Sweden summons envoy to explain damage to artwork

[Gimel]

Sweden will summon Israeli Ambassador Zvi Mazel on Monday to explain his partially destroying on Friday an artwork depicting a Palestinian suicide bomber, displayed at a Stockholm museum.

Public service SR radio news said Mazel furiously ripped out electrical wires attached to the artwork and threw a spotlight in the basin.

<clip>

Ambassador Zvi Mazel was among the guests at the opening of the Historical Museum's exhibition linked to an international anti-genocide conference to be held in Stockholm from January 26 to 28.

"This was not a piece of art," Mazel said. "It was a monstrosity. An obscene distortion of reality."

Israel on Saturday demanded that Sweden remove the artwork. Deputy Director General for Western Europe at the Foreign Ministry, Ran Curiel, told Sweden's ambassador to Israel that Jerusalem views his country as responsible for the artwork, and "would not let hide behind claims of freedom of expression for actions which justify terror attacks against Israelis."

The Foreign Ministry said that the display was a violation of understandings between Israel and Sweden, and that the Swedish government had promised not to link the conference with the Middle East conflict.

"The exhibit that glorified the actions of a suicide bomber who murdered 22 people is a violation of that understanding, and if it is not removed, Israel will reconsider its participation in the conference," the ministry said.

<clip>

"I couldn't stand by and see how an exhibition titled 'making a difference' and dealing with the prevention of genocide, would display an artwork with a photograph of a murderer who killed 21 human beings. It was a shock for me," Mazel said, adding that he asked the exhibition's director to remove the artwork, and after he was turned down decided to disconnect the projectors.

<clip>

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/383944.html

Another propaganda piece, done by an Israeli. The Ambassador acted justly.

[Bread and Roses]

1. Thank you for this follow-up.

Glad to learn Israel is backing up the Ambassador and I believe he should not answer to any summons. Should he meet with the Swedes, I certainly hope he in no way backs down from his principled position.

[Gimel]

24. Further discussion

Another report which contains more details on this incident:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074329035664

For those who are interested.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Randomthought]

2. Huh?

Why does the Israeli ambassador get to dictate what is in the Stockholm museum and vandalize it? He behaved badly and stupidly. Had he asked politely they Swedes may have removed the work entirely. Now the whole world knows about it.

[number6]

3. I agree, is this the first time art has been offensive and in ..

bad taste :smoke:

"Why does the Israeli ambassador get to dictate what is in the Stockholm museum and vandalize it? "

he shouldn't, he can protest and voice his disgust ...

[bluesoul]

4. Exactly

He's a primitive!

[sushi]

63. Arrogant too!

and most undiplomatic.:thumbsdown:

[Bread and Roses]

5. Huh?

It's better when one reads the article before commenting.

(Israel on Saturday demanded that Sweden remove the artwork. Deputy Director General for Western Europe at the Foreign Ministry, Ran Curiel, told Sweden's ambassador to Israel that Jerusalem views his country as responsible for the artwork, and "would not let hide behind claims of freedom of expression for actions which justify terror attacks against Israelis.")


No one is dictating; some people have emotions and compassion - some don't.

[kalian]

7. Sorry...the diplomatic world does not work that way....

They could have stages some protests, etc but this barbaric act
just proves that Israel wants to gets its way with the international
community.
I'm sick and tired of the "holier than thou" attitude. Basically,
this person committed an act of terrorism by acting in such a manner.

[Gimel]

16. Very funny

You should be protesting the real terrorism instead of defending this, IMO.

The Ambassador DID register a request with the proper authorities:

adding that he asked the exhibition's director to remove the artwork, and after he was turned down decided to disconnect the projectors.

Some things are worth more than a position in Sweden.

[kalian]

22. Again...ALL forms of terrorism are to be condemned....

I could care less for either sides viewpoints. IMHO, they might
as well kill each other off...that's what they want.
BOTH sides are to blame.

[sushi]

64. Obviously he expected

the exhibition director to do as he asked. That makes him arrogant. When he was turned down he showed that he is unsuitable for the diplomatic service, not only in Sweden, but anywhere in the world!

[madrchsod]

8. ok

no one is dictating? hide behind freedom of expression? no wonder the sharon government is hated by many in the world....

[Mikimouse]

12. If no one is dictating, then why

does the article use the word 'demanded' in describing what the Israeli government was doing? They aren't in any position to dictate to anyone outside their borders.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Because . . .

If there was a prior agreement about the content of the art at the conference and this work violates that agreement, then Israel is within her rights to demand that the agreement be honored.

That is still no excuse for the ambassador's behavior.

[Bread and Roses]

14. Thank you.

I would have written something almost as articulate as your first sentence if I hadn't wandered off for a moment. :hi:

[Mikimouse]

20. If there was an agreement about the content of the

museum, I have no problem with what you have said, however, the article does state that the exhibit was there ahead of the conference, which is not scheduled until Jan. 26. I found this quote interesting: "He said he had decided on this act of protest in advance after reading about the exhibition in the newspapers...

"I couldn't stand by and see how an exhibition titled 'making a difference' and dealing with the prevention of genocide, would display an artwork with a photograph of a murderer who killed 21 human beings. It was a shock for me," Mazel said"

In other words, he knew about the exhibit prior to going to the museum. I am not suggesting that he did not find it offensive, but for him to say that he was shocked is disingenuous, as he knew about it before he went there.

As to whether or not, there was an agreement about the content of the museum, I don't know about that, nor would I pretend to know, but I doubt that the conference attendees made any agremetns about the museum; maybe about the content of the conference, but not about the content. Just my input.

[Gimel]

47. Strange

That you should know about the Ambassador's private thoughts and premeditated actions, yet not have a clue about the prior agreements.

In fact, the prior agreements were clearly stated in at least two of the articles I've read about the incident. You must have very selective imagination. I did not read about the Ambassador's premonitions. I know that he raised objections to the art work on display with the museum's proprietors. They turned down his request to have it removed.

[Bread and Roses]

15. Oh, one other comment:

surely one cannot be serious in taking an article so literally! The writer used the word 'demanded'; that is the writer's choice of words...or the editor's...sheesh!

[Mikimouse]

21. I suggest a review of previous diplomatic records

semantics is the lifeblood of diplomacy. There is a largel difference between demanding something and making a request. Since the article was published in Ha'aretz, I would reasonably make the assumption that the word demanded was used to accurately describe what happened. If it was the writer's choice, then it would be the editors prerogative to change the wording; if, however, the editor did not change the wording, I would make the assumption that he/she considered it appropriate. Lastly, it is absolutely NOT beyond the realm for any country to make these types of demands, so the argument is meaningless.

[Bread and Roses]

35. Where the article is published

is not the point. Semantics, choices, etc.

And you know what they say about assume...one shouldn't do it because it makes ...

[Mikimouse]

43. On the contrary, it is quite salient

n/t

[Bozola]

9. Yep.

Personally, I'd have thought a painting of a big ugly concrete wall or bulldozers in refugee camps would have been more tasteful.

However, there is nothing excusable about the Ambassador's actions. He could have diplomatically lodged a protest. In attack the art, he's proven himself to be just another Likud thug.

[Bread and Roses]

17. Now, that is truly offensive!

eom

[Jack Rabbit]

10. The ambassador was dictating nothing

Apparently, there was an agreement that the conference would not be used to discuss issues in the Middle East conflict. If there was such an agreement, then this work of art violated it.

Having said that, the ambassador's behavior was unbecoming of a diplomat. He could have politely stated his objections to somebody representing the conference who should have known of the agreement, stated that he was offended and left.

[bluesoul]

11. He is not worth the name

"diplomat" with his actions whatever he thinks about it. If everyone lost their nerves with somethign they don't like we'd have a WW3

[Gimel]

48. Call him

a Jewish life artist, a cultural diplomat. It is quite fitting,IMO.

[madrchsod]

6. a principled position?

when is destroying art justified because one disagrees with it? if i don`t like what someone created am i justified in destroying it? because an artist shows "bad taste" doesn`t justify anyone destroying it.

[Gimel]

19. Destroying?

The way I read it, the lights were disconnected. I'm not sure that there was any real damage to the art work. No one would have paid attention had he just walked out.

By demonstrating contempt, after he lodged a complaint and nothing happened, he had no alternative, if I wanted to maintain his own self-respect.

[Bread and Roses]

18. Back Story:

Israeli Ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, damaged yesterday an "art exhibit" in Stockholm's museum of National Antiquities. The exhibit sympathized with Hanadi Jaradat, the Palestinian suicide bomber who mass-murdered 21 innocent people in a restaurant in Haifa earlier this year. The exhibition is linked to an international conference on genocide, "Stockholm International Forum: Preventing Genocide - Threats and Responsibilities," to be held January 26-28. The Swedish Foreign Ministry will summon Mazel on Monday to explain his actions.

The victims of the suicide bombing at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa:

- Five members of the Almog family from Haifa: Admiral (res.) Ze'ev Almog, 71, his wife Ruth, 70, their son Moshe, 43, and grandsons Tomer Almog, 9, and Assaf Staier, 11
- Five members of the Zer-Aviv family from Kibbutz Yagur: Bruria, 59; her son Bezalel, 30, and his wife Keren, 29, with their children Liran, 4, and Noya, 1
- Zvi Bahat, 35, of Haifa
- Mark Biano, 29, of Haifa, and his wife Naomi, 25
- Hana Francis, 39, of Fassouta, chief waiter
- Mutanus Karkabi, 31, of Haifa, the security guard
- Sharbal Matar, 23, of Fassouta, waiter
- Osama Najar, 28, of Haifa, cook
- Nir Regev, 25, of Nahariya
- Irena Sofrin, 38, of Kiryat Bialik
- Lydia Zilberstein, 56, of Haifa died of her wounds on Oct 9
- George Matar, 59, of Haifa died of his wounds on Oct 15

[Gimel]

23. The exhibition

To glorify the bomber who did this in any way is absolutely tasteless.

furthermore, if the I/P conflict was not to be displayed in any way, how could this be acceptable?

To depict the life of the bomber as the only one worth honoring, is totally senseless. Artistic license has a limit.

[lefty_mcduff]

54. Who decides the limit?

Just askin'

[Gimel]

55. The people

The public, the viewers, and those invited to the exhibition, like Ambassador Mazel. The agreement not to include the Israel-Palestine conflict in this conference was also violated.

[brainshrub]

28. More Background:

http://www.makingdifferences.com/site/calendar.php?lang=en&id=20

[brainshrub]

25. I would love to see a picture of this exhibit

so I may come to an educated conclusion as to whether or not it was offensive.

Does anyone have a link?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Thank you, Papau

I really can't tell from the photo what is the attitude of the artist towards the subject of his work. A link in the Ha'aretz article lead to the artist's statement on the work. That might help us better to understand it.

The statement is also a work of art. It juxtaposes passages from Grimms' version of Snow White with facts surrounding the bombing.

From this, it would appear that the artist's attitude towards his subject is one of bewilderment. He can understand the bomber's rage and her own pain, but still points out that in the end her act caused more pain to other people.

Thus, it would seem that the judgment of the work towards its subject is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. Rather than be didactic, he wanted to leave it to his audience to make a judgment.

Perhaps Ambassador Mazel objected because he found the piece in violation of an agreement which he thought he had with the conference organizers. Or perhaps he was expecting something didactic and was unable to handle the ambiguity of the work.

Perhaps we shouldn't judge Ambassador Mazel for his reaction to the work as a human being, even if it was unbecoming of a diplomat.

[number6]

39. some thought provoking statements

.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. And thank you, Mr. Rabbit...

I think the vital thing here is the artist's attitude towards the work and what they were trying to express, and despite the loud claims from some quarters at DU that this work was glorifying suicide-bombings, I also saw it as an ambiguous work, and I think ambiguity and allowing people to make their own judgements on the message of a piece of art makes some of the best artwork. Mind you, from looking at the pic, this one's pretty lame as far as art goes..

And if there actually was an agreement in place that the I/P conflict wasn't to make an appearance, then the response of any diplomat who's a representative of their country would be to complain through official channels rather than vandalise a work of art based on what his interpretation of it is. If diplomats were to react on a personal level while they're in an official role, we'd have all sorts of fisticuffs and out of control behaviour happening. They're like many other governmental officials who when taking on official positions agree to act in a professional manner, and if this ambassador can't do that, well he should be replaced by someone who can...


Violet...

[Gimel]

49. The eye of the beholder

all art work is somewhat interpretive. Palestinians might see it supporting their view, however. The statement leaves no doubt that the artist is depicting the bomber's side of the story. The victims are merely footnotes to her act of destruction.

The Ambassador intended to make a statement by disconnecting the lights to the display, after his protest to the management got no results at all. It was in violation to an agreement with the Swedish organizers of the event, according to the articles that I've read on this.

To the Ambassador it was unambiguous. It was a Palestinian sympathizer's justification for suicide-homicide bombings.

On edit: I forgot one thing. The article states that one of the spotlights fell into the container. It was an unintended result, but quite fitting. I'd say that universal energies, which contain an element of fate and equilibrium, played a role here in the "destruction" of the art work. Seems the artist's "work" was not permanently damaged at all.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Response

all art work is somewhat interpretive. Palestinians might see it supporting their view, however.

This is true. The artist's aim would seem to be ambiguity.

The statement leaves no doubt that the artist is depicting the bomber's side of the story. The victims are merely footnotes to her act of destruction.

I disagree. See post number 52, below.

The Ambassador intended to make a statement by disconnecting the lights to the display, after his protest to the management got no results at all. It was in violation to an agreement with the Swedish organizers of the event, according to the articles that I've read on this.

The ambassador is entitled to his interpretation and opinion of the piece. That still does not excuse vandalism. It does not excuse his unprofessional behavior.

Regardless of the merits of the piece or its message, the proper manner to handle this dispute was to lodge a complaint to the conference organizers. As a diplomat, Mr. Mazel of all people should have known this. His behavior was boorish and reprehensible.

I agree with Ms. Crumble. The Swedes would be within their rights to send him packing.

[meti57b]

50. after seeing what it looks like and reading the artists words ...

The actual so-called art looks like a representation of the head of the suicide bomber floating around in her own blood, after she has blown herself to pieces. The "Snow White" reference looks like she is snow-white in color after all her blood has run out of her and is in a pool on the floor. I would interpret that as her having destroyed only herself.

However, the artists words clearly glorify her bombing and her killing 21 people.

[Darranar]

51. Well...

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

It doesn't sound like glorification to me...

[Jack Rabbit]

52. I disagree . . .

Again, I find the work ambiguous. The ambiguity was intentional. There are many ways this work could be interpreted.

The actual so-called art looks like a representation of the head of the suicide bomber floating around in her own blood, after she has blown herself to pieces. The "Snow White" reference looks like she is snow-white in color after all her blood has run out of her and is in a pool on the floor. I would interpret that as her having destroyed only herself.

Whose blood? It could be as easily that of her victims. Or hers and her victims. It would all be on the floor afterwards, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps it is the blood of all who have died in this conflict or other modern conflicts. After all, art has a way of moving from the specific to the general. There is nothing here to determine whose blood it is.

However, the artists words clearly glorify her bombing and her killing 21 people.

From the artist's statement:

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

From this, I would seriously question your interpretation that "she killed only herself." Had the artist not said this in his statement, then your interpretation would have more weight. The victims of the act are acknowledged. Your interpretation that "she killed only herself" is based on a selective reading of the statement.

The artist is aiming at ambiguity. In order to accomplish this, he must embrace the humanity of both the criminal and the victim. If you think that is an inappropriate approach for an artist to make to his subject, then perhaps Macbeth does nothing for you.

Moreover, the artist tells the story of the bombing as one where a victim seeks revenge and thus becomes a criminal, in turn creating more victims who may themselves seek revenge. It is a cyclical story, not a linear one like Snow White. In fairy tales, the persecuted girl marries the prince, destroys the witch and all live happily ever after. It doesn't work that way in real life. We are all Snow White and the wicked stepmother at once.

I don't see this work as a glorification of anything. It paints a very ugly view of humanity, just as do the headlines and news accounts from the Middle East that we read daily.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

56. Exactly. The cycle of revenge and loss of humanity. See my post #45 below.

[meti57b]

59. oops ....

I was wondering why you were concerned about my interpretation of this, until I realized I posted my message as a reply to your post. Sorry about that ... I had meant to post it as a reply to the message that first posted a picture of the art. I think that was message #30 by Papau.

I will, though, stick with my interpretation of it. That is what I see in it. And you are certainly more than entitled to see in it what you see.

One thing I might comment on, ..... to me, the artist's words are not descriptive of the "art" and the "art" is not an illustration of the artist's words ..... regardless of what was intended.

[Jack Rabbit]

60. The statement

I am interpreting the statement more than the work itself for a simple reason: we can read in in its entirety and share that experience. We can only get a crude idea of the larger visual work from a 12Kbyte photo of it.

You are also entitled to your interpretation. More to the point, Ambassador Mazel is entitled to his. However, he is not entitled to vandalize it, even if he did only minimal damage. That is unprofessional for a diplomat. For his Prime Minister to praise such boorishness from his ambassador is also unbecoming of that office.

[Bread and Roses]

36. Yes, I just saw it on tv and

the red shiney cloth is actually thick, porous wavy wet glop to look as though the terrorist is smiling as she sails her martyr's way to paradise upon the blood of all the Israelis she has just murdered

[meti57b]

26. there seems to be more outrage here ....

when one Israeli destroys a painting of a suicide bomber, than there is when a suicide bomber destroys a number of Israelis.

[bluesoul]

27. Or when

the IDF kills Palestinian children....

[Gimel]

61. No, I disagree

That stain is not removed and is repeated all out of proportion.

[Bread and Roses]

37. There is.

What's worse is you'll find what I had hoped was an I/P aberration of hate all over the same story under LBN - it's up to around 100 posts so far of pure hatred; not for the murdered, but at the Ambassador!

[bluesoul]

38. I wonder

why...

[Jim Sagle]

46. Me too.

:shrug:

[jpgray]

29. I thought "violent protest" was frowned upon by Israelis? (nt)

[JohnLocke]

32. Ripping a few wires out of a display is not "violent."

Somehow I sense that Mr. Gray doesn't know what violence really is.

[bluesoul]

33. It's

vandalism...

[JohnLocke]

41. Funny.

Some people will imply that suicide bombings are acceptable undre the cirumstances; yet the same people find it absolutly horrendous when, after repeated attemps to get a disgusting and morbid display removed, someone takes out a few cords.

[Jack Rabbit]

42. There's nothing funny about it

First of all, the last person I remember who expressed on this board anything approaching approval for suicide bombings was awarded a tombstone shortly afterwards. If you're wondering what a rocket scientist he was, that same fellow also said that your humble servant is an apologist for colonialism, drawing hackles from members of all viewpoints.

Second, no one condemning the ambassador's behavior is comparing a work of art to a suicide bombing.

Third, those who are complaining about the ambassador's behavior are judging his behavior as it relates to his position as a diplomat and as that behavior directed toward a work of art. If the light cords were part of the work, then the act was vandalism of the artist's work; otherwise, he may have just damaged some of the museum's property. Either way, it is inexcusable conduct for a diplomat.

Fourth, see my post (number 34) above. I have some questions about the artist's attitude towards his subject. It does not appear to be the glorification of suicide bombing that some are making it out to be.

[Must_B_Free]

44. Godfather II & Startrek

Godfather II
Suicide bomber in Cuba made Michael Corleone realize "they could win"

Star Trek Pilot "Menagerie"
Pike puts his phaser on overload to build up power interally and eventually explode, which would kill the human's held captive behind the wall and also destroy their capturers, the Talosians.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

45. ARGH!! This art decries the bloodbath of "MY TRUTH=YOUR DEATH"

(I wish this hadn't been shunted out of LBN because this thread has universal applicabality, not just middle eastern conflict relevence.)

ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTERS IN THIS AND THE ORIGINAL THREAD PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATED THE BLIND PASSION/HURT/HATRED THAT MAKES PEOPLE KILL IN THE NAME OF RIGHTOUSNESS AND REVENGE WHICH THE ARTIST WAS POINTING TO!!!!!!!!!!!

JUST READ THE DAMN TEXT THAT ACCOMPANIES THE IMAGERY OF A WOMAN IN A SEA OF BLOOD:

http://www.makingdifferences.com/site/calendar.php?lang=en&id=20

This exhibit doesn't glorify murder at all, it attempts to make the observer understand how the depth of pain and horror an individual feels from their losses to violence
("For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin...")
causes them to lash out and cause even more anguish, the perpetual motion of violence begetting violence.

"The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying..."

The ambassador and most posters here at du.com reacted to their own ideas of who was to blame in EXACTLY the way the artist intended.

ARE YOU ALL SO FUCKING BLIND?? This is a tragically beautiful and disturbing work of art because it bridges the emotional chasm between a human being like ourselves and the grotesque pool of blood that loss of your own loved ones and irrational vengeance creates...

I'm going to have a drink and weep some more over this art and the blindness even seemingly 'progressive du-ers' exhibited in response to it...

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Artist Dror Feiler speaks on the incident

From the BBC Online
Dated Sunday January 18 12:24 GMT (4:24 am PST)

Sharon praises 'art vandal' envoy

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has praised his ambassador to Sweden after he vandalised an art exhibit featuring a Palestinian suicide bomber . . . .
But the expatriate Israeli artist, Dror Feiler, rejected the criticism of his work, saying it had a message of openness and conciliation.
"I'm absolutely opposed to suicide bombers," he added.
Mr Feiler called the envoy "an intellectual dwarf" who had tried to "stop free speech and free artistic expression".

Read more.

[bluesoul]

58. The author of the work

is Israeli? That's interesting...

[JasonDeter]

62. The Ambassador acted justly.

Well said. I concur.