1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador
 

http://cellar.org/2004/swedishart.jpg

The Israel's ambassador to Sweden was kicked out of Stockholm's Museum of National Antiquities after he attacked the above artwork.

It consists of blood-colored water, a sailboat called "Snow White" and an image of a woman suicide bomber who killed 21 people last October.

Of all the takes on this event, I like Agenda Bender's the best.
This little event made the international news, but AB has it right: the real outrage here is that it's utterly crappy art.

That "sailboat = incomprehensible" metaphor is just nutty. It seems to me the wife/artist produced a provocative piece and then decided to lie about the intent of the work instead of defending it. Either that, or it's just plain bad art. Or both. Yeah, both.

Either that, or it's just plain bad art.

Had I been there, I could have improved on the art a bit with the aid of a Zippo.

Artwork? That's not artwork.

A cricifix in a glass of HIV-laced urine - now THAT's art.

Perhaps the Ambassador should have taken a dump on the boat then put the woman's picture upside down into the feces. Then, I suppose, it would rise to the level of art.

Like most "ART" of this sort, everyone gets their own message. The artist got one, the Ambassador another and I don't get it at all. However, the Ambassador was completely out of line.

Re: 1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador
 

I get what she's trying to do - setting the bright white of the photo, the woman's face, and the boat (the woman's prior life) against the blood-red of the water (the action, which will define the woman among the public and history from now on) and using the stark contrast to generate a sense of unreality, of incomprehensibility.

But, just because I get it doesn't mean I really like it. Call it one of my slivers of conservatism, but I'm just of the mind that art shouldn't have high and low tide.

The ambassador's bit of performance art is better than the original. And if he pulled the plugs before dumping the spotlight into the water, it's hardly life-threatening.

BTW, anyone else think the picture resembles Michael Jackson?

well gee, that's not what I saw...
 

actually, this struck me as one of the more comprehensible pieces of so-called 'art' I've ever seen; it seems to actually have a message. But the message I got (I don't know if it's the messages the artists intended) was completely different from the ambassador's: I thought it was supposed to depict this killer thinking she was pure and holy and commendable for killing twenty people (hence the white), yet she's stained with, and swimming in, blood.

That's what I got anyway.

what is the symbolism of the boat? (aside from the fact that it's convenient to have the picture of the woman floating on something in the "blood"?)

but why the boat, and not a barge, or a raft, or door, or a bathtub, or .. whatever... ?

One person floating in a sea of blood is basicly what I get. It would have been better to have countless faces in a sea of blood, to represent the entire middle-east. But that's just my take.

Quzah.

Ship of fools?

I agree with Bruce...if the ambassador didn't like the artwork, he could have simply voiced his dissent peacefully, rather than being destructive.

From the BBC: Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon praised the ambassador's actions, saying that anti-Semitism was such a problem "it would have been forbidden not to have acted on the spot".

So, is anything considered anti-Israeli also considered anti-Semitic these days? And did Mr. Mazel even bother talking to the artists about the exhibit before losing it?

From Haaretz: The envoy told Haaretz that his protest was not spontaneous; he had planned the act after learning about the exhibit in the local press.

It seems to me that Mr. Mazel is a fucking idiot. Whether the Feilers were trying to be provocative is open to interpretation, as is the artwork itself. How would Mazel like it if someone started attacking the Wailing Wall?

Maybe Jews acting like this is why anti-semitism continues to be such a problem.

At a first glance, yes it really did. After looking at it, however, I noticed the nose is much too wide.

I understand that anti-Semitism has been growing recently in Europe (particularly in France). And I understand the problems that Jews (and Israelis) have had throughout history. But it seems like anything that criticizes Judaism/Jews/Israel/Israelis is almost automatically labeled "anti-Semitism." And I find that disturbing...it's as if Israel and/or Judaism are beyond reproach. If this sort of attitude persists, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

(Not that the Israelis are the only ones with a shitty attitude...)

EDIT: I didn't like my original second paragraph, so I changed it.

I wonder if he also finds dislike of Nazism harmful discrimination against white aryans.

OK, I've had all day to think about the exhibit and here's what I see:

I see the "pure" (white) Palestinian woman sailing around in a "pure" (white) boat on a sea of blood. The blood is obviously Jewish blood.

The boat would seem to be the plight or mission of the Palestinians which intercedes between the "pure" Palestinian and the (not pure) blood of her Jewish victims. The boat, the "purity of her mission) elevates her above her Jewish victims. This is not my sentiment - this is what I think the artist is attempting to convey.

I think if the ownership of the blood and the pic are appropriately modified (e.g., Osama on the boat and the blood of 9/11 victims), just about anyone could be incited to trash it. I dunno - maybe that makes it less of art and more of ... well, trash.

No, it is art. This piece could very well have anyone in that picture. It could have noone in that picture. It could simply be pure white boat on a sea of blood, and it could represent any group of peoples who have fought for any reason.

To limit it to one persons is just that, limiting it. That piece could represent anyone killing in what they preceive as "right". Their own holy war, or whatever term you want to put to it, and the outcome is still the same:

A bunch of death over what one person thinks is right.

Though in this case, it is limited by the political / racial / etc view placed upon it by the creator. Thus, for it's intended purpose, it does what it's supposed to. But in a bigger sense, it is limited by the artist; Falling short of its potential.

Quzah.

This entire thread is a good example of the ability of WORDS to be used to relay information as opposed to ART relaying that information.

If the artist wanted to say something, the artist should have opened his/her mouth and said it. Instead, we are all left guessing WTF the artist meant. It seems pretty pointless.

Artists like this are a waste of everyone's time.

At least Monet painted pretty pictures.

Wow, you people are actually being thoughtful and introspective instead of snide, sarcastic and arguementative. Seems like the art piece has done its job.

Beletseri wrote:

Really?

Sycamore wrote:

I do not find his actions to be idiotic at all, and I'm suprised you take such an extreme stance. If I saw an exhibit someplace that had Osama's face in a toy plane hovering above the rubble and bodies of 9/11, in which the art piece **seemed** to sympathize with Osama, (as this piece here **SEEMS** to sympathize with the BOMBER THAT KILLED THE PEOPLE WHOSE BLOOD THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT), I'd probably consider ripping the picture of Osama in half, drawing horns on his head, and other things that destroy/remove the exhibit.

I'm sure many people would disagree with me, and not go that far. (I probably wouldn't either, without a beer or two to kick down the inhibition level. :) I also think many would support it.

-mike

Sycamore said:

But it seems like anything that criticizes Judaism/Jews/Israel/Israelis is almost automatically labeled "anti-Semitism." And I find that disturbing...it's as if Israel and/or Judaism are beyond reproach.

I agree. It should not be against the rules to criticize any group for their actions.


Sycamore also said:

If this sort of attitude persists, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

I think there are plenty of reasons why peace in the Middle East is a long, long way off, besides this one.


xoxoxoBruce said:

Quote:

From the BBC: Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon praised the ambassador's actions, saying that anti-Semitism was such a problem "it would have been forbidden not to have acted on the spot".

Maybe Jews acting like this is why anti-semitism continues to be such a problem.

Whoa...

Where did this come from? Are Jews well-known for their propensity to fly off the handle and damage art installations or something? Or are you saying that anti-Semitism is a problem because so many Jews think that anti-Semitism is such a big problem?

not a whole lot of point in having a first amendment if it only protects stuff you agree with, eh ?

...

"Art" is one of those things for which every person harbors their own definition, so it's impossible to observe the point at which something becomes art... it's different for everybody.

Some people might argue that this is "good" art, because it provokes a strong reaction in most people, though the meaning people take from it varies greatly. It uses "powerful" imagery to invoke emotion. Perssonally, I see trash. I see a piece of pseudo-art that uses cheap-and-easy methods to manipulate the viewer's feelings. It's like spraypainting "Rape all children" on a wall and calling it art. Just because something causes a strong reaction doesn't mean it contributes anything to the world.

That said, I think the ambassador's reaction was stupid... his reaction only served to draw the world's attention to the shitty non-art.

America has become a country where you can be prosecuted under sexual harrassment laws for saying something as benign as "That's a nice shirt" to a co-worker. The First Amendment is a hollow shell of it's former self.

Oh, and since this exhibit wasn't in America, the first amendment really doesn't apply.

You would have a point if I was arguing that the artist doesn't have the right to do what he did, legally.

While the artist shouldn't be persecuted from the government, it doesn't mean that I won't exercise my right to kick his ass. :) Then, the government can prosecute me, but I won't feel too bad about it. :) :)

Related to this case, I wouldn't be suprised if the diplomat is fined / charged with a minor crime. (or perhaps he was already, I really don't know). I suppose I can't really argue that this would be inappropriate, given that the law is the law. However, I maintain that one shouldn't really be ALL that aghast that he did what he did, and to suggest that he's a QUOTE: FUCKING IDIOT for doing what he did, is wrong.

-mike

Syc, axl's got you on the mat: if only the Jews would get in line and not be all uppity there wouldn't be a problem here

Which is why I always just lead off with "Nice tits!". May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

He cannot be charged with a crime - he is an ambassador. He can only be expelled from the country, to which Israel must respond with sending out the Swedish ambassador. And I think the ambassador is quite well informed about the legal status of his actions and it was probably well thought out (may be by his analysts as well). I also tend to think that given the circumstances (which we do not know about), his decision was quite rational.

But I still think he was an asshole (you can also call him a fucking idiot). All this is a very complex issue and there are no simple answers, or rather there are simple answers, but they are wrong. :(
Personally I think that aggressive muslims should be bombed with napalm, that terrorist leaders should be asassinated, that Isreal should occupy Palestina and erect reeducation camps there. I also think that terrorism is a form of free speech and should be respected, even if not protected. Palestinian <I>shahids</I> are sending us the message and the message is: "Jews, get the hell out of here" or something like this. The fact that the messenger kills himself and takes out a part of the audience, doesn't change the fact that there is a message. I also think that Jewish rabbies should be killed, mutilated, burned alive, whatever, although in no way I am anti-semitic.

See, how complex the issue is? We should at least try to be as tolerant as possible, listen to others and engage in dialogue, not destroying art installation, villages or bus-stops.

That's a pretty idiotic thing to say.

Why? People that would pretend it's still Dark Ages deserve to be shot (according to some wicked definition of "deserve"). The fact that they are Jewish is almost irrelevant, although Israel is one of the few countries religious to such extent.

People are free to believe whatever they want, but when they start acting according to their crazy, irrational and reality-contradictory beliefs, I want to shoot them (although acting on such impulses would be evil).

I'm saying neither. When a representative of Israel commits criminal acts in the name of the Jewish people, it casts all Jews in the same light as his actions. That certainly doesn't help dispel anti-semitism, now does it?

Well, lessee:

--He planned the attack
--He damaged an exhibit in a museum
--He did this based on an assumption that the intent was one thing, when he doesn't really know what the intent was...because he didn't create it
--He's a diplomat, a representative of his nation's government...a government that is always under the microscope of the world

Yep, I'd say he's a fucking idiot.

You call my stance extreme...he made a mountain out of a molehill. He could have made his thoughts & feelings known through more diplomatic means, but chose to use physical violence against an art exhibit. And his government is supporting him on this.

Now that's extreme...

How do you figure? Especially when I clearly stated "Not that the Israelis are the only ones with a shitty attitude..."

Since this thread prominently featured a moronic Israeli, I decided to pick on the Israelis and Jews. Don't worry...when you post something involving another moronic Arab (which I'm confident will happen in the not-too-distant future), I'll pick on the Arabs and Muslims.

And what if the exhibit was a wax figurine of a palestinian walking into a cafe filled with kids, and he had dynamite strapped around his waist? Is someone who plans to deface that exhibit a fucking idiot? If your answer is yes, then I don't know what to say to you.

If your answer is 'no', then I ask you how different is the scenario we're talking about? I submit that it's not so different such that the guy who defaces the exhibit is 'a fucking idiot'.

I don't like violence, and the idea of marching into a museum or other public place to destroy something certainly does seem way way out of line. But to say that the content of the exhibit has no bearing on whether or not it might be rational to deface it doesn't seem right to me.

What if the exhibit was a car running over your family? Would you be A FUCKING IDIOT to do something about it? Yes, clearly it's not the same thing, but now you must admit we're talking about shades of grey. So tell me, why is it SO OBVIOUS that what he did makes him a FUCKING IDIOT, and you WOULDN'T be a FUCKING IDIOT to deface an exhibit of someone killing your parents and kids? The next time you see a exhibit in a museum of someone raping your 3 year old child, remember, you're a FUCKING IDIOT if you tear it down.

Personally, if I saw you tear something like that down, I'd sympathize with you. I certainly wouldn't default to thinking you're a FUCKING IDIOT.

So which is it? Are all exhibits off limits? Or, if some exhibits are fair game, please tell me precisely why he's a FUCKING IDIOT for choosing that one.

-mike

You don't have the right to destroy someone's property just because you don't like what it looks like. If you painted your house teal, and I hated teal, it wouldn't give me the right to burn your house down. Nor would it give me the right to repaint it.

Your house would be on public display, but that still doesn't give me the right to do anything to it. Now if you lived in a housing complex that expressly forbid teal houses, there would be some viable course of action against your teal house. However, it still wouldn't give me the right to burn it down.

The fact remains: Just because you find it offensive, doesn't give you the right to do as you please to it. That makes you a fucking idiot.

The point in question isn't if the artist is an idiot, that's a whole different topic. The subject at hand is: It is not your right to destroy that which you don't like.

Well shit, that sums up the entire middle east doesn't it? You could say, metophoricly, that this art piece, and the guy's reaction is the perfect example of the middle east itself.


It is not your right to destroy my creation because you do not like it. This is half of the problem in the world today, easily. People deciding that they don't like what someone else is doing, so they decide to "take care of it". Governments do this. (Iraq anyone?) People do this.

People should just leave eachother the fuck alone, and the world would be a way way better place.

Well you've got a few problems here. One, someone raping a three year old child, even the image of such, is child pornography. As such, there are usually laws against such things. To follow this further, it wouldn't be in the museum in the first place.

Next, there was only one person actually displayed in the exibit. This is the person that blew themselves up. Now then, if anyone has right to be offended by the exibit, I'd think it was the family of the person involved, or perhaps the families of the people blown up in the bombing.

Again, that doesn't give them the right to destroy the item in question. This is a matter of personal property rights. People can be offended and what not by your property, but again, they can't come and destroy it. If they do, they have to pay the penalty for doing so.

Unless of course they have diplomatic imunity. Then you're fucked.

Personailzed again. You can sympathize, you can think they're an idiot. Both of you are right. It's subjective. That's what art is. Subjective. One person sees something one way, another a completely different way. It still doesn't give you legal right to destroy it. Sure, maybe morally you're in the right.

But that's what laws are for. To distinguish the difference between what is morally right and what the masses say is legally right. If you don't like the laws, you either try and change them, or you go elsewhere, where laws are more to your liking.

Or you have diplomatic imunity.

Quzah.

[edit]Ah, someone beat me to the reply.[/edit]

This I strongly believe is true:

When any of you have children, if someone were to make an exhibit showing them getting slaugtered or raped, you would tear it down. And you wouldn't be a fucking idiot for doing so.

End of story.

You can't have it both ways, and you can't tell me that you wouldn't tear it down. Well, I guess you can tell me you wouldn't, but I don't believe you. And if you really really wouldn't, then I submit that you're the fucking idiot, or ... I don't know what. Not an enlightened peaceful intellectual. If I happened across a sculpture of someone killing my kids, I really don't think most people in the world would think me a fucking idiot for tearing it down.

Clearly this is a radical example: who would ever 'sculpt' such a thing? Then again, how far away is this from what the artist did here? Obviously the examples I cite are more personal (i.e. a sculpture of someone killing someone's specific child, instead of a nameless face) -- but how many steps removed is this from what he did? 1 step removed? 2 steps removed?

Obviously the diplomat was very offended of a SPECIFIC SUICIDE BOMBER being glorified in this manner. And regardless of intent, this is what has occurred here. And it's been made very personal by showing her face.

I can understand debating the point of whether or not the diplomat should have done what he did. Certainly looks like it could have been handled more 'diplomatically' -- like pursuing legal methods to have it removed, etc.

However, to be as radical as to say the guy is a FUCKING IDIOT for getting clearly upset about an exhibit potentially glorifing a particular suicide bomber, over a pool of blood of his countrymen -- well, I don't think it's as simple that it can be concluded that the guy is a FUCKING IDIOT.

-m

But what if I painted a big sign on the outside of my house saying: Quzah lives at (your-address-here) -- please murder his children and poison his dog. While I do agree (and made this point earlier) that it doesn't grant you LEGAL RIGHTS to do anything you please (including defacing the sign) -- would you be considered a FUCKING IDIOT if you painted over your address?

CLEARLY NOT.

What if the art exhibit said the same thing? Legal rights granted to you? No... but are you a FUCKING IDIOT if you defaced it? No way, of course not!

If you still disagree, then you're saying you would be a fucking idiot to deface that exhibit, and that the only acceptable recourse would be to go through months of legal wrangling to sue him to take it down, if he objected to your polite request.

Point is, there ARE shades of grey here. Once you acknowledge that, then what's the clear boundary between 'NOT a fucking idiot' and 'fucking idiot'?

I'm done with this argument. In my opinion, he didn't have the legal right to do what he did. Doesn't make him a 'fucking idiot'.

-m

No, but I'd be considered a fucking idiot if I didn't drag you out of YOUR house and beat your ass for doing it.

But it didn't do anything of the sort, so your example is meaningless.


OK.... There ARE shades of grey. But the guy can be considered a fucking idiot because of all the reasons listed in previous posts, rather than taking the diplomatic solution or peaceful way to a satifactory conclusion.

He threw a PLANNED temper tantrum.

A full grown man. The ambassador of a country already beset with problems. Destroys art because he doesn't like the message HE got from an exhibit.

So when Hitler destroyed all those books and art and superb pieces made by Jews, that's ok? He can destroy all that, and this ambassador can deface this art and that's ok???

No. The guy is an idiot. Or immature retard. Or ass-sucking moron. Those terms sit better with you?

And, I don't mean to nit pick but what is the real issue here? Capitalizing fucking idiot every time it's used makes me wonder that is another term was used, like maybe asshole retard, you'd take less offense.

Again, there are many reasons that anti-semitism exists in this world, but I don't think that an ambassador trashing an art display is one of them.

You said "Maybe Jews acting like this is why anti-semitism continues to be such a problem." So what similar actions have Jews taken in the past that have promoted anti-semitism? Certainly there must have been a number of them, if "acts like this" are what helps to keep anti-semitism alive.

This was the act of one pissed-off guy. Don't you think it's a little prejudiced to characterize a whole group of millions of people based on the act of one person?

Few more problems here:
1) You can't tell people to go kill someone. That's against the law. You'd be the fucking idiot for doing so, in a legal sense.
2) Were I to deface you property in this case, it (a) may be legal for me to do so (IANAL), and I'd probably have legal justifiable right to do so, (b) if not, I'd be 'morally' right in doing so, even if I were 'legally' an idiot for doing so, (c) in a self-preservation sense, I'd be a fucking idiot if I didn't deface it.

You can be right and wrong at the same time. You can be morally right in what you're doing, but legally a fucking moron for doing so. That is to say, if someone raped and murdered my (insert someone close here), I could morally reason that I have a right to kill them. However, in doing so, it may be legally fucking idiotic for me to do so.

Understand the difference?

On a personal level, you can sympathize with the person who destroys the art piece, but on a legal level, and perhaps on a global public relations level, it was fucking idiotic.

Layers upon layers.

Quzah.

Syc, axl's got you on the mat: if only the Jews would get in line and not be all uppity there wouldn't be a problem here

Actually Bruce was the one with the quote that I really had a problem with.

This (criminal) act of one pissed off guy (with malice and forethought) who was officially representing Israel and acting (according to him) on behalf of all Jews (except the artist).
He did this as a reaction to *his* interpretation of a piece of "art" that, as most people agree, could be interpreted hundreds of ways. It would be the same as the Scottish Ambassador setting fire to your house for painting it blue. Saying you were mocking the slaughtered men that followed William Wallace and it was an affront to all Scots.

I formed my opinion on Mr. Mazel based on the situation and my perspective on/background in art. It wasn't flippant by any means.

I think what sealed Mazel's spot in Sycamore's Shrine of the Fucking Idiots was that the act was premeditated. Had he just happened to be there and saw it and freaked out like he did, I might have--MIGHT HAVE--been a little more understanding. But he planned to do some damage. That's not a noble act to me...that's being a bully. And it was completely uncalled for, IMO.

I thought Mike's issue might be with my choice of words, but I suspect it's more with the "extremism" of my stance. Whatever...he's done with this (Didn't that sound Dave-esque?).

So, anyway...did I tell you all that I might be getting a promotion? :)

The real goof is that the museum seems surprised. shocked!
Politics, Religion, Murder, Suicide, ambiguous imagery... The artists and the presenting organization hafta acknowlege and take responsibility for the nature of the work they are presenting, or they are wimping right out. There are lines. Pornography was listed, Hate speach is another... If its about finding the line to cross...well just know that it might be crossed and be prepared, you doofuses. I actually think the ambassadors behavior has made this artwork far more "interesting" than it was before he flipped. Not sure that was his intention.

The best thing the museum/artists could do is keep the damaged work and talk about it, not cower and pout. But it seems that NOW the work actually has some depth that the artists arent able to fathom. thats a shame.

Well, I'm not a big artsy-fartsy person. I know what *I* like and what *I* don't like and that's about it. What I get out of the so-called art display is ... well, that doesn't really matter.

The ambassador was a dork for throwing his planned tantrum inside the museum and destroying the display. He could have stood outside with a protest sign or something if he felt so strongly against it, but knowing that he'd get away with destroying the displayed, he probably thought he'd feel better by physically damaging it as opposed to standing outside with a sign.

Anyhoo, some think he's a fucking idiot for doing it, some don't. Who cares. That is simply the opinion of that individual. Just like it is the individual's opinion as to whether it should even be considered art or not.

Now, what I find to be the most offensive thing in this whole thread is the comment made by Paranoid that "... I also think that terrorism is a form of free speech and should be respected, even if not protected."

WTF are you talking about? This has got to be the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that *I* should respect some dumb fuck piece of shit that blows up buildings, killing thousands because his actions are a form of "Free Speech" used as a means to get his fucked up ideas/beliefs across to others? If you are too stupid to realize it, let me inform you that "Free Speech" by no means entails killing people as a way to get your point across. Terrorism is terrorism (vastly different from "Free Speech") and should be neither respected, nor protected; but rather punished and denied.

So, lay off the cheap crack and get a fucking clue while you're at it.

Well, there are several reasons to respect terrorists. First is the fact that they can stand for what they believe in, sometimes with grave danger for their own lives. In my country we respect certain terrorists, such as Alexandr Ulianov and others for their attempts to kill the Emperor and his minions. While I certainly disagree with Palestinian suicide bombers and plainly hate them for what they do, I still have certain respect for their ability to act in such a way (even though for many of them it's not a rational choice, as they are programmed and brainwashed, some, like this woman, make their own decision).

The second reason to respect terrorism is that an act of killing is also a message, just like a pool of blood with a white ship and a portrait is a message. By ignoring the message you are being, using the terminology of this thread, a fucking idiot. The correct course of action should be to realise that the issue that caused people to commit the act is of utmost importance to them and you should consider their position and start a dialog with them to reach a solution.

You suggest denying terrorism. Well, regardless of which way I look at your suggestion, it doesn't seem like the wise course of actions. You can't deny reality.

You don't worry that that would make terrorism worth it? If you start a dialog with a group after a series of bombings, and reach a settlement that addresses their problems - aren't you worried that that would cause any group with any problem, even a less serious problem, will start to commit terrorist acts because they see that terrorism works?

If his act really WAS on behalf of all Jews - if every Jewish person in the world signed a letter saying that they authorize the ambassador to protest on their behalf - then you'd have a point. The idea that people believe that every Jew in the world authorized this guy to act on their behalf is crazy. He says he was acting on our behalf, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't mean that the world thinks it's true.

I agree. People would think that this ambassador was a little nuts. Do you think that people would look down on all Scots because of it?

All easily trumped by a great big uber-reason not too. Tis the nature and strategy of the evil beast to express one's heartfelt message by destroying the lives and rights of others. That aint cool, no way.

You light yourself on fire in public protest, endanger only yourself, thats one thing. You blow yourself up at populated busstop that's quite another. I can respect protest, I cant respect terrorism.

Paranoid, I think I know what you are trying to say, and it may be that this is just arguing about the subtle nuances of various words. But I think "respect" is a poor selection of words. Perhaps "understand" would be better. "Respect" often means "look up to" or "admire." I don't think you mean that here. At least I hope you don't. Terrorists should never be admired or looked up to. They should not be respected. But there is nothing wrong with understanding a terrorist.


Regarding your previous quote that "I also think that Jewish rabbies should be killed, mutilated, burned alive, whatever, although in no way I am anti-semitic." I still think that's an idiotic thing to say. You call for the murder of Jewish spiritual leaders, and then in the same sentence claim that you are not hostile or prejudiced toward Jews. Of course that statement is anti-semitic. Your claim that you are in no way anti-semitic is so clearly false, that it becomes idiotic.

You mention "your country" so maybe in your country English isn't the primary language. If English isn't your primary language, I am very impressed with your command of the English language, but subtle nuances do matter when you are discussing politics.

First, let me say that there are two kinds of terrorists. One is when some random guys highjack a plane and demand a million dollars, a suitcase of heroin and a helicopter. There is no message worth listening to, so just send out your SAS team. Second type of terrorism is when a group of people has a message. In the latter case you simply can't ignore that, because the situation must be resolved somehow, since these people would rather die than allow the status quo to continue. As much as I might hate Palestinians, Israelis must reach a consensus with them - neither permanent war, nor the genocide of the Palestinians is an option.

Terrorism should work (with some exceptions). That's the point! When situation is as unbearable for people that they are ready to die to change it, it must be changed. And to think that people with minor concerns would turn to terror if "it works" is unrealistic. Terrorism (at least its suicidal variety) is and will remain the last resort.

Youre confusing people who would rather die with people who would rather kill.

Thank you for complimenting my English (I am Russian and English is my second language) and you are correct about the reason for disagreement. Yes, "respect" is not the right word to convey my attitude towards the suicide bombers. I think "appreciate" and "recognize" are better choices. The reason for my mistake was to first think about the attitude of terrorist's compatriots. Palestinians respect terrorists and rightly so. Soviets have long respected people like Vera Zasulich, Alersandr Ulianov (Vladimir Lenin's older brother), Sergej Kravchinsky, Aleksandr Soloviev, Sofia Perovskaya, Dmitry Karakozov and others (all of them successful terrorists in Czarist Russia). When we are on the receiving end of the terror, though, we tend to despise and hate terrorists. But although they do not deserve our compassion or respect, they at least deserve to be heard.

Another point to consider is that in the modern world politicians tend to protect themselves so much as to make any assasination attempt futile. With the exception of relatively safe countries in Northern Europe, the leaders usually drive in bulletproof limos and emply hundreds, if not thousands of bodyguards. I am reasonably sure that Hamas would prefer killing Israeli PM or defence minister, but what chances do they have? Killing civilians remains the only feasible option, and (in a wicked sense) the effectiveness of Israel army, police and special services (in protecting the Israeli leaders) are responsible for deaths of innocents.

I am against them because they are spiritual leaders, not because they are Jewish. I hate Pope and Russian Orthodox Church only slightly less than I hate Jewish rabbies and this has nothing to do with my attitude to Italians, Poles, Russians or Jews. I did not even become aware of the whole "Jewish Question" until I was about eighteen. My two best childhood friends were Jews, so I don't think I am capable of being anti-semitic. And neither is my statement, the call for murder. I think that organised religions today are so harmful for the humankind that advantages of destroying them would compensate the disadvantages of killing thousands of people in the process. You can call that brutal, barbarous, bizarre or just plain bad, but anti-semitic it is not.

Assasination, no matter how appealing :), is not the only, nor best way to engage in political change.

One interesting point is the subjectivity of terrorism. The recipient calls it "terrorism," and the sender calls it "heroism." Outside observers usually take a lot of gray-area stances on it. This is pretty much universally true.

The American colonists' Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism from the perspective of the British at that time. But to the Americans, it was heroic. Now history takes the latter view... is that because they really were in the right, or because in the end, the Americans won, so they got to write the history books on it? If Palenstine were to somehow overthrow Isreal, would the suicide bombers be universally regarded as "heroes" in two hundred years?

I am only bringing this up as a discussion on perspective... I think suicide bombing is a horrible, unspeakable practice.

I see.

So if someone cut off your head, sucked out your brains and filled the void with roach droppings, stuck a dildo in each eye socket and send the completed work to your mother with some lavendar potpourri and a note instructing her not to have any more children then we should all stroke our chins, admire the ingenuity of the terrorist and open a dialog with this person to see what we can do to address his concerns.

I obviously need to get out more.

And I recommend that you consider the difference between genuine revolutionaries who strike out at those responsible for their oppression, those who strike out at those distantly connected to those responsible for their oppression but in no way responsible for it and lastly, those who are just crazy effing lunatics.

Not justifying one side or the other, just consider, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... It's all a matter of means and perspective...

Was Shock and Awe not a form of terrorism? Yes, is was more isolated to military targets, but that is primarily because we have the technology to do so, not because of some moral highground we stand on...

Could not someone living in WWII Germany call the bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism? Or a citizen of Tokyo, wouldn't they consider the firebombing of their city the work of a terrorist?

It's all a matter of means and perspective...


...history is written by the winners...

Maybe Swedish museums don't usually have that concern. :confused:

Everytime a Jew commits a crime, acts morally reprehensibly or is just an asshat, and blames "5000 years of oppression", it adds fuel to anti-semitism.
Same for the Black man blaming 400 years of slavery.
Or even the Latin blaming his "hot blooded heritage".