Who Espouse Zionism” | Mere Rhetoric · November 28th, 2010 at 5:10 am

Leave a Reply

If your comment does not immediately appear, do not freak out and repost your message a dozen times. Please note that all new visitors must have their first comment approved by the editor, and you must provide a legitimate e-mail address and use the same username for the system to "remember" you. The editor maintains the right to refuse comments deemed inappropriate or unhelpful. Users who repeatedly delve into ad hominem attacks or other troll-like behavior will be banned.

Trackback (Right-click & 'Copy Link...') | Comments RSS

"I may attack a certain point of view which I consider false, but I will never attack a person who preaches it. I have always a high regard for the individual who is honest and moral, even when I am not in agreement with him. Such a relation is in accord with the concept of kavod habriyot, for beloved is man for he is created in the image of God." —Rav Joseph Soloveitchik