The Middle East part 2

[Ironsight 1]

I'm amazed that there are actually people supporting Israel's position of this. I don't know, maybe in Israel it's ok to ban books and artistic works that are not liked for one reason or another. In Sweden it's not. We don't burn books or destroy works of art - is it so strange that we react negatively when somebody from the outside tries to do that?

I can understand the reaction of Israel, because a lot of innocent people die in this war (on both sides), a lot of blood has been spilled maybe it's time to stop the war and start the talks for peace again

[denoir 0]

I'm amazed that there are actually people supporting Israel's position of this. I don't know, maybe in Israel it's ok to ban books and artistic works that are not liked for one reason or another. In Sweden it's not. We don't burn books or destroy works of art - is it so strange that we react negatively when somebody from the outside tries to do that?

I can understand the reaction of Israel, because a lot of innocent people die in this war (on both sides), a lot of blood has been spilled maybe it's time to stop the war and start the talks for peace again

... and that's exactly the message that the art and the text and the author (a pacifist Jew, btw) are conveying.

[Ironsight 1]

... and that's exactly the message that the art and the text and the author (a pacifist Jew, btw) are conveying.

Yeah I know but it's a pretty confrontating way to say it

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]No offence, but that's a very silly comment. Would people object if you put the picture of Mijailovic in a pool of fake blood with a text of his story? Of course not. Why on earth  would we object to that?

Why is that silly? Placing killers picture in a pool of blood, basically same thing. Except it would strike you, like it did for the ambassador. Comparing the bloodletting of some dictators is not comparable to individuals addressed. It's Bad taste, nothing more. Some people may still find that kind of art disgusting especially if it they have got some close ties to the subject, get pissed off and act uncontrollably. What strikes me is that why some people find his reaction so profoundly shocking. Nobody want's to ban art but better judgement can't hurt anybody.

If somebody made an artwork in Israel displaying some Swedish suicide bomber's picture in pool of blood, I bet some of you countrymen would not consider it very good taste and might do some 'rework'. I just don't find it so surprising.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]No offence, but that's a very silly comment. Would people object if you put the picture of Mijailovic in a pool of fake blood with a text of his story? Of course not. Why on earth  would we object to that?

Why is that silly? Placing killers picture in a pool of blood, basically same thing. Except it would strike you, like it did for the ambassador. Comparing the bloodletting of some dictators is not comparable to individuals addressed. It's Bad taste, nothing more. Some people may still find that kind of art disgusting especially if it they have got some close ties to the subject, get pissed off and act uncontrollably. What strikes me is that why some people find his reaction so profoundly shocking. Nobody want's to ban art but better judgement can't hurt anybody.

No, as I said, I would not at all been bothered if they put a picture of Mijailovic (Lindh's killer) with a corresponding text. The installation was a comment against violence, and I don't see how anybody could object against such a conventional peace message. It doesn't glorify suicide bombing, on the contrary, it states clearly that she murderd 19 innocent people. What it does is put it in a context, trying to understand why a seemingly normal young girl would blow herself up.

If somebody would attempt to do a similar explanation of the Lindh killing, I would not mind at all. On the contrary. You need to reflect upon why these things happen. If you don't then how can you prevent it from happening again? People are not born evil. It's the process that makes them go from innocence at birth to later comitting acts of cruelty that is interesting. And that's what this art installation (as you can see from the very straight-forward text that went along with it) is about.

[Blake 0]

I'm not saying that I'm offended by that piece of art, but I still find it distasteful and not particulary interesting or thought-provoking, the contrast of ordinary woman drawn to suicide bombing was already apparent at the time of the attack. My point is that it should have not have perhaps been presented to the ambassador at all and afterwards get shocked by his reaction up to a point of facist-calling. Foolish were also the demands to ban the artwork...

[theavonlady 2]

Wikipedia has an entry for her.

I wonder if that means they are glorifying terrorism.

Who knows?!

Quote[/b] ]Wikipedia is a genuinely free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by the various readers. The site is a WikiWiki, meaning that anyone, you included, can edit any article right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears in every Wikipedia article except for a few protected pages.

From Wikipedia: About Wikipedia

So go ahead - you can revise anything to suit your views!

[denoir 0]

I'm not saying that I'm offended by that piece of art, but I still find it distasteful and not particulary interesting or thought-provoking, the contrast of ordinary woman drawn to suicide bombing was already apparent at the time of the attack. My point is that it should have not have perhaps been presented to the ambassador at all and afterwards get shocked by his reaction up to a point of facist-calling. Foolish were also the demands to ban the artwork...

Well, Blake, I don't know how it is in Finland, but here the government doesn't dictate what is or what is not to be shown in museums. This was an independent cultural institution that displayed the art and as such it's their prerogative to choose what art to display. The ambassador chose himself to go to the exhibition. He was not invited by the Swedish government to be there. At the same time he is the representative of Israel and he vandalised an art installation in a Swedish museum. And by that he attacked the freedom of expression of both the institution and the artists.

I don't know if he was being impulsive, stupid or if the whole thing was planned. Regardless, it will have political repercussions.

Apparently the ambassador didn't read the text of the installation, but immideately started ripping cords and throwing spotlights on the ground and in the pool. This act unites him with most art-vandals who are totally ignorant of the art that they have set out to destroy. Of course, destroying art and burning books can be a populistic political statement, so it can be that too.

The irony of it all is that by his act, the ambassador reinforced message of the artists. If this act wasn't planned to score domestic political points then it was ignorant and mechanical. And the result is that violence feeds violence in an never ending chain.

[Bernadotte 0]

According to the Washington Post, her brother and cousin were killed in front of her as follows:

Quote[/b] ]At 9 p.m. on June 12, Fadi Jaradat, 23, a produce vendor who supported his ailing father, his mother and his siblings, stepped out the front door of his house with cups of thick, black Arabic coffee for his sister, Hanadi, his cousin, Salah, and Salah's wife, according to Thair Jaradat, Hanadi's 15-year-old brother.

Suddenly a Nissan truck approached the house on the dusty, narrow street in eastern Jenin. Israeli security forces wearing civilian clothing bolted out of the truck and opened fire, hitting Salah in the throat and Fadi in the abdomen, Thair said.

The security troops then dragged the two men into their jeeps, dumped their bodies at a checkpoint on the edge of town and told neighbors where to find the bodies, said Assad Zahi Zarour, 33, the Jaradats' next-door neighbor and owner of the house the family had rented for the last 18 years.

You forgot a small sentence:

Quote[/b] ]The Israeli military said the two men were Islamic Jihad activists.

A similar sentence was removed from the Wikipedia entry for being unsubstantiated.

So where's your evidence that this was true?

And even if it was true, why were they summarily executed by the IDF and not arrested?

Let's face it!  Had her brother been arrested she might have applied her skills as a lawyer to representing him rather than avenging him and 20 innocent Israelis might still be alive today.

But most importantly:  We probably wouldn't be discussing this today if it wasn't for the artwork and what the Israeli ambassador did to it.  In other words, the ambassador has unwittingly become a part of the artwork.

[theavonlady 2]

A similar sentence was removed from the Wikipedia entry for being unsubstantiated.

So where's your evidence that this was true?

What a farce! Where's yours? A newspaper quoting Palestinian sources?! Mine was an AP report.

I'm not the one that brought this up - you are. Substaintiate your own sources.

Quote[/b] ]And even if it was true, why were they summarily executed by the IDF and not arrested?

Maybe as members of a terrorist organization they pulled guns out. Not exactly news here.

Quote[/b] ]Let's face it! Had her brother been arrested she might have applied her skills as a lawyer to representing him rather than avenging him and 20 innocent Israelis might still be alive today.

Maybe we've cut down the total number of suicide bombers by a mjor percentage by not letting them roam around and do what they want.

Quote[/b] ]But most importantly: We probably wouldn't be discussing this today if it wasn't for the artwork and what the Israeli ambassador did to it. In other words, the ambassador has unwittingly become a part of the artwork.

Absolutely. It was defintely an expression of art to put such a disgusting exhibit in its place.

[Acecombat 0]

How can the exhibit be disgusting Avon?

From what i see its showing the horrific death she died along with the lives she took away with hers. it should only help to show the people what sorta horror suicide bombing really is instead of glorifying it? You know your comments are damaging to this issue ,the only thing your doing is feeding extremists on the other side the idea that you dont like the exhibit which makes them further think that the woman's being glorified there EVEN though thats not the case

What your doing is HELPING the suicide cause yourself with those comments .... your furthering it ....

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]And even if it was true, why were they summarily executed by the IDF and not arrested?

Maybe as members of a terrorist organization they pulled guns out. Not exactly news here.

Can you find any source supporting the military's claim that they were IJ activists?

Has the military even tried to support this claim?

Can you find any news source at all that claims they were armed?

If not then your speculation is nothing more than hateful propaganda.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]And even if it was true, why were they summarily executed by the IDF and not arrested?

Maybe as members of a terrorist organization they pulled guns out. Not exactly news here.

Can you find any source supporting the military's claim that they were IJ activists?

Has the military even tried to support this claim?

Can you find any news source at all that claims they were armed?

If not then your speculation is nothing more than hateful propaganda.

Exactly my point about the drivvel you brought down.

[denoir 0]

Calm down boys and girls. In the context it's pretty irrelevant as she would have taken the death of her relatives just as badly regardless of for what reason they were killed.

I'd like to know how the art work is encouraging suicide bombings? The only subjective and charged words I can find there is "murdered 19 innocent civilians". Note that the text does not say that her brother and her cusin were "murdered" or "innocent". So if anything, it's leaning more towards Israel's point of view.

Is it forbidden in Israel to tell a background story concerning a suicide bombing? Do you burn books that contain biographies of people that have comitted atrocities?

As for the installation, as art it's always a question of interpretation. I see the pool representing all the blood that has been shed by her, by Israel, by everybody in the conflict. Her portrait in white is floating as a contrast to show how a seemingly normal innocent person can go through a process and be driven to such madness that she is willing to blow herself up and murder 19 civillians. It's about this destructive spiral.

Do you have a different interpretation? You do? That's great - you see that's why freedom of expression exists.

As for the ambassador, I would not mind demonstrating the principle "violence begets violence" to him in practice. His actions are no different than burning books. And that makes him a thug and a savage.

Well, the only good thing to come out of this sad affair is that both the head of the museum and the government have acted correctly. The head of the museum said that there was no politician, diplomat or government official that could make him remove it. The government has demanded an explanation of Israel and dismissed all suggestions that the exhibit be removed as it would be a constitutional violation.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]An enraged man sprayed the words 'Kill Lies All' on Picasso's painting Guernica in the Museum of Modern Art yesterday. He was seized immediately and the red-paint lettering was removed from the masterpiece, leaving no damage. The vandal, who shouted that he was an artist, was identified as Tony Shafrazi...

1974 New York Times

...years later...

Quote[/b] ]Tony Shafrazi is now a well-known art dealer in New York. In December 1980, he said in an interview in Art in America: 'I wanted to bring the art absolutely up to date, to retrieve it from art history and give it life.

Today, the painting hangs at the UN headquarters.  ...Ready for the punchline?

Quote[/b] ]As Secretary of State Colin Powell made the case yesterday for an attack on Iraq, UN workers a few yards away covered up the United Nations' depiction of one of the 20th-century's most enduring anti-war symbols: a tapestry of Pablo Picasso's "Guernica."

For years, the tapestry has hung outside the Security Council chamber as a reminder of the gravity of the council's mandate. It also hangs in the background of TV images as diplomats speak to journalists at the chamber's entrance.

As the council gathered to hear Powell, workers placed a baby-blue curtain and flags of the council's member countries in front of the tapestry's jarring images of women and children, men and animals under bombardment.

Diplomats at the United Nations, speaking on condition they not be named, have been quoted in recent days telling journalists that they believe the United States leaned on UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other U.S. diplomats argued for war on Iraq.

NewsDay  February 6, 2003

Edit:  It's just a coincidence that the above site about the art vandalism happens to be Swedish.

[Bernadotte 0]

Exactly my point about the drivvel you brought down.

There are countless mainstream news accounts of her siblings being gunned down in cold blood.  You've provided nothing but your own wishful (hateful) speculation that they may have been armed.

It is clearly you who is posting the drivvel.

[theavonlady 2]

Exactly my point about the drivvel you brought down.

There are countless mainstream news accounts of her siblings being gunned down in cold blood.  You've provided nothing but your own wishful (hateful) speculation that they may have been armed.

It is clearly you who is posting the drivvel.

No. Look at my link. It says there: Source: AP.

It's not mine. It's no different than yours.

Try again.

[Bernadotte 0]

No. Look at my link. It says there: Source: AP.

I looked again.

Still nothing about here brother and cousin being armed.

Still nothing here but your speculation.

Still nothing here but your hateful drivvel.

[Guest]

No. Look at my link. It says there: Source: AP.

I looked again.

Still nothing about here brother and cousin being armed.

Still nothing here but your speculation.

Still nothing here but your hateful drivvel.

Are you insinuating that, if Israel exceuted two innocent men, her actions were in part justified? I think you are - you will deny this of course - but you are blaming the victim...

[Balschoiw 0]

Is that the same Avon who never misses a chance to revive the Nazi era where Jews were the target and tries to use that against nowadays german people ?

Avon this is double standard colliding at it´s best. You have no problem talking about the german genocide but when it comes to your country genocide is a no-no word.

Ah I forgot you just defend your country of evil evil palestinians. On the other hand your beloved country wouldn´t even be able to uphold it´s living conditions if there were no cheap palestinian workers...

Avon is not the only israelite that is using that dual standards. Especially we in germany are used to uproars from israel whenever a drunk fart paints a Nazi symbol at a wall.

But when we point out what actual israel policy does to the palestinians they tell us to shut up because of our "History".

Well things don´t change much.

Maybe you should follow these peoples example and try to cooperate in peace.

Palestinians and Israelites in the arctic

How deep the hate is you can see on the reaction of an Israeli who was one of the team members. He refused to pose for the final pic on the mountain of palestinian and isreali friendship because arafat had signed the palestinian flag.

Maybe this experience would have been good for Avon also.

But then again we would have had two missing people on the final pic I guess.

[Bernadotte 0]

Are you insinuating that, if Israel exceuted two innocent men, her actions were in part justified?  I think you are - you will deny this of course - but you are blaming the victim...

First of all rufusmac, please don't put words in my mouth!

If a doctor blames lung cancer on smoking he is not trying to justify the cancer.  In fact, he is trying to help the victim with information that might save his life.

Similarly, blaming her act of terrorism on the grief she suffered is not justifying the terrorism.  Arresting her brother and cousin instead of murdering them may have avoided her grief and its consequences.

[Guest]

What's your warrant?  There is no justification for what she did, and no way that israel could have acted differently to prevent the bombing.  More importantly, she wasn't the planner of the attack, she didn't decide when or where, she was a soldier, tasked with a duty.  If not her, someone else would have done it.  Her brother and cousin are irrelevant to the 21 dead...

Edit: I've heard the "cycle of violence" claim a million times. This is a war, this is not cause and effect like smoking and cancer. The suicide bomber is the lowest factor in the equation, a grunt-private, following orders. Israel must do what it can to eliminate them. Read about Yehhiyeh Ayyash (the engineer) and how Israel eliminated him (cell phone bomb).

[Bernadotte 0]

There is no justification for what she didl...

Again, you are fabricating my opinion because you are afraid to or unable to argue against what I'm really saying.

Read my lips:  <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Nobody here is trying to justify terrorism.</span>

Edit:

This is a war, this is not cause and effect like smoking and cancer.

Really?  Your government doesn't seem to agree.  In fact they are quite convinced that that a work of art will cause a negative effect.

[Guest]

Is that the same Avon who never misses a chance to revive the Nazi era where Jews were the target and tries to use that against nowadays german people ?

Avon this is double standard colliding at it´s best. You have no problem talking about the german genocide but when it comes to your country genocide is a no-no word.

Ah I forgot you just defend your country of evil evil palestinians. On the other hand your beloved country wouldn´t even be able to uphold it´s living conditions if there were no cheap palestinian workers...

Avon is not the only israelite that is using that dual standards. Especially we in germany are used to uproars from israel whenever a drunk fart paints a Nazi symbol at a wall.

But when we point out what actual israel policy does to the palestinians they tell us to shut up because of our "History".

Well things don´t change much.

Maybe you should follow these peoples example and try to cooperate in peace.

Palestinians and Israelites in the arctic

How deep the hate is you can see on the reaction of an Israeli who was one of the team members. He refused to pose for the final pic on the mountain of palestinian and isreali friendship because arafat had signed the palestinian flag.

Maybe this experience would have been good for Avon also.

But then again we would have had two missing people on the final pic I guess.

In Avon's defense, I don't recall her ever claiming you (or any german) couldn't participate in this debate because of your countrys history.  Which tempts me to raise an interesting question... how do people in Europe relate to the history and WWII, specifically the holocaust?  It seems (to me) that in this ever polarized debate, you are so careful to defend yourselves from the charge of anti-semetism that you miss the lessons that can be learned from that time period.

One time, a woman from Berlin was explaining to me how Germans (and europeans) feel trapped by the holocaust...  She said,  "if we say we understand the holocaust, you will say to us, "you can never fully understand the horrors of the holocaust", but if we say "we cannot understand the holocaust" you insist we build museums and memorials to learn about it.

Personally, i worry myself that the valuable lessons of the holocaust will become further cheapened (just look at all the Bush=hitler placards at a protest) because people are so entrenched in their positions.  The thing that hurts me the most is when people believe that the Jews "use" the holocaust as a crutch to get what they want.

Is this how people on this forum feel?

[Guest]

There is no justification for what she didl...

Again, you are fabricating my opinion because you are afraid to or unable to argue against what I'm really saying.

Read my lips:  <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Nobody here is trying to justify terrorism.</span>

Edit:

This is a war, this is not cause and effect like smoking and cancer.

Really?  Your government doesn't seem to agree.  In fact they are quite convinced that that a work of art will cause a negative effect.

You say that, but the words do not equate the message.  Why even make the preposterous claim that 21 people could be alive if israel hadn't allegedly shot her brother in cold blood?  However, I won't argue semantics anymore.  To prove i'm not "running" from your points, I fully understand what you are claiming, and I think it is flawed.

Truth, being subjective and all, leads me to believe that if Israel had good reason to shoot and kill her brother (they were armed lets say) she would still feel somewhat peeved, no?  I don't imagine it was the fact that israel violated "habius corpus" that drove her to terror.  "Golly, what a disgrace of legal standards!  I will kill 21 people in response"  She was finishing her brother's duty.