Israeli vandalises Swedish suicide bomber art

[Winston]

Farewell chip for Hueij,

If you think you have the facts straight in this case - and bolded out, no less - I suggest you pay a little more attention to some of the "argument rehashed over and over". Always a good idea before getting on the high horse btw.

And neither Ned nor I can take credit for getting KrazyHorse banned. Only KrazyHorse can.

Nice move putting thumbs in you ears, when things start heating up.

[Edan]

Originally posted by cinch


Considering the artwork is in no way intended to support anti-Israeli activities, maybe the Swedes thought that Israel wouldn't mind?

How very convincing.

The attack happened at the opening of Making Differences, held as part of an upcoming international conference on genocide. In Israel, foreign ministry spokesman David Saranga said the exhibit broke an understanding that the scope of the conference would not include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Swedish Ambassador Robert Rydberg admitted the exhibit was in "bad taste," while claiming the matter had been "blown out of proportion."

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Winston
Viewed from this side of the Sound, some Swedish officials do carry themselves with a clear antisemitic demeanour, so one can't rule out the ambassador might have a point.

*cough* Dansk folkeparti *cough*

I suppose our strict laws against antisemitism are only there so noone would suspect us for being antisemitic, right?

I'm off now to debate the issue with my bed and pillow instead

[The Mad Monk]

Considering the artwork is in no way intended to support anti-Israeli activities, maybe the Swedes thought that Israel wouldn't mind?

Sorry, I can't accept that as an explanation. We're talking about professional diplomats here, not a group of buddies having a kegger. Somebody planned this out, somebody else certainly gave all the details to all interested parties, and somebody in the Ambassador's retinue recieved those details.

These events are too well planned out, too far in advance for this kind of "oopsie" to take place.

...and my keyboard is dropping vowels again, dammit.

[Winston]

Agathon, I don't think anyone can present evidence that this installation is to be interpreted in a certain way and that way only. That's also in part the explanation why it's not required to positively refute other posters' perception of the issue. I certainly haven't tried to trample all over people who have a different view of this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

On what exact basis did you assume that the ambassador is a right winger?

Because left wing Israelis like the Rabbi mentioned earlier in this thread don't suffer from this sort of sanctimonious paranoia.

You might be surprised Siro, but even some Jewish people find the fanatical moral certainty of people like this guy to be sickening. And Tass is right, if you disagree with the political views of these people you are automatically labelled an anti-semite.

In fact it's perfectly possible to support the destruction of Israel and not be an anti-semite, if the reasons for your belief do not involve blind hatred of Jews or a belief that they are somehow not deserving of full human rights. I happen to think they are, but I also believe that Palestinians also have same rights.

Anyway....

Well, have I got news for you. About 25 years ago everyone I knew supported Israel against Arab aggression and rightly or wrongly sympathised with the Israeli point of view (Munich had a lot to do with this).

Now the predominant view is more and more that Israel is a rogue state along the lines of South Africa. There's no anti-semitism involved in it, just disgust at the behaviour of the Israeli government which plays the victim despite holding all the cards. What's worse is that this is a group of people who should know better, having been on the receiving end themselves.

You and your countrymen can ignore this all you like. At the moment you hold all the cards. But it is unlikely to remain that way for ever, and the moral capital you squander now will be sorely needed down the road.

It makes me sad to see people digging their own graves, but what can be done?

Or did you just want to brush all Israelis with a right wing brush, you bigotted little *****?

Ming, if you are reading this, I respectfully ask that Siro be sent a "note" about the rules.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
Agathon, I don't think anyone can present evidence that this installation is to be interpreted in a certain way and that way only. That's also in part the explanation why it's not required to positively refute other posters' perception of the issue. I certainly haven't tried to trample all over people who have a different view of this.

Yes you can.

Most artwork is open to interpretation given the indeterminacy that afflicts human communication.

However, there's one sure fire way to work out exactly what the artist means and that's to ask him or her. As long as you don't have any good reason to doubt them, this should be the end of the inquiry.

And in this case the artist was pretty clear about the meaning of the work.

In any case of misinterpretation the intention of the speaker matters more than the interpretation of the hearer because the former is infallible, while the latter is not. If I ask you for a screw (meaning that which is driven in with a screwdriver) and you take me to mean I want sex, then you are wrong and I am right because I know what I meant. You can't take ownership of other people's statements and tell them what they really mean. If you could really do that it would be impossible to say anything, since other people would know what I meant, and I wouldn't.

The Ambassador can pee his pants all day claiming that he finds the artwork offensive, but he is merely attempting to force his own interpretation on it, and his interpretation carries absolutely no weight at all, since that of the artist is the final word.

For example, if someone wants to argue that Peter Grimes is not partly about the alienation of the homosexual in society and Benjamin Britten says otherwise, then Britten is automatically right because he wrote it, and all who disagree are just wrong.

They can piss and moan all they like, but they are just wrong and not even God could change that.

[Winston]

Ingrid, Sweden should rightfully be proud of it's laws against antisemitism and hate against others. The problem as I see it is some prominent figures' one-eyed view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and issues that derive from it. That sometimes crosses over into antisemitism, and when it does the ambassador should point to it. Even if he shouldn't always be entirely in the right, there's usually no smoke without a fire. IMO Israel's concerns for antisemitism shouldn't just be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ming, if you are reading this, I respectfully ask that Siro be sent a "note" about the rules.

It's not any of your business whether he is sent a "note" or not. And remember, KH was restricted for not saying he will agree to follow the rules in the future... NOT for the insults he was warned not to repeat.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

It's not any of your business whether he is sent a "note" or not. And remember, KH was restricted for not saying he will agree to follow the rules in the future... NOT for the insults he was warned to repeat.

Hey, that sucks. I thought we were supposed to complain if we thought someone was breaking the rules. Isn't that what the report button is for?

edit: I prefer to make such points in the open rather than the coward's private message.

Anyway, that's the sole point I was making... not that I personally care that much if people call me a bunch of asterisks. But asterisk callers should be treated consistently if the rules are to have any credibility at all.

[The Mad Monk]

Agathon, it's a diplomatic function; if a piece of decor -- and when you get down to it, that's all it really is -- offends one of the participants, the host should seriously consider removing it.

[The Mad Monk]

Aggie -- can I call you Aggie? -- Aggie, you are demonstrating one of your more endearing traits again.

[Winston]

Agathon, one could also consider the possibility of the "artist" saying one thing when confronted, all the while letting the installation convey quite another. For the sake of getting his political message across. Not even artists always tell the truth, heh. So I don't think your solution is all that surefire.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm more than willing to believe the artist, since that is how the piece struck me. I'm more concerned over why Sweden would leave it there if Israel had given objections.

[Winston]

Yes, that's beginning to nag me a bit as well MM.