1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador

[Happy Monkey]

A fixation on hope and glory and resolve to win is hardly a sign that they are not desperate. I'd even be inclined to think it's a sign that they are. Those are morale crutches.

[Undertoad]

OK, then -- let's say, whether or not they are desperate is not the factor causing them to explode, and when they were occupied by Jordan they still waged war in the other direction.

History is full of desperate peoples and very few of them turn to suicide.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Undertoad
History is full of desperate peoples and very few of them turn to suicide.

I hope you meant something more nuanced than that - I expect that suicide is much higher among desperate people than others. See the kamekazis in WWII - the pilots were filled with dreams of glory, but the tactic was a sign of desperation in the tacticians.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by mlandman
This I strongly believe is true:

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

I think I would go with 'individual throwing a childish tantrum' more than anything else. First of all, there are no legal methods for having a piece of art deemed by some as offensive removed, especially one inside a museum.

Secondly, I do not believe that the diplomat was suprised by the exhibit. His actions were probably pre-meditated.

Thirdly, do we want to live in a world where any object inspiring strong emotions can be destroyed or damaged, even if it could be done without harm to anyone else?

Liberty Bell Attacked

Compare the two situations. Besides the fact that one man is a diplomat, the two cases are not really different. Both men felt strongly that they had the right to deface or destroy something (I do not believe that the man did not understand that the bell would be damaged).

I also do not like that kind of behavior from a diplomat. For one thing, with immunity he is shielded from any direct consequences for his actions, which smacks of cowardice.

Being Jewish, I would expect to excused if as a diplomat for the US I declined to visit Bitburg and lay a wreath there like Reagan did. However, that would not give me the right to go there and piss on one of the SS graves.

There is a line between moral self-defense and senseless provocation. What would I be protesting? Who or what would be in danger that would justify my actions?

If the diplomat didn't like the exhibit, he had every right to write about it, talk about it, or lodge a protest. Vandalism is the wrong way to go.

[wolf]

I see a clear difference, Rich. The Liberty Bell guy was a nut, acting as a consequence of his delusion.

The ambassador performed what was a calculated and rational act of destruction.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by wolf
I see a clear difference, Rich. The Liberty Bell guy was a nut, acting as a consequence of his delusion.

The ambassador performed what was a calculated and rational act of destruction.

Rational as in premeditated? I'm not an expert, but the Liberty Bell guy sounded like a sociopath, not a psychopath. His decision was a rational to him as the ambassador.

To me vandalism of art is sort of a blend of censorship and terrorism.