On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Beth Tischler wrote:

> as museum professionals we should all look closely at our sources
of information. please don't send propaganda to the list. an article
from a un-biased source would have been much more appropriate and credible.

> beth

=================================================

Beth,

I can tell you from my own official visits on behalf of the British
authorities that Ms Adila Laidi, Director of the Ramallah Museum referred
to in the article reproduced from "The Guardian" (London), is a highly
respected museum and arts professional, and certainly not a political
propaganda source.  In contrast with this you yourself then went on a few
moments later to forward to Museum-L a long "opinion" (not factual) piece
from the Wall Street Journal - which shows how difficult it is to balance
truth and propaganda in this tragic situation.

Having been closely involved with cultural damage in wartime for a
considerable period of time, including undertaking fact-finding and
mediation missions within former Yugoslavia during the 1990s civil wars
there, I am well aware of the fact that allegations of cultural
destruction are frequently exaggerated for propaganda purposes.  From those
experiences I was struck by the fact that Ms Laidi's report of what had
happened to her museum in Ramallah seemed to avoid the sort of language
and sweeping statements familiar from much of the exaggerated claims from
Yugoslavia.  Unfortunately independent observers  - unbiased sources to
use your words - have not so far been allowed access to verify (or
otherwise) such claims.

There also remains a serious problem under international law in that the
United States and Israel are amongst the (small) minority of countries
that do not recognise the current version (1977) of the Geneva
Conventions.  (Neither accept the more specialised 1954 Hague Convention
on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: to
our shame Britain is one of the larger minority of countries that have not
adopted the Hague Convention).

Therefore declarations of full acceptance of and compliance with "the
Geneva Conventions", whether in relation to Afghanistan/Guantanamo
Bay or West Bank & Gaza by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld or Israeli Government
spokesmen respectively are referring to the old (1949) versions.  These
pre-date the large-scale rise of civil wars and terrorist & liberation
movement and similar irregular internal campaigns that the 1977 update was
intended to deal with. One consequence is that the legal protection of
museums, cultural and religious monuments and institutions etc. in armed
conflicts in the Israel and the West Bank/Gaza still depends on the Hague
Laws of War 1907, rather than the more relevant and up-to-date
international law recognised in most other countries.

This difference between the degree of acceptance of relevant international
law is one of the main things that has bedevilled international discussion
between even very close allies and supporters ever since September 11th,
and now in relation to what is or is not legally permissible in the "fight
against terrorism" - whether in Afghanistan, Israel or - in the near
future - in Iraq (which is at least equal to Israel in terms of its
importance in the history of humanity, and its richness of archaeological
and historic remains).



Patrick Boylan
Professor of Heritage Policy & Management
City University London

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).