Isreali Ambassador Destroys Postmodern Artwork

[Solitaire]

Isreali Ambassador Destroys Postmodern Artwork (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1125679,00.html)
Few places on earth seem likelier to soothe diplomatic
tempers than the refined surroundings of a Swedish museum.
So 400 invited guests quietly consuming canapes could be
forgiven their amazement when an ambassador erupted in
violent protest at a work of art depicting an Islamic Jihad
suicide bomber.

Quite naturally this increases the value of the remaining pieces.

[Monketey Ghost]

"I don't like it, it must be smashed!"

Great.

[Vitnir]

If someone spits in your face do you nod and say how interesting or punch the person in the face?

At least that's how I think the Ambassador felt it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Isreali Ambassador Destroys Postmodern Artwork (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1125679,00.html)
Quite naturally this increases the value of the remaining pieces.

I think the Ambassador was totally in the wrong, although he probably won't be punished since he has diplomatic immunity, I hope he at least pay for the damages. I think if someone wants to create a work of art praising terrorist murderers they should be able to, it's part of the freedoms normal people should enjoy.

[davefoc]

I sympathize with the ambassador. I guess he saw the artwork as glorifying the suicide bombers or trivializing their victims. Although, from the article it wasn't clear to me how the piece did this or even that the ambassador's assessment was a reasonable one.

Still, it seems like the ambassador's actions were counterproductive to his goals. He may have gained some sympathy by demonstrating how powerfully the Israeli's are pained by these suicide bombers but he also might be seen to have acted as an irrational hot head. This will only serve as more evidence for those who disagree with the Sharon government's approach to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that the Sharon govenment is not acting fairly or rationally.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Vitnir
If someone spits in your face do you nod and say how interesting or punch the person in the face?

At least that's how I think the Ambassador felt it.

Except this did not happen in a scruffy bar and no one spat in the Ambassador's face.

Here is a view of the exhibit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3406745.stm).

I can see several layers of meaning in it, obviously the ambassador couldn't.

A more valid criticism is that, according to the article, Israel had agreed to participate in the genocide conference on condition that no reference was made to the Israel/Palestine issue. This installation would seem to be in breach of that agreement. Nevertheless this sort of childish behaviour makes the ambassador look incompetent.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by Nikk



I can see several layers of meaning in it, obviously the ambassador couldn't.



Is that the way it looked before or after the attack?
Not that I care...

[Vitnir]

Yes I have seen pictures of the "art" too. The text that was supposed to complement the piece hasnt been refered to in detail so personally I cant make up my mind if the piece was against Israel or not. The Ambassador had read about it in the program before he got there so the proper thing was probably to simply protest by not going at all.

I'm probably a conservative loon but a lot of modern art is just trash to me and I could care less is someone used his freedom of speech to protest against it.

Except this did not happen in a scruffy bar and no one spat in the Ambassador's face.

Even worse, he felt they spat on everything he is and represents, his country.

[Vitnir]

Is that the way it looked before or after the attack?

All he did was cut the flood lights illuminating the piece and tip one of them in the water. It took probably less than 2 minutes to restore this masterpiece.

[geni]

I see Sharon is supporting the ambasidor's actions

"I think the phenomenon [of anti-Semitism] is so serious that it would have been forbidden not to have acted on the spot," Mr Sharon said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3407517.stm

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Vitnir
Yes I have seen pictures of the "art" too. The text that was supposed to complement the piece hasnt been refered to in detail so personally I cant make up my mind if the piece was against Israel or not. The Ambassador had read about it in the program before he got there so the proper thing was probably to simply protest by not going at all.

I'm probably a conservative loon but a lot of modern art is just trash to me and I could care less is someone used his freedom of speech to protest against it.



Even worse, he felt they spat on everything he is and represents, his country.

I've no idea what the text said either. For all I know it may have been biased and provocative - but it's a diplomat's job to avoid creating ill feeling and to look for compromise. In this case he has made himself, and to a lesser extent his country look ridiculous.

I tend to agree with you about a lot of modern art by the way.

[Vitnir]

Text in the programme for the installation (http://www.makingdifferences.com/site/calendar.php?lang=en&id=20)

This is from the program I found. I find it fairly unbiased but then I have lived in a country that hasnt seen war or terrorism in a few hundred years.

She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians

This would be the alibi that it's unbiased but the text before that seem to blame Israel for everything.

[Cleopatra]

Ambassadors shouldn't behave the way Zvi Mazel did although when I clicked on the link I didn't expect to see that and I will explain myself.

Usually I feel sorry for the suicide bombers and I see them as victims of the Hamas' catastrophic policy but this particular suicide bomber, no.

I have the slightest sympathy for an educated young woman, a lawyer somebody who studied how to fight for the rights without the use of violence who chose that way to fight for the rights of her people.

This particular woman represents what I resent most in life : betraying your logic, betraying the liturgy of the litigator and resorting to blind violence.

Before this individual many lawyers have lost their lives trying to defend human rights and democracy. All of them could have chosen to have a nice life but instead they chose the difficult way. Shall I remind you the case of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace?

The artist doesn't talk about suicide terrorism in general which is a phaenomenon and as such it is among the interests of Art.It chooses a specific suicide bomber so what he wants to say with his work, can anybody explain to me?

As for Zvi Mazel is an genuine idiot. Instead of focusing on the subject not only he made fool of himself and of his country but he removed the attention from the real problem of suicide terrorism.

How can anybody feel the slightest of hope for the future when he observes that idiocy rules ?

[Ed]

First off, that thing was less art than a construction and not terribly different than what you would get if you gave an assignment to a bunch of HS kids. As such, the Ambassadors response was as much "Art" as the work in question. His was of the performance variety (Personally, taking a good wiz in the pool would have been an apt critisism, IMHO). It seems to me that once "Art" is defined to the point that anything, regardless of how banal, can be construed as such (and knowing heads nod with appreciation) you can not, with any degree of consistancy, define anything else as "not art".

Ergo, the Ambassador is as creative, and deserves as much respect for, his "Art" as the creator of the masterpiece in question. It would be the act of an uncultured philistine to suggest otherwise.

More importantly, note that there seems to be a second set of sensitivities when it comes to the Jooooos.

Eurotrash.

[Vitnir]

Going through the other projects in the programme the installation sticks out as being amateurish and provocative compared to the others which by the way also address the palestinians, libanon etc. but apparently in a more sensible and serious way.

[davefoc]

Ed, I was with you when you talked about the ambassador's actions as a kind of performance art, although I think Cleopatra's views are more realistic. The key thing here is how he will be perceived and how he represents his country. And while you (and now me) can see his actions as performance art I think the general perception will range from laughing at him to increased disrespect for his country, and so he failed at his diplomatic mission.

But I didn't get this comment at all:

More importantly, note that there seems to be a second set of sensitivities when it comes to the Jooooos.


What was that about? You mean if the American ambassador had gone to a party and damaged a piece of artwork of ambiguous meaning nobody would have reported on it. I suppose that's possible since I've never heard of an American ambassador going to a party and damaging a piece of alleged art, but I think the Occam's razor answer here is just that so far an American ambassador hasn't gone to a party and damaged a piece of alleged art and that's the reason there haven't been any reports about it.

[Cleon]

Incredible the way everyone jumps at the chance to cry "anti-semitism" and say that they just want to get the "Joooos."

Of course, what Ed and Sharon are missing is that this notorious anti-Semite who created the display is himself Israeli.

[Skeptic]

First off, that thing was less art than a construction and not terribly different than what you would get if you gave an assignment to a bunch of HS kids.

(Sigh)

It's the usual escape of mediocre artists: make a "daring political statement" to get attention. "How can I get anybody to look at my crappy art? I know! I'll add DEATH TO THE ZIONIST JEWS or KILL THE WHITE MAN or DESTROY THE MUSLIMS or KILL THE BITCHES (or whatever) to it!"

The ambassador fell for it. If he had done nothing, or registered a formal protest, how much would we have heard of this "art"?

Incidentally, I note that banning from galeries arts that defame Muslims, or Blacks, or other such groups is OK--it's being "sensitive to the feeling of their ancient culture". But if the art merely insults jews (or christians), it's OK--then, of course, it's "daring freedom of expression".

[Vitnir]

Incredible the way everyone jumps at the chance to cry "anti-semitism" and say that they just want to get the "Joooos."

I just wonder why he left Israel in 1973, could it be because he didn't like the politics? Anyway he and his wife has been active as artists for +20 years with exhibits in Tel Aviv etc so they knew what they were doing. A fellow Israeli making a political statement about how the peace process should be handled maybe?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon
Incredible the way everyone jumps at the chance to cry "anti-semitism" and say that they just want to get the "Joooos."

Of course, what Ed and Sharon are missing is that this notorious anti-Semite who created the display is himself Israeli.

Self loathing is not limited to american liberals.

[karl]

The installation was of a Palestinian suicide bomber sailing on a sea of blood. Not exactly a glorifying context, in my humble opinion. But it was apparently too ambiguous for the Israeli ambassador, who when in doubt assumed anti-semitism and retaliated with force.

By then he could still have salvaged the situation if he had gotten in touch with the artist and explained why the installation offended him so much, and in turn accepted the artist's explanation that his message definitely wasn't encouragement of suicide bombers. Then the misunderstanding would have been cleared up. But no. Instead he chose to make an ass of himself at the reception afterwards, and later in a TV interview claimed that the installation "called for the genocide of the Israeli people."

Next I expect we'll hear allegations that the artist is a former concentration camp guard and that Sweden is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Ah, well.

[Jon_in_london]

Much as I dislike postmodernism and, in a way, feel that anybody attempting to destroy it should get a medal, I also feel that its a short slip twixt vandalising artwork and burning books.

[Ed]

Originally posted by davefoc
Ed, I was with you when you talked about the ambassador's actions as a kind of performance art, although I think Cleopatra's views are more realistic. The key thing here is how he will be perceived and how he represents his country. And while you (and now me) can see his actions as performance art I think the general perception will range from laughing at him to increased disrespect for his country, and so he failed at his diplomatic mission.

Art transcends diplomacy. He should have wizzed in the water thus recapitulating the Pissing Statue in Copenhagen, thus providing counterpoint by evoking the Danes protection of the Jews during WW2. Who could argue with that statement?

But I didn't get this comment at all:



What was that about? You mean if the American ambassador had gone to a party and damaged a piece of artwork of ambiguous meaning nobody would have reported on it. I suppose that's possible since I've never heard of an American ambassador going to a party and damaging a piece of alleged art, but I think the Occam's razor answer here is just that so far an American ambassador hasn't gone to a party and damaged a piece of alleged art and that's the reason there haven't been any reports about it.

No. I just mean that the sensibilities of some groups have primacy. Could you imagine an image of a gutted Isreali child juxtaposed with a smiling Arafat? No? Why not? Now add Sharon instead of Arafat. Acceptable? To true Eurotrash it would be. It is "art", afterall.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Incidentally, I note that banning from galeries arts that defame Muslims, or Blacks, or other such groups is OK--it's being "sensitive to the feeling of their ancient culture". But if the art merely insults jews (or christians), it's OK--then, of course, it's "daring freedom of expression".

Could you post a link to show where artwork has been banned/removed from a gallery because it 'defames muslims or blacks'?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Much as I dislike postmodernism and, in a way, feel that anybody attempting to destroy it should get a medal, I also feel that its a short slip twixt vandalising artwork and burning books.

Then you, sir, are a philistine and do not appreciate the legitimacy of performance art.

[Vitnir]

The installation was of a Palestinian suicide bomber sailing on a sea of blood. Not exactly a glorifying context, in my humble opinion. But it was apparently too ambiguous for the Israeli ambassador, who when in doubt assumed anti-semitism and retaliated with force.

The bomber was called Snow White after all, without sin?

And the ambassador had an argument with the artist first I think plus he got booed out when he tried to explain himself later.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ed


Self loathing is not limited to american liberals.

LOL...You, sir, are incredibly full of crap.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon


LOL...You, sir, are incredibly full of crap.

Perhaps. At least I am aware of the possibility.

[Cleopatra]

I didn't understand the work the way karl suggested, it seemed to me as a glorification of suicide terrorism but still the Israeli Ambassador shouldn't have done this.

If I were in his shoes, first I wouldn't go to the exhibition and second I'd pay for a whole page in a newspaper where I would explain my stance, it's more efficient and more civilized.

As for Sharon, allow me to say that Sharon doesn't really care about antisemitism and the Jews around the world.

The Sharonistas have a specific plan. They try to scare the Jews of Europe and make them move to Israel because Israel has a serious demographic problem. While I belong to those that they scream about antisemitism in Europe and I am willing to fight so as Israel remains a Jewish State I am the last who would be chased out of here and I strongly object to this policy.

You know, I was thinking that there is no way to approach this topic objectively. It's crap regardless the angle you choose to view it from.

Maybe the answer to this organized crap is to turn our back to those news. If we ignored them and if those stories didn't sell none would care to produce them.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I didn't understand the work the way karl suggested, it seemed to me as a glorification of suicide terrorism but still the Israeli Ambassador shouldn't have done this.

Maybe the answer to this organized crap is to turn our back to those news. If we ignored them and if those stories didn't sell none would care to produce them.

Sure, try to sound reasonable. It ain't gonna work. Those marbles are staying right where they are, "noted NY Architects" notwithstanding.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ed

Sure, try to sound reasonable. It ain't gonna work. Those marbles are staying right where they are, "noted NY Architects" notwithstanding.

:D :D :D

There are rumours that the Marbles will be returned and we will have to find out what to do with them!!!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


:D :D :D

There are rumours that the Marbles will be returned and we will have to find out what to do with them!!!

Put them in the entryway in that new Souvlaki resturant you are building, right behind the Maitre 'd.

Smashing look.:D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed


Then you, sir, are a philistine and do not appreciate the legitimacy of performance art.

Hey, I went to see the Turner Prize exhibition at Tate Britain recently. Im considering suing for post-traumatic peurile bullsh!t disorder.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Incredible the way everyone jumps at the chance to cry "anti-semitism" and say that they just want to get the "Joooos."

As Ed pointed out, there is a double standard. The only difference between the actions of this suicide-murderer and the actions of the 9/11 terrorists is the scale of destruction. I can't imagine that anyone would have the bad taste to create some piece of "art" evoking sympathy for the 9/11 terrorists and showing it to an ambasador from the States, nor would anyone be surprised if the American Ambasador got angry at such an insult.

Originally posted by Cleon Of course, what Ed and Sharon are missing is that this notorious anti-Semite who created the display is himself Israeli.

I noticed, I think it adds to the offensiveness of the piece.

If you think being Jewish or Israeli is proof against the charge of anti-Semitism, I invite you to consider the role Phyllis Schafly plays in the feminist movement.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by karl
The installation was of a Palestinian suicide bomber sailing on a sea of blood. Not exactly a glorifying context, in my humble opinion. But it was apparently too ambiguous for the Israeli ambassador, who when in doubt assumed anti-semitism and retaliated with force.

/snip/

Instead he chose to make an ass of himself at the reception afterwards, and later in a TV interview claimed that the installation "called for the genocide of the Israeli people."



The installation was part of a range of stuff in the gallery described in the programme under the heading...............


God Made Me Do It
17/01 - 07/02 - Historiska Museet
curated by Carl Mikael von Hausswolff with works by Robert Mapplethorpe, Mathias Johansson, William S Burroughs, Annika von Hausswolff, Jan Håfström, Joe Coleman och Max Fredrikson will be combined with for example material such as police files from Mexico City, the Swedish mail-bomber Martin Ekenberg, the sect-leader Hasan I Sabbah, >>> the palestinian suicide-bomber Manadi Jaradat and the American talkshow host Geraldo Rivera. ....................................

So there seems to be a common theme here about the ways in which individuals justify violent actions for political/religious ends. If this is correct it makes the piece look even more inoffensive and the ambassador even more idiotic.

I wonder if any muslims found the reference to Hasan i Sabah ( leader of the assassins ) offensive?

[karl]

Originally posted by Vitnir


The bomber was called Snow White after all, without sin?

And the ambassador had an argument with the artist first I think plus he got booed out when he tried to explain himself later.

Where you got the "without sin" part from escapes me. As far as I know, the ambassador showed up at the reception without a word of explanation. Of course, the quarrel could also have been avoided if the artist had taken the moral high ground and just ignored the nut instead of refusing to perform with him in the room.

There is no question that a lot of post-modern installations are intended only to provoke and enrage. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that this was one of them. The context strongly suggests otherwise.

But, as the author Fritiof Nilsson Piraten put it, "You can't even write about a sewing pin without some one-eyed bastard getting offended."

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft

If you think being Jewish or Israeli is proof against the charge of anti-Semitism, I invite you to consider the role Phyllis Schafly plays in the feminist movement.


Of course. If you consider that even if you are Israel's PM doesn't constitute a proof that you are not an antisemite.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Of course. If you consider that even if you are Israel's PM doesn't constitute a proof that you are not an antisemite.

That sounds like the basis for an interesting discussion, but perhaps on a different venue. :)

The larger point I was trying to make is that it's not uncommon for members of some identifiable group to hold opinions that are against that group that would be labeled as bigotry or some type of "ism" if held by someone else, and that it's a logical fallacy to attach too much importance to it.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft


That sounds like the basis for an interesting discussion, but perhaps on a different venue. :)

The larger point I was trying to make is that it's not uncommon for members of some identifiable group to hold opinions that are against that group that would be labeled as bigotry or some type of "ism" if held by someone else, and that it's a logical fallacy to attach too much importance to it.

I don't quite disagree with you but I approach it from a different angle.

I have thought about it many many times. I don't know details about the artist's origin but in Israel we believe that some Jews outside Israel belive to a certain Saint ( yes, saint) that is called "Saint Elsewhere".

When you are a worshipper of "Saint Elsewhere" you have absolute opinions about a country that is very far away for the place you live and you want its citizens to live the way you believe it is right.

Probably( I don't know I am speculating for the sake of the discussion because I don't give a flying you know what about the artist's opinion) the artist believes that Israelis should accept to be killed with joy and that the Palestinians are right for spilling blood of innocent civilians. Other followers of Saint Elsewhere believe that we must include Judea to our prayers.

I say that both categories are just followers of "Saint Elsewhere".

If you object to certain things your country is doing doesn't make you a self-hating person. My objection is that there are ways to protest about things that happen to your country and thanks God in Israel we have democracy, the problem starts with the Jews out of Israel.

From the one hand many of them don't believe in the existence of a Jewish State and on the other hand they think that they have the right to dictate to the Israelis how will they live just because they are Jews.

Can you see the problem? For example Chomsky doesn't accept the notion of the Jewish State and yet he thinks that he can dictate his opinion not as a free thinker but as a Jewish person, he thinks that his opinion about Israel is more important just because he is Jewish.

Well. Wrong. This doesn't make him antisemite , this makes him to be wrong and not only him but many many others out there that they worship " Saint Elsewhere".

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Mycroft



If you think being Jewish or Israeli is proof against the charge of anti-Semitism, I invite you to consider the role Phyllis Schafly plays in the feminist movement.



Yes! I see it all now!

Anti-semitism is a jewish plot to, er, plot stuff.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Probably( I don't know I am speculating for the sake of the discussion because I don't give a flying you know what about the artist's opinion) the artist believes that Israelis should accept to be killed with joy and that the Palestinians are right for spilling blood of innocent civilians. Other followers of Saint Elsewhere believe that we must include Judea to our prayers.


This is why I immediately assuming "full of $4!7" when people start talking about the motivations of others. The fact is, I've been around the Palestinian movement, and I've met anti-Semites, I've met Islamicists, and I've met secular types. And not once have I met anyone who thinks that "Israelis should accept to be killed with joy" or that suicide bombing is a good or noble thing. I mean, not even "rarely"--I mean never.


From the one hand many of them don't believe in the existence of a Jewish State and on the other hand they think that they have the right to dictate to the Israelis how will they live just because they are Jews.

Can you see the problem? For example Chomsky doesn't accept the notion of the Jewish State and yet he thinks that he can dictate his opinion not as a free thinker but as a Jewish person, he thinks that his opinion about Israel is more important just because he is Jewish.

Well. Wrong. This doesn't make him antisemite , this makes him to be wrong and not only him but many many others out there that they worship " Saint Elsewhere".

Why is this any different from those who have decided that those of us who don't uncritically support Israel are "self-hating?" These same people assume that they have special authority to justify Israel's brutality, also because they are Jews.

The fact is, we non-Zionist Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place. We're a minority--at least, in the US we are. And when we speak for Palestinian rights, we either don't mention the fact that we're Jewish--which is then "interpreted as if we're ashamed of being Jewish, or we do mention it, and we speak proudly as Jews; in which case, people like you accuse us of being "shills" or that we "exploit our Jewishness."

When I speak for Palestine, I can only be what I am--a Jew. And a Jew whose Judaism is very important to me.

Israel is touted as the "Jewish state." Zionists claim that it is representative of the Jewish people's hopes. As a Jew, do I not only have a right but also an obligation to refute that claim? Israel doesn't speak for me. It does not represent me. And when I get up at rallies and say "as a Jew, I condemn Israel for its human rights abuses," I do so precisely because Israel is touted as being "my" country.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon


This is why I immediately assuming "full of $4!7" when people start talking about the motivations of others. The fact is, I've been around the Palestinian movement, and I've met anti-Semites, I've met Islamicists, and I've met secular types. And not once have I met anyone who thinks that "Israelis should accept to be killed with joy" or that suicide bombing is a good or noble thing. I mean, not even "rarely"--I mean never.





Somebody is supplying explosives. If it is Semtex or stuff like that it is probably ultimately from a Government. Somebody clearly thinks that it is just the bees knees to explode oneself, just not the idiot supplying the explosive, helping with logistics and so on.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleon

This is why I immediately assuming "full of $4!7" when people start talking about the motivations of others. The fact is, I've been around the Palestinian movement, and I've met anti-Semites, I've met Islamicists, and I've met secular types. And not once have I met anyone who thinks that "Israelis should accept to be killed with joy" or that suicide bombing is a good or noble thing. I mean, not even "rarely"--I mean never.

Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. There are people who believe that every time a suicide bomber explodes himself Israelis get what they deserve. Maybe you haven't met them, I live in a country that the 95% believes that.

Why is this any different from those who have decided that those of us who don't uncritically support Israel are "self-hating?" These same people assume that they have special authority to justify Israel's brutality, also because they are Jews.

Why are you addressing me this question? I don't disagree and I don't accept the notion of the self-hating Jew when we are talking about policies and politics.

The fact is, we non-Zionist Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place. We're a minority--at least, in the US we are. And when we speak for Palestinian rights, we either don't mention the fact that we're Jewish--which is then "interpreted as if we're ashamed of being Jewish, or we do mention it, and we speak proudly as Jews; in which case, people like you accuse us of being "shills" or that we "exploit our Jewishness."

You are wrong if you believe that only non-Zionists talk about the rights of the Palestinians. In Israel we have at least 12 organizations that they are activists for the rights of the Palestinians to have a homeland but they also believe in the right of Israel to exist.

When I speak for Palestine, I can only be what I am--a Jew. And a Jew whose Judaism is very important to me.

I understand. When I talk about the rights of the Palestinians I talk like a citizen of the Western World, as somebody who believes that Freedom is the most important thing on Earth, I have said many times here that I live for the day that Palestinians will have their State and this State will have be built on our blood--the Israeli blood as well.

I am concerned mostly as a citizen of a future neighbouring country.

I don't know if I am interested as a Jewish person. My grandmother used to say that Jews are good people because they don't kill others.

This has hunt me.

Israel is touted as the "Jewish state." Zionists claim that it is representative of the Jewish people's hopes. As a Jew, do I not only have a right but also an obligation to refute that claim? Israel doesn't speak for me.

You have to believe me that as an Israeli I don't wish to speak for you and there are many people like me. We wish to be left alone and rather be doomed or survive. Also, the fact that you don't live in Israel is a proof that you are don't think in the terms of Israel. This is your right.

It does not represent me. And when I get up at rallies and say "as a Jew, I condemn Israel for its human rights abuses," I do so precisely because Israel is touted as being "my" country.

If you do that you reproduce a model of thinking that it's very repulsive to you and to me. I believe that we must condemn the abuse of human rights as free thinkers and not as Jews or Christians.

I understand that things are not that simple but they have to become simple, there must come that day that they will be simple.

Somebody must break this vicious circle.

Palestinians need you as a free thinker and free citizen not as Jew you don't have anything to offer them as a Jew.They don't need Jews or Christians to support their cause, they want citizens.

Just my 2c.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ed


Somebody is supplying explosives. If it is Semtex or stuff like that it is probably ultimately from a Government. Somebody clearly thinks that it is just the bees knees to explode oneself, just not the idiot supplying the explosive, helping with logistics and so on.

Sure. I'm just speaking from my experience in the US solidarity movement, you know, the ones that apparently think "Israelis should accept being killed with joy" or that it was a "noble thing." I have yet to meet anyone who actually holds that view.

Now, the case of the Palestinians themselves is a little different. Then you've got a number of factors playing into it; the Palestinian power structure (and terrorist orgs' desire to gain said power), the lack of ability to conduct "real" military resistance, the reality that Palestinian civilians have been victims the whole time and people have trouble seeing why it's a bad thing to target Israeli civilians when Israel has no problem targetting Palestinian civilians. From their perspective, it's a big double-standard.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleon


Sure. I'm just speaking from my experience in the US solidarity movement, you know, the ones that apparently think "Israelis should accept being killed with joy" or that it was a "noble thing." I have yet to meet anyone who actually holds that view.

Now, the case of the Palestinians themselves is a little different. Then you've got a number of factors playing into it; the Palestinian power structure (and terrorist orgs' desire to gain said power), the lack of ability to conduct "real" military resistance, the reality that Palestinian civilians have been victims the whole time and people have trouble seeing why it's a bad thing to target Israeli civilians when Israel has no problem targetting Palestinian civilians. From their perspective, it's a big double-standard.

I understand. But, logically, if the Isreali's were "targeting" civilians, there would be a hell of a lot more dead palistinians, no?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ed


I understand. But, logically, if the Isreali's were "targeting" civilians, there would be a hell of a lot more dead palistinians, no?

There are already a $h!7load and a half.

But no, not necessarily. Depends on the goal. If the goal is to simply annihilate the Palestinians, then sure, they could've done that easily.

If the goal is subjugation, though, you're still going to be targetting Palestinian civilians without always committing mass slaughter.

[davefoc]

Hmm, seems like there are several questions swirling around this one incident:

If one assumes that the point of the art was to celebrate the murder of Israeli's, or celebrate the murderers, or some other strongly anti-semetic or anti-Israeli view would the actions of the ambassador appropriate and would they have been the best action given the ambassadors role?

I agree with Skeptic as to appropriate. If somebody is celebrating the murder of my fellow countrymen, I'm not going to like it and if I had the courage to act against them I would be proud of my actions.

But it is trickier if one is an ambassador attempting to win friends and influence people. Maybe some groups will sympathize with his action and admire the courageous ambassador for taking a stand but the government officials in the country that he's stationed in may not take kindly to his hot head actions and his actions might have been counterproductive to his job mission. Other forms of protest might have been more effective.

However if one assumes that the point of the art was ambiguous to most people and not clearly antagonistic towards Jews or Israelis then the actions of the ambassador seem highly counterproductive to any possible goals of his job. He ends up looking like a hot headed idiot unwilling to discuss issues. Exactly the opposite of the skills that a diplomat needs.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. There are people who believe that every time a suicide bomber explodes himself Israelis get what they deserve. Maybe you haven't met them, I live in a country that the 95% believes that.


I must say that sometimes you really sound like you suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. If you really have some proof for this obvious delusion though, I would love to see it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I didn't understand the work the way karl suggested, it seemed to me as a glorification of suicide terrorism but still the Israeli Ambassador shouldn't have done this.



I am a quiet fan of post-modern art. A lot of it is junk, but then so is a lot of pre-modern art.

The good stuff makes you think about something. Like a lot of such art, this one presents you with conflicting points of view, and makes you think, as the replies to this thread have shown.

To myself, it presents the internal contradiction of terrorism, ordinary people perform extraordinary acts. A beautiful young woman descending into a sea of blood. The first question you then ask yourself is, why?

The most ridiculous and ignorant reaction is to trash it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleon


There are already a $h!7load and a half.

But no, not necessarily. Depends on the goal. If the goal is to simply annihilate the Palestinians, then sure, they could've done that easily.

If the goal is subjugation, though, you're still going to be targetting Palestinian civilians without always committing mass slaughter.

That is the thing that amazes me, that if you don't read about the deaths of innocent Palestinians on the front page of the newspaper, it didn't happen. You don't have to search too hard to find examples of brutality and violence that have been carried out against the Palestinians.

The Sharonist thinkers don't want to kill the Palestinians, they would not like the odium associated with such an act. They have instead tried to make life so difficult for the Palestinians that they will just pack up and leave.

[Grammatron]

Here's the image in case you were wondering what this "art" is.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/01/18/israel.sweden/story.sweden.ap.jpg

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Grammatron
[B]Here's the image in case you were wondering what this "art" is.

Modern art is often just stupid, and often just to meant to provoke, and I certainly wouldn't call that specific "work" proper art either, since there has been no personal effort to create it at all.

It's a ship with the picture of a suicide bomber drifting in a pool of blood. It's obvious it isn't to condone or glorify the act at all, anyone above 5 years of age can recognize that fact.

I can to some degree sympatize with the diplomat's reaction though, but don't think it was thought through at all, and Sharon's reaction to the event it certainly foolish as well.

[Monketey Ghost]

I can't agree with the actions against the art. If you don't like it, fine. But don't presume to teach others what art is by placing the word in quotes.

Art is, as has been pointed out many times, often meant to provoke. I could go to, say, a showing of a piece by an Englishperson, one which to my mind slanders the Irish. I'd find that offensive.
Does this give me the right to destroy what I see, to decide for others what they should see? That's what the ambassador has done, in a moment of pique, and rather than supporting that ill-conceived action, it ought to be condemned.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I am a quiet fan of post-modern art. A lot of it is junk, but then so is a lot of pre-modern art.

The good stuff makes you think about something. Like a lot of such art, this one presents you with conflicting points of view, and makes you think, as the replies to this thread have shown.

To myself, it presents the internal contradiction of terrorism, ordinary people perform extraordinary acts. A beautiful young woman descending into a sea of blood. The first question you then ask yourself is, why?

The most ridiculous and ignorant reaction is to trash it.

Making something that is banal important is worse than ignorant, it aggrandizes the commonplace. As such it is an aesthetic crime. Again, if that is the limit of one's taste, one must make do, I suppose.

Again, this was a High School crafts project.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I am a quiet fan of post-modern art. A lot of it is junk, but then so is a lot of pre-modern art.

The good stuff makes you think about something. Like a lot of such art, this one presents you with conflicting points of view, and makes you think, as the replies to this thread have shown.

To myself, it presents the internal contradiction of terrorism, ordinary people perform extraordinary acts. A beautiful young woman descending into a sea of blood. The first question you then ask yourself is, why?

The most ridiculous and ignorant reaction is to trash it.

On reflection, it presents the image of a beautiful young woman adrift in a sea of blood.

The action of the Israeli ambassador is to simply say, don't make me think about such things. Well, plenty in the IDF are doing just that, and they don't like what they have themselves caught up in.

[aerocontrols]

For those who want to see the actual act of 'destruction', you can look here (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9650_Video_of_Ambassador_Mazel).

It's a European newsprogram, so scroll forward to 11:10 or so to get to the relevant portion.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
For those who want to see the actual act of 'destruction', you can look here (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9650_Video_of_Ambassador_Mazel).

It's a European newsprogram, so scroll forward to 11:10 or so to get to the relevant portion.

Upon the viewing of the incident it's not really a destruction of the exhibit. The creators accomplished what they were going for, which was to offend someone so much that it will provoke a reaction that would be translated world wide.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Upon the viewing of the incident it's not really a destruction of the exhibit. The creators accomplished what they were going for, which was to offend someone so much that it will provoke a reaction that would be translated world wide.

I agree. It doesn't even seem to me that his actions could even have damaged the exhibit at all, unless he dropped that light on the boat, which seems unlikely.

Didn't stop the press from reporting it otherwise:

So 400 invited guests quietly consuming canapes could be forgiven their amazement when an ambassador erupted in violent protest at a work of art depicting an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber.

Zvi Mazel, Israel's ambassador to Sweden, ripped out electrical wires, grabbed a spotlight and hurled it into a fountain, causing it to short circuit and become a potential death trap.

In Guardianese, it seems that 'unplug' = 'ripped out' and an unplugged light can short circuit and put people in danger of electricution.

What do ya know.


He still shouldn't have disturbed the exhibit, however.

[Skeptic]

(scraches head)

Am I missing something?

The work is a picture of a suicide bomber... in a pool of red water, obviously meant to represent blood.

Is this supposed to be PRAISING her? Suppose they had a picture of Sharon in the same pool... wouldn't everybody (rightly) say it says Sharon is bloodthirsty?

On second thought, it seems that the whole thing is more a misunderstanding than anything else: the artist wasn't really "praising" the bomber, and the ambassador didn't really "destroy" the exhibit.

I still think it's BS (like most modern art), but that's besides the point...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(scraches head)

Am I missing something?

The work is a picture of a suicide bomber... in a pool of red water, obviously meant to represent blood.

Is this supposed to be PRAISING her? Suppose they had a picture of Sharon in the same pool... wouldn't everybody (rightly) say it says Sharon is bloodthirsty?

On second thought, it seems that the whole thing is more a misunderstanding than anything else: the artist wasn't really "praising" the bomber, and the ambassador didn't really "destroy" the exhibit.

I still think it's BS (like most modern art), but that's besides the point...

Why is everyone so hung up on if it is praising or condemming, much art is observation. A beautiful young woman afloat on a sea of blood, in a fragile boat. What could happen to someone in that situation?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Why is everyone so hung up on if it is praising or condemming, much art is observation. A beautiful young woman afloat on a sea of blood, in a fragile boat. What could happen to someone in that situation?

Please. It's not just a young woman it is a specific person,this is what caused the outrage.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Please. It's not just a young woman it is a specific person,this is what caused the outrage.

As I said earlier, before the attack, she was very unremarkeable.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't quite disagree with you but I approach it from a different angle…

…When you are a worshipper of "Saint Elsewhere" you have absolute opinions about a country that is very far away for the place you live and you want its citizens to live the way you believe it is right.

Is there a term for foreign non-Jews who have these absolute opinions and want Israelis to live a certain way?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well. Wrong. This doesn't make him antisemite , this makes him to be wrong and not only him but many many others out there that they worship " Saint Elsewhere".

Prejudice is more than the hateful attitudes of an individual; it’s also the acceptance of certain attitudes within a culture that allow prejudiced inspired injustices to continue. As a culturally accepted value, it’s not surprising when individuals within that culture accept and perpetuate these beliefs even if they are also the subject of these prejudices.

In this case, Cleon wants to point out the Israeli nationality of the artist as proof against the anti-Israeli bias, but not only does the work itself refute that, but it doesn’t speak to the bias of those that promote the artist nor the decision to place this work at the event in violation of the Swedish promise that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would not be a subject of the conference.

I agree that terms such as self-hating or anti-Semite are not good terms. Not because there is no foundation, but because the use of such terms tends to distract from the discussion of the real issues.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Here's the image in case you were wondering what this "art" is.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/01/18/israel.sweden/story.sweden.ap.jpg

There was also a poem with the display:

Once upon a time in the middle of winter
For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin
and three drops of blood fell
She was also a woman
as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions
and the red looked beautiful upon the white

The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying
like a weed in her heart until she had no peace day and night

Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer
I will run away into the wild forest, and never come home again

Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces
and she ran over sharp stones and through thorns

She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain
and was about to pierce Snow White's innocent heart

She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings
The wild beasts will soon have devoured you

After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal
”Yes”, said Snow White, "with all my heart”

Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"
Run away, then, you poor child

She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians
as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded
and the red looked beautiful upon the white

[LW]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The creators accomplished what they were going for, which was to offend someone so much that it will provoke a reaction that would be translated world wide.

Yup. Most probably I wouldn't have ever heard of this piece of art if I hadn't stumbled on this thread.

I'd say that the action of the ambassador was highly counterproductive. Before: an obscure piece of art that most people had probably never heard of and wouldn't care a bit about. Now: worldwide publicity for it and its creator.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


There was also a poem with the display:

Once upon a time in the middle of winter
For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin
and three drops of blood fell
She was also a woman
as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions
and the red looked beautiful upon the white

The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying
like a weed in her heart until she had no peace day and night

Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer
I will run away into the wild forest, and never come home again

Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces
and she ran over sharp stones and through thorns

She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain
and was about to pierce Snow White's innocent heart

She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings
The wild beasts will soon have devoured you

After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal
”Yes”, said Snow White, "with all my heart”

Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"
Run away, then, you poor child

She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians
as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded
and the red looked beautiful upon the white

No wonder the ambassador was pissed off. Here was a Jew who did not condem the women outright without consideration. For those in the Sharon camp who are gambling everything on winning their aims, to question themselves and the others involved is a sin. Perhaps she was simply evil, as some have claimed here, but here was a Jew who was prepared to question that assumption. He committed the ultimate sin, he questioned.

[Hutch]

I see by the news that the Ambassador is getting a great deal of press and support back in Israel. Perhaps he may have been considering running for Office and realized a nice big fat controversy would get his name in front of the voters and give him a built in "standing up for us against them" popularity?

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I live in Alabama and I'm expecting Judge Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore to announce he is running for office any minute now. Getting more and more cynical in my dotage.

[Cleopatra]

I found a video with the incident for those they have Real Player.

The incident is reported in the 10th minute of the video and the dialogues are in English.

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/nos/journaal/sb.zaterdag.2200.rm

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Please. It's not just a young woman it is a specific person,this is what caused the outrage.

I don't see your point. It's who she is/was that gives the piece its impact. As the piece does not in any way glorify, in my opinion, terrorists in general or this particular woman's action in particular I find the various reactions of outrage etc fascinating, as if the work, despite its calmness, has become a lightning conductor for all the anger they feel.

Although the "poem" is rather weak the artist is to be congratulated.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk


I don't see your point. It's who she is/was that gives the piece its impact. As the piece does not in any way glorify, in my opinion, terrorists in general or this particular woman's action in particular I find the various reactions of outrage etc fascinating, as if the work, despite its calmness, has become a lightning conductor for all the anger they feel.

Although the "poem" is rather weak the artist is to be congratulated.


Save your sarcasm for a bloodless topic unless your admiration for the artist is genuine. In that case, please, let me know.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In Israel we have at least 12 organizations that they are
activists for the rights of the Palestinians to have a homeland
but they also believe in the right of Israel to exist.

I've got a really stupid question.
Are there organizations in arab states that are for the same?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
I've got a really stupid question.
Are there organizations in arab states that are for the same?

Two Arabic organizations that I am aware of are affiliates of the Israeli organizations that are among those 12 but Israel is not an Arab state.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Two Arabic organizations that I am aware of are affiliates of the Israeli organizations that are among those 12 but Israel is not an Arab state.

Cleo, can you tell us what these Arabic organizations are?

[EdipisReks]

the artist was interviewed on All Things Considered this afternoon. the piece obviously condemns suicide bombing, and the artist confirmed that fact. my support for israel keeps slipping, and it is because of actions like this. i sometimes think that the israelis are their own worst enemies.