Israeli vandalises Swedish suicide bomber art

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
What offends people here is the merest mention that there might have been a reason for what this woman did-

Funny. I thought the artists called her behavior inexplicaple.

this is why they scream that this is gloryfication: becuase we are to see her as sme animal-or better yet, some evil spirit

I see her as an individual who took it upon her self to try to murder as many innocent people as she could in cold blood, and managed to murder twenty one. No reason justifies cold bloodedly killing innocent people.

This woman did what she did for a reason, but what she did was a horrible and despicable crime. And the fact that this happened, the fact this woman, with her seemingly promising life, average life, middle class life went and did what she did is what astounds: what chalenges the "truth" we have built for ourselves, that "our" kind of people, fr she is our kind of people, did something we think simply can not be associated with us

Ooh. Oooh. Two can play at that game.

This ambassador did what he did for a reason, but what he did was a crime. And the fact that this happened, the fact this man, with his seemingly promising life went and did what he did astrounds: it challenges the "truth" the Swedes have built for themselves, that "their" kind of people, for he is their kind of people, did something that they think simply can not be associated with them.

but it insults some here for not making her a charicature of evil

Actually, I said that I didn't think an evil caricature was appropriate, either.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Agathon


We are only having a nine page thread because some people either haven't read the artists' own explanation of what the piece is about or don't believe them (despite having no good reason not to).

If it's clear, why would anyone need to read the artists explanation?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
Funny. I thought the artists called her behavior inexplicaple.

I am not one of the people arguing alongside the artist, so I could care less

I see her as an individual who took it upon her self to try to murder as many innocent people as she could in cold blood, and managed to murder twenty one. No reason justifies cold bloodedly killing innocent people.

Who ever brough up "justification"- you simply continue the great mistake of making "explination" or "examination" into "justification"

Ooh. Oooh. Two can play at that game.

This ambassador did what he did for a reason, but what he did was a crime. And the fact that this happened, the fact this man, with his seemingly promising life went and did what he did astrounds: it challenges the "truth" the Swedes have built for themselves, that "their" kind of people, for she is their kind of people, did something that they think simply can not be associated with them.

First of all, the whole "promising life" part is utterly out of place- second, he is a diplomat- that is a job description, not a life description, class distinction. Swedes is a nationality, not a word for members of the diplomatic corp. Overall, a sad attempt at a response. care to make a thoughtfull one?

Actually, I said that I didn't think an evil caricature was appropriate, either.

NOtice how I did not address my post to you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


If it's clear, why would anyone need to read the artists explanation?

You could read the words that go with the exhibit, or perhaps you could notice how you hardly surround people you apporve of with a pool of blood.

Or you could ignore that and fixate on the image of Disney's snow white, though of course, the actual fairy tale is not as whishy washy as the Disney version anyway.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

You could read the words that go with the exhibit

Which I did, unlike some of the people who asked where I was getting my quotes from.

It is those words that try to excuse her as a "poor girl" being "devored by wild beasts" who must "let the whole world be erased"

I am not one of the people arguing alongside the artist, so I could care less

So then the artwork isn't clear, if you disagree with their explanation.

NOtice how I did not address my post to you.

I didn't see anyone else calling for her to be an evil carricature, either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Edan

If it's clear, why would anyone need to read the artists explanation?

Because most art is ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways. Some people claim that is what makes art worthwhile.

However, if we want to get the "real meaning" of such a work then we have to ask the artist what his intention was. This is the same for any communicative act characterised by ambiguity. The intention of the creator always has authority. It's no different in this case.

In this case the artists were clear that the work is not meant to glorify suicide bombing and no one has any good (read: non paranoid) reason to disbelieve them. Thus the people who insist that it does glorify suicide bombing are about as wrong as it's possible to be.

[Agathon]

When I looked at it for the first time I thought it was meant to pose the question of how a young attractive relatively successful woman could end up committing such an insane act. That is IMHO a question worth asking.

In this sense the exhibit transcends the particular conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to make a point about the dark side of human nature - apparently normal people can commit horrific acts in the right (or wrong) circumstances.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone have a link to the Israeli admission that the action of the Ambassador was planned? My posts were premised on the notion that he reacted viscerally to the exhibit.

I haven't been able to dig it up, there's no mention of it in today's edition of Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper of which yesterday's edition was originally quoted as the source for the ambassador's comment. I saw it in a Danish paper's coverage of the story yesterday, the story was focusing on the confusion as to wheter it was an impulse reaction or planned in advance.

BTW, on the subject of the impartiality and trustworthyness of Dror Feiler, the "artist", today's Haaretz has this little gem to offer: Feiler's initial reaction Friday night when the ambassador pulled the plugs was to approach the ambassador angrily, shouting in Hebrew: "You're doing exactly what you're doing in Nablus. This is a free country and I can say what I want to say here, not like you in your apartheid country."

Hmm, why is it I trust the artist's intentions even less after reading that statement.

[Winston]

The link to Haaretz, which by the way seems a good source of Israeli news and politcs.

[Arrian]

Hrm. I think I can understand the artist's anger. I know American Jews who are seriously pissed at Sharon and, though they probably wouldn't go as far as calling Israel an "apartheid country," are generally displeased with Israeli policy. Now if I imagine one of them as the artist, and imagine their reaction to the ambassador... yeah, it might be kinda heated.

This is a terrible PR situation for Israel. The Israeli government seriously ****ed up by backing this guy. It's just not how an ambassador should act. If he felt the artwork was in poor taste, he should have complained in a calm, reasoned manner. He would still be wrong, but he wouldn't be an embarassment to his nation.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan


So twenty one innocent people in a restuant eating their meals are a bunch of wild beasts trying to devour her?

I can't believe you wrote that.

I wasn't calling the resturaunt patrons beasts.

The beasts that I was refering to where ones of hatred and murder, that caused her to blow herself up, ie. a metaphore.

You're taking everythign much more litteraly than yous hould when talking about art...

Or, maybe you don't care about the art at all and just want to twist everythind said, seen, and done around your political views and create a spectical and controversy around it. Like the ambassador. That certainly seems to be the case, with the way you're posting.

[Ned]

Thanks for the link. The article ends with the following:

"Despite the blunt statements of support from the prime minister and foreign minister, diplomatic sources in Jerusalem on Sunday were not happy with what they called "the festival of support" for Mazel and his action.

The sources said they worried Israeli diplomatic efforts to defend the government's policies toward the Palestinians and territories were adopting a strategy of "losing control," with diplomats dropping diplomatic niceties to adopt unusual and unconventional methods of protest that could harm the reputations of Israeli diplomats."

It appears that this may be part of a larger pattern that is actually planned in Israel.

[jdd2007]

I think he is crazy.

[Snotty]

Yes, that is an interesting site. They also said:-

''Both the Israeli and Swedish governments appear anxious to put the incident behind them. The Swedish government is considering issuing a conciliatory note, according to sources in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, as well as hints offered by Swedish Ambassador Robert Rydberg.

The Swedish foreign ministry said Sunday it still expects Mazel to participate in a symposium on genocide to be held Monday at the Stockholm museum where he vandalized the artwork.

Officials in Jerusalem said they would be be satisfied with an appropriately conciliatory statement by Sweden, and that this would enable the Israeli delegation to attend the conference as planned.''

So it looks like Israel will be going to the conference now?

Ned,

It appears that this may be part of a larger pattern that is actually planned in Israel.

Im not sure I follow you. Are you saying this is more evidence that the incident was pre-planned, or masterminded by the Israeli government?

[Mercator]

An artist makes a work of art that might be open for interpretation. He then accompanies it with a piece of text that describes the horrific acts commited by this "Snow White". Upon further asking, the person continues to explain it is in no way trying to glorify or condone the suicide bomber's actions.

In what way can this possibly be explained as being anti-semitic? If the artist actually was lying and being an anti-semitic um... Israeli Jew, the only bad thing that could imply is that he's going to bed with a smirk on his face, thinking about how he fooled the world, while the rest of the world would consider it a sad reminder of the tragic ME situation.


A little boy tries to hit a few nails in a plank of wood, but eh doesn't have anything to hit them with. I present him with a screwdriver and a hammer. Unaware of their practical intention, the boy picks the screwdriver and hits a nail in. I then explain to him that it's easier and more practical to use the hammer. If the boy then continues to use the screwdriver he's either stupid or stubborn.

If the boy had picked the hammer and I tried to convince him the screwdriver was better, I'd just be stupid. Doing that wouldn't be beneficial to either of us, except perhaps give me the satisfaction of laughing at the boy behind his back.

In other words, it might be understandable for people to interpret it as being anti-semitic. But once you've heard the artists intentions, the only logical thing to do is accept and respect them.

If the artist was being deceitful, it would only lead to misunderstanding and disrespect. Since expressing an opinion or provoking thoughts from the on-lookers is an integral part of art, doing this would be counter-productive for and artist. At worst it would give him some twisted personal pleasure.

[Generalissimo]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Nah. What pisses them off is we don't back Israel.

We don't back the Arabs either - if we did, Israel would really have a war on their hands. I don't think this is the way forward though.

Quite frankly me (and most of the Israeli government) don’t really care whether you back us up or not we got used to the fact that you turn a blind eye on what happening in this s**t hole.
As long as you buy our products your diplomatic support is second-class compared to the US.
Why waste time in the EU when you have the US by your side.
Besides, unlike India we cant sell you arms to make you more tolerant towards our cause.

As far as the whole mess in Stockholm, that was a provocation. Sponsored (as far as I know) by the Swedish government and they should have known that this art might be offensive. Its just basic manners

Third, Israeli diplomats and Jews in general are systematically raping the term “Anti –Semite”. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a nazi lover.

Note:My English Sucks.

[Ecthy]

ambassador out of Sweden, Ned out of Apolyton

[Firelad]

What I wonder is, can nobody see that the only way to portray such an utterly tragic and grotesque situation as we have in Israel is by the artistic technique of irony and grotesque? A sticky sweet cliche tearfest cannot touch you and convey such emotions in a way even approaching an image of, say, Snow White standing in the middle of a pool of blood. We are all people, PEOPLE, you know, just ordinary people caught in something that turns us into bloody monsters, no matter how innocent or whatever we are. Our innocence is drowned in blood - an incomprehensible and terrible cycle of death. It's not about her reasons or whatever. It is about what even Snow White, living here, is turned into. And that says it all about everybody else, too. But most importantly, this is art trying to convey the incomprehensible, the paradoxical in the only way possible - by the deepest emotion, but cruelly twisting and tearing at the strings of our hearts - without mercy because there IS no mercy in the universe it is trying to portray.
This brings to mind a poem I've never read in full although I plan to - the Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Coleridge... In the same way, the star shines through the moon to portray the unnatural world into which the mariner enters when he forsakes love and mercy and all the rest; Only here it is not just anyone - it is Snow White, innocence embodied, that forsakes those things and her humanity. That is why this is so powerful.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Snotty
Im not sure I follow you. Are you saying this is more evidence that the incident was pre-planned, or masterminded by the Israeli government?

Well, the article suggested that the government in Israel was planning for its diplomats to "lose control" to demonstrate their displeasure with European anti-Semitism. In other words, this may have been staged as a part of a larger plan. But the concern expressed by the diplomatic community in Israel presumes that this incident was preplanned and staged with the authorization of the government of Israel. There is no direct reference here to any admission by the government of Israel that its ambassador deliberately staged this event.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
ambassador out of Sweden, Ned out of Apolyton

You forgot to finish your thought, heir to the Third Reich...

[Ned]

The difference between this "piece of art" and Picasso's Guernica is that latter portrayed and sympathized with the tragedy and suffering of the victims of violence.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Osweld


... sailing in a pool of blood, is great piece of art.

How about walking across it?



Shall we critique the form and light? Or perhaps we should discuss the useage of color?

[cinch]

Edan:

If you can't see the difference between a pro-Hamas propaganda piece and the artwork in question... I don't know why anyone's even trying to explain this to you, because you're not going to get it.

[Bereta_Eder]

There plenty of pics of "terminated" 4 year old palestinian "terrorists" too. But I doubt Edan would be swayed? They hardly fill a pool of blood eitherway seeing as they're too small. The palestinian fatalities are double that of Israelis. Let us not forget about this very simple truth when talking so liberally about "blood".

[Winston]

The Palestinians are also the agressors, and most of their fatalities in the conflict were hardly innocents. So pretending that any kind of useful information can come from comparing mere numbers of casualties is a charade.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
The Palestinians are also the agressors, and most of their fatalities in the conflict were hardly innocents. So pretending that any kind of useful information can come from comparing mere numbers of casualties is a charade.

How Orwellian...

...the people who had their country stolen from under them and given to some other bunch of people at the whim of foreign governments are the bad guys.

...the people who won't be given the vote in samesaid country because doing so would mean that Jews would no longer have absolute control are the bad guys.

...the people who were deliberately provoked into this latest round of violence are the bad guys.

As long as Israel continues to either deprive Palestinians of votes or their own state, it is to be condemned by all right minded people as a racist state - just like South Africa was.

[Winston]

One party to the conflict has the declared ambition of wiping the other party off the face of the planet. The other party is taking strict measures to see that the first party does not succeed.

I'll leave it to your own good judgement to sort out who's who.

And it's telling that you didn't comment on my claim that most of the Palestinians killed in the conflict weren't innocents (unlike the overwhelming majority of Israeli casualties). Maybe that's not so terribly important to you.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
One party to the conflict has the declared ambition of wiping the other party off the face of the planet. The other party is taking strict measures to see that the first party does not succeed.

They have not. Some of them want Israel destroyed as a state which is what will have to happen if they are to get their country back.

Israel is an illegitimate, racist state.

Imagine if the US suddenly decided to give half your country to the Kurds and you had no say in it. I take it you'd be pretty pissed off.

Then imagine you tried to push them out and got beat. Then the kurds occupied your part for the next thirty years and refused to extend to you the power to vote and basic civil rights because they wanted the country to remain "Kurdish". Then they started building kurdish towns at gunpoint in the occupied territory with the intention of making the whole country kurdish for ever.

Sound familiar?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Israel is an illegitimate, racist state.

Take it up with the UN. They created it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston

And it's telling that you didn't comment on my claim that most of the Palestinians killed in the conflict weren't innocents (unlike the overwhelming majority of Israeli casualties). Maybe that's not so terribly important to you.

You mean by innocents people living on stolen property? The overwhelming proportion of Palestinian casualties are either innocent or guilty of such crimes as throwing stones at armoured cars. And there are a lot more of them dying.

Do I think they should blow themselves up in cafes? No. But what else are they supposed to do? The US makes sure that Israel can act without fear of sanction and no one does anything to help them.

Give it up. You are defending the moral equivalent of South Africa.