Bomber art attack furore spreads

[Scurrilous]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3408511.stm

<snip>

"Israel's ambassador to Sweden has been questioned about attacking an artwork showing a Palestinian suicide bomber.
The envoy, Zvi Mazel, is unrepentant, calling the work a "call to genocide" but the Swedish Government says his actions are "unacceptable".

Meanwhile the artistic director of the museum, which is keeping the work on display, has reportedly been attacked.

Artist Dror Feiler, who is also said to have been threatened, said the envoy's actions made reconciliation harder.

He told the BBC World Service that his work was "absolutely not" a glorification of suicide bombers as had been claimed and criticised Mr Mazel for a "stupid act."

[bluesoul]

1. So

the author Dror Feiler is Jewish himself and he even claims "that his work was "absolutely not" a glorification of suicide bombers".

And some still insist on the opposite :shrug:

[Resistance]

5. amazing, isn't it

[number6]

14. totally .

..

[Gimel]

6. the art work

Dror Feiler is an ex-patriot Israeli. No one is claiming that the exhibit his artist Swedish wife created is anti-Semitic. It is anti-Israel and glorifies a suicide bomber in a revolting way.

Anti interesting anti-demonstration was made outside of the Swedish Embassy in Tel Aviv today. A large container with blood-red water, ;pieces of broken dolls and teddies floating in it. A toy bear sat next to the pool with a Swedish flag held in one had, the cross on the flag turned into a swastika. Next to the bear, who was wearing a flack jacket was a flask, of perhaps brandy or some other drink.

Do you suppose the Swedes in the embassy was flattered by this magnificent artwork?

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Of course not

Do you suppose the Swedes in the embassy was flattered by this magnificent artwork?

However, it is a more appropriate for demonstrators to engage in this kind of protest than for an ambassador to behave like a two-year-old who didn't get his way.

[Gimel]

8. We don't see it that way. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Who's 'we'?

People who believe that it's totally professional behaviour for a diplomat to vandalise a piece of artwork because of his interpretation of it? If that's the 'we' that's being referred to, 'we' have to realise that it's not at all professional for a high-level diplomat to behave like a two-year old. If every diplomat went round vandalising everything they have a problem with, things would get rather chaotic. When they take overseas postings, they have an obligation to behave in a dignified and professional manner. No matter which way anyone looks at it, the behaviour this diplomat displayed was neither dignfied nor professional, and the Israeli govt should have taken him to task rather than praising him. Of course, that the Israeli govt praised him doesn't amount to much, considering that it's the same Israeli govt that has criminal thugs like Benny Elon in cabinet positions. I'd be interested to know if this ambassador was appointed to his position by the Sharon govt. Politicians do have a nasty habit of defending every appointment they make, lest their initial judgment come into question...

Violet...

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Any country with diplomatic relations with US or Israel

is aware that both regimes hold certain standards of behavior that are different from those generally adopted by the civilized world.

Sweden chose to show art that displeased the Israeli ambassador.

The ambassador's actions were consistent with the policies of and have been praised by the government of Israel.

It is not known at this time when we can expect to see Merkava tanks roll into the streets of Stockholm.

Due to overextended military resources, it is unlikely that the US will be able to launch punitive airstrikes against the Scandinavian nation at least for several weeks.

[lefty_mcduff]

3. Nice.

Now the director has been attacked and the artist threatened. Wonder if Sharon and his Likud thugs are gonna endourse these actions too? After all, they *did* give the ambassador a big ol thumbs up on the original event.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[donsu]

4. the Ambassador acted like a boor

and put other people in danger by his hysterics. and should have been arrested. You can't destroy other people's property just because you don't like it. (I know, I know, the bushgang does it all the time)

and criminal Sharon blessed the ambassador for doing it. both are disgusting men.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Fighting words

There is a tradition in common law that says it is possible to say, "fighting words" and incite violence. If you call me a particularly nasty name in public, I am justified in punching you in the nose.

So, if I go to a gallery where they are celebrating the lynching of black men or celebrating the murder of Dr. King, don't expect me to write a letter. Expect me to act like a human being and a product of 400 years of mistreatment.

Now look at the ambassador. Jews have been mistreated for 2,000 years. In particular, in Europe they have a vastly horrendous history. Now you have art that glorifies suicide bombers whose sole goal is to kill as many Israeli innocens as possible.

Gee, I am shocked that he responded the way he did.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Go ahead and punch the guy out

You're right, I won't blame you a bit.

But I hope you are prepared to face assault and battery charges.

On the other hand, you may, like the ambassador, simply vandalize the work. In that case, you face other, less serious charges.

Unless, of course, you have diplomatic immunity. Then you might just be thrown out of the country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Works for me

That's why we have jury trials. To analyze if you did something wrong, something ordinary people would not do under identical circumstances.

Somehow, I don't think this situation will evolve into real charges considering its minor nature.

[the_boxer_]

31. If you are called something unsavory...

You have no justification for punching someone in the nose. It is illegal no matter how much you want it to be legal. Don't even use that excuse. It's not a healthy argument. Even Dr. King would advocate turning the other cheek.

As for your quote:

Now you have art that glorifies suicide bombers whose sole goal is to kill as many Israeli innocens as possible

The artist himself said that the art didn't glorify the suicide bomber. Are yout he arbiter for what this artist's art stands for? I think not!

[JohnLocke]

20. Diplomatic immunity.

[JasonDeter]

10. And people wonder why there is no peace in the world.

With this kind of display called art.

[Resistance]

13. yeah

damn artists - mostly a bunch of Leftist whackos, anyway. :crazy:

[number6]

15. yea , thats who's causing all the wars in the world

bunch of Leftist whackos artists !!:crazy: :eyes: :smoke:

[Resistance]

16. exactly

if only they would renounce their commitments to justice, fairness, and equality then the world would be much safer.

:hippie:

[JasonDeter]

18. Ah justice for terrorists and fairness and equality, ya thats the ticket!

Don't let them blowing up innocent people get in the way of that justice fairness and equality right? Thanks for the laugh!!

[lefty_mcduff]

19. Ahm. He was referring to artists.

Not terrorists.

[JasonDeter]

21. You say artist I say nut you say artist

I say one who endorses terrorism which is the reason the Palestinian people are still suffering. If those who speak for the Palestinian people didn't condone and encourage the use of such aweful murderous tactics the Israeli/Palestinians issue would have been resolved many many years ago and the two peoples would be living in peace. But thats what you get when the voice of the people are drowned out by propaganda.

[bluesoul]

22. The artist

is Israeli/Jewish himself not an Arab/Palestinian. FYI

[Gimel]

23. Endorses terrorism

Mr. Deter said that the artist endorses Palestinian terrorism by depicting such an attack. He didn't say that he was Palestinian, fyi.

[bluesoul]

24. The artist himself

said that the work was not intended to glorify terrorism or suicide bombers, something many of you somehow missed out. An important fact!

[Gimel]

36. I didn't miss it

That was for public relations. They'll say anything to deny intention of promoting violence.

How would you like say an effigy of yourself hung in an art display? Would you call that acceptable art?

And the artist says he doesn't approve of hangings.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I see...

So when someone says they oppose suicide-bombings, they're actually lying and saying anything to deny intention of promoting violence? People should take the word of the artist themselves when it comes to the message in their art for the simple reason that the artist themselves is the only person qualified to say what the intent of the art is. You've decided that yr interpretation of the piece of art is the final word on what it's about, but the text accompanying the art and the words of the artist themselves doesn't support that interpretation. And it seems to me there would have been no PR at all if the Israeli ambassador hadn't vandalised the art in the first place...



Violet...

[IndianaGreen]

29. Making death threats to the artist and to museum officials is terrorism

despite the belief that some have that whatever Israel does is never called terrorism no matter what.

E-mailed threats

Danish radio reported that two of the museum's top staff as well as the artist had received threats.

It said the artistic director, Thomas Nordanstand, alone had received 400 e-mails about the installation, most of them abusive and one containing a death threat.

Mr Nordanstand was also shoved down the museum's steps as he smoked a cigarette outside the building on Sunday but managed to grab a rail to break his fall, the radio said.

Sweden's Ambassador to Israel, Robert Rydberg, said there had been "a misinterpretation of a piece of art which may very well be in bad taste, very bad taste, but which is not a justification of suicide bombers".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3408511.stm

[GabysPoppy]

30. Are you charging Israel sent these Emails?

[Gimel]

37. Jews in Sweden

Prominent Jews in Sweden receive death threats all the time. Is that something to get upset about?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. And this proves what, exactly?

That we should ignore the threats and violence happening as a result of the immature actions of the Israeli ambassador? I don't see how making a claim that other people get death threats nullifies the disgust that anyone should feel over the abuse and threats being sent by those who apparently feel that threats and violence will pressure people into removing art that these thugs don't approve of. It's like fobbing off a death threat recieved by one person by telling them that other people get them too. Death threats are wrong, no matter who sends them and who recieves them. That the actions of the Israeli ambassador has caused nutcases to crawl out from under their rocks and use violence and threats to try to censor art is just another reasons why the ambassadors actions were totally irresponsible in the first place....

Violet...

[Gimel]

45. Fobbing off

Well, if you want to treat everyone equal in a country which guarantees equal rights, you should also be concerned about the death threats to Jewish citizens.

It's been going on for a long time, and anti-semitic incidents are increasing. Is that the time to display a suicide attack glorifying the bomber?

The Ambassador's action was rational and mature. It would nave been cowardly not to express his objections in at least as vocal a way as the display presented as art. The response has been to make demonize him and Israel.

[IndianaGreen]

46. The Ambassador is a guest of the country in which he is posted

He behaved badly and should get his sorry ass kicked out of the country as a persona non grata.

That's the only point about this incident, the rest is just plain bullshit rationalization to justify the behaviour of this moron!

What normal diplomats do is to file a protest with the Foreign Ministry. This puke decided to act as if he was a settler and could whatever he pleased. What kind of morons is Israel nominating as diplomats nowadays?

[Gimel]

50. Art in protest

You apparently don't recognize this legitimate art form.

Did you ever wee the mustache on the Mona Lisa? The spray paint on a Picasso in the NY Museum of Modern Art?

In true Dadaist style, Ambassador Mazel expressed his country's indignation at the presence of the exhibit called "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" at a convention discussing genocide.

Many see it as art, and appropriate art. True Dadaism.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Fine, kick the sob out of Sweden!

The Ambassador behaved like a thug and broke diplomatic protocol. I guess vandalism is a virtue when it involves an Israeli. The Ambassador is a fine example of the gangster government he represents!

[Gimel]

55. I don't think

that is the response of the Swedish government. They are, in fact, sympathetic.

[Comadreja]

65. Yo!

:yourock:

[bemildred]

59. LOL.

Props to you, that is a good one.

Although I suppose you recognize how dangerous such a
line of thought can be.

[Gimel]

70. Dangerous to lies

If Dadaism is dangerous, so is most truthfulness outside of acceptable parameters. Society will then degenerate without innovation.

[bemildred]

73. People do not agree about what is truth or what is acceptable.

This is easily seen here on this forum, for instance.

If violence and acting out are acceptable because they are
"art", then who is to say what is not "art"? It's a universal
justification for doing whatever you feel like.

[Gimel]

79. Misapplied terms

Violence was not condoned or was violence used. The unplugging of lights is not usually considered a violent act. It was unexpected.

[bemildred]

81. That is why I added "acting out". nt

[Gimel]

89. Some think so

And then they claim that those who oppose the obvious of the flagrant nonstatement at a conference of for peace are just stupid and don't understand art.

It was meant as an insult, you know.

[bemildred]

91. Not sure I understand what you mean precisely, but:

I thought the installation was tasteless and offensive. But then
I always dislike attempts to shock, I don't like having people try
to jerk my chain emotionally; that is one reason I dislike TV.

The offensiveness might well have been intentional, I cannot tell
from here, or it might have been sincere insensitivity, or an attempt
to shock for what was seen as a good purpose.

As an aside, I have little use for dada and surrealism - although
there is a small core of interesting ideas in both - they tend to be
exploited for amusement and to annoy those seen as too conventional,
and they are a cheap and easy way to make "art", and an excuse
for doing whatever you choose in the name of "art", as already
mentioned.

However, all that being given, it does not follow that the
Ambassador behaved well or wisely, he would have done better to
ignore the whole thing. When someone goes out of his way to
jerk your chain, the last thing you want to do is to reward his
effort with a big reaction.

Whether it is right or wrong, it is the Ambassador that looks like
an unsophisticated ass who overreacted, and that may well have been
what the "artist" set out to accomplish.

Edit: put quotes around "artist"

[sushi]

53. I disagree

Mr Mazel's action was outrageous and immature. He isn't fit to be in the diplomatic service. Certainly not as the top diplomat. He should change jobs. It doesn't surprise me at all that Israel's PM praised him.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. And who's not concerned?

I'm concerned about death threats to anyone, but seeing as how this thread is about the vandalism carried out by a 'diplomat' and the death threats mentioned were direct results of that incident, I'm sort of curious as to what the point is to pointing out that other people get death threats unrelated to the topic of this thread...

Sorry, but I don't agree at all with yr personal interpretation of that artwork. I have no reason to take yr word as to the intent of the art over that of the person who created it. What I think people have to understand is that their personal interpretation of art isn't the final word on what it means, especially when the art is ambiguous...

Nope, there was nothing rational, mature or professional about the actions of the ambassador. There's nothing cowardly at all in voicing a personal disgust by lodging an official complaint. It's a hell of a lot more mature and rational than acting like a petulant, bratty child and vandalising what they don't agree with....

Maybe he should have thought about the negative response his vandalism would cause, and the Israeli govt should have thought about demanding that this ambassador act in a professional manner rather than praising him over it....

Violet...

[Gimel]

69. Your opinion

You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to mine. As any psychologist could tell you, even the artists who created it may not know what their own subconscious intent was, or perhaps don't really want to articulate it. What they have said in a press conference following the flap about it is similar to denials that often flow in the wake of serious charges.

Although an official complaint was lodged by the ambassador, and I have mentioned that at least twice in my posts, it was ignored. Finally, it continues to be ignored as the display yet stands.

Professionalism implies truthfulness to me, not a person who follows rules and knows not what he is about.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. And the difference is...

..that when I disagree with something, I don't go around trying to destroy it or supporting anyone who does, because I'm aware that my opinion isn't what everyone else has to accept as the final word. Shrinks could tell us that about anyone, so that's not to be taken seriously. Unless you can get into someone head and *know* what they're thinking, it's all guesswork. What matters is the intention of the creator of the art, not what some fool who vandalises the art insists. The art itself, the text accompanying it, and the artists words do NOT mean that they're doing some denial thing where they actually support suicide-bombings. Does that mean that anyone here who opposes Israels actions in the Occupied Territories are doing the same thing when they state they are opposed to suicide-bombings?? Of course not...

If he'd complained and nothing had happened, he would have been much more professional to have stayed away. It seems his intent was to turn up there and vandalise the art, which I find even worse than a spur-of-the-moment hissyfit. I hope the artwork stays where it is, because to remove it now is to give in to thugs and those who believe death threats will get them their own way...

Professionalism is about sticking to a set of standards and ethics expected of diplomats. Vandalising artwork isn't one of those things they're supposed to do. They're representing their country and they have obligations to behave in a dignified and professional way that doesn't offend the country they're in and doesn't make a fool of them, and through them their country. But what the hell. Let's just get on the bandwagon and hope that all diplomats wherever they are get in touch with their inner selves and start vandalising anything that their inner self has a problem with. Most of them are so dry and boring anyway, and I'm sure a new no holds barred, get in touch with yr inner self and forget about being a professional and a diplomat approach will be very entertaining to watch. Or does this only apply to Israeli diplomats? ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

74. Tactics

Nice the way you've side-stepped the fact that he DID register a protest with the management and it was ignored, just as you are ignoring that statement for the third or fourth time. By the way, the script accompanying the horror was this:

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.


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

Naming two families is hardly recognizing that 21 people were dead or mortally wounded.



While the display violated an prior agreement with the Israeli government that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not be part of the conference.

Please read further.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/384343.html

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/384345.html

while we could go on like this forever, I suggest that you keep your opinion - like the mother of the Palestinian terrorist bomber, who sees her daughter as victorious:

While the relatives relatives of those killed at the Maxim restaurant complained about the installation in Stockholm, Hanadai Jaradat's mother, at home in the WestBank, told reporters that the Swedish controversy proved her daughter was no terrorist, and that it was the Israelis who were the terrorists.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/384341.html


and I'll keep mine.

[lefty_mcduff]

72. Wow -

"even the artists who created it may not know what their own subconscious intent was, or perhaps don't really want to articulate it"

If I understand correctly, some artists (and of course, this one qualifies) may not know what their artwork means. So I guess it would be up to society (or in this case Likud minions) to determine what the artist *really* means. And then, destroy some piece(s) (of course this one would qualify) accordingly.

Do I have this about right, or am I missing something?

[Gimel]

75. Yes

Unplugging the lights did not destroy the display.

[lefty_mcduff]

76. Unplugging the lights?

Ahm - not exactly.

From one of the original articles (on a previous thread)

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

Seems we've changed from defending his actions as completely acceptable and commendable, to morphing those actions into nothing more than flicking a light switch which I suppose is now 'no big deal'.

[Gimel]

80. That is a judgment

The light seemed to have fallen on it's own. Also from a previous thread.

[lefty_mcduff]

25. ????

The artist is condoning and encouraging 'murderous tactics'? Don't think so. I think the situation in the ME is what creates the murderous tactics, not an obscure (up to now) artist's interpretation.

There's no way this piece could be called propaganda - it's way too objective.

And I doubt very much if this piece will effect the ME mess one way or another, nor do I doubt its destruction wil lead to everyone 'living in peace'.

[JasonDeter]

26. ?????

If the 'artist' instead had done a pic of the bits and pieces left over of the terrorist spread over a Palestinian street and the Palestinian people stepping on their remains with disgust with Olive Branches walking toward Jerusalem THEN I'd say the 'artist' was not condoning and encouraging and in fact glorifying the terrorists and their acts. And you meant 'subjective' didn't you? Well unless you missed the posts on this subject it has affected the ME on a international scale! And its distruction would indeed hasten peace by making a statement that civilized people WILL NOT stand for the murderous acts of terrorism and in fact will SO DIMINISH their acts to shame them out of existence.

[lefty_mcduff]

27. Well....

Considering the artist has explained what he was trying to say (which is NOT the encouragement of terrorist attacks but rather the futility of same - he describes the act as 'murder' in the companion verbiage) I stand by the fact that this is NOT a PRO terrorist piece. If you wish to disregard the artist's own explanation, you are free to do so.

Feel free to create a piece of artwork that depicts "bits and pieces left over of the terrorist spread over a Palestinian street and the Palestinian people stepping on their remains with disgust with Olive Branches walking toward Jerusalem" and that can be YOUR artwork and YOUR message. That's kind of the point of this entire exercise. And the entire 'art' deal (I am a designer myself so this one's close to home). It would seem however, you seem to want to ignore that this violence does not occur in a vacuum, but that would be your creative license, and your right.

I didn't miss any posts on this one. This has not affected the ME one iota (other than the usual Likud propaganda and counter accusations) - the violence will continue. It is highly unlikely that the piece would have received such attention if not for the dude trashing it in a inappropriate act - especially for a diplomat.

I always get 'objective' and 'subjective' mixed up (my bad) but while we're nitpicking it's 'destruction', not 'distruction'. One of the reasons you should stay clear of 'spelling flames'.

And while you may be outraged at this your interpretation of one person's artwork , I'd argue that the dialing back of IDF aggression ie: the destruction of 30 Palestinian homes (see the thread close to this one) would do more towards 'hastening' ME peace than the destruction of a fairly innocuous piece in a Swedish art gallery.

[the_boxer_]

32. Well said Lefty_Mcduff!

:yourock:

[JasonDeter]

33. Seems you are the only one in a "spelling flame" not me.

I didn't point out a error in spelling, I only suggested you used the wrong word which you agreed to. But if you felt you needed to get a cheap shot in thats ok, we're all adults here.

[Resistance]

28. If a civilized people will not stand for murderous terrorism

then what the hell are we doing giving Israel billions every year to butcher the Palestinian people, with destruction of their homes and stealing their land in the process?

[Gimel]

38. Maybe

There's another side of the story (conflict) if you ever care to look into it. You might even realize that the Palestinians receive 3 times per capita that the Marshall Plan gave to Europeans after WWII.


:eyes: :crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Some of us have seen the other side...

...and the Israel is always right side of the story is no more believable than the Palestine is always right side of the story. I've got no doubt that Resistance has been exposed to both sides of the story...


I think you should realise that since the 1940's this thing called inflation has an effect on things. I doubt buying a loaf of bread now costs the same as it did in the 1940's. If you want to deny that Israel recieves billions from the US, go for it, but bringing up any aid recieved by the Palestinians isn't the way to do it....

Violet...

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Yes, really...

You are aware that the Marshall Plan wasn't just aimed at one state, but many, right? And as I said, if someone has a problem with aid given to the Palestinians, the Marshall Plan isn't the best way of pointing that out...

Actually, I wasn't covering for anyone. I felt the urge to reply to a post and did so. As Resistance hasn't given any indication that he's not aware of two sides to the story, I'm not entirely sure why you were telling him he wasn't aware. How could someone not be aware of the 'other side of the story' if they read this forum for more than a few days?

Violet...

[Gimel]

54. Some proof

Here is a report from Nov 9, 2003.

The revelation follows the disclosure by the International Monetary Fund in September that Mr Arafat had diverted more than £560 million of Palestinian Authority funds from 1995 to 2000. The new report coincides with a BBC documentary, also to be screened tonight, which claims the Palestinian Authority is paying members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an armed militia responsible for carrying out suicide attacks against Israelis, up to $50,000 (£29,000) a month.

<clip>

In the programme Mr Fayad sheds light on Mr Arafat's extensive system of patronage, claiming that the Palestinian leader hands out $20 million a month to his security forces in cash. However, Mr Fayad says: "There is corruption out there. There is impropriety, and that's what had to be fixed." A senior Palestinian official refused to comment on the claims but said: "It is a shame that CBS focused on allegations of corruption rather than Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian lands."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2003/1109swiss.htm

The PA official's comment sounds familiar. Focus on Israel as the aggressor. Admit no wrong on the PA side.


The Marshall Plan:

http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Proof of what?

That Arafat's corrupt? I think I already knew that. Just another thing that he and Sharon have in common, eh?

Not quite sure how corruption negates the occupation, though. Unfortunately there seems to be quite a few people who admit no wrong on the Israeli side either...

Violet...

[Gimel]

78. Wrong

Defending Israel's right to exist is not the same as admitting no wrong. Stating facts is not the same as admitting no wrong.

Sharon may be involved in an illegal loan transaction, but that is not like pocketing public funds. The fact that Israelis elected Sharon means that we are serious about stopping terrorism. He was the best man to do that.

While many would like to see Israel become the Palestinians state, others are just ignorant of the dynamics involved. The distortions and accusations are orchestrated to accomplish a lie through the media.

[Jackie97]

62. There is another side of the story....

and I'll be the first to say that many "pro-Palestinians" haven't even bothered to look into it much. However, many "pro-Israelis" don't bother looking into the "pro-Palestinian" side of things. I would think that more "pro-Palestinians" have seen more of the "pro-Israeli" side of things than vice versa though because many of us confused Israel to be the good guys at one time. For some of us, making a decision to take up for the Palestinians was not in any way easy.

Anyway, I've looked into both sides and still do. While I do occasionally defend the "pro-Israeli" side or step in the middle of things in fear of anti-semitism getting started up, I still believe that Israel as a state is the oppressor and that the Palestinians are the oppressed. Suicide bombings are certainly wrong, but it's their way of fighting back against oppression.

As far as money goes, Israel gets six billion dollars a year from us. That's a lot more than what the Palestinians are getting.

[Gimel]

77. The donor states

You seem to be only looking at "what the Palestinians are getting" to mean from the US. No one really knows how much Arafat got from Saddam,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.st

Syria or UN agencies
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020213/2002021310.html

http://www.psgateway.org/news/item?item_id=114954

or how much he gets from the Saudis, for that matter. Those transactions are pretty secret. The EU, however, is the major financier for the PA, so let's see how much he receives from them.

The EU is a major contributor:

The European Union has been paying about 10% of the Palestinian Authority's budget for almost two years. That's around 10 million euros a month. The money is supposed to pay the salaries of public-sector employees and sustain the administration in the Palestinian Territories. But there have been repeated allegations that some of this money has found its way into the hands of corrupt officials or, worse, has been used to fund terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Some of us in the European Parliament are sufficiently concerned by these charges to call for a formal Committee of Inquiry to investigate them.
http://www.charlestannock.com/article.asp?ID=40

Bassam Abu Sharif, an advisor to Arafat, said the Arab states have so far paid only $8m. out of the $1.3b. pledged at the last Arab summit in October
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/03/14/News/News.22915.html

The European Union agreed December 6 to provide the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) with 32 million euros ($39 million) to support the private sector, elections planned for June 2004 and reforming the judicial system.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1038615/posts

Fayyad presented December 3 the 2004 fiscal year budget to the Palestinian Legislative Council at a meeting in Gaza. The budget was estimated at $1.7 billion. PNA revenues from taxes and clearances will cover less than half of budget while the rest is expected to be covered through donor aid.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1038615/posts


Also, Israel's population is 6.7 million while the PA has about 3.5 million individuals. Israel has never gotten 6 billion dollars from the US in one year. That's absolute malarkey. It's at about 3 billion, including loans.

[Jackie97]

83. Compare millions to billions.

First of all, all those millions that the Palestinians get do not all up to the billions that Israel gets. While I wouldn’t mind an investigation to make sure that the funds for the Palestinians are going towards humanitarian aid, we *know* that a good chunk, maybe most of our aid to Israel goes towards their military. That’s money that Israel could have used to help their poor, and nobody is objecting to it.

Anyway, here’s some information on what Israel gets. Maybe it isn’t quite six billion. It gets complicated.

http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_israel_09_06.html

“The specifics of the aid to Israel were not outlined in Bush's letter. Israel receives about $3 billion in annual economic and military aid.
Officials said the $50 million to the Palestinians would help maintain humanitarian, refugee and reconstruction assistance projects for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The projects are being managed by non-governmental organizations.”

Compare three million to fifty million.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020905/2002090501.html

"Sources at the US Congress and government said that President George Bush will ask the Congress this week to allocate a sum of one billion dollars to help Israel and strengthen security at the American airports. Bush will ask the Congress to give 200 million dollars for Israel which gets 3 billion dollars of the American aids annually, and asked for increasing the American aid to 800 million."

This looks like fun reading.

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/palestine/us-aid-to-israel.htm

[Gimel]

85. No specifics here

Requests are not the same as granted. In other words, Bush's request for the additional aid was trimmed down considerably. The loan guarantees went through - 9 million with 1 million of additional emergency aid.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/terroraid.html

This is buying US made technology. The profits go to the US corporations. It's not an outright grant.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, the PA gets grants from the EU and the Arab states like Saudi Arabia, and much is unaccounted for.

[Jackie97]

86. Bush was requestion additional aid.

Most to all of my links were giving numbers for what Israel already gets, so where were specifics.

[Jackie97]

34. I wouldn't call this piece "objective".

It clearly has a pro-Palestinian bias. I've been questioning whether to oppose this form of art politically. On one hand, it's inflammatory. I fear that it could trigger anti-semitism in that country. OTOH, I think that we need to consider that the Palestinians have to get their message out too. Their message is not "Let's commit genocide against all of the Jews". Their message is "I'm so desperate for freedom; that I'm willing to kill myself and others". It's a sad message, but I think it needs to be portrayed. Another thing to consider about this is that Israel might have art glorifying the IDF. To the Palestinians, these people are terrorists, and they would consider Israel to be glorifying terrorism. Many would argue that there's no difference. They're both fighting for their nation's self-determination or continuing existence. Neither side sees themselves as being the genocidal bad guy.

[IndianaGreen]

35. The Occupation of Palestine is the highest form of terrorism

but GAWD forbid one were to blame little Israel for creating so many Palestinian terrorists, which is exactly what the Occupation has accomplished.

Just as we should get out of Iraq, Israel should return behind her pre-1967 borders. Religious myths are a poor substitute for rational thinking.

[JasonDeter]

40. Once again the rock blames the glass for breaking. eom.

[Jackie97]

47. I never said that Israel shouldn't be held responsible for their actions..

or that they were not terrorizing the Palestinians. Although, I'm not sure if it's the highest form of terrorism. This is what I mean about people acting like Israel is special, when they're not. The truth is that countries (including the US) have done what Israel has done to the Palestinians and more.

Anyway, all I said was that it wasn't an objective piece of art. Objective is something that is without a bias. I don't really know of an art form that is objective.

[bluesoul]

48. Doesn't the US get critisized for it's sins

As far as I can see the US is far more critisized then Israel, especially here in Europe.

[Jackie97]

56. They are?

I keep associating Europe with that politician in France who claimed that the world was in danger because of that "shitty country" (referring to Israel). The politican never considered that the US was in a Hell of its own making, even without the existence of Isreal.

Yeah, the US is criticized, but it does seem like some people criticize Israel more for no really good reason to. For example, here in the US, people keep saying that we need to support around troops. Even people against the war are like that. OTOH, pro-Palestinian Americans want to paint the IDFer as a terrorist. Why is the IDFer a terrorist, but the American troop isn't one? I once brought up how US soldiers signed up for service, from where most IDFers are forced to go out there. Some overly biased person said (paraphrasing in goofy voice) "Yeah, and then they provoke suicide bombings in Israel". I wanted to call her a biased idiot for not acknowledging the same about the troops in Iraq and in other places. Anti-war Americans want to hold the IDFer responsible for his/her actions, but not the American troop. I don't think this is all about anti-semitism though. I think that people against the war are afraid to speak harshly about the troops because of the idiots who spat on Vietnam troops over thirty years ago. If we talk about them like we do IDFers, we'll have our heads taken off. That's just one example though of how Israel gets harsher criticism from others. Another is how people want to blame our troubles on Israel, when we are destroying countries all over the world. We would be in trouble without Israel.

[Flagg]

58. actually it was ''this shitty little coutry''

[Jackie97]

60. Thanks for the correction. Sorry.

[IndianaGreen]

61. And it was Conrad Black's wife that reported what had been a private...

comment by the French Ambassador at a cocktail party.

Conrad Black was recently canned by Hollinger for questionable financial transactions that have cost Hollinger millions of dollars. Black may be forced to sell the Jerusalem Post, ending the employment of a cadre of rightwing Americans that have been running the paper.

[Jackie97]

84. Am I supposed to see the French Ambassador as a victim?

Seriously, I'm not defending Conrad Black or his wife. However, do you really expect me to feel sorry for the French Ambassador when he dehumanized Israel by calling it a shitty little country and made the mythological claim that they (not the US themselves for their constant attacks on the other countries) were about to cause the entire world to come to war? No, I won't feel sorry for him. Heck, if the French Ambassador had truly wanted that to have been private, then he would have said it behind closed doors and not out in the open at a cocktail party.

That doesn't in any way mean that I support Conrad Black or his wife. What Conrad Black does is awful (particularly talking about the Hollinger thing). However, I just can't see the French Ambassador as a victim here. If he doesn't want to be called on his comments, then he needs to not say them. We all know that politicians don't get to have privacy, especially at cocktail parties.

For the record though, I'm still of the stance that the Israeli government is committing genocide and that they need to be dealt with militarily since nothing else is working. I still boycott Israel (which is more than I can say for my supposedly stronger pro-Palestinian friends in real life).

[IndianaGreen]

49. Art is never objective! By its very nature,art is always subjective!

And to tell people which art is proper, and which isn't, put us on the same moralistic plane as the Christian Right and some of the other great tyrants of history, which shall remain nameless.

[Gimel]

39. Israel military

that Israel might have art glorifying the IDF.

It is not art, it is called recruitment, and it is an internal matter. It is not international art for diplomats at an anti-genocide convention.

If the IDF glorifies killing Palestinians, however, that would be crossing the line, even in Israel.

[Jackie97]

57. Who is to say.....

that the art was glorifying killing Israelis? The author specifically said that was not the case. It sounds to me that the artist was trying to say the awful truth behind what would make a woman want to kill herself and others; not glorify it.

[Gimel]

92. Yet the responses

The Palestinians loved it. The Israelis didn't. It is the impact of the piece that counts. I don't think that can be appreciated from the lofty level of art criticism, to tell you the truth. It is a literal impact that it conveys that is essential. Put The picture in a glossy album and sell it for $150 each and view it in an art class. That's one purpose of viewing art as symbolical. Yet this was the front piece for a convention of genocide. Genocide was committed. Were the Israeli Druze families murdered depicted? Were their names mentioned? They were not even related to. The heroine Snow White is glorified as transcendent. That's how I view the symbols presented. Other views may see Snow White as a derogatory label perhaps? View it as a silly thing to have done, after all?

[Comadreja]

64. Oh, so this was art picturing

Sharon and the Israeli Occupation Forces, then?

[cprise]

63. I believe this is about wanting to own Palestinian imagery as a trademark

...of sorts.

Clearly, only the state of Israel is allowed to take liberties with how Palestinians are depicted.

That a European artist has a Palestinian emulating Snow White (of all things) isn't supposed to reflect badly on the suicide bomber (at least, according to Sharon's government). The impression I get is clearly derrogatory statement against 'principled' terrorists.

One must insist on a literalist point of view in trying to defend Mazel's actions. It smacks of religious fundamentalist thinking where the only acceptable art is the sort produced by a Norman Rockwell.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[kalian]

88. Hmmm....wasn't a Swedish minister MURDERED....

for supporting pro-Palestinian causes...? They did "catch" the guy
but we've not heard what has become of him. Hmmm...something strange
is going on in Sweden. For some odd reason the right-wing zionists
in Israel aren't feeling any warm fuzzies towards Sweden...

[Gimel]

90. That wasn't

It was in Finland. IIRC