Israeli vandalises Swedish suicide bomber art

[Ned]

Urban Ranger, being anti-Israel does not necessarily mean being anti-Semitic.

But from my 100,000 foot perspective, an awful lot are.

[Winston]

Story in today's Haaretz

Swedish museum to remove exhibit posters

By The Associated Press

STOCKHOLM - A Swedish museum official said yesterday that he will remove posters for an art exhibition that sparked a diplomatic spat with Israel, but said the display at the root of the controversy will remain.

The man in charge of the exhibition at the Museum of National Antiquities said he will take down posters showing a Palestinian suicide bomber that were posted in 26 subway stations throughout Stockholm to advertise the exhibit.

"This is a personal decision where I as an artistic leader take full responsibility of removing and replacing the posters," Thomas Nordanstad said.

Israeli Ambassador Zvi Mazel on Friday vandalized an art installation that featured a portrait of Jihad suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat. She killed herself and 21 bystanders in an Oct. 4 suicide bombing in Haifa.

Mazel said the display, made by Israeli-born artist Dror Feiler, glorified suicide bombers.

Museum officials said the exhibit will go on and the Swedish government declined to interfere, saying it doesn't control the country's museums.

The museum has set up 130 posters advertising the exhibition, but only those carrying the image of Jaradat, will be removed and replaced with another image from the exhibition, Nordanstad said.

Nordanstad did not say what the replacement image would be, or if one was planned.

Parts bolded by me.

Seems a wise decision, but you have to wonder what the Swedes were thinking plastering the subway with 130 posters of this woman in the first place.

It also might add in the understanding of the Israeli indignation over this matter.

Here's a pic from the Stockholm subway...

[Cruddy]

What annoys me about this incident is that, if an artist portrayed Ariel Sharon sailing on a sea of blood, that could be taken as an attack on Israel (making him appear bloodthirsty).

Put the Palestinian back in the image - and it's still anti-Israeli.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

[VetLegion]

Interesting observation Cruddy. Probably true too!

[Winston]

Impressive.

Not a single comment on the unveiling that scores of 6 foot posters of this woman's smiling face have been decorating the walls of every metro station in Stockholm, allegedly advertising the exhibition - and not, the people in charge want to make this absolutely clear, NOT trying to glorify the charming killer of 21 in any way...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Winston
Impressive.

Not a single comment on the unveiling that scores of 6 foot posters of this woman's smiling face have been decorating the walls of every metro station in Stockholm, allegedly advertising the exhibition - and not, the people in charge want to make this absolutely clear, NOT trying to glorify the charming killer of 21 in any way...

How is aadvertising the ehibition glorifying suicide bombing? This should be even mroe bizzare then the argument that the piece itself does.

[Winston]

Look at the picture I attached to my previous post and tell me again it's just advertising a museum exhibition.

[Snotty]

I was stunned when I read that Winston. What does the poster say on it?

Had I taken this the wrong way, as the ambassador did, then I would be furious. I think it would be even simpler to misunderstand a poster. Art is great and all, but its not worth pissing people off to such a great extent. It just seems insensitive.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Winston
Look at the picture I attached to my previous post and tell me again it's just advertising a museum exhibition.

Looks like a typical exhibit advertisement.

[Snotty]

The difference in this advertisement is the fact it is a 6ft picture of a mass murderer, and still fresh in peoples memorys.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Snotty
The difference in this advertisement is the fact it is a 6ft picture of a mass murderer, and still fresh in peoples memorys.

Fresh in people's memories? I doubt that picture was even used in the media before now.

It does depends on what the poster says, I guess, but I suspect not much.

[Winston]

Funny thing Osweld, that the organizers would seem to disagree with your nonchalant viewpoint, since they're now coming to their senses and replacing the killer's portrait.

[Snotty]

The bombing was only 6 months ago, and I imagine word of her identity would spread through the outraged communities. Its going to be hard to see the artistic sentiment if you are full of anger to start with.

If you were a Jew, how would you feel walking past a huge poster of a recent murderer of your people? As I said, it was insensitive for the posters to be put up.

[Winston]

It was in fact only 3½ months ago, and that particular image of her smiling has been widely circulated ever since it was determined she was the bomber, which followed immediately after.

I've seen it in several newspaper articles following up on the attack.

[GePap]

If one could post a poster advertising a show on the USSR with a huge poster of Stalin, or something on Nazism with a huge poster of Hitler, why not her, with a much smaller level of evil?

And what is the caption of the poster- that, matters far more then her image. Again, why the idea that her image alone is some form of glorification? I find that innane, bordering on the insane.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
Agathon, you might want to do some soul searching about why you are so anti-Israel.

Why, it's perfectly plain. The founding of Israel has been a disaster for everyone but the Israelis. Are you telling me there would be that much trouble in the region and that Islamic terrorists wouldn't hate the West if Israel had never existed?

Have you no sense of history? Don't you have a clue as to why the Jews need a homeland, a refuge on this planet where no nation has for long allowed them to live in peace.

Yes, it's called North America, where they prosper, are prominent citizens and have a strong sense of community.

The notion of a state based on race is no longer feasible. There is no reason that Jewish people cannot be at home in any number of liberal democratic multiethnic states. We have lots of Jews here in Toronto, where they are a vibrant part of the community. And if they are a minority, they have lots of other minorities to keep them company. That's what North America is like, a melting pot, where people can live relatively free of effective ethnic chauvinism.

Race based states are an anachronism and are in direct conflict with modern political values. In the present day political climate it is hard to see how Zionism is not a kind of racism. It's even clearer when the acknowledged reason for the beginning of the peace progress and partition was to keep Israel as a specifically Jewish state.

They were permitted to settle in their former homeland by the Turkish Empire and then by the British Mandate.

Yes, and I have never argued that Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to live there if they want to. That's different from creating a specifically Jewish State.

The people who were there in 1948, were there legally.

Yes, your point being? Of course the Arabs didn't make the laws, despite being the inhabitants of the area.

They were permitted to form their own state by the UN because the Arabs had grown increasingly beligerent during the Mandate, and the Brits no longer wanted to protect them.

So the Arabs got belligerent because they wanted to run their own country, rather than have Imperial Britain run it for them. How does that differentiate them from the Indians or any number of African countries?

That makes them sound eminently reasonable to me.

And here's the crux of the matter. The UN decided to create a Jewish state against the will of the long term inhabitants of the country. It's much as if Indian immigrants to Great Britain were awarded Kent as a new country without any consultation of the people living in Kent. The formation of Israel was an act perpetrated against the Arabs by other people. Is it any wonder they are pissed off. It would have been better to have created a multiethnic democracy there rather than partitioning which ended up throwing hundreds of thousands of Arabs out of their homes.

The Arabs have a good case. It wasn't Arabs that persecuted and murdered Jews or stood by and watched Hitler do so, or prevented Jewish refugees from immigrating. It was countries like the UK and Canada. Why should the Arabs be disadvantaged because a bunch of Westerners indulged in racist persecution and murder? Europeans have a historical record of being far more intolerant of Jews than Muslims ever were. In fact for most of its history Islam has been a pretty tolerant religion. In fact up until the recent troubles there was a Jewish community in Teheran which had been there forever and were respected as what the Muslims called "People of the Book".

Moreover, the Arabs had already been shafted by the British after the end of WWI as well, despite the fact that they fought hard against the Ottomans.

It is that simple.

Yes it is, which is what makes me wonder why you can't see it.

Nothing I have said has not been said by eminent Israelis and non-Israeli Jews. Judith Butler wrote a great article about it in the London Review of Books not long ago.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

1. Sophistical?

It's sophistical because it probably includes as dead combatants civilians including children who threw stones at soldiers.

It's also sophistical because it suggests that Israelis are the victims when the Palestinians are winning the death count by about three to one last time I looked.

[Winston]

Originally posted by GePap
If one could post a poster advertising a show on the USSR with a huge poster of Stalin, or something on Nazism with a huge poster of Hitler, why not her, with a much smaller level of evil?

If you had Stalin or Hitler floating on a plastic boat labeled "Flash Gordon" 4 months after the true scale of their atrocities became known, you could hardly blame a guy for knocking over a lamp into it.

And I don't like the insinuation that she wasn't so terribly evil compared to proper mass murderers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Winston
If you had Stalin or Hitler floating on a plastic boat labeled "Flash Gordon" 4 months after the true scale of their atrocities became known, you could hardly blame a guy for knocking over a lamp into it.

If the man was a diplomat, and who had pre-planned it, yes, yes I could blame him. PLUS, to even think of comparing the level of atrocity of the two is absurd, and if a huge pick of Hitler or Stalin oculd make it, so can this. And your characterization of the art is simplistic at best (but far worse actually). Again. person floating in a pool of blood..how can somoene floating in a pool of blood be an endorsement? Sheesh.

What matters most on the poster is the caption.

[Winston]

What matters most on the poster is the fact that her smiling face covers an area the size of a regular dinner table, and that it constitutes an outrageous lack of sensitivity to the people who fell victim of her inconceivable hate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Winston
What matters most on the poster is the fact that her smiling face covers an area the size of a regular dinner table, and that it constitutes an outrageous lack of sensitivity to the people who fell victim of her inconceivable hate.

Given that the diplomat did NOT attack a poster, but the art piece, the poster discussion to me seems grossly disngeneous. What was the caption of the poster? That is what matters, becuase it puts the picture into context. And the context is what is important to determine the rationale for the poster.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Winston
It was in fact only 3½ months ago, and that particular image of her smiling has been widely circulated ever since it was determined she was the bomber, which followed immediately after.

I've seen it in several newspaper articles following up on the attack.

Then what is so outragous about it? Is there any outlash towards the newspapers for using a nice looking photo of her?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Osweld


Then what is so outragous about it? Is there any outlash towards the newspapers for using a nice looking photo of her?

There's a difference between a factual news report on a human tragedy accompanied by a photo of the person who blew people up, and this.

However the difference might be too subtle for you to figure out.

Again, why would they take the posters down now, if it wasn't because they realised they screwed up majorly by putting them there.

[Winston]

GePap, I suspect a combination of the posters in every Stockholm subway and the art piece itself caused the ambassador to react. So I don't think discussing the posters' significance is disingenious at all. It's spot on the core of the issue.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Winston


There's a difference between a factual news report on a human tragedy accompanied by a photo of the person who blew people up, and this.

What do you mean by "this"? If you mean the poster, well, you don't seem to know what it actually says so how can we judge? If you mean the art, it did contain a ' factual news report'

Again, why would they take the posters down now, if it wasn't because they realised they screwed up majorly by putting them there.

To appease the israeli government officials that are throwing hissy fits and smashing things?

[Winston]

Ok, I get it now. We should all accept to have large posters with smiling portraits of people who killed dozens of others in every place of public transportation.

Just as long as there's a caption of some sort possibly softening up the sickening image the portrait is causing in our minds.

Oh wait, those killed were Israelis, that's right. Never mind then.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Winston
Ok, I get it now. We should all accept to have large posters with smiling portraits of people who killed dozens of others in every place of public transportation.

Just as long as there's a caption of some sort possibly softening up the sickening image the portrait is causing in our minds.

No caption needed.

There's nothing offensive about a smiling person, anyways. There's nothing offensive about showing a picture of a murderer, either( otherwise the media would be in a world of hurt). There's nothing offensive about advertising an art exhibit.

So where exactly does the offense come from? I think it comes from some ambassador throwing a hissy fit and causing a controversy - which, of course, makes all the sycophants want to jump on the bandwagon.

[Mercator]

I for one couldn't remember her picture, even though I might very well have seen it on the news.

No matter how horrific her act may be, for the vast majority of the Swedish people who'd be actually looking at that damn thing, it would be one horrific act in a long period of time, far away from home, in a ****ed up corner of the world, with little to no effect on any of their personal lives.

Can you honestly say you remember and mourn for all Israeli victims for any length of time? Do you do the same for any possible Palestinian victims, or any other tragic deaths further away than your close family, friends or local neighbourhood for that matter?

If anything, seeing such a poster would pique my interest in who this woman is or was. If I'd then go see the exhibition, I would find out what kind of a person she was. It's not disrespectful to her victims. Quite the opposite, because it makes people think again about what she's done.

If she hadn't appeared in this piece of art, no-one would have remembered them. In fact, I'm pretty sure the entire world, except for the victim's families, had already forgotten about her and her victims. They were just a statistic.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Winston
Ok, I get it now. We should all accept to have large posters with smiling portraits of people who killed dozens of others in every place of public transportation.

As long as there's a REASON for their posters to be there, I don't see why not. If someone was putting on an exhibit about serial killers, and there was a big picture of Jeffrey Dahmer, I certainly would not be offended... and I sincerely doubt many others would be.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Mercator
I for one couldn't remember her picture, even though I might very well have seen it on the news.

No matter how horrific her act may be, for the vast majority of the Swedish people who'd be actually looking at that damn thing, it would be one horrific act in a long period of time, far away from home, in a ****ed up corner of the world, with little to no effect on any of their personal lives.

Can you honestly say you remember and mourn for all Israeli victims for any length of time? Do you do the same for any possible Palestinian victims, or any other tragic deaths further away than your close family, friends or local neighbourhood for that matter?

If anything, seeing such a poster would pique my interest in who this woman is or was. If I'd then go see the exhibition, I would find out what kind of a person she was. It's not disrespectful to her victims. Quite the opposite, because it makes people think again about what she's done.

If she hadn't appeared in this piece of art, no-one would have remembered them. In fact, I'm pretty sure the entire world, except for the victim's families, had already forgotten about her and her victims. They were just a statistic.

Well said!