Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Degenerate Art of Suicide Bombing

By leoaugust in Culture
Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:56:05 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

This essay is not meant to be political but only a call for discussion on how to appropriately react to Degenerate Art. Recently, Israel's ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, physically attacked an art exhibit at a Stockholm museum because it "glorified suicide bombers." Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has praised his ambassador to Sweden. The ambassador, was among several hundred guests invited to the Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm on Friday for an anti-genocide exhibition. "We want to give him a chance to explain himself," Anna Larsson, a spokeswoman for Sweden's Foreign Ministry, was quoted as saying by Agence France-Presse. "We feel that it is unacceptable for him to destroy art in this way."


The director of the museum, Kristian Berg, said the installation would remain in place. "You can have your own view of what this piece of art is all about, but it is never, never allowed to use violence and it is never allowed to try to silence the artist," he said.

The work was created by Dror Feiler, an expatriate Israeli artist living in Sweden, and his Swedish wife, Gunilla Skold Feiler. Mr. Feiler told Agence France-Presse that during his exchange with the Israeli ambassador, Mr. Mazel said "he was ashamed that I was a Jew."

The ability of art to arouse passion is undisputed, but how must we react to art? As the incident is so violent and it has attained political hues, it reminds me of the Exhibitions of "Degenerate Art." In 1937 in Munich the Nazis held an art exhibition of what they called Entartete Kunst, or Degenerate Art. The purpose of the exhibition was to let the Germans know that some forms and pieces of art were not accepted. The grounds for choosing the "unworthy" pieces of art were quite simple and cruel: anything that was out of tune with Hitler's way of thinking, was considered to be "degenerate". Hitler believed the art must serve the purpose of exaltation of the Aryan way of life. In this case, with this great aim, art is perfect and eternal.

"When I saw it, I became a bit emotional," Mr. Mazel said in a telephone interview from Stockholm. "There was the terrorist, wearing her perfect makeup and floating on the blood of my people." Mr Mazel said the work, created by an Israeli-born artist, was "a call for genocide". Mr. Sharon told his Cabinet meeting on Sunday that "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 ... I think Ambassador Mazel behaved in an appropriate way."

The piece that enraged the ambassador, "Snow White and the Madness of Truth," was in the museum's courtyard and featured a large basin filled with red fluid. A boat floated on top carrying a photo of a smiling Hanadi Jaradat, a woman who became a suicide bomber, killing 22 people in an Oct. 4 attack on a restaurant in Haifa.

How would you react if you saw something like this piece of Art? Would your politics mix with culture as you reacted to the piece?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Israel's ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, physically attacked an art
o Ariel Sharon has praised his ambassador
o Nazis held an art exhibition of what they called Entartete Kunst, or Degenerate Art.
o Also by leoaugust


Display: Sort:
The Degenerate Art of Suicide Bombing | 484 comments (478 topical, 6 editorial, 6 hidden)
do high ranking Israeli leaders... (2.42 / 26) (#1)
by the sixth replicant on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:24:45 AM EST

...know the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism??

from the way the ambassador and the prime minister acted i don't think so

ciao

Martin Luther King (1.42 / 19) (#10)
by i on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:30:32 AM EST

didn't know the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. But he was only a fscking nigger, right?

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
He is simply wrong (2.33 / 15) (#19)
by marx on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:15:44 PM EST

Even the wisest and most intelligent person can be wrong. Just because Martin Luther King Jr. said something doesn't automatically make it true.

It is simple to see why this is the case. Many people will admit to being "anti-Nazists". Does this mean they hate white Aryan people? No, it does not. The same reasoning must be valid for anti-Zionists.

Nazism has as a goal to create a state consisting predominantly of white Aryans (whatever that is). But that's not really why people are anti-Nazists. Nobody would have cared about Nazism if it was a benign non-violent political movement, perhaps at most disagreed. People are anti-Nazists because the Nazis murdered millions of people as part of ethnic cleansing, i.e. because of the means they are willing to use to achieve that goal.

Similarly, nobody would care very much about Zionism if it was a benign non-violent political movement. But it's not. The movement is willing to use violence to achieve ethnic cleansing, assassination against political enemies, collective punishment against an entire people and families, etc. Even though its brutality cannot be compared with that of Nazism, many people still consider it unacceptable.

For me, and probably for many others, this anti-Zionism is strongly related to my anti-Nazism. At least once a year when I grew up there was a seminar or lecture about the Holocaust in school (in Sweden), perhaps a visiting survivor, or just some material, and the message was always: "never again". Often a message was also that the Germans were not an evil people, it could just as well have happened somewhere else, even you or I could have done such things under certain circumstances.

So the tolerance has been lowered. Perhaps 100 years ago the Zionism which exists today in the form of Israel's policy in the occupied territories would have been accepted, but after WWII, people just won't accept it.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Poor misinformed MLK. (1.00 / 11) (#24)
by i on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:55:47 PM EST

If he were here today, he would see the error of his ways. He probably have never thought of all that.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
more likely (none / 1) (#431)
by Wah on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:20:48 AM EST

If he were here today there would be 35 years of occupation to look at, rather than the single one to observe when he was willed.

My guess is that his opinion would have changed quite a bit, although this is complete speculation.   The 'seperate but inequal' rules in Israel would probably also be a bit of consternation for him.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

Hm. (1.27 / 11) (#72)
by Megahitler Electrodictator on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 07:02:59 PM EST

In light of the record of collectivist movements in the past century, is it not arguable that non-violent collectivism is a chimera?

If so, would this not constitute a serious criticism of Judaism, at least insofar as it is collectivistic?

[ Parent ]

OMG, MLK was a troll! (1.14 / 7) (#56)
by power guido on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:57:31 PM EST

In fact he beat AQ by a few decades.

[ Parent ]
He wasn't a fscking nigger. (1.00 / 12) (#96)
by tkatchev on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:23:29 AM EST

He was a fscking nigger who was a CIA stooge.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

You've swallowed a hoax (none / 2) (#227)
by steve h on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:08:01 PM EST

Hook, line and sinker. MLK never said anything like that.

[ Parent ]
Heh. (none / 1) (#260)
by i on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:29:06 AM EST

This would be a better link I think :)

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
You're both wrong (none / 0) (#437)
by Demiurge on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:32:30 AM EST

You're right in that MLK never said that quotation. But he did give speeches with similiar content. For example, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." from a speech at Harvard.

[ Parent ]
I think that they do know (2.35 / 14) (#53)
by ZanThrax on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:42:13 PM EST

but by intentionally calling one the other, they can advance zionist goals. Nothing that any other politician the world over wouldn't be happy to do given the same opportunity.

I think it is one of the most evil acts that can be committed; to use the previous victimization of oneself, one's ancestors, or even one's entire people as a shield against legitimate criticism for one's current actions. When a minority screams "racist" every time they're called on misbehaviour, or when the leaders of Israel scream "anti-semite" every time someone calls them on their nation's abominable behaviour and oppresive actions, they dishonour their ancestors and cheapen their own tragic history.

You see that little drop box? The one that says "Choose comment"? The one that you have to pull down before you can post? The "editorial comment" setting
[ Parent ]

Maybe not all of them (2.16 / 6) (#145)
by ffrinch on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:22:18 AM EST

I have a Jewish friend who, quite sincerely, equates anti-zionism with anti-semitism.

To quote:

"We recognise that no one in the world can be trusted to stand up for Jewish rights and protect Jews except the state of Israel, the world's only Jewish state."

"Ever since the beginning of the first diaspora in Babylon, the return to Israel has been incorporated into Judaism."

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]

Suicide attacks are valid forms of combat (1.12 / 32) (#2)
by psychologist on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:34:37 AM EST

War is essentially a suicide attack, but with a small chance of not dying. What is the difference between the Israeli army attacking a refugee camp, and a palastinian woman attacking an Israeli town?

I support her action, wholely, and to 100%.

Who gives a shit what a valid form of combat is? (1.87 / 8) (#5)
by GreyGhost on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:54:11 AM EST

Your premise is shit...that there is a valid form of combat to begin with. As if there is a rulebook somewhere sanctioned by a higher authority for conditions under which it's okay to murder someone else.



[ Parent ]

Hmm... (2.16 / 6) (#12)
by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 12:32:07 PM EST

1. Self-defense.
2. Preventing serious harm in defense of another.
3. Systematic long-term abuse and false imprisonment.

Just off the top of my head, I would say, yeah, there are legitimate reasons to murder someone.

[ Parent ]

Right, except... (2.28 / 7) (#74)
by JohnnyCannuk on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 08:09:13 PM EST

All of those things are subjective. The Palestinians can make a case for all of those things. So can the Isrealis. And the Iraqi insurgents. And the Bosnian Muslims. The list goes on.

Generally, good propoganda, a little sophistry and anybody can be conviced that any killing is legitimate and falls under one of your reasons.

Try again...
We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

Subjective (none / 2) (#197)
by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:42:57 PM EST

There is no evil , there is no good ... there are no facts, there are no lies ...

How do you survive ?
How do you make judgments we are required to make every day ?

How do you separate a victim from an oppressor in a world like yours ?

[ Parent ]

Justified killing is not murder. NT (1.60 / 5) (#152)
by freestylefiend on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:52:23 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Justified By Whoever Decides Whether It's Murder (none / 1) (#289)
by freestylefiend on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:44:21 AM EST

If it is found to be justified in accordance with law, it's not murder. Justified by anyone else then it is murder.

That's the legal situation, which is what I meant by my last post.

Stickerboy said that "self-defense, preventing serious harm in defense of another [and] systematic long-term abuse and false imprisonment ... are legitimate reasons to murder someone."

In at least one of those cases, the law does not view killing as murder.

I suggest that we take a simliar view of the moral situation. If it justified in accordance with morality (whatever that might mean) then (morally speaking) it's not murder.

[ Parent ]

Depends (2.27 / 11) (#13)
by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 12:44:34 PM EST

If the Israeli army were simply attacking a refugee camp to kill as many civilians as possible in a shocking made-for-media display of firepower and gore, I would agree.

However, given the incredible killing power of the modern military, and the thousands of deaths that such an attack on an overcrowded refugee camp would incur, I would have to conclude from the results of such raids that the Israeli army is trying to round up wanted terrorists, and winds up fighting with Palestinian insurgents within the occupied territories.

Since the Palestinian insurgents don't wear uniforms, and according to the Palestinians no Palestinian fighter ever is killed - only innocent civilians wandering through the firefight - it's hard, if not impossible, for an outside observer to tell the difference between "Israelis Kill 10 Palestinians Shooting At Them While Rounding Up Terrorism Suspects In Refugee Camps" and "Israelis Kill 10 Random Young Male Palestinians On Their Way To The Corner Store While Rounding Up Terrorism Suspects In Refugee Camps".

[ Parent ]

Explain one thing to me (1.33 / 12) (#14)
by psychologist on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 12:54:47 PM EST

What the hell are "Terrorists". Please DO NOT use that word unless you are a drooling idiot. Palestinians had their land seized and were driven in millions into refugee camps. A palestinian with a gun who attacks an army attacking him is a terrorist? A palestinian with a gun who attacks someone that came and simply built a settlement on his farm is a terrorist?

Are you sure you know the defination of terrorist?

Isreal has one goal - maintain an arpatheid system so that an ethnically pure state will continue to exist. Tell me you support that, and I will spit on you-.

[ Parent ]

Answer this (2.73 / 15) (#23)
by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:50:31 PM EST

When that woman blew herself up, which military targets were hit?

What army unit was attacking herself or other Palestinians?

Did those 22 people in the restaurant have anything to do with Israeli policy in the occupied territories or its implementation, or were they just trying to go about their normal everyday lives?

Was she targeting an Israeli military or governmental target, and just happened to miss and blow up 22 civilians at a restaurant?

The answers are: none, none, nothing, and no.

Terrorists, in a longer definition, attack the normal everyday life of civilians in order to do three things: increase the chaos that the targeted government must expend an incredible amount of resources to deal with (think: $100,000 9/11 attacks, $100 billion Homeland Security Department), increase the general insecurity of the targeted populace and win the psychological battle, and in the long run, cause a policy shift or governmental collapse due to commonly held false-causality, usually due to propoganda dealt out by the terrorist organization.

For instance, al Qaeda has a long-term goal of establishing a Caliphate and the rule of sharia over what they perceive as the Muslim world, which would be the Middle East and much of Southeast and South Asia.  Will withdrawing US support and military supplies from Israel stop al Qaeda from attacking?  No.  Will a moderate, negotiated Israeli-Palestinian political compromise stop al Qaeda from attacking? No.  Is the "injustice and agression against Palestinians in the occupied territories" what they claim to be a major reason behind their attacks?  Yes.  But they're about as interested in Israeli-Palestinian peaceful coexistence as Howard Dean is interested in a second George W. Bush term.

A vast majority of Palestinians aren't terrorists.  There are an awful lot of Palestinians who sympathize with the terrorist groups because they believe, wrongly, that anyone who says they stick up for them and attack those that oppress them must be good and represent their beliefs.

Hamas is a prime example of a terrorist organization.  They claim to want a fair, negotiated political settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but if you read their fine print, their definition of "fair" constantly changes with whatever concessions the Israeli government happens to be making at the time.  They also target indiscriminately for the purposes I've listed above, unless they think they can score a propoganda victory by holding off attacking civilians for "a while".

That woman?  A pawn in a terrorist organization.  She was probably carrying out the attack for some sort of revenge notion, fueled by the extensive conditioning that terrorist organizations like Hamas instill in their patsies.  I would put patsies like her and the idiots who are paid $500 to plant roadside bombs in Iraq, who really have no clue about the big picture, in a different category than someone like Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who organizes and leads patsies like the woman for their own ends.

In the same way, its easy to draw a distinction between the average Israeli military conscript who goes where he's ordered to under threat of prosecution, and their higher-ups.

Governments can act in a terrorist-like fashion, but they cannot be defined as terrorist.  The best definition for that is an undeclared act of war in international cases, and internal repression in domestic cases, which can be no less reprehensible sometimes than a terrorist act.  But for some reason K5ers seem to fail to recognize the distinction and nuance between international politics and law and internal or transnational cases.

[ Parent ]

Hiroshima (2.22 / 9) (#26)
by marx on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:08:02 PM EST

Governments can act in a terrorist-like fashion, but they cannot be defined as terrorist.
Hiroshima was a terrorist attack, and those who carried it out were terrorists. It would then be logical to state that the government of the United States were terrorists at that time.

All your descriptions fit:

If the Israeli army were simply attacking a refugee camp to kill as many civilians as possible in a shocking made-for-media display of firepower and gore, I would agree.

...

Did those 22 people in the restaurant have anything to do with Israeli policy in the occupied territories or its implementation, or were they just trying to go about their normal everyday lives?

Was she targeting an Israeli military or governmental target, and just happened to miss and blow up 22 civilians at a restaurant?

I.e. was the USA targeting a military or governmental target and just happened to blow up 200 000 civilians and an entire city?

No, they were not.

So I don't see why governments cannot be terrorists. What reasons do you have for stating that?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

re: Hiroshima (2.00 / 7) (#38)
by Grognard on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:38:18 PM EST

So I don't see why governments cannot be terrorists.

Perhaps because the bombing of Hiroshima was a legitimate act of war and suicide bombings are not.  Army, navy and industrial targets were all located at Hiroshima.  How many legitimate military targets are located on buses, in pizza parlors, etc.

Members of Hamas or other groups are not members of armed forces.  While their "underdog" status might generate some sympathy, it does not convey legitimacy to their tactics.

[ Parent ]

Targets (1.91 / 12) (#67)
by marx on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 06:14:12 PM EST

Army, navy and industrial targets were all located at Hiroshima.
Both you and I know that these were not the target of the bomb. The target of the bomb was the population of Hiroshima, and the intent was to scare Japan into submission. I.e. terrorism.

Why do you deny this? Is it because you have always been taught that the USA were the good guys? That you cannot fathom the fact that Osama bin Truman has actually been president of the USA?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

re: Targets (1.25 / 4) (#185)
by Grognard on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:55:16 PM EST

Both you and I know that these were not the target of the bomb.

hmmm...were you in on the conference when the targets were selected?  I know I wasn't.  I do know that Hiroshima's previous lack of attacks and its topography were listed as contributing reasons for its selection.

The target of the bomb was the population of Hiroshima, and the intent was to scare Japan into submission.

Actually, I wouldn't limit the target population to that of Hiroshima.  You're right...the bombing campaign in general, just like that directed against Germany, had as a goal the destruction of the populace's will to resist.

I.e. terrorism

bzzt...wrong.  As I noted in my first post - this was a legitimate act of war.  Your inability to accept that there is a difference between acts of war that take place between combatant nations and the crimes of individuals does not change this.

Why do you deny this? Is it because you have always been taught that the USA were the good guys? That you cannot fathom the fact that Osama bin Truman has actually been president of the USA?

Very nice attack on my intelligence, but no.  As I stated above, there is a difference.  Individual morality cannot be the driving force between international relations in general, and war in particular.  To believe so is naive, and dangerous.  There are rules, but the rules for countries are much different than those that apply to individuals.

[ Parent ]

Hiroshima (2.50 / 4) (#194)
by bgalehouse on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:16:37 PM EST

While there is always room for debate in historical analysis, it seems to be the general view of military historians that the target was chosen at least partially for it's unsullied civilian population. Minutes from the target selection meeting do emphasis that psychological damage was a key selection criteria.

[ Parent ]
Considering Japanese War Atrocities (none / 0) (#258)
by richarj on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:25:26 AM EST

Some might say it was legitimate payback. But it wasn't it was fighting dirty just as the Japs did the US came down the Japanese level. Thus the US won. But they only came down for a momement. Vietnam was where they lost control. But now better ROE in combat stops such atrocities from at least most civilised countries.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
How does this differ (none / 0) (#272)
by Grognard on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:31:59 AM EST

from what I said?

More importantly, who cares?  As I noted before, it was a valid strategic target, even if the sole reason was breaking the enemy's will to fight.

[ Parent ]

You jump from side to side (none / 0) (#329)
by marx on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:19:30 PM EST

but you never admit that you were wrong about the target. The target was the population of Hiroshima, and that is clearly not a legitimate act of war, it is terrorism.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Hardly (none / 0) (#340)
by Grognard on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:39:41 PM EST

in my first post, I pointed out that Hiroshima contained military installations.  In the succeeding ones, I pointed out that breaking an enemy's will to resist was a legitimate aim of strategic bombing - Hiroshima was not Rotterdam.

While you may attempt to equate acts of war with acts of terrorism, the parallel does not exist.  The actions of NGOs do not have the same legitimacy as acts of war between nations.

[ Parent ]

Dishonesty (none / 0) (#373)
by marx on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 03:41:11 AM EST

Dishonesty only hurts yourself in the end. I don't really care if you insist on being dishonest about this, but you will have to live with the fact that you are lying to yourself, and it will make you a bitter and cynical person.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Back to the attacks? (none / 0) (#381)
by Grognard on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:28:13 AM EST

Easier than arguing, I suppose.

[ Parent ]
Arguing (none / 0) (#395)
by marx on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:06:24 AM EST

I have already won the argument. Overwhelming evidence has been presented against your argument. I'm just wondering why you won't change your view.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#408)
by Grognard on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:47:34 PM EST

Perhaps I missed some authority declaring Hiroshima to be terrorism rather than a legitimate act of war?

[ Parent ]
Your logic (none / 0) (#358)
by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:29:03 AM EST

By your logic (which I explicitly reject), one could argue that a bus full of civilians in Haifa is a legitimate target, because destroying the target is expected to help break the enemy's will to fight.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
You missed the part (none / 0) (#382)
by Grognard on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:39:59 AM EST

about acts of war between belligerent nations (although it was in a previous post):

The target of the bomb was the population of Hiroshima, and the intent was to scare Japan into submission.

Actually, I wouldn't limit the target population to that of Hiroshima.  You're right...the bombing campaign in general, just like that directed against Germany, had as a goal the destruction of the populace's will to resist.

I.e. terrorism

bzzt...wrong.  As I noted in my first post - this was a legitimate act of war.  Your inability to accept that there is a difference between acts of war that take place between combatant nations and the crimes of individuals does not change this.

The difference lies in that a nation taking the total war route (such as by blowing up busloads of civilians) opens itself up to retaliation from its enemy...thus giving both combatants an incentive to refrain from escalating to this point.  MAD was this concept on the superpower level.

Terrorist attacks attempt to circumvent this by not presenting a target for retaliation, making the escalation more likely.

If the PA wants to declare itself independent and go to war against Israel (accepting the consequences of that action), then more power to them.  As long as they attempt to hide behind the fiction that they have no control over Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades then they have no legitimate complaint about Israeli operations on their territory.

[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#455)
by bgalehouse on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 09:51:49 PM EST

Looking carefully at your post, it may well not differ factually. Or put differently, you all may be arguing over a question of emphasis. The allocation of emphasis is perhaps the most intersting part of historical analysis.

The industry was a target. But was it the target in sense of being the prime motivating factor? or was it the target in the sense of being legal and near to someting that they actually wanted to hit for strategic reasons - an unbombed civilian population?

In the latter case, there is an obvious argument that America has in the past 'targeted' civilians. A willingness to aim for civilians can be used as an identifier for terrorist organizations, but it isn't the only one. Clearly many otherwise respectable nations have done so when they believed it necessary, not just the USA. But at the same time, attituded have changed and nations are starting to have moral obligations, an idea with no precident whatsoever before the World Wars.

As for the duration of the war otherwise, we will never know. One quite possibly apocryphal account states that a POW was captured soon after the bombing and asked about it. Without knowing anything, he decided to bluff and so, when asked how many more the US had, he responded 'about 500'. The report resulting from this bluff was the true end of the war.

[ Parent ]

One quibble (none / 0) (#469)
by Grognard on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 02:10:40 PM EST

But at the same time, attituded have changed and nations are starting to have moral obligations, an idea with no precident whatsoever before the World Wars.

Look up the term "open city".  Conventions as to what is beyond the pale have a long history.

[ Parent ]

Terrorism isn't definied by the goal of an action (none / 0) (#291)
by gte910h on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:55:44 AM EST

Terrorism is an act done by non-state actors of a war like nature. The point usually is to cause fear and unrest, rather than accomplish any large military goal.

If its an actual agent of a state, its an act of war.

Dropping a bomb on a city is a strategic move in a war, to my knowledge that's only been done by a state, so by definition, its not terrorism.

---

I think there was a large industrial capacity an both sites, but the stated point of dropping the bombs had nothing to do with that. America has always been up front that the point was to scare the living crap out of a nation of people who were willing to kamakaze into ships and probably would be worth 1.5 American GI's each at least if conquored by traditional land based attack.

Demorlization of the enemy has always been a valid war tactic.

    --Michael

[ Parent ]

By definition (none / 0) (#328)
by marx on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:17:27 PM EST

you are a terrorist.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

I love this one (2.00 / 5) (#195)
by Wah on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:07:12 PM EST

Members of Hamas or other groups are not members of armed forces.  While their "underdog" status might generate some sympathy, it does not convey legitimacy to their tactics.

Yea, let's just give them $5,000,000,000 a year and we can have some good, old-fashioned, symmetric warfare.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

They've tried the symmetric route before (none / 0) (#271)
by Grognard on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:26:34 AM EST

prior to the US providing military aid - didn't work.  In fact, that is the root of the problem today - the Palestinian diaspora came as a direct result of the various attempts to drive Israel into the sea.

[ Parent ]
allrightythen (none / 0) (#397)
by Wah on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:21:47 AM EST

In fact, that is the root of the problem today - the Palestinian diaspora came as a direct result of the various attempts to drive Israel into the sea.

yes, yes, and the various attempts to drive Israel into the sea came after the creation of a new state in inhabited lands.  This is all well and good, but doesn't really touch on what I was talking about.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

What you were talking about (none / 0) (#405)
by Grognard on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:33:38 PM EST

was the military aid to Israel...a closer reading of my post (and your link) will show that I said the diaspora came long before (11 years) the first military aid to Israel.

the various attempts to drive Israel into the sea came after the creation of a new state in inhabited lands

That conveniently ignores the presence of Jews in the area long before 1948 as well as the Mufti's agitation against them that also started long before 1948.  Not to mention that no one likes to discuss the Mufti's friendship with this strange little German man that got everyone so worked up.

[ Parent ]

not really (none / 0) (#412)
by Wah on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:53:41 PM EST

what I was talking about was the condemnation of suicide bombing as a barbaric tactic in an asymmetric war.  The context of my argument was the disparity of foreign funding for militaries in the region.  

Sorry, but having some people in one area doesn't quite convey the right to annex the entire territory and call it your own, regardless of how old your deed is.  Expect a fight.

Other than that, GODWIN.

HAND.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

You can't hide behind Godwin (none / 0) (#430)
by Grognard on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:36:02 AM EST

when there's an actual link to Nazi Germany.

what I was talking about was the condemnation of suicide bombing as a barbaric tactic in an asymmetric war.

Barbarity of a tactic is immaterial - blowing people to bits is barbaric regardless of who does it or how.  What is relevant is the legitimacy of a tactic, which I covered in another post - one that so far stands unrefuted.

The context of my argument was the disparity of foreign funding for militaries in the region.

And as I noted (based on information from the link you provided), the US did not start supplying military aid to Israel prior to 1959.  By that time two attempts by groups of Arab nations had been made to drive Israel into the sea using conventional warfare.  US aid isn't the only thing sustaining Israel.

Sorry, but having some people in one area doesn't quite convey the right to annex the entire territory and call it your own, regardless of how old your deed is.  Expect a fight.

The Jewish population of the area (which was never zero) had been growing since the late 19th century.  Although immigration increased during and after WWII, there was already a significant Jewish presence in the area.

Israel did not come about because the big bad imperialists dropped a huge colony of Jews into the midst of peaceful unsuspecting Arabs.  It came about as a result of the UN partition of Palestine and the war that resulted from the Palestinians refusal to accept that partition.

The current turmoil in that area traces back to the Mufti's agitation against Jews that started nearly 20 years prior to the founding of Israel - not to 1948 as some want to have people believe.  

Egypt and Jordan have accepted the inevitable, now its time for the PA to do so as well.  The clock can no more be turned back in that area than it can be in the Sudetenland or Poland or the Americas.  Insisting on the impossible is a hallmark of the unreasonable.

[ Parent ]

Not hiding, just saving people some time (none / 0) (#448)
by Wah on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 01:21:33 PM EST

Barbarity of a tactic is immaterial - blowing people to bits is barbaric regardless of who does it or how.  What is relevant is the legitimacy of a tactic, which I covered in another post - one that so far stands unrefuted.

So you think it is illegitimate because it is effective?  I really don't see one side or the other doing a whole lot to try and not escalate the violence.  It seems to me that as soon as the suicide bombing slow, it's time to start the F-16 assassinations for retribution.  The 'forced hand' response to this criticism applies to both groups.

nd as I noted (based on information from the link you provided), the US did not start supplying military aid to Israel prior to 1959.  By that time two attempts by groups of Arab nations had been made to drive Israel into the sea using conventional warfare.  US aid isn't the only thing sustaining Israel

I'm not so sure about that.  The human spirit seems to be able to sustain people in all sorts of difficult circumstances.  Again, this is part of the reason Palestinians won't submit and continue to resist.  However, for you to say that 'well, they didn't have anid in 1959', is to ignore what, the $100,000,000,000 or so that's been passed on since then.  

You are, in this post, cherry-picking your data.  It's all right, it's a common tactic in these arguments, part of why I called Godwin.  It just takes so much time to point out and then you have to start over anyway.

The Jewish population of the area (which was never zero) had been growing since the late 19th century.  Although immigration increased during and after WWII, there was already a significant Jewish presence in the area.

Again, it's a poor excuse to force the people who were there already into ghettos.

when there's an actual link to Nazi Germany.
what I was talking about was the condemnation of suicide bombing as a barbaric tactic in an asymmetric war.

Barbarity of a tactic is immaterial - blowing people to bits is barbaric regardless of who does it or how.  What is relevant is the legitimacy of a tactic, which I covered in another post - one that so far stands unrefuted.

The context of my argument was the disparity of foreign funding for militaries in the region.

And as I noted (based on information from the link you provided), the US did not start supplying military aid to Israel prior to 1959.  By that time two attempts by groups of Arab nations had been made to drive Israel into the sea using conventional warfare.  US aid isn't the only thing sustaining Israel.

Sorry, but having some people in one area doesn't quite convey the right to annex the entire territory and call it your own, regardless of how old your deed is.  Expect a fight.

The Jewish population of the area (which was never zero) had been growing since the late 19th century.  Although immigration increased during and after WWII, there was already a significant Jewish presence in the area.

Israel did not come about because the big bad imperialists dropped a huge colony of Jews into the midst of peaceful unsuspecting Arabs.  It came about as a result of the UN partition of Palestine and the war that resulted from the Palestinians refusal to accept that partition.

Hehe, if ever there was a difference that only showed up in perspective, that paragraph shows it great.  You said the same thing two ways, it's a matter of interpretation from there.

The current turmoil in that area traces back to the Mufti's agitation against Jews that started nearly 20 years prior to the founding of Israel - not to 1948 as some want to have people believe.

Yea, and if you go forward or back N number of years they started it.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

Duck and cover (none / 0) (#449)
by Grognard on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 06:59:34 PM EST

So you think it is illegitimate because it is effective?

Nice try, but no - on two levels.  First, it is illegitimate because it violates the customs of war.  

Second, it how is it effective?  This type of action hasn't yielded results in Ireland, Germany, Italy, or against the US.  Why would you expect it to work here.  The only thing it has achieved is to delay the process of achieving an independant Palestinian state.

I really don't see one side or the other doing a whole lot to try and not escalate the violence.  It seems to me that as soon as the suicide bombing slow, it's time to start the F-16 assassinations for retribution.

Really?  You see no justification for taking out those responsible for violating a cease fire?  Self-defense is escalating violence?

However, for you to say that 'well, they didn't have anid in 1959', is to ignore what, the $100,000,000,000 or so that's been passed on since then.

Your words, I believe:

Yea, let's just give them $5,000,000,000 a year and we can have some good, old-fashioned, symmetric warfare.

You are, in this post, cherry-picking your data.  It's all right, it's a common tactic in these arguments, part of why I called Godwin.

Silly me, and I thought it was because of the reference to the Mufti's support of Nazi Germany - the reference you have so far failed to address.

Again, it's a poor excuse to force the people who were there already into ghettos.

The "ghettos" sprang up because of those who abandoned their homes during the various wars.  While some of that flight was forced, some was not.  Israel is no more obliged to grant a right of return to those Palestinians than Poland or the Czech Republic are to grant it to the Germans forced from their homes after WWII.

Hehe, if ever there was a difference that only showed up in perspective, that paragraph shows it great.  You said the same thing two ways, it's a matter of interpretation from there.

Ah, yes...the UN as the tool of the imperialists - convenient in those cases where you disagree with its decisions.

Yea, and if you go forward or back N number of years they started it.

Well then, provide an example of some Jewish provocation that pre-dates the Mufti's agitations that began in the 1920s.

[ Parent ]

Jook and Jab (none / 0) (#451)
by Wah on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 10:39:11 AM EST

Hey, we're playing a little game here, not, in real life, that's no joke, but how we can communicate here is limited by the medium.  So yea, I'm going to jook and jive till I figure out this is worthwhile.  There's lots of stuff to read and write and see and learn you see, and a really good response can takes hours of research and investigation, time I could spend doing something more fun, so while I start to look around, can you clear something up for me?

Why would you expect it to work here.

Is this is a literal statement, in that you currently reside 'over there'?  Mainly a curiousity, and will probably prompt more questions, but if that assumption on my part is correct, I'll try and work through a few of your posts.  There's a couple of topics that come up which are things I've thought about before and never really put pen to paper on, as it were.  So can you answer that question for me before we go on?  And maybe a little evidence if you feel creative?
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

Clarification (none / 0) (#452)
by Grognard on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 12:43:36 PM EST

ah, no...my fault...I meant here as "in this case" (Israel), not as in "where I live".  I'm from the US.

[ Parent ]
Idiocy (2.00 / 11) (#39)
by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:41:22 PM EST

Terrorism is the work of transnational or non-state actors.

When the US, a sovereign country, drops an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, part of Japan, another sovereign country, that is an Act of War.

It was a declared act of war, as the US and Japan were engaged in hostilities.

It was an act of war that was not dissimilar from the historical context in how other countries in that time approached war - see the Japanese death marches, the rape of Nanking, the Russian massacre of German POWs, the German eradication of Partisan villages, etc.

Was it a tragedy that so many civilians died?  Yes.  The whole of WW2 was an avertable tragedy if the allies had simply invaded Germany when Hitler came into power.

Did it shorten the war, and save many more Japanese civilians, soldiers, and American servicemen who would have died in the invasion of Japan?  Yes.

Did anyone know anything of the effects of a nuclear weapon at the time, other than it was a really big bomb?  No.

Are you an idiot for taking a historical event and applying present-day hindsight to it?  Yes.

[ Parent ]

Oh Yes they Did (none / 0) (#240)
by Pholostan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:36:32 PM EST

The americans who built and dropped the atomic bombs on the japanese did fully understand what those bombs would do. They knew that the cities would be whiped out. Whey knew that at least 100 000 people would die instantly or within a day.

They did know.

- And blood tears I cry Endless grief remained inside
[ Parent ]

Terrorism (Wordnet definition) (none / 0) (#467)
by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 11:41:19 AM EST

The noun terrorism has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)

1. terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear)

So states can be responsible for terrorism. The bombing of hirosima was terrorism. If it for that has to be condemned I not sure of.

[ Parent ]

You don't get legal definitions (none / 0) (#468)
by Grognard on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 01:25:13 PM EST

from dictionaries.

The difference is that states may engage in total war (at the risk of being the target of retaliation from the state with which they are at war).  Similar actions by non-governmental organizations (which are not subject to the same risks) are terrorism.

[ Parent ]

If one (or several) states/contries tries to... (none / 0) (#472)
by balp on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 05:04:24 AM EST

Redefine a mening of a word, Is that right just for that? In what legat text does your definition appar and what makes that defintion more right?

/ Balp

[ Parent ]

Legal definitions are by nature (none / 0) (#475)
by Grognard on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 11:31:13 AM EST

more precise than common usage - that's hardly a redefinition.

Anyway, here's one cite for the US Code.

As to what makes a legal definition from a state more right than common usage, that doesn't even merit an answer.


[ Parent ]

The US defintion is that right? (none / 0) (#479)
by balp on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 05:36:45 AM EST

So what state defined the English language? If that doesn't merit an answer is that becase you don't like that the aswer might not be of your liking?

But then if we again look at the US Goverments defintion of Terrorism. Look at the parts called "State Sanctioned Terrorism" that is terroris fom one state to one other state.

A quick search on google into defintion of terrorism makeis clear that this is a higly controversial subject between states and so from that point not one coutry should have the right to define this.

/ Balp

[ Parent ]

Two points (none / 0) (#481)
by Grognard on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 08:15:28 AM EST

So what state defined the English language? If that doesn't merit an answer is that becase you don't like that the aswer might not be of your liking?

I'll restate my point since English doesn't seem to be your native language:  Terrorism (from a legal standpoint) in any country is what that country defines it as, not what some dictionary says.  It's not worth debating because it's self evident - if the law and a dictionary are in conflict, the law wins.

Look at the parts called "State Sanctioned Terrorism" that is terroris fom one state to one other state.

State sponsored terrorism involves just that - sponsorship.  For example, Iran funds Hezbollah which attacks Israel = state-sponsored terrorism.  If Iran actually dispatches its own troops to commit the same acts in Israel = act of war.  See the difference?

[ Parent ]

Did you bother to lookup any references... (none / 0) (#482)
by balp on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 08:30:26 AM EST

The statment about "State sponsored terrorism" i found that was a part of some offical definition in some offical US document didn't matter how did it. The act of terrorism in these document only talked about the actions and the means for the actions. For exsample the Lockeyby bombing, was clearly in most persons mind an terrorism act. However with the definition you now uses that was an act of war. The other part of this terrorism in an international view is what the normal use of the language gives to this. Even if it happens to be legal with terrorism in one contry. Maybe if we gets a good definion of terrorism by the UN that defintion may or may not be totaly correct. The definition of terrorism used by the EU is clare that a state/contry can use terrorism. (All document I have found from any US goverment seams to say the same thing terrorism has to do with the action not how does it. HiJackings are terrorism even if it happens to be done byt the CIA or by Mossad, or some other goverment agensy.) / Balp

[ Parent ]
Lockerbie (none / 0) (#483)
by Grognard on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 12:29:17 PM EST

For exsample the Lockeyby bombing, was clearly in most persons mind an terrorism act. However with the definition you now uses that was an act of war.

If Libya had claimed responsibility, then it would have been an act of war.  As it was, Libya repudiated those involved and turned them over for trial.  As such, it was a terrorist act.

All document I have found from any US goverment seams to say the same thing terrorism has to do with the action not how does it.

Then you can doubtless post a link to these, right?

[ Parent ]

More definitions (none / 0) (#484)
by balp on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 11:16:40 AM EST


UN doesn't have an agreement on what it is, they however have atleast for different versions at:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

None of them rule out that a state can commit the crime. One however does rule out that it can happen during war.

Or this definition:

http://www.msiac.dmso.mil/ootw_documents/sscdictionary/dict_t.htm

Or why not the defintion in the patriot act:

One place to find that is
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

One other defintion that might apply to you and doesn't take away the possibility that it is done by a state and during war is:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2331.html

I Guess that the US codes defintion of terrorism mikght apply to your view.

[ Parent ]

You didn't read far enough (none / 0) (#485)
by Grognard on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 01:17:27 PM EST

Try this

Find something that explicitly includes acts of war as terrorism.  Just because it doesn't explicitly exclude states, does not mean it includes them.

[ Parent ]

Or did you miss to read? (none / 0) (#486)
by balp on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 01:59:11 PM EST

Act of war is defined as something either after a "declaration of war" an "armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and"

So if this isn't a conflict between militrary forces, e.g. a conflict between a military force and civilians. The defintion of terrorism is,  "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
appear to be intended - to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and"

There is no distinction on who does the acts of terrorism. The common defintion is that we talk about terrorism when the targets are civilians and military actions when the targets are military. The US code seams to also have this definition.

[ Parent ]

It could be (none / 0) (#313)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:14:37 PM EST

Hiroshima could be considered an "act of terrorism" depending upon the definition being used.... so could the Allied conventional bombing campaign in Germany.... so could most of the acts of the French Resistance against the Nazis.

"Terrorism" describes a method..... it is not neccesarly an inherently ujustifiable act. The key issue is what goal is it being used to achieve and what alternatives exist.

In the case of Hiroshima it is quite clear (to me at least) that it was the quickest way to end the war in a manner which cost the least Allied AND Japanese lives.

The alternative was to negotiate a Conditional Surrender which would have left the millitarists in power in Japan and set the stage for the next war. I'm very glad (and most Japanese should be as well) that the Allies insisted upon an Unconditional Surrender.

[ Parent ]

You BLOODY idiot (1.21 / 19) (#30)
by psychologist on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:24:56 PM EST

PALESTINE is occupied, and 3 MILLION people are have been ethnically CLEANSED from their homes. Count the number of terror attacks. Now count the number of lives social organisations like Hamas have saved, even while being atttacked by a repressive and racist army, driven by religuos fervor.

We are not talking about that woman here. We are talking about the 500 youths under 18 who have been shot to death by men in armoured vests for THROWING STONES at soldiers who have entered and occupied THEIR villages. Hitler didn't kill children.

Palestinians are not some ethnically inferior people like you seem to assume. They are people with a pride, and Israel has been seizing land, destroying homes, and building settlements in an attempt to FULFILL A BIBLICAL PROPHESY.

Palestinians want to fight back, not sit there and let this band of thugs drive them into Jordan. EVERY Palestinian should support anyone who fights for their rights.

You are the kind of person who would say the blacks in South Africa should have used political pressure only to regain their land. If the world were filled with neo-nazis like you, blacks would still worth less than cattle in SA.

If Israel is the oh-so-poor country just fighting to defend itself against stones of mass destruction, answer this question:

WHY ARE SETTLEMENTS BEING BUILT?

[ Parent ]

Someone slept through history class (2.54 / 11) (#36)
by Grognard on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:30:21 PM EST

Hitler didn't kill children.

oh, really

Palestinians want to fight back, not sit there and let this band of thugs drive them into Jordan.

hmmm...given their resources, Israel can drive the residents of the West Bank into the Jordan, but haven't even tried.  Meanwhile, the only thing keeping organizations like the PLO and Hamas from driving the Israelis into the sea (a stated goal they keep neglecting to renounce), is their lack of resources - not that it's kept them from trying anyway.

The state of Israel is an established fact.  Until the Palestinians accept that and stop attacking, they cannot expect peace.

[ Parent ]

-1 (2.30 / 10) (#37)
by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:31:43 PM EST

Godwin's Law.

Failing to address any of my points.

Setting up a strawman: instead of addressing the woman suicide bomber who killed 22 civilians in a restaurant, you talk about the insurgents who legitimately (if not intelligently) attack Israeli military forces in occupied territories.

Misrepresenting my viewpoints.  Nowhere have I supported settlements.

Being an idiot.  It was international political pressure, not violence, that got rid of apartheid in South Africa.  Mandela would be the first to acknowledge that.

[ Parent ]

Troll or Sadly-ignorant (NT) (1.33 / 6) (#131)
by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:04:44 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Compulsory IDF service = military target? (2.00 / 6) (#80)
by prolixity on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:22:32 PM EST

"Did those 22 people in the restaurant have anything to do with Israeli policy in the occupied territories or its implementation, or were they just trying to go about their normal everyday lives?"

Correct me if I'm wrong..

But isn't every Israeli citizen (of age) a member of the IDF?

Bah!
[ Parent ]

No (2.83 / 6) (#132)
by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:05:29 AM EST

Many Israelis do not serve:

  • They declare themselves pacificsts
  • They are found medically unfit
  • They are part of the leeching religious group
  • They find other ways to evade military service (often by manipulating themselves into the above groups).

    Those Israelis that do serve:

  • Some do civil service instead of a military service
  • In the military, most are non-combatants that serve in roles such as cook, storage officer, and other civilian-like jobs.

    [ Parent ]
  • The evidence is pretty simple (none / 3) (#311)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:52:41 PM EST

    Look at the firepower the IDF has available to it.... cluster bombs, napalm, helicopter gunships, heavy artillery... heck they even have nukes.

    The fact is that if the IDF really wanted to completely obliterate the majority of the Palestinian populace in the occupied lands, they could with very little effort. They could make Palestinian population centers look like Dresden after WWII. The fact that they haven't says something.

    You think if Hammas had that kind of firepower that they wouldn't use it? They seem to me to be making every effort to kill as many people as they can with the limited resources at thier disposal.

    [ Parent ]

    Which Army? (none / 0) (#360)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:35:43 AM EST

    You honestly think the U.S. would be willing to engage in armed conflict with Israel even under those conditions. With GWB as President? After Sept. 11th? With our millitary already engaged in as many operations as it is?

    It would never happen.... not even if the IDF marched Palestinian children into ovens right in front of the cameras of CNN.

    Fact of the matter is that without U.S. forces none of the European nations have the capacity to project enough power into the region to engage Israels millitary. Heck the IDF could wipe the floor with the conventional forces of most European nations. On top of that, you seem to forget Israel has Nukes.

    No there would be alot of hand wringing and fist shaking and protests but not a single EuFor platoon would leave it's barracks. Much like Rawanda, Sudan, Tibet and alot of other places outside Europe. The blue hats might come in.... but only as "Peacekeepers" AFTER the shooting has stopped.

    I doubt even any of Israels Arab neighbors would do anything more serious then sabre rattle. The neighboring Arab regimes are more then willing enough to play the Palestinian card to curry favor with thier own populace..... but when push comes to shove none of them really give a damn about the Palestinians outside of a convenient tool for immediate political expediancy. Their more then willing to let them wither on the vine if they became an inconvenience.


    [ Parent ]

    History proves you wrong (none / 1) (#386)
    by Grognard on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:29:26 AM EST

    European nations wouldn't care about how much "power" they have in the region, they would just do it.

    Speaking as someone who has visited the Anne Frank's home and museum in Amsterdam, and watching European tourists cry as they exit rooms after watching television footage of what the Nazi's did to the Jews during World War Two, I can say unflinchingly, that people would not stand for genocide being broadcast on their televisions without feeling a need for action. Even if Governments did not act, civilian armies would, just as they did in the Spanish Civil War - to even a greater degree with larger numbers and better financed equipment.

    Bosnia...Kosovo

    Just to mention the recent ones right on their own doorstep.


    [ Parent ]

    How about the examples I gave (none / 1) (#389)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:49:10 AM EST

    The ones outside Europe (like Israel is). Rawanda, the Sudan, Tibet.... where were your armies of outraged Europeans then?

    [ Parent ]
    You missed my point (none / 0) (#406)
    by Grognard on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:39:09 PM EST

    you stated that Europeans would rally to respond to genocide - I gave you two recent examples of where they did not - even when that genocide was taking place on their own doorstep.  You certainly cannot contend that they were unaware of what was happening in either Bosnia or Kosovo.  Nor can you argue that it was somehow "acceptable" because Serbia was not a democratic nation.

    [ Parent ]
    Capacity matters (none / 0) (#394)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:04:33 AM EST

    It doesn't matter if Europe had the will to do something about it (even though I believe they don't).... they don't have the capacity to do so.

    Most European Nations just don't have the millitary capacity to engage in large scale operations against a modern millitary outside of Europe today without U.S. assistance. They haven't invested enough in thier millitary budgets to have the hardware, manpower and ships to do it.

    The U.K. is probably the nation with the greatest capacity to do so. Yet look at all the acrobatics they had to go through just to put together an operation in the Falklands back in the 80's. That was when the U.K.'s defence budget was larger then it is today.... and that was a fairly low intensity conflict. The force the U.K. sent against the Falklands would have it's arse handed to it by the IDF in less then 30 seconds.

    Denmark can whish with every fibre of it's being for China to withdraw from Tibet... but that doesn't mean they have the capacity to do spit about it.

    This is the 21st not the 11th Century, you can't just levy a bunch of farmers, hand them spears and expect them to be able to go out, march to Acre and do anything millitarly.

    [ Parent ]

    An article I read (none / 0) (#450)
    by tjb on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 01:12:37 AM EST

    I think it was in The Atlantic, about a year ago during either a NATO or EU summit on defense.  Kinda sketchy, I know, but this sticks out:

    The European generals were asking for more toys for their airforces - as one, I believe Belgian, Air Force general put it (paraphrased, going by memory) - "Here's how Europeans suppress air defenses: we fly in, trigger the the missiles, evade them, and hope to hit targets afterwards.  And we do this every day for the whole conflict.  Here's how the Americans suppress air defenses:  They fly in on the first night and destroy everything.  Nothing works after this - no electricity, no telephones, no computers, no radar.  After that, they hit targets at will.  We don't have that capability yet."

    That's probably the biggest difference, and the reason why the Isaelis would stomp the Europeans.  Europe has almost no force projection capability.  They have quite fine militaries for defense purposes, but getting steel on targets thousands of miles away would present a problem.  This was fine (an, in fact, almost their sole mission) when the worry was Soviet hordes pouring through the Fulda Gap, but the nature of European militaries hasn't really changed all that much over the last 15 years.  

    To be fair, the nature of the US military hasn't changed all that much either, but its nature was quite diiferent - that of a power able to fight two wars simultaneously on fronts thousands of miles from home.  Thus the force make-up is quite different - the US is geared for force-projection with carrier-groups, nuclear submarines, and a large airforce and the like while Europe has a grand total of 1 fleet-carrier, and it is less reliable than a Yugo (though apparently the French are building another).

    Tim

    [ Parent ]

    Another nitpick (none / 0) (#370)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 02:53:29 AM EST

    "Assumed reasons for acting in this manner are numerous, whether it is for revenge, punishment, or just plain old hatred of the Palestinians/Muslims."

    Well millitary officers who let thier emotions cloud thier actions usualy make pretty poor commanders. By everything I've read, the IDF is a pretty highly rated millitary force and at least on the senior officer level is made up of proffesional soldiers.

    While what you've suggested is not impossible... I consider it somewhat unlikely, at least as a routiene occurance. Indescriminate acts of brutality just don't make good millitary sense.

    The only millitary justifications for such acts are to terrorize your opponent, sap thier morale and thier will to fight.... or to punish your opponent to make certain actions more painfull for him then they are for you.

    However both of those courses of action only work if you publicize them. Trying to keep them quiet actualy defeats the purpose they are designed to fullfill.

    The IDF does, in fact, advertise one form of punishment. It has advertised that it will bulldoze the family homes of suicide bombers. This tactic has actualy been somewhat successfull as there have been quite a number of cases of family members stopping would-be suicide bombers rather then see the entire family become homeless. Note, I am NOT attempting to comment on the ethical considerations of such a practice.... simply stating that in a purely practical sense it has achieved some of the effects it was intended to.

    I just don't see how small scale brutality toward civilians makes sense for the IDF from a purely practical standpoint. If an APC isn't enough to disuade brick armed Palestinian teenagers.... then I really can't see how a few more civilian casualties then neccesary will.

    It's either target active insurgents directly and minimize civilian casualties as much as practical... or all out devastation of the civillian populace. Anything in between is just counter-productive from a millitary standpoint.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Really (none / 0) (#396)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:14:28 AM EST

    There was nothing small scale about it. It was very organized and systematic. It also wasn't anything that was really a secret. Plus the Nazi's were doing it for an internal political objective.... from a purely millitary standpoint it was an absolutely disasterous policy.

    It's possible that Israel would engage in such actions for an internal political practice (I don't believe it but it's possible).... but again if it were doing so, it would make no sense not to advertise it.... nor do I think it could be maintained across so many different governments.

    [ Parent ]

    Policies (none / 0) (#445)
    by liftarn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 09:07:40 AM EST

    IDF have found that breaking the arms of kid have a very good effect to make them not throw stones on APCs, at least until the bones heal.

    [ Parent ]
    Excepting (none / 1) (#350)
    by losthalo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:33:00 PM EST

    Except for all of the political flack that would entail, you are completely right. Remember how large a percentage of Israel's economy is US aid.

    Even the US might balk at the consequences of supporting an ally in obvious, unrepentant genocide on that scale.

    [ Parent ]
    Cough (none / 1) (#355)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:11:47 AM EST

    If they had done it shortly after Sept. 11th, the vast majority of the U.S. public wouldn't have blinked an eyelash...and you know it.

    And if the U.S. public didn't care do you honestly think GWB would have stepped in to save the Palestinians? That certainly would go against most of the sentiments I've heard people here express about GWB.

    [ Parent ]

    Your point being... (none / 1) (#414)
    by losthalo on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:42:58 PM EST

    If they had done it shortly after Sept. 11th, the vast majority of the U.S. public wouldn't have blinked an eyelash...and you know it.

    Even if you were right about that, it is no longer "shortly after Sept. 11th", is it?

    And if the U.S. public didn't care do you honestly think GWB would have stepped in to save the Palestinians? That certainly would go against most of the sentiments I've heard people here express about GWB.

    I don't think the US (or the US dragged along by GWB) would support actual genocide against the Palestinians. I don't think even at that paranoid and angry moment that it could have been justified by any American administration, since it's not directly related to al Qaeda. Do you think otherwise? Please enlighten us, if so.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (none / 1) (#359)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:33:48 AM EST

    They could make Palestinian population centers look like Dresden after WWII. The fact that they haven't says something.

    You never saw the pictures from Jenin, I take it.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Nope.... (none / 0) (#361)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:46:44 AM EST

    But I'd be happy to look at them if you have a link.

    I seriously doubt it was carpet bombed. Even if it was it's pretty small scale compare to what happaned in Europe and Japan.... maybe if Israel completely obliterated over 60% of the population centers in the occupied territories we could begin to talk.

    Somewhere I have a book with a target list and damage assesment for the U.S. conventional bombing campaign against Japan..... it makes all those all those Hollywood disaster movies look like a dimestore firecracker by comparison.

    [ Parent ]

    Take a look (none / 1) (#367)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 02:01:13 AM EST

    There are some pictures in this comment.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the links (none / 0) (#368)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 02:16:40 AM EST

    No good arial view but it doesn't look much worse then a typical urban area that has see some combat.

    Certainly nothing approaching the scale of the results from a typical Allied bombing mission in WWII.... or even WWI Flanders.

    Unfortunately all the pictures I have are in books... but I know you are educated enough to see the difference in scale of you look into it.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 1) (#369)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 02:44:24 AM EST

    Interesting, how do you think photos of Dresden substantively differed from photos such as this one?

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough question (none / 0) (#371)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 03:14:08 AM EST

    Well, the photo isn't the best to judge from... size, angle and area covered and all..... but I can see what look to be intact buildings in the deep background. Even many of the buildings in the foreground are partialy standing. In short, it looks like some pictures I've seen of Beruit or places in Yugoslavia.

    The same sort of picture of Dresden by contrast you would see nothing that was clearly recognizable as having been a building at one time. There would just be big piles of rubble and dust..... except for a few visual cues you might as well be looking at the surface of the moon.

    Some of the pictures I've seen of Japanese cities are pretty damn horrific too. Of course, with Japan the Allies used mostly incindiaries and Japanese cities of the era were largely of wood with no real zoning between industrial (i.e. fuel and chemical storage) and residential sectors.... not a good combination of factors.

    [ Parent ]

    Intact buildings (none / 1) (#372)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:58 AM EST

    Here are some photos from Dresden, it seems to me there are buildings partially standing...

    pic

    pic

    pic

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Point taken (none / 0) (#399)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:10:43 AM EST

    Those are considerably more intact looking pictures of Dresden then the ones I've seen.

    Even so, I doubt the scale approaches Dresden. We'd have to see some arial photos which showed the overall target area to be sure.

    Even then, Dresden was just one of many major population centers hit.

    I really think you are doing a disservice to conflate what's happening in the Occupied Territories with the level of destruction of the Allied bombing campaigns in Europe and Japan.

    It weakens the credability of other positions you might chose to take. It's clear to me, at least, that the IDF is using a considerably more circumspect level of force.

    [ Parent ]

    That's because there's no PDF. (none / 0) (#407)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:42:17 PM EST


    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
    [ Parent ]

    The targets (2.16 / 6) (#133)
    by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:13:23 AM EST

    When Israel invades a refugee camp, it targets a bunch of murderers, and attempts to only arrest them, trying to minimize harm of innocent civilians.

    When a Palestinian woman carries a gun and a bag full of explosives, then shoots a guard and runs between men, women, children, old people, foreigners and others, and blows herself up, she is targetting civilians and attempting to maximize harm to civilians.

    See the difference?

    By supporting her actions, you are supporting the murder of innocent people. I hope you have an unfortunate accident in the near future.

    [ Parent ]

    mmmhh.... (1.50 / 8) (#141)
    by vivelame on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:52:48 AM EST

    minimizing civilain casualties, like, say, in this case?.
    soooo, what's the difference between a soldier deliberately killing an unarmed civilian, and a woman deliberately killing unarmed civilians?
    Let me guess: The former is a zionist hero, cause, you know, he killed some arabs. The later is a terrorist, because, you know, the towelheads can be killed, but they shouldn't fight back.


    --
    Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
    [ Parent ]
    Are you kidding? (1.50 / 6) (#156)
    by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:52:39 AM EST

    The example you gave specifically shows a soldier acting against military orders to minimize civilian casualties and refers to his arrest and awaited trial.

    Who labelled him a "zionist hero"?

    If anything, the linked article just emphasizes that the Israeli stance is to minimize civilian casualties.

    [ Parent ]

    certainly not. (none / 2) (#383)
    by vivelame on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:43:28 AM EST

    the afore-linked newsbit shows the usual behavior of IDF soldiers. The poor bastard had the bad luck to shoot a british citizen, instead of the usual towelhead. In the later case, there wouldn't have been an inquiry.

    Oh well, the IDF is on par with the US troopers on the "oops, maybe i shouldn't have shot unarmed civilians" blunder scale.


    --
    Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
    [ Parent ]
    The time scale (none / 0) (#466)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 11:12:31 AM EST

    IRC it too six month of hard work for parents and the UK foregin depertment to get the IDF to open an investigation in to this matter. Before that he was a hero that shoot at some terrorist and unfortinatly happend to kill a brittish citizen.

    [ Parent ]
    I see the difference (2.44 / 9) (#142)
    by trezor on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:01:33 AM EST

    I see the difference. It's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to see.

    1. The heavyly armed, resourcefull Israeli military using a combatchoppers and fighterjets to take out (kill) single opponents of the state of Israel, knowingly killing innocent none-activists in the process. Aka swatting flys with machineguns.

    2. The occupied freedomfighters trying to fight back at the occupants the only way they can, since they are totally cleansed of any resources whatsoever. Aka utter desperation and hopelessness vs overwhelming powers.

    Ok. Now I don't find killing civilians justified in any general sence. However I can easily understand why the palestinians do what they do.

    Israel really hasn't done anything to cool down the conclifct. They've rather added a shitload of fuel to the fire.

    Can't say I'm supprised or sorry for the Israeli's. And the innoocent civilians... They aren't any more innocent than the fact that they elected a leader who promised to solve this problem with even more added force.

    So there's my point of view, if anyone cares to read it.


    --
    Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

    [ Parent ]
    Civilians (2.00 / 6) (#159)
    by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:03 AM EST

    Ok. Now I don't find killing civilians justified in any general sense. However I can easily understand why the palestinians do what they do.

    So you don't justify killing civilians, but you understand it. What exactly does that mean? I "understand" why they do it too. But I believe it justifies their persecution, their houses' destruction, etc. Even if it inevitably gets some of the people they stick with killed.

    Israel really hasn't done anything to cool down the conflict. They've rather added a shitload of fuel to the fire.

    Israel has tried to cool down the conflict ever since 1992 or so with the Oslo attempts, later the Y talks, and later Camp David. Israel has tried a lot of things, but it has exploded in its face.

    Sure, one thing that bothers me as well as an Israeli, is the continued building of settlements, that hasn't stopped even during the peace process. But those hardly justify the huge outbreak of Palestinian violence in October 2000.

    After almost each peace talk or Israeli gesture, Hamas increased its terrorist activities (Peace is the biggest threat to Hamas's existence). What's not understandable or acceptable, though, is that the PA didn't stop them.

    Can't say I'm supprised or sorry for the Israeli's. And the innoocent civilians... They aren't any more innocent than the fact that they elected a leader who promised to solve this problem with even more added force.

    Just because its a Democracy, individual civilians should be held responsible for the acts of their leaders? So one should be able to persecute individual Americans for the invasion of Iraq or the attack of Afghanistan?

    Sharon got elected as a direct result of the Palestinian violence that exploded in Israel's face after the Camp David peace talk attempts. Its very understandable that to many civilians, Israel seemed to be pushed into a corner from which only force could let it out of - thus Sharon's election.

    [ Parent ]

    A hopeflly brief reply (none / 2) (#270)
    by trezor on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 07:54:00 AM EST

    This can easily turn into a multi-meg rant, but I will try to be brief and consise.

    To clarify my statement, I don't approve of killing civilans in a general case. This is however a specific case.

    And as for a fact, Israel is occupying Palastinian land and are holding the palestinians down by force.

    I think a freedomfighter stripped of resources using desperate measures leading to civilan losses to send out a message is a whole lot more respectable than what Israel is doing. Namely that of killing civilian palestinians, because the palestinians rightfully waants their land back.

      Sharon got elected as a direct result of the Palestinian violence that exploded in Israel's face after the Camp David peace talk attempts.

    Long story put short: Israel uses more force. Resistance increases. Israel uses even more force. Resistance increases even more. etc, etc.

    Somehow it seems increased use of Israeli force doesn't resolve the situation. Rather opposite, but thats just the way it seem to me.

    And if it really isn't clear to you: the suicide bombers have nowhere the reasources needed to forcefully liberate their country, so they try to send out a message.

    The message? Get the fuck out of our land, assholes!

    My sympathy's are with the weaker part of this conflict, that's for sure.

    And I for once oppose calling people trying to free their country "terrorists". Or was it terrorists that liberated europa from nazi-germany? (No Goodwin intended)


    --
    Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

    [ Parent ]
    A hopefully informative response (none / 3) (#298)
    by Peaker on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:56:00 AM EST

    And as for a fact, Israel is occupying Palastinian land and are holding the palestinians down by force.

    Only because it was forced to.

    I think a freedomfighter stripped of resources using desperate measures leading to civilan losses to send out a message is a whole lot more respectable than what Israel is doing. Namely that of killing civilian palestinians, because the palestinians rightfully waants their land back.

    Israel is not trying to kill civilians. It only targets those who are known to be planning or be involved in murderous activities such as exploding a bus or restaurant full of men, women and children. Since those people are not in military bases, but spend their time surrounded by civilians, acting against them inevitably leads to civilian casualties. This is a substantial difference though, Israel uses violence against specific murderer targets, while the Palestinian murderers use violence against a general populace.

    You find this more respectable??

    Long story put short: Israel uses more force. Resistance increases. Israel uses even more force. Resistance increases even more. etc, etc.

    Actually, there is a lot less resistence now in Israel than there was a while ago, when Israel did not occupy a lot of the territories.

    It seems that this forceful occupation is an effective military mean. So its not as simple as you are trying to portray.

    Somehow it seems increased use of Israeli force doesn't resolve the situation. Rather opposite, but thats just the way it seem to me.

    Again, force is helping now, at least in the immediate range. Also, note that during the peak of the Oslo talks and other peace talks, where Israel was leaving Palestinian territories according to treaties, Palestinian violence and suicide bombings were raging in Israel - completely refuting your point. This was what led to the election of Netanyahu instead of Peres in 1996.

    And if it really isn't clear to you: the suicide bombers have nowhere the reasources needed to forcefully liberate their country, so they try to send out a message.

    The problem is, their message, in the Israeli side, is read as:

  • If you try to occupy us, we will attempt to kill your innocent civilians.
  • If you try to make peace, we will attempt to kill your innocent civilians.

    Thus, the only Israeli answer to this is: Immediately dismantle and destroy the terrorist organizations. After Israel failed to get the PA to do this (Arafat seems to prevent this), it decided there is no choice but to do it itself, thus forced to occupy the territories.

    The message? Get the fuck out of our land, assholes!

    And that includes all of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc. A message Israelis do not find acceptable.

    My sympathy's are with the weaker part of this conflict, that's for sure.

    I'm sorry, but that means you either have much ignorance of the situation (as many Palestinian supporters do) or simply have a very perverted moral code (At least from my moral perspective, that doesn't see blind murder ever valid).

    And I for once oppose calling people trying to free their country "terrorists". Or was it terrorists that liberated europa from nazi-germany? (No Goodwin intended)

    Countries can do war crimes, not terror (by definition). Those who target military targets are typically named fighters (i.e "freedom fighters", etc) while those who target civilians are typically named "terrorists" or "war criminals".

    [ Parent ]

  • Some details corrected. (none / 0) (#465)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 11:09:22 AM EST

    > Israel is not trying to kill civilians. It only
    > targets those who are known to be planning or be
    > involved in murderous activities such as exploding
    > a bus or restaurant full of men, women and children.

    According to the same Israeli ambasador that started this debat. All Arabs are terrorists, so then it's easy. Calling all people in an area for terrorists does not change anything. What about Israeli snipers shooting kids. Are these five or six year olds also planning terrorists when they play at the street. (A soulder from 150m using a good sniper rifle that can't seee the difference between a group of kids and a terrorist should not be allowed to have a gun.) That was the situations when a brittist sitices was killed last spring on the westbank. After a loot of complaints from the UK an investigations into this was finaly started.


    [ Parent ]

    Terrorists? (none / 0) (#474)
    by liftarn on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 07:21:52 AM EST

    Are these five or six year olds also planning terrorists when they play at the street. They are probably "potential future terrorists".

    [ Parent ]
    Child Soldiers (none / 0) (#476)
    by Peaker on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 06:54:46 PM EST

    According to the same Israeli ambasador that started this debat. All Arabs are terrorists, so then it's easy.

    I haven't heard him saying that, and if he did it is unfortunate. In any case, this is not Israeli policy.

    What about Israeli snipers shooting kids.

    Another issue altogether. The mob-attacks on Israeli soldiers are very difficult to handle. Non-fatal weapon technology is really crappy at the moment, such that the only way those soldiers can keep themselves safe, is by using fatal ammunition or "non-fatal weapons" in more fatal configurations.

    A kid that's attacking a soldier is pretty much the same kind of threat that an adult is. Those kids learn to use rubber to throw stones at quite dangerous speeds and are endangering the soldiers they attack.

    What's sad is not the soldiers' arguably over-harsh response to the mob attacks, but that for purposes of pure PR/later-propoganda, the Palestinian leadership sends children to participate in those events in the first place.

    [ Parent ]

    Not soldiers kids... (none / 0) (#480)
    by balp on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 05:51:34 AM EST

    I agree that mobs attacking soldiers are a big problem but that was not what I was talking about.  Read a little about the background for the death of "Tom Hurndall". Some days before he was shoot while carring unarmed kids playing at the streat into safty from sniper fire he saw a little boy being badly injured by this type of fireing. Obviusly he was naive enougt to think that Israeli solders shouldn't shoot at unarmed civilians not carrying weapons of throwing anything against them.

    About Isreali policy, even if it isn't policy for the goverment that attidide for high official are bad for the contry and will make it much harder to reach any peace in the region. Having that kind of sight on the "enemy" make is hard to se ones own misstakes. I guess to many on both sides in this conflict by now have that view on things. That why palestiniand can strap them with bombs and kill innocents, thats why isaelis solders don't seams to care about the big number of civilans killed in the refuge camps. I think thats the reason that violence can escalate.

    [ Parent ]

    The truth (none / 2) (#362)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:49:47 AM EST

    There is documentation of those invasions (the ones you claim minimized harm to civilians) here. Such surgical skill. Clearly only the guilty were affected.

    Good examples of the surgical skill with which Israeli forces only affect murderers can be seen here and here.

    You must feel so proud. So very very proud.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    I am inclined to cut the prime minister some slack (2.45 / 20) (#3)
    by GreyGhost on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:39:46 AM EST

    He went a little batshit - which under the circumstances I find excusable given the awful carnage that has been caused on both sides in their nasty little war.

    Also - the piece in question was intended to inspire great passion in a really crude and vulgar way (not by actually being 'great' in the sense that it moves the soul). More in the vein of - 'Oh look - it's the Virgin Mary in a vial of piss! Boy is the shit going to hit the fan when the Catholics see it!'

    Are you attempting to link Hitler's exhibition of "Degenerate Art" up with this incident and the position of the Sharon government?



    He is a diplomat (2.80 / 10) (#11)
    by flo on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:45:27 AM EST

    It is part of his job description to be able to keep his cool. If he can't, he should be replaced. There are plenty of more civilized ways to protest an art exhibit you find offensive.
    ---------
    "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
    [ Parent ]
    Mazel Made a Rare Public Exposure ... (2.31 / 16) (#42)
    by Peahippo on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:48:28 PM EST

    ... of the level of tolerance you see from the Zionists. As far as Israel's sick, vicious government is concerned, he's doing exactly the "diplomatic" job that he's supposed to.

    Freedom and liberty are artifacts of tolerance. If you approve of Mazel's fact, then you will end up supporting all the pro-Zionist fascism that it implies.

    In my opinion, fuck Mazel. Sweden should have deported him as persona non grata over that act, pinning a note to his shirt asking the Israeli government for another Ambassador that is able to respect the property rights of other persons.


    [ Parent ]
    Hm. (none / 2) (#198)
    by Aphexian on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:43:44 PM EST

    Freedom and liberty are artifacts of tolerance.

    Strike that - reverse it. Especially if you're using American history as a backdrop to your assertion.

    The instigators of freedom and liberty are often seperatists with bigoted ideals. Great nations as well as great freedoms are founded upon the bent backs of the oppressed.

    Latter-day tolerance is born from a postion of comfort and security.

    [ Parent ]

    no non grata, please (none / 2) (#225)
    by chimera on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:12:21 PM EST

    The bad way of diplomacy here would be to send him back as persona non grata.
    The good way would be for the israelis to take him back themselves, for consultation or whatnot. Of course, Israel being Israel it won't. Fucking idiots. I would feel it a disgrace beyond belief if I was a judaism believer, which I'm not though.

    Persona non grata declarations are not that uncommon in Sweden, relatively speaking, but they are usually referred for espionage acts (former USSR nations doing industrial espionage is the newest fad. ) and regimes that use their consulate as a base for hunting Sweden-living refugees that were formerly or still in capacity of citizenship of the country of the regime in question. Kurds are often hunted this way. The occasional murder of refugee by consulate personnel or by consulate associated has happened, on record (by Iran, btw). Believe Israel had a couple of assistants sent back persona non grata in the 80s. Of course these were Mossad people spying on Palestinians in Sweden.

    Persona non grata is an extraordinary harsh diplomatic declaration and should be kept for specific nature of cases to really mark a breach of diplomatic procedure. Like dancing and other intimate ventures diplomacy is a party for two. Israel should realise this, the country has no shame left to even think it.

    Fuck it, nuke the place.

    [ Parent ]

    Diplomat (none / 2) (#199)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:45:34 PM EST

    Sometime a single "fuck you" will express your feeling much more eloquently than anything else.
    This was not an outburst of rage, this was a planned "statement", if you will ..


    [ Parent ]
    Slippery benchmarks - "moves the soul ?" (1.85 / 7) (#16)
    by leoaugust on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:08:48 PM EST

    being 'great' in the sense that it moves the soul

    You mean it exalts the soul ? I tried to stay away from passing judgement on art. This display was part of an exhibition, so obviously it had been vetted and some people decided that it was art.

    If we are to accept your benchmark that it should "move the soul" or exalt the soul, then the same can be extended to say that "great" art must serve the purpose of exaltation of the Aryan way of life. I hesitate to ride on your slippery slope of logic.


    The eyes cannot see what the mind cannot see.
    [ Parent ]

    Everyone's missing the central issue (2.26 / 23) (#4)
    by pyramid termite on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:43:35 AM EST

    The exhibit, being a pool of blood and a sailboat, was not harmed. The lamp, however, is now useless.

    Just what does the Israeli Ambassador have against halogen lamps?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    Re: Everyone's missing the central issue (2.53 / 15) (#34)
    by mcc on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:48:03 PM EST

    Put simply, halogen lamps are a serious and very real fire hazard. This has been proven and well-documented in studies again and again.

    Many Jews have, over the years, been killed in fires.

    Viewed in this light, the inclusion of the lamp in the exhibition was insensitive and the actions of the Israeli ambassador totally logical.

    [ Parent ]

    Those who control the signs control the people. (2.17 / 17) (#8)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:29:07 AM EST

    If you have a black and white version of the world, you are not going to take kindly to suggestions of complexity, irony and hypocrisy.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

    baloney -1 (2.10 / 19) (#15)
    by mami on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:05:09 PM EST

    In no way is what happened in Nazi Germany during the exhibition of "Entartete Kunst" comparable to the incidence in Sweden.

    If in Nazi Germany thousands of pieces of arts were confiscated by the Nazi because the artists didn't kiss the feet of Nazi propaganda and expressed their "opposition" through their art (at least in the mind of the Nazis), then this is oppression of freedom of expression.

    If an Israeli ambassador has a fit of fury he can't control against ONE piece of art, because in his mind this art has glorified terrorism and injustice and represented a "call for genocide", it's another thing. If something is quite a challenge than it is the title of that piece of art, but ... whatever.

    It's especially another thing, as the piece of art he couldn't stand looking at, was created by an Israeli like him. Let's say that is a fist fight mano a mano between two Israeli on foreign soil about their and own policies and should be forgotten as soon as possible.

    If at all it should give us a pause to remind us all under how much pressure Israeli stand these days under the burden of constant terror attacks.

    Another thing though is the fact that Sharon equates the display of this piece of art with an increase of anti-Semitism in Sweden. That's, well, ... let's say not very wise of a conclusion and highly debatable.

    I wonder, if Embassador Mazel would react the same way with any piece of art that depicts Nazis. I don't think so, as he would be really busy to try to destroy everything that runs under "art" these days and depicts Nazis.

    -1 for this article. It compares apples and oranges and both taste sour on top of it. Forget it, very sad incidence, sadly stupid article.

    Why should he stop at wrecking ONE piece ... (2.25 / 8) (#21)
    by leoaugust on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:26:59 PM EST

    If an Israeli ambassador has a fit of fury he can't control against ONE piece of art,

    What makes you think that he will, or they will, stop at wrecking one piece of art. The public destruction of the Degenerate art also must have started with one piece till it became State policy.

    The fact that the Israeli Govt backed him is what is potentially trendsetting. Sharon was also the pioneer in Group Punishment in which the homes of the suicide bombers and their families are razed to the ground. So, his full backing in this incident should be looked on as backing for more similar incidents, and if there is high collatoral damage in the process, he has shown the apetite to swallow and shove it.

    Like you said,

    Sharon equates the display of this piece of art with an increase of anti-Semitism in Sweden. That's, well, ... let's say not very wise of a conclusion and highly debatable.

    Precisely my point.


    The eyes cannot see what the mind cannot see.
    [ Parent ]

    Jews in Germany (2.12 / 8) (#73)
    by mami on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 07:25:37 PM EST

    had never terrorized German civilians before Hitler came to power. They were often even highly respected German nationalists and patriots before and in WWI.

    To equate the policies of the current Israeli government against suicide bombers and terrorist with Nazi police state oppressions of the Third Reich is so utterly disgutsting that you better get your moral compass in balance and straightened out.

    [ Parent ]

    Mazel said he feels like being in 1930 in Europe (2.25 / 4) (#84)
    by mami on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:58:24 PM EST

    here:
    He said a revival of European anti-Semitism -- intensified by anti-American feelings and the growing influence of Muslim minorities in Europe -- has caused a heavy pro-Palestinian bias in Europe and endangered Jewish lives.

    "We are in the 1930s now: That is the feeling of many of us who know history," said Mazel, referring to the decade that saw the Nazi takeover in Germany and led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews. "There is a feeling among many people, including me, of a tragedy that could be coming."

    Such fears have been fed by a recent poll that found 59 percent of Europeans consider Israel a threat to peace; statements by popular Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis calling Israel "the root of evil;" and November attacks on two synagogues in Turkey that killed 23 people, at least six of them Jews.

    Feels like things are going out of hand... very sad indeed.

    [ Parent ]
    American Anti-arabism (2.16 / 6) (#94)
    by steve h on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:15:42 AM EST

    From EI:

    Research consistently shows that for many years the most insidious form of anti-Semitism has been directed not against Jews but Muslims. In the wake of September 11, that is truer than ever, with unthinking stereotypes of "the Arab" promoted in the mainstream media, Hollywood films and much of the language used by the White House.

    A recent 139-page report by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) found a disturbing rise in hate crimes against American Arabs since 9/11. The first such report produced on this scale, the ADC document notes 700 violent attacks against Americans perceived to be Arabs or Muslims in the the first nine weeks after September 11, including several murders. It also records at least 80 cases of officials illegally removing passengers from planes and more than 800 cases of employment discrimination against Arabs.

    Where are the statistics for Jews being targeted in Europe? How many Jews are violently attacked in Europe? I guess you don't know, as you're just caught up in this contrived hysteria.

    59% of Europeans think that Israel is a threat. So what? I guess you need to learn that a realistic assessment of risk of the Israeli state does not constitute anti-semitism. And Israel is nuclear armed, after all.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you completely misread my comments (2.25 / 4) (#158)
    by mami on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:54:40 AM EST

    and I don't think it's worth to correct your misconception.

    [ Parent ]
    What must it be like in Isreal? (none / 0) (#256)
    by GhostfacedFiddlah on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:19:08 AM EST

    If this is just the reaction of a single person - someone who is supposed to be representing their country - how bad must it be in Isreal itself?  It's scary how much control they must have over art and expression there.  Not worse than most of the other countries in the region, I'd imagine, but still nowhere near the standard they should be at for a developed country.

    [ Parent ]
    Suicide Bombings and Israeli Policy (2.37 / 27) (#18)
    by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:15:25 PM EST

    I'm beginning to think that the Israeli government should adopt the Columbian government's model of behavior over the last 2 presidencies.

    Andres Pastrana was an idiot - he gave away nearly a quarter of the country to leftist insurgents in "safe havens" and made even more ridiculous concessions in a failed attempt to try to win a lasting peace.

    The problem with the FARC, Hamas and other extremist militant insurgencies is that they don't want a political compromise, political rights within the current system, or a negotiated settlement.  They want the whole pie to themselves - they want to become the government, not join it in a negotiated compromise.

    When the Columbian leftist rebels responded to Pastrana's concessions with more demands, more threats, and more attacks on civilian and military targets alike to force the issue, Pastrana kept turning the other cheek in order to reach a political solution that the insurgents simply did not want or desire.

    The end result is that the fed-up Columbian electorate finally got rid of Pastrana.  But the years of kowtowing to the rebels paid off in an indirect way - President Uribe, who was elected on a get-tough campaign, faces fewer domestic and almost no international critics for harsh but generally effective policies which would have raised an outcry in previous administrations.

    The lesson for the Israelis: unilaterally bend to moderate Palestinian demands.  Withdraw militarily from the occupied territories; cede half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians; dismantle the Israeli settlements; stop the targeted assassinations and fence-building.  In short, offer everything reasonable to the Palestinians in return for their disarming and cease-fire.

    After Hamas and the others uses the time to regroup and plan more attacks and bombings against Israel proper, Israel can retake Jerusalem, annex large swaths of the occupied territories, and squeeze the Palestinian insurgency until the general populace cries uncle, all with the international backing of other governments.

    In short: offer a huge carrot first.  When it becomes clear that the monster wants your arm and not just the carrot, hit it with your even bigger stick, and no one will care (except for those who want the monster to succeed).

    And in the extremely small probability that a strong moderate Palestinian leader emerges that can and will rein in the extremist militants in response to the Israeli peace overtures, then so much the better - Israel will be given credit for taking the initiative for a regional peace, and no more of its civilians will be blown up by terrorists.

    I think this (2.50 / 8) (#20)
    by mami on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:26:06 PM EST

    article describes the incidence in a bit more detail, especially as it explains that this exhibition was linked to an anti-genocide conference and made clear that the artist is active in a movement of "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace", a Stockholm-based group opposed to Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Puts the incidence into context.

    [ Parent ]
    Stop being an idiot (1.07 / 14) (#31)
    by psychologist on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:37:21 PM EST

    There would be no israel if men didn't go there with guns blazing and stole land. And now you want them to SIMPLY GIVE IT BACK? Then what the hell did they take it for in the first place?

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see... (2.46 / 13) (#43)
    by Stickerboy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:50:34 PM EST

    1948: Arab nations gang together to try to eradicate nascent Jewish state. Arabs lose. Israel gets territory in the fighting.

    1967: Arab nations again gang together to try to eradicate Jewish state. Arabs lose gain. Israel gets more territory through the fighting.

    1973: Israel preempts threatening Arab military buildup, spanks Arab militaries yet again. Israel gets more territory through the fighting. Do you wonder why no Arab state today will back up its bluster on Israel with action?

    Somewhere in between (1978?): Israel trades land seized from Egypt in war for a peace treaty. The threat of another war between Israel and Egypt is much reduced. Do I have to connect the dots for you?

    [ Parent ]

    History (1.10 / 10) (#63)
    by psychologist on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:47:18 PM EST

    1. : Jewish terrorists drive out almost a million arabs from their home. Countries ally to restore them to their homeland. They are defeated, and more land is seized with violence.
    2. : Egypt trys to recover its stolen land. It loses, and the terrorist state steals more land
    3. : Rogue state attacks its neighbours and performs another ethnic cleansing.
    4. : International pressure forces state to return stolen land to egypt.
    5. : Total idiot reproduces propaganda because he is totally unableto think for himself.
    Sorry boy, but I don't argue with idiots. I'm no longer going to reply to you till you stop being an idiot.

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget (1.50 / 4) (#93)
    by steve h on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:01:37 AM EST

    1982: Israel invades Lebanon, attacking civilians indiscriminately and allowing their Phalangist allies to slaughter 2000 innocent refugees.

    [ Parent ]
    Lies (2.25 / 4) (#126)
    by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:43:05 AM EST

    1948: Jewish terrorists drive out almost a million arabs from their home. Countries ally to restore them to their homeland. They are defeated, and more land is seized with violence

    No Jew had driven any arab from his home. By 1948, Jews had bought (by the will of both sides) a lot of lands from arabs. Then Israel declared itself a state, and the arabs from the entire region got worried that a Jewish takeover of the region is about to take place, and decided to attack.

    Those arab nations promised the arabs in the region to ethnically cleanse the Jews of the region, and asked them to get out of the way only to return when they were done. The arabs were not driven away by the Jews, but by the request of their own arab leaders who promised to ethnically cleanse the Jews of the region.

    1967: Egypt trys to recover its stolen land. It loses, and the terrorist state steals more land

    1967, Egypt tries again to gain territories from Israel. Calling it "stolen land" is nothing more than name calling and is completely unbased:

  • The lands Israel had pre-67 were never in modern times a part of Egypt as a country.
  • All the lands Israel gained in the wars are simply the realization of the risk that the arab nations took upon themselves when attacking the newly-found Israel.

    Rogue state attacks its neighbours and performs another ethnic cleansing.

    Israel "attacked" Lebanon after an attack from Lebanon that killed 37 people in the Tel-Aviv-Haifa road. Failing to mention the reason for the attack makes your post quite obvious propoganda. Nobody actually claims that Israel performed any ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. Some claim that Israel has not prevented a horrible attack on innocent villages, but nobody claims that Israel carried it out. Hell, even those claims were not proven anywhere. Again, you're twisting the facts as part of your propoganda.

    International pressure forces state to return stolen land to egypt.

    Israel and most of its leaders aspired to get peace from neighbouring nations. When an oppurtunity crossed by, and after both nations had experienced war, this was finally possible - Israel grabbed this oppurtunity and signed the peace accords.

    Total idiot reproduces propaganda because he is totally unableto think for himself.

    You got one thing right :)

    [ Parent ]

  • Lies? You are accusing OTHER people of lies? (none / 0) (#364)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:57:09 AM EST

    No Jew had driven any arab from his home.

    This is simply false. There are two classes of people who would vote such a comment up, those easily deceived and those eager to deceive. Jews drove Arabs from their homes in 1948. This is undeniable history and it won't disappear due to the frantic bleating of those with an agenda.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    The Rage (1.16 / 6) (#177)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:44:00 PM EST

    Hehehe ...

    Man, you must be soo pissed in your knowledge that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop Americans or Israelis.

    So degenerated, so powerless ... rooting for a society that is unable to produce anything beibg completely dependant on importing foreign goods.
    They can't even produce a fucking Aspirine - if it weren't for cheap Russian weapons these people would be still fighting with spears.
    Living in knowledge that your enemies could anihilate every one of you in about 4-5 days and are only limited by their sense of humanity... that must be scary.

    Remember Saladin ?
    What a difference a 1000 years make...

    [ Parent ]

    Your history is incorrect. (2.00 / 4) (#65)
    by felixrayman on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 06:04:54 PM EST

    You are trying to twist history to fit your view of the world. Israel lost some territory in the agreement (the Sinai Separation of Forces Agreement) that ended the 1973 war - a buffer zone on the east bank of the Suez Canal. They ceded more land taken in 1967 in the 1974 agreement (Agreement on Disengagement), and more in another agreement in 1975 (Sinai Interim Agreement). All 3 of these agreements were a direct result of Egypt's success in the 1973 war.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Debatable (2.71 / 7) (#77)
    by zen troll on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 08:57:11 PM EST

    I can kind of understand how Egypt can claim the 73 war as a victory for Egypt, and Egypt does claim it as a victory. They celebrate it every year. But then Saddam claimed his invasion of Kuwait as a victory so I guess victory can be in the eye of the beholder. Especially in Islamic countries where there is a history of such claims.

    There is evidence that the Egyptians and Syrians wanted a very short war with modest objectives. While before the war Egypt had threatened to take the whole Sinai, all they really took was a small but strategic area along the Suez. They did capture this area very quickly while the majority of the Israeli effort was closer to home, concentrated against Syria in the NW. When Israel had stablized that front they turned toward the Suez and divided the Egyptian Armies and circled around behind cutting off supply chains.

    Egypt - War Of Attrition And The October 1973 War
    On October 14, Egyptian armored columns took the offensive to try to seize the main routes leading to Tasa and the Giddi and Mitla passes. In the largest tank battle since World War II, the Egyptian attack failed when Israeli gunnery proved superior, and the Israelis' defensive positions gave them an added advantage. Mounting a strong counterattack, the Israelis thrust toward the canal and narrowly succeeded in crossing it just north of Great Bitter Lake. Egyptian forces on the east bank heavily contested Israel's weak link to the canal bridgehead, but by October 19, the Israelis succeeded in breaking out west of the canal. Stubborn Egyptian defenses prevented the loss of the cities of Ismailia (Al Ismailiyah) and Suez at the southern end of the canal until a UN cease-fire took effect on October 24, 1973. Before the cease-fire, however, the Israelis had isolated the Egyptian Third Army on the east bank of the canal.
    It was starting to look very bad for the Egyptians. But then something happened.

    The Russians had heen "kicked out" of Egypt before the war. Probably so that there would not be a reason for the US to get involved. But the Russians were threatening to get back into it and help the Egyptians by saving it's 3rd Army. They were also assisting Syria, another of their client states. The Russians did not want to see Egypt lose because Egypt was their client state and the Suez was hugely valuable in the scheme of things.

    Also the Arabs States were threatening an oil embargo against the West. So the US and Russia did some negotiating pressured Egypt and Israel into ending it. I suspect the pressure on Israel by the US was heavy. In the end the Egyptians got their strip of land. But it cost them dearly (though not as bad as in 1967). While Israel had lost 4000 men, the Egyptians, Syrians Iraqis, and Jordanians had lost 19,000 men in total. In a war where the Israelis were outnumbered 200,000 to 1,200,000.

    Not exactly a decisive victory for Egypt if you ask me. If the war had proceeded as it was going the Egyptians very well could have lost their new territory and more. In the end it became a diplomatic conflict between superpowers. We know that the Egyptians were allowed to keep the strip of land along the Suez, and later the Israelis gave up more land. But we don't really know what the other other half of the deal was. What Israel got. Whatever it was I suspect that it was worth it. As to the Egyptian victory, I suspect that anything short of defeat could be considered a victory when you are normally the losers.



    [ Parent ]
    Well put (2.83 / 6) (#89)
    by felixrayman on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:04:36 AM EST

    As to the Egyptian victory, I suspect that anything short of defeat could be considered a victory when you are normally the losers

    Couldn't have put it better myself. They came out of a war with Israel with not only a net gain in territory, but a shiny new benefactor (the US). Militarily the war was a disaster for Egypt, but nations don't fight wars for medals - they fight them (as Clausewitz said) to achieve political objectives by other means. At the end of it all, Egypt fulfilled most of the political objectives it had going in to the war. To try to claim that Egypt only ever gained territory by peace, never by war seems to me to be simply false. They got their land back by being willing to go to war for it.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Columbia, gem of the ocean... (none / 2) (#205)
    by baron samedi on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:20:34 PM EST

    Not to be confused with Colombia, a country in South America...
    "Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
    [ Parent ]
    You know (1.63 / 22) (#25)
    by strlen on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 01:58:06 PM EST

    If that "exhibit" qualifies as art, then the emb. yanking the power from it, probably qualifies as art too.

    Now, the "artist" definately has his freedom of expression, and I couldn't care less if he wanted to make a giant swastika while he's at it, but he doesn't have any inalienable right to be included in a govt. sponsored genocide-related art exhibition.


    --
    [T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.

    He doesn't have the right to... (2.62 / 8) (#32)
    by llamasex on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:41:14 PM EST

    but if Sweden wants to include him they can, and it certainly isn't the place of a diplomat to go over and break stuff that isn't his. There isn't any excusing the ambassador was in the wrong, and with that temper has no place holding office.

    Howard Dean punched me in the face
    [ Parent ]
    Not denying that (2.16 / 6) (#33)
    by strlen on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:46:06 PM EST

    It's just that people bring up Nazi comparisons and artistic freedom, but this simply isn't an issue at hand here.

    --
    [T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
    [ Parent ]
    If you aren't Swedish... (1.50 / 4) (#114)
    by mikelist on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:47:04 AM EST

    ..you might want to rethink your position. Sweden recognizes certain rights in a different light than the US. Your decision to cast this in (what I assume is) a UScentric manner makes you unable to accurately analyze what the artist (and the ambassador)did. Even from the perspective of the terrorists, suicide bombing is a tragic event. Odd how those who would extol such methods (or recruit prospective suicide attackers)don't find that course of action suitable for themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    Rights? (none / 0) (#244)
    by jmv on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:55:10 PM EST

    If that "exhibit" qualifies as art, then the emb. yanking the power from it, probably qualifies as art too. So you make a piece of art I don't like and I punch you in the face and it's still "free speech". Or maybe that guy could have burned the artist's home as a work of art?

    [ Parent ]
    What Mr Mazel probably didn't read (2.76 / 30) (#27)
    by borderline on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 02:18:58 PM EST

    The exhibit had three parts. The pool of blood with a floating portrait of the terrorist Hanadi Jararat, Bach's Mein Herz schwimmt in Blut (my heart is swimming in blood) playing in the background and a short text intertwining the legend of Snow White with the fate of Jararat. I quote the text:
    She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians [...] 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


    Exactly. It's strange but... (2.73 / 23) (#61)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:34:17 PM EST

    ...when I saw the picture of the exhibit and read the description, I interpreted as meaning that Hanadi Jararat lived in a sea of blood and was eventually consumed by it. I would expect that eventually the paper boat would become wet and sink into the "blood" adding more symbolism. Bach and the passage add even more to it.

    But of course, for me to come up with that interpretation, I have to have some sympathy and pity for the tragedy of a woman caught up in those circumstances. I have to see her as another human being, with a story other than that as a delivery mechanism for a bomb. When I see her as a human being, with many of the same aspirations and fears as I do, it does make it harder to hate her. I have to question how I would react if I were in the same situation.

    Now, that makes me feel sorrow and anger and frustration at the whole situation between Palestinians and Isrealis. But I would hardly see it as "condoning suicide bombers". Unless seeing Palestinians as humans being and victims of circumstances beyond their control (only Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat have any semlance of control over there), is the same thing as condoning suicide bombings.

    I think this exhibit tries to answer the questions many of us have everytime we hear about one of these attacks - "Why? How could anyone do that?". I certainly don't condone suicide bombings (or bulldozing houses, either), but I sure have an understanding of the mindset of a person who can do it or can be manipulated into doing such a barbarous act.

    Apparently the Isreali Ambassador has chosen not to see this women as a victim of those who manipulated her into being a suicide bomber, or as a victim of her circumstances. But I guess it's easier to hate your enemy if they are not human, and if that's the case then it's an easy to see this exhibit as condoning suicide bombings.

    Too bad....

    Oh and btw, before the flames get going, I feel the exact same sympathy and pity for the victims of this woman as well, so put the "Anti-Semitism" card away. After all, the two artist who created the exhibit are themselves Isreali citizens...
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]

    Pithy (1.41 / 12) (#174)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:33:11 PM EST

    " but I sure have an understanding of the mindset of a person who can do it or can be manipulated into doing such a barbarous act."

    Do you ?

    " see this women as a victim of those who manipulated her into being a suicide bomber, or as a victim of her circumstances."

    She was not. Anyone who commits any sort of crime can be thought of as "being manipulated or victim of his/her circumstances." - including people like Hitler, Stalin etc...
    It is a fucking lame excuse.

    " But I guess it's easier to hate your enemy if they are not human,"

    Yep. They are not human - not in our sense of this word.

    " I feel the exact same sympathy and pity for the victims of this woman as well, "

    As well? You mean there is a moral equivalence between a woman who chooses to die while murdering innocent people and her victims ?
    You have lost your moral compass.


    [ Parent ]

    Pithing on his Argument (2.00 / 6) (#183)
    by virg on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:53:21 PM EST

    > She was not. Anyone who commits any sort of crime can be thought of as "being manipulated or victim of his/her circumstances." - including people like Hitler, Stalin etc...It is a fucking lame excuse.

    No, what is lame is comparing a 29 year old mother to Hitler or Stalin. Sorry, but she fits the "pushed over the edge" model quite well, and so the comparison falters. You can pretend that people can't be pushed into committing atrocities by manipulation, but there's far too much evidence in the world for me to believe you, as evidenced by the two manipulators you named among others. You can also say that having an understanding of what can drive someone to this act is just an excuse, but if you don't try to understand why she did this, how do you expect to prevent it in the future, other than extermination, which oddly won't solve it at all?

    > They are not human - not in our sense of this word.

    And then you have the nerve to question why this keeps happening. Here's a hint: they ARE humans, and if you want them to stop killing themselves just to kill you, you'd damn well better get past this.

    > You mean there is a moral equivalence between a woman who chooses to die while murdering innocent people and her victims? You have lost your moral compass.

    Well, his statement doesn't mean this at all, but that's beside the point. Being able to sympathize with both sides doesn't make them morally equivalent, but it is a necessary first step to understanding the motivations that drive both sides. Without that understanding you'll never end the bloodshed.

    Virg
    "Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
    [ Parent ]
    No sir I have not... (2.50 / 8) (#184)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:54:01 PM EST

    My moral compass is just fine.

    After all I am not the one claiming this women and Palestinians are not human, you are. I personally find that morally reprehensible, but that is just my opinion.

    As for having insight into the mind set , why yes I think I do have a better understanding of the mind set than before I read the article and the associated links. A 29-year-old woman, a lawyer, after her fiance and members of her family are killed goes out and commits a semmingly insane act of violence. But when you consider the pain and suffering around her in her daily life, the recent tragedy that befell her and the high probability that she was very depressed and likely suicidal (she did have to be hospitalized after her fiance was killed) then it's easy to get a glimpse of the kind of person who could do such a thing. And we can also get a glimpse into the environment and mindset of a community where this kind of act is seen as an option. Compare her to the 18-year-old girl who REFUSED to be a suicide bomber a few years ago - she was from a stable family that had not been touched by the same extent of tragedy. She was not depressed and knew that is was wrong and refused to go thorough with it, even though her "handlers" detonated the bomb and killed the other girl she was with (who also wanted to back out but was too afraid).

    And after hearing and reading about the life and environment of Hanadi Jararat, I see her as all too human. All of the reations I mentioned above could happen to any of us, given the right situation. And let's not forget, no-one yet knows her motivation - did she act alone or was she coached? So the choice, it seems to me, is: did she, with no history of militancy, get a gun, strap on a bomb and walk at random into a restaurant, shoot the security guard and blow herself and 20 others up out of sheer anger and depression or was a distraught and suicidal woman manipulated by Hamas or Islamic Jihad (it hardly makes a difference) "handlers" into commiting suicide by striking at those she rightly or wrongly percieved as her enemies? I suspect its' easier to get the gun and put on the bomb vest when you have help. Thus, is suspect, she was manipulated into the horrible act by others and is also a victim. Who knows, perhaps the "handlers" threatened the remains of her family if she didn't go through with it. Problem is we don't know, and to lump her in with mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin (who despite what you want to think, were also human) without context is a bit over the top..Very close to invoking Godwin btw, but I will indulge you.

    You see, if you can see her as less than human and she can see Isreali's as less than human, and the Isreali cabinet can see ordinary Palestinians as less than human, then there isn't much hope, is there? If you must "hate" someone, or dehumanize anyone, why not direct you anger toward the cowards in Hamas and Islamic Jihad who happily brainwash people, videotape their "last will and testament", stap a bomb on them and send them off to do their dirty work. Do you think THEY would EVER put the bombs on themselves? Not on you life. These are the people that deserve contempt, not their victims.

    So yes, a person manipulated into comiting murder can be just as sympathetic as the victims. But just because I sympathize and understand her plight doesn't mean I condone her actions.

    Want a better understanding? Try reading this from Susan Fields a conservative commentator. Interesting, no? Now read this story again.

    Remember, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. (Thanks, MKG)
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]

    an eye for an eye (1.80 / 5) (#196)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:36:21 PM EST

    " this women and Palestinians are not human, you are. "

    Oh please ... At this point they are as human to me as were Germans during WW2.
    As long as they want us dead - we should reply in kind.

    The society where children are routinely taught that Jews should all be killed, is not a place where one can find a partner for a honest agreement.

    The only solution is the complete destruction of the underlying power structure and systematic "de-palestinization" of their society in the same way it was applied to Germans after ww2.
    In another words, as long as Palestinian mothers continue to hate Jews more then they love their children there won?t be any chance for peace.

    As far as your "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" it is a very idealistic but often naïve and sometimes literally inviting a disaster ?
    How would this sort of idealistic approach work against society like Nazi Germany or Soviet Union ?


    [ Parent ]

    Hello, Godwin! (none / 1) (#306)
    by cinyc on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:42:18 PM EST

    " this women and Palestinians are not human, you are. "

    Oh please ... At this point they are as human to me as were Germans during WW2.
    As long as they want us dead - we should reply in kind.

    You know that 'cycle of violence' that people are always talking about?  You're part of it.

    Stop, don't respond.  Just think about it.  Sit down, and have a good, long think.  Then read 'Mein Kampf'.  Notice the similarities between your thoughts and Hitler's ("our nation is besieged", "group X is evil", etc).  And ask yourself if that's really what you want to be like.

    [ Parent ]

    Worked fine in Occupied Denmark (none / 1) (#388)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:44:48 AM EST

    Non-violent resistance to the Nazis work quite well in occupied Denmark. When the SS tried to make Danish Jews wear the yellow Star of David, the fimailiar precursor to deportation even at that time, the King of Denmark wore it himself. Thousands of ordinary, non-Jewish Danes followed suit. The Danes simply refused to cooperate. And not a single Danish Jew was deported during WWII. The Danes did it without firing a shot. They even managed to convince many of the local occupoying SS and Gestapo men to take their side.

    Besides, this has really very little to do with the cycle of violence you are perpetuating. Not ALL Palestinians hate Jews. Sure, perhaps a lot do, but certainly not all. Just as not all Jews or all Isreali citizens hate Palestinians. There is quite a large peace movement there. There are even a few villages near Jeruselem where Jews and Palestinians live in peace with each other, even attending eachothers weddings and other celebrations. They are actually friends.

    But you hating them and wishing to kill them because you beleive they hate you and have done violence to you or your people. So you encourage or actually do violence to them - a missle attack in Gaza or bulldozing a home. Of course they then hate you because they think all Jews/Isrealis hate them and do violence to them or their people. So they encourage or actually do violence to you - a suicide bomb or a sniper killing soldiers. So you hate them because you think they hate you and have done violence to you or your people....

    Do you see a pattern?

    Now it may sound naiive, but if one side were to respond to these actions less drastically and perhaps go out of their way to demonstrate some kindness, perhaps the cycle can be broken. If the only experience Jews and Palestinians have of eachother is at the point of a gun or at the scene of a bombing, the hate will continue. But if they see kindness - simply treating eachother with a little respect when there is not a tit-for-tat surge of violence, maybe the level of animosity will decrease.

    It can't hurt to try. After all, 36 years of answering violence with more violence has not solved the problem or made either side more secure. That happened between 1993 and 1999 when there was actually a degree of cooperation between the two sides. Before the assasination and before the walk in the Mosque.

    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha

    You have heard it said an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, if your enemy doth strike you, turn to him the other check - Jesus Christ

    He who saves a single life, saves the world entire - old Jesish proverb

    Aren't you sick of killing and death? Why not simply stop? How many more innocent people on BOTH side need to die in the cross-fire before we realize that tit-for-tat killings and violence are not solving the Palestinian-Isreali problem, they ARE the Palestinian-Isreali problem. Should we not at least TRY another approach?
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]

    Danish WW2 Urban Myth (none / 0) (#390)
    by liftarn on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:50:56 AM EST

    When the SS tried to make Danish Jews wear the yellow Star of David, the fimailiar precursor to deportation even at that time, the King of Denmark wore it himself. Thousands of ordinary, non-Jewish Danes followed suit.
    Sorry to tell you, but they never tried to use the yellow star in Denmark. That story is just an urban myth.

    [ Parent ]
    And now you know why.... (none / 0) (#447)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 01:14:30 PM EST

    ...some myth. Fooled Hannah Arendt in her book "The Banality of Evil"...
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]
    More human than human (none / 1) (#352)
    by losthalo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:54:48 PM EST

    Yep. They are not human - not in our sense of this word.

    Dehumanizing them is the first step on the road to the Final Solution. Take care, that abyss might be gazing back in the near future.

    [ Parent ]
    For ghosts sake, its just art. (1.92 / 14) (#41)
    by megid on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 03:47:23 PM EST

    For thousand of years, art has been a highly mutative way to express oneself. The ambassador attacked whatever he was seeing in that exhibit; and it is not appropriate to be imprisoned in ones own thought model to attack some thing that does not harm you.

    No art is "degenerated". Some may be utter bullshit for me, some downright insulting, but none of it "degenerate art". Really, I thought we would have gotten rid of that phrase altogether with the Nazis.

    --
    "think first, write second, speak third."

    Re: For ghosts sake, its just art. (none / 0) (#264)
    by cpghost on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:22:58 AM EST

    The very purpose of this exhibition was to provoke reactions. This is exactly what happened. The purpose of art is to trigger discussions. This is exactly what we're doing here at K5 (and elsewhere).

    Art, esp. modern art, doesn't have to be artistic (sic!) or pleasent to the eye, or even tasteful. Any form of expression is art, as soon as enough people agree that it is indeed art.

    The ambassador's reaction was art too. It was his way to express his opinion on the subject.


    cpghost at Cordula's Web
    [ Parent ]

    Genocide Conference (1.44 / 25) (#45)
    by cronian on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:11:19 PM EST

    The artwork was inside muesuem linked to a Genocide conference which I believe is being sponsered by Sweden. The exhibit glorifies suicide bombers. By hosting a conference in this manner Sweden is implicitly giving some support to this view, although I would guess Sweden probably has taken other actions leaning towards this view as well. Whatever you think of Israel, etc., I believe it is the official policy of Israel that there is no reason to glorify suicide bombers.

    So Israel needed a way to indicate their strong displeasure to Sweden in the strongest possible terms. So, the ambassador destroys some art work. Would you prefer Israel bombing Sweden, trying to do some sort of embargo, or something of that nature. These actions were largely symbolic, but they helped to stress Israel's position. I think diplomatically it could be interpreted to mean that if you give any sort of support of suicide bombers, we may be prepared to use force against you, so watch out.

    As far as intellectual freedom, and destroying art, I don't think the argument really holds up too much. This was only one thing, and I haven't seen any evidence that this is in any way systematic. Furthermore, these actions don't truly diminish the ability of people to see the art as I'm sure pictures of the exhibit are now in papers all over the world. You could argue that this is making an example that Israel will destroy any art that it disagrees with, but Israel hasn't indicated any such policy, and it has been reported as such. This incident could be used to begin implement an aforementioned policy of intellectual destruction, but that doesn't seem to be the case at this time.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    Well, they could have (2.66 / 6) (#47)
    by mcc on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:28:09 PM EST

    So Israel needed a way to indicate their strong displeasure to Sweden in the strongest possible terms. So, the ambassador destroys some art work. Would you prefer Israel bombing Sweden, trying to do some sort of embargo, or something of that nature.

    Well, they could have issued some sort of strong condemnation outlining their objection to the exhibit and noting it was sad the government of Sweden took an action they viewed as condoning suicide bombing.

    Had they done this, the government of Sweden would have come across in the international press as careless buffoons.

    Instead, the upshot is that the government of Israel comes across in the international press as violent buffoons.

    Meanwhile, since the exhibit goes on unchanged, the attack was in the end basically nothing more or less than a PR exercise anyway, meaning it had no advantages over a pure media statement.

    [ Parent ]

    escalation (1.75 / 4) (#64)
    by cronian on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:55:16 PM EST

    I believe Israel has been complaining about at least tacit European support for militant Islam for a while now. I think this incident is intended to show that Israel is serious, before potentially undertaking harsher action. The exhibit wasn't just some exhibit by some Swedish artist, but was at least tacitly endorsed by the government.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    So you mean....huh?! (2.66 / 6) (#129)
    by Ninko on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:03:48 AM EST

    The exhibit wasn't just some exhibit by some Swedish artist, but was at least tacitly endorsed by the government.

    Meaning that unless you, as a government, actively suppress or censor art (e.g. installations, pictures, music, dancing and literature etc,). You tacitly support the contents or political message of any particular piece of art that is allowed to be exhibited in your country?

    Where does that leave such concepts as public debate and democratic dialogue? So sorry, but we don't do censorship in Scandinavia. Not for the sake of Israel. Not for anyone.

    [ Parent ]

    Sweden (1.75 / 4) (#200)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:58:05 PM EST

    Really ?

    So how would you explain Sweden's broadcasting watchdog decision to censure Swedish TV4 for broadcasting an Oprah Winfrey talk show which it considered "unbalanced", for unlike the overwhelming majority of programming, it was biased towards the opinion that the US should attack Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

    [ Parent ]

    What are you talking about? (none / 2) (#202)
    by claesh1 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:01:35 PM EST

    Do you have any link to back that statement?

    [ Parent ]
    There you go ... (none / 3) (#203)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:08:22 PM EST

    http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=qw1063805761187B253&set_id=1&click_id=3&sf=

    I can understand censuring offensive language but why do Swedes even have something like this obviously political broadcasting watchdog is beyond me.


    [ Parent ]

    This is not censure (2.50 / 4) (#209)
    by claesh1 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:25:55 PM EST

    The 3 channels that have license to broadcast in the regular network (not using satellite) are obligated to follow guidelines in order to obtain certain "objectiveness". For example, each political party should get fair time news coverage. When an issue is debated, both parties needs to have their opinions voiced. Programs are not allowed to show strong bias in a political issue. The formal decision is here (swedish) http://www.grn.se/PDF-filer/Namndbes/2003/sb542-03.pdf What Granskningnämnden basically says in their decision is that all longer statements in the show were pro-war. There were no longer opinions expressed that were against war. Granskningsnämnden ruled that this was against the guidelines, but could have been allowed if it was balanced with a disclaimer of some kind. TV4 was ordered to announce this decision. No censure was involved since nothing was cut.

    [ Parent ]
    No censure ? (none / 2) (#210)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:32:00 PM EST

    "Programs are not allowed to show strong bias in a political issue."

    Uh ? You mean a governmental agency deciding what is and what isn't balanced should not be considered censure ?

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.".

    You need something like that.
    Badly.

    [ Parent ]
    We already have it (none / 1) (#217)
    by claesh1 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:04:39 PM EST

    Here:

    2 kap. Grundläggande fri- och rättigheter

    1 § Varje medborgare är gentemot det allmänna tillförsäkrad
    1. yttrandefrihet: frihet att i tal, skrift eller bild eller på annat sätt meddela upplysningar samt uttrycka tankar, åsikter och känslor,
    2. informationsfrihet: frihet att inhämta och mottaga upplysningar samt att i övrigt taga del av andras yttranden,
    3. mötesfrihet: frihet att anordna och bevista sammankomst för upplysning, meningsyttring eller annat liknande syfte eller för framförande av konstnärligt verk,
    4. demonstrationsfrihet: frihet att anordna och deltaga i demonstration på allmän plats,
    5. föreningsfrihet: frihet att sammansluta sig med andra för allmänna eller enskilda syften,
    6. religionsfrihet: frihet att ensam eller tillsammans med andra utöva sin religion.
    Beträffande tryckfriheten och motsvarande frihet att yttra sig i ljudradio, television och vissa liknande överföringar, filmer, videogram och andra upptagningar av rörliga bilder samt ljudupptagningar gäller vad som är föreskrivet i tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen.
    I tryckfrihetsförordningen finns också bestämmelser om rätt att taga del av allmänna handlingar. Lag (1991:1471).

    [ Parent ]

    Sweden, Europe (none / 3) (#234)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:43 PM EST

    No you only think you do.
    If someone can end up with a lengthy sentence for criticizing homosexuality, as it is the case in Sweden, then there is no free speech.

    When it is o punishable in Sweden to wear or display actual Nazi symbols like Swastikas , you don't have a true free speech.

    When a site owner can be found guilty of hate speech when an  anonymous user posts a hateful comment on that site ,you don't have a true free speech.
    ( http://harvard.pawlo.com/reg01.html )

    Face it , in a nanny state like Sweden where government has such enormous say in just about every aspect of people's lives , this sort of nonsense is bound to happen.
    For some reason you don't understand that having a powerful and all-encompassing government enforcing strict set of rules regarding human interaction does not make for a free state.
    You don't understand that this sort of "protect me at all cost- even from myself" mindset so prevalent among Europeans these days has nothing to with freedom.

    Here in US there is no limit to success as there is not limit to failure - both are the natural parts of humans life and limiting one will always result in limiting other.

    After spending 20 years of my life in Europe, I am glad I finally made to the place where people are free ( enjoying it since 1993)

    God riddance Europe.


    [ Parent ]

    You read a lot of stuff into my comments (none / 1) (#334)
    by claesh1 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:01:55 PM EST

    The text above is the law. It is simply to read it to see what rights people are granted here. NOTE: It may not be the exact same rights as you have in the US, but we have something like it. Just like you said.

    Please enjoy the "No trespassing" signs over there.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe on your planet (1.25 / 4) (#292)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:04:03 AM EST

    On my planet when the government refuses to air a show because of it's political content we call that CENSORSHIP.

    [ Parent ]
    My point was: (none / 1) (#332)
    by claesh1 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:50:50 PM EST

    There is no screening of programs in advance. If viewer think a program is biased, or if it contains factual errors for example, he can report it. If Granskningsnämnden finds a program to be biased, they make a statment that have to be announced in the channel. HOWEVER, programs are not prevented from being broadcasted. Neither are they cut, or screened in advance.

    [ Parent ]
    More about Granskningsnamnden here (none / 1) (#212)
    by claesh1 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:36:09 PM EST

    Link in english http://www.grn.se/grn_index_2_eng.asp

    [ Parent ]
    About the "watchdog" (none / 1) (#393)
    by borderline on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:01:58 AM EST

    The government hands out the broadcasting licenses. To hold a license you must agree to certain conditions, like not airing "biased" material. In other words, telling both sides of the story is required. If a viewer (or listener) thinks something aired violates the conditions, they can complain to Granskningsnämnden, the "watchdog". Pretty much everything even remotely political seems to upset somebody enough to complain, so most complaints are dismissed quickly.

    If Granskningsnämnden finds the complaint merited, it issues a statement to be broadcasted by the company violating the conditions. That is all. The findings of Granskningsnämnden are quite arbitrary, although not political.

    As an example, that might bring this back on topic, was a finding as of 2003-09-17 by Granskningsnämnden that a story about how Palestinian olive farmers could not gather their harvest because of harassment by Israeli settlers and military forces. The story left out the Israelis' view of the conflict, according to Granskningsnämnden

    [ Parent ]

    One minor flaw in your reasoning (2.54 / 11) (#51)
    by Sleepy on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:40:21 PM EST

    You say "the exhibit glorifies suicide bombers". It doesn't. It merely deals with that issue. There is no glorification or anything remotely like it going on.

    Here's the text that was on this particular piece of art, if you care to take a look at it.



    [ Parent ]
    Perception matters (1.57 / 7) (#68)
    by cronian on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 06:44:38 PM EST

    I really don't know the details about the exhibit, but that is the view that is the offical Israeli view. Therefore, the sends the intended message, which is the whole point. Sweden has taken actions that have angered Israel.

    I don't know the details about the artist, but I don't think any of this is really about him. Although, some articles do seem to indicate he may not think so highly of Sharon.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    If you're not with us... (2.71 / 7) (#85)
    by danharan on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:00:35 PM EST

    We're talking a Jewish artist that's apparently opposed to the Jewish occupation of Palestinian territories: "the expatriate Israeli artist, Dror Feiler, rejected the criticism of his work, saying it had a message of openness and conciliation." If that automatically makes him an anti-semite, I know a lot of anti-semitic Jews!

    I really don't know the details about the exhibit, but that is the view that is the offical Israeli view. Therefore, the sends the intended message, which is the whole point. Sweden has taken actions that have angered Israel.

    Hmmm...


    • one artist != Sweden.
    • details matter
    • the Israeli ambassador is a piss-poor art critic

    The "whole point" is not about Israel, and such "you're with us or your against us" type positions reek. If we can't disagree with Israeli policy without being anti-Semites, then count me as a proud, pacifist anti-Semite.

    [ Parent ]

    Diplomacy Politics (1.50 / 6) (#98)
    by cronian on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:38:46 AM EST

    I never said anyone is or isn't an anti-semite. However, I don't believe it is possibble to support the Sharon government in Israel, and support Europe's position to Israel (I'm not saying that I support Sharon). Diplomacy is about communicating threats, and negotiating deals with other countries. By doing this I believe the ambassador, and making additional threats to Sweden in the strongest possible way.

    I don't think this is exemplify the "with us or against us" meme. They are saying that if you suicide bombers, who kill Israelis, then you are against us.

    As for the exhibit in question, I haven't seen it so I can't really say. What exactly do you think was the meaning of the exhibit? Also, Do you support Palestian suicide bombers? What do you think of Palestinian suicide bombers?

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    wow, that sounds familiar. (2.00 / 6) (#116)
    by otmar on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:54:08 AM EST

    As for the exhibit in question, I haven't seen it so I can't really say. What exactly do you think was the meaning of the exhibit?

    Well, Khomeini didn't both to read the Satanic Verses before calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. While it may be laudable that you just call for the supression and destruction of a piece of art you never saw and not the death of the artist, the see the same mentality in relying on someone else's interpretation of the work's meaning to issue harsh statements.

    [ Parent ]

    misunderstanding what I said (2.00 / 4) (#193)
    by cronian on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:14:06 PM EST

    I never said I supported destroying the art exhibit, or doing anything to its creator. However, I odn't think the comparison with Rushdie quite holds. Israel never threatened the exhibit's creator's death.

    However, the artwork was chosen for a conference on genocide, sponsered by Sweden. The piece was specifically chosen, because it is against Sharon's positions. In other words Sweden is officially declaring that Sharon is committing genocide (What he is actually doing is another matter.) Unless Sweden supports genocidie, what are the implications for Sweden's response to this?

    Politically, it might beuseful for Sharon to maintain right wing support. He recently announced he will unilaterally dismantle some West Bank settlements which has drawn a lot of opposition.

    I don't think there is any simple solution to peace in Israel. Arafat has been the leader of terrorists for a long time, and has links to ideologies not unlike Hitler. Many of Israel's leaders have had strong anti-arab ideologies, and supported all sorts of violence. Yitzak Rabin tried to put the past behind everyone, and negotiate a peace settlement. However, he was assasinated, and the Oslo peace accords eventually collapsed.

    Sharon has been building a wall, and preparing for removing settlements. Maybe, he will actually succeed in moving closer to some final settlement although I am not overly optimistic. Radical concessions to palestinians are not possible so long as they are not accepted by Israeli's voters.

    You can get into the whole notion of who has the 'leigitimate right' to this land or that land, but that is not how history works. Countries have conquered other countries for a very long time.

    China controls a number such as Tibet which could be disputed. There are few things that make the conflicts relating to Israel significant 1) Involves Jews 2) Small Israel survives despite larger, rich, hostile neighbors
    Israel has basically been the location for a sort of proxy war between America, and the oil sheikdoms. I suppose it has probably helped maintain the stability of many Arab states as it has allowed them blame their problems on the externalities of Israel.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    You missed my point (none / 2) (#219)
    by otmar on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:16:04 PM EST

    We're talking here about the meaning of an artwork which most of the people who are so enraged about it, have not seen. Let alone approach neutrally.

    They only have heard about one specific interpretation which suits some political or religious goal.

    That's the point of my comparison to Rushdie: The people who condemmed his book did not bother to read it first. The just reacted to "muhammed" + "temptation" and the word of their leaders. Now here  we have "sea of blood" + "terrorists" and supposedly "glorification". And we have the same effect: people screaming murder on the basis of a second to third-hand interpretation. And that's unworthy for a people with a great tradition in controversial art.

    [ Parent ]

    Art Exhibits (none / 2) (#222)
    by cronian on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:36:09 PM EST

    They picked artwork made by artists from all sorts of countries. They purposely only picked Israeli artists that were against Sharon. The artist may have just got cuaght in the middle, but that is what happened.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    black and white (none / 0) (#257)
    by otmar on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:50:33 AM EST

    And why do they seem to equate "against sharon" with "pro suicide bombers"?

    [ Parent ]
    cause (none / 0) (#416)
    by cronian on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:25:15 PM EST

    The bombs Sharon uses don't generally kill the people who set them off. You seem to like using the straw man. I don't support Sharon or suicide bombers. However, I'm not too optimistic about Israel, and I'm not sure Sharon is in a position where he can do much to improve the situation. Although, I dont see why there is so much objection to Israel, building a wall, and then getting rid of all settlements outside the wall. You can say Israel stole this land or that land, but where do you think Australia, or the United States or many other countries came from. Israel may have stole the land, but the only way things can become more peaceful is if people agree to accept a settlement (probably acknowledging the status quo), one side massacres the other, or one side loses its funding (America, Saudis, etc.) However, if the US cuts off Israel, then Israel could be forced to resort to using its nukes, which the US has a strong interest in preventing. The palestinians have a high-density population, and a high birth rate. Unless, Palestinians find some other country to massively emigrate to, or have decreased fertility then it will be very difficult to have a widely accepted settlement, although I don't preclude the possibility. Although, many Israelis and Palestinians have been leaving Israel, especially recently. Maybe, if migration picks up fast enough it will solve the problem. The EU could assist by allowing lots of immigration from Israel/Palestine. The only probelm is that the moderates leave, while the hard liners stay, with its obvious effects on an elected government.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    Missunderstanding of the art work (none / 0) (#464)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 10:19:15 AM EST

    However, the artwork was chosen for a conference on genocide, sponsered by Sweden. The piece was specifically chosen, because it is against Sharon's positions.

    Thats wrong, the excibition around Stockholm is not directly linked to the conferance. The art excibitions are however on the same theme. But not linked. The pieace was probaly choosed becase it was so firmly against any violence. This is the statment from this and all other installations and artworks in the different excibitions making up the "making differences" excibition.

    However if Sharon's positions is that violece is good, then maybe the art was aginast him. As all other that thinks violence is a good solutions to problems.



    [ Parent ]
    watch the movie (2.60 / 5) (#155)
    by danharan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:04:22 AM EST

    Watch one of the movie links provided by Zen Troll and make up your own mind.

    Asking me if I support Palestinian suicide bombers fits quite well in the "with us or against us" pattern. Did you miss that I said I was a pacifist? I am a pacifist that condemns the violence on both sides. Is this allowable, or does that make me anti-Semite?

    [ Parent ]

    No (2.55 / 9) (#103)
    by Sleepy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:13:11 AM EST

    "Sweden" has done nothing. Two artists, and those in charge of a certain exhibit, have put up a piece of art that has angered Israel. The swedish government have as little right to stop this as does the israeli government, legally as well as morally. Look, I know we swedes can come off as a bit naive sometimes, but most of us really do believe in democracy, free speech and all that stuff. We find it most disturbing that we, as a country, are being criticized for not violating the democratic rights of these two artists.

    Granted, Israel was angry with this piece of art. But the big question is why, seeing as none of the things they've said about this far is actually true. It does not justify, let alone glorify, the act of suicide bombing. And it most certainly is not "antisemitic". Why are they so angry? What did we do? Why do they percieve telling the story of a suicide bomber as glorification? Are their own convictions really that fragile? That they think anything spoken about this conflict speaks against them?



    [ Parent ]
    For the lazy, here's the text from the exhibit... (none / 1) (#300)
    by Russell Dovey on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:05:58 PM EST

    Note the bold text. This exhibit did not glorify this woman. I see it as more of a sad reflection of the evils of the modern world.

    Installation

    Once upon a time in the middle of winter
    For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin
    and three drops of blood fell
    She was also a woman
    as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony
    Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions
    and the red looked beautiful upon the white
    The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying
    like a weed in her heart until she had no peace day and night
    Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer
    I will run away into the wild forest, and never come home again
    Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces
    and she ran over sharp stones and through thorns
    She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain
    and was about to pierce Snow White's innocent heart
    She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings
    The wild beasts will soon have devoured you
    After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal
    ?Yes?, said Snow White, "with all my heart?
    Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"
    Run away, then, you poor child
    She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians
    as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony
    And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded
    and the red looked beautiful upon the white

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
    [ Parent ]

    In Sweden we have (2.66 / 9) (#52)
    by claesh1 on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:41:10 PM EST

    freedom of speech. Besides, who are you to classify the exhibit as glorifying suicide bombing? Have you been there?

    [ Parent ]
    Unlimited freedom of speech? (2.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Peaker on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:06:21 AM EST

    What about speech that calls for violence? Should the Israeli embassador respect unlimited freedom of speech if Israeli law, standards and ethics disallow unlimited freedom of speech?

    [ Parent ]
    no, he doesn't have to (2.50 / 6) (#139)
    by vivelame on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:44:25 AM EST

    on israeli soil.
    On sweden's, on the other hand...

    --
    Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
    [ Parent ]
    Why not? (2.25 / 4) (#143)
    by thenerd on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:07:45 AM EST

    If he isn't in his embassy?

    [ Parent ]
    Diplomatic Immunitty (none / 2) (#221)
    by cronian on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:28 PM EST

    What is the point if you can't use it. Ambassadors, especially American ones take advantage of it all the time. I know someone who visited a friend, who works in the American interest section in Cuba. She said that she didn't know what the speed limit is, and didn't care because she has diplomatic plates. In New York, the mayor got really upset because all the UN diplomats constantly park illegally in New York.

    We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
    [ Parent ]
    At least they're not running down citizens (none / 0) (#229)
    by ZanThrax on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:21:35 PM EST

    http://www.madd.ca/news/n010129.htm

    You see that little drop box? The one that says "Choose comment"? The one that you have to pull down before you can post? The "editorial comment" setting
    [ Parent ]

    That is a retorical question (2.50 / 4) (#182)
    by claesh1 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:30:06 PM EST

    This art did not call for violence. Quite the contrarary, which is evident if you see all of it. In Sweden there is law for "hets mot folkgrupp" (agitation against an ethnic group), and if you think this would apply, you should report it to the police.

    [ Parent ]
    When states collide (none / 0) (#446)
    by Hyler on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 12:29:03 PM EST

    So Israel needed a way to indicate their strong displeasure to Sweden in the strongest possible terms. So, the ambassador destroys some art work. Would you prefer Israel bombing Sweden, trying to do some sort of embargo, or something of that nature.

    That's one point, and a good one. You see, the ambassador is Israel in Sweden. He's not just an Israeli, he is the state of Israel. So it is Israel attacking the exhibition, not the person.

    On the other hand, although the Swedish government in some way pays for or sponsors the museum, they don't decide directly what should and should not be exhibited.

    Fictional phonecall:
    "Yeah, hi, this is Sven over at The Government. I'm calling about what we should show at the museum this winter. OK, Olof, what I want you to do is nip over to our Secret Storage and requisition, oh, let's say a couple o' Rembrandts, Vermeers and Mondrians. Oh, and could you ask someone to put together some artwork dissing the niggers, kikes, wops and Belgians? Talk to you Tuesday, by-bye." *CLICK*

    In Sweden, vandalism is a crime. So is racism or so called hate crimes ("hets mot folkgrupp").

    One is entitled to an opinion. One is not entitled to destruction.

    All this has made Israel look like a spoiled bully.

    [ Parent ]

    You know (2.61 / 13) (#46)
    by wji on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:24:37 PM EST

    I think this whole situation is much more artistically worthwhile than the exhibit by itself was. Mr. Feiler should just put it in his C.V. and move on.

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    Let me see. (2.75 / 41) (#49)
    by mcc on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:31:11 PM EST

    So the Israeli ambassador is displeased by an art exhibit because he interprets it as condoning those who consider the application of blind violence to be an acceptable problem solving method,

    and he chooses to react to this problem by the application of blind violence.

    Got it.

    Call me old-fashioned, but... (2.66 / 18) (#55)
    by ti dave on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:52:29 PM EST

    I really can't accept your definition of violence, as applied to action against an inanimate object.

    There's a word for it and it's called vandalism.

    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    Try a better dictionary (1.20 / 5) (#59)
    by Hide The Hamster on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:24:08 PM EST

    like the Marriam-Webster or OED.

    vandalism. willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property.


    Free spirits are a liability.

    August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

    [ Parent ]
    Who gives a shit? (none / 2) (#267)
    by Hide The Hamster on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:54:37 AM EST

    You used a terrible definition.


    Free spirits are a liability.

    August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

    [ Parent ]
    As long as you have the dictionary open... (1.40 / 5) (#60)
    by ti dave on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:31:41 PM EST

    look up "connotation", then check the phrase "use the best word for the job".

    Thx.

    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    Best word for the job is subjective (2.50 / 6) (#62)
    by ZanThrax on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:40:22 PM EST

    to the author's intent.

    When I see an act of vandalism described as violent, my inclination is not to assume that the writer doesn't know a better word to use, but that the writer wishes to emphasize the violent nature of the act. From the description of the act that we've been given, violent is certainly a fair description. Vandalism need not be violent, and, as long as you've already brought up "connotation", the word vandalism brings to mind spray painting tags on walls and slashing tires, not frantically destroying a piece of art in the middle of a museum.

    You see that little drop box? The one that says "Choose comment"? The one that you have to pull down before you can post? The "editorial comment" setting
    [ Parent ]

    Not destroyed (2.62 / 8) (#66)
    by zen troll on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 06:09:11 PM EST

    The art was not destroyed. All that happened was that a lamp was thrown into the red water. I watched the video of the act of vandalism and it was not very violent at all. The guy just walked around the pool in what seemed to be a very calm manner, unplugging the lamps, and then threw one into the pool. He did not seem to be frantic at all. I am sure the museum people just pulled out the lamp and and cleaned up any splashed red water and the thing was good as new.

    tidave was correct, it was vandalism and not violence. Personally I do think it even rose to the level of vandalism, because you can't vandalize shit.

    [ Parent ]

    Defining Vandalism (2.50 / 6) (#166)
    by virg on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:24:09 AM EST

    > Personally I do think it even rose to the level of vandalism, because you can't vandalize shit.

    If you go next door and knock down all the plastic flamingoes with a golf club, the police charge you with vandalism. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean damaging it isn't vandalism.

    Virg
    "Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
    [ Parent ]
    The presentation was disrupted. (1.75 / 4) (#88)
    by ti dave on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:48:31 PM EST

    I think that about sums it up.
    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    dictionary.reference.com/search?q=violence (1.16 / 6) (#91)
    by steve h on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:51:30 AM EST

    vi·o·lence

       1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
       2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
       3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
       4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
       5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
       6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.


    As you can see, there's no mention of animate or inanimate objects. In fact it's explicit that you can even do violence to abstract things like "meaning", "content" or "intent".

    I can only conclude that you speak a language other than English in which the word "violence" can only be used to describe acts against "animate" objects. You're free to use your own language but I'd advise you not to correct people that are using words in their proper meaning.

    [ Parent ]

    Where did I correct him? (1.16 / 6) (#109)
    by ti dave on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:57:20 AM EST

    Read my reply again, but slower this time, so that you understand it.
    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    Ahem (1.12 / 8) (#112)
    by steve h on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:41:48 AM EST

    "I really can't accept your definition of violence"

    Now, try telling me that that isn't a correction.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not. (1.00 / 5) (#117)
    by ti dave on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:55:21 AM EST

    It's me saying that I really can't accept his definition.

    Were it a correction, a threat, or even an admonition, it would've resembled something more like "If you continue to mis-use that definition, I'll beat your ass and report you to the Department of Homeland Security."

    HTH.

    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget.. (2.75 / 12) (#57)
    by JohnnyCannuk on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:04:42 PM EST

    ..that an art exhibit created by Isreali artists (who happen to show it in Sweden) is being called "Anti-Semetic" by Ariel Sharon.

    I guess Mr. Sharon is once again confusing displeasure and disagreement with the policies of the government of the State of Isreal with anti-semitism and hatred of Jews. Last time I checked, there are quite a few Isreali citizen's voicing the same opposition. Kinda like saying all Palestinian radicals are Muslim - there are quite a few Christian Palestinians as well.
    We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
    [ Parent ]

    If I understand you correctly, (1.90 / 11) (#82)
    by chunkstyle on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:31:03 PM EST

    1) unplugging a lamp and throwing it in the pool and 2) exploding yourself and taking out over 20 innocent restaurant goers are equivalent expressions of blind violence. That seems to be the position you are staking out.

    [ Parent ]
    What a choad. (2.21 / 14) (#50)
    by Hide The Hamster on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 04:37:51 PM EST

    He should have written a scathing editorial in the Stockholm Daily Social Democrat newspaper. That would have been more wise.


    Free spirits are a liability.

    August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

    Ha ha (2.40 / 5) (#130)
    by borderline on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:04:17 AM EST

    In case you're not familiar with the Swedish press, there is no such newspaper. In fact, at least 80 per cent of Swedish newspapers are explicitly right wing and the Stockholm newspaper Dagens Nyheter is well known for their recurrent pro-Israel editorials by former vice-prime minister Per Ahlmark.

    [ Parent ]
    An aside (2.80 / 21) (#70)
    by IHCOYC on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 06:49:25 PM EST

    One of history's many ironies is that the very notion of "degenerate art" was invented by Max Nordau, one of the founders of Zionism. He wrote an amusing screed of nineteenth century pseudoscience called Degeneration, in which he condemned the poetry of Mallarmé and Baudelaire as the work of "atavistic" degenerates.

    This was taken seriously in, guess where, Nazi Germany.
     --
    Fashion is the sister of Death
         --- Giacomo Leopardi

    On topic. (none / 2) (#99)
    by tkatchev on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:44:06 AM EST

    I can't pass up the opportunity to post this link.

    Unfortunately, no English translation, but you can enjoy this wonderful cover picture in the meantime.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    I'm confused by his interpretation (2.88 / 25) (#71)
    by Delirium on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 07:02:48 PM EST

    Why does he think the exhibit is glorifying the suicide bomber? Especially when taken along with the accompanying text that refers to her attack as "murder", that's certainly not how I would have interpreted it.

    And the allegations of "anti-Semitism" are getting tiresome. This was made by a Jewish artist, after all. Just because he didn't make the sort of art Sharon would make does not mean he hates Jews.

    Aren't Arabs Semites though? n/t (1.42 / 7) (#76)
    by kesuari on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 08:41:26 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    To paraphrase Orwell (2.14 / 7) (#81)
    by pyramid termite on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:25:31 PM EST

    "Some semites are more semitic than others."

    And to those who will mightily object to that, I should point out that not only are Jews and Arabs semites, they are also human.

    Imagine that. You could actually put Jews and Arabs in a location and they could interact, discuss, do business and even breed with one another.

    Unfortunately, too many of them would rather be assholes. It's a shame ...

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Examples (1.25 / 4) (#95)
    by bobpence on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:42:43 AM EST

    Like how the Jews in Saudi Arabia... oh, wait, they were all driven out. Well, in... no, there too. Where in the world would one have to go, besides the U.S., to find Jews and Arabs voting, talking, eating at McDonald's, living side-by-side in peace? You guess.
    "Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
    [ Parent ]
    Morocco? (2.25 / 4) (#97)
    by i on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:36:26 AM EST

    runs for the hills

    and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

    [ Parent ]
    Northern Israel? (2.80 / 5) (#105)
    by drakosha on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:25:34 AM EST

    Fittingly enough, the establishment that was bombed by the terrorist mentioned above was a joint Arab-Jewish enterprise, and doing quite well, from what I hear.
    ----------------------------
    "Technologists often forget the general user. Technology is only as good as the user experience. That is something that technology groups very often forget."

    --Linus Torvalds, keynote address, LinuxExpo 2000.
    [ Parent ]

    yuo got the riddal rite <nt> (1.25 / 4) (#168)
    by bobpence on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:26:37 AM EST


    "Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
    [ Parent ]
    Many places, you haven't traveled enough (2.66 / 6) (#106)
    by ckm on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:26:34 AM EST

    Turkey
    Canada
    UK
    Brazil
    Argentina
    Ethopia
    Australia

    and that's only the ones I can think of in five minutes.

    [ Parent ]

    not Ethiopia, and only marginally Turkey (2.50 / 4) (#119)
    by Delirium on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:58:01 AM EST

    Ethiopia is an example of the exact opposite; in the early 1980s the practice of Judaism and the teaching of Hebrew were officially banned by the government, and unofficial governmental killings were not uncommon in the late 1970s and through the early 1980s. That's why so many fled to Israel in a coordinated operation to rescue them.

    Turkey has around 1,000,000 Arabs, but only around 25,000 Jews, and the Arab and Jewish populations are concentrated in different parts of the country, so it's not a good example of the two groups getting along nicely, especially since there are so few Jews in the country at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Ethiopia (none / 2) (#165)
    by Gully Foyle on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:20:15 AM EST

    And after that they had a big war that caused an even bigger famine, and they changed their government. Stories about Ethiopia from the 70s and 80s don't necessarily reflect what the country or government are like now (I don't know whether you're right or not, but your examples are out of date).

    If you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong - kableh
    [ Parent ]

    Canada (2.00 / 4) (#118)
    by p2sam on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:56:34 AM EST

    Canada

    [ Parent ]
    Western Europe [nt] (1.75 / 4) (#120)
    by Dirt McGirt on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:59:23 AM EST



    --
    Dirt McGirt: that's my motherfucking name.
    [ Parent ]
    e.g. France, Sweden, Denmark? (1.42 / 7) (#167)
    by bobpence on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:24:27 AM EST

    Where synagogues are being burned down, suicide bombers exalted, and non-Muslim women raped and told it's their fault.
    "Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
    [ Parent ]
    I see (none / 3) (#253)
    by Dirt McGirt on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:57:12 AM EST

    You've never actually been there, only read the propaganda.

    --
    Dirt McGirt: that's my motherfucking name.
    [ Parent ]
    Sweden... (none / 0) (#463)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 09:53:31 AM EST

    Have you ever seen anything of Sweden? Where does you get your news from, can't find any reports of any fire in any synagogues in Sweden at all. I have never heard of and rape against non-muslim women with that kind of reason. Well most of the rasistic crimes in Sweden happen against muslims, we are ashamed of our rasists. They exist and the main target are "Svartskallarna" that is "Blackheads" e.g. muslims mainly turks and iranians.

    [ Parent ]
    Anti-jewish attacks in Sweden (none / 0) (#473)
    by liftarn on Tue Jan 27, 2004 at 07:19:16 AM EST

    There was a case two or three yars ago with a Jewish man being beaten. It was all over the news.

    [ Parent ]
    They live together most places.... (none / 0) (#288)
    by gte910h on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:43:49 AM EST

    ...that don't deal specfically with oppressing either group. Pretty much like normal people anywhere.

       --Michael

    [ Parent ]

    answer (none / 1) (#87)
    by zen troll on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:35:25 PM EST

    Oops I pushed the wrong button and posted the answer at the top level so click here.

    [ Parent ]
    My point being ... (none / 1) (#124)
    by pyramid termite on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:22:07 AM EST

    ... that it's basically a loaded word with implications that are inaccurate.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    yes, but that's not what anti-Semitism means (3.00 / 9) (#90)
    by Delirium on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:37:49 AM EST

    It's true that the etymology of "anti-Semitism" is quite plaintly from "against Semites", but that is not the definition of the term. It was coined at a time when essentially the only Semites in Europe were Jews, so "anti-Semitic" was intended to mean, and still means, "anti-Jew". It turns out that there are other Semites besides Jews, but they were and are not intended to be covered by the term "anti-Semitism".

    Sort of how "African American" does not include Egyptian-Americans, despite Egypt being in Africa.

    [ Parent ]

    Anti-semitic (1.57 / 7) (#102)
    by Sciamachy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:03:15 AM EST

    But in applying this definition, aren't we being racist against the Arabs? Like, you Arabs don't really count as Semites any more because the Jews are way more important than any Arab, right?

    Can you imagine the bitter irony of accusing an Arab, fighting against Israeli occupation, of being anti-Semitic?

    What could we call people who hate Arabs?
    --
    Fides Non Timet
    [ Parent ]

    no (2.71 / 7) (#104)
    by Delirium on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:14:39 AM EST

    This isn't being racist against Arabs, it's simply the definition of the term. Just like it is not being racist against Arabs to not count them amongst "African Americans", despite the fact that Egyptians, Libyans, etc. are in Africa. If one were to break down words into their root parts, one could find all sorts of odd things about the way we classify people, but that's not really helpful. The fact remains that "African American" means "black American", despite not being a very accurate term etymologically, and "anti-Semitic" means "anti-Jew", despite also not being a very accurate term, etymologically.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! :-) (1.57 / 7) (#107)
    by Sciamachy on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:36:49 AM EST

    It's not racist to count Arabs amongst African Americans because Arabs in Africa are there only because they invaded in a series of conquests, converting the North of the continent to Islam. If you call someone from Morocco or Algeria, for example, an arab, they'll react badly - a bit like calling an Irishman English, or a Canadian a Yank. They're a separate race and culture from those found native in Africa. North Africans from Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria can be called Maghrebins without giving offense. Arabs originated in the land between the Meditteranean sea, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, same as the Jews.

    On the other hand, I've noticed that if you say "Asian" in the US, people think you mean oriental, which of course leaves out all the people from the Indian subcontinent, Afghans, Iranians and people from Siberia. My mate Keith hates being called Asian, even though his mum's from Singapore, because Asia is such a huge continent with so many cultures and peoples.

    It *is* racist to not count Arabs among the semitic races because they *are* Semites. What do you call someone who hates Arabs? By not including them in the term anti-Semitic, you give tacit approval to anyone who hates them. Like, it's not bear-hunting season, but we're not counting the brown bear as a bear this year - fire when ready.

    When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the only anti-Semites are those who say "Ah, you're all as bad as each other - we should take off and nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure."
    --
    Fides Non Timet
    [ Parent ]

    not rascist, get over it (2.75 / 8) (#154)
    by speek on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:59:52 AM EST

    Inexactness is not rascist, it's just how our minds and languages are - fuzzy. If you insist on redefining the words other people use to mean something rascist, then you'll just be perpetuating the attitudes you seem to want to discard. Save the rascism term for actions and real intent.

    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    Israel is riding on anti-semitism (2.75 / 16) (#100)
    by joonasl on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:51:24 AM EST

    The way the Israeli politicians are using the "anti-semitism" badge to bash all their political opponents is really disgusting. People can disagree with the politics of the state of Israel without having nothing against jews as people. Not even all jews agree with the current governments politics.
    Writing a poem / with just seventeen syllables / is very diffic.
    [ Parent ]
    You wanna know? (2.42 / 14) (#75)
    by Talez on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 08:19:13 PM EST

    How would you react if you saw something like this piece of Art? Would your politics mix with culture as you reacted to the piece?

    If the artist was going to use politics in his expression of art, I'll use my opinion of politics to assess it.

    Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est

    video of incident (2.93 / 15) (#78)
    by zen troll on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:06:35 PM EST

    Windows Media dialup
    Windows Media broadband
    Real Player dialup
    Real Player broadband

    The incident is 11 minutes 10 seconds into the clip so fast-forward. It's in Dutch but the key parts are spoken in English.

    Hilarious (2.00 / 4) (#83)
    by danharan on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:36:51 PM EST

    Thanks for the links!

    The ambassador comes off as a complete asshole and a moron, unwilling to even consider the message that the artist was trying to convey. Worse (from the ambassador's perspective), it gave the artist a platform to expose his views about Israel.

    [ Parent ]

    Read da FAQ Jack (2.46 / 15) (#79)
    by zen troll on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:11:48 PM EST

    Question 16.1: Why is antisemitism used to mean anti-Jewish? Aren't Arabs Semites too?

    gee, there you go (none / 1) (#135)
    by the sixth replicant on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:22:28 AM EST

    spoiling it for everyone by bringing your big history books along.

    ciao :)

    [ Parent ]

    This book opened my eyes about these issues (2.61 / 13) (#86)
    by Pop Top on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 11:01:44 PM EST

    The Holy Land written by none other than Robert Zubrin the fellow who wants us all to go to Mars.

    From the Publisher
    What if Americans were the terrorists, and a more civilized superpower found it necessary to put us down? What if contemporary Christian ministers preached salvation through murder of non-believing foreigners, and the US government recruited child suicide-assassins for this purpose? If you were an American living in such a crazed society, what would you do? If you were a civilized outsider, how would you deal with these insane savages?

    The Holy Land poses such predicaments, and more. In an attempt to save the Minervans from oppression in the central galaxy, the liberal Western Galactic Empire has relocated the sect to their ancient homeland of Kennewick, Washington. The fundamentalist fanatics ruling the USA find the presence of pagans in the holy city intolerable, however, and they launch an interstellar campaign of mass destruction in protest. Now, cast in a universe gone mad, the primitive Earthling POW Sergeant Hamilton and his case officer, the sophisticated Minervan priestess (3rd class) Aurora, must find the way out, or neither side will survive.

    In this madcap role-reversed science-fiction satire on the Middle East crisis and the War on Terrorism, the gloves come off, and all factions take their licks. Written with wit and verve by Robert Zubrin, winner of the National Space Society's Heinlein Award and the author of The Case for Mars, Entering Space, and First Landing, The Holy Land takes science fiction back to its Swiftian roots. Rarely since Czech humanist Karel Capek aimed his 1936 War with the Newts at fascism and appeasement has the medium been mobilized to such pointed effect.


    art (1.40 / 5) (#92)
    by influx on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:52:55 AM EST

    This post was art. Do not mod down.

    ---
    The more you know, the less you understand.
    The behaviour of Zvi Mazel is totally unacceptable (2.79 / 24) (#101)
    by arcade on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:52:42 AM EST

    The press has just echoed Zvi Mazel's interpretation that this is a work that glorifies suicide bombers. Which may be one interpretation of the artwork - if your mind is totally warped.

    From what I've gathered from the press, the work of art consists of the pool of blood, the boat with the picture of the suicide bomber, some writing on a wall, describing why she did what she did (in her opinion), and the music... and finally, the pamphlet

    Now, my interpretation of this, which of course is just MY interpretation - is that here we have this woman. Who tries to justify what she is doing (the writing on the wall), who think she is doing the right thing (blowing herself up, fighting against those she views as evil people) - but the end result is that she is left dead, in a pool of blood - her blood, the blood of innocent people, and so forth.

    It's a work describing the tragedy of the war. It describes how people are made into fighters and suicide bombers, and it describes why this is just Wrong, and why this doesn't work - and that it just leads to more tragedy.

    Zvi Manzel's destruction of this work of art just shows that he's an unstable person and totally unsuitable to be an ambassador.

    --
    arcade
    Free Speech or Respect for the Murdered - (1.31 / 22) (#108)
    by BaldBass on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:55:59 AM EST

    What would you choose?

    If you don't get the point, try to imagine an artwork featuring 9/11 highjackers. Or artistic portrait of an idiot who assasinated Swedish PM (Larsen?) several years ago. Or pick your favorite -- there are too many to choose from.

    Please note that the contents of the "artwork" or whatever the "artist" wanted to say is irrelevant. Even if all he wanted to do was to condemn terrorism in his perverted way. That the installation was built around the homicide bomber  shows total disrespect towards people murdered by the bomber and its operators.

    Let's not complicate simple things. Using blood of innocent people for profit (artistic, political or anything else) is ugly.

    So in other words (2.20 / 10) (#111)
    by Dirt McGirt on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:22:20 AM EST

    Won't someone think of the children?  All aboard for Plesantville.

    --
    Dirt McGirt: that's my motherfucking name.
    [ Parent ]
    Where is the problem... (2.50 / 8) (#115)
    by aenima on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:49:50 AM EST

    ...of an artwork featuring 9/11 highjackers ? You can't say anything without seeing the actual artwork. And I don't see any justification for vandalism.

    [ Parent ]
    I get the point. (2.57 / 7) (#189)
    by DenOfEarth on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:37:52 PM EST

    The problem with the point is that once someone is given the right to prevent artistic expression on a given topic to take place, people in general are prevented from forming their own conceptions of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. The problem especially arises when a government is involved, because in theory, they are the only entity that can prevent things from being shown through a use of force (i.e. throw the artist in jail). A private gallery owner can show whatever they believe to be art, but it is absolutely disrespectful to vandalise such owners display due to your dislike of it.

    It seems one step closer to barbarism and one step further away from civility if you ask me, what this ambassador has done.



    [ Parent ]
    If anything (none / 0) (#242)
    by losthalo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:48:27 PM EST

    He gave tho artist a big platform from which to speak. You can't buy publicity like this...

    [ Parent ]
    homicide bombers (none / 2) (#223)
    by heavenstorm on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:57:16 PM EST

    That the installation was built around the homicide bomber shows
    Homicide bombers? Let me get this straight. When you kill yourself and other people with a bomb, that's "homicide bombing", but when you only kill other people with your bomb, what is that? When a bomb is dropped onto people from a US F16, without killing the pilot, what do you call that?

    [ Parent ]
    A minor diplomatic incident (none / 1) (#228)
    by ZanThrax on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:17:19 PM EST


    You see that little drop box? The one that says "Choose comment"? The one that you have to pull down before you can post? The "editorial comment" setting
    [ Parent ]

    To-may-toe To-mah-toe (none / 0) (#243)
    by losthalo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:54:36 PM EST

    Let's not complicate simple things. Using blood of innocent people for profit (artistic, political or anything else) is ugly.

    "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

    God for-fscking-bid we should complicate anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Aaaaaaaaand. (none / 1) (#245)
    by losthalo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:57:09 PM EST

    Beauty and Horror.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously.. (none / 2) (#268)
    by zambo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 07:22:46 AM EST

    What about news? Turn on the TV or buy a newspaper.. death is all over them. Does this show disrespect towards the people who have died?

    How to define when something is disrespect and when it is not. What about the movie JFK? Hollywood made money out of what was propably the most famous assassination ever. Was this disrespect?

    What about Fox news showing the dead bodies of killed Iraqis, or the faces of fallen US soldiers shown at the Washington Post website?

    Dead people get used by the living all the time. 9/11 and Bush, holocaust and Israel.. where to draw the line when using the blood of the innocent is disrespect?

    I would say using 9/11 to promote the war in Iraq is disrespect towards the people who died on that day, but that's just me.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey! (none / 0) (#442)
    by liftarn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:27:48 AM EST

    There actually is an arwork commenting on Sep 11 on display in the Making Differences exhibit!

    [ Parent ]
    One can wonder... (2.88 / 26) (#110)
    by Znork on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:16:50 AM EST

    ...about the world view of people who would consider a picture of someone sailing in blood a picture of a heroine. A portrayal of a tragedy perhaps, or a portrayal of a murderer, but a heroine? Would Sharon, Hanegbi and Mazel like to see themselves depicted in such a 'heroic' way for posterity? As a Rorschach inkblot test it certainly appears to evoke very odd interpretations, suggesting more about the observer than the content itself.

    Some aid organization needs to send a massive contigent of therapists to the mideast. These people need help.

    Too true (2.16 / 6) (#207)
    by Gord ca on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:22:34 PM EST

    Both sides despirately need to find their happy place.

    I tried to make the therapists comment my sig, but it's too long, and wouldn't be complete without the whole quote and the link.

    If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it
    [ Parent ]

    I really don't see hwo these two topic meet. (1.00 / 11) (#113)
    by dimaq on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:45:34 AM EST



    This seems to have been planned beforehand (2.95 / 24) (#123)
    by JanneM on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:14:31 AM EST

    According to Dagens Nyheter, Swedens largest daily newspaper, Zvi Mazel has stated that he planned to disrupt the artwork ahead of time, before even seeing it. The target was Dror Feiler, the artist, who was one of the first concientous objectors under Ariel Sharons command in the 1970:s. They also mention that Mazel is a very experienced diplomat that is highly unlikey to lose his control over a piece or art.

    The purpose, as the paper speculates, would to reduce the influence on the middle east situation from Europe (which traditionally has been more favourable towards a palestinian state than the USA), and deflect some attention from the growing internal and external criticism towards the wall being built on occupied territory.

    Link (in Swedish) here: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=224325&previousRenderType =6
    ---
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

    this is gold (2.44 / 9) (#134)
    by the sixth replicant on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:19:05 AM EST

    The target was Dror Feiler, the artist, who was one of the first concientous objectors under Ariel Sharons command in the 1970's

    thanks for this...

    ciao

    [ Parent ]

    Making Europe appear anti-Semitic (2.70 / 17) (#163)
    by livingdots on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:12:12 AM EST

    Yes, this was obviously a carefully planned political campaign by Likud, not just a spontaneous act of vandalism by a riled up Israeli ambassador. He did it in front of cameras for maximum exposure, probably after he had been given the go-ahead from his government. It is unthinkable that an experienced diplomat would do something like this without proper backing in advance.

    Ask yourself this: Why would a man, who has lived and worked as an ambassador in Egypt (a country rife with real anti-Semitism), suddenly blow a fuse about an ambiguous artwork made by a Jew in Sweden? And almost immediately following his act of vandalism, the Israeli government backed him up! Ariel Sharon even thanked the ambassador "for his strength in dealing with increasing anti-Semitism". What? This was an installation created by an Israeli-born Jew, who has been quoted saying: "suicide bombings are a very horrible thing and totally destructive."

    And apparently, Zvi Mazel now continues the campaign to vilify Sweden... He now claims that the Israeli embassy has been asked to move by the building's landlord, who says that he is concerned for the safety of other residents in of the building. Quote: "[The request is emblematic of] the general atmosphere of hostility towards Israel all around Europe, including Sweden."

    It looks like, after successfully labelling France as anti-Semitic, they are now trying their best to do the same with Sweden. For a Swede, it's disgusting to witness how some of the Israeli people and newspapers appear to have become completely divorced from reality under Ariel Sharon's regime. This act of vandalism, and subsequent statements by Israeli officials, doesn't make Swedes more sympathetic towards "Israel's need for security" -- on the contrary. And I hope it doesn't increase support for Likud in Israel either.

    Israelis and Americans should be very sceptical when they read about "increasing anti-Semitism in Europe", especially when coming from Israeli right-wingers. Do not forget that they benefit from having this belief spread. Ariel Sharon and his cronies don't want EU involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, because the EU doesn't shy away from criticising his destructive policies. Making Europe appear anti-Semitic serves his purposes well.

    [ Parent ]
    Sweden (1.09 / 11) (#171)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:20:26 PM EST

    Divorced from reality ?

    How ?

    "sraelis and Americans should be very sceptical when they read about "increasing anti-Semitism in Europe", especially when coming from Israeli right-wingers."

    You mean the fact that anti-Jewish crimes have risen to the levels unheard of in decades ?
    Are you blind or just biased ?

    Uh.. you are from Sweden .. never mind then - sorry for wasting your time.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly.. (2.63 / 11) (#204)
    by henrik on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:12:54 PM EST


    Uh.. you are from Sweden .. never mind then - sorry for wasting your time.

    ..which is exactly what Israel apparently tried to accomplish. By making Europe appear anti-semitic they can effectivly ignore any pressure towards any peace treaty progress from the EU.

    I don't think either the Palistinians or Israel can claim any moral high ground in this conflict. Both have commited horrible atrocities and neither seem to realize that they're stuck in an endless cycle of retaliation.

    I fear it'll be many years before we see any return to sanity in the middle east.

    Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
    [ Parent ]

    No moral high ground ? (1.81 / 11) (#208)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:24:17 PM EST

    Both sides?
    On one side you have a democracy not all that different than, say UK during their IRA-related crisis and on the other end you have a
    dictatorship which made a war against Israel its only (profitable) business and which openly denies Israel right to any existence ( Hamas).

    "By making Europe appear anti-semitic they can effectivly ignore any pressure towards any peace treaty progress from the EU."

    Making ?
    http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.05/news10.france.html

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see a high ground anywhere. (2.50 / 6) (#213)
    by henrik on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:40:23 PM EST

    The UK during IRA:s worst years did quite a few idiotic things, but I don't think it has ever suppressed an entire population on the scale Israel is doing. But that's not really relevant.

    For the conflict to be end one of the sides really needs to say: "Look, there's been enough fighting. We won't attack you any more". Unfortunately I don't see anyone doing that, both sides seem happy to just demonize and kill the other. Israel being the democracy, i hope and pray it'll be able to rise above the violence and claim the high ground. It hasn't done so, so far.

    I think the best thing Israel could do to improve the quality of life and security for its own citizens is to improve the quality of life and security of the Palistinians. Happy, secure people in a functioning society don't go around blowing themselves up.

    Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
    [ Parent ]

    high ground anywhere (none / 2) (#232)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:14:00 PM EST

    You are badly misinformed.
    It is true that Israelis sometimes do things that are shameful but equaling anarchy and violence represented by Palestinian political class ( be it Hamas or Arafat) to a fully democratic country fighting for its survival is ludicrous.

    You people over there in Europe have to understand that people like Arafat and many Palestinians don't really want to negotiate and are not looking for compromise. They were offered 90% of their land back when Clinton was trying to broken an agreement and they refused. They are willing to trade security and lives of their own people in the never ending "intifadas" for a slight political advantage on the world political arena.
    They want it all and , frankly, they don't even try to hide this fact.

    Here is a map of Palestine they are fighting for:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/pna_map.jpg
    (Official emblem)

    Here is another one:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/yasir.jpg

    An official map of "liberated Palestine" in the official Palestinian Authority schoolbooks.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide9.html

    Being comfortable with your American provided security you don't even realize that Israel for the last 50 years has been literally fighting for its own survival - this is not a question of rights or political system but rather the one of being alive or being dead.


    [ Parent ]

    Let's be honest, please. (2.75 / 4) (#241)
    by losthalo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:42:46 PM EST

    There are elements in both Israel and in Palestine that want the conflict to go on, who do not want an end to it.

    Painting either Israel or Palestine in white is like claiming that the US really fights for demacracy in the Third World. Enough rhetoric already, say something worthwhile.

    [ Parent ]
    White & Black (1.50 / 4) (#246)
    by kurioszyn on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:23:04 AM EST

    Do you even believe in the concept of responsible party , right and wrong etc .. or is it all for you just a gray blob of entwined interests without any clear moral standings ?

    Does it ever matter who is right and who is wrong ?
    After all , just like in the OJ case one can always find so called "reasonable doubt" if one tries hard enough.


    [ Parent ]

    Clear right and wrong (3.00 / 4) (#249)
    by losthalo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:34:56 AM EST

    submerged beneath the surface a long time ago in this conflict. Both sides have comitted atrocious, uncivilizod acts. Deciding on one side being "less vile" is like deciding on whether the US has done more harm than the Cold-War-era Soviet Union. It doesn't matter. What matters is the ongoing bloodshed and two nations unwilling to end it. The orphans, the mutilated, and the dead are right, and everyone else (including the victims who cry for revenge) are wrong.

    The suicide bombers are wrong. The soldiers who shell innocents are wrong. The politicians who seek to milk it for more power are wrong. The settlements are wrong, the fence is wrong, the media who push the aggression are wrong. I have a very clear idea of who is wrong, do you?

    [ Parent ]
    Uh ? (none / 2) (#254)
    by kurioszyn on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:08:10 AM EST

    If you find no moral difference between SU which managed to enslave and impoverish half of Europe and US which provided military cover and financial help for the independent ( and often anti-American ) nations of western Europe then, frankly, there is nothing else for me to say.


    [ Parent ]
    lets see (none / 1) (#374)
    by crayz on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 04:14:04 AM EST

    You take bad actions by the Soviet Union, and paint them in the worst possible light, and take ambiguous actions by the US, and paint them in the best possible light(i.e. helping Western European nations just because we're wonderful, instead of because we wanted to prevent them from going commie). No, somehow this really doesn't seem to help your credibility on the Israel/Palestinian issue

    [ Parent ]
    Ok (none / 0) (#401)
    by kurioszyn on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:56:08 AM EST

    You are insane.

    [ Parent ]
    SU vs US (none / 0) (#487)
    by pkej on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 07:32:32 AM EST

    September 11, 1973, Chile's president Salvador Allende took his life, ending democracy in Chile for many years. The coup was done with American financing and backing. The dictaorship that followed percecuted it's own people.

    That's just one of several times the US has been on the side of the bad and the evil. In fact, you can trace US financing, education and support to all the right wing fascist dictatorships which flourished in South-America the last 50 years.

    So, don't get overly naive and believe that the US is white. At best we'll find a few shades of gray in their politics.

    And I like to point out: The literacy in Cuba is higher than in the US. The former dictatorship Spain has better health coverage for all its citizens than the US. And finally, only the US and Ethiopia doesn't recognize the UN declaration on the child's rights.

    [ Parent ]

    Real people (2.00 / 4) (#285)
    by error 404 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:33:41 AM EST

    Everybody - not just those in war - is wrong a large part of the time. This does not mean that the question of who is more or less wrong is meaningless. You will never find a real conflict where one side is completely innocent - if the defender has not engaged in some form of counterattack against the attacker, that's not a conflict but a simple assault. Being kicked by a defender who is completely justified in kicking you still hurts.

    That's why conflict resolution is not easy. In a simple assault, you don't do conflict resolution, you do law enforcement. You don't resolve conflicts between saints and monsters, you resolve conflicts between people who each feel (rightly or wrongly) the other has done them wrong.

    So despite the fact that both sides have done wrong, there is still right and wrong, and it still matters. One side in this conflict has a stated goal of the complete anihilation of the other. The other has, and has had for a long time, the means to anihilate the first, and has chosen not to do so. That matters, even though both have committed evil acts.


    ..................................
    Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
    - Donovan

    [ Parent ]

    What I hear (none / 2) (#345)
    by losthalo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:51:08 PM EST

    is that you have heard and accepted the rhetoric of one side and not of the other.

    The Israelis have committed massacres of Palestinians, shelled and imprisoned them, and they keep insisting that they mean to leave, even as they create more settlements.

    The Palestinians may mean to eradicate the Israelis, given the means, but I hardly think you can say the Israeli stance on Palestinians is brotherly love, either.

    As for who is 'wrong', everyone who advocates violence in this situation is very wrong. Everyone who is prolonging the situation because they are gaining some political power from it, those people are wrong. Everyone who attacks civilians, they are very wrong, regardless of their justifications. The Palestinians have carried out suicide bombings, the Israelis have carried out massacres. And there are still those on both sides benefitting from the continuation of the violence.

    Saying the Israelis are 'not as wrong' as the Palestinians is beside the point in my opinion. They are oppressors, and they very well know it.

    Right and wrong do matter. Killing the innocent is wrong. Instilling hatred and lying about your intent to give the Palestinians (especially after what was done to give Israel its beginning) is wrong. And the continuing claim that Israel merely defends herself is patent nonsense, oversimplification to the point of idiocy.

    [ Parent ]
    I hold each side's rhetoric against that side (none / 0) (#391)
    by error 404 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:52:57 AM EST

    I assume everybody lies to make their side look good, so I ignore what Palestine says against Israel and I ignore what Israel says against Palestine.

    If Israel says "the Palestineans want to destroy us" I think, yeah, and Pepsi is the choice of a new generation. When Palestine says they won't back down as long as Israel exists, well, they may be exagerating, but that's their words, not somebody else's slander.


    ..................................
    Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
    - Donovan

    [ Parent ]

    "Right and wrong don't matter" (none / 0) (#456)
    by ulrich on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 10:18:48 PM EST

    I think what you mean to say is: there is no "right" way of killing the innocent, regardless of percieved justification.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, but... (none / 2) (#278)
    by SPYvSPY on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 09:53:25 AM EST

    ...Europe has been violently anti-semetic for some time now. You're sweeping that elephant under the rug, but no one is being fooled. Maybe you should learn about your own history during the prior century.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    it has? (none / 2) (#280)
    by Dirt McGirt on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:05:21 AM EST

    How come I who live there only hear about this in American/Israeli media and never actually see it?

    --
    Dirt McGirt: that's my motherfucking name.
    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps... (1.75 / 4) (#290)
    by SPYvSPY on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:45:29 AM EST

    ...you were not aware that during World War Two the Germans intiated a campaign to exterminate Jews from Europe, and were joined (either explicitly or complicitly) by Italians, Bulgarians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Finns and, yes, the French as well. This campaign (although defeated by both Allied forces and the German leadership's internal missteps) in large part contributed to the current state of affairs in the Middle East. That is, many Jews, feeling unwelcome as a result of having their family members burned alive and choked with poison gas and having their possessions stolen and redistributed, focused their efforts on developing Israel into an impenatrable fortress inside which Jews might have some respite from the insanity of Europe's genocidal fascism. Unfortunately, the local Arab cultures (motivated, IMO, by a sense of indignity spurred on by the success of the European and Russian Jewish diaspora in the Middle East, as well as by genuine religious fanaticism) quickly became insensed by the Jewish claim to the shared holy lands, and expressed their dissatisfaction through acts of violent defiance. (They are not followers of Gandhi's teachings, apparently). Palestinians, being on the front line of the conflict, were spurred on as a proxy army for the anti-Jewish sentiments that have been prevalent in that region for most of the history of the modern religions, and adopted more and more drastic and symbolic techniques for expressing their dislike for Jews.

    Meanwhile, many Europeans, feeling that the job was never finished but also having been slapped hard in the face and told to sit in the corner for their genocidal hate crimes against Jews, have also found it convenient to treat the Palestinian "cause" as a proxy through which they can indirectly express their dislike for Jews. By adopting a position that is sympathetic to the "oppressed" Palestinian community, many Europeans are able to put a positive spin on what is really a negative viewpoint. When a European says "it is a shame that Israel kills little Palestinian babies", the message is "Palestinians should be left alone so that they can live peacefully and develop their own community and become happy, healthy contributors to the world community". Unfortunately, Palestinians (through a series of poor political manoevers) are now held hostage by a gang of street-corner thugs that have defined an ideology that will never accept peaceful co-existance with Jews. Due to this unfortunate ideological stance, the well-meaning European support for Palestine (and Syria, etc.) is converted into: "Palestinians should be left alone so that they can freely indoctrinate their children with messages of hate and continue to prosecute a campaign to annihilate Jews from the Earth".

    Now, the question is, are these Europeans conscious that their well-meaning message is being so converted into a malicious one? If so, their message is not well-meaning at all. Well, based on past performance in (at least) the European nations above, wouldn't a rational person assume that many Europeans continue to feel the animosity toward Jews that became so extrinsic during WWII? And wouldn't a rational person also speculate that it was the military defeat of the Axis that put out the fire of that genocidal campaign, but that the embers of anti-Semitism have continued to smolder in Europe? And wouldn't you also assume that as Europe has earned back its independence from the victorious Allies, it would also begin to feel more comfortable stoking the fires of anti-Semitism in the form of more and more explicit approval for their Palestinian proxies? And that newspapers, television and art museums would be the seemingly innocuous venues for the reintroduction of the notion that exterminating Jews is good policy, esp. since saying so directly would be too extreme a position under the watchful (but waning) eye of the moral authorities that condemned Europe's genocidal attack on Jews?

    I don't know the answers. Do you?
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Oh come on (none / 1) (#335)
    by eHast on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:05:18 PM EST

    If that honestly is your "well informed opinion" then it seems you're pretty much a lost cause. You have already decided what to think and no further argumentation is possible.

    Did you ever reflect on the fact that during WW2 both the Axle and Allies were largely european? Europe was split by that war, and the part that prevailed wasn't the one ruled by anti-semites.

    Besides I think the entire issue here seem to fail to notice that the atrocities commited during WW2 are some of the most well published. For once the people who was involved in the terror has stood up and said "This is what happened, we will not try to hide it." Germany has a lot of historical monuments over the Jews who have died in those camps.

    Compare that to other atrocities commited in the world. In how many other places do you see monuments claiming "We did something horrible here, something which should never be repeated."

    For the record I'm Swedish. So I guess you can disregard my opinion since I'm obviously an anti-semite bigot.


    [ Parent ]

    One question: (none / 0) (#338)
    by SPYvSPY on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:27:04 PM EST

    Are Jews welcome in Germany today? How about Sweden?
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Me, personally.. (none / 0) (#366)
    by henrik on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:58:56 AM EST

    couldn't care less what religion my neighbour practices. So in my case, yes.

    Akademiska Intresseklubben antecknar!
    [ Parent ]
    Jews welcome? (none / 0) (#392)
    by liftarn on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:56:12 AM EST

    Don't know about Germany (but it would suprise me very much if they weren't (turks on the other hand...)), but in Sweden it's no problem. Actually Juddish is one of the official languages of Sweden.

    [ Parent ]
    *beeep* (none / 0) (#428)
    by caridon20 on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:16:03 AM EST

    Wrong answer but thanx for joining us anyway. I asume you meen jiddish. it is not an oficial language in sweden. http://www.scania.org/ssf/human/lang/0603sprk.htm a little about languages in sweden we aknowledge samiska, finska och romani (sammi,finnish and romani) as official languages next to swedish /C
    Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    [ Parent ]
    Eh? (none / 0) (#429)
    by borderline on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 08:06:57 AM EST

    So I suppose all these people have bought into some myth peddled by anti-semites.

    [ Parent ]
    Official languages (none / 0) (#441)
    by liftarn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:23:44 AM EST

    The official languages in question is Swedish, Sami, Finnisj, Meänkieli (Torne valley Finnish), Jiddisch and Romani.

    [ Parent ]
    Any Jewish people care to comment? (none / 0) (#400)
    by SPYvSPY on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:23:47 AM EST

    I'm not Jewish, myself, and neither of the other responders, I gather.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    very welcome (none / 1) (#427)
    by caridon20 on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:09:07 AM EST

    Considering that half of my relatives are jewish (one of my uncles converted around 1950) And we all live in sweden. Yes, they are welcome. this dosent mean that we dont dissagree a lot about the israel/palestine question and the iraq war question. Note however that our "split" is over the generation borders not over the religion borders any more questions ? /C
    Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    [ Parent ]
    Is this true? (2.75 / 4) (#251)
    by khallow on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:52:42 AM EST

    You mean the fact that anti-Jewish crimes have risen to the levels unheard of in decades ? Are you blind or just biased ?

    This fact? There is evidence? And is it a significant increase in crime or in hype?

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    No anti-Jewish epidemic (none / 2) (#274)
    by livingdots on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:32:56 AM EST

    "You mean the fact that anti-Jewish crimes have risen to the levels unheard of in decades ?"
    Actually, I believe that anti-Muslim crimes are far more common than anti-Jewish crimes in Europe; and most of the crimes committed against Jews can probably be explained by a general increase of racism, and the economic downfall, in Europe. I certainly don't see any evidence that any European government is anti-Semitic, or are looking to appeal their "vast anti-Jewish Muslim constituency", as some Israelis and Americans have put it. This is a belief that is absolutely divorced from reality!

    In fact, European governments are working hard to combat racism, and especially crimes committed against Jews. For example, in 1997 Prime Minister Göran Person took an initiative to increase awareness of the Holocaust among Swedish school children. It resulted in a project that included films, lecture series, seminars and a free book, translated into several languages (including Persian, for Iranian children). I can assure you that there is no anti-Jewish epidemic in Sweden, as Israel now would like you to believe.

    And even if anti-Jewish crimes have risen disproportionally to other racist crimes in some country in Europe, the logical follow-up question would be: "Why has it risen?" I believe Ariel Sharon and men like Zvi Mazel are partly responsible. It is most likely the Likud government policies that are hurting Jews, not only domestically, but internationally as well -- more than anything else.
    "Are you blind or just biased ?"
    I have an advantage over you: I have actually visited the museum, seen the installation, and know a thing or two about the situation in Sweden -- unlike you.

    [ Parent ]
    I can tell you, anectdotally... (1.50 / 4) (#281)
    by SPYvSPY on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:06:43 AM EST

    ...that I am always shocked when I go to Europe and read the newspapers there, because they are clearly drumming up sympathy for Palestinians and Arabs. I understand that many American media outlets do the same for the Israeli side of the conflict, but that does not change the fact that European sentiments (which, depressingly, are quite driven by newspapers and television news, esp. the most depraved tabloid variety) are against the Jewish side of that conflict.

    My own opinion of that issue was primarily informed by a one hour Frontline program on PBS, which (in its typically excellent and balanced coverage) convinced me that the Israeli face of the conflict is a courageous, conscientious and thinking culture fighting a seige on all fronts against the Palestinians, Syrians and the larger Arab world, which, from the inside out, is clearly a gangland ruled by thugs and ideologues and driven by unflinching, unreflective strong arm punks that are bent on destroying all Jews at any cost and without reference to any meaningful concept of humanity at large.
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
    [ Parent ]

    Nice anecdote. (none / 2) (#303)
    by cinyc on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:23:09 PM EST

    ...are against the Jewish side of that conflict.

    Don't you mean "the Israeli side of that conflict"?

    And perhaps you'd want to do some thinking for yourself, rather than rely on PBS.  I see a country created by fiat, posessing nukes, building the Apartheid Wall (oh!  I mean, the "anti-Terrorist Wall"), and systematically destroying another culture with blockades, gunships, tanks and paranoia.  Opposing them are suicide bombers (it's called 'desperation'), stone-throwers, and guerilla freedom fighters (whoops again!  I mean, "terrorists").  It's a fun situation all round.

    [ Parent ]

    Shocking! (2.75 / 4) (#356)
    by felixrayman on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:14:22 AM EST

    Yes, during the 80's the same type of thing happened with regards to South Africa. A lot of media outlets in the US took up the cause of the blacks there and refused to give equal time to the South African government's idea that blacks were inferior citizens who deserved to be herded into bantustans and who deserved to be beaten and shot when they whined about it.

    That's the same type of thing you see in Europe with regards to the Palestinians. They rightly have had their land taken away, have been herded onto reservations, have no rights of free speech, association, no right to trial, no right to due process, no rights of property and yet you see the press in Europe trying to drum up support for these people.

    It's truly horrible isn't it, that someone would ever stand up to the vicious spew of propaganda from a rogue state such as Israel? How can people in Europe sleep at night? It's a good thing that there are free nations such as the US that would never suggest that a nation with weapons of mass destruction and no respect for international law be forced to obey UN resolutions.



    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Sweden (none / 0) (#426)
    by caridon20 on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:57:37 AM EST

    Are you blind or just biased ?

    Have you stopped beating your wife ?

    save the logical falacies for a forum with people
    that cant think.

    I am a swede, i am not blind.
    I am however a litle biased. We all are, the question however is are you aware of your bias and prepared to question your thoughts , statements and convictions.

    I am, are you ?


    /C
    Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    [ Parent ]
    From what I've read (none / 1) (#286)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:41:23 AM EST

    It's never been all that hard to make Europe appear anti-semitic. Throughout thier history the Europeans have been doing that to themselves.


    [ Parent ]
    An idea... (2.61 / 18) (#125)
    by Ninko on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:36:45 AM EST

    Maybe Mr. Zvi Mazel would like to burn books that enrages him as well?

    The destruction of art is as despicable as the burning of books. It shows disrespect for freedom of speech, which is one of the primary pillars of any modern and enlightened society.

    Most of us have encountered art at some time which we found despicable and/or unworthy of the title "art". However, this does not give *anyone* the right to try and destroy it - especially not the diplomat of a sovereign nation.

    Furthermore, Mr. Sharons support of this act reflects badly on Israel and it's government.



    A few points worth examining... (2.82 / 17) (#127)
    by stpap on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:59:32 AM EST

    I am surprised at the way the mass media people (journalists) confuse the following terms:
    Antisemite
    Anti-Israel
    Anti-Sharon

    They are not the same and should not be used interchangeably. In my view, an antisemite is a racist (possibly severely misinformed) who possibly hates Jews everywhere, pre-emptivelly.

    I would think that many people in the middle east are anti-Israel, i.e. see the creation of the country of Israel as a problem in the region and would rather have it abandoned; replaced instead with an autonomous community of Jews living there. These people may not necessarily hate the Jewish people but merely oppose the creation and sustainance of a Jewish state.

    Others could be viewed as anti-Sharon, i.e. disagree with the policies of the present government of Israel.

    These terms are different in meaning and should not be grouped under the politically-loaded term "antisemite"

    Now, to the point of the article. I do not believe that vandalising works of art (or junk, it depends on the perception of the audience) is justifiable. Maybe the display of such works should be limited to adults and be off limits to minors but otherwise works of art (or otherwise) constitute expression in my view, and everyone is entitled to be able to voice their opinion. If one "side" does not allow for freedom of expression it is no different than the "other" side. They too seek to disallow freedom of expression. The two sides' views then only differ in the content of the expression they wish to ban.

    Of course, freedom of expression may become a complex issue if we consider the people's right to live with dignity. In this respect, it is not prudent to allow people to verbally abuse a community (or an individual) just because they have the right to their opinion and are free to express it. However, what constitutes harassment should be left to the courts or some impartial arbiter rather than hotheads who in rage (and with the outmost inner conviction that they are right) see it fit to act in a certain way. Personally, I can empathise with the diplomat and understand his reaction but that does not mean that I approve of it.

    It's not the same, but hell... (2.00 / 4) (#136)
    by trezor on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:24:18 AM EST

    When people aren't able to to defend their irrational belief that the jewish people were given the country of Israel by GOD himself (only to later abbandon it..).

    When someone is uttering constructive criticism or citing factual data, in any way giving rise to a negative view of the country of Israel.

    Then it is alot easier to claim that they are antisemites, than to actually defend a flawed view.

    And yes. I am anti-sharon, probably a bit anti-israel, but I am not a antisemite. As parent poster said, there is a big difference.


    --
    Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news

    [ Parent ]
    Strange Scapegoat (2.42 / 7) (#140)
    by CheeseburgerBrown on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:49:23 AM EST

    I am surprised at the way the mass media people (journalists) confuse the following terms:
    Antisemite
    Anti-Israel
    Anti-Sharon


    I'm pretty sure that particular case of blurred boundaries is not the doing of the media, as you suggest. The Jewish community groups in my city have been pretty instrumental in mixing the idea of Anti-Israel as no different than Anti-Semitism. So has Sharon's government, if you follow the releases following acts of anti-Semitism/vandalism/Terror.

    Disclaimer: I am not an anti-Semite. I love Semites. I have them over for tea all the time. They're super.


    ___
    I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
    [ Parent ]
    You're blaming the wrong people (2.90 / 10) (#144)
    by llamasex on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:17:24 AM EST

    "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," Mr Sharon told a cabinet meeting Sunday.

    The media isn't at fault putting the Anti-semitism out there Sharon is the one mislabeling it.

    Howard Dean punched me in the face
    [ Parent ]

    the darn thing is, it is even bad art (2.40 / 5) (#160)
    by mami on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:36 AM EST

    I saw this pool with the tiny boat and its big photo on TV, and it's IMO quite a poor piece of art - really not worth to be abused for political statement by anyone or any side.

    It was displayed though be a conference that wanted to make a specific political statement, so, no wonder.

    Pretty poor performance by all invovled.

    [ Parent ]

    He-he. (2.75 / 12) (#128)
    by i on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:03:46 AM EST

    One Dmitry Wasserman, an artist, has made another modification to the artwork in question. He floated his own boat in the pool, this time with a photograph of Anna Lindh's alleged murderer. (link)

    and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

    A further modification (2.25 / 4) (#215)
    by pyramid termite on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:51:28 PM EST

    Turn the blood to raspberry jello and float a picture of Bill Cosby on it.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    but the real question is.... (1.00 / 18) (#137)
    by mikesum32 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:34:42 AM EST

    What does a picture of Michael Jackson floating in a pool of blood have to do with anything?

    while in Russia... (2.53 / 13) (#138)
    by VasyaPoup on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:38:55 AM EST

    ... a situation is much worse.

    Here is a short account of the accident in Sakharov Museum in Moscow, where several pieces of art were vandalized for being "antichristian". The vandals were not charged, but the director of the museum was!

    Here are several articles on the rising christian fundamentalism in Russia (all material in russian).

    Russia (1.25 / 4) (#201)
    by kurioszyn on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:01:25 PM EST

    Hmm ..Russians and Chinese can't stand dissenting voices.
    Where is the news ?


    [ Parent ]
    while I'm not in favour of fundamentalism... (none / 1) (#276)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:40:32 AM EST

    If art has a political component, it opens itself to political criticism and may well be subject to political violence.

    Many common people feel that the art world mocks them and then hides behind its privileged status to avoid retaliation. This is a constant theme of the tension between fundamentalists and artists in America. I myself make my living as an artist, but it's precisely the smug, simplistic views of many of my fellow artists that have made me disinclined to support them blindly.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    And in India, (none / 1) (#309)
    by For Whom The Bells Troll on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:34:23 PM EST

    ... in a stunning display of its will and commitment towards fighting evil imperialist forces who continue to denigrate the Motherland and its proud sons, the Shiv Sena has moved in fast to not only blacken the face of an elderly Sanskrit scholar who didn't write an evil book, force its withdrawl, and make the actual author issue an apology for daring to go against our heroes, but also ransacked and destroyed the library where other similar texts have been stored. (link shamelessly stolen from K5's Indic counterpart)

    ---
    The Big F Word.
    [ Parent ]
    Weird reactions from all sides (2.33 / 15) (#146)
    by boxed on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:49:20 AM EST

    The piece of art figures a boat with a picture of a palestinian suicide bomber floating on a sea of blood. How in gods name can anyone think that "sealing on a see of blood" is a glorifying image?

    On another note, Sharon calls this piece of art "antisemitic", which I find weird in several ways: the first is mentioned above, the second is that the palestinians are also a semitic people! The only way it can be seen as antisemitic is that you think it's stupid of palestinians and israelis as semites to try to kill eachother. In this way this piece of art is also antihumanist, because it shows that all humans are idiots for killing eachother for no good reason, and how we let the spiral of violence continue.

    Only half (2.50 / 8) (#148)
    by e8johan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:14:54 AM EST

    What you descibe is only half the exhibit. The scene also consists of a text, a poem, about the bomber.

    [ Parent ]
    true, but the poem was largely ignored (none / 0) (#263)
    by boxed on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:05:19 AM EST

    ..by the press at least. In any case the poem sucked imho. :P

    [ Parent ]
    being anti-semetic (2.66 / 6) (#164)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:12:27 AM EST

    does not mean that you have to be something other than semetic.

    Black folk can be anti-black, Jews can be anti-semetic/jew, WASPs can be anti-WASP.

    being anti-something is just an idea, it does not preclude one from the group being descriminated against to also hold those ideas.

    HOWEVER, I would say that since MOST palistinians are angry at the Israelis, it is not anti-semetic, but anti-Israeli.

    [ Parent ]

    on top of it all (2.57 / 7) (#216)
    by Commodore Sloat on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:58:00 PM EST

    One of the artists is himself a Jew.  Just for the record, the artists both stated quite clearly that this was not meant to "glorify" the woman but to underline the magnitude of a mother of two doing something so violent and destructive.  The Israeli papers said the piece was titled "Snow White"; its full title was "Snow White and the Madness of Truth."  The Jewish artist unequivocally stated his opposition to suicide terrorism.  Calling the artists antisemitic and calling the exhibit pro-terror (I believe that was the Jerusalem Post's headline) displays a profound misunderstanding -- in fact an outright refusal to understand -- that can only be intentional.  The Israeli government wants to be the sole arbiter of what counts as "anti-semitic" and of what counts as "pro-terrorist."  

    [ Parent ]
    you are a nutbar (none / 2) (#275)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:36:46 AM EST

    the palestinians are also a semitic people!

    You're right - accepted usage doesn't define the content of a word. If you want to find out what a word means, decontextualized etymology always gives you the whole story.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    point (2.50 / 10) (#147)
    by F a l c o n on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:51:34 AM EST

    "You can have your own view of what this piece of art is all about, but it is never, never allowed to use violence and it is never allowed to try to silence the artist," [Kristian Berg] said.

    Is there really anything else to add to the discussion?
    --
    Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster

    A bit hypocritical isn't it? (1.72 / 11) (#157)
    by cestmoi on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:53:39 AM EST

    An "artist" makes a piece glorifying a violent act and then has the gaul to say
    but it is never, never allowed to use violence?


    [ Parent ]
    Why don't people use resources available to them? (2.14 / 7) (#170)
    by rubicon7 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:14:31 PM EST

    I think you meant:

    gall
    2 : brazen boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence

    not

    Gaul[1]
    Usage: geographical name
    ancient country W Europe comprising the region now occupied by France & Belgium & at one time including also the Po valley in N Italy


    A dictionary can be a good friend, if you just look him up once in a while!


    [ Parent ]
    I guess we know who the better man is... (2.20 / 5) (#172)
    by fenix down on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:23:08 PM EST

    And here I was about to make the cheap innapropriate remark about "having de Gaul".

    [ Parent ]
    There's this demon (none / 2) (#279)
    by error 404 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 09:59:37 AM EST

    who's assigned to dealing with the French dead.

    He's very, very tired of the other demons saying "You've got a lot of damned gaul".


    ..................................
    Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
    - Donovan

    [ Parent ]

    I don't get it... (2.66 / 6) (#179)
    by poopi on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:08:45 PM EST

    ...hows is this piece "glorifying" a violent act? I can't make the connection. - As someone posted above, if the picture was that of Sharon would the piece have meant something else? I suppose an image of the suicide bomber in the Soviet style - hand outstreched pointing to the future - would be "glorifying" .... but this... I don't get it... not the art nor the reaction to it.

    -----

    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

    So what? (2.42 / 7) (#187)
    by ajdecon on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:23:49 PM EST

    The artist expressed himself, in a way that might be open to interpretation in some way (however offensive it might seem). He made a statement about violence.

    The ambassador attacked the work of art directly: an act of violence, if against an inanimate object. There's a difference.


    --
    "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
    -Richard Feynman
    [ Parent ]
    so? (none / 0) (#410)
    by F a l c o n on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 02:03:02 PM EST

    And your problem is what, exactly?

    He was pretty specific. Allow me to point out the key word: "it is never, never allowed to use violence".

    See, there is a difference between doing something and talking about it. I know it's hard to grasp for some people, that's why we are having these ridiculous lawsuits about violent video games and whatnot.
    Nevertheless, me saying "I am killing the pope right now", or photoshopping a picture that shows said act is still a different thing then me going out and doing that. I've chosen an example you can verify. Since I used present tense, just check whether the pope is still alive tomorrow.
    --
    Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
    [ Parent ]

    How can it be glorifying. (none / 0) (#462)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 06:49:36 AM EST

    The installation is horrible, it makes one feel despite and as the artists says it make you wonder how could it became so wrong. How can someone so innocent change into being so cruel? How is this possible? The installations does in strong words condemn her actions, "Killing innocents" it does also condemn the Israeli actions killing her husband.

    [ Parent ]
    It was Premeditated vandalism (2.73 / 15) (#151)
    by llamasex on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:48:51 AM EST

    According to papers the ambassador read about the piece in Friday's newspapers and then decided to take action against it.

    Howard Dean punched me in the face
    Very interesting, do you have a link? (nt) (2.33 / 6) (#178)
    by bsimon on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:06:57 PM EST


    you have read my sig
    [ Parent ]

    Here (3.00 / 14) (#181)
    by borderline on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:14:59 PM EST

    haaretzdaily.com:
    The envoy told Haaretz that his protest was not spontaneous; he had planned the act after learning about the exhibit in the local press. He said he could not understand how an exhibition devoted to preventing genocide can feature a work that casts the murderer of 22 Israelis as Snow White. "In my eyes, that's not art; it's abominable," he said.


    [ Parent ]
    Don't See The Big Deal (2.07 / 14) (#153)
    by n8f8 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:59:03 AM EST

    In fact I think that fountain would be a wonderful addition to my back porch. Right next to my "black people swinging in a tree" mobile and my "Japanese raping their way across the Asian continent" decorative tile. Its all art right? Why would anyone get offended?

    Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
    But (2.00 / 5) (#162)
    by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:04:59 AM EST

    the Japanese DID rape their way across asia.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: but (none / 0) (#255)
    by cehardin on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:13:34 AM EST

    "the Japanese DID rape their way across asia."

    Exactly, and the Chinese may take offense to it.  I guess it all depends on who did the art!

    If you took the same piece of artwork depicting Japanese atrocities in China, then said one was from a Chinese artist and one was from a Japanese artist....

    Even though it's the exact same piece, the Chinese would probably take it as offensive if it came from a Japanese artist.  But if it came from a Chinese artist it would be righteous.  That's my guess.

    [ Parent ]

    Shurley you mean goatse.cx!? (n/t) (none / 1) (#161)
    by Morosoph on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:03:03 AM EST



    A solution? (2.91 / 24) (#169)
    by borderline on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:02:08 PM EST

    Why don't we replace the glorifying picture of Jaradat with an equally glorifying picture of Sharon? Surely that would please the Israelis.

    Not really. (2.30 / 10) (#191)
    by beavan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:55:16 PM EST

    The woman shown in the pool of blood was very proud of her act. Her mother says she's proud in her, and almost any palestinian out there is proud of her. Do you think sharon would have been proud if his picture was on that boat? Think again. Trying to compare sharon to a suicide bomber is at best trying to make a provocation. That being said from a very active opposer to sharon.

    I love burekas in the morning
    [ Parent ]
    you missed the point. (2.83 / 12) (#214)
    by Wah on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:45:47 PM EST

    The woman shown in the pool of blood was very proud of her act.

    is not equal to.

    you think sharon would have been proud if his picture was on that boat?

    --

    The question would be whether or not Sharon is proud of his actions, and how/if those actions have contributed to the 'river of blood'.

    It it had been his picture, the reaction would likely have been the same, if not stronger, because then it wouldn't have been seen as 'glorifying' but as 'blaming' (albeit neither seems appropriate when the exhibit is taken in full context).  Interesting thought art experiment, though.
    --
    "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
    ..or simply
    [ Parent ]

    V. Good idea, only thing (none / 0) (#377)
    by ragnarok on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:46:37 AM EST

    Should Ariel Sharon wear Revlon lipstick or something else? It's a sponsorship thing -
    /* you are not expected to understand this. */


    "And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies
    [ Parent ]

    easy answer (2.09 / 22) (#173)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:27:31 PM EST

    it seems artists these days reach for profundity by attempting to shock us: sharks in formaldehyde, crosses in piss, madonnas made out of elephant dung

    it is only inevitable that the shock-as-art would move into highly charged politics... pissing on religion gets boring after awhile i guess

    so why can't these "artists" simply say that the ambassador's destruction of this artwork is merely a post-modern performance piece, and celebrate his act as the very zenith of nihilistic art-as-show

    perhaps the ambassador and the artist can get together and announce to the world they were in cahoots all the time, that it was a joke on behalf of the international media: postmodern medium-as-mesage art! the press release is our canvas!

    the hoi polloi can scratch their heads, the art snobs can applaud, and everyone can move on

    "art" nowadays seems just kind of stupid and vaguely bemusing anyways, i mean isn't it just a bunch of bored rich western art dorks mutually masturbating themselves in a nihilistic search to destroy meaning? if "art" is only created by nihilistic snobs for consumption by nihilistic snobs, it ceases to have validity to the real world i think

    so my little fantastic bullshit here fits in perfectly with what they are doing anyways... it's all perfectly meaningless


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    Contemporary art is "conceptual. . . " (2.37 / 8) (#188)
    by IHCOYC on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 02:31:55 PM EST

    . . . which appears to mean that it encodes a facile, vaguely radical political cliché by using pushbutton reaction imagery or recycled references to pop culture. This way, viewers can look at the pieces, decode them and get the slogan, pat themselves on the back, and say, "Oh, what a hip boy am I."

    Those who are meant to be excluded by the codes will still scratch their heads and wonder.

    It's actually a form that can occasionally achieve clever results, but that's all it can aspire to. The Age of Charlatans, it seems, is not yet over.
     --
    Fashion is the sister of Death
         --- Giacomo Leopardi
    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 1) (#239)
    by losthalo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:31:24 PM EST

    the facile nature of the messages we find in contemporary art derives mainly from the fact that anything deeper is missed by most people.

    Few people are willing to credit two simultaneous meanings for a piece. For instance, here, the piece must either be for the suicide bomber, or against her. Few will consider that it might be both, neither, or other things as well.

    We are too lazy for real art.

    [ Parent ]
    My goodness, I agree with something CTS said [nt] (none / 2) (#226)
    by esrever on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:50:21 PM EST



    Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
    [ Parent ]
    Duchamp and Dali (none / 1) (#238)
    by losthalo on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:27:59 PM EST

    did the "I'm going to shock you into thinking about art" thing so much better, and so long ago.

    However, I will say that the piece which inspired this article does one thing well: presenting ambiguity.

    We are so wrapped up in finding the 'meaning' of this piece, the standpoint it is trying to support, that it is easy to miss that it can easily be read as either support for the suicude bomber it features, or as a blasting attack upon her. (Perhaps it is neither, merely an accounting of what happened?)

    [ Parent ]
    perhaps they were (none / 0) (#248)
    by khallow on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:32:01 AM EST

    perhaps the ambassador and the artist can get together and announce to the world they were in cahoots all the time, that it was a joke on behalf of the international media: postmodern medium-as-mesage art! the press release is our canvas!

    Seems too amateurish to be planned, but perhaps they were in cahoots. Sharon's administration certainly gets to make a convenient political point right before a conference on genocide.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    What a surprise... (2.46 / 13) (#192)
    by divinus on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:01:34 PM EST

    Israel is physically attacking nonviolent demonstration against it, calling any opposing viewpoint antisemetic, and showing general intolerance...

    Whats new in weather?

    .. an act of art can also be a political act... (1.00 / 11) (#206)
    by wakim1618 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:21:02 PM EST

    And we try to enforce this thing called the freedom of speech or expression or something like that. So what. Ok, we hold Israel to higher standards than the arab dictatorships.

    Ok, we could make believe like the media and present the other side of the story? Let's put out a call for art that says "We love murderers. We admire liars. And liberals adore us in spite of themselves."


    If I wanted dumb people to love me, I'd start a cult.

    Nah, waste of time! (none / 0) (#376)
    by ragnarok on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:41:43 AM EST

    Let's put out a call for art that says "We love murderers. We admire liars. And liberals adore us in spite of themselves."
    Nah! Much more fun to put out a call for art that says,
    "We love porn stars. We admire cocksuckers. And liberals adore us in spite of ourselves!"

    That way you might actually get some!


    "And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies
    [ Parent ]

    Quasi-off-topic (2.18 / 11) (#211)
    by cgp314 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 05:33:12 PM EST

    Richard Dawkin's thoughts on Suicide Bombers


    --
    In London? Need a physics tutor or know someone who does?
    simplistic article (none / 0) (#233)
    by danharan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:19:02 PM EST

    Sorry, but when I got to this paragraph, I didn't want to keep reading:

    Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive
    to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private
    virgins in the next.

    Aren't there married suicide bombers? Aren't some fairly attractive women?

    I scanned the rest of the article, and it just went on to make silly generalizations about religion.

    Maybe, just maybe, if we had a bit more accurate understanding of why some people are willing to blow themselves up, we could prevent the problem. But so long as we resort to such pitifully inadequate pseudo-psychology, we don't stand a chance.

    [ Parent ]

    spite tradeoff (none / 1) (#247)
    by khallow on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:27:34 AM EST

    Dawkins unfortunately doesn't get it. Even a rational actor may chose to sacrifice its life. For example, many people value their group identification more than their own life and can be quite rational about it. So self-sacrifice doesn't imply irrationality.

    Frankly, the Palestinian/Israeli Jew conflict seems to be a nasty evolutionary struggle where for many people on both sides, the relative gain or loss of your group matters far more than considerations of ethics, stability, etc. The Israelis have the advantage of technology and force on their side. Once, ethics no longer matter and particularly given that the other side is much stronger militarily, then Palestinian suicide bombing becomes an acceptible tactic. You sacrifice your life with a good chance of causing harm to the rivals.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    Just Goes to Show The Man's Attitude (2.66 / 12) (#220)
    by Eater on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:26:02 PM EST

    When I see blood, I think to myself - "what a terrible human tragedy." When this ambassador sees blood, he seems to think that it's a "call to genocide." This just goes to show the attitude these people are evolving towards suffering and death. Then again, it's probably more a product of the environment than anything else, but it's still terrible to contemplate.

    Eater.

    you know... (none / 0) (#273)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:32:14 AM EST

    When this ambassador sees blood, he seems to think that it's a "call to genocide."

    Based on the Arab media, he's as close as you are.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    This isn't about the Arab media (none / 0) (#342)
    by Eater on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:20:42 PM EST

    In fact, this isn't even about the Arabs. The Arabs weren't destroying an art exhibit, nor were they making or displaying said exhibit.

    Eater.

    [ Parent ]
    uh (none / 0) (#398)
    by Battle Troll on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:33:55 AM EST

    this isn't even about the Arabs

    An exhibit making a statement about a smiling Palestinian suicide bomber is a statement about an Arab.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    That's just obnoxious (none / 0) (#413)
    by Eater on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:04:52 PM EST

    Why pretend to be deaf and blind, unless you actually are? And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, I think you understand completely.

    Eater.

    [ Parent ]
    don't get your dander up. (none / 0) (#415)
    by Battle Troll on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 08:07:07 PM EST

    And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, I think you understand completely.

    My point is that Israelis are likely to read any text with the words "Arab" and "suicide bomber" in it rather differently than, say, a North American or Western European.

    Obviously, a lot of Israelis feel that people hate them and their country. This is certainly true of most Arabs. I mean, in Egypt, there was a television film based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Day-to-day, the Israelis never know if they're going to make it home in one piece. Right-wing Israelis are also inclined to feel that Western Europe roots for the suicide bombers. You call this "sad," and maybe it is; but on the other hand, maybe it's even more "sad" that the Israeli Jews have been made to feel that the mere existence of their country is regarded as intolerable.

    Where I'm from, most college students are reflexively anti-Israeli. Seeing this among economic and political elites, I would imagine that Israelis of all stripes feel beset by enemies.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    Well, that makes much more sense (none / 0) (#419)
    by Eater on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:22:40 PM EST

    Thank you for clarifying that you hold essentially the same viewpoint on the matter - sad or not, it is a difference of attitude, as I originally pointed out. I wasn't even touching on what causes this difference of viewpoint, nor was I judging it, just remarking on its unfortunate inhumanity.

    Eater.

    [ Parent ]
    Depends on who's making the statement (none / 0) (#283)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:22:57 AM EST

    Since suicide bombers tend to target school busses full of children.... I don't think a "call to genocide" is so far off.

    In fact, many of the terrorist groups who sponsor the suicide bombers publicaly advocate genocide as part of thier agenda. If you listen to what is on thier political platform it's not just a free Palestinian State, it also includes "kill every many, woman and child and drive them into the sea". If that isn't a "call to genocide" then I don't know what is.

    Now, I don't know what the artist was trying to portray but I can certainly see how some-one could interpret it as a glorification of the suicide bombers.

    Don't get me wrong, the ambassador shouldn't have blown his cool and vandalized the thing. Part of being an ambassador means not letting your buttons get pushed. I don't blame him for getting pissed and WANTING to vandilize it though. Heck from the sounds of the exhibit I would WANT to vandalize it. However, I'll settle for calling the artist a moron and never patronizing any of his stuff..... which is what the ambassador should have done.

    [ Parent ]

    whoa... read up. (none / 0) (#295)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:17:01 AM EST

    First, if you don't know what the artist was trying to say, go and check it out yourself, or watch the video streams and read the text that accompanied the exhibit.

    Second, the ambassador didn't do this on impulse. It was planned when he heard about the exhibit. He knew the subject matter, but not the meaning.

    Anyone that it willing to examine the facts (including the actual meaning of the exhibit) will likely conclude that it is the ambassador, rather than the artist, that is a moron.

    [ Parent ]

    I read the text (none / 0) (#297)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:40:40 AM EST

    .... and quite frankly I can't make heads or tails of what the artist was trying to get across.

    I can see how some-one could interpret it as a glorification of the suicide bombings.... even if that isn't what the artist intended (and quite frankly I can't tell what the artist intended.... but that is part of the problem with modern art).

    [ Parent ]

    well... (none / 0) (#304)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:25:43 PM EST

    Sleepy gave us a link to the text of the exhibit.

    What I get out of it: her lover was killed before they could get engaged. She had a nervous breakdown and decided revenge was the only option.

    You could say she was drowning in blood even before she blew herself up.

    There is sadness, compassion and irony in this text.  How any educated European would mistake it as a call to genocide, however, is beyond me.

    From what I know of many Jews that do not support the occupation of Palestine (which would include this artist), they believe that the occupation is dehumanizing both themselves and the Palestinians. Only by refusing to see the humanity in your opponent can you keep blowing them up. To seek to humanize the perpetrator is to try and stop the spiral of violence.

    But a country that is locked in that spiral does not take kindly to people pointing out that their opponents, however gruesome their tactics, are still human- which explains the ambassadors' premeditated vandalism. That the exhibit was made by a Jewish artist critical of the occupation was all the information necessary to him.

    We can react violently when we are told we have blood on our hands; the very act of murder forces us to see things in black and white. Hence, too, the Snow White comparison (her skin was most certainly not white). The same psychological dynamic is at play with the Palestinians who blow themselves up.

    It is easier to blow these people up if we believe they are soulless and want to push you into the sea. It's tragic if you think of what hurt pushed her to this.

    Similarly, the West loudly proclaims Al Qaeda wants to destroy our civilization. But what motivates the suicide bombers? The West's support for Israel, and the US presence on "Holy Land" (Saudi Arabia).

    Had that woman's lover not been killed, she likely would not have killed herself. Were the US not in Saudi Arabia, and helping Israel, hijackers would be praying or playing with their children by now.

    It's an uncomfortable thought to imagine we have some guilt in a situation- even while this does not make their actions "right", we are not Snow White either.

    This logic may seem useless, but it is at the root of the success of such movements as Sarvodaya in Sri Lanka, where they are successfully waging peace against two terrorist groups- government and Tamil Tigers. It only took them a few years to demotivate suicide bombers, and there is now political space for compromise, even though leaders can drag their feet.

    Anyhow... this is becoming a bit of a rant. But I believe this is a good interpretation of what the artist was trying to convey.

    [ Parent ]

    Forest and Trees (none / 0) (#308)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:33:44 PM EST

    "Similarly, the West loudly proclaims Al Qaeda wants to destroy our civilization. But what motivates the suicide bombers? The West's support for Israel, and the US presence on "Holy Land" (Saudi Arabia)."

    That's what they want today, what do they want tommorrow? and the day after? Bin Laden has made it perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look that his long term goal is to destroy the "infidel" and subjugate the entire world to Sharia law.

    Similarly, many Palestinian terrorists publicize to the West that they merely wish an independent Palestine in the occupied territories.... when internaly they are preaching genocide to thier own members.

    Remember that Hitler too started out with limited (and some would say) reasonable demands. What happaned once he achieved those? I don't want to fall into the trap of comparing everything to 1930's Germany. The point I'm trying to make is that people need to look at not just the immediate stated demands of a group...but what it's long term agenda is... and what it is willing to do in order to achieve it.

    It's true that the current Sharon Administration takes a pretty hard stance with the Palestinians. What's really telling, though, is that the previous Israeli administrations were willing to concede to 90% of the Palestinian demands. The Palestinian Leadership rejected it..... they'd rather piss away thousands of innocent lives (many thier own people) then accept any sort of compromise. That doesn't sound to me like an agenda which is willing to peacefully coexist with the Israeli people.

    [ Parent ]

    give an inch... (none / 0) (#312)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:14:27 PM EST

    That woman made a big deal about her nation, but at the root, she was traumatized by the loss of her lover. I wouldn't take that talk so seriously.

    For the long-term agenda of the fundamentalist muslims, look to their history, especially their roots in Iran. That toxic brew of nationalism, religion and anti-Americanism has its roots in the 1953 coup.

    Comparisons with Hitler are unnecessary and could easily be applied by the other side: the Jews have been consistently bulldozing houses... it doesn't take much imagination to suppose they won't stop until no one is left.

    Similarly to the Palestinian "leadership", the official Jewish decision-makers are willing to "piss away" thousands of innocent lives.

    But there are groups comprising both Israeli and Palestinians trying to build peace, e.g. Givat Haviva. Others like Sabeel are working and trying to bridge the gap. From all accounts their movement is growing, and peace is possible- even if it takes another 20 years (though I strongly suspect it will be less). They are doing as the Sri Lankans did: ignoring the leaders, building peace at the grassroots.

    Given violence's history of failure and reconciliations consistent victories, it would be naive to think that the current Jewish policies will work.

    [ Parent ]

    Well depends on how you define "work" (none / 1) (#315)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:32:04 PM EST

    I agree that there won't be a peace accord under the current Sharon administration policies. However, it probably is a neccesary response to the current intifadahs increased level of violence. Peace doesn't really work as long as one side is convinced to keep fighting.

    Hopefully what the Sharon administration will achieve is to hammer home to the Palestinian populace the futility of trying to achieve thier goals through force of arms. That means the Palestinians are going to have to abandon thier current leadership (because it isn't interested in peacefull coexistance with Israel). Once there are serious signs that this is going to happen....the Israeli populace will likely also be willing to elect a moderate who can make peace with Palestine.

    Sharon will need to go for peace to be achieved...BUT SO WILL Arafat. Israel has demonstrated that it has the capacity to elect moderate leaders (it has done so in the past).... however the Palestinians haven't shown the willingness to get rid of thier own hardliners yet.... hopefully they will soon.

    [ Parent ]

    fer chriss' sake! (none / 1) (#318)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:09:10 PM EST

    turn that around, would you?

    Why, if it is futile for the Palestinians, would violence work for the Jews?

    "We will keep blowing ourselves up until they have elect a moderate government willing to negotiate" This is so obviously stupid!

    So long as people are undressed at checkpoints, their houses bulldozed... what the hell do you expect? How would you react in those circumstances?

    Name me one moderate Jewish leader that stopped all those inhumane practices.

    [ Parent ]

    Last try (none / 1) (#353)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:04:54 AM EST

    I'm no expert but Peres and Barak were both moderate enough to have cut a deal that was reasonable for the Palestinians.... at least an interim deal that would have been the basis for negotiating a lasting solution.

    The problem is that every time either of these 2 leaders made a concession in negotiations rather then tone down the violence, the Palestinians stepped it up. What conclusions were the Israeli public supposed to draw from that fact? They simply began to loose faith that the Palestinian leadership wanted to negotiate in good faith... and they elected hard liners in response.

    It's a simple Pavlovean response on the part of the electorate. If granting concessions only gets you more violence then you stop granting concessions and do the opposite.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Israel has the force of arms to enact it's will upon the Palestinians .... and no one who has the capacity to stop it has the will to do so. We can talk about who has a better legal claim, etc till we are blue in the face... but that is the cold hard reality.

    Palestinians don't have that option. I don't mean to belittle thier courage or pride but they just don't have the force of arms to millitarly defeat Israel. That is a fact....they can't achieve thier goals through force.

    I think the Palestinians have already made it abundantly clear to Israel that they won't have peace unless there is a negotiated settlement. What they have not made clear to Israel at all is that Israel will have peace IF there is a negotiated settlement. They had the opportunity to do so when Israel was actualy attempting to negotiate in good faith.... they passed on that opportunity and instead increased the violence.

    I think the Palestinians really did have an opportunity to get a peace deal with Israel. They had an Israeli public with the will to get a Peace agreement done. They had Israeli leaders that were making concessions in negotiations. All they had to do in response was start to tone down the violence.... instead they stepped it up and lost the support of the Israeli public.... and a large portion of the U.S. public as well.

    The Palestinians have to realize that they are NEVER going to get EVERYTHING that they want. Successfull negotiations means that NEITHER side gets everything they want. That's what compromise means.

    It's true that if you poke a tiger with a stick enough times sometimes he'll go away..... but he is just as likely to turn around and bite off your hand. The Palestinians have been poking Israel with a stick.... in response they got Sharon. It's as simple as that.  

    [ Parent ]

    Right over your head (none / 0) (#343)
    by Eater on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:22:51 PM EST

    Maybe someone COULD interpret it as a call to genocide - this guy certainly did - I'm just saying that, if people see a call to genocide in a pool of blood, then these people are SCREWED UP. It's quite literally bloodlust - "blood!! KILL!!! KEEEEIILLL!!"

    Eater.

    [ Parent ]
    Typical (2.38 / 18) (#224)
    by D Jade on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 06:58:30 PM EST

    I wouldn't expect anything else from Israel. If you disagree with them, you are an anti-semite! It's absolutely ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that the only reason they are suffering from terrorism is because they are enforcing terror and poverty on those around them. See, I am anti-semitic because I pointed out that we as a people had already lost Jerusalem five times in history and that we should accept that we are a conquered people!

    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    Not everyone (3.00 / 4) (#237)
    by jmv on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:11:43 PM EST

    If you disagree with them, you are an anti-semite!

    That's completely false, if you are jewish and disagree with what Israel does, you get to be called a "self-hating jew". I guess I might as well get used to the title of "self-hating semi-semite"...

    [ Parent ]
    So true my friend (none / 0) (#418)
    by D Jade on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:49:19 PM EST

    But from the Israeli government's standpoint, if you don't support them, you are a self-hating jew which is like an anti-semitic semite :P

    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    It's ludicrous (none / 0) (#489)
    by D Jade on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 11:44:13 PM EST

    You read the history books and since the dawn of the 20th century it's clear that there was a systematic invasion of Jerusalem. No one ever really mentions that though. They also don't point out that in return for making the Palestinians get out they (israel) have given them relatively nothing in return or that one side of the wall is green pastures while the other is an arid wasteland.

    Palestine is viewed as a nation of terrorists because unlike the Israelis they don't have tanks that they can use to destory whole villages of innocent people. Instead they strap bombs to themselves! Oi!

    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    Traitor (none / 0) (#460)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 06:21:10 AM EST

    They are calling the artist in this case traitor and Quissling. The artist was one of the first jews in israel that didn't whant to serve as a military on the west bank and there for lest the army. So he is a traitor to his contry and that may also be one of the resaons that the ambasador did act against this pice of art and not against one of the other also stating that they made something wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Bah! (1.00 / 36) (#230)
    by Pig Hogger on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 08:27:53 PM EST

    Jews are drama-queens. They take advantage of the holocaust to justify "compensation" to them, usually by taking advantage of the "culpability" other feels for the attempted extermination of a profiteering, abusive and calculating religion that has caused far more shit in Human History than any other.

    Where I live, for example, they attempted to shove their totally stupid religious values upon everyone else by banning the wearing of bathing suits all over the municipality, just because their fucked-up brains cannot bear the sight of skin.

    We have to say no to jewish encroachment, because that most primitive religion (all religions are obsolete, but judaism is the most primitive of them all) has absolutely no consideration for gentiles (what other religion has a word for the people who are not in that religion???) who they see fit as sheep to be fleeced.

    The jews see themselves as the "chosen people". Well, Hitler wasn't the first to choose them, and it won't be the last time either.

    With their arrogance, the jews are begging for yet another holocause. It won't end until the judaic religion is totally eradicated from the face of earth. Physical extermination will not work and is barbaric anyways, so for the sake of humanity, jews shall be absolutely prohibited from teaching their degenerate religion to their young, so, in two or three generations, the jewish problem (one should rather say "the problems jews cause to mankind") will be totally gone. And mankind will be able to move forward towards tolerance.
    --

    Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot

    IAWTP (1.06 / 15) (#231)
    by Typical African American Male on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:10:26 PM EST

    Jews are evil to their core.

    [ Parent ]
    wow, nice hatred (none / 1) (#336)
    by mongo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:14:17 PM EST

    1) you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing this kind of reactionary hate. this sort of garbage belongs in the 20th century, not the 21st.

    2) everyone who read this message and didn't decry this kind of moronic trash should be ashamed of themselved. idiot memes like this should be squashed.

    grow up people, your anti-human belief systems are ancient history.

    ~mongo
    [ Parent ]
    It's jews who are ancient history. (none / 2) (#348)
    by Pig Hogger on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:35:15 PM EST

    grow up people, your anti-human belief systems are ancient history.
    It's the jews who are ancient history. They have the oldest religion that's still around, and they behave quite primitively; look at how they level palestinian houses in Palestine... If that's not a primitive way of doing things, I wonder what is...
    --

    Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot
    [ Parent ]

    Your point? (none / 0) (#380)
    by dipipanone on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:05:23 AM EST

    look at how they level palestinian houses in Palestine... If that's not a primitive way of doing things, I wonder what is...

    What are you suggesting? That they should be emulating the modern, advanced USA and using Daisy Cutters rather than bulldozers and backhoes?

    --
    Suck my .sig
    [ Parent ]
    You (none / 0) (#470)
    by cosmokramer on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 07:42:51 PM EST

    I have no love for what Israel does to the Palestinian people but you seem to have an incredible ability to display your ignorance and backwardness.  Please crawl into a hole and grace the world with a lack of your presense or try and become educated in atleast a minor way so that you may possibly join us without your hate.

    Hating a hater.

    [ Parent ]

    I take it you've never known actual jews (none / 0) (#344)
    by Bluephonic on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:38:53 PM EST

    Maybe you live next to some hasidim or something; they're pretty crazy, but they're a tiny, tiny subset of the jewish population and I hope you don't really believe what you're typing. Speaking personally, I'm jewish, secular, untroubled by people in bathing suits, opposed to settlements, and against the smashing of this exhibit. More generally, you may want to check out (off the top of my head) this and this.

    [ Parent ]
    I DO know jews (none / 0) (#347)
    by Pig Hogger on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 08:32:49 PM EST

    I do know jews. Yes, I used to live next to hassidim, and I pretty well know the way they looked at "us" the way we look at dogshit on the sidewalk. Indeed, it hassidim who had the anti bathing-suit bylaw passed.

    And, to top it off, my uncle is a nazi-hunter. So, yes, I know about jews.
    --

    Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot
    [ Parent ]

    You know about jews? (none / 0) (#351)
    by Bluephonic on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:36:13 PM EST

    So did you read any of the links I posted? Again, hasidim are a vanishingly small minority; surely you can understand how moderate jews like myself would be insulted to be lumped with them as "degenerate"; it's like saying all christians are fundamentalist nut-jobs. Judaism is, by and large, a modern religion, and its adherents are, by and large, more tolerant than most christians. You won't have any trouble finding a synagogue to perform a gay marriage, for example, nor will you find jews going door-to-door with pamphlets. There's a large diversity of thought and opinion within judaism, and most nonisraeli jews (who make up the majority of world jewry) do not support Israel's policies (Israeli jews are evenly divided). The creator of the ambassador-trashed artwork was jewish. In short, you're being a bigoted asshole.

    [ Parent ]
    WTF is a nazi-hunter exactly? - nt (none / 0) (#471)
    by cosmokramer on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 07:44:52 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Here is another piece of art glorifying Israelis. (2.42 / 7) (#235)
    by Wulfius on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:43:24 PM EST

    Or is it?

    This is a piece of art I did for settling
    exactly disputes like this;

    http://www.deviantart.com/view/4522607/

    PS. Devianart is an art site, dont freak.

    .

    ---
    "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
    http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!

    Thanks (none / 1) (#236)
    by jmv on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:05:39 PM EST

    I think it's one of the best summary of the whole issue I've seen so far.

    [ Parent ]
    The exercise of free speech ... (1.50 / 12) (#252)
    by EphraimT on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:56:46 AM EST

    ... means running the risk of getting punched in the mouth once in awhile. That's one of the ways children learn what's "free" speech and what's going to cost you. Criminal law recognizes that it can be a defense to assault, in fact possibly even a crime, to insult, taunt, or challenge another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent response. Art is speech. Enough years of tanks and helicopters and people with explosives strapped to their bodies leaving the brains, blood and guts of enough wives and children and husbands, lovers, sons, daughters, friends and total strangers spattered about the landscape are bound to create some pretty hair trigger emotional buttons. I wish I could say that I'm amazed that people who "say" things that any high school student would recognize as totally provocative whine and snivel when they push those buttons and get their ass handed to them for their trouble, but I'm not.

    Limited understanding of the issue. 0. (none / 0) (#261)
    by PowerPimp on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:03:18 AM EST

    Clearly you do not understand the two hundred years of case law that went into defining free speech. You obviously fail to understand the clearly-defined legal distinction between inciting violent action through speech and merely using angry rhetoric. To paraphrase Justice Brown in one of my favorite of his decisions; The answer to hateful speech, or more importantly, speech that we find to be hateful is, and always will be more speech. Unless speech represents an immediate threat to lawful conduct and the peace, then the only recourse is to reply and counter it, such that in the end, the more reasoned, persuasive argument wins out. to do otherwise would be to destroy the public debate that is the foundation upon which our democracy rests. I find it revealing of the frailty of your logic that you favorably compare the conduct of nations to that of schoolchildren in playground squabbles and do not see any problem.


    You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
    [ Parent ]
    Alrighty then ... (none / 0) (#262)
    by EphraimT on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:49:56 AM EST

    ... I would suggest that you get out of the house sometime and go get yourself a copy of any state's Code of Criminal Procedure. Hateful speech can legally be rewarded with a pop in the chops in every state in the union given a certain set of circumstances. Any idiot can say anything, or quote anyone, he or she likes, and the louder and more self important their arguement or "speech", the more likely offense will be taken. There comes a point, in the real world, where "speech" crosses a threshold and the resulting anger is not only understandable, it is condoned in law. Look it up - easy enough.

    [ Parent ]
    IF we are talking about the free world here... (none / 0) (#265)
    by Pholostan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:57:25 AM EST

    Then there is never acceptable to use voilence in response to speech. It isn't i Sweden anyway. If it goes to court it will be classified as assault and the assilant will be judged, probably to pay fines or go to prison (for a relaively short time though).

    - And blood tears I cry Endless grief remained inside
    [ Parent ]
    I quite agree ... (none / 0) (#357)
    by EphraimT on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:22:22 AM EST

    ... that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. It is defensable. Not acceptable. Two distinctly different critters. The law makes allowance for almost all the sins to which flesh is heir. This includes the near automatic human response to an insult that by its sheer affrontery, rudeness and lack of necessity is itself an attack. The law understands this and it is why we strive to maintain the rule of law, and not the rule of men.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously, you're wrong. (none / 0) (#302)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:22:55 PM EST

    You can't tell people to go look things up that they know are wrong. When you say something ridiculous like that, the burden is on you to back it up.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    Well, I suppose ... (none / 0) (#354)
    by EphraimT on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:05:56 AM EST

    ... that if a person chooses to remain ignorant the old saw about teaching pigs to sing applies - don't bother, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. None-the-less, the statutes are on the book and people get arrested, and convicted, every day for words or conduct which incite a violent response. So it goes.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with EphraimT (none / 0) (#331)
    by phred on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:24:00 PM EST

    With a bit of thought, anybody can imagine a work of art that simply shouldn't be displayed, for all manner of reasons related to what folks consider to be civilized society.

    But go ahead, slap some porno on the wall and call it art, 's ok with me, I'm not the one going to have to defend it.

    Theres free speech, and theres pigs in the parlor. I agree with the Israeli ambassador, and support his actions.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, but... (none / 1) (#378)
    by dipipanone on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:52:24 AM EST

    There comes a point, in the real world, where "speech" crosses a threshold and the resulting anger is not only understandable, it is condoned in law.

    Are you really making the point that this exhibit falls into this category? Telling the Israeli ambassador that he's a dirty, stinking kike who should have been rendered into soap as part of the final solution clearly would merit a pop on the nose.

    But what we had here was an extremely ambiguous art exhibit. Regardless of one's views about the merits of the work, it was far from clear cut. What is the significance of the girl's picture? Is she a victim? A martyr? A villain? Whose is the blood supposed to represent? That of the Palestinians? The Israelis? All of the blood shed? How would the meaning of the piece be changed if the girl's picture was replaced with that of Sharon? Does that make the speech less or more hateful?

    The thing that I find most significant about this event is Sharon's insistance -- an insistance that I'm seeing increasing all the time -- that any and all discussion of Israel's actions that isn't unambiguously positive should be regarded as antisemitism. Even though the artist himself was Israeli (and thus probably also jewish), there's an increasing insistance that any criticism of Zionism or the actions of the Israeli state are just plain old anti-semitism, with the aim of rendering all criticism - regardless of how even-handed or how measured -- as out of bounds, or as 'hate speech'.

    Clearly, the people running the Israeli state learned a thing or two from watching Joseph Goebbels in action.

    --
    Suck my .sig
    [ Parent ]
    Your point is well taken ... (none / 0) (#421)
    by EphraimT on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:07:24 AM EST

    ... but mine is that I'm speaking to a specific incident between two specific people. The issues surrounding the right of Isreal, or a Palestinian state, to exist are in large part the purvue of greater minds than mine. However, it is probably not wholly a bad thing if the Israelis did learn something from Herr Goebbels given some of the rhetoric expressed in the middle east over the past few decades (and in some of the posts here). It would not be beyond my comprehension that there are in fact plenty of people around the world who would happily take another swing at the Holocaust if the political climate were right.

    [ Parent ]
    Punching someone in the mouth ... (none / 1) (#330)
    by pyramid termite on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:23:51 PM EST

    ... means running the risk of getting 90 days in the county jail. And it would be a rare jury that accepted "he called me something nasty" as a defense.

    You're welcome to link to any cases where this has in fact happened.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Why, thank you for asking ... (none / 0) (#365)
    by EphraimT on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:58:44 AM EST

    ... I didn't have a lot of time to go looking and I'm not well versed on search techniques, so when I got 105,000 hits on "harrassment+speech+defense" I changed to "insult,taunt" and got 370 hits. Off the first two pages I offer the following ... -------------------------- CAO - Chapter 5-3, BRC 1981 ... 5955 (1997). 5-3-6 Use of Fighting Words. No person shall insult, taunt, or challenge another in a manner likely to provoke a disorderly response. ... --- This one is particularly interesting, as while the court reversed the original conviction, the brief very well explains the basis for the type of charge filed: http://www.hsba.org/HSBA/Legal_Research/Hawaii/ica/16642.cfm --- This one's a little bit of policy language: [PDF] August 8, 1997 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML ... employees. Harassment To insult, taunt, or challenge another person in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response. ... --- Newspaper story http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/123099/coverstory.html (BANNER) But society does want them thrown in jail.(/BANNER) The year began with an Orwellian bang when two men got themselves arrested for using 'fighting words.' They violated a 7-year-old Boulder ordinance which reads, in part, 'No person shall insult, taunt or challenge another in a manner likely to provoke a disorderly response...' Boulder assistant attorney Claire Largesse defended the Rightspeak ordinance. 'Society doesn't want people punching each other in the nose,' she explained. --- Now I particularly like the following as it speaks well (no pun intended) to harassement and disorderly conduct in speech and action: http://www.hsba.org/HSBA/Legal_Research/Hawaii/ica/16642.cfm Again, thanks for asking.

    [ Parent ]
    Of the two I could find ... (none / 0) (#379)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:56:14 AM EST

    ... one was such a skimpy account that I could not seem to get anything out of it, except no assualt was reported. The other was the conviction of a man for throwing dogshit at someone else.

    You've yet to come up with a case where a person got off for assualt with a defence of "he said bad words to me".

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    The assumption that the person ... (none / 0) (#420)
    by EphraimT on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 11:45:01 PM EST

    ... who punched the insulter in the nose is the guilty party is incorrect and 180 degrees out from the arguement. You're concentrating on the wrong person. It is the original offender, the one who "insulted, taunted, or challenged in a manner likely to provoke an immediate, violent response" who is getting charged, because it is he/she who actually committed the crime (which is either disorderly conduct or harassement in most western states) Of the two cases you're probably speaking to, one was for disorderly conduct and the other was for various counts of disorderly conduct and harassement. As long as the provocation is seen by the police, prosecutor or court to be so extreme that the reaction (in context) to the provocation is a natural and understandable one no assault is likely to be charged, or if charged, convicted. These cases only get to court if there is a question as to the extent of either the provocation or the reaction. Usually they are screened out by the prosecutor with whatever code their jurisdiction has for "sum-bich bought a bigger slice of pie than he could pay for". As for finding more case law ... I don't need to do your work for you. You know where to look now. Have at it, it's out there.

    [ Parent ]
    Another troll ... (none / 0) (#434)
    by pyramid termite on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 07:58:56 PM EST

    ... who made an assertion and won't back it up. Why do I bother?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps because flame-baiting ... (none / 0) (#436)
    by EphraimT on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 03:24:03 AM EST

    ... is more fun than doing a little research on your own? TID, as far as I'm concerned.

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh (none / 0) (#435)
    by limekiller on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 10:15:13 PM EST

    EphraimT writes:
    "The exercise of free speech means running the risk of getting punched in the mouth once in awhile. That's one of the ways children learn what's "free" speech and what's going to cost you. Criminal law recognizes that it can be a defense to assault, in fact possibly even a crime, to insult, taunt, or challenge another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent response."

    You are way off your rocker on this one.

    If you call someone a nitwit, no, they do not have the right to assault you.

    If you scream at someone that they are a nitwit, no, they do not have the right to assault you.

    If you call someone a nitwit in their ear repeatedly that's harassment and they do not have the right to assault you.  If you disagree, find me the law that permits assault under such a condition.

    If you call someone a nitwit in their ear repeatedly and continue doing so even after they've entered their house and told you to leave, that's harassment and treaspassing and they do not have the right to assault you. If you disagree, find me the law that permits assault under such a condition.

    If you then pick up a knife and call them a nitwit in their house you might, then, actually run the risk of getting assaulted, legally.

    I used to think that Slashdot was full of know-nothing idiots.  From what I've seen on K5, Slash isn't all that bad...

    Regards,
    Jason

    [ Parent ]

    What's the issue? (3.00 / 17) (#259)
    by alizard on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:40:04 AM EST

    In Sweden's case, the obvious thing to do is declare him persona non grata and send the ambassador home just as one sends home any other nut who commits an act of vandalism under cover of diplomatic immunity.

    The more important question with respect to Israel is what is it becoming?

    There was another government that attacked cultural artifacts, They held book burnings. It took a world war to get rid of it.

    I wouldn't think this a proper example for Israel to emulate. Even if Sharon does.

    The proper response to art one disapproves of is to say nasty things about it in public, and try to persuade it not to attend exhibits or buy from the artist.

    Trying to get it banned or physically destroying art or the artist tells anyone who can think far more about the person who attacks art than about what that person is trying to attack.
    "The horse is dead. Fuck it or walk away, but stop beating it." Juan Rico

    Exactly (2.75 / 4) (#266)
    by Pholostan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:03:33 AM EST

    Any other ambassador who did this sort of thing would have been thrown out emideately. Unlucky for us and for democracy, Swedish goverment lacks backbone. This will be swept under the carpet instead of be properly remedied. The only proper response is to throw this vandal out.

    I am really dissapointed in my goverment.

    Hi all ambassadors who want to commit crime, come to Sweden! And you will not get kicked out! Feel free to go berzerk aroud the clock!

    - And blood tears I cry Endless grief remained inside
    [ Parent ]

    even your sig has a misspelling n/t (none / 2) (#305)
    by skelter on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:35:22 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (1.00 / 4) (#314)
    by Pholostan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:23:44 PM EST

    Due to various reasons, I don't spell to well. What's your excuse?

    - And blood tears I cry Endless grief remained inside
    [ Parent ]
    Don't be dissapointed. (2.80 / 5) (#317)
    by IPFreely on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:01:21 PM EST

    The Swedish goverment may be more clever than you think.

    The art isn't the only think on exibit. The Ambassador is now on exibit as well. He appears to have made a much more public statement than the art ever could. It would have been a clever setup if that is what was intended.

    [ Parent ]

    What are the USA becoming? (2.66 / 6) (#294)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:10:59 AM EST

    Remember the burning of Dixie Chicks CDs?

    I'm not trolling: I would just like to point out that we don't need to go so far back in history to find examples of burning cultural artifacts.

    Also, the US situation is borderline critical at the moment. Especially if Dubya fears for his re-election chances, he might pull a fast one- your regime has been showing a lot of fascist signs for a while now.

    (As an aside: without US military aid, Israel could not get away with this. A quick phone call from Bush would have Sharon apologizing. Birds of a feather...)

    [ Parent ]

    I've noticed (none / 2) (#346)
    by alizard on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 07:44:31 PM EST

    However, the "Dixie Chicks" CD burning was a free-enterprise bit of thuggery. It makes a big difference when a government does this, and the Israel Ambassador is his government when dealing with the government he's accredited to.

    Of course, the burning wasn't purely free-enterprise. The Clear Channel radio stations are licensed by a politicized FCC. But IMHO, the burning would have happened anyway. The owner of Clear Channel is a Bush ally, and the message to the Dixie Chicks was... support Bush or go out of business.

    Loathesome, but legal, and the cure for Americans is to do what many of us are doing, get our music somewhere else.
    "The horse is dead. Fuck it or walk away, but stop beating it." Juan Rico
    [ Parent ]

    Like there's a difference (none / 2) (#422)
    by jasonditz on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 01:32:06 AM EST

    "I'm not trolling: I would just like to point out that we don't need to go so far back in history to find examples of burning cultural artifacts."

    It has been my experience with recent moddings that those two behaviors (trolling and pointing out an unpleasant truth) and basically the same thing nowadays.


    [ Parent ]

    Glorifying or not glorifying? (2.50 / 10) (#269)
    by Irrbloss on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 07:48:25 AM EST

    Much of the debate here accepts the opinion of Mazel that the installation is a pure provocation. However, the artist himself (an Israeli by birth) means that the installation problematises, tries to explain the mechanisms of suicide bombing and not glorify it. Did he succeed? See for yourself. This is the text accompanying the installation. Read it an decide for yourself if it is glorifying suicide bombings or merely tries to explain. http://www.makingdifferences.com/site/calendar.php?lang=en&id=20

    That's not relevant (none / 1) (#282)
    by HollyHopDrive on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:12:02 AM EST

    There was an agreement before the conference that there would be no reference to the Middle East conflict in the artwork. That agreement was broken.

    It doesn't matter how one interprets the exhibition. You may think it glorifies the bomber, or you may see the blood as a stark reminder of all the blood being shed unnecessarily on both sides, or just the Israelis. It doesn't matter. First of all, there wasn't supposed to be anything with direct relevance to the Israel/Palestine conflict there anyway. Secondly, it's obvious that this exhibition would be inflammatory and perceived by some people as glorifying the bomber. If there had been a trace of sensitivity in the organisation, the Swedish authorities would have played it safe by not displaying it, as they agreed to do anyway.

    It smacks of gross indelicacy, if nothing more sinister.


    I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps that's just what the... (none / 2) (#287)
    by poopi on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:43:15 AM EST

    ...Palistinian situation needs - indelicacy. I suspect that the rest of the world has no reason to be polite about this. How much sorrow does this situation need to cause (worldwide, I might add) before it's ok for the rest of the citizen-nations of the world to stop being delicate?

    -----

    "It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

    It is relevant (none / 1) (#293)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:06:09 AM EST

    The ambassador did not destroy the exhibit screaming about how they weren't supposed to talk about Israel/Palestine. He said it glorified suicide bombing. As the stated reason for his vandalism, it is relevant.

    Besides, who is Israel to demand that a conference on genocide not consider their situation? As far as I can tell, threats of driving them into the sea are relevant, no? Or are they too afraid that a calm examination of the facts on the ground would reveal things they wouldn't like to see publicized?

    [ Parent ]

    agreement? (none / 0) (#307)
    by tgibbs on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:17:37 PM EST

    There was an agreement before the conference that there would be no reference to the Middle East conflict in the artwork. That agreement was broken.

    Who, specifically, agreed? The artist? And are you really contending that a broken agreement is a sufficient justification for vandalizing artwork no matter what its content? If not, then the content obviously is relevant.

    [ Parent ]

    Was there ever a proper agreement? (none / 0) (#316)
    by Irrbloss on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 02:38:30 PM EST

    This is a comment from Pär Nuder, a Swedish official, as quoted in an article in the leading Swedish newspaper. My translation: (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=224107) He [Pär Nuder] denies that there was ever an agreement with the Israeli government or any other government. - Although we have had conversations with several governments concerning the theme of the conference and one opinion we have been presented with is that it should not be about recent conflicts, but rather about the long-term work with preventing genocide.

    [ Parent ]
    Not quite. (none / 2) (#337)
    by Znork on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:26:14 PM EST

    As far as I can tell, the only agreement has been that the program for the conference should not contain mideast issues. The exhibition in question is not part of the conference, or the conference program, but part of other separate cultural activities on the genocide theme by various other organizations.

    And no, I dont find it very obvious at all that the installation could be percieved as glorifying the bomber. To percieve it as glorifying you first have to percieve sailing in human blood as being somehow glorifying. Someone who percieves sailing in human blood as being glorifying has some serious issues.

    [ Parent ]

    Freedom of speech is important in Sweden (none / 0) (#459)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 06:10:42 AM EST

    There was an agreement before the conference that there would be no reference to the Middle East conflict in the artwork. That agreement was broken

    There was no agreement about anything from the Art Gallery. The Swedish government isn't allowed to do say or in any other way influence the art gallery. The gallery and museum works on its own and have its own agenda. As there was a conference on genocide in Stockholm, an exhibition about that is probably appropriate.

    So the Swedish authorities didn't have anything to say about any art exhibitions in Sweden, which is important to out view of free speech. If this exhibitions or piece of art is a crime. That it rascal that can be decided afterwards in the Swedish court. So far no-one has put any complaint about this to the Swedish police, which is the first instance of investigating any crime.

    The conference however starting today is said not to take up any genocide crimes happening at the moment. As that probably would piss of some of the delegates. Also any representing from the Palestinians are not allowed to join the conference as that might piss of the Israelis and focus the conference on one particular instance of genocide.



    [ Parent ]
    Best. Title. Ever. (1.85 / 7) (#277)
    by Russell Dovey on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 09:47:06 AM EST

    Seriously. This title is a manifestation of genius.

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

    Clueless Sweden (1.42 / 7) (#296)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:27:37 AM EST

    It's one thing if this is just an exhibit in a museum somewhere.... the fact that it was an exhibit in a museum linked to a conference on genocide that Israel was attending makes a difference.

    It really doesn't matter whether the intent of the exhibit was to glorify suicide bombing or not. It's clear that the exhibit was intended to push peoples buttons. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the last thing people involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict need is to have thier buttons pushed. People on both sides of the conflict have thier tempers and passions stirred up enough already as it is.... fuel being added to that fire from Sweden certainly isn't going to help. Frankly, everyone would have been better served if the museum had put up a nice pastoral scene accompioned by some white noise.

    Topical (none / 0) (#321)
    by andersjm on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:17:58 PM EST

    So what you're saying is that the artists should have either stayed off the stated topic or kept their contributions completely bland - preferably both.

    But then why have an art exhibit at all?


    [ Parent ]

    No I am saying (none / 0) (#363)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 01:54:29 AM EST

    That Sweden shouldn't have tied the art exhibit to the conference if it invited Israel to attend and knew the exhibit was going to tweak Israel.

    It would be kinda like having a fabulous exhibit of Japanese Samurai Swords and then inviting the Chinese survivors of Nanking to come and view it.

    [ Parent ]

    Clueless ambassador (none / 2) (#322)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:27:08 PM EST

    Yes, it matters what the intent of the exhibit was.

    And maybe pushing buttons is exactly what is needed at this point.

    Because the buttons that that exhibit was pushing was saying "hey, look, she was human too. when her loved ones were killed, her anger consumed her and she sought revenge. she drowned in blood." It wasn't a "hey, she's a murderer with perfect make-up, isn't that glamorous?" Of course, we can't account for art dunces that couldn't interpret their way out of a wet paper bag.

    And by pushing those buttons, we quickly identify those extremists willing to use vandalism to suppress other people's right to free expression- and those are precisely the ones that are also willing to kill, the most radical suppression of free speech ever devised.

    The people that can't see the humanity of their opponents are a very dangerous breed. Better we be able to identify them.

    [ Parent ]

    To push or not to push (none / 1) (#349)
    by losthalo on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:25:09 PM EST

    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)

    [ Parent ]
    Url for the 'art' (none / 1) (#299)
    by 5pectre on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:00:44 PM EST

    I'd like to take a look at this piece of art.

    "There was the terrorist, wearing her perfect makeup and floating on the blood of my people."

    Sounds pretty hot.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    Bah (none / 1) (#301)
    by 5pectre on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:08:54 PM EST

    "Snow White and the Madness of Truth," was in the museum's courtyard and featured a large basin filled with red fluid. A boat floated on top carrying a photo of a smiling Hanadi Jaradat

    "New" art, bollocks.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]

    Here you go (none / 3) (#333)
    by Sleepy on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 04:56:13 PM EST

    The first good picture I found was here.

    The two people in the background are the two artists who created the piece. The text that came with the thing can be read here (this link has been posted a few times now, I know).



    [ Parent ]
    Thats crap (none / 1) (#425)
    by 5pectre on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:37:20 AM EST

    It isn't art. Christ I hate that conceptual bullshit.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]
    Art is like beauty... (none / 0) (#454)
    by RadiantMatrix on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 02:01:06 PM EST

    ...it's in the eye of the beholder (not the mythical AD&D beast, either).

    The purpose of art is to evoke an emotional response.  If your response is "ugh! that's crap", then the installation has still done its job as an art piece.

    ----------
    I don't like spam - Parent ]

    Fuck that (none / 0) (#461)
    by 5pectre on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 06:38:43 AM EST

    Art is what is aesthetically pleasing to me.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]
    How would you feel? (2.28 / 7) (#310)
    by shestek on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 01:45:50 PM EST

    I had to think a while how it would make me feel if it were the smiling face of a murderor who killed my family. I don't mean that in an abstract suicide-bomber or gunship pilot way but in the literal sense. Someone killled my family, say, in a bank robbery. How would I feel to see that sort of display?

    Dunno. I would probably not be very happy about it. I doubt I would have vandalized the exhibit, though.



    It's not (2.80 / 5) (#319)
    by danharan on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:13:06 PM EST

    There are plenty of Palestinians and Jews that have had people in their family die because of this stupidity that are reaching out to each other wanting peace.

    Just like there are relatives of 911 victims that organized and demonstrated for peace, knowing that war would only continue the cycle of violence.

    From the exhibit, I get the sense that the suicide bomber would probably not have blown herself up had her lover not been killed. It's a cycle, and at some point someone has to break it. Art is a fine way of nurturing that process.

    [ Parent ]

    Art matters (none / 2) (#324)
    by jamul on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:44:56 PM EST

    And your response to the art, as well as the ambassador's response, taken together, illustrate exactly why art like this is important and necessary to all of us as a species:

    It makes people THINK!

    If the only art in the world was bland and perfectly acceptable to everyone, it would be background noise.

    Okay, maybe the ambassador didn't do much thinking. But the swift jerking of his knees got other people thinking. Art matters!


    Mike Hommel
    Hamumu Software
    http://hamumu.com
    [ Parent ]
    Religious fanatics (2.85 / 7) (#320)
    by mmuskratt on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:15:14 PM EST

    Maybe the suicide bomber depicted was standing in a pool of blood from her own people...killed by Israeli soldiers, or perhaps forced to leave their homes. This conflict is ugly, violent and hypocritical. This man's response shows how simple and barbaric it has become...to react that way as an ambassador indicates the level of maturity that these people have. Violence begets violence, and that is all either side understands now. There is no love, no forgiveness, only justification for killing, and more killing justified in return. The painting resonated in this man's mind, his response was as a representative of the country of Israel, which merely indicates that the conflict will continue. I wonder if he would praise a painting depicting an Israeli tank mowing down a bunch of houses with a smiling officer behind a machine gun..."Glorification" is in the eye of the beholder.

    Your canvas is too small [nt] (none / 0) (#326)
    by CodeWright on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:59:12 PM EST



    --
    "Jumpin Jesus H. Christ riding a segway with a little fruity 1 pint bucket of Ben and Jerry's rainbow fairy-berry crunch in his hand." --
    As an Israeli, I despise what Ambassador Mazel did (2.87 / 8) (#339)
    by Opium on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:33:53 PM EST

    Even from Mazel's point of view, he is stupid, because he called international attention to a banal artist's little piece of demagogue art which would have otherwise gone unnoticed in its mediocricy.

    I don't like where Israel is heading under Sharon and his party of fools, the differences that made Israel 'the only democratic state in the middle east' are growing thinner and thinner by the day under his rule.

    The occupation has corrupted the soul of this country. From a just state it has turned into just a state and is now far upon the path of turning into yet another middle-eastern, miserable state. Excuse the pun.

    When Eichman was captured, he was brought to a just trial. In the climate these days, he would have just been lynched.


    "Ars Gratia Artis"... When will Metallica T-Shirts have this quote?
    As terrible as this piece of art may be ... (2.28 / 7) (#375)
    by ragnarok on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 05:30:49 AM EST

    I can't imagine it to be any more kitschy than the glorification of Masada in the years following the establishment of Israel.

    To put it in perspective - the story of Masada was of a group of Jewish terrorists, the Sicarii or Knifemen, who got kicked out of Jerusalem for killing Jews rather than Romans during the Great Revolt in 70 CE. They hived off to the Herodian fortress of Masada in the Judaean desert, then supplemented their supplies by raiding the Jewish village/s in the general area, in particular one called Ein Gedi, and massacreing the inhabitants for their food.

    The Romans turned up after they had sacked Jerusalem and demolished it, with a bunch of auxiliary troops - ie, the real Roman legions were off somewhere else - built a small ramp up a spur to the top, then attacked. The Sicarii hadn't put up any resistance while this was happening, and they then killed themselves rather than fight.

    They got exhumed into Israeli mythology after twenty centuries of Jewish neglect - for obvious reasons - as heroes!!! And the IDF used to swear in new recruits at the top of Masada.

    Fine, these were just pathologically rabid religiously unstable individuals who had made a habit of killing off anyone of their people who they disagreed with, and also those who might've had some food.

    The estimable ambassador himself was probably sworn in on top of Masada. and now he goes and tells us that yada yada yada ad nauseam ...

    Some people!


    "And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies

    "Small Ramp" (none / 1) (#417)
    by Oblom on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 10:30:37 PM EST

    From somewhere online: After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Masada remained the only point of Jewish resistance. Few surviving Jewish fighters that managed to travel across Judean mountains joined the defenders of Masada, and it became the rebels' base for raiding operations.

    In 72 C.E. the Roman governor Flavius Silva resolved to suppress this outpost of resistance. He marched against Masada at the head of the Tenth Legion, its auxiliary troops, and thousands of Jewish war prisoners, total ten to fifteen thousand people. The troops prepared for a long siege; they established eight camps at the base of the Masada rock and surrounded it with a high wall, leaving no escape for rebels.

    Then Romans started to build an assault ramp to the top; thousands of slaves, many of them Jewish, have done that in nine months. After the ramp was complete, the Romans succeeded to move the battering ram up and to direct it against the wall. They broke the stone wall, but the defenders managed to built a wall of earth and wood that was flexible and hard to break. Eventually Romans managed to destroy it by fire, and decided to enter the fortress the next day.

    At night Eleazar gathered all the defenders and persuaded them to kill themselves rather than fall into the hands of Romans. The people set fire to their personal belongings, and then ten people chosen by a lot killed everyone else and then committed suicide. In the morning Romans entered a silent fortress and found only dead bodies. Two women and five children survived the mass suicide by hiding in a cave; they came out to Romans. Josephus describes all the dramatic details of the last hours of the Masada defenders as told by these survivors.

    And you really should come to israel and to see this "small ramp" to to top of the hill which is 440m above the sea with your own eyes.
    Masada from above
    "Small Ramp"

    [ Parent ]
    "The Masada Myth" by Nachman Ben-Yehuda (none / 0) (#457)
    by ragnarok on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 03:46:30 AM EST

    I came across this book, The Masada Myth, in the local library, and being interested in Jewish history among other things (Mother's family's claims that we have Jewish ancestry somewhere along the line being a major reason, of course ...), I just had to take a nosy. To quote some of the more relevant parts:

    Masada has thus become a symbol for a heroic "last stand". In the words of the famous Israeli chief-of-staff and politician Moshe Dayan (1983:21):

    Today we can only point to the fact that Masada has become a symbol of heroism and of liberty for the Jewish people to whom it says:
    Fight to the death rather than surrender;
    Prefer death to bondage and loss of freedom.

    The Masada Myth, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, pg 14.

    But it gets even more interesting later in the book.

    [...] In Gill's recent geological work (1993), he argues that the Roman artificial siege ramp was actually built on a natural spur. If so, the Roman effort in building the ramp was not very impressive. [...]

    ibid., pg 37.

    The unpleasant impression one gets from all this is that the Sicarii on Masada, so adept at raiding nearby villages, were not really good fighters and, in fact, avoided oportunities to fight. They may not have believed the Roman army could reach them, and they may not have fought well during the siege. As it became clear that the end was approaching, they may have hastily put together some defense activities, but that may have been too little and too late. finally, they did not even "fight to the end" and preferred suicide. If this deduction is valid, then the resulting conclusion is unavoidable, that is, that the history of the Roman siege on Masada does not convey a very heroic picture at all.

    ibid., pg 42.

    Ideologically, the original Masada narrative should be told. There is a bitter lesson in that narrative. The slogan "Masada shall not fall again" has for me a meaning very similar to that given to it by many people today. It means "take another look at the whole story. Be careful not to become cornered like that again." The lesson is not that Masada shall not fall again, because once a Masada situation is created, the Masada end may not be far behind. The real historical wisdom is not to even reach a Masada situation.

    ibid., pg 313.

    Seconded, that last quote.

    BTW, you quoted from "Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand", Yigael Yadin, pp 11-13, according to Ben-Yehuda, pp 10-12. And that Masada swearing-in ceremony, as described by the epilog in a book in my father's library, a piece of fiction about Simeon Bar Kokhba, still sounds kitschy, the praising of a "Life of Brian" style suicide attack.

    And you should really come to israel and to see this "small ramp" to to top of the hill which is 440m above the sea with your own eyes
    Thanks. Is that an invite? Can I take you up on it?

    Shalom.


    "And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies
    [ Parent ]

    King and Violence (2.50 / 4) (#411)
    by limekiller on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 03:16:04 PM EST

    I believe it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said that you cannot be violent against something inanimate.  It's simply the wrong term in this particular context.  Violence is only something that can happen to a living being.

    I don't want this to be understood to mean that this is the ONLY definition.  For example, you can have a violent storm that destroys houses.  But I agree with king that this nomenclature is not appropriate here.  What Mazel engaged in is a sort of civil disobedience, destroying a piece of art.

    In other words, I'm trying to say there is a difference between destroying a person and destroying a thing.

    I should also mention that I do not at all agree with his actions, and I am not seeking to justify them.  I personally think that both sides of that war are a bunch of asshats who still, after fifty years of killing each other, haven't learned not to talk past each other, but hey, that's another rant...

    Regards,
    Jason

    Civil disobedience? (none / 1) (#440)
    by liftarn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:55:34 AM EST

    Those who engage is civil disobedience are prepared to take the punishement for their actions. Since the ambassador has diplomatic imunity he never had to be held responsible for his vandalism.

    [ Parent ]
    Just how thick are the Swedes? (none / 3) (#432)
    by dumbo on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 11:30:25 AM EST

    Regardless of the right/wrongs of what he did I can't see how the Swedish allowed that exhibit to be present. If you went to Sweden in November 2001, went into an official exhibition and saw a similar exhibit with the face of a 9/11 hijacker... what would your response be? horror? disgust? 'is this a shrine to the hijacker'? 'is this some attempt at humour'? 'I feel sick'? 'I am still in shock, this is too soon'? I would imagine that a US ambassador would have walked out of the exhibition and the conference... That would have been amazingly piss-poor diplomacy, much as this seems to have been.

    OK, I'm Swedish... (none / 2) (#438)
    by liftarn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:51:18 AM EST

    ...but I really can't see what's so wrong with having an arwork that condemns the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

    [ Parent ]
    RE: OK, I'm Swedish... (none / 1) (#478)
    by RedCard on Wed Jan 28, 2004 at 11:26:42 PM EST

    ...but I really can't see what's so wrong with having an arwork that condemns the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

    Be careful! It's anti-semetic hate speech, as is any critisicm of ariel sharon or his policies. Bashing the palestinians, however, is perfectly acceptable. Carry on.


    --R
    [ Parent ]

    Walking out isn't the same thing... (none / 2) (#453)
    by RadiantMatrix on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 01:58:54 PM EST

    I would imagine that a US ambassador would have walked out of the exhibition and the conference.

    Walking out on the art to express distaste is perfectly acceptable behavior -- expressing one's opinion by refusing to acknowledge the art is a time-honored act.

    Destroying (or attempting to destroy) the art is merely a personal attempt at censoring the artist. It's little more than the schoolyard mentality of beating up the kid who wears clothes you don't like.

    ----------
    I don't like spam - Parent ]

    I'm Swedish (too) (none / 2) (#458)
    by balp on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 05:18:33 AM EST

    Of course we in Sweden tolerates all freedom of speech, anything else wouldn?t at any state be appropriate.

    The second part of this, this piece of art does in strong words and actions condemn the actions by Hanadi Jaradat and all the actions leading up to her doing this. It displays deep sympathy for her victims as well as the victims in her family.

    Any one that does not feel sorry for her victims and starts to wonder how this could be possible. What drives a well educated anti-violence mother and lawyer into strapping her self with explosives and killing a loot if innocent civilians. That the questions the art work asks, now that doesn't fit mister Mazels, idea of that "All Arabs are terrorists", asking questions about what Israel does on the west bank is not allowed, can one call that a democratic?


    [ Parent ]

    It was performance art, really (none / 0) (#433)
    by mveloso on Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 06:44:18 PM EST

    How can you criticize the actions of the Israeli embassador when he was, like the artist, only expressing a point of view?

    After all, isn't what Mazel did just a postmodern expression of advanced art criticism, and by that act did he not validate not only the artist's skill in getting a reaction (something very difficult to do in this day and age) but made the artist a cause celebre as well?

    Indeed, isn't the whole incident now viewed as part of the text of the exhibit, inexorably linked together, much the way the israelis and palestinians are? The same gratuitous baiting from one side, the inevitable counter-reaction, the inevitable outcry agiainst the counter-reaction, etc etc.

    Get over it and get a life, guys.

    Vandalism isn't free speech (none / 3) (#439)
    by liftarn on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 07:52:54 AM EST

    The ambassador wasn't expressing a point of view. He turned up there with the sole intent of wrecking the artwork. He wasn't even interested in having a look at it first.

    [ Parent ]
    You have a good point. (1.28 / 7) (#444)
    by crunchycookies on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:42:53 AM EST

    It was performance art. Israelis do not know how to do anything beyond destruction. It is their artform.

    [ Parent ]
    Wouldn't it have been great... (none / 1) (#443)
    by crunchycookies on Fri Jan 23, 2004 at 08:39:12 AM EST

    Wouldn't it have been great if he had splattered himself with the red liquid while destroying the exhibit. The image of an Israeli splattered in blood while committing an act of destruction would have been beautifully illustrative.

    Suicide bombing (none / 0) (#488)
    by shpiegenator06 on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 10:43:52 PM EST

    although this painting might be considered art, it has no business to be displayed. Yes, it might reveal the painter's views about a subject-but it also condones mass genocide. comparing this to Hitler is wrong. When hitler only allowed art that promoted his beliefs, he was promoting violence. this painting promotes killing for the sake of martyrdom. What ever happened to the "civil disobedience" ideals? If the Palestinians are unhappy-then let them negotiate with the Israelis-when Israelis see them killing their people, they are angered more and enticed to withhold Palestinian Freedom. let's examine the facts. Palestinian civilians are blowing themselves up to promote peace. . .of course everybody, violence promotes peace. . .Israeli soldiers respond NOT by blowing up innocent civilians, but by going to houses and getting the families of those who murdered. . .hmmm. . .seems like the retaliation is more than fair-these soldiers risk their lives. Rather than flying over an area and bombing, they march in the hands of danger to only arrest those guilty families. . .Who is wrong here? Let's look at the 1950's and the people against segregation. They followed MLK to stop the injustices NOT by hosting suicide bombings, but by hosting sit=ins and marches, Next up comes Ghandi. . .if these people are the people that we look up to-how can we possibly glorify suicide bombings? i should say genocide or homicide bombings, because usually, more people are killed than the suicide bomber is. In short-Mazel had every right to destroy the piece of art not because of what was expressed, but where it was shown. . .and also, antizionism is almost synonymous with anti-semitism. Many Palestinians not only want there to be no Israel, but they also want there to be no Jews in the World-very tolerant, don't you think? They have been quoted to say that they want to push us into the sea-doesn't anyone see that they are potentially as harmful as Hitler is? THEY WANT ALL THE JEWS DEAD!!! DOES THIS NOT RING A BELL??? why can't anyone see the Palestinians are committing terrible acts of murder-The UN turns their heads! Sweden apparently promotes it, along with the French people. What is wrong with these Anti-semetics? we finally stomped out most Racism towards African Americans-didn't anyone realize then that being anti-a group in wrong? it's almost as bad as the KKK-get a grip. . . US Highschool student

    The Degenerate Art of Suicide Bombing | 484 comments (478 topical, 6 editorial, 6 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!