plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 12:51:49 PM new
Israeli Ambassador Vandalizes Swedish Art Exhibit, Calling It a "monstrosity"
By Karl Ritter Associated Press Writer
Published: Jan 17, 2004
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Israel demanded Saturday that a Swedish art museum take down an exhibit depicting a Palestinian suicide bomber, claiming it violates the terms of an upcoming conference on preventing genocide.
The demand came a day after Israel's ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, vandalized the exhibit at the Museum of National Antiquities by throwing a spotlight at it.
The Swedish government on Saturday said Mazel would be asked to explain his behavior.
The artwork consisted of a small ship carrying a picture of Islamic Jihad militant Hanadi Jaradat sailing in a pool of red water. Jaradat killed herself and 21 others in an Oct. 4 bombing in Haifa, Israel.
"This was not a piece of art. This was a monstrosity, an obscene distortion of reality," Mazel told Swedish Radio.
In further comments Saturday, he called the work "a complete legitimization of genocide, the murder of innocent people, innocent civilians, under the guise of culture."
"When you stand before that you ask yourself what exactly are people thinking? Do they understand at all what is happening? Do they have feelings? Where is this all going?" he said in an interview with Israel TV's Channel One.
The museum show was timed to coincide with an international conference on preventing genocide that opens in Stockholm later this month.
In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman David Saranga said the exhibit broke an understanding Israel had with Sweden that the scope of the conference would not include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Israel called the Swedish government to remove this exhibition because it is a glorification of a woman suicide bomber that killed 21 Israeli civilians in a restaurant," Saranga said.
There was no immediate reaction to the demand.
Sweden's foreign ministry said Mazel will be asked to explain his attack next week. "We will ask him to explain, and from our side we will maintain that it is unacceptable to destroy works of art in this way," ministry spokeswoman Anna Larsson said.
The work - titled "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" - was created by Dror Feiler, an Israeli-born artist who said it was supposed to call attention to how weak people left alone can be capable of horrible things.
He called Mazel's actions a blow to artistic expression. "If this makes him very upset, it is possible to understand if he wishes to argue, if he wants to protest. But to behave like a hooligan?" the artist told Channel One.
Museum director Kristian Berg said the ambassador's attack "struck a discordant note" with the theme of the upcoming conference.
"You can react to art in many ways, but violence is never defensible," Berg said, adding that Mazel would be invited to the museum next week for a discussion about different interpretations of art.
A veteran of Israel's Foreign Ministry, Mazel became ambassador to Sweden in 2002. He has previously served as Israel's ambassador to Romania and Egypt.
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on January 17, 2004 01:04:50 PM new
No ban/censorship/destruction, the intention of the artist may be to shock or horrify.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 17, 2004 01:27:54 PM new
Reminds me of the Mapplethorpe exhibition. Sometimes art is just stupid.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on January 17, 2004 01:32:30 PM new
It's ok to hate art, it's ok to not understand it, it is ok to decide to turn your back on but it is never ok to destroy or ban it. It is never ok for you to decide that you have the right to deny others the opportunity to see an image, to interpret it for themselves and to experience the wealth of emotions that art can inspire.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
cherishedclutter
|
posted on January 17, 2004 01:45:22 PM new
There was a case in the Cincinnati area where a photographer with the aid of someone in the coroner's office took pictures of corpses with various props. I don't know what happened to the photos, but that's one instance where I think it would have been more than allright for the "art" to be destroyed.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 17, 2004 01:52:27 PM new
But hasn't art always been this way?... one step ahead of what's shocking or unreal?
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 01:59:29 PM new
One of the great ironies of this story for me was the fact that Hitler also destroyed art he found unacceptable...
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:02:48 PM new
I think that if you are offended by art it is much more effective to ignore it or giggle with contempt than to try to destroy it.
The Jews of Israel like this official are slowly by degrees becoming the very thing they were the victems of - a ruthless - humorless - fascist state - that can accept no form of opposition and knows no moral limits to their demand for absolute power.
When they kill Palestinians who are not out trying to actively fight them but just live in the Palestinian refugee camps they will never see the irony that it is the same indifferance to human suffering that the Nazis displayed killing apolitical Jews in the ghettos.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:03:18 PM new
Probably a deep rooted power trip for Hitler, as his own art work failed to make the grade.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:05:40 PM new
Ah, Krafty, think what this world might've been spared if the Academicians who scoffed at Adolf's paintings had offered encouragement instead...
changed a woid...
[ edited by plsmith on Jan 17, 2004 02:06 PM ]
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:09:02 PM new
If you read about the social economic conditions that existed in Germany after the first world war. One may gain insight as to why Hiltler could garner so much support.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:16:02 PM new
Yeah, we all know how he came to power, KC; it's the man beneath the swastika -- the thwarted, abused, nobody -- I found interesting to study (back when I studied, heh... )
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:20:28 PM new
Yes,that is true! Did you ever wonder how he could commit such wholesale killing under the noses of the german people with out much resistance.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:32:32 PM new
Read this, KC; little Hitlers (and their followers) are born every day...
http://upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-39f.html
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2004 02:51:01 PM new
This material does not surprise me Smith. The greatest gift my parents gave me was the ability to say no and it has gotten me systematically beaten and shunned in schools - fired from numerous jobs and excluded from many social groups. I once took a job and after a half hour it was obvious the foreman was a sadistic asocial creep. So I quit and walked out. I can't tell you how many people could not believe that I could do that.
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on January 17, 2004 03:00:13 PM new
Gravid points out that the Jews of israel have no regards to suffering of the Palestinians. This is not anything new! They demonstrated the same indifference to the suffering of the German people after WW-1, attempting to buy germany out from underneath the german people and letting them starve in the street. They made no effort to help german people whatsoever, they capitalized on their misfortune for their profit. The method that Hitler used to come into power is nothing new either. If you haven't had anything to eat for some time and I come along and provide you with nourishment, you will listen or stay attentive to receive the meal or any other basic necessity of life. Go to Christian funded soup kitchen sometime it is the same, first the sermon and then the soup.
[ edited by kcpick4u on Jan 17, 2004 03:09 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 17, 2004 03:12:02 PM new
Gravid points out that the Jews of israel have no regards to suffering of the Palestinians.
oh brother.....
yeah like I should have sympathy for the A-Q and BinLaden, after all they only mean well....just overlook the bombings where they've killed our citizens. Hey...nothing to that. geeze.....
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Fenix03
|
posted on January 17, 2004 03:43:23 PM new
Linda tat is one of the widest jumps I've seen you make in quite a while.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 17, 2004 03:53:13 PM new
A spectacular leap is what it's called.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 03:53:54 PM new
Alas, Gravid, you are the exception, not the rule...
KC, I had thought, when I first read your little rant about Jews "buying" Germany, that you were being sarcastic. I see, though, that you've read just enough of the wrong books to believe what you spewed above. If you want to point fingers at who abandoned post-WWI Germany, you'd better use both hands, and aim them all across Europe.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 17, 2004 04:24:43 PM new
That's a good link, Pat! The book, Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram is a good source of other studies about such manipulation.
Helen
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2004 04:31:47 PM new
I trust eye witnesses better than people who report from afar either in time or space.
When I was younger I had occasion to spend time with a lady who lived in Germany before WWII. She was a foreigner not a German living in that country.
Her take on it and what she reported to me was that the Germans followed the government's urging to support the economy by keeping all their business and saving in the German currency as a patriotic duty with their customary obedience.
On the other hand she reported that the Jews knowing a sucker trap when they saw one refused to hold Marks and put their wealth in Gold and portable wealth like gem stones - rare china figurines - art - and sent money out of the country since they didn't trust the government not to confiscate it.
When the economy collapsed and everyones savings were worthless they were well aware of the fact the Jews had not assumed the same bad risk they had and hated them for it.
Believe it if you want or tell me another story - but that is the take on it from an actual witness of the times.
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2004 04:43:27 PM new
The point is not that all the people of Israel don't care for the pain or suffering of the Palestinians - but that the official policy of the government is that if they have to kill innocent bystanders to get to the terrorists - well tough - that is acceptable collateral damage. It is becoming the same policy of the US also.
The fact that some Israeli pilots have refused to drop huge munitions on refugee camps where suspected targets are is a firm indication not everyone there is willing to kill innocents to flush out the bad guys and kill them.
If you really think every Palestinian wants every Jew dead and ever Jew wants the Palestinians dead then you actually believe the silly propaganda both sides put out. There are plenty of them that want to just get on with their lives and people like Arrafat and Sharon will never let it end.
But as Smith pointed out it has to be really bad before most people will refuse to hurt others and a good number will simply do whatever you tell them.
I have shot a fool shooting at me who made the silly error of missing - but no way would I go half way around the world and shoot strangers for an abstract political policy. Or simply for the pay. Doesn't really matter. They have no shortage of people willing to do it.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 04:47:28 PM new
Gravid, it's not a matter of disbelief or belief so much as one of an age-old specter being raised again and again, always specifically against Jews, about money. Lots of people "coined it" when the Mark collapsed, but the Jews, who've spent centuries handling money because they were ostracized from damn near every country/society, are routinely deemed outright evil because they simply did
what they've been forced to do for millenia: look after themselves in a hostile (Christian) Europe.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 04:57:35 PM new
"If you really think every Palestinian wants every Jew dead and ever Jew wants the Palestinians dead then you actually believe the silly propaganda both sides put out. There are plenty of them that want to just get on with their lives and people like Arrafat and Sharon will never let it end."
I agree. Most people enjoy their lives, want to live their lives; zealots on both sides of Israel/Palestine have made peace, co-existence, and simple happiness impossible for all.
" ... but no way would I go half way around the world and shoot strangers for an abstract political policy."
I'm with you, Gravid; I read a lot of history and often wonder to myself if there's ever been a cause, a war, a revolution I'd've been willing to die for. My tally today stands at three:
The American Revolutionary War
The Civil War
WW II
|
austbounty
|
posted on January 17, 2004 05:12:53 PM new
There is little doubt in my mind that Arabs are the persecuted ones today.
Attributing the actions of a few to all of them (see linda).
Many Jewish groups are constantly reinforcing beliefs of the ancestral suffering with no mention of grandchildren’s attainment.
Perhaps now is the time for a White House Special Liaison to the Arab Community instead.
The Israeli Ambassador deserves to be banned from Swedish Art Galleries & Museums.
|
gravid
|
posted on January 17, 2004 05:17:49 PM new
A lot of people don't know that a big reason the Jews have so much experience at banking and financial services is that in the middle ages the church enforced a ban against charging interest because there is a prohibition against charging interest in the old testiment. Of course it is prohibited there for jews to charge Jews - but the church always has picked and choosed which commandments they want to keep.
So since the Christians could not commit the sin of usury without being ex-communicated it fell on the Jews to loan money. Since the common people then saw very little actual cash money and lived in a agrarian barter society it was mostly the nobles and very rich merchants the Jews did business with. It was against church law but not civil law.
The hard part was if the local Duke or whatever got to where he owed you to much money and didn't think he could ever pay you back it might suit him to have a pogrom and wipe out the local Jews because debt was personal and their death would wipe out his debt. So it was a real balancing act to be a resource he needed to keep but not let him get into you too deep. If he turned out to be a lousy manager or business man it might actually make sense to slip away in the night and write off his debt rather than get killed.
Unfortunately it is hard to run a business like a bank - even a limited private one - and not have the community know what you are doing. So as my previous post intimated just doing well at your business was enough to set people up to hate you.
But the choices were limited - A Jew in Europe was frozen out of most of the trade associations and they had little history of being farmers - which was a horrible life there and then anyway.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 05:22:44 PM new
"There is little doubt in my mind that Arabs are the persecuted ones today."
I disagree utterly. The United States, in particular, has gone out of its way to shield Arabs from post-9/11 wrath, even though 19 of those fingered for that day's destruction were Arabs. Perhaps you mean that Muslims are persecuted. That's a much broader spectrum of people, stretching from Asia to Africa and beyond. They (Muslims) are certainly being persecuted in France right now:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGASWA6CKPD.html
"Many Jewish groups are constantly reinforcing beliefs of the ancestral suffering with no mention of grandchildren’s attainment."
Please elaborate, Austy, with links if possible.
|
plsmith
|
posted on January 17, 2004 05:27:07 PM new
"But the choices were limited - A Jew in Europe was frozen out of most of the trade associations and they had little history of being farmers - which was a horrible life there and then anyway."
Thank you, Gravid; you filled in the rest of my 04:47:28 PM post above with that statement.
Edited to delineate which post I meant...
[ edited by plsmith on Jan 17, 2004 05:28 PM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on January 17, 2004 05:48:03 PM new
plsmith- this is one of the best questions I have heard in a long time! Once again everyone is reverting to politics and religion,however this is NOT a political or religious issue. It is a censorship/first amendment issue. Correct me if I am wrong, but the location of such expressions is paramount to the issue. If such "art" is displayed in a private building by consent it should be uncensored. If it is foisted upon an unwitting public via an unapproved display by someone just looking to shock it could be removed. For example,the first amendment does not protect someone drawing crossburnings or sexual situations on the outside of a building. Agreement or disagreement with the politics/religions involved is irrelevant.
|
