Sharon praises art vandalism

[Scurrilous]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/18/1074360636348.html

<snip>

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has praised the Israeli ambassador to Sweden for vandalising a Stockholm art exhibit about Palestinian suicide bombers, saying the "entire government stands behind him".

A security camera on Friday captured Israeli ambassador to Sweden Zvi Mazel throwing a mounted spotlight at the exhibit in Stockholm's Museum of National Antiquities.

Titled Snow White and the Madness of Truth, the exhibit consisted of a small ship carrying a picture of Islamic Jihad bomber Hanadi Jaradat sailing in a rectangular pool filled with red-coloured water. Jaradat killed herself and 21 bystanders in an October 4 suicide bombing in Haifa, Israel.

Sharon expressed unreserved support for the ambassador's action.
"I called our ambassador in Sweden Zvi Mazel last night and thanked him for his strength in dealing with increasing anti-Semitism, and told him that the entire government stands behind him," he told a cabinet meeting."

[Gimel]

1. Right On!

Sharon always takes a stand to support Israel against those who lack sensitivity to issues of survival.

[bluesoul]

2. Yeah

the "Man of peace" Let's all praise the most progressive politician in Israel :puke:

[Gimel]

3. For supporting an action

which protested glorification of a suicide bomber who killed 22 Israelis. Can't a progressive see the value of that? Or do you object and praise the "Snow White" monstrosity?

[bluesoul]

4. I see the killings on the other side

that Sharon is personally responsible for, so protesting only for this makes him no progressive. I don't support terrorism or suicide attacks, but art is another thing, that is not necessarily ment as advocation of such by portraying them. So if I see any resemblance to Sharon and his policies anywhere in the world in the form of art, I can go and destroy them because I don't agree with it?

[Lefty48197]

50. Please

Everytime someone mentions the murders committed by the Palestininans, some yahoo has to say "The Israelis's murder innocent people too". If you can't make a distinction between hitting the military leader of hamas with a rocket, and blowing up some innocent people in a restaurant, then I fear there is no hope for you.

[bluesoul]

51. Yahoo? LOL

Innocent people are innocent people. If you don't consider Palestinian children and other civilians killed by the IDF as equal to Israeli civilian victims, then there really is NO hope for you. Amen

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. They are innocent victims of Palestinian terror

The terrorists hide among the Palestinian people. It is THEIR FAULT that innocents die, not the fault of Israelis who must take action against them to prevent worse bloodshed.

[bluesoul]

53. That's

BULLSHIT! Makes me wanna puke this murder defending...

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. How does that defend murder?

It isn't murder when bystanders die as police arrest serial killers. It isn't murder when police assault the Mafia and bystanders get shot at the same time.

The Palestinian terror network is far more extensive and far more insidious than the Mafia. It hides right among the civilian population of the Palestinian people. How that could not lead to innocent death is beyond me.

Of course, the Palestinian people could do something about it. They and their ersatz government choose not to.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Gimel]

87. Not allowed to

Of course, all mistakes and errors in battle are seen as intentional. No mistake is allowed, no stray bullets, no reflex actions to threatening movement, nothing is allowed except maybe arresting Hamas "militants" who have murdered Israelis. Then, they aren't allowed into the PA areas without being called "occupiers" and "criminals" on top of it. Shooting an Israeli over the Green Line is like shooting a stray rabbit.

[lefty_mcduff]

7. So, if I disagree with this action -

I 'glorify and praise' the 'Snow White monstrosity'?!!! Ahm no (and I'm tired of the cartoon black and white generalizations). Artwork dealing with war does NOT praise or glorify war (many times, it condems it). And giving the greenlight to the vandalism of artwork that you do not agree with, is controversial (or, dare I say - misinterpret) is ridiculous.

[Gimel]

64. Israelis see it differently

The Knesset voted overwhelmingly in support of the Ambassador Mazel's actions. The only descents were the Arab Knesset members.

Sharon said that the entire government stands behind the ambassador, and that the gravity of the Stockholm display demanded a response. "We are witnessing a rise in anti-Semitism, and will increase our efforts to fight the phenomenon," Sharon said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/383944.html

[Jim Sagle]

5. Yee hah!

:thumbsup:

[lefty_mcduff]

8. Well said.

n/t

[WildClarySage]

6. Regardless of how you view the whole palestinian/israeli mess

vandalism IS vandalism. There had to be a more appropriate avenue for him to voice his concerns. Censorship has no place in a progressive platform, as far as I'm concerned.

[lefty_mcduff]

9. Agreed.

Imagine a world where *everybody* was given the green light (or encouraged by their governements) to vandalize anything that was deemed controversial. Blows my mind that 'progessives' would agree with this action.

[WildClarySage]

18. That's my point

I don't want ANYONE else deciding that for me. :)

[Gimel]

65. Turn off the lights

on the display and they call it vandalism. The display still stands, and they refuse to remove it. It hasn't been harmed at all. That was just BS. And anti-Jewish bias.

[GabysPoppy]

10. Your right

Censorship has no place in a progressive forum.

TASTE, CIVILITY and GOOD JUDGMENT do. If in your opinion the object in question meets those criteria, there is nothing left to discuss here.

[bluesoul]

12. But then

I would say a lot of things insult other people. Like anything in art to do with Sharon, IDF or Israel's policies against Palestinians. Or is it double standards again?

[GabysPoppy]

41. Is it too much to ask that you follow the conversation?

It might make it easier for me to understand your posts.

[bluesoul]

43. You refuse

to understand when I point at the double standards and hypocrisy of your own words, when the situation would be vice versa (Palestinians demonized, depicted in art). It has VERY much to do with the whole subject. Amen

[WildClarySage]

16. I haven't seen the object in question so I couldn't say

however, from the descriptions I have read, I highly doubt it met any of those particular criteria. Nevertheless, art does not always reflect those things. And it should be up to each individual to have the right to express their opinions and to object to those he/she disapproves of. Censorship means that people lose these rights, and the progressive platform I support stands for the rights of people.

[lefty_mcduff]

17. We're talking about the censorship of 'art'...

Not the DU board itself. Do I think the object in question has be executed with Taste, Civility and Good Judgement? I have no idea. Taste, civility and good judgement is way too subjective to inject into a discussion about 'art' and/or censorship. I for one do not want Sharon and/or his minions deciding what is appropriate for museums, art galleries and the like. Or Arafat. Or Bush. Or Blair. Or Assad...

[GabysPoppy]

38. However

"Censorship has no place in a progressive platform,"

This is what I was responding to and not "censorship" itself

[lefty_mcduff]

Sorry if I misunderstood.

Agreed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. I beg to disagree

That means I am supposed to go to a gallery -- WHERE I AM INVITED AS A REPRENTATIVE OF MY NATION -- and ignore race hatred, bigotry and celebration of death?

If I, as an African-American were so invited, would I turn my back on art that celebrated lynchings? Would I ignore a piece of art that celebrated the murder of Dr. King? Would I ignore art that celebrated the KKK nightriders?

Not freakin' likely.

[WildClarySage]

13. So vandalism

is the only appropriate response?

Anything else is "turning your back"?

[bluesoul]

14. Apparently

so... :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Emotion

Would you have us all be automatons? You ask people to ignore hundreds or thousands of years of history, abuse, murder and insult?

Sometimes, after a lifetime of such, you can't hold it in.

[WildClarySage]

21. Of course not!

Why on earth would you think that is what I am suggesting? Automatons? You know what they say about those who ignore history.

If there is someone out there deciding what is ok to exhibit and what isn't, that person could decide that your art is not appropriate because it shows the struggles and violence that you're trying to express

and it's banned or destroyed.

I find your suggestion that vandalism is the only appropriate avenue for voicing your objections, that anything less is 'turning your back' or 'ignoring' history to be simplistic. Use your own creativity to produce your response.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. You ask them to be "good" Jews

You want this man to ignore the celbration of death flung so insidiously in his face.

That is beyond ridiculous. Perhaps, instead of ignoring this trash, Europeans might have objected to it. But then, they also might have objected to anti-Semitism more strongly in the 1930s and stopped its rise in their continent.

[WildClarySage]

24. ?

I'm asking that he ignore nothing. Why do you continue to insist that any response that doesn't include vandalism is to 'ignore' the piece?

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. There were only two choices

He either walked out, said something, etc. and in effect ignored what was going on or he took direct action.

He chose, thankfully, the gutsy move of direct action. It might cost him his job. That kind of bravery is rare.

[WildClarySage]

29. no, there are always

other options. Organizing a protest... commissioning the work of another artist... arranging a press conference... decrying the lack of sensitivity... I don't see those things as 'ignoring' the piece.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Your methods

Do not speak to the problem in clear and unquavering tones. They are the methods of civilized discourse. There was nothing civilized about either this "work" or the decision to invite the Israeli ambassador and rub his face and his nation's in it.

[WildClarySage]

33. YES!!! We agree!!!

They ARE the methods of civilized discourse. Which is sorta the point. Just because others are behaving like monkeys, we can continue to behave like men. Or women, as the case may be.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Not always the right response

As I said in another thread on this topic, sometimes we have to stop being pushed into the back of the bus and just taking it. Sometimes we must sit at the lunchcounter and demand things change. Sometimes we must take direct action against the bigotry around us.

[WildClarySage]

40. but this isn't about lunchcounters or bus seats

It's about oppression. I abhor oppression in any of it's forms. It's about the small-scale oppression of one person censoring another. And that's why I'd fight just as hard for your right to paint your own paintings that celebrate any damn thing you want them to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. It's about celebrating murder

It's about being asked to turn your back on the slaughter of your friends, neighbors and their children.

This was a PUBLIC celebration of those deaths. Unsurprising it occurred in Europe.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. I only bash when they do things

I didn't create the incident. I only comment.

[Darranar]

47. How exactly did it celebrate those deaths?

[lefty_mcduff]

48. Sounds more like

A sombre piece on the ME. Pool of blood = death. Small ship = ineffective. To me the piece could be interpreted as a work on the futile nature of the violence and death (dragging out my old art history classes). And once again *that's* why censorship is a crock (and the vandalism that we're discussing). I see something completely different that you... but you want to have the ability to decide for *ME* what *I* see (or rather one of Sharon's minions wants to decide).

[Darranar]

15. Um...

How exactly was the piece "race hatred, bigotry, and celebration of death"? It may have been interpreted as such, but it does not seem so to me.

[Gimel]

68. Considering

The name of the creation is "Snow White and the Madness of Truth", one can only assume that the bomber was being equated with the character Snow White, who serves the 7 dwarfs (the lines about her brother and cousin's death) and then falls into a deep sleep after taking a bite from a poison apple. She awakens only with the kiss of Prince Charming.

So the suicide cult goes, that the promise of the act of jihad will to a paradise of pleasures. There she is, floating serenely on the blood of her victims. It's subtleness is hardly deep.

Can that be seen as a condemnation of her actions? I see no condemnation there. The horridness of it may strike one as made, but that is what the artist wanted. Attention and notoriety.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. On the other hand

The bomber is contrasted with Snow White. The work shows just as much how she is different as similar. When Snow White and the Prince killed the wicked witch in the end, there was no one to cry for her. The artist, in the artist's statement, explicitly points out that there are victims here and names some of them. There are those who cry for them. The artist embraces their humanity.

If you are looking for a hard condemnation of a suicide bomber, you may listen to a politcal stump speech or read an editorial in any one of countless western newspapers. You won't get it in this work. Yo're right as far as you go: it is not the artist's intention to explicitly condemn suicide bombing.

However, neither does this work approve of the bombing. It attempts to be ambiguous and leaves it for the oberver to make his own judgment.

Your assertion that the artist sought attention and noteriety is absurd. If that's what he wanted, he sould send that boorish ambassador a dozen roses. It is Mr. Mazel who is getting the attention and noteriety for his undiplomatic behavior.

[Gimel]

73. Slightly ambiguous

However, neither does this work approve of the bombing. It attempts to be ambiguous and leaves it for the observer to make his own judgment.

True, you can either abhor the art work, or accept the glorification of the bomber as Snow White.


Most who abhor suicide attacks on civilians, abhor this monstrosity. Who could gaze at the photo of a snow white face floating in a sea of blood (human blood by the description) and not feel revulsion?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Gimel]

80. It provoked

It is the appropriateness of this expression at this time and place.

My appreciation of good art is as refined as the next persons.

[Jack Rabbit]

75. I disagree

Revulsion may have been what the artist wanted you to feel. At least he seems to be aware that it was one thing an observer could feel. One should feel revulsion, but revulsion at what? That depends on the point of view of each individual observer of the work.

I don't believe, as you do, that the artist was making a hard comparison of the suicide bomber to a fairy tale princess. On the contrary, to me, there is quite a bit of contrast between a fairy tale princess and a real life terrorist. There's a neat ending to the story of Snow White; there's isn't to the story of the suicide bombing. The story starts with a woman seeking to alleviate her pain by killing people believes to be evil and who cause that pain. However, the story ends by showing that the people she killed are not much different from she was before the conflict hit her personally and transformed her into a terrorist. Now, we are left to wonder, will the survivors of these new victims also seek revenge?

I don't see the work as glorifying anything. I see it as an expression of the overall pathos of the conflict and how it transforms ordinary people into monsters.

[Gimel]

81. The face of the terrorist

floating serenely on the blood of her victims, transported in her belief of great reward in the next world, is enough of a glorification for most of us. The music which accompanied the piece is further evidence of the direction the artist wanted his creation to be interpreted. As background music, Feiler selected Bach's Cantata 199, "My Heart Swims in Blood."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=384385

As an act of revenge, this punishes innocent people. The collective punishment defense is not a good defense. Israelis do not as a rule seek personal revenge, and as this bomber kills herself in the act, it is saying that she acts as an individual, extracts collective punishment and denies individual punishment by taking her own life.

Yes, it is a glorification of the suicide-bomber syndrome which has been shown to be a well-thought out and orchestrated by propaganda, cultural brain washing and money from various wealthy contributors abroad.

[Jack Rabbit]

83. The work is open to interpretation

You are entitled to yours.

In my interpretation it is not a glorification of the suicide bomber. It embraces her as a human being, but it also embraces her victims on the same level.

You have stated elsewhere that the work is in fact open to differnet interpretatins. The fact that other people interpret the work differently that you demonstrates that this is not a work of propaganda. Propaganda is never open to different interpretations.

That leaves the matter of the appropriateness of Ambassador Mazel's actions. If you believe that some things are worth more than a diplomatic post in Sweden, as you stated elsewhere, fine and well. At least by that remark you are admitting that his behavior, given his position, was questionable and deserving of his removal from his post. It was an act of vandalism. That is unpardonable for a diplomat.

That Mr. Sharon believes this to be appropriate behavior for his ambassadors is disturbing. I can't say I've lost any respect I've had for Mr. Sharon over this; I lost any respect I had for Mr. Sharon over a quarter of a century ago.

[Gimel]

86. The same level?

Do you see the images of the victims floating above the morass? Do you see them honored as whole human beings? They are not mentioned by name in the artwork, contrary to what some here have said. No, it is their blood that she is floating upon. Her use of them as victims is the essence of the work.

[lefty_mcduff]

20. Not sure the piece in question...

...does anything of the sort. "Race hatred, bigotry and celebration of death" (As usual, the hyperbole gets cranked to warp speed). That's not what I think of when I read about the piece. And *THAT'S* why this guy's actions are inappropriate. You and I see something very different. As did the dude who trashed it.

Protest is generally considered pretty cool as the way to voice outrage against stuff . *NOT* the vandalism of artwork.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. I'll remember that

The next time I see someone celebrating the death of African-Americans at the hands of the KKK. Perhaps they will even invite me, expecting me to be on my best behavior. After all, it is only "art."

[WildClarySage]

25. And when it's your 'art'

that's on the receiving end, I'm sure you'll understand that it's ok it was vandalized because it was offensive to someone.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. I don't do art that celebrates murder

[lefty_mcduff]

30. But any art that you created that was pro

Israel, IDF, etc would be offensive to some. Under my way of thinking they *DO NOT* get to trash your artwork. Or expression of *your* feelings. Not really too difficult a concept to understand.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. When I do so

We can debate my art work.

There is no debate about artwork that celebrates terror and murder.

[WildClarySage]

34. well

apparently there is.

[lefty_mcduff]

35. Lots of debate here.

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. The problem of moral equivalency

[lefty_mcduff]

39. Nope.

Orwellian Buzzwords. We're talking about the suppression, through vandalism, of art that offends you. And the government sanction of same. No more. No less.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Orwellian

It is Orwellian to accept what is wrong as correct. It is Orwellian to take a celebration of murder and call it "art."

[lefty_mcduff]

55. Once again.

How (other than propaganda from Sharon) is it a celebration of murder?

And BTW - I was refering to your 'Moral Equivilancy' retort, which I don't see as applying here....

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. The art

I have seen the art. I have read its title. I have seen my response to it. I have seen the response of others to it. I have seen the ambassador's response.

If you don't get it, then perhaps you just can't relate.

[Darranar]

58. Perhaps you should read this?

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

It is the author's statement on the art. I don't see any glorification of murder, merely sadness about the cycle of violence and what it does to people.

[lefty_mcduff]

60. Perhaps not.

But art is supposed to illicit emotion. And perhaps if I saw the piece, I would be outraged as well. *That's* the point.

Also, by making such a deal about a piece of art (which could be crap BTW) Sharon and the kids have given him/her more publicity than he could have dreamed of (a nasty little byproduct that folks in favor of censorship never factor in. Quite comical actually...)

[lefty_mcduff]

28. Are we even talking about the same piece?

You feel free to vandalize the next exhibition that outrages you. *You* will end up in jail.

Guess you would also greenlight the vandalizing of exhibits on WWII because someone could argue it glorified war.

[Jack Rabbit]

62. Response to Muddle's number 11

If I, as an African-American were so invited, would I turn my back on art that celebrated lynchings? Would I ignore a piece of art that celebrated the murder of Dr. King? Would I ignore art that celebrated the KKK nightriders?

Under those circumstances, Muddle, you would have every right to complain to the museum director. I'd go with you. However, if you did what Ambassador Mazel did, you would be arrested for vandalism. The criminal case against you would be a cut and dried. It would have made no difference if you had slightly damaged a clearly offensive work or you had defaced the work of a Renaissance master. It's still vandalism. Ambassador Mazel acted inappropriately for anybody and unprofessionally for a diplomat. For the Prime Minister to praise his act, rather than quietly replacing him, is also disturbing.

Your analogy reminds me of something that happened to me about fifteen years ago. At that time, I was living in Napa and commuting to San Francisco on a bus chartered by a club of about two hundred people who lived in Napa and commuted to the City. One evening on the way home, somebody chose to run the film Birth of a Nation on a television monitor hanging from the ceiling in the front of the bus. As you know, the film, made in 1915, is a love song to the Ku Klux Klan. In particular, it carries a strong message against interracial relationships.

I sat and suffered silently. Id did not rip the tape from the VCR or damage equipment.

However, I later told to one of the club officers what I thought. I explained that I come from a family with a long tradition of intermarriage, even some long before it was fashionable or as acceptable as it is today. I'm part Jewish (from a union in the 1880s). My cousin married a Mexican American in 1962. My sister married a Japanese American in 1966. I have a couple of distant relatives in the East Bay who are black. And I was married at the time to a Korean. I told the officer that I believed that film had its place; it was a technically brilliant film for its time and should be required viewing for film students. Nevertheless, it was inappropriate to show that film to a bus full of commuters on their way home. I was offended by the film's message.

That was the last video we saw on the bus. That is how the club officers dealt with the matter. I am satisfied that my grievance was properly redressed.

[bluesoul]

63. Interestin story Jack

this reminds me about the whole Leni Riefenstahl shebang. She was a brilliant movie director, yet also Hitler's darling propaganda director. Art on one side, propaganda/ideology on the other.

[Jack Rabbit]

76. Leni Riefenstahl and D. W. Griffith

This is a bit off topic, but I saw excepts from Triumph of the Will in a college anthropology class many years ago. I react to that film much I as react to Griffith's Birth of a Nation, which I have viewed in its entirety in the comfort of my living room.

The images are awesome. The viewer is drawn into the work. Yet, in the case of both, as impressed as one is at the artistry, one is still revolted by the historical context. Birth of a Nation is overtly racist. It celebrates the Ku Klux Klan. Triumph of the Will is a love song to Hitler and his gang of mass murderers.

Anyone who thinks there is a clear distinction between art and propaganda should take a look at Triumph of the Will. It's a pretty arty piece of propaganda. This work is clearly both.

On the other hand, Birth of a Nation was not really intended as a work of propaganda, although it was later used at KKK recruiting events. Instead, we see a film expressing a view commonly held at one time, that of white supremacy, that is wholly rejected in ours. It might come as a shock to many nowadays that President Wilson thought highly of the film when it was made.

As for the work in question here, I see something else altogether. This is an attempt to avoid making a moral judgment and just make people think about why some people do such gruesome things. It isn't in the least a work of propaganda. If it was intended as such, it failed miserably. There are many different interpretations being presented; a successful work of propaganda has but one unambiguous message that is not open to interpretation.

[Lefty48197]

46. War propoganda is NOT art

defacing portraits of Adolph Hitler was no different than defacing a painting of the murderers.

[lefty_mcduff]

54. Nonsense.

Many art exhibits have featured war propaganda (especially posters from WWII). Both from the Axis and Allies. Was actually quite an art form and original posters fetch quite a price with collectors.

Having said that - the piece being discussed is not propaganda. If you read the description, it is *very* open to interpretation, which propaganda generally is not

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. War propaganda is presented as such

The gallery sign will say something like, "This is an exhibit of war propaganda."

If the gallery in this case had showed the piece as a particularly heinous view of the I/P conflict and cast it in THAT light, then I would feel otherwise.

It did not.

[lefty_mcduff]

61. This is NOT propaganda

Or if it is, it is *very bad* propaganda. Way too open for interpretation. Propaganda by it's nature is heavy-handed and usually *on message* I read it as a sombre piece on the futility of violence in the I/P conflict. You read it as a celebration of murder. Not as effective as those 'loose lips' posters from the 40's.

But now you want the gallery to interpret art for me. To instruct me how I should feel. And to 'cast it in THAT light' Well, THAT would make it propaganda.

No thank you.

[Jack Rabbit]

66. It is open to interpretation

That is exactly the point. Whether its good art or not is beside the point; by the very fact that it is open to interpretation, it is demonstrably not propaganda.

It seems that the problem some people here have on this and two or three other threads on this subject is that work is deliberately ambiguous. For example:

Post title: The eye of the beholder
all art work is somewhat interpretive. Palestinians might see it supporting their view, however.

It would seem that the problem this poster has with the work is that it is open to interpretation. Does she believe that the only acceptable expressions of thought on the conflict are those apporved by Mr. Sharon and his ministers? Must we restrict our thoughts to a singular, black-or-white view of the conflict? I certainly hope not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Singular view

For some things there is a singular view. The terrorists are wrong. Period.

They murder innocents and to celebrate their actions is to support such depraved activity.

[bluesoul]

70. And Sharon

is "right"?

[Jack Rabbit]

72. The work does not really bring Sharon into this

But, there is the question of Israel's behavior. The artist is addressing that also, but not in a black-and-white way.

It does not surprise me that our colleague, Muddle, takes a dim view of the artist's work.

I have in the past asserted that there are those who tend to view this conflict with a black-and-white morality in which one side is wholly good and the other wholly evil. I don't buy that view. They think this is a summer action movie, like one with Schwartzenegger; I think this is complex psychological novel, like one written by Dostoyevsky.

Muddle is right about suicide bombing. It's murder. It's a war crime. It's wrong, period. Nevertheless, it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is happening in the context of people being displaced without recourse for the construction of homes where they cannot live accessed by roads on which they cannot travel. That, too, is wrong. Period. It is also wrong to compare that to a simple series of public works projects, as at least one person here does. And it is just as wrong to dismiss the Palestinians' grievance at these injustices as it is to dismiss Israeli outrage at suicide bombing.

There is no escaping the moral ambiguity of this conflict. To me, that is what the artist tried to express in this work. It doesn't surprise me that those who try to deny that ambiguity are the ones with the most trouble with the work and who seem to think that vandalizing it is appropriate behavior for a diplomat.

[foo_bar]

67. vandalism or... kinetic performance art?

[Jack Rabbit]

77. 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.

[bemildred]

78. "intellectual dwarf"

That works. "Loose cannon" seems good too.

[Must_B_Free]

79. Crucifix in Unine is art, though?

Why did we sit back when an artist placed a Holy Crucifix into a jar of urine, put it on display in a gallery in New York, and called it art?

[sushi]

82. Mr Mazel is wrong.

That is not how an ambassador behaves. Period.

[number6]

85. I agree

..