Im sorry but I’m all for different opinions and critique on artwork, especially when it’s of political nature, but your article in nonsensical. I feel like you missed the point entirely and generally don’t understand the English language, everything you’ve said Banksy is saying, he’s actually saying the opposite of! For example:
“It encourages a veiled forgiving attitude towards what is, in fact not “a simple divide between the people,” as Banksy writes.”
Contrary to Banksy’s statement, this “simple divide “is not a “lie”
But Banksy said that the wall “sells the idea there is a simple divide … but there isn’t.” – So Banksy said what you wanted him to say anyway!
And again you said “It would have been productive and crucial for Banksy to fulfill his educational mission and make mention of the millions of Palestinians in diaspora, unable to return to their homeland. ”
When Banksy DID do so by saying ,”So, unlike the locals, you’ll be permitted to travel wherever you wish. ”
I think perhaps where you may have gone wrong, is in expecting an ART project, something which uses subtly, satire and craft, to be a in your face political promotion just because it’s of a political nature.
The hotel it’s self is satirical, it’s not a real hotel – it’s an art installation. I would imagine the writing you are quoting is to be read in a slightly sarcastic tone, somewhat similar to a real hotel advertisement”
The exhibition isn’t even that subtle, it outright tells you where it stands with the occupation and the wall, but that seems to have slipped past you somehow.