Ambassador attacks art: fighting anti-Semitism, or blocking free expression?

Great Debates
21

It’s shocking how quick some people can be to ascribe anti-semitic motives to a jewish artist born in Israel. :eek:

I haven’t seen the installation in person, only read descriptions of it, but I can’t say that it’s unclear about its intentions. The picture of the bomber is floating in a pool of blood, ferchrissake. If that’s an endorsement it’s one of the most backhanded compliments I’ve seen. The ‘poetry’ retells the story of the suicide bomber, interspersed with lines from snow white. The story of her life, as described there, is certainly not ambiguous -

  • again, if that’s an endorsement of anti-semitic violence, it’s one of the strangest endorsements I’ve seen. If anything, it comes off as heavy-handed, and makes a tired point about how much violence there is on both sides and how much unnecessary grief this conflict has caused, etc etc.

The lines from snow white are ironic in this context, contrasting the beautiful wife/lawyer/mother of two with the fact that she blew herself up in a terrorist attack.

22

My 2 cents:

If pissing on Marcel Duchamps’ urinal can be considered an act of Art, I don’t see why the actions of the Israeli ambassador can’t be. It was a protest action, and protest is the basis of a free society. Since the act caused little actual material damage, and was easily repaired, I can’t see in principal why it should be condemned. (For me, the issue would be different if the work had been permanently damaged.)

BUT,

The position of the Israeli government on this issue is strange, to say the least. The Swedish ambassador in Tel Aviv was called to a meeting at the Israeli foreign ministry yesterday, where he was told that the Israeli government viewed the work as a “glorification of suicide bombing.” Israel demanded that the Swedish government “take the necessary measures,” that is to say, remove the installation. The Swedish ambassador explained evenly that the government couldn’t do anything about the piece unless a court ruled that it was breaking some sort of law. By the way, according the Swedish side, there was never any agreement between the two governments regarding references to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It’s interesting to watch these two cultures interacting. The Israelis have come out guns a-blazin’ – I find it astounding that Sharon publicly supported his ambassador’s actions so categorically and demanded the Swedish government to infract its own laws regarding freedom of expression – while the Swedes, always interested in dialogue and careful to avoid conflict, claim the entire fracas is basically a misunderstanding. The head of the museum here, Kristian Berg, refuses to remove the piece, but plans to invite the Israeli ambassador to an “open discussion on this work of art, his personal reaction to it, art in general, and freedom of expression.”

In addition it takes a bit of chutzpah, if you ask me, to behave like this at a conference dedicated to the memory of the holocaust – not the ambassador’s act, per se, but his government’s position on the issue.

23

I’m not saying the artist is (stupid with a great need to shock and provoke would be my though), but it’s not impossible to be both Jewish and anti-Semitic. It has been seen before. See for instance the great movie The Believer, based on the true story of the “Jewish Nazi” Daniel Burros.

  • Rune
24

I looked at the piece and read the accompanying text. While I agree with tomndeb that Guernica it ain’t, I just can’t see it as a glorification of suicide bombing. The piece itself calls its subject a murderer. Palestinians often hold up large portraits of their “martyrs” at rallies, but her portrait floats on a sea of blood. But, on the other hand, it doesn’t simply say “Suicide bombers are inhuman monsters,” either. It puts a human face on the act–here’s an image of a suicide bomber in happier times; here’s a story that might explain why she did what she did. Art is not propganda. It’s mission is to raise and explore questions and occsionally suggest answers. Coleridge said that the artist should have no agenda visible to the audience. (that’s a paraphrase) If anything, the piece raises the question “Why and how does a mother of two decide to strap a bomb on her body and blow herself up in a crowded restaurant?” Isn’t that something we, as human beings, need to think about? I have some sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but suicide bombing is morally abhorrent to me. I don’t understand it. The artist, I think, doesn’t either and he’s making art to try and understand it, just as I would write to try and understand it, and to try and help others think about it. But in this case, his art is not successful. Does that give the Israeli ambassador a right to do what he did? No. But the ambassador would have been 100% within his rights to stand on the steps of the buiding (or hell, stand right in front of the damned artwork), call a press conference, and denounce the art as degenerate and the artist as an anti-semite until the cows come home.

25

The ambassador’s actions are far from being laudable. It makes Israel look bad. I hope the Swedish public are more knowledgeble about Israeli politics that the US public is. Discussing or protesting the occupation is hardly verboten in Israel and I find that the harshest criticism against Israel come from the mouths of Israelis themselves. So Mr. Feiler can hardly be compared to someone like Daniel Burros (BTW, if you think being Jewish and critical of Israel = being a self-hating Jew, you need to hang around more Jews). If Sharon and Mazel weren’t so blinded by their self-righteousness, they would realize that ambassador’s actions will provide fodder by the real anti-Semites. :smack:

The artist explains that his work is not meant to glorify suicide bombers, but meant to conciliate and to “call attention to how weak people left alone can be capable of horrible things.” Weak people who feel so victimized that they are full of self-righteousness and cannot see how their destructive behavior is actually destroying them as well as their victimizers. Mr. Feiler used a Palestinian suicide bomber to illustrate this disease that deludes people into thinking they’re the only truly innocent victims. Although unintentioned, Mazel’s actions show that the Palestinians are not the only ones affilicted and his stupidity merely strengthed the meaning and relevancy of Feiler’s artwork. Actually, I don’t his artwork would have made that much sense to me if it weren’t for Mazel’s actions. Mr. Feiler could have made his point in a less obtuse way. But that’s modern art for you.

26

Stupid hamsters ate my post… anyway:

The ambassador has previously accused the arch bishop of Sweden (KG Hammar) as well as our late Foreign Minister (Anna Lindh) of being anti-semites, so forgive me if I question his judgement on the issue.

The exhibition is clearly not anti-semitic. It’s creator is jewish and claims it isn’t anti-semitic. The work itself calls the suicide bomber ‘murderer’ and the victims “innocent civilians”, hardly the words used to glorify a violent act, not to mention that she is floating in a sea of blood.

Let’s also clear up some things about the conference. It’s not about the holocaust, it’s about genocide, conflict and terror. After pressure from the Israeli government it was agreed that the conflict between Israel and Palestine would not be discussed, and no Palestinian representatives were invited. And the seminar hasn’t started yet

The exhiibition takes place in a museum, and believe it or not, the Swedish government doesn’t decide what gets shown at the museums. Sharon demands that the Swedish government break its laws about freedom of expression to remove this, thankfully the government showed integrity and didn’t comply.

So the Israeli ambassador goes nuts and starts screaming about anti-semitism and how we are starting a second holocaust. He’s supported by Sharon and his government, who wants to repress the freedom of speech in Sweden and refuse to engage in debate on the Isreal/Palestine conflict.

As DeadJesus says, this reflects extremely poorly on Israel. The people best served by this is actually those who are anti-semites, their opinions are being confirmed. The ones who get fucked over are the moderates, that can see both sides of the issue and wants a solution. Good job Sharon.

This constant abuse of the term isn’t good either. By Sharons standards, everyone who doesn’t support his policies 100% is to be considered an anti-semite. It’s not good. I hope the Israeli government comes to their senses and apologise for the actions of their ambassador. No matter what, he should be persona non grata here.

Oh, and the person at the museum who is reponsible for exhibitions has recieved death threats, and was assaulted this sunday. Nice.

27

Both the ambassador and Sharon were completely out of line. If the ambassador was offended he could have said something to the curator or museum head. They wouldn’t have to remove the piece but at least they could have acknowledged his feelings and explained the artists’ intentions. He should never have damaged the installation at all. The amount of damage is irrelevant.

Sharon also should have at least tried to find out what the artists’ intended with the piece and should have reprimanded the ambassador for his actions. It may not have justified his recall to Israel, but the man certainly should apologize.

I looked at the photos of the installation and it didn’t seem all that bad to me. Granted my perspective is different, but it certainly didn’t strike me as a “call to terrorism.”

28

And it certainly has. I do feel that the artists missed a great opportunity by not allowing the “damaged” exhibit to remain as the ambassador left it. The ambassador certainly added dimension to the issue of incomprensibility that the artists claim to have pursued.

The artwork certainly invoked quite a reaction, which is what any artist hopes for isn’t it?

29

I don’t have a problem with the artist or the ambassador’s actions. If you’re going to make art work that, it seems, was meant to provoke a strong reaction, you can’t be surprised that someone is offended and decides to vandalize it. And yes, the ambassador is certainly not justified legally in what he did. Its vandalism. He should pay the appropriate penalty for that. But what ever happened to support for a little “civil disobedience.” Environmentalists do this all the time and are hailed for their great sacrifices for the cause. Maybe the ambasaddor feels he was acting in a similar manner. He shouldn’t expect to get away with this without some sort of punishment, but if he is willing to pay whatever price for his act, so be it. More power to him.

           Thats not to say he should take this to the point of, say, physically harming the artist or someone else, but at the level he took his cause to, I don't have a problem with it.
30

A friend of mine has found these thoughts by one Yitzhak Laor in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

The whole article, BTW, is worth reading.

31

Maybe my experience is in the minority, but I don’t ever recall anyone describing enviromental groups that intentionally destroy property as engaging in civil disobedience. Arson, yes, but not civil disobedience.

The point of civil disobedience is to protest a law or action that you consider unjust without breaking any other laws (assaulting an individual, destroying property, etc). As vibrotronica said, Mazel could have staged a protest outside the museum to air his gripes. He didn’t have to vandalize the artwork. Moreover, his actions would not have obscured the point he was trying to make. In true acts of civil disobedience, the action taken never overwhelms the message it conveys. There is a difference between not giving up your seat to a white person on a segregated bus and setting the bus on fire to protest a racist law.

Coincidentally, I just read of a similiar situation occuring at a MLK event hosted at the Israeli Embassy, involving the Israeli ambassador to the US (I believe) and a rabbi who made an improptu speech about Israel’s home-demolition policy. Unlike Mazel however, ambassador Ayalon let the rabbi speak his peace and then responded to his comments. No one told the rabbi to shut up and sit down or kicked him out for interrupting the proceedings. You can read more about the event in Eric Alterman’s
weblog (you’re going to have to scroll down to the letter written by Rabbi Arthur Waskow). There are civil and rational ways to handle speech or actions we may not agree with or find strongly objectionable. No need to get violent or dumb.

And I totally agree with grienspace, the artist should have kept the act of vandalism intact. It would have made the artwork much more meaningful.

32

The same newspaper (Haaretz) carried an article about how a moderately pro-Israeli art piece was removed after Syrian protests. It this is true the Swedish refuge in artistic freedom (as if that should absolve them of all moral responsibility) starts to ring more and more hollow. Syria (dictatorship) can pressure the Swedes to bend over, when Israel (democracy) tries the same it’s suddenly against their constitution and moral bankrupt.

A delegation of family members of the murdered at the massacre are on their way to Sweden to plead that the art work be removed. They shouldn’t get their hopes up though, apparently Sweden only take advice from dictators. At least the mother of the terrorist takes heart in the art piece. “While the relatives relatives of those killed at the Maxim restaurant complained about the installation in Stockholm, Hanadai Jaradat’s mother, at home in the WestBank, told reporters that the Swedish controversy proved her daughter was no terrorist”

Now it seems the Israelis have been asked to move their embassy in Sweden. Coincidence or diplomatic punishment?

  • Rune
33

Without seeing the other article, I can only speculate that perhaps the Syrian government didn’t actually vandalize the piece in question. Perhaps if the Israeli gov’t had protested formally rather than the ambassador acting as he did they would have been listened too as well.

34

This article states that

It doesn’t exactly sound like they’re ignoring the issue with regards to Israel.

35

Unless you have a better cite, I strongly doubt this. The only source I could find after some googling was that Haaretz article, which in turn quotes “Israel Radio”. If the gov’t of Syria had applied political pressure to influence an exhibition in Stockholm, I assume that it would find its way to Swedish news sources too, not just Israeli ones.

Second, it’s not “suddenly” against the constitution. The government does not have the authority to tell the museum what they can and can’t display.

Third, just what the hell are you trying to say that Sweden should take moral responsibility for? That people who didn’t even bother understanding the installation were offended?

Oh come the fuck on. The artists have said themselves that the installation does not in any way try to support suicide bombings. The accompanying text explicitly says that she murdered civilians. Just reading the text, it has a sappy pacifist message (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). That’s clearly “oh, this conflict has caused so much unnecessary bloodspill on both sides, this will only stop if we both learn to coexist”, NOT “oh, stupid Israel, when will you guys learn?”

But nooo, the fact that the bomber’s mother (who I’ll bet you a thousand dollars has not even seen the piece) thinks it supports her actions clearly outweighs that. Give me a fucking break.

36

The “artist” is admittedly pro-Palestinian. He has renounced his Israeli citizenship.

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/authors/DrorFeiler.php

37

I think the artist was going for jarring juxtaposition, pentrating paradox, critical contradiction… OK, alata alliteration. Basically, the piece is trying to tell the whole story. I think the idea is to show that nobody is winning.

It’s all FUBAR. “Let’s nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

38

So you are claiming that being being pro-Palestinian is the same as being anti-semitic? Basically, unless you support Israels occupation of Palestine, you hate jews.

So basically the “Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace” (http://www.jipf.nu), which Dror Feiler (the artist) is the president of, is an anti-semitic organisation… made up of jews.

Also, it’s funny how being for peace means you are pro-Palestinian and (I’m assuming) anti-Israel (if not anti-semitic), you would think that both jews and palestinians would be interested in peace.

The guy wants peace, obviously that means he hates jews. Go figure.

39

Jerusalem Post This is getting worse before it gets better.

Sweden versus Israel? Odd.

Same JP, different article. Performance art?

The article explains that the whole thing was premeditated. First degree vandalism, um, performance art.

40

posted by Stoneberg:

Are you deliberately dense or did you forget your reading glasses? Where did I say that? I quoted you.

posted by Stoneberg

You are the one coming to conclusions. 'The artist is Jewish - ergo: it can’t be anti-semitic.