NationStates Jolt Archive

Jul 25
JERUSALEM - The Vatican envoy to Israel was summoned to the Foreign Ministry on Monday as Israel expressed its outrage that Pope Benedict XVI failed to condemn terror attacks against Israelis.

On Sunday, the pontiff prayed for God to stop the "murderous hand" of terrorists. He made the noontime blessing from his Alpine retreat in Italy's northwestern Valle d'Aosta region, where he is vacationing.

Benedict referred to the recent "abhorrent terrorist attacks" in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq but did not mention Israel.

© 2005 The Associated Press.
© 2005 Yahoo! Inc.

*sniffs*

boo-hoo.

*sniffs*

boo-hoo.
:p :cool: :p

Aww, snap!

I'm pretty sure mentioning every single country by name that has suffered recent terror attacks would take much longer than a noontide blessing.

England should be pissed off too, they wern't mentioned. :rolleyes:

Aww, snap!

I'm pretty sure mentioning every single country by name that has suffered recent terror attacks would take much longer than a noontide blessing.

England should be pissed off too, they wern't mentioned. :rolleyes:
he Mentioned Britain...and Egypt...as they are extraordinary tragedies....

Palestinians and Jews are victims of small repeating attacks of retribution...in a mutual circle of violence...

and if the Pope ever mentions Israel...he should mention Palestinean terror victims too.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504262.htm

Read towards the bottom of the article, he does mention the Israelies, if only in passing. Give the guy a break, he makes one slip up and you jump all over him, calm down.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504262.htm

Read towards the bottom of the article, he does mention the Israelies, if only in passing. Give the guy a break, he makes one slip up and you jump all over him, calm down.

Uhhh...did you read most of the thread replies so far?

here is the link...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_pope_1

Jul 25
JERUSALEM - The Vatican envoy to Israel was summoned to the Foreign Ministry on Monday as Israel expressed its outrage that Pope Benedict XVI failed to condemn terror attacks against Israelis.

On Sunday, the pontiff prayed for God to stop the "murderous hand" of terrorists. He made the noontime blessing from his Alpine retreat in Italy's northwestern Valle d'Aosta region, where he is vacationing.

Benedict referred to the recent "abhorrent terrorist attacks" in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq but did not mention Israel.

© 2005 The Associated Press.
© 2005 Yahoo! Inc.

Reminds me of the news article i read the first day of the London bombing, which went something like "ISRAEL WAS NOT WARNED ABOUT POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON LONDON" and the Israeli ambassador was pissing and moaning about the fact they hadn't got any advance warning. I mean, i could just see the picture
Aide : "quick PM, we have warning a major terrorist attack is about to strike London in an HOUR!"
Blair: "Cripes! I BETTER PHONE TEL AVIV IMMEDIATELY"

You know, i try to keep an open mind on the Arab/Israeli conflict, i recognise mistakes have been made both sides, but it's shite like this, and the way they constantly use the accusation of Anti-Semitism against people who object to the Israeli governments actions (which, i am sure you agree, is a completely different kettle of fish) that poisons the water somewhat.

Reminds me of the news article i read the first day of the London bombing, which went something like "ISRAEL WAS NOT WARNED ABOUT POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON LONDON" and the Israeli ambassador was pissing and moaning about the fact they hadn't got any advance warning. I mean, i could just see the picture
Aide : "quick PM, we have warning a major terrorist attack is about to strike London in an HOUR!"
Blair: "Cripes! I BETTER PHONE TEL AVIV IMMEDIATELY"

You know, i try to keep an open mind on the Arab/Israeli conflict, i recognise mistakes have been made both sides, but it's shite like this, and the way they constantly use the accusation of Anti-Semitism against people who object to the Israeli governments actions (which, i am sure you agree, is a completely different kettle of fish) that poisons the water somewhat.
Hmm incase you didnt notice, the reason why the were pissed was because Tel Aviv was mention with a similar attack along with some other European cities. Oh and I know for a fact we sent aid to London also. So piss on your first argument. I would like you to quote one time the Israeli govt. has gotten out of a situation by sayin its anti-semitism. Honestly my opinion is that of people like you who "poisons the water."

I would like you to quote one time the Israeli govt. has gotten out of a situation by sayin its anti-semitism.Israel Gov...and many Jews... do pull the "anti-semitism" card whenever it advances their interests....they also use the words "Nazi" and "hollocaust" to their advantage...

Israel...and many Jews... do pull the "anti-semitism" card a whenever it advances their interests....they also use the words "Nazi" and "holocaust" to their advantage...

Maybe the Jews you know. I have never heard any of my coworkers or bosses, which geuss what are also in the Israeli govt., say such thing. :p

Hmm incase you didnt notice, the reason why the were pissed was because Tel Aviv was mention with a similar attack along with some other European cities. Oh and I know for a fact we sent aid to London also. So piss on your first argument. I would like you to quote one time the Israeli govt. has gotten out of a situation by sayin its anti-semitism. Honestly my opinion is that of people like you who "poisons the water."

Listen, whether or not you were named in a threat is somewhat irrelevant - the first and foremost thing on the British governments mind should have been what was happening in Britain. I don't recall America rushing to share any knowledge of terrorist threats the *very night* of 9/11 (which was - btw - when the news article was posted, the very night of the London bombing). And, you are right to a degree, i cannot recall any instance of the Israeli government *per se*, it's more the rabid apologists for Israeli actions in the west. Note - i do not, and have not, and will not ever take the purely Palestinian line that everything would be rosy if Israel ceased to exist. I do not, and have not, and will not, buy into any lazy anti-semitic theories about the Middle East. But, counter to that, i do not, and have not, and will not, buy into the cheerleader for Israel position either. Israel has a government. It is valid to criticise that government if you believe that governments actions are wrong. It is valid to criticise that government (just as it is valid to criticise the PLO, or Hamas, or the Syrians etc etc etc) without having the calumny of anti-semitism thrown at you. Or - as you did - obviously taking umbrage for what was a mild point - that occasionally, Israeli officials over-react, or try to make something out of nothing for spurious jockeying of position (see the reaction to the Pope's speech - pointless? I think so). ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DO THIS, ALL GOVERNMENTS DO THIS.

The only difference is, the Middle East is the fault line which runs through the world, so it becomes more noticeable, and more damaging to the rest of us.

I've been called 'anti-Semitic', flat-out, in-person, by four different Israeli citizens, for so much as trying to discuss a political scandal in Israel involving Benjamin Netanyahu.

Their claim (or insistance, really)?

'Political corruption happens only outside of Israel', and (this was a real knee-slapper, or blood-chiller, depending on your POV) 'Only Gentiles can be corrupted'.

On two occasions, I left the affairs we were attending where these comments were made. The other two occasions, I eventually asked them to leave (as those were my affairs, and they were guests).

Obviously, four people's considered opinion does not equal the considered opinions of an entire nation. But it was unsettling enough to make me somewhat more circumspect in my dealings with Israelis.

And let me drive that point home: I am speaking of Israelis, not Jews in general. No, most of Jews in my circle of friends were just as horrified as I was on hearing this sanctimonious drivel, and ashamed, to boot.

So, am I anti-Semitic, then?

I've been called 'anti-Semitic', flat-out, in-person, by four different Israeli citizens, for so much as trying to discuss a political scandal in Israel involving Benjamin Netanyahu.

Their claim (or insistance, really)?

'Political corruption happens only outside of Israel', and (this was a real knee-slapper, or blood-chiller, depending on your POV) 'Only Gentiles can be corrupted'.

On two occasions, I left the affairs we were attending where these comments were made. The other two occasions, I eventually asked them to leave (as those were my affairs, and they were guests).

Obviously, four people's considered opinion does not equal the considered opinions of an entire nation. But it was unsettling enough to make me somewhat more circumspect in my dealings with Israelis.

And let me drive that point home: I am speaking of Israelis, not Jews in general. No, most of Jews in my circle of friends were just as horrified as I was on hearing this sanctimonious drivel, and ashamed, to boot.

So, am I anti-Semitic, then?


Hmm... well I geuss every country has its die hard patriots. I on other hand know that scandals do happen and that when they do, we go through go lengths to cover it up. Especially to hide weakness. Just my experience through a good while.

I do recall the Israeli's claiming the Anglicans were Nazi's for deciding to switch investment from companies that supported Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip.

Listen, whether or not you were named in a threat is somewhat irrelevant - the first and foremost thing on the British governments mind should have been what was happening in Britain. I don't recall America rushing to share any knowledge of terrorist threats the *very night* of 9/11 (which was - btw - when the news article was posted, the very night of the London bombing). And, you are right to a degree, i cannot recall any instance of the Israeli government *per se*, it's more the rabid apologists for Israeli actions in the west. Note - i do not, and have not, and will not ever take the purely Palestinian line that everything would be rosy if Israel ceased to exist. I do not, and have not, and will not, buy into any lazy anti-semitic theories about the Middle East. But, counter to that, i do not, and have not, and will not, buy into the cheerleader for Israel position either. Israel has a government. It is valid to criticise that government if you believe that governments actions are wrong. It is valid to criticise that government (just as it is valid to criticise the PLO, or Hamas, or the Syrians etc etc etc) without having the calumny of anti-semitism thrown at you. Or - as you did - obviously taking umbrage for what was a mild point - that occasionally, Israeli officials over-react, or try to make something out of nothing for spurious jockeying of position (see the reaction to the Pope's speech - pointless? I think so). ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DO THIS, ALL GOVERNMENTS DO THIS.

The only difference is, the Middle East is the fault line which runs through the world, so it becomes more noticeable, and more damaging to the rest of us.
Well actually the article was refering to before them, at least I know that is when we acted in the offices. What a hellish day that was. The actions of a rather particularly stuborn official does not reflect the majourity opinion. As I believe most people in Israel wouldn't mind if the Pope said squat diddly about them. Is as it is we have had to cover our arses for this. Nothing more than an annoying official. :D

Well actually the article was refering to before them, at least I know that is when we acted in the offices. What a hellish day that was. The actions of a rather particularly stuborn official does not reflect the majourity opinion. As I believe most people in Israel wouldn't mind if the Pope said squat diddly about them. Is as it is we have had to cover our arses for this. Nothing more than an annoying official. :D
I would say that calling in the Holy See's Ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and expressing dismay is more than the actions of an annoying official.

In fact, it is a reasonably serious diplomatic incident.

It's also completely ludicrous as well and just makes the government of Israel come accross as paranoid, as if it believes that everything and everyone is against it.

I would say that calling in the Holy See's Ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and expressing dismay is more than the actions of an annoying official.

In fact, it is a reasonably serious diplomatic incident.

It's also completely ludicrous as well and just makes the government of Israel come accross as paranoid, as if it believes that everything and everyone is against it.

But that, surely, is the point of many of the actions of *several* Israeli administrations (but, i hasten to add, not all) - if you build a bunker mentality, you make your people believe everyone is against them, then you are less likely to get a healthy dissident population who question your actions - many of which (but not all, not all) have been reprehensible. For another example, look at Cuba. The greatest mistake the US ever made with Cuba was coming out against Castro, and trying to flex their political and economic muscles against the Cuban revolution. Not simply because it was morally wrong for them to be meddling at the behest of some very dubious groups. But also from a realpolitik point of view, because it strengthened Castro's hold on power. The "revolution" will not outlast Castro. But the USA's actions meant that Castro stays in power till he dies, because the external threat unified the country. Similarly, the encouragement of the bunker mentality in Israel means that whatever dissent does grow against their government is both limited in outlook and numbers.

Reminds me of the news article i read the first day of the London bombing, which went something like "ISRAEL WAS NOT WARNED ABOUT POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON LONDON" and the Israeli ambassador was pissing and moaning about the fact they hadn't got any advance warning. I mean, i could just see the picture
Aide : "quick PM, we have warning a major terrorist attack is about to strike London in an HOUR!"
Blair: "Cripes! I BETTER PHONE TEL AVIV IMMEDIATELY"
Actually, you got that one all wrong. I believe you were reading a refutation of the ridiculous rumor spread around London hours after the bombing that Israel was supposedly warned before the attacks took place.


You know, i try to keep an open mind on the Arab/Israeli conflict, i recognise mistakes have been made both sides, but it's shite like this, and the way they constantly use the accusation of Anti-Semitism against people who object to the Israeli governments actions (which, i am sure you agree, is a completely different kettle of fish) that poisons the water somewhat.
I don't see any accusations of anti-Semitism in that article. What I do see is accusing the Pope of being strangely selective. The suicide bombing in Netanya took place less than two weeks before the Pope's speech, and "forgetting" it while listing other states that were hit by terrorism could hardly be accidental. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of the news article i read the first day of the London bombing, which went something like "ISRAEL WAS NOT WARNED ABOUT POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON LONDON" and the Israeli ambassador was pissing and moaning about the fact they hadn't got any advance warning. I mean, i could just see the picture



You know, i try to keep an open mind on the Arab/Israeli conflict, i recognise mistakes have been made both sides, but it's shite like this, and the way they constantly use the accusation of Anti-Semitism against people who object to the Israeli governments actions (which, i am sure you agree, is a completely different kettle of fish) that poisons the water somewhat.
Actually, that was from the fact that early on there was a rumor that the israelis had prior information pertaining to the attacks.

...the Pope's speech, and "forgetting" it while listing other states that were hit by terrorism could hardly be accidental. The pope must be member of a secret brotherhood out to get Israel [/sarcasm]

What I don't get is why Sanctaphrax is trying to put the screws to me, specifically, for my contribution earlier to this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9329928#post9329928

I really feel ticked off about this right now.

What I don't get is why Sanctaphrax is trying to put the screws to me, specifically, for my contribution earlier to this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9329928#post9329928

I really feel ticked off about this right now.Sanctaphrax is a weak debater...who cant defend his points of views...

all he can hope is to post this in moderation and hope for a Pro-Israel mod to Lock this thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434437

The entire thread just seems to be there purely and solely to bash Israel, even that title is just baiting. He's just begging for responses with a title like that, and from that point on he basically just posts about five times just to further his baiting each time. Will post specific examples in a sec.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9327716&postcount=2
This post served no purpose whatsoever, except to bait people to respond to it. And of course, who bites? OceanDrive2.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9327719&postcount=3

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9327999&postcount=11
A nice round generalisation there, making us out to be some sort of lying cheating people who all take advantage of the world.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9328086&postcount=14
And let me drive that point home: I am speaking of Israelis, not Jews in general. No, most of Jews in my circle of friends were just as horrified as I was on hearing this sanctimonious drivel, and ashamed, to boot.

And thank you for that as well, Dobbstown making out all Israeli's to be right wing fanatics. My opinions are in fact the polar opposite, I am anything but racist, yet he tries to tar all Israeli's with the same brush.

im going to answer this rite here...in general...here in the open...in front of everyone...

not in the moderation area...I would not tax the mods time with small shit like this...and I am not a crybaby.

I think he's gunning to have Dobbsworld retired.

Frankly.

And I'm disturbed by the fact he's twisting my experience to suit some kind of racist argument he'd like to make against me. In a post I made about not being anti-semitic. Fer cryin' out loud.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434437

The entire thread just seems to be there purely and solely to bash Israel, even that title is just baiting. He's just begging for responses with a title like that, and from that point on he basically just posts about five times just to further his baiting each time. Will post specific examples in a sec.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9327716&postcount=2
This post served no purpose whatsoever, except to bait people to respond to it. And of course, who bites? OceanDrive2.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...719&postcount=3
This is what I call small shit...very small...

Sanctaphrax is a weak debater...who cant defend his points of views...
Coming from someone like you, whose debating style consists entirely of knee-jerk one line responses and ad hominem attacks, such claims are just plain hilarious.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9327999&postcount=11
A nice round generalisation there, making us out to be some sort of lying cheating people who all take advantage of the world.
First of all, "nice-round-generalizations" happen all the time in the forums... affecting the French, the Arabs,the Chinese, Muslims, Christians, etc....and most often the Victims are US citizens (Americans)...so I am used to be on the receiving side.(but I have never-ever complained to the mods for this kind of small shit)

I am against racial, ethnic or any kind of Generalizations...and If you search my Post history you will notice that I try to avoid making them(even if the other side does)...thats why I wrote "Many Jews"...(means not all Jews), And Israel (meaning the Gov of Israel...as this was a follow up on the other poster whom was talking about the Gov of Israel)...

but I will change that to "many Jews Inside and Outside of Israel"...so that is it clear for you that I do not mean to generalize.

In general...I am against Generalization

Hehehehehe

Heheheheheyou got me...there.
I plead guilty, my english skills are indeed below average.

Sanctaphrax is a weak debater...who cant defend his points of views...

all he can hope is to post this in moderation and hope for a Pro-Israel mod to Lock this thread.


im going to answer this rite here...in general...here in the open...in front of everyone...

not in the moderation area...I would not tax the mods time with small shit like this...and I am not a crybaby.

Well what exactly was the purpose of this thread? It seems its only purpose was to knock Israel, just like some of MKULTRA or Etrusca's are to knock specific political organizations on the right/left.

I mean, if you want to attack this "problem" head on, make a thread/poll asking whether all Israelis and Jews use the Holocaust to their advantage. I mean, it's much more confrontational, but at least it's genuine.

Well what exactly was the purpose of this thread?
"Israels Outrage" about the Pope mentioning only Britain and Egypt tragedies...

I think its ridicule.

was that not self evident?

I mean, if you want to attack this "problem" head on, make a thread/poll asking whether all Israelis and Jews use the Holocaust to their advantage. I mean, it's much more confrontational, but at least it's genuine.feel free to start that poll if you want it so much...

"genuine" may not have the same meaning for me...and could be measured in a different way.

If you are looking for confrontation...I am here to make your day...

But I will not start it...not a Holocaust poll.
I feel the Holocaust is a Tragedy...and it should not be used in any way.

"Israels Outrage" about the Pope mentioning only Britain and Egypt tragedies...

I think its ridicule.

was that not self evident?

Yes, it was quite evident, as is your condescension and sarcasm.

But you aren't listening to yourself. "The point of this thread was ridicule." Ok, you've just made Sact's point. All you're doing is being an ass. You aren't even trying to address an issue. You've made up your mind on Israel and pegged an entire group of people, and possibly, an entire religion, as scheming and devious.

And now all that is left for you, apparently, is "ridicule." Way to show superiority. Way to show a lack of bias. You don't even pretend.

you got me...there.
I plead guilty, my english skills are indeed below average.
I'm afraid its your logic skills that aren't up to the task. You have created a brand new oxymoron.

You have created a brand new oxymoron.
"In general" is an expression that means "normally" or "usually"...

what is the oxymoron?

I don't see any accusations of anti-Semitism in that article. What I do see is accusing the Pope of being strangely selective. The suicide bombing in Netanya took place less than two weeks before the Pope's speech, and "forgetting" it while listing other states that were hit by terrorism could hardly be accidental. :rolleyes:

Look, we all know the new pope is some ultra-conservative shmuck who would rather go back to Vatican I, but I doubt he intentionally forgot to mention a terrorist attack out of spite toward Jews.

Either he legitimately forgot, or he simply was trying to make the point that the Israelis are also perpetuating a cycle of violence and therefore they got, what he viewed as, "comeuppance".

Not that I agree in the slightest. I'd have wiped everyone out during the Six Day War and be done with it. Winners write the history books. And it's damn obvious that people don't care what happens to Israelis no matter how hard they try.

I am against racial, ethnic or any kind of Generalizations...and If you search my Post history...


I am not going to claim that you're anti-semetic or any of that jazz, but you claim not to generalize.

If you don't 'Generalize', why are all the posts and articles you post aimed to ridicule and Insult Israel?

All governments make mistakes, (Israel sometimes more than others, but that's life), yet you seem to be in wait for a chance to dig at Israel.

Just making a point ..

You don't even pretend.Ine thing I am not...I am not a pretender...

Look, we all know the new pope is some ultra-conservative shmuck who would rather go back to Vatican I, but I doubt he intentionally forgot to mention a terrorist attack out of spite toward Jews.
Not necesserily out of spire towards Jews- but there is a certain trend to discount Israeli lives, reluctance to recognize that attacks against Israeli civilians are just as outrageous and illegitimate as attacks against British civilians. Too many people these days tend to see Israelis as fair prey for Palestinian butchers.


Either he legitimately forgot, or he simply was trying to make the point that the Israelis are also perpetuating a cycle of violence and therefore they got, what he viewed as, "comeuppance".
His official excuse was that he was "only listing the latest outrages". The four days between the London and the Netanya bombings supposedly made all the difference. How lame an excuse is that?

I am not going to claim that you're anti-semetic or any of that jazz, but you claim not to generalize.

If you don't 'Generalize', why are all the posts and articles you post aimed to ridicule and Insult Israel?...not all...

maybe 15%. ..plus taxes.

but I do not generalize.
I would never claim "all Jews are terrorists"

Not necesserily out of spire towards Jews- but there is a certain trend to discount Israeli lives, reluctance to recognize that attacks against Israeli civilians are just as outrageous and illegitimate as attacks against British civilians. Too many people these days tend to see Israelis as fair prey for Palestinian butchers.reluctance to recognize indeed...

reluctance to recognize a lot of things...
from all sides.

not all...

maybe 15%. ..plus taxes.

but I do not generalize.
I would never claim "all Jews are terrorists"

Heh, well 15% plus taxes is still quite alot for one country, considering how many other screwed up countries there are.

If you think I'm a 'big Israeli supporter', you'll be thinking wrong. I am Jewish .. Or was Jewish, I have family in Israel, but I disagree with most of their policy. Yet they are trying.

Now, as some-one aptly put it, you're poisoning the water. It's almost as if you create your posts for a firey reaction.

There are big problems on both side, but posting in bias against one isn't going to help anything. They both have problems.

Heh, well 15% plus taxes is still quite alot for one country, considering how many other screwed up countries there are.
many people reserve more 40% of their threads against the USA...and the don't whine that much.

Myself... I write my opinions against Bush...Way more often than threads about Israel...

yet the Posts about Israel are much more whined about..all the way to the moderation forum...WHY?

many people reserve more 40% of their threads against the USA...and the don't whine that much.

Myself... I write my opinions against Bush...Way more often than threads about Israel...

yet the Posts about Israel are much more whined about..all the way to the moderation forum...WHY?

Because its a sensative topic. :rolleyes:

If you think I'm a 'big Israeli supporter', you'll be thinking wrong. I am Jewish .. Or was Jewish, I have family in Israel, but I disagree with most of their policy. Yet they are trying..there is nothing wrong about being Jewish...or changing Religions.

most Jews(and most religions) were never asked if they want to be Jewish.

we are Born Jewish...or made Christian/Muslim when we are babies.

he Mentioned Britain...and Egypt...as they are extraordinary tragedies....

Palestinians and Jews are victims of small repeating attacks of retribution...in a mutual circle of violence...

and if the Pope ever mentions Israel...he should mention Palestinean terror victims too.
One problem, there is no such thing as a Palestinian terror victim. The Palestinians killed are terrorists and their supporters.

One problem, there is no such thing as a Palestinian terror victim. The Palestinians killed are terrorists and their supporters.
Hey now, that's not accurate at all. Hamas and Al-Aqsa martyrs have killed quite a few Palestinians, as well as many Israeli Arabs.

as well as many Israeli Arabs.

Wouldn't that make them Israeli?

Wouldn't that make them Israeli?
For me- yes, but for the anti-Israel side they are often perceived as Palestinians "forced" to live under Israeli rule.

Will someone please lock this before Dobbstown and OceanDrive2 go on a flamebait spree again? The last time they did this it was bad enough.

*wonders if all the hot air in this thread will be enough to make it the first lighter than air vehicle to acheive escape velocity*

I have one rule I apply to ALL my dealings with Israelis & Palestinians: NEVER talk politics.

I have one rule I apply to ALL my dealings with Israelis & Palestinians: NEVER talk politics.

Semites are stubborn. That's one of the rules of the universe you have to accept. (Oh shutup, you know it's true. And if it really makes a difference as to whether you sic the mods on me or laugh, I'm Jewish.)

I would like you to quote one time the Israeli govt. has gotten out of a situation by sayin its anti-semitism. Honestly my opinion is that of people like you who "poisons the water."

I seem to recall an ambassador messing up an artists work in a museum violently (chucking electrical light stands into it), while excusing himself by calling the work 'anti-semitism'. The funny thing is that the government of Isreal supported his actions too.

The message of the art was supposed to symbolize the Palestinean civilian deaths so far IIRC. Hardly what I would call anti-semitism. More like really bad manners on the part of the ambassador. Bad manners that was apparently endorsed by Isreal.

Hey now, that's not accurate at all. Hamas and Al-Aqsa martyrs have killed quite a few Palestinians, as well as many Israeli Arabs.
I'm sorry, I forgot about them. They are victims too. The sad thing is that the Palestinians kill them and then claim the Israelis kill them and add them to their casualty list of the intifada. It is really sad and disgusting.

I still say we give the "Holy Land" to Buddhists and make everyone else pay admission fees. Think of the profits. $$

I still say we give the "Holy Land" to Buddhists and make everyone else pay admission fees. Think of the profits. $$

If I get the movie rights its a deal.

I don't like the pope. America doesn't need to worry what some leader of a FOREIGN STATE blabs about actually thinking the s.o.b. is actually a holy figure.

Will someone please lock this before Dobbstown and OceanDrive2 go on a flamebait spree again? The last time they did this it was bad enough.
Wouldn't it be easier to lock up Dobbstown and OceanDrive2? Think of how many threads we could save ;)

I resent that.

I seem to recall an ambassador messing up an artists work in a museum violently (chucking electrical light stands into it), while excusing himself by calling the work 'anti-semitism'. The funny thing is that the government of Isreal supported his actions too.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/17/sweden.israel/]

The Israeli government says the piece glorifies suicide bombings and should be dismantled.

...Mazel, speaking on Israeli television's Channel 2, said the artwork is "complete legitimization of genocide, the murder of innocent people, innocent civilians, under the guise of culture."

See the word anti-Semitism anywhere? :rolleyes:


The message of the art was supposed to symbolize the Palestinean civilian deaths so far IIRC. Hardly what I would call anti-semitism. More like really bad manners on the part of the ambassador. Bad manners that was apparently endorsed by Isreal.
You recall wrong, naturally. Neither did the ambassador call the work anti-Semitism nor was the work merely symbolizing Palestinian civilian deaths. Your memory seems to have conveniently distorted the actual events.

The artwork, "Snow White and the Madness of Truth," was shown Friday in Stockholm at the opening of a museum exhibit, staged in conjunction with an upcoming anti-genocide conference.

In the piece, a boat floats in a rectangular basin filled with red water, carrying a portrait of Palestinian suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat. Jaradat attacked a restaurant in the Israeli city of Haifa in October, blowing herself up and killing 21 others.

The piece actually referred to Jaradat as "Snow White".

And this, my friend, is how the myth about "misuse of anti-Semitism" is born- out of those conveniently vague memories :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/17/sweden.israel/]

The Israeli government says the piece glorifies suicide bombings and should be dismantled.

...Mazel, speaking on Israeli television's Channel 2, said the artwork is "complete legitimization of genocide, the murder of innocent people, innocent civilians, under the guise of culture."

See the word anti-Semitism anywhere? :rolleyes:

Funny, I did see that show up in the local papers. Unfortunately, I am not able to back that claim up so I suppose you will dismiss it as no more than a "convenient" factoid that has no basis.

However, this might throw some extra light on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_The_Madness_of_Truth

I do however, wonder why you bolded the part of what Mizel said regarding the artwork. It was neither the interpretation of others nor was it the intent of the artist either.

Is this one of your more "conveniently" vague memories on your part?

If you wish to throw accusations of deliberate forgetfullness, do not forget that it can be used against you.


And this, my friend, is how the myth about "misuse of anti-Semitism" is born- out of those conveniently vague memories :rolleyes:

It does not however, change the fact that the Ambassador acted very much out of line and was supported by his government. Or are you saying that destroying other artists works because you find it deplorable to be an acceptable act?

Furthermore, I must dispute your claim of "conveniently" vague memories. To the best of my knowledge, I deal with facts and back them up where possible.

Funny, I did see that show up in the local papers. Unfortunately, I am not able to back that claim up so I suppose you will dismiss it as no more than a "convenient" factoid that has no basis.

However, this might throw some extra light on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_The_Madness_of_Truth
Your own link does not support your allegations either. Here's the only two mentions of anti-Semitism in it:

There have been some speculations as to why an experienced diplomat like Zvi Mazel would perform such an act. According to an analysis in Dagens Nyheter it may have been done in an effort to discredit Sweden and the European Union by painting them as anti-semites to get the European Union to back down from their peace efforts in the Middle East

Pure speculations, in other words.

Kristian Berg stated that "I did not hear anyone who saw the work say that it was an anti-Semitic installation, against the Jewish people or against the Israeli people, I therefore think that this work was politically hijacked - the interpretation that Ambassador Mazel gave it was very narrow and very political

If you have any real proof of what you're claiming, do post a link.


I do however, wonder why you bolded the part of what Mizel said regarding the artwork. It was neither the interpretation of others nor was it the intent of the artist either.

Is this one of your more "conveniently" vague memories on your part?
Your claim was regarding what the ambassador said. So I brought up the actual quote to refute your allegation. What's so difficult to understand?


It does not however, change the fact that the Ambassador acted very much out of line and was supported by his government. Or are you saying that destroying other artists works because you find it deplorable to be an acceptable act?
Frankly, I would be tempted to do the same thing with that "artwork". But I suppose for an ambassador it is indeed out of line, there were more effective and useful ways to react. Him being supported by the government was mostly out of the "finally someone is doing something" feeling. But to be honest, I don't hold the Israeli Foreign ministry in too high a regard where professionalism is concerned.


Furthermore, I must dispute your claim of "conveniently" vague memories. To the best of my knowledge, I deal with facts and back them up where possible.
Eagerly waiting for you to finally back your claim up, then. Do show us when Mazel called that "art" anti-Semitic.

OK This is the Catholic Chruch we're talking about one of the most corrupt organisations in the world. If you wander back to the past you will see that the chruch isn't too fond of the Israelis. Realistically I'm sure it was just a very bad oversight, if he came to N Ireland I'm sure he'd have done the same thing.

Eagerly waiting for you to finally back your claim up, then. Do show us when Mazel called that "art" anti-Semitic.

He didn't call art directly anti-Semitic. He did in the aftermath of the incident make the ludicrous claim that Sweden is "one of the most anti-semitic places in the world" and he also claimed that the Swedish media daily calls for Jews to be killed. So, clearly the man isn't intouch with reality very closely.

I do also remember that Mazel said that Archbishop K G Hammar is "likely to be an anti-semite".

More about him, including a reference to this incident, here (if you speak Swedish):
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=224252

He also said publically that Anna Lindh's quite fair critism of Israel's human rights abuses was "intollerable" or something like this. This shows his closed mind towards allowing anything that could possibly be critical of Israel.

In the past he also stated on tv that Sten Andersson and Pierre Schori were "professional anti-Israelis". Frankly, the man is intolerate and completely unable to recognise legitimate critisism.

It's no wonder he acted so disgracefully in the art gallery. Personally, I think the Swedish government showed great restraint in avoiding asking him to leave his post in Sweden. I guess this shows that we are more tolerant of the freedom of expression than Mazel believes is appropriate. Can you imagine the reaction if a Swedish (or any other diplomat) behaved in the same way in Israel?

and when a palestinian is killed? a small boy? not old enough to understand why hthe israeli people hates him so much? do you care? that doesn't seems to hapen. :gundge: :

Your own link does not support your allegations either. Here's the only two mentions of anti-Semitism in it:

*snip*

If you have any real proof of what you're claiming, do post a link.

As I said, I do not have any proof to back that claim. I merely provided the wikpaedia link to provide other views and possible theories as to reasoning. The two points of contention are not related.


Frankly, I would be tempted to do the same thing with that "artwork". But I suppose for an ambassador it is indeed out of line, there were more effective and useful ways to react. Him being supported by the government was mostly out of the "finally someone is doing something" feeling. But to be honest, I don't hold the Israeli Foreign ministry in too high a regard where professionalism is concerned.

So you espouse acts of vandalism in a museum?

As for "finally someone doing something" line of thought, I would say that Isreal has done too much even prior to this incident to be able to use that sort of reasoning.


Eagerly waiting for you to finally back your claim up, then. Do show us when Mazel called that "art" anti-Semitic.

The only way I can do so unfortunately, is to reference you to a local paper that does not have internet archives reaching back to the date of report (Star Newspaper. Malaysian publication). Perhaps you will call it convenient, perhaps you will say something else. Whatever the case, I cannot prove it to you. Only to myself.

Which you would probably consider a fabrication.

EDIT: Borgoa might have the right of it.

And it's damn obvious that people don't care what happens to Israelis no matter how hard they try.

Not true at all. I am the first to argue against what I believe are spurious arguments for the current arrangement in Israel/Palestine, I refute some of the oft-used justifications for what goes on there, but I certainly wish no ill to Israelis. I laud the actions of many Israelis, the majority in fact who are pro-Gaza pullout, etc.

I just want to see peace, a fair and just peace, inclusive of both Palestinians and Israelis, and I feel that many of the Israeli government's actions over the past decades have been deleterious to the cause. (And before you even try to leap down my throat, yes, the P.L.O.'s actions have also been extremely unhelpful.) I want everyone to grow up, to think further ahead than tomorrow or next week. "The sins of the father shall be visited upon the son" and all that. Make a stupid knee-jerk move today and you spawn generations of enemies for no reason. I believe the American government is making exactly the same mistakes.

and when a palestinian is killed? a small boy? not old enough to understand why hthe israeli people hates him so much? do you care? that doesn't seems to hapen. :gundge: :

And when an Israeli is killed? A small boy on a school bus? Not old enough to understand why the Palestinian people hate him so? Do you care? That doesn't seem to happen. :gundge:

And when an Israeli is killed? A small boy on a school bus? Not old enough to understand why the Palestinian people hate him so? Do you care? That doesn't seem to happen. :gundge:Of course he cares...

I care...we care...

Thats why we desperately want the bloody violence to stop..we want the massacres to stop...

One problem, there is no such thing as a Palestinian terror victim. The Palestinians killed are terrorists and their supporters.

Thats not true The Israeli Army have killed more Palestinians than the palestinian terrorist. And don't try to tell me that all the people they have killed have been terrorists cause they haven't. the real question is if if the Israeli army are being terrorists when they kill a nine year old girl.

So you espouse acts of vandalism in a museum?
1)I do not recognize that "Snow White" exhibit as a work of art and I see no value of any kind in it that would make its destruction illegitimate. Like much of the "modern art", its talentless and therefore worthless.
2)Vandalism itself has come to be recognized (http://lowentropy.org/vandalism-is-art/) by many as a form of art. Therefore, Mazel's actions should not be condemned as destruction of art, but instead praised as an artistic act that complemented the "Snow White" exhibit and brought it to its logical conclusion.


As for "finally someone doing something" line of thought, I would say that Isreal has done too much even prior to this incident to be able to use that sort of reasoning.
Like when? Examples please. Backed up with evidence, naturally.

He didn't call art directly anti-Semitic. He did in the aftermath of the incident make the ludicrous claim that Sweden is "one of the most anti-semitic places in the world" and he also claimed that the Swedish media daily calls for Jews to be killed.
Do back this one up. Although even if it is true (except for the last bit, which I am damn sure you won't be able to back up neither in English nor in Swedish), I wouldn't necesserily disagree. From what I've seen, many non-Swedish anti-Semites (like Israel Shamir, for example) seem to flock to Sweden these days, and it is hardly accidental. Their neo-Nazi groups are pretty damn active on the Web. Plus Sweden has become an important center of the "white power music". Plus they prohibit certain Jewish rituals (such as kosher slaughter), and Sweden is the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD where there is a government law regulating circumcision. I'd say there are plenty of grounds for concern.


I do also remember that Mazel said that Archbishop K G Hammar is "likely to be an anti-semite".
Which can well be a legitimate claim. It all depends on WHY he called him that.


More about him, including a reference to this incident, here (if you speak Swedish):
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=224252

He also said publically that Anna Lindh's quite fair critism of Israel's human rights abuses was "intollerable" or something like this. This shows his closed mind towards allowing anything that could possibly be critical of Israel.
Or again he could be right and Lindh's criticism was not "quite fair". Give me a readable (for me that is- in English, Russian or Hebrew) account on the story in question and we'll talk.


In the past he also stated on tv that Sten Andersson and Pierre Schori were "professional anti-Israelis". Frankly, the man is intolerate and completely unable to recognise legitimate critisism.
Again, could well be true. Give me some more info on the men in question, and we can discuss the legitimacy of the accusation.

....we sent aid to London also. So piss on your first argument. I would like you to quote one time the Israeli govt. has gotten out of a situation by sayin its anti-semitism. Is Ariel Sharon part of the Israeli Gov???

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39750000/jpg/_39750513_artworkafp203body.jpg


Saturday (bbc): Israeli Embassador makes a fool of himself, Sweden is outraged
Israeli envoy wrecks art exhibit.
Sweden's foreign ministry wants an explanation from the Israeli ambassador after he vandalised an artwork depicting a Palestinian suicide bomber.

Zvi Mazel was expelled from Stockholm's Museum of Antiquities on Friday after he threw a spotlight at the exhibit, called "Snow White".

Sunday (bbc): Sharon Pulls "anti-Semitism" Word
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3407517.stm

"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 said.
_____________________________________________________
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has praised his ambassador to Sweden after he vandalised an art exhibit featuring a Palestinian suicide bomber.

Ambassador Zvi Mazel was ejected from a Stockholm museum after the incident.

Mr Mazel said the work, created by an Israeli-born artist, was "a call for genocide".

Israel has called on the Swedish Government to dismantle the exhibit, which has a boat floating in a pool of red liquid.

"I think the phenomenon [of anti-Semitism] is so serious that it would have been forbidden not to have acted on the spot," Mr Sharon said.

But the expatriate Israeli artist, Dror Feiler, rejected the criticism of his work, saying it had a message of openness and conciliation.

"I'm absolutely opposed to suicide bombers," he added.

Mr Feiler called the envoy "an intellectual dwarf" who had tried to "stop free speech and free artistic expression".

1)I do not recognize that "Snow White" exhibit as a work of art and I see no value of any kind in it that would make its destruction illegitimate. Like much of the "modern art", its talentless and therefore worthless.

There are some people who might hold the wailing wall and Juresalem as worthless as well. Would you espouse letting them vandalize/destroy it? Additionally, espousing the destruction of something just because you do not see value in it opens the gates to many, many interpretations. For example, human life. If someone felt that your life was worthless, would they be justified in exterminating it?

Additionally, this was placed and accepted in a musuem, hence recognized by the director of said musuem as a legitimate piece of art. Furthermore, one does not destroy property NOT belonging to you just because you disagree with it. If your neighborhood was redecorated with a liberal painting of pigs blood would you consider it to be an acceptable course of action?


2)Vandalism itself has come to be recognized (http://lowentropy.org/vandalism-is-art/) by many as a form of art. Therefore, Mazel's actions should not be condemned as destruction of art, but instead praised as an artistic act that complemented the "Snow White" exhibit and brought it to its logical conclusion.

Accepted by many as a form of art? I only see one person's view in your listing. I do not count one as many. Or perhaps when a person vandalizes, you consider it to be an art? If your car/house was smashed up, painted in blood/excrement and other assorted acts of destruction, would you call it art?

If so, please let your local vandals know where you live.


Like when? Examples please. Backed up with evidence, naturally.

Since you asked for examples and evidence, I must ask you to read these with an open mind and not reject them out of hand. Unfortunately, you probably will, but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm

http://www.mts.net/~gcg/resources/arabia/index02.html

For the sake of keeping things in perspective, I have avoided linking sources using religious arguments.

As for already doing things such as that, I forward you to this.

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/denial_ME/hdme_origins.asp

I will not attempt to dispute claims on either side (owing to lack of research on their claims)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050728/wl_mideast_afp/mideastsharonsyria_050728200344;_ylt=ApZ.pm3eGhODMzJ4s8toVV0UvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPU CUl.

This one has no proof to back up some of the allegations I can see, so it falls under the same category.

Of course there's this although the timeline is a bit afterwards.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/vatican_israel_3;_ylt=ApxEpweMw0VM9VbEBz4xnVYUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Incidently, would you mind answering this question. Are you an Israeli?

Do back this one up. Although even if it is true (except for the last bit, which I am damn sure you won't be able to back up neither in English nor in Swedish), I wouldn't necesserily disagree. From what I've seen, many non-Swedish anti-Semites (like Israel Shamir, for example) seem to flock to Sweden these days, and it is hardly accidental. Their neo-Nazi groups are pretty damn active on the Web. Plus Sweden has become an important center of the "white power music". Plus they prohibit certain Jewish rituals (such as kosher slaughter), and Sweden is the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD where there is a government law regulating circumcision. I'd say there are plenty of grounds for concern.


Which can well be a legitimate claim. It all depends on WHY he called him that.


Or again he could be right and Lindh's criticism was not "quite fair". Give me a readable (for me that is- in English, Russian or Hebrew) account on the story in question and we'll talk.


Again, could well be true. Give me some more info on the men in question, and we can discuss the legitimacy of the accusation.
Sten Andersson is a former foreign minister and Pierre Schori was a former ambassador to the United Nations.

I assure you that he did say the remarks I have stated. I work for the Swedish ministry of foreign affairs (UD) and remember it quite well, as you can imagine it caused quite a lot of unhappiness towards Israel. If you will search even in Google you will find a number of references to it, no doubt not just in Swedish and English. I have no intention to post a link to back-up every single think I say, especially when they are such indisputable facts.

As for your remarks agreeing that Sweden is some kind of hotbed of anti-semitism, they are quite insane. Our laws regarding animal rights are above religion, and the practice you describe is illegal because it is not inline with our animal welfare laws, not because it is to be with Judaism. And yes, we do happen to pride ourselves on having good human rights laws in this country also, hence the other regulations you describe. Again, they are not aimed at any religion or religion at all for the same reasons.

Neo-Nazis are unforunately found here, just as they are found in other countries (Germany, USA etc). That's because we are a democracy that guarentees the freedom of speech. Of course, the opinions of Neo-Nazis are disgusting and vile, and if and when they brake the law they are prosecuted (not a rare occurance). Of course, they are very much a minority group. Almost on every occassion they hold a rally they are hugely outnumbered by anti-nazi protesters. Surely that tells you something of the mainstream opinion in Sweden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4726833.stm

The Roman Catholic church has responded very sensibly to this whole thing in my opinion(and I am no fan of the Catholic church!)

There are some people who might hold the wailing wall and Juresalem as worthless as well. Would you espouse letting them vandalize/destroy it? Additionally, espousing the destruction of something just because you do not see value in it opens the gates to many, many interpretations. For example, human life. If someone felt that your life was worthless, would they be justified in exterminating it?
That's a meaningless piece of relativist sophistry. It is easy to demonstrate while the historical monument such as the Wailing wall or a human life has value. But I dare you to convince me why the "Snow White" should enjoy any kind of protection and special status- because it sure as hell does not qualify as a historical monument or a moral value, or as art for that matter.


Additionally, this was placed and accepted in a musuem, hence recognized by the director of said musuem as a legitimate piece of art. Furthermore, one does not destroy property NOT belonging to you just because you disagree with it. If your neighborhood was redecorated with a liberal painting of pigs blood would you consider it to be an acceptable course of action?
Well, the question of ownership sure as hell did not arise during that affair. I don't even believe any property damage lawsuits were filed- because then they would have to estimate the actual monetary value of that piece of bullshit destroyed by the ambassador, which could make for an amusing exersise. ;)


Accepted by many as a form of art? I only see one person's view in your listing. I do not count one as many. Or perhaps when a person vandalizes, you consider it to be an art? If your car/house was smashed up, painted in blood/excrement and other assorted acts of destruction, would you call it art?
*Sigh* You're not in much contact with the art world, are you kiddo?

It is a widespread view held by many people regarding acts such as, for instance, graffiti, shopdropping and property defacing. Here, for instance, you have an example of car vandalism (http://painting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4454485.stm). Does the fact of these photos
displayed in art galleries of London and Glasgow legitimize it as a work of art? If no, then I insist that "Snow White" was not a legitimate work of art either. If yes, it legitimizes vandalism as a form of artistic expression, thus legitimizing the ambassador's actions.


If so, please let your local vandals know where you live.
They already know exactly where I live. They have also learned by now that I am a MUCH better artist when it comes to vandalism. My speciality is defacing faces ;)


Since you asked for examples and evidence, I must ask you to read these with an open mind and not reject them out of hand. Unfortunately, you probably will, but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm

http://www.mts.net/~gcg/resources/arabia/index02.html

For the sake of keeping things in perspective, I have avoided linking sources using religious arguments.

As for already doing things such as that, I forward you to this.

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/denial_ME/hdme_origins.asp

I will not attempt to dispute claims on either side (owing to lack of research on their claims)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050728/wl_mideast_afp/mideastsharonsyria_050728200344;_ylt=ApZ.pm3eGhODMzJ4s8toVV0UvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPU CUl.

This one has no proof to back up some of the allegations I can see, so it falls under the same category.

Of course there's this although the timeline is a bit afterwards.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/vatican_israel_3;_ylt=ApxEpweMw0VM9VbEBz4xnVYUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
This "collection" is so all over the place, and most of the links are simply not relevant to the subject in question. I was asking specifically about the actions of Israeli ambassadors regarding works of art glorifying Palestinian terrorism.


Incidently, would you mind answering this question. Are you an Israeli?
Yep, and quite proud of it. Does that satisfy your curiosity? :p

Sten Andersson is a former foreign minister and Pierre Schori was a former ambassador to the United Nations.

I assure you that he did say the remarks I have stated. I work for the Swedish ministry of foreign affairs (UD) and remember it quite well, as you can imagine it caused quite a lot of unhappiness towards Israel. If you will search even in Google you will find a number of references to it, no doubt not just in Swedish and English. I have no intention to post a link to back-up every single think I say, especially when they are such indisputable facts.
He may have said it, but it does not make his remarks wrong. Sten Andersson, I believe, was suspected of anti-Semitism and racism inside Sweden itself


As for your remarks agreeing that Sweden is some kind of hotbed of anti-semitism, they are quite insane. Our laws regarding animal rights are above religion, and the practice you describe is illegal because it is not inline with our animal welfare laws, not because it is to be with Judaism. And yes, we do happen to pride ourselves on having good human rights laws in this country also, hence the other regulations you describe. Again, they are not aimed at any religion or religion at all for the same reasons.

Neo-Nazis are unforunately found here, just as they are found in other countries (Germany, USA etc). That's because we are a democracy that guarentees the freedom of speech. Of course, the opinions of Neo-Nazis are disgusting and vile, and if and when they brake the law they are prosecuted (not a rare occurance). Of course, they are very much a minority group. Almost on every occassion they hold a rally they are hugely outnumbered by anti-nazi protesters. Surely that tells you something of the mainstream opinion in Sweden.
Puh-lease. Saying that neo-Nazism in Sweden is a problem of the same scale as in the rest of the world is plain silly. Like I said, Sweden is one of the leading producers of racist music, with record companies such as Ragnarock Records and 88 Musik (run by the Nordland movement, I believe) working pretty much unobstructed. No other country in Europe produces such a huge amount of racist music and publishing. The famous Swedish tolerance results in free distribution of Holocaust denial materials and free broadcasting of the racist Radio Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech". If they break the law, they are prosecuted indeed, but being vicious racists doesn't appear to be against the law in Sweden, does it? :rolleyes:

Just to put this in perspective:

A leading superstitious person, doesnt mention a couple of victims at a meeting of other superstitious people. Claims top government fascist.

:rolleyes:

because it sure as hell does not qualify as a historical monument or a moral value, or as art for that matter.

Only in your opinion. In the opinion of both artist and the director, not to mention the reviewing board that musuems usually examines them first, it is art.

On one hand, I have several people who should have the skills as professionals to classify what is and what is not art. On the other hand, I have the opinions of a faceless entity who has no stated qualifications (you), and an ambassador who has behaved like a thug and also no apparent academic qualifications or experience in estimating what is art.

Who am I to listen to? The professionals or you?

And no, your answer to that question is not really required. I already know what it would be.


Well, the question of ownership sure as hell did not arise during that affair. I don't even believe any property damage lawsuits were filed- because then they would have to estimate the actual monetary value of that piece of bullshit destroyed by the ambassador, which could make for an amusing exersise. ;)


Property damage lawsuits were not filed because the parties involved did not wish to make a further scene to it, adding fuel to the fire of Israeli accusations of anti-semitism that was applied to Sweden. If it had been taken up, it seems doubtless that they would make a claim that it could only pass in a place where anti-semitism flourished.

Both your and my claims in this regard are just as possible. If you wish to say that it is impossible, you would have to prove it.


*Sigh* You're not in much contact with the art world, are you kiddo?


An irrelevant distinction.


It is a widespread view held by many people regarding acts such as, for instance, graffiti, shopdropping and property defacing. Here, for instance, you have an example of *snip*. Does the fact of these photos displayed in art galleries of London and Glasgow legitimize it as a work of art? If no, then I insist that "Snow White" was not a legitimate work of art either. If yes, it legitimizes vandalism as a form of artistic expression, thus legitimizing the ambassador's actions.

I do not see any reference to a display in London. Furthermore, your statement is little more than a straw man with little logical coherency.

The materials used by said artist was not his in the first place, and thus his actions can be considered to be deliberate damage of property not belonging to him, thus vandalism. Vandalism is considered to be a crime in most places although the punishments vary from country to country.

The ambassador was the same as this Mark McGowan. He damaged property not belonging to him. Or are you saying that he DID buy the artwork first? It matters not whether you view it as art or not. What matters is that his actions can be considered criminal and it is only because of his diplomatic immunity that no charges can be pressed.

Consider this case. The ambassador was a guest of the musuem. As a guest, he is expected to follow a certain decorum. Additionally, he is a representative of the state of Israel, and as such, he is expected to have a higher set of standards in his behavior in public. What he did was no better than a common lout or street thug. Is Israel lacking in properly trained diplomats or are they trained to be such boors?

Tell me, if he took out a baseball bat from somewhere and bludgeoned another person to death because he disagreed with him, would you say that he should not face legal judgement for his actions.

Or are the actions of Israeli ambassadors, regardless of how serious they are, above reproach?


They already know exactly where I live. They have also learned by now that I am a MUCH better artist when it comes to vandalism. My speciality is defacing faces ;)


So you DO advocate violence in response to vandalism. Applying the same principal to the ambassador, would it be correct to rearrange his face? Granted, it would be in poor tastes for the offended parties to do so, but nevertheless same principle, diplomatic immunity aside.


This "collection" is so all over the place, and most of the links are simply not relevant to the subject in question. I was asking specifically about the actions of Israeli ambassadors regarding works of art glorifying Palestinian terrorism.

Considering that only this ambassador considered it to be an artwork glorifying Palestinian terrorism, one that no-one else considered to be so, there are NO other such cases.

You will have to find other cases of artworks that were claimed to be as such.


Yep, and quite proud of it. Does that satisfy your curiosity? :p

I had suspected as much and your answer explains a bit.


He may have said it, but it does not make his remarks wrong. Sten Andersson, I believe, was suspected of anti-Semitism and racism inside Sweden itself


Just as you requested information backing my claims, I must ask you to back yours now. Your claim that I had a conveniently vague memory impinges on my integrity and I took it quite poorly.

I am keeping my eye on you for further discrepencies in your own posts from now on.

Puh-lease. Saying that neo-Nazism in Sweden is a problem of the same scale as in the rest of the world is plain silly. Like I said, Sweden is one of the leading producers of racist music, with record companies such as Ragnarock Records and 88 Musik (run by the Nordland movement, I believe) working pretty much unobstructed. No other country in Europe produces such a huge amount of racist music and publishing. The famous Swedish tolerance results in free distribution of Holocaust denial materials and free broadcasting of the racist Radio Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech". If they break the law, they are prosecuted indeed, but being vicious racists doesn't appear to be against the law in Sweden, does it? :rolleyes:

Please reread what I said. I didn't say Sweden has the same level of Neo-Nazi activity as all other countries. I did say it is no more significant than in places like the USA and Germany. Israel clearly doesn't have an issue with the USA's policies, so why the double standard?

Vicous racism is quite clearly against the law and incidents that are racial discremination are prosecuted actively by the authorities. We even have an Ombudsman specifically to oversee and protect the rights of ethnic minorities.

Plus, I don't really see how Israel can recommend policies on freedom of speech when we see things such as Mordechai Vanunu's treatment. Personally, I'd far rather live in a country with an open government. Of course, freedom of speech does mean that people like neo-Nazis will have limited recourse to making their views known to a certain extent - but that is not the same thing as Sweden being run by them or even for those views to be in the mainstream or even approaching the mainstream of public opinion.

Israel is a friend of Sweden, just as the people of Palestine are. If you look at the Israeli kibbutz, Swedes are one of the biggest groups of foreign nationals that go to them.

Only in your opinion. In the opinion of both artist and the director, not to mention the reviewing board that musuems usually examines them first, it is art.
Excuse me, but whose opinion were you asking for here, again?


On one hand, I have several people who should have the skills as professionals to classify what is and what is not art. On the other hand, I have the opinions of a faceless entity who has no stated qualifications (you), and an ambassador who has behaved like a thug and also no apparent academic qualifications or experience in estimating what is art.

Who am I to listen to? The professionals or you?

And no, your answer to that question is not really required. I already know what it would be.
Good then. Spares me counting the logical fallacies in the above statement. I'll only point out one: if "several people should have the skills", it does not necesserily follow that they either have these skills or apply them in this particular case.


Property damage lawsuits were not filed because the parties involved did not wish to make a further scene to it, adding fuel to the fire of Israeli accusations of anti-semitism that was applied to Sweden. If it had been taken up, it seems doubtless that they would make a claim that it could only pass in a place where anti-semitism flourished.
The fact remains, they weren't filed, nor did anyone even use this line of reasoning in the official statements.


I do not see any reference to a display in London. Furthermore, your statement is little more than a straw man with little logical coherency.

The materials used by said artist was not his in the first place, and thus his actions can be considered to be deliberate damage of property not belonging to him, thus vandalism. Vandalism is considered to be a crime in most places although the punishments vary from country to country.

The ambassador was the same as this Mark McGowan. He damaged property not belonging to him. Or are you saying that he DID buy the artwork first? It matters not whether you view it as art or not. What matters is that his actions can be considered criminal and it is only because of his diplomatic immunity that no charges can be pressed.
McGowan's "art" was displayed in exhibitions (more than one even). If, by your logic, "Snow White" deserves protection and immunity by the sole virtue of it being displayed in a museum, the same applies to the aforementioned act of car vandalism, and it should be exempted from any criminal charges. Which, in turn, exempts other acts of vandalism as well, including the actions of the Israeli ambassador.


Consider this case. The ambassador was a guest of the musuem. As a guest, he is expected to follow a certain decorum. Additionally, he is a representative of the state of Israel, and as such, he is expected to have a higher set of standards in his behavior in public. What he did was no better than a common lout or street thug. Is Israel lacking in properly trained diplomats or are they trained to be such boors?
Frnakly-yes, we are indeed lacking. In my opinion, we didn't have a truly talented diplomat since Abba Eban, and the only person who is, in my opinion, properly qualified as a diplomat is our current finance minister.

However, the display of the "Snow White" was itself indefensible on any conceivable grounds, which is exactly what I am rooting at. Mazel's actions were an emotional reaction that I find perfectly understandable, and it is only his capacity of an official ambassador that makes his action less than legitimate.


Tell me, if he took out a baseball bat from somewhere and bludgeoned another person to death because he disagreed with him, would you say that he should not face legal judgement for his actions.
No, but the two are not comparable.


So you DO advocate violence in response to vandalism. Applying the same principal to the ambassador, would it be correct to rearrange his face? Granted, it would be in poor tastes for the offended parties to do so, but nevertheless same principle, diplomatic immunity aside.
Why aside?


Considering that only this ambassador considered it to be an artwork glorifying Palestinian terrorism, one that no-one else considered to be so, there are NO other such cases.
Actually, plenty of people considered it to be an artwork glorifying Palestinian terrorism, it's just nobody else stood up and did anything about it.

Let us see what the BBC readers had to say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3410835.stm) at the time:

What the ambassador did was not only right but is expected of him and every peace seeking people. Freedom of expression must have its limit. Otherwise this world will be ungovernable.
Oscar Whiskey, Hamburg, Germany

There is nothing glorious or inspiring about a suicide bomber. They have absolutely no regard for their own life or the lives of others. Will their actions find them in paradise; I think not. The "artwork" is offensive and should not have been placed in the National Gallery in the first place. Is Sweden not the country who provided refuge to the Jewish people during WWII? What is their message today, one wonders.
Penny, USA

Yes it's offensive. Yes it should be removed...put it with Tracey Emin´s bed and Damien Hurst´s chopped up animals; they are not art either!
Johno, Harrogate, UK

I applaud the action of Mr Zvi Mazel. He was absolutely correct. This is not art; it is the glorifying of suicide bombers and should be removed immediately. If not the Swedes should remove funding from that museum.
Hazel, Britain

As you can see, there were plenty of people who found this artwork glorifying suicide bombers.


You will have to find other cases of artworks that were claimed to be as such.
Why, I have personally spotted and reported one similar case to a media watchdog HonestReporting. Not far from Sweden, btw, in Norway (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article736246.ece).


Just as you requested information backing my claims, I must ask you to back yours now. Your claim that I had a conveniently vague memory impinges on my integrity and I took it quite poorly.

I am keeping my eye on you for further discrepencies in your own posts from now on.

*Sigh* I NEVER make claims I cannot support.

Here: (http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/sweden/sweden.htm)

Folkviljan & Massinvandringen (F&M, Will of the People and Mass Immigration) was officially formed in April 1997 although its raison d'être dates back to 1992 when the anti-immigration magazine Fri Information (see below) was launched. The foundation of F&M was laid in 1996 when the lobbying group Samfundet för nationell och internationell utveckling (League for National and International Development) - formed in 1994 as the main Swedish anti-immigration think-tank, and consisting of academics and members of mainstream parties critical of Sweden's immigration and refugee policies - was dismantled in response to an exposé published in the anti-fascist magazine Expo, and re-organized as four separate district organizations. In its last newsletter, the leaders stated that the network was so vast that no central organization was needed.

Some of F&M's members and supporters have been recruited from established parties, such as Riksdag member Sten Andersson (MS).

And now let us look what exactly F&M is: (http://www.ainfos.ca/99/aug/ainfos00210.html)

Both ideologues came from the cultural-racist
lobby group Folkviljan & Massinvandringen (The Peoples Will &
Mass-Immigration) and Fri Information (Free Information).

Clear enough?

Please reread what I said. I didn't say Sweden has the same level of Neo-Nazi activity as all other countries. I did say it is no more significant than in places like the USA and Germany. Israel clearly doesn't have an issue with the USA's policies, so why the double standard?
What are you on about? In the US, a display of this kind of "art" would immediately be protested and obstructed by a large number of lobby groups, and I don't only mean Jewish ones. That in Sweden not a single voice was raised about this abomination is already a testimony to how rotten things have become there.


Vicous racism is quite clearly against the law and incidents that are racial discremination are prosecuted actively by the authorities. We even have an Ombudsman specifically to oversee and protect the rights of ethnic minorities.
And where was he when he was needed?


Plus, I don't really see how Israel can recommend policies on freedom of speech when we see things such as Mordechai Vanunu's treatment.
A fallacy if I ever saw one. I don't want to go into the details of the Vanunu case, but EVEN IF you were right, it in no way deprives any Israeli of the right to point out flaws in Swedish policies.


Personally, I'd far rather live in a country with an open government. Of course, freedom of speech does mean that people like neo-Nazis will have limited recourse to making their views known to a certain extent - but that is not the same thing as Sweden being run by them or even for those views to be in the mainstream or even approaching the mainstream of public opinion.
Of course. As long as the neo-Nazis aren't targeting YOU, why bother? :rolleyes:

I'm bored of this thread, and replies are getting way too long, so I'm dropping it. My energy is better spent elsewhere.

*Sigh* I NEVER make claims I cannot support.

Here: (http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/sweden/sweden.htm)

Folkviljan & Massinvandringen (F&M, Will of the People and Mass Immigration) was officially formed in April 1997 although its raison d'être dates back to 1992 when the anti-immigration magazine Fri Information (see below) was launched. The foundation of F&M was laid in 1996 when the lobbying group Samfundet för nationell och internationell utveckling (League for National and International Development) - formed in 1994 as the main Swedish anti-immigration think-tank, and consisting of academics and members of mainstream parties critical of Sweden's immigration and refugee policies - was dismantled in response to an exposé published in the anti-fascist magazine Expo, and re-organized as four separate district organizations. In its last newsletter, the leaders stated that the network was so vast that no central organization was needed.

Some of F&M's members and supporters have been recruited from established parties, such as Riksdag member Sten Andersson (MS).

And now let us look what exactly F&M is: (http://www.ainfos.ca/99/aug/ainfos00210.html)

Both ideologues came from the cultural-racist
lobby group Folkviljan & Massinvandringen (The Peoples Will &
Mass-Immigration) and Fri Information (Free Information).

Clear enough?

Sorry, you have your Sten Anderssons confused. The Sten Andersson you mention above is the former Riksdag member for the Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) party. This is a nationalist party akin to the national front in France, and yes, it is very much against immigration. In the last Riksdag vote, the party got 1,2% of the vote - in Sweden you need 4% to be able to get seats in the Riksdag. The only reason Sten Andersson was a Riksdag member for the party is because he changed parties from the Moderates (for whom he had already been elected) - in other words the Sweden Democrats have never won a Riksdag seat in their own right and since 2002 they have again had no Riksdag representatives.

The Sten Andersson I mentioned above was the former Social Democrat foreign minister... they are (very) different people!!!

What are you on about? In the US, a display of this kind of "art" would immediately be protested and obstructed by a large number of lobby groups, and I don't only mean Jewish ones. That in Sweden not a single voice was raised about this abomination is already a testimony to how rotten things have become there.


And where was he when he was needed?


A fallacy if I ever saw one. I don't want to go into the details of the Vanunu case, but EVEN IF you were right, it in no way deprives any Israeli of the right to point out flaws in Swedish policies.


Of course. As long as the neo-Nazis aren't targeting YOU, why bother? :rolleyes:

I'm bored of this thread, and replies are getting way too long, so I'm dropping it. My energy is better spent elsewhere.


Firstly, your first paragraph is quite untrue. Some people did say it was inappropriate.

I don't know why the Ombudsman didn't get involved. I can imagine because he realised it was quite fair (if not very controversial) as a piece of art.

And as for your second to last paragraph, should we do the same to Mazel then? As he clearly has a thing for discriminating against Swedes... no of course not, he is entitled to his free expression.

What are you on about? In the US, a display of this kind of "art" would immediately be protested and obstructed by a large number of lobby groups, and I don't only mean Jewish ones. That in Sweden not a single voice was raised about this abomination is already a testimony to how rotten things have become there.or..maybe its a testimony of US Pro-Israel bias...

Maybe its a testimony to how rotten things have become here.

there is always more than one point of view (to everything)...and I you only get only One point of view(one sided)...you vision is most likely handicapped.

Excuse me, but whose opinion were you asking for here, again?

If I only wanted yours and nobody elses, I would have stopped posting here some time ago wouldn't I? I reserve the right to disagree with you and discuss it publically. That would be one of my rights enshrined under the freedom of speech. Or is disagreeing with an Israeli anti-semitism?

Besides, it is no longer a mere exchange of opinions. I would call it a debate, or argument if you prefer.


Good then. Spares me counting the logical fallacies in the above statement. I'll only point out one: if "several people should have the skills", it does not necesserily follow that they either have these skills or apply them in this particular case.

The only assumption made is that as a director of a musuem that displays artwork, people would be employed with the skills to judge relevant submissions as art or not.

Yes there is a possibility that the reviewing board was not consulted or they lacked the skills, but equally stated, both you and the ambassador lack the skills to properly critique art as per the art community do you not?


The fact remains, they weren't filed, nor did anyone even use this line of reasoning in the official statements.

And the fact remains that


McGowan's "art" was displayed in exhibitions (more than one even). If, by your logic, "Snow White" deserves protection and immunity by the sole virtue of it being displayed in a museum, the same applies to the aforementioned act of car vandalism, and it should be exempted from any criminal charges. Which, in turn, exempts other acts of vandalism as well, including the actions of the Israeli ambassador.

Again you use your strawman. Shall I set fire to it? Or are you ignoring the point of my statements?

The artist in question (McGowan), used materials that were NOT his. That can be considered to be both theft and willful destruction of property that belongs to another person. If Leonardo da Vinci had mugged somebody and used that persons studio and materials for his own to paint the Mona Lisa, it would still be done on stolen goods and hence, illegal.

The work entitled "Snow White" was done on materials belonging to or purchased by the artist who created it, and thus deserves the legal definition of their property, albeit on public display.

Or perhaps you would find it acceptable if a Palestinean were to walk into the Holocaust Museum and vandalize the works there, claiming it to be anti-muslim as it glorifies the destruction wrought upon the Palestineans by the Isreali Army?

Remember, an argument for something can be applied both ways unless one wishes to be seen as hypocritical.


Frnakly-yes, we are indeed lacking. In my opinion, we didn't have a truly talented diplomat since Abba Eban, and the only person who is, in my opinion, properly qualified as a diplomat is our current finance minister.

So where do you get your current diplomats from? Behavior like this is most contrary to their job description.


However, the display of the "Snow White" was itself indefensible on any conceivable grounds, which is exactly what I am rooting at. Mazel's actions were an emotional reaction that I find perfectly understandable, and it is only his capacity of an official ambassador that makes his action less than legitimate.

Indefensible why? Solely because of one persons interpretation which no-one else has shared? Government of Israel aside. It would be politically foolish to berate a diplomat representing your nation once he has used terms such as "glorification of suicide bombings" without seeming double faced.

Furthermore, it seems that the message that the artist attempted to convey was blatantly ignored by both you and the ambassador. Seeing your side of the argument, I am tempted to believe that you had not even considered that there could be any other viewpoint than yours.


No, but the two are not comparable.


There are degrees of acceptability. By increasing the level of what is acceptability, eventually, it might reach there.


Why aside?


Because diplomatic immunity means that you can almost do anything that would be considered illegal in a host country without being charged in court unless it was a crime on the federal level. And even then, I am not certain if it is possible to charge the person using local courts.


Actually, plenty of people considered it to be an artwork glorifying Palestinian terrorism, it's just nobody else stood up and did anything about it.

Let us see what the BBC readers had to say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3410835.stm) at the time:

*snip*

As you can see, there were plenty of people who found this artwork glorifying suicide bombers.

4 people is plenty? Additionally, you forgot to post the opinions of others who were also on the same page. Their viewpoints hold the same validity and reason.

Expression is the human endeavour to create something beyond a simple description. How ever tasteless it may be it is still expression. Mr Mazel's emotional reaction as disgraceful as it maybe only seems to validate the art more so. This is just another sad tale of painful existence of the people who are locked in what seems to be an endless war.
O, Istanbul, Turkey

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right one has in a free society, regardless of the bad taste of the subject matter. One does not censor one's free expression in a democratic society, or anyone can pick and choose what should be seen and not seen.
Dorritt Johnson, USA

Mazel's reaction to this work is totally absurd. The piece is clearly open to interpretation. After all, the Palestinian suicide bomber isn't floating on a mound of daisies. Even if the piece is anti-Israel, that doesn't automatically make it anti-Semitic.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

Vandalising art is akin to burning books, carried out by Nazis. This is an affront to freedom of expression, no matter "how tasteless".
Nick, St Andrews

I find this one particularly important.

The reaction by Mr Mazel proves correctly that the whole point of art is to create a reaction and therefore stimulate discussion among us. I am thankful to Mr Mazel for bringing attention to this work of art, so that I may look at it and decide for myself what it means. To me, it represents the hellish violence happening to both the Israelis and Palestinians, and how useless it all is.
Ginette, Toronto, Canada

Israel's ambassador has done a good job of diverting attention from the message of the art. For me, is makes me wonder why a young, beautiful and intelligent young woman would both sacrifice her own life and kill civilians. Is she evil? Misguided? For me, the likely conclusion is that she was driven to a desperate and godless act because of the murderous and relentless repression of her future by the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Anthony, Irvine, USA

This one is important as well. A lesson that Israel might need to learn. Hopefully not at the expense of its entire population.

Calling this artist and his art work anti-Semitic is laughable. Why must some people always shout "anti-Semitism" when something they don't like gets their attention? They should read The Boy that Cried Wolf, because at some point people will start to ignore them, and then... I need not go on, we all know how the story ends.
Florens Peterse, Richmond Hill, Canada

Above and beyond this debate is a point all too ignored. It is not anti-Semitic to disagree with the position of the Israeli government. We should be cognizant of this distinction because the association of race and a country's political leadership are becoming synonymous - which leads to more racism. To disapprove of the former Iraqi government does not make me anti-Iraqi just as my disapproval of the current American leadership does not make me anti-American.
Patrick Mitchell, Alberta, Canada

I find this one to be quite interesting

I fail to see how this is a "call to genocide". It seems to me that the powers that be in Israel are using emotive words to crush any perceived criticism. However, this work of art merely makes the spectator ask questions. In and of itself it represents little but questions. The biggest question being "whose blood does this represent". Of course, it represents everyone's blood in this conflict. Some may say that suicide bombing is not a correct subject for art. Yet art mimics reality whenever it can.
Matthew Porth, London, UK

I think that the ambassador's actions are wildly inappropriate. Most of all, it implies a complete and utter refusal to think about the material presented, or even to look at it more than superficially. While I am no fan of the artwork, to violently attack an installation because it supposedly promotes and glorifies violence is a contradiction so obvious it surprises me people still support the ambassador's actions. To criticise the work in an intellectual way is perfectly acceptable, and much argument could be had over this one, but to attack it in such an uncivilised manner is abhorrent.
Michael Moszczynski, Toronto, Canada

A point that I have been trying to get across earlier. Perhaps if you will not listen to me you will listen to another. Although I have no hopes that you will.

This is an question of vandalism pure and simple. It doesn't matter if the target was art or even whether it condones suicide attacks (which I personally believe it doesn't). If the ambassador of Israel behaves like a thug I don't see any reason why the Swedes shouldn't simply throw him out and ask for a replacement.
Jack Levell, Cambridge, UK

I don't understand how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that presenting someone's photograph as sailing on a sea of blood should be seen as a glorification and not a condemnation of that person. The artist is known, both in Sweden and Israel, for his belief in non-violence. It is sad and dangerous when every attempt at an analysis of the suicide bombers is seen as an endorsement. The artwork, as I've seen it on television, actually encourages us as viewers to think about all the violence in our society today. For me it is a very beautiful exploration of the pain this violence causes. A work of art should touch the emotions of those who view it, but a mature individual doesn't let his or her emotions dictate their actions. Ambassador Mozel and the Israeli government are clearly incapable of considering this issue from more than one angle and their idea that they have the right to decide what kind of art is to be shown at Swedish museums is more than preposterous - it is dangerous.
Tove Persson, Uppsala, Sweden

I think that the ambassador has reacted emotionally without thinking. The artist himself is Jewish and certainly pro-Israeli. The art has a strong expression with a sea of blood which is a common motive both in the Bible and in Islamic rhetoric.
Håkan Liljeberg, Lund, Sweden

I don't think they should repair the exhibit - the ambassador has unwittingly added tremendous value to the piece! It is now a true-to-life representation of the maddening resort to violence of both sides, rather than to constructive dialogue and negotiation.
Claire, Brussels

The behaviour of the Israeli ambassador is totally unjustified. Any work of art is a subjective thing. If one does not like it, it does not mean it is wrong. At the same time, diplomacy has other means of expression than destruction. It seems Israel does not want anybody to see the picture except through its own eyes.
Assad Sawey, Cairo, Egypt


Why, I have personally spotted and reported one similar case to a media watchdog HonestReporting. Not far from Sweden, btw, in Norway (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article736246.ece).


So why do you insist on the mentality of "someone finally doing something" if you yourself have already taken action to force your viewpoint?


*Sigh* I NEVER make claims I cannot support.

*snip*

Clear enough?

It seems that Borgoa has proven your claim to be somewhat off. Two different people do not make for the same actions and affiliations.


Of course. As long as the neo-Nazis aren't targeting YOU, why bother?


Personally, has a neo-Nazi targetted you or anyone you know and acted in a manner that was specifically limited to Jews alone? Common street thugs who pick fights on all comers don't count.


I'm bored of this thread, and replies are getting way too long, so I'm dropping it. My energy is better spent elsewhere.

Do keep in mind that I am watching you now. Be sure that you have plenty of links for whatever you may claim in the future.

....
Because diplomatic immunity means that you can almost do anything that would be considered illegal in a host country without being charged in court...
that is wrong...

there should be an international UN court for Diplomats...and they should have to pay for any crime.

Give the Pope the benefit of the doubt, for crying out loud

that is wrong...

there should be an international UN court for Diplomats...and they should have to pay for any crime.

Wrong or not, that's what diplomatic immunity does.