The Israeli ambassador to Sweden damaged an art exhibit in Stockholm on Friday. The piece - Show White and the Madness of Truth - contains a photograph of a female Palestinian suicide terrorist floating in a blood-red pool. A text posted nearby mixes the story of her life, (two relatives were killed by the Israelis), with fragments from the tale of Snow White. Classical music plays in the background.

This offended ambassador Zvi Mazel, who decided to make a statement:

I felt that I was standing in front of a horror, I felt that I was standing in front of an exhibit that, while it was in an historic and big museum in the heart of Europe, was glorifying genocide. I was standing before an exhibit calling for genocide, praising the genocide of me, you, my brothers and sisters. I pulled the plug on the three spotlights and plunged the exhibit into darkness. I think one of the spotlights fell into water.

Ariel Sharon today congratulated Mazel for "standing up against the growing anti-Semitism", and said that "the phenomenon was so grave that it was impossible not to react on the spot".

The artist, Dror Feiler, was himself born in Israel, and runs the Swedish organization Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. All the triggers are here: Palestinian terrorism, peaceniks, European salon anti-semitism, pretentious art. Little Green Footballs and other bloggers take the cue:

A big LGF thumbs-up to ambassador Zvi Mazel. It's about time people stopped tolerating this sort of corrupt, debased, antisemitic "art." Oh, I'm fully aware Mazel will be forced to apologize and possibly resign - but he's a hero to me. And it's beyond despicable that Sweden would allow this abomination to be exhibited at their national museum.

But there's one problem: The piece was not anti-semitic, and it did not promote terrorism. Look at the picture, read the text, and tell me where Feiler justifies terrorism. He does not. "But, but -" Yes, I know. This story pulls all the right wires, all of which tell you to support Maziv. But read the text and tell me where the terror apologism is. The mood of the text is tragic, not supportive, and the display itself shocking, not gloryfying. Or do you believe that the only reason why a Jewish peace activist would place a terrorist's picture in a pool of blood is because he's a self-hating Jew? Last I checked, a pool of blood is a horrifying image, and provokes nothing but disgust among civilized people. When the elevator doors in the Shining open, and blood flows out, is Stanley Kubrick taking a brave stand on behalf of insane ax-murderers? I doubt it.

What's going on here? Why does this artwork seem anti-semitic when it clearly isn't? Partly because, as I said, it pulls all the right wires. Peaceniks, modern art, Swedes - what's not to hate? The only way this could be more perfect is if Michael Moore supported it. When we focus only on the labels, and not the issues behind them, we make mistakes like this. By thinking about the people we think will like this artwork, and not the piece itself, we avoid having to explain what it is that makes it's anti-semitic or supportive of terrorism.

Another factor is the ambivalence of the artwork. It mentions killings by Israelis along with killings by Palestinians, it associates the terrorist, Hanadi Jaradat, with a fairy tale hero, and the whole display - white on red, the colors of Snow White - is shockingly aesthetic. Nowhere does it glorify terrorism, or even apologize for it, but the message it sends is clearly ambivalent. It plays on positive and conflicting emotions in a way that is bound to offend anyone who has strong emotional ties to the situation. I don't mean that in a negative way. I don't mean to deride those "oh-so-simplistic fools who believe that terrorism is evil". I'm only saying that if you have a strong emotional tie to an issue - say you live in a country where you're in danger of being blown up by mad terrorists all the time - you're bound to be offended by ambivalent art concerning that issue. If your spouse was killed by the mafia, you probably won't enjoy the Sopranos. There's nothing wrong with that. And similarly there's nothing wrong with an Israeli ambassador being personally offended by a powerful, ambivalent artwork inspired by a Palestinian suicide bomber.

But that doesn't make the piece anti-semitic or supportive of terrorism, and it doesn't make it right to smash it. If I believed it was anti-semitic I might be more sympathetic, not because anti-semitic art should be illegal, but because it shouldn't be supported by public museums. But it's not - I dare you to show me otherwise. The piece may be in bad taste, and I haven't said it was a good work of art, (nor that I agree with the message), but Zvi Mazel is the culprit here. Remember, he wasn't invited. Mazel read about this display in the newspaper, and deliberately went to the opening to sabotage it. He did not ask the artist what the intended message was, he did not even send a formal complaint. He just went and smashed it. That's unacceptable, especially for an ambassador.

There is real anti-Israelism in Scandinavia, and it's likely related to anti-semitism somehow. Like anti-Americanism, it's in the air we breathe, difficult to become aware of unless you've sampled the cleaner air of other media cultures. This must be doubly frustrating to Zvi Mazel. He should fight that real anti-Israelism and anti-semitism, and I'll support him all the way - but this isn't it.

Bjørn: "... tell me where Feiler justifies terrorism"

Here

"Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased""

Here is more

"Once upon a time in the middle of winter
For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin"

I bet at the hands of those zionists, and therefore:

"The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying"

Her motive is clear, revenge over her slain husband and Israel who hold her and her country captive.

Terror justifield? You bet!

Bjorn,

Your essay is a discussion about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. In fact, there is a point where the big picture tells us more about Sweden than the tiny details.

Rene, above, posted extracts glorifying terrorism from the poem accompanying the piece. Furthermore, the killer is portrayed as a lovely young woman floating enchantingly in a white boat.

You are missing the big idea.

A terrible murder has been turned into a cocktail party amusement by oh-so-sophisticated moral degenerates.

We had a serial murderer in Chicago who killed 30 teenage boys. I'm sure he was abused as a child, etc., but what would it say about the City of Chicago if it sponsored a lyrical art piece showing the "complexities" of the murderer's motivations and implying that he should be honored?

Bjorn, I think terrible things are staring you in the face that you don't want to see. If you read the hundreds of comments on LGF, you'll see that a number of posters think Sweden is morally dead. That would be an interesting discussion.

I choose to be anonymous on your blog, but I'm willing to match my artistic credentials and my "sophistication" with any one of the people who set up that exhibit. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Yes, the artwork is a filthy piece of moral degeneracy--in the same category as child pornography.

The accompanying text celebrates the life of the murderess for several VERY long paragraphs, then devotes a lifeless, clearly perfunctary few words to the victims of her crime. Moreover, the victims are simply referred to as various unnamed "units" of certain "families" while the murderess is presented as a complex, individualistic human being. This is "ambivalence"?

The piece clearly glamorizes suicide bombing and murder. It is disgusting and evil. I don't support Mazel's destructive act but I do support the condemnation of this sickening piece of "art."

Rene: Is is supportive of terrorism to point out that a suicide bomber could be motivated by the recent killings of her relatives? There's at best _understanding_ here, an understanding of the things that might drive people to do evil things. I don't agree with that analysis, I don't believe this terrorist said or thought anything as lofty (and corny) as "if our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased". As poetry that's .. bad, and as politics it's very naive. But it's the naivety of a peace activist who _hates_ violence. That's what I read here, not support or justification. What I read here is "one horrible thing happened, then another, then another". Giving the terrorist a motivation is not to support. To support is to say that what she did was right or necessary, and I really don't see that here.

Totoro: "The killer is portrayed as a lovely young woman floating enchantingly in a white boat" .. in an ocean of blood. Explain how that honors the terrorist. Explain when an ocean of blood began to symbolize something glorious in our culture. It's one of the oldest symbols of horror we have, from the Bible.

"What would it say about the City of Chicago if it sponsored a lyrical art piece showing the "complexities" of the murderer's motivations and implying that he should be honored?" First, there's no attempt to honor anyone here. Read the whole text, it's not there. Second, isn't the purpose of serial killer thrillers to get inside the head of murderers, show their "complexities" and motivations? Or, more realistically, Sopranos again. The characters are evil, and yet are portrayed ambivalently, often sympathetically, and always as real, complex people. What is the difference between that and saying that a suicide bomber could be motivated by revenge for her relatives?

"If you read the hundreds of comments on LGF, you'll see that a number of posters think Sweden is morally dead. That would be an interesting discussion." And what do the commenters on LGF know about Sweden? Only cheap stereotypes and slogans. Of all the umpteen houndred comments on that thread, please point me towards the ones that provide insightful and reliable information about Sweden and it's moral state. All I can find is a bunch of angry, ignorant people shouting at each other. But hey, they're on our side, so I guess it's ok.

Susan: "The accompanying text celebrates the life of the murderess for several VERY long paragraphs, then devotes a lifeless, clearly perfunctary few words to the victims of her crime." Oh come on. Now we're counting words? The ending is clearly meant as a _tragic_ ending. And please explain where the celebration is, where the glamor is, (or perhaps what definition of these words you use). We have a picture floating in blood, and a poem that clearly paints what this woman did as evil. That's not glamor. It is a bad attempt at saying something profound about the cycle of violence, but it's not glamor.

Bjoern, for the sake of clarity:

Did you hear of the Russian Jewish artist currently in Sweden, Dmitri Wassermann (Vasserman[n?]), who made a replica of the Feigler's composition, only with the portrait of Anna Lindh's murderer? Are the two pieces equivalent to you?

(For reference, a photo of the latter installation on a Russian site http://www.aen.ru/images/1117.jpg [report: http://www.aen.ru/ru/storyoftheday.php?id=articleoftheday&article=283], I can't find a report in English at the moment)

P.S. and while I was writing this, I received a link to a Swedish report I don't understand with a close-up of the thing: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,420535,00.html

As another blogger wrote, after he was done, Zvi should have called it performance art.

--Last I checked, a pool of blood is a horrifying image, and provokes nothing but disgust among civilized people.--

Bjorn, we're not dealing w/civilized people. You've seen them crawling over cars and running thru the streets w/what's left of their leaders. They revel in blood and death. You're looking at it from a western POV, or could be projecting a western POV on a people who are not. That's a deadly mistake at this point in time.

The IDF killed the murderer's relatives because they were terrorists. Also, apparently the artist who made the bloody statement was inventing a new persona--not the actual terrorist who murdered the families at the restaurant.

People have become coarsened to the idea that it's OK to kill Israelis because of the Palestinian "situation." Discussing this "situation" would take endless amounts of time on your blog, but for me the bottom line is that the current Palestinian leadership does not want a solution to the problem. No amount of European humping for the PLO will change that fact.

Presenting these terrorist murders as subjects for artistic cocktail party conversation is foul and decadent. I read a science fiction story once--can't remember by whom--which involved futuristic tourists going back in time to witness major catastrophes. The writer portrayed these tourists as super-sophisticates, wearing special fabrics, eating unusual tidbits, etc. The point was, of course, their decadence. That's what the Art Museum personnel, who feed on the terrorism spectacle, remind me of.

If their own families were blown up, they would undoubtedly have a different story to tell.

I wrote a short, and less in-depth piece on this on my blog, and I'm not surprised that both Bjorn Staerk Blog and LGF picked up the same story. Here are my reactions to this Bjorn Staerk thread:

[ Another factor is the ambivalence of the artwork. It mentions killings by Israelis along with killings by Palestinians, it associates the terrorist, Hanadi Jaradat, with a fairy tale hero, and the whole display - white on red, the colors of Snow White - is shockingly aesthetic. Nowhere does it glorify terrorism, or even apologize for it, but the message it sends is clearly ambivalent. ]

It strikes me that the word 'ambivalent' could be changed to 'equivalent'. Similarly, After "Nowhere does it glorify terrorism, or even apologize for it" you could add "nor condemn it". The cold nihilism of suicide bombing, which definitely is present in this case, is not aesthetic; it reflects a death of all values and aesthetics and their replacement with the sort of parody of an aesthetic that inspired Italian and German fascism or Nechaev’s revolutionary terrorism. That two Swedish artists can equate a suicide bomber with a fairy tale character is perverse and 'confronting', which is clearly what the artists intended - because as far as I can see the Feilers are publicity-seekers.

Let's say there was an exhibition on domestic violence, and someone submitted a picture of a man beating his wife. An accompanying poem suggested that the wife had relentlessly hen-pecked the husband, driving him to violence. This poem was juxtaposed with a story about the heroic St George slaying the dragon. (Perhaps they could display the work at that little museum just down the road from Storkyrkan, so people could look at the statue of St George and reflect).

Today in Europe (and elsewhere), moral equivalency and the failure to recognise malignant nihilism is a creeping amorality. We all know that no Scandinavian museum would present anything that justified domestic violence or the idea that rape victims ‘ask for it’, but somehow Israelis sitting at a café, or American office workers being blown up by suicide bombers are fair game.

[ Is is supportive of terrorism to point out that a suicide bomber could be motivated by the recent killings of her relatives? ]

Is it supportive of theft to point out that a bankrobber was motivated by lack of money?
Is it supportive of rape to point out that a rapist was motivated by a desire for sex?

Yes.

The deliberate murder of civilians is evil, whatever the motivations.

[ There's at best _understanding_ here, an understanding of the things that might drive people to do evil things. ]

We all know what the Feilers claim to do – to "understand" the terrorists by blaming their victims. However, what many postmodernists present as 'understanding' is more than that: it's attempting to obscure the primary characteristic of such an act (that it is nihilistic evil) by _identifying_ with the person who committed the act. This approach is downright wrong, and lies somewhere between naive amorality and cynical immorality. That the piece was not excluded from the exhibition is an indictment of the organisers and means that Zvi Mazel's act was appropriate and measured.

Sandy P:
[ As another blogger wrote, after he was done, Zvi should have called it performance art. ]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Bjorn, you say that Zvi Mazel "smashed" the piece. I have not seen any indication that he did so. He unplugged the lights. In my opinion, a photograph floating in a puddle of red water only barely qualifies as 'art'. But if it is to be called art, then any action of this sort should be defended as 'art'.

Plunging this so-called artwork into darkness was, as far as I can see, the most profound artistic rejoinder anyone could have made.

Miranda:
Here is a rough translation of the caption to the photo of Mr and Mrs Feiler in front of their 'installation':
"Artists Gunilla and Dror Feiler don't understand the ambassador's fury/frenzy. Feiler is himself from Israel, and has done [compulsory] military service there."

[ And what do the commenters on LGF know about Sweden? ]

Fair enough, Bjorn. Your description of discussions on LGF is pretty accurate. But I do know a thing or two about Sweden, and about postmodernists like the Feilers.

Personally, I like Swedes, and will soon marry one. However, the 'Liberal Death Wish' as Malcolm Muggeridge called it, as expressed in the moral vacuity of this postmodernist 'installation art', spans the Western world. Here in Australia, I have been confronted by a room full of 'well-educated' sociologists who informed me that there was no qualitative difference, in human rights terms, between Libya and Iraq on the one hand and Australia on the other (I had quoted the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, the Libyan representative Najat Al-Hajjaji: "There are no good guys or bad guys when it comes to countries and human rights.") As Dror Feiler repeatedly points out, he is one of the many Israelis who seeks "understanding" in relation to those Palestinians who seek to push Israel into the Ocean. However, the malaise of post-modernism has permeated thinking nowhere more than Scandinavia.

"Denying the existence of evil is so convenient for the cowardly, so effortless for the lazy, and so uninvolving for the indifferent."
- David C. Stolinsky.

Trevor Stanley.

One other comment:

[ Remember, he wasn't invited. Mazel read about this display in the newspaper, and deliberately went to the opening to sabotage it. ]

All the reports I've read say he was invited, and that in fact the organisers had stated that none of the exhibits would be about the Middle East. Zvi Mazel was a participant in the anti-Genocide Conference of which the exhibition was an adjunct, and Mazel was participating in the conference. He was surrounded by dignitaries when he unplugged the lamps. The curator was present, and escorted Mazel from the scene.

Have other news sources said otherwise?

Trevor:
** Is it supportive of theft to point out that a bankrobber was motivated by lack of money?
Is it supportive of rape to point out that a rapist was motivated by a desire for sex?

Yes. **

No. To accept your line of argument is to accept that emotional subjects can not ever be debated rationally.

It's an example of over-interpretation, which typically happens when people are very emotional about a subject.

Sure, I can understand Zvi Mazel's rage, considering what Israelis experience all the time, but it was an absurd over-reaction considering what the actual artwork.

The rabid reactions indicate that people don't know very much about art. It is, I guess, a "leftist" thing.

Arabs and Israelis alike should not believe they have the right to dictate what everybody else thinks and does in their own countries. Does freedom of expression only apply to what rightists agree with?

Does one have to be invited to museum exhibits in Sweden?

"... white on red, the colors of Snow White - is shockingly aesthetic" - you are mistaken, the aestetics are of Wicked Queen, not of Snow White, including hijab - http://www.animationusa.com/picts/wdpict/wkqst.gif

The exhibit in question is not an art, it's a rat, and no amount of fine tuning and "aestetics" soundbites can change this.

Miranda: "Did you hear of the Russian Jewish artist currently in Sweden, Dmitri Wassermann (Vasserman[n?]), who made a replica of the Feigler's composition, only with the portrait of Anna Lindh's murderer? Are the two pieces equivalent to you?"

Yes. Actually that's a very good analogy. But I miss the part where floating a criminal's face in an ocean of blood is a celebration of crime and evil. That's unlike any celebration I've ever heard of.

Sandy: "Bjorn, we're not dealing w/civilized people. You've seen them crawling over cars and running thru the streets w/what's left of their leaders. They revel in blood and death."

Who are these mysterious "they" you speak of, who "revel in blood and death"? The artist, an Israeli who's lived in Sweden for 30 years? His Swedish audience? Are you saying that anyone who has a naive view of the Middle East conflict is now a member of the Palestinian death cult?

Totoro: "The IDF killed the murderer's relatives because they were terrorists. Also, apparently the artist who made the bloody statement was inventing a new persona--not the actual terrorist who murdered the families at the restaurant."

Yes. But why is that to support terrorism? Also I don't think decadence has anything to do with this. Decadent artists aren't generally peace activists, and I do think this work has a genuine honest message: It's trying to show how tragic the "cycle of violence" is. Decadence does not have that moral dimension. The way Marilyn Manson plays on Nazi symbolism is decadent, and you could probably call the recent Tarantino movie Kill Bill (which I loved) decadent as well. But this work of art is more like those naive poems teenagers write. It's bad, but genuine.

"If their own families were blown up, they would undoubtedly have a different story to tell."

My point exactly. Ambivalence and strong emotions don't mix. But ambivalence is pretty central to art - you could say the same thing about almost any work of art dealing with evil. Even such a black-white tale as the Lord of the Rings does this. Gollum is evil, but we also see how he got to be evil, and even come to feel sympathy for him. "Now that I see him I do pity him." Tolkien provides evil with motivation and positive attributes, but nowhere does he defend it or understand it away.

Trevor: "It strikes me that the word 'ambivalent' could be changed to 'equivalent'. Similarly, After "Nowhere does it glorify terrorism, or even apologize for it" you could add "nor condemn it"."

Neither does it explicitly condemn the Israelis for killing her relatives. Perhaps the artist actually supports Israel? No - the mood of the poem is clearly _tragic_, and the tragedy is underscored by the display itself, the pool of blood, which there's no way to interpret favorably of terrorism. The cycle of violence, which is the dominant Scandinavian interpretation of the Middle East conflict, is the message here. It's a naive interpretation, and would be dangerous to Israel if it adopted it. But the people who believe it generally hate terrorism, and have good intentions for Israel. Anti-Israelism may be related to anti-semitism, but it is _not_ hatred of Israelis. Like anti-Americans, anti-Israelis believe that Israelis can redeem themselves by adopting their particular point of view, and they believe that Israel would benefit from this. As they see it, if only Israel would stop oppressing the Palestinians, a solution might be found. And terrorism is part of the problem that must be solved, not part of the solution. "There are extremists on both sides" is naive, but it is not supportive of terrorism.

"We all know that no Scandinavian museum would present anything that justified domestic violence or the idea that rape victims ‘ask for it’, but somehow Israelis sitting at a café, or American office workers being blown up by suicide bombers are fair game."

Yes. They're hypocritical. That doesn't mean I have to be.

"Is it supportive of theft to point out that a bankrobber was motivated by lack of money?
Is it supportive of rape to point out that a rapist was motivated by a desire for sex?
Yes."

Then I support both. I believe that thiefs often steal because they lack money, and men rape for sex, and that any work of art dealing realistically with these crimes must point this out.

"However, what many postmodernists present as 'understanding' is more than that: it's attempting to obscure the primary characteristic of such an act (that it is nihilistic evil) by _identifying_ with the person who committed the act."

Do you know that Feiler subscribes to this postmodernism you're against? If not you're hacking away at a strawman. Or do you believe that any artist who identifies with an evil character can only be a postmodernist who does not believe in a clear distinction between good and evil?

"Bjorn, you say that Zvi Mazel "smashed" the piece. I have not seen any indication that he did so. He unplugged the lights."

You're right, I was carried away by the headlines. He unplugged the lights, and pushed (accidentally?) one of them into the pool. Sabotage is the right word here, not smash.

"However, the malaise of post-modernism has permeated thinking nowhere more than Scandinavia."

I'm with you in the fight against this form of postmodernism, but you're wrong to identify it as a dominant influence on Scandinavian thought. The influence of postmodernism may be _broad_, but it's usually weak and indirect. You won't find anyone outside the academic world who takes genuine postmodernists seriously. Three words that I think describe Scandinavia and much of Europe better are left-liberalism, multiculturalism and anti-Westernism. Postmodernism is related to all these, and has influenced their current forms, but they're all _older_ than postmodernism, and don't rely entirely on it. The distinction is important. You can't fight what you don't understand.

"All the reports I've read say he was invited"

Hm, I think it was Jerusalem Post that said he went on his own initiative. Also heard it elsewhere. He said he saw it described in the newspaper, and showed up with the intent of sabotaging it.

Fred: "Does one have to be invited to museum exhibits in Sweden?"

No, but you can avoid exhibits you know will offend you.

norar: "The exhibit in question is not an art, it's a rat, and no amount of fine tuning and "aestetics" soundbites can change this."

What you call art is up to you. The question is: Is this anti-semitism, as both Sharon and Maziv claim it is? Is it supportive of terrorism? I'm not defending the artistic value of this piece, only the good intentions of the artist, and his right to make something like this.

This was part of a convention on genocide. Israel demanded that this not be used to imply Israel is guilty of genocide (It was apparently considered inconceivable that Israel might be portrayed as a victim of genocide). Sweden agreed. Israel is now claiming this work of art breaks the promise and is threatening not to attend. Sweden says pulling out would be a big mistake (which is why I assume the Israeli ambassador is invited, even if not officially). Because of the CONTEXT, the ambassador saw it as anti-Israel. If it was just in some old museum I believe he would not have been so offended, especially as the message is somewhat vague.

The prior comment by maor gets at the real reason Ambassador Mazel engaged in a dramatic exhibition of performance art by trashing the piece of "art".

There is symposium on genocide being held in Stockholm. The art was being shown as part of that symposium. Israel had an agreement with Sweden that the Israel-Arab conflict won't be part of that symposium.

And the only genocide in the Israel-Arab conflict is the one declared by the Arabs against Israel that they aren't militarily capable of executing.

What is not mentioned in most reporting is that Israel objected beforehand to this art being shown and that request was rejected. Syria objected to a artwork that was deemed pro-Israel and that artwork was removed so as not to offend Arabs, Muslims and all their allies.

Why was the Israeli request rejected but the Syrian request honored? If you are objective you realize is it due to Swedish anti-Semitism. What other explanation is there?

Bjorn asks:

"And please explain where the celebration is, where the glamor is, (or perhaps what definition of these words you use). We have a picture floating in blood, and a poem that clearly paints what this woman did as evil. That's not glamor."

Bjorn, have you never seen the Andy Warhol silkscreened photo portraits of Liza, Liz and Jackie O with the big super-imposed scarlet lips and make-up? This portrait of the suicide bomber complete with Max Factor collagen lip job, is given the full-on Liza treatment, a direct rip-off of those famous glamour-queen portraits. This Feiler creep doesn't even have his own ideas; he has to rip off ANDY WARHOL of all people.

Regarding the text accompanying the "art piece", oh it is more than just "counting words." The suicide bomber is a person with elaborately described feelings, thoughts and actions. The paltry few words devoted to the murdered people are just tacked on as a lame afterthought. And no Liza-glam photo treatments for any of THEM, no not for any of them.

This is a disgusting piece of Leftofascist, po-mo trash. It sickens me as much as "Triumph of Will" except that Triump of Will was much more aesthetically worthy. Morally, it is no different.

My first reaction was the same as Bjorn's - the message was ambigious at best. Snow White was tricked into eating a poisoned apple, and the interpretation could be that PIJ was the wicked witch, or the evil stepmother, or whatever. And it certainly isn't clear *whose* blood her image was floating on.

Now, Gunilla Feiler is a visual artist who has been preoccupied by the situation for the Palestinians in several exhibits. Her style seems to rely more on contrasting colors and textures than on symbolism. Based on the flyers, the title, and everything else, it's pretty clear that the main purpose was to contrast white with red, white being the main character trait of the suicide bomber. For most people, the red is a reference to blood. But the "artists" talk about the "beauty" of the blood. Whether or not we think the blood is Palestinian or Jewish is irrelevant, because the exhibit suggests that the suicide bomber made some kind of supreme sacrifice by blowing herself up.

(It seems a little bizarre to talk about the aesthetics of such violence, but it is fairly commonplace in art these days - Quentin Tarrantino is one example.)

Mazel's protest was multifaceted:

Partly it was a visceral reaction to the depiction of the suicide bomber as anything but a murderess, whatever one may think about her background or motivation. To dwell on the perpetrator at the expense of the 21 people she killed is obscene, by any standards.

But it's also pretty clear that he decided to break with diplomatic protocol more or less as an act of civil disobedience. If the Israeli embassy had filed a protest in accordance with protocol, the Sweden foreign ministry would have politely accepted it and then filed in the circular file cabinet. Israeli diplomats are *sick and tired* of having their concerns disregarded, and this was a way of getting attention.

Finally, there is nothing less artistic about what Mazel did than what the Feilers did, except that Historiska Museet allowed one and disallowed another.

I don't think antisemitism can be dismissed out of hand. Whether or not Dror is a self-hating Jew is a tedious and unproductive issue, but what is clear is that the exhibit sought to make a murderer of Jews look "white."

Imagine if the Historiska Museet had displayed the exact same exhibit, except with Baruch Goldstein on the sail? Would anyone have stood for that?

When I first read about this, I thought how bad the work was.

Then I came across an article that included a picture, and changed my mind. The visual shows a killer in a pool of blood said killer helped create.

Now, I don't particularly like the piece and hesitate to class it as "art", but then I am an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't understand the praise (and purchase price) heaped on a collage of pictures of a can of soup. As to whether it should be in the display of genocide-related pieces, well, it is specifically related to that. The artist might have been clearer that it does not matter whence genocide springs - perhaps by, in the written portion, making reference to tribal-genocide going on in parts of Africa? - but that is a problem in art in general. Which matters more, the intent of the artist or the reaction of the viewer/listener?

If the Ambassdor had made a public verbal denunciation there would be less of a problem - and considerably less coverage in the world media. But no, I cannot condone his taking physical action any more than I do the vandal who used a hammer on strategic portions of Michelangeo's David.

A very rational, insightful article, Bjorn. Thanks.

I have some reflexive sympathy for the ambassador. Nevertheless I think his behavior is "wrong". The work of art doesn't seem very good. But it does not seem anti-semitic.

> Peaceniks, modern art, Swedes - what's not to hate?

lol

PS: I've been meaning to tell you this for a while, please don't take this badly: it's spelled "hundred".

Just to continue this discussion for a bit longer...

Is there anything that could NOT be considered ART if it were artistically placed in a pretigious museum by a well-known and respected curator?

bjorns reasoning centers on: "It plays on positive and conflicting emotions in a way that is bound to offend anyone who has strong emotional ties to the situation."

However, this reasoning does not hold:
The bombers mother, her handlers, and her co-militants, though definitely having strong emotional ties, will certainly not be offended by this installation.
On the contrary, the installation fully qualifies as a grave-memorial to the murderers "heroism" and "martyrdom".

I am sorry, bjorns reasoning means blaming the victims.

Bjoern,

I've been reading your blog for a long time now. First, let me say that you deserve greatest credit by being one of the few European bloggers (should I say non-Jewish bloggers? OK, here's the full disclaimer: I'm Jewish and I live in Europe too, oszillating between Germany and France at the moment) with a rational stance on Israel-related issues. This said, I think I should emphasize "rational", because what we are dealing with here is more of an emotional affair, and both your post and the debate give me a slight feeling that you are communicating on different wavelengths that both the protagonists and your opponents.

My take is a simple one: the red-lipped young woman has committed an act that denies her any claim on common humanity with anyone who chooses to consider him- or herself an even averagely moral human being. The atrocity of the "installation" lies precisely in the non-abhorrence towards her. Yes, humanizing her means dehumanizing her victims. There are acts that should never be rewarded with empathy if we are to stay human.

A matter of personal experience, undeniably: I have endured too much philosophizing about poor Germans who were delivered such a terrible blow to their national self-esteem (nothing goes over a Jew to understand just how much your people suffer to the type of locals that -- it's not difficult to guess if you are defending against this kind of stuff for years -- are most likely also responsible for Mr. Feiler's socialisation on our part of the world) that they just couldn't help themselves you-know-when so as not to perceive the flood of sentimental slobbering about Palestinians as a publicly acceptable PC extension of this tradition. Ironically, it is precisely through empathy for such acts that Palestinians become dehumanized as an entity: there is no serious reason to apply lesser moral stringency to them than to the rest of the mankind.

This said, much of the official rhetoric flowing from Israel is -- as usual, I'm sorry to say -- imbecile. Which is a pity, since I sympathize with the *act* of the ambassador, no matter how much against the rules it was: it was a rare *human* reaction, as opposed to the usual official Israeli fist-slamming-cum-minimal-vocabulary. I've given up on hope that someone will offer decent rhetorics training to the Israeli diplomatic corps, let alone to Mr. Sharon.

"Peaceniks, modern art, Swedes - what's not to hate?" Nobody I know of hates the Swedes. That must be a Norwegian thing. Nobody cares about the Swedes.

And that's what I take away from this story. How little the vast majority of Americans care. About European opinions, European thinking, Europeans in general. This event is something that I could see happening in America too. e.g. at a snooty museum in NYC, but these places have somewhat less of an impact on actual government policy than they think they do.

I've posted a comment on this on kuro5hin.org, where i comment on how I interpret this work of art.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2004/1/18/9742/50635/101#101

Bjørn, I agree that it's totally ridiculous to describe Snow White and the Madness of Truth as anti-Semitic. At the same time, there are some textual factors that arguably valorize suicide bombing:

1. Several paragraphs of the accompanying text, including the "let the whole world be erased" statement and "the murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones crying," are direct quotes from Jaradat's eulogy for her brother and cousin. (Yes, terrorists _can_ speak that eloquently if they are lawyers with rhetorical training.) None of these statements are challenged, and only the "whole world be erased" argument is attributed to her, with the others presented as the artist's words. This seems to suggest a choice by the artist to speak in Jaradat's voice - and, moreover, an artistic determination that Jaradat is the _only_ one allowed to speak.

2. The final paragraph, which describes the aftermath of the suicide bombing, reflects back to Jaradat's funeral speech - "and many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded." This is a direct quote from a _Ha'aretz_ article that appeared shortly after the bombing, but it is not attributed: the only reference available to the viewers is to Jaradat's funeral oration. This could be read as implying that the reason "many people are indeed crying" is that the "murderer" - Israel - has paid the "price."

3. The artist creates a simplistic chain of causation that does not match reality. Instead of acknowledging that Jaradat's brother and cousin were Islamic Jihad members shot resisting arrest - i.e., _participants_ in the cycle of violence - he casts them as the ur-victims of the story. The depiction of Jaradat as avenging innocent victims makes a clear statement about who originated the cycle, and grants her a sympathy and purity of motive to which I do not believe she is entitled.

4. Whose blood is it? The only blood mentioned in the text belonged to Snow White and to Jaradat's relatives. It seemed, at least to me, that the pool represented _their_ blood, and that it symbolized her motivation for committing the suicide bombing rather than its effect.

5. Jaradat is portrayed as Snow White - a character who, although the victim of a trick, is ultimately the hero of the story. This isn't determinative in itself but, in combination with other aspects of the installation and text, can be read as casting Jaradat as a tragic hero rather than a villain.

This isn't the only possible interpretation of the artwork, but it's a plausible one and it's the one that occurred to me on first impression. For the record, I'm a flaming lefty by Israeli standards and a frequent critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians (Miranda can tell you that), but I nevertheless came away with a strong impression that the work valorized Jaradat.

As a thought experiment, consider what might happen if the picture on the boat were one of Yitzhak Pas - a Jewish terrorist who went renegade after losing his 10-month-old daughter to a Palestinian sniper - and the accompanying text depicted him as Agamemnon (figure deliberately chosen for the ambiguity of its sacrifice). Do you doubt for a minute that the consensus of the Swedish viewing public would be that the artwork valorizes terrorism?

The artist says that he intended to depict the cycle of violence rather than glorifying terrorism, and I accept his word. Any work of art, though, is really two works - the one the artist intended to create, and the one the viewers see. When a critic comments on the aesthetics of an artwork, he describes what he sees and puts it in the context of his experience. Political artwork should not be immune from similar criticism of its politics. If art is meant to communicate, then viewers should be free to comment on, and criticize, the personal message they received.

Note that I don't support _censorship_ of any kind. I think the ambassador's act of premeditated vandalism was totally wrong - I had some initial sympathy for his emotions, but that sympathy vanished when I learned that the attack was planned. At the same time, though, I reject the argument that Mazel's _criticism_ of the work was wrong, because this argument depends on the imposition of a single orthodox interpretation of the work.

There's been some discussion on my blog here:

http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/020275.html

and here:

http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/020299.html

I acknowledge that most of my readers don't share my interpretation, so it may be that I'm overanalyzing or that I'm too close to the image to assess it dispassionately. Nevertheless, I'm left with a profound feeling that Jaradat is not entitled to the memorial that Feiler gave her.

From my point of view, the piece in question has an ambiguous message: it does spend more text talking about (again, from my point of view) an extremely questionable interpretation of the origin of the murders, committed by the woman the artist equates with snow white, than it does about the consequences of her action (the meaning of the pool of blood is somewhat unclear: whose blood is it?). I think it's the ambiguity about the subject that angers so many people.

My main objection is that it seems frivolous: the artist latched on to the appearance of the killer and based the artwork around that. It is as though someone made a similar installation about Ted Bundy that focussed mainly on his hair, especially if a comparison was made to a sympathetic character (the prince from Snow White?). But then, I'm not sophisticated about this kind of crap.

Bjorn is of course correct: sabotage is not the way to deal with stuff like this. I doubt this thing would have received 1% of the notice it has if it hadn't been for the Israeli ambassador's ill considered (in my opinion) action.

Sebastian, why would you be surprised that this "artwork" focuses on the glamorous appearance of the suicide killer? Of COURSE this is the main focus of the exhibit. When it comes to the Left, fads and fashions and appearances are WHAT THEY LIVE FOR. Where would the left be without their trendy cocktail parties, gallery openings, radical chic soirees, suicide bomber chic fashion shows, anti-war marches complete with pink cardboard tanks and naked babes in suicide bomber vests? They have no real soul, no real convictions -- they LIVE for fads and fashions. Palestinians are fashionable and so there they are, like lemmings drawn to the cause-du-jour. A decade from now it will be some other ethnic group, some other fashionable cause.

So far nobody has taken up my challenge of discussing whether there are any limits to what should be displayed as ART in a respected ART Museum.

So everything is possible? There are no limits? The only thing that matters is whether or not we can convince the curator to show our work?

My take is that the original exhibit of the pool of blood with the boat and picture was okay. Not great art by any means but not inherently anti-semitic, the version with Anna Lindh's killer worked in the same way. The killer is doomed to drift in the blood of their victims.

What pushes it over to tasteless hackdom is that apparently there are notes or readings that go along with the exhibit. Art, _real_ art does not need crib notes.

I find myself disturbingly neutral about the vandalism itself. My main thought is if you're trying to be provocative, then don't get all self-righteous when people are provoked.
Still, the Israeli ambassador gave it far too much publicity, if not for his vandalism no one outside of the people that went to the gallery would ever know about it.

I think it's not only the Palestinians that never miss an opportunity to fuck up (to mangle the quote some).

Hi.

It seems to me that Jonathan Edelstein is right in his reading of the work.

I would go beyond that to say that the ambiguity, the elusiveness of the piece is vital to it.

The older population of Europe is dying out, giving way to a more virile successor culture. The outgoing population may increasingly want to ease its declining decades and smooth its passing by finding common ground with the new people and by clouding over differences.

It's a balancing act to create art that goes along with the new people, or at least raises their issues with sympathy and no real objections, but at the same time doesn't bluntly tell the old peoples of Europe: "Your time is over. There's a new way now."

The time for that is not yet. After all, they're not at all finished yet, there are only trends, and even if this trends continue, they have not reached a terminal or even a final tipping point yet. If Snow White and the rest are scoured out of Europe (and they may not be, history is full of surprises), it won't be in our lifetimes.

So, there's a blending, with old-European cultural memories to lull the dying with bed-time stories (Snow White), mixed with new-European values and practices (such as suicide-bombing) that are not resisted, with not too much clarity overall about what is being said, what is being conceded. That is the point.

It's the right art for the emerging Europe, I think.

[ You're right, I was carried away by the headlines. ]

I quoted that because I'm relieved I wasn't the only one!

[** Is it supportive of theft to point out that a bankrobber was motivated by lack of money?
Is it supportive of rape to point out that a rapist was motivated by a desire for sex?
Yes. **]

I had a feeling there was something wrong as I was writing this. I should have deleted it, but instead I edited the even worse original. I think my point was that it's wrong to use the supposed cause of an event to minimise an absolute evil until it becomes merely something mildly unpleasant. (And then use that as a bridge towards portraying the perpetrator as a heroine).

[ the pool of blood, which there's no way to interpret favorably of terrorism ]

That depends on whose blood it is. What supports Hanadi Jaradat's boat? It floats on blood. Who put the blood there? I tend to think the artists intended the blood to be that of the Palestinians. I don't know, because as you say it is ambivalent. To me it looks as if this innocent cherub, surrounded by a sea of blood, was corrupted and therefore had no choice but to attack Israeli civilians.

Stackars Hanadi.

[ Decadent artists aren't generally peace activists, ]

Maybe I just haven't met enough Swedish peace activists and artists, but where I come from those two categories often coincide.

Although the Feilers call themselves peace activists, and perhaps think of themselves that way, there is a debate here over whether they consider terrorist murder 'relative' and perhaps justified. If so, then they are supporting murder in the name of peace.

[ Who are these mysterious "they" you speak of, who "revel in blood and death"? The artist, an Israeli who's lived in Sweden for 30 years? His Swedish audience? Are you saying that anyone who has a naive view of the Middle East conflict is now a member of the Palestinian death cult? ]

(1) I must get around to typing up a copy of Malcom Muggeridge's "The Liberal Death Wish" for my PWHCE webpage. Many Australians attack Australia, many Americans attack America, many Israelis attack Israel. It speaks volumes that the artists could understand Hanadi Jaradat's action but not Mazel's.
(2) What makes you think Feiler is naive? His artwork demonstrates otherwise. It is so carefully balanced that it has generated worldwide debate. He is aware of the issues, because he has carefully obscured or disarmed each one. It strikes me as a brilliant piece of propaganda. Look at the result: half of us are saying it's a neutral piece, the other half are saying it makes a hero of a murderer - and seeming therefore to overreact.

Do you notice that nobody is saying "he gave far much attention to the personal traits of victim number 17. Sure, this person was just relaxing and eating at a restaurant, minding his/her own business, when along came a completely anonymous murderer, but after all....." What would go after "after all"? Nothing, because there is no ambiguity from the point of view of the victims. That's why the victims don't feature.

This seems to be the key point of difference. We are not sure whether what we are seeing is naivety or cunning.

[ The cycle of violence, which is the dominant Scandinavian interpretation of the Middle East conflict, is the message here. ]

Which is part of the point about Scandinavia!! Every time a Middle East peace summit looms, terrorism occurs. The Israelis have the choice of ignoring attacks on their own citizens or retaliating militarily. The next suicide bombing on a restaurant, bar mitzfa or school bus is refered to as a "cycle of violence". The "cycle of violence" explanation is relativist; a hallmark of postmodernism.

[ postmodernism, but you're wrong to identify it as a dominant influence on Scandinavian thought. ]

It is a powerful influence in all Western countries. It is present in all people to differing degrees. Everyone is somewhat liberal, somewhat disciplinarian (eg dissatisfaction with Sweden's light sentencing laws), somewhat social-ist and so on, and occasionally we are all influenced by 'postmodern' relativism. It's a matter of proportions. As far as I can see relativism is a bit stronger in Scandinavia than elsewhere. It's certainly much stronger in Europe (the slice between Britain and Eastern Europe, I mean) than in Britain, America and Australia. I was not saying that postmodernism was the overriding ideology of Scandinavians as opposed to some other overriding ideology for the rest of us.

[ Hm, I think it was Jerusalem Post that said he went on his own initiative. Also heard it elsewhere. He said he saw it described in the newspaper, and showed up with the intent of sabotaging it. ]

It seems he was invited, which is why it was broadcast on television. It was his job to be there, and the normally very honest Swedes had assured the Israelis nothing like this would happen (which incidentally makes me think Feiler and the organisers wanted to create a diplomatic incident). When Mazel realised what was going to happen, he made a statement that the world would see, but which made no lasting impact on the actual work, and therefore was not vandalism. Normally, Sweden is very supportive of the right to protest, but apparently there are special exceptions.

[ Is there anything that could NOT be considered ART if it were artistically placed in a pretigious museum by a well-known and respected curator? ]

Yes - Zvi Mazel's protest action.

Trevor Stanley.

Many good comments here. I still don't believe the work supports terrorism, but if it does, the case for it has been made above.

[quote]Israel had an agreement with Sweden that the Israel-Arab conflict won't be part of that symposium.[/quote]

According to officials from Sweden no such agreement existed.

Btw, the arranger of the conference have been bending backwards to please Israel's requests. They have changed the theme of the conference to exclude subjects that could be touchy for Israel and they have also denied representatives from Palestine to participate.

Bjorn writes:

"Many good comments here. I still don't believe the work supports terrorism, but if it does, the case for it has been made above."

Possible translation #1: Enough! Stop making so many long comments I have to read...

Possible translation #2: OK, I'm all wet on this matter, but it's still not so clear that I'm all wet that it mandates an actual blatant admission of it...

Possible translation #3: Scandinavian art gets so little world attention...can't we cut the artist some slack (even thought he IS a Swede) and just enjoy his work...?

Of course the ultimate response, artistically, would be to somehow get a suicidal jihadist to explode himself (or herself) inside that museum taking out the museum directors and several bystanders...

Then leave the scene as it is (flesh stuck to walls, blood everywhere, perhaps a child's face full of nails) and charge people to tour it...

_Possible translation #2: OK, I'm all wet on this matter, but it's still not so clear that I'm all wet that it mandates an actual blatant admission of it..._

Sounds more like he was saying "reasonable minds can disagree, and reasonable minds just did."

ct: Or #4 - I'm not interested enough in the nuances of bad modern art to write point-by-point rebuttals to 15 good comments, none of which I find big glaring faults in, and all of which are nuanced and well thought out. They're also all well above the inflammatory level LGF started out on, the level you demonstrate in your own comparison of a politically offensive art display to a suicide bombing.

Bjorn,

In a previous thread you asked your readers for suggestions of books they enjoyed in 2003. One suggestion I would like to add here is Allan Dershowitz's Why Terrorism Works.

Deshowitz describes how the West, by not putting an end to terrorism in its early days, has enabled the terrorists to develop this tactic as a powerful weapon. The key here is "terrorist enablers." This is the problem with the exhibit. It is slyly saying that terrorism is OK if in a just cause.

One more point, which I picked up from a commenter on Europundit's blog: What was this seemingly pro-terrorist exhibit doing in an exhibit on "genocide"?

http://samaritan.fhi.net/mentor/a10/article3a.htm

Trevor, Muggeridge's essay is already posted online, above.

Staffan - where is "Palestine?" What are its borders? Where do you have a copy of its constitution?

If you look in a Palestinian textbook, you'll find that their conception of "Palestine" encompasses Haifa, Tel Aviv, Netanya, Be'ersheva, Eilat, and everything in between. Sovereign nations and NGOs get to participate in these conferences - if they're going to invite separatist nationalist movements, they ought to also invite the Kurds (who were victims of Saddam's attempts at genocide), Basques, Northern Irish Catholics, Tibetans, Chechens, etc. Of course, if they did this, the Turks, Spaniards, French, Brits, Irish, Chinese, and Russians wouldn't show up.

If the Swedes posit that no agreement existed, they're lying. After the Durban "conference" on racism turned into a travesty and farce, Israel is not likely to participate in any such conferences unless they have some assurance that it won't turn into an anti-Israel tirade.

Feiler's exhibit:

a) had nothing to do with genocide, unless one is willing to concede that there are Arab leaders who would gladly kill every last Israeli Jew if they had the means;

b) was a clear violation of the agreement the Israeli and Swedish government made, evidenced by the fact that it was the *Swedes* who ended up issuing a conciliatory statement.

let's say John Wayne Gacy has a son who decides to bugger, kill, and bury kids under his house because the evil government jailed his father (the bastards).

Of course a "work of art" sympathetic to this POS (the one featuring Hanadi "POS" Jarada is at the very least sympathetic) would be disgusting. I do not give a fat rat's ass what Jr. thought his motivation was - ya know, the old 2 wrongs thing goes for fucking evilly super-wrong things like blowing up a bunch of innocent people.

Oooo, Oooo, but we should explore what made Gacy Sr. such a sick fuck as to find how WE were at fault...
or
we maybe we should just despise people who blow up themselves and others as much as we do Gacy.

Bjørn Stærk writes:

"the display itself [is] shocking, not gloryfying."

Au contraire.

It's both shocking AND glorifying.

"... I still don't believe the work supports terrorism..."

Elementary, my dear Watson...

Since it glorifies terroristic martrydom, it necessarily supports the strategy of terroristic martyrdom.

Certainly you don't take at face value the "untruths" you relentlessly expose in the Norwegian press.

Nor are you the least bit fazed or misled by the misleading label "NEWS" affixed to out-&-out lies in the Scandinavian media.

But now you seem to get a little sentimental, a bit of an easy touch, over the label "ART."

Well, it's good to see you're not a pointy-eared Vulcan after all.

We were concerned there for a while... :)

Many insightful comments and critiques (most all of them, IMHO), but my fellow Californian, Og K, hits the nail on the head.

Totoro (Arukou arukou / Watashi wa genki...)

Well after Yoko Ono put an apple on a pedestal I think it's safe to say that art is a pretty meanless word in the context of a modern art gallery.

PT Barnum would be proud. The definition of art is anything you can sell tickets to a gallery with.

That's not what you meant. Is there anything that shouldn't be shown. I don't know.

Ever notice that LOTS of conceptual art is offensive?

I think immature "artists" create simple insults and pranks and call them art just so that they can enjoy watching people's reactions to them. Your reaction is the performance, not the stupid bucket of red paint with an offensive poem.

Given the immature Eminem like love of offense that's normal for "conceptual art," I'd like to suggest an alternate interpretation of the piece.

Bjorn suggested that it wasn't pro-terrorist because the image of blood is offensive. The image of blood is horrifying to European society and to Israeli society, but anyone who's familiar with Palestinian propaganda know that the image is welcome and anything but horrifying to an Palestinian viewer. Songs glorifying blood are common. Songs calling for the land to be fed by the "pure blood" of the Shahid and the blood of the Jews scare the hell out of me - especially since they are taught to children...

No wonder the Ambassador was livid. To me the work slyly winks at the Terrorist supporter. It only looks ambiguous to naive European eyes Those in the know look at it and understand that it's entirely for them; that it's secretly for them; it winks slyly; it does what Arafat does whenever he speaks to a western reporter. It lies; it's a living lie that anyone can take part in; you only have to understand it and pretend that you believe that it's ambiguous to participate in the lies of the Jihad against Israel.

It’s a VERY clever concept. And very offensive.

But the biggest offense I see is that plastering the smirking face of that murderer in huge posters everywhere to torture to anyone who isn't as antisemetic as the show promoters. Good thing they tore those down.

Many insightful comments and critiques (most all of them, IMHO), but Mr. Joshua Scholar hits the nail on the head (unlike that know-nothing Og K).

Upon further review, ct's controversial contributions above are the standard for insightful commentary on this subject... The image of nails stuck in a child's face silences all prittle-prattle intellectualising and justifying regarding these terrorist-supporting filth.

ct, northern California . . .

You said: "The image of nails stuck in a child's face silences all prittle-prattle intellectualising and justifying regarding these terrorist-supporting filth."

I agree.

The problem with the decadent creeps who hide behind artistic pretentions is that they are feeding on pain and suffering. There's not much in the news about the victims of terrorist attacks who don't die. (I read The Jerusalem Report, so I get a much fuller picture of life in Israel.) Imagine, for example, what life will be like for a 17-year old girl whose face was destroyed in a bombing. This is just one example.

is THIS offensive at all?

http://home.comcast.net/~gretl/crap/memorial.html

Well said Bjorn. Thank God there's still clear-headed people like you who don't react to events reflexively at the touch of a keystroke, before they've actually tried to understand them.

I think the display is pointless, largely. I don't like it really. But I don't see any glorification of terrorism or much less anti-semitism, I can't really see where it would be. It just pictures the shocking nature of one person's decision to become a terrorist and kill themselves along with others. I get the impression the artist played a lot more on the fact the killer was a young woman. Hence the "snow white" reference. The political element seems on the background to me.

I can understand the ambassador's reaction, but it's no good, and besides, EVEN IF this was a really overtly pro-terrorist display, the ambassador's reaction has drawn more attention to it than the artist himself.

Is it just because this was in Sweden and not Israel, even if the artist was Israeli? Why not smash every display of support for Palestinians *by Israelis in Israel* then? Where do you draw the line there, I'd like to know.

Maybe this would have have been better:

once upon a time in the middle of winter

For the June 12 deaths of her terrorist brother, and her terrorist cousin

and three drops of blood fell

She was also a Jew hating islamofascist

as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, scratch the surface though - just another murderous loon

and the red looked beautiful upon the white

The tormenter will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying - too bad she did not realize the tormenter was Arafish

like a weed in her heart until she had no peace day and night

Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer

I will run away into the wild forest, and never come home again

Before his terrorist act took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces

and she ran over sharp stones and through thorns

She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain. I will complete your murderous plot

and was about to pierce Snow White's innocent heart

She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shooting of the terrorist scum

The wild beasts will soon have devoured you

After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal - 25K per terrorist act is a lot here!

"Yes", said Snow White, "with all my heart"

Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims (killing all Joooooooos!), and live in the stone age, then let the whole world be erased"

Run away, then, you poor child

She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians

as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded

on second thought, there was nothing remotely beautiful about this schtoopidity

"And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded"

How does that get read as a tribute to terrorism, I really don't understand.

I read it, and thought only about the victims, and the horror brought about by the murder. I really can't see one iota of intent to elicit sympathy for the killer.

If anything, this is so clearly about a "snow white" (young, pretty woman, etc.) becoming the wolf.

I would probably be upset by it too if I'd seen it first-hand. I have family in Israel. And I have not one single bit of sympathy for any so-called "Palestinian cause" that translates to this horror.

But when I read about the ambassador's reaction, I was expecting the display to be some overtly political and overtly offensive statement against Israel and/or Jews. Not this. This is so abstract, so small, so unknown (before the smashing) it's ridiculous to even bother about it.

I don't think it does any good to the urgency of the task of fighting anti-semitism even in its political form, if such neutral and irrelevant things are mixed in with the real, serious threats.

Bjorn is so right on there. This is a case where the precedents, context, assumptions took over judgement of the thing itself.

"Me Here"

At first that link seems to be an obvious and superficial comparison, but it's actually quite clever. The red, black and white, the poem, the music; it fits surprisingly well. And in terms of absolute evil, is there a difference? Murder is murder. Feiler could never exhibit the Hitler memorial, but here we are debating an essentially identical artwork.

[ Weeping bitterly, he added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased" ]

This was summarised in Hitler's statement towards the end of the war: "Let them reign over ash".

Susan, thank you for the link to Muggeridge's essay. I searched for it a year back and didn't find it. That's going in my favourites :)

Trevor.

Well, I hadn't bothered to read all of Bjorn's post when I wrote mine, so I didn't know about "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace."

I should probably re-adjust my opinion of Dror and classify him as a naive man rather than as an Anti-Semite.

The same words really do have a different meaning depending on who's saying them.

There's lots of genocidal Anti-Semites walking around supporting the Palestinian cause, and if Dror isn't really one of them, fine.

MV:

"How does that get read as a tribute to terrorism, I really don't understand."

Everything up to that point reads as justification - 'Yes, it was kind of bad..... but the damn Joooos pushed her into perpetrating some sort of violent act.'

I guess if you think the Jordyptians have a claim on the land and a right to keeeell all da Jooooos to reclaim it, and if you believe these Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian/Lebanese had it so bad before the intefada, that their treatment is close to that of Jew in Nazi Germany or other truely oppressed people, and that the recent decline in their circumstances is in no way related to their own actions....you might have a bit of a point.

but, of course if you believe those things you've got other problems.

Susan:
Actually, on examination, that turns out to be another, quite different version of The Great Liberal Death Wish - the one I have does not appear anywhere on the web, so I'd better start typing :)

add to that

the phrase "And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded" does not offer a clue to whether or not these families crying is a bad thing. One could read that as "many are crying and deservedly so"

the ONE word that might lead one to believe she did anything wrong after a page of reading about why she exacted revenge on her "tormenters" is the word innocent in "She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians."

one word amid a puking great mess of wrong-headed excuses.

Well, most of those SS guys loved their families and never kicked their dogs....
Well, Hitler had a bad upbringing....

just a lot of moral confusion here.

It's like a bad afternoon movie where the rapist murdering arms-trafficing drug-dealing pimp gets killed by the law and his brother seeks revenge... but people want to side with the filth.

Lerry Defner in JPost:

"there is no glorification of Palestinian terrorism whatsoever in the now infamous pool-of-blood art installation in Stockholm – not by the artists, not by the Swedes, not by anybody."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074691764967

Your new post is interesting Bjorn. You might want to enter it in the longest paragraph of 2004 contest ;)

[ Betrakter: A government which sends publicly hired assasins around the world ]

Maybe Betrakter wasn't talking about Israel, but about France and the Rainbow Warrior bombing...

Seriously, although I thought the anti-semitic angle was a red herring in the Snow White debate (the real issue being the justification of murder, no matter whom the victims or culprits), it does open the door to that issue - the growth of anti-semitism (obfuscated and open) in Europe, in the Left, and generally.

The Swedish Communists, after supporting Nazism in their propaganda until 1941, did everything they could to obscure this element of their past. Vänsterpartiet (the Left Party) has done everything it can to obscure its intellectual roots, even adopting a new name. Similarly in English-speaking countries, the Communists washed their hands of the pro-Nazi period and spent decades painting the tradition of their own countries as support for fascist racism.

There are bizarre consequences of this revisionism. I have seen anti-American posters (elsewhere) make comparisons between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of France. There is a moment of confusion. Do they mean the invasion of democratic France by dictatorial Germany? Or do they mean the invasion of occupied and puppet (Nazi) France by a coalition of democratic countries led by America and Britain? The latter would seem to be more closely analogous to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, the comparison is invariably meant to paint America as the same as the Nazi occupiers. That young leftists invoke the invasion of France during WWII without clarification demonstrates that history has been turned on its head.

It seems pretty clear that today's young leftists are completely unaware of the common lineage and friendship of Marxism and Nazism. They are therefore comfortably convinced that they are immune from 'reactionary' anti-semitism, and find it easy to finesse their arguments as merely 'anti-Israeli'.

Meanwhile, in Palestine anti-Israeli sentiment has retained its old connections with 19th Century "Protocols" conspiracies.

Now, it seems as if the Left has picked up the ball where it was dropped, returning to their anti-semitic past without even realising what they are doing.

This is a baffling sociological phenomenon. Is contemporary anti-semitism a revival of 1940s leftist anti-semitism? Is it a completely co-incidental re-emergence of the same prejudice? Is it simply a carry-over from the alliances of the Cold War, combined with leftist utilitarianism, making anti-Jewish conspiracies an expedient method to attack traditional enemies? Is there something about the left-wing viewpoint (a totalitarian tendency?) that predisposes it to anti-semitism?

Perhaps in fifty years' time, undergraduates in history and politics (or statsvetenskap) will write essays attempting to explain the resurgence of anti-semitism today, just as they now try to explain the disintegration of the Weimar Republic.

Thanks for another interesting article, Bjorn.

Trevor Stanley.

In response to 'michael OR':

I don't know why you need to (wrongly) infer my opinions on the political situation there. I didn't talk about it. I'm only talking of this display and the ambassador's reaction.

Again, I don't read that kind of "justification". Not from a political point of view. Not even from a moral one.

I don't feel the need to see political statements and moral positions in a visual display in an exhibition, that's all. Not unless they're specifically declared.

It seems to me clear the author is portraying the horror in the situation itself. From a human point of view. I don't necessarily read that idea of revenge as political justification for the act.

Perhaps that is what the author intended, perhaps he really wanted to make it clear he believes what drives a young woman to become a terrorist is to be blamed partly on the victims. But I don't get that just by watching the photo and reading the text.

The fact he's also politically involved in a group that supports Palestinian demands doesn't sound that shocking to me. I may not subscribe to that position, but I don't see why even overt statements about it should be banned, destroyed, or equated to glorification of terrorism (or nazism).

If everyone in Israel had taken the ambassador's route, Israel would not be the democracy it is.

Again, why doesn't he go round his own country smashing displays and leaflets and statements that are even more political than this? There's loads to pick from.

But what would be the idea behind that attitude? that everyone is so stupid they need to be preserved from the danger of being exposed to a political position that may be wrong, stupid, incorrect, dangerous,etc. Don't you think that among the few hundred people that had seen this thing (before it became world-famous thanks to the ambassador's gesture...), there must have been at least a good few that were endowed with enough common sense to their own political conclusions about Israel and Arabs and terrorism from facts, instead of the display itself? Why give it such a political weight it does NOT have?

MV c'mon, did you read the text? Try it again

For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin
She was also a woman Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions
The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying
Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer
Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces
She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain
She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings
After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal
Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"

*"I don't read that kind of "justification". Not from a political point of view. Not even from a moral one."*

-what the hell does "For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin" mean then?

*"I don't necessarily read that idea of revenge as political justification for the act."*
-The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying

*"I don't feel the need to see political statements and moral positions in a visual display in an exhibition, that's all. Not unless they're specifically declared"*
- well, how about "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"

read it, dammit!

Michael OR, just a couple of things:

1) everyone reads it their own way, that's the whole idea of something like this. Provoke, publicity, controversy, blah blah.

2) those words are what the (not) "snow white" in the story here says. She clearly was seeking revenge, that's how *she* saw it. It doesn't *necessarily* follow that's how the author sees it. Otherwise, say, Joel and Ethan Coen were glorifying senseless murder in Fargo (no comparison with rubbish like this, but just for the sake of this point);

3) even if he was seeing it exactly like that, ie. sympathising with her desire for revenge, it doesn't necessarily mean he's sympathising with the conclusion, ie. the terrorist act;

and most importantly, 4) who cares?

You know, I get your point there. Yes, he might as well be excusing a terrorist's motives, if not her actions. So what? It's not even worth bothering about. An unknown individual in an 'art' installation no one has seen, suddenly getting a huge publicity because of the ambassador's gesture. I wouldn't call that clever.

And again: why didn't the ambassador act the same way in regards to political statements of the same kind made in Israel? All those organisations that find excuses for Arab terrorists, why doesn't he go and smash their offices and punch their representatives in the face?

Sharon's own government has freed hundreds of terrorists. If I were the relative of a terrorist victim, I'd get a little bit more concerned about that than about some Israeli artist in Sweden. There's a slight difference in political impact there, wouldn't you agree?

I think the exhibit did support terror, but only because the artist when interviewed had a "F*** you" type of response, as opposed to denying support of terror.
Still, it was the CONTEXT of the exhibit that upset Mazel.

i think many are forgetting the role of the artist

This story is an example of an attempt to draw attention to the horror of a brutal conflict being used by one side in that conflict to legitimate their actions and demonise anything that may be critical of them.

This phenomenon is becoming increasingly common: Those who are critical of propagandist media are denounced as opposing free speech. Those who are critical of American foreign policy are denounced as anti-American neo-fascists. Those who criticise the excesses of global capitalism are denounced as communist totalitarians.

In this example no attempt can be made to understand the process that leads to a person becoming a suicide bomber, it is to be dismissed as a “malignant nihilism” that arises spontaneously and without causes. The only possible response to such “malignant nihilism” is to root it out of society and destroy it utterly by all means at the authorities disposal. Any attempt to understand such a process is automatically and uncritically denounced as sympathy with “malignant nihilsm” and must similarly be stamped out and destroyed. The notion that there might possibly be a connection between “malignant nihilism” and the responses to it -- that the latter may actually cause the former is the greatest threat of all and must by at all costs be eliminated. The surgery has to be invasive regardless of the consequences for the life quality of the patient.

Nothing new in this type of closed mind reaction but what is new is the way in which political interests recognising the power in mass psychology exploit it for their own purposes. Sharon is doing it here and the Bush administration do the same in the US. Here in Norway the FrP and the Right are beginning to learn the trick. IMO the artist here should have anticipated this and found another way to draw attention to the existential drama he depicts.

But really, there isn’t anything new here at all; there is a historical precedent for the ruthless propagandist exploitation of fear in living memory. Note especially how acts of barbarism come to be justified by presenting the people perpetrating them as a victim. Hitler’s fascists used precisely the same “argument” to legitimate their extermination of Jews. In the Middle East both Sharon’s government and the militant Palestinians use the argument. Neither are prepared to recognise their own barbarity, both passionately resist all attempts to see the conflict as a whole.

Both sides also exploit propagandist means but in this regard it is important to note once again how the possibility of any third way is blocked. If there is a way out it lies in building on a solidarity that exists in the shared suffering of Palestinian victims of Israeli brutality and those of the victims of Palestinian terrorism.

it's beautiful that there is art that offends us enough to remind us of the real OFFENSE : the deliberate, desperate, deluded apartheid enacted by the state of Israel, a nation started from the ashes of the most brutal apartheid in a century, upon the Palestinian people. Jews, Christians,Muslims, and all humans of good conscience condemn all the violence in this conflict. But don't condemn an unflinching examination of the causes of this violence with a knee-jerk reaction of censorship in the name of fighting "anti-semitism"... Anti-Palestinan hatred is anti-semitism, too.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/592

The Head Heeb: Full contact diplomacy, January 20, 2004 04:56 PM

In case anybody's wondering what I think of Ambassador Zvi Mazel's unconventional art criticism, Shai's take on the incident is largely the same as mine. Those interested in Swedish opinion can find some of it here (although there's probably some...

The Tears of Things: Zvi Mazel Performs a Mitzvah: Part Two, February 21, 2004 11:58 PM

by Jerome du Bois Welcome to Part Two, and thank you for your patience. As a reward, I have a surprise: this post will be a lot shorter than I implied. Everybody who has followed this story knows what happened...

The Tears of Things: Zvi Mazel Performs a Mitzvah: Part Two, February 21, 2004 11:58 PM

by Jerome du Bois Welcome to Part Two, and thank you for your patience. As a reward, I have a surprise: this post will be a lot shorter than I implied. Everybody who has followed this story knows what happened...