Zionist thug attacks peace art.

by Bill Sun Jan 18, 2004 23:37

ceck out the above link.

by James Nickson Mon Jan 19, 2004 01:59 jaynicks at earthlink dot net

Shame on Zvi Mazel.

Is it interesting that Mazel and Sharon did not have the wit to call Zvi's act one of Improv Performance Art?

Thugs so rarely have a sense of humour.

by Helel ben Shahar Mon Jan 19, 2004 02:28

For a start, it's not art.

Secondly, glorifying kamikaze bombers is a seriously evil act.

Thirdly, how would any of you like to see so-called artworks depicting Dessie O'Hare or the Omagh bombers? How would you feel about that?

Wake up kids, these homicide bombers are evil people, why are you defending them?

by M Foran Mon Jan 19, 2004 03:41

Diplomats are supposed to behave in a dignified manner, irrespective of whether they perceive something as provocation. The dignified response would have been to have walked out, not to throw a tantrum like a two-year old.
I sincerely hope that no Irish diplomat would ever behave in such a manner.

by avi H. Mon Jan 19, 2004 09:43

but I can understand why he did. Remember the type of atrocity that was represented and how Hamas produced a diorama on public display in Nablus depicting the sbarro bombing. This was complete with dead Israeli children, torn off limbs and shreds of bloodied pizza.

by Mr Disco - Sa Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:45

is inattention.

by jams Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:06

I saw this thugs behaviour on TV here in Norway where I live. Its also been in the news papers here. Most people here were appalled by his antics. Of course it was immeadiately called "anti semitic" the usual meaningless catch all phrase of israelis when condemed for their murderous nation. If anything it goes to show how israelis wont tolerate any critisim or questioning of what drives ordinary people to take explosives to kill their tormentors including themselves. Maybe israelis should ask themselves this question too? Do you really think there is any difference between dropping bombs into crowded streets from helicopters or jet fighters and a poor Palestinian blowing up a bus? There is a simple solution to the suicide attacks- stop tormenting and brutally murdering the Palestinians and stop your ethnic cleansing. But then again the german Nazis took no notice of these pleas when they attacked european jews so why should we expect the israeli nazis of the 21st century to behave differently?

by Righteous pragmatist Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:32

The Israelis and Palestinians must both eat humble pie, iron out their differences peacefully and crush extremism in both their terratories.
The State of Israel for better or worse is reality that will only cease to be if the Israel was invaded and deafeated in a war and annexed by its neighbours. For that to happen every man women and child in Israel would have to be killed or made to flee.
That is in fact what extremist Palestinian terrorist groups and the leadership of most Arab states openly desire if we judge by their rhetoric and their acts of violence and war against Israel.
The International community especially the U.S. will not allow another slaughter and extermination of Jews in less than a century.
On the other hand Jewish extremists within Israel have to realise that although the West Bank was once part of Israel in biblical times they should remember that to continue to provoke hostility form Arabs by creating settlements there , will only endanger the territory of Israel that is already established.
Israel is wasting much of its national income on a war that should have been settled years ago and likewise are Arab states who build huge armies for the express purpose of destroying Israel.
Both sides have to realise that through their years of war they have been beating their heads against a brick wall.
Palestinians have to realise that suicide bombings will only continue to fuel the defiance among Israelis and is no way to negotiate a settlement with terror and murder.
While they threaten Isreali security Israel will sacrifice peace efforts and use violence to maintain the security of their state.
Israel have to realise that the continued occupation of the West Bank and building of settlements will continue to fuel the hatred of Israel in the Arab world.
Of course before Israel ever occupied the West Bank Israel was under constant attack from the fascist and theocratic regimes which border it.

The solutions to the conflict are these:

Arab states must begin full democratic reforms, halt militarisation and incitment to hatred of Jews.

Islamic and Nationalist extremists must be crushed with out mercy if they do not cease their acts of terrorism both in Israel and in Arab countries

Israel must in turn abandon settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights after Arab countries agree to desist from threatening its security.

A peaceful outcome and give and take from both sides is the only way to stop this costly and useless war.

by stormy waters Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:37

I've been keeping an eye on this story since it erupted a while ago. It is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. The reason I think that it has recieved this level of attention is the fact that it was an Israeli ambassador. DO you think if it was a Palestinian or a German or an Irish ambassador we would have people coming onto indymedia demanding they be kicked out of Sweden?

by John Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:40

The ambassadors actions were purile and childish. Clearly not all "civilised" countries are represented by civilised people. We are rapidly losing sight of what it is to be truely at liberty in civil society. Big business and media propaganda will ensure that the highest notion we will aspire to is how much interest we can get on our savings. As for anti semitism. Am I anti american because I object to the fact that theirs nuclear bombs killed nearly 200000 people. The short fucking answer is yes! Same fucking logic applies to zionist genociders.

by Khalid Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:45

John what about the Israeli or American worker who is also getting exploited by Bush and Sharon? Are you against these people too because they share the same nationality?

by kokomero Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:03

The behaviour of the Israeli ambassador is inexcusable. Suppression of artistic expression is a slippery slope that doesn't lead to anything good. People who represent "democracies" should set high standards in public life and not behave like football hooligans or worse. This is the first example of this sort of behaviour by a high ranking diplomat from any country that I am aware of and the Israelis would do well to recall him before any more damage is done.

by John Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:11

Yes I am against the ordinary Israeli/American.
As long as we have countries with borders that have leaders elected by the people the people must share some blame for the atrocities committed in their name and under their flag.
Until the ordinary Israeli and American gets up of their fat ass and does something to stop the rot they are just as culpable as the ugly aggressive primates that defile art and slaughter people for profit

by John Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:27

You cant generalise like that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush, Lots of americans didn't vote for either republican or democrat, there are lots of american Anarchists who don't vote in elections at all who are trying their best to change their world from within. In Ireland if we don't vote for Fianna Fail we are forced with an alternative of FG and Labour? This might possibly be an even worse cure than the disease. There is no power in elections.
People are not always responsible for their government, some of them are but we should target the institutions not the people.

by David Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:32

..

by mick Mon Jan 19, 2004 17:00

This act of vandalism is a clear sign that the Zionists are getting rattled . What they seem to hate more than anything is non Zionist Jews expressing disgust at Israel .
There's an article in today's Guardian about the appointment of a new Israeli ambassador to Britain ,a non - English speaking friend of Ariel Sharon's thuggish eldest son . British Zionists feel that a more media savvy representative would be in order .
Friends of Israel internationally are perplexed at the appointments of such crude people as ambassadors and appear concerned that they might be giving the outside world the wrong impression of Israel.
Does anybody have any info on the Israeli ambassador to Ireland ? A former profesional wrestler perhaps?

by David C. Mon Jan 19, 2004 18:10

There are a lot of assumptions in this thread about Dror Feiler's artwork, mainly to the effect that it somehow supports or approves of suicide bombings against civilians. This is not the case. Mr. Feiler is highly critical of suicide bombings, however he is not afraid to ask questions and to seek understanding with his art.

It is the enraged and violent zionist reaction to this search for understanding that is so shameful.

That is truely the mark of a facist.

by Righteous Pragmatist Mon Jan 19, 2004 20:25

Why is it when you ask a Leftist about the Palestinian-Israeli situation you get an outraged, spittle-flecked invective about settlements, humiliation and provocation? But when you ask the same Leftist what he thinks about a Palestinian militant lobbing a hand grenade into a school bus you get a shoulder shrugged, "Well, what do you expect"?
How did the Left end up taking the Palestinian side anyway? I don't mean just individuals, I'm talking about the entire Left being in lock step on this - no exceptions. This completely baffles me. The feminist who won't criticize the Palestinians for using women suicide bombers. The multi-culturalist who doesn't complain no matter what is taught about Jews in Palestinian schools. I just don't get it. Is it just a reflexive response to the Right generally supporting the Israeli views? Is it a blind, maternal need to be on the side of the defenseless? Is it moral relativism taken to the sickening extreme? It can't be anti-Semitism, can it? Any light you can shed on this would be appreciated.

by jeff Mon Jan 19, 2004 20:42

.. I'm no fan of the Israelis, look at my previous posts.

The Diplomat should not have reacted like he did, but maybe he just went mad for a moment. Maybe he was infected with the symptoms of "post traumatic stress"?

Whether your a hardened Likudnik, a passing Arab, a farmer from Kery on pilgrimage, or a peace activist, a bomb is a bomb is a bomb, and the results of which are traumatic for all. Same in London, Ramallah ( usually rockets into civilian areas), Tel Aviv or Belfast.

Israelis and Palestinians. Shut the fuck up. Get talking. Likudniks, stop your nonsense settlements, Hamas, stop suicide bombing.The Koran is a stupid book. At least the Jews don't take their laws that seriously.

Make peace now, both yis, or else the only thing you'll be fighting about is whether to call the bit of nowhere the Bay of Israel or the Bay of Palestine.

No more tired arguments, or else you'll turn me anti semitic (that goes for Arabs as well as Jews). In fact, if I was dictator, I'd give the land to the remaing 600 or so Samaritans.

So now, shut up. Make peace. I actually want to visit that hole of a place you call Israel/Palestine.

by David C. Mon Jan 19, 2004 20:56

The 'left' (i.e. 'liberals' or 'progressives') are inherently optimistic and are motivated by ideals (such as justice) and by the hope for a better world (i.e. 'progress'). The 'left' also seeks to understand and is inherently moral (i.e. spiritual rather than religious).

The 'right' (i.e. 'conservatives' or 'reactionaries') are inherently pessimistic and are motivated by current realities (such as power, might-is-right, etc), and by a hatred for change from the status quo or the recent past. The 'right' also resists introspection or deep understanding and is inherently dogmatic/ideological (i.e. religious rather than spiritual).

This is why the left was universally supportive of early Israel and the right was universally antagonistic towards early Israel. It has only been since Israel has started using power to intimidate and steal from others that the left and right have changed sides.

Other illustrations:
-Fanatical loyalists in Northern Ireland fly Israeli flags, while nationalists fly Palestinian flags.

-Extreme *communists* in the former Soviet Union were referred to as 'conservatives', whereas extreme *anti-communists* in the United States were also referred to as 'conservatives'.

(Note: History, over the long term, appears to be EXTREMELY progressive....)

by avi H. Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:12

These distinctions between left and right are unsophisticated, naive and downright wrong.

by William Ryan Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:14

Last week’s speculation about the motives of Hamas’ first female suicide-bomber turned out not to be so speculative after all. According to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, Reem Al-Reyashi was forced to detonate herself by her family after her husband discovered her in an extramarital affair. In an especially gruesome detail, the job of handing al-Reyashi the dynamite belt was assigned to her former lover.
Can we please, please, please now retire the often-heard line that Western societies have something to learn from the simple, heartfelt faith of the Islamic extremists? I’m not sure whether Hamas reminds me more of the blood cult of the ancient Aztecs or the cruelest subsections of the American Mafia, but I am sure that the United States with all its fads, follies, and vices is in every way a more moral and godly society than the one that Hamas seeks to realize. And if the choice really is between a society that produces a Reem al-Reyashi or one that produces Britney Spears … then hand me the channel changer: I want my MTV!

by kokomero Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:18

It is very interesting that Zionists seem to need to disagree with the left whereas the posts of ISM activists and Palestinians are usually not even commented upon.

Why is this?

Is it that Zionists cannot argue against the facts on the ground in Palestine which they know to be morally wrong and indefensible so they attempt to alter the perception of their misdeeds in the minds of those who oppose them abroad?

If the left is expected to condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism why doesn't the right/Zionism condemn indiscriminate acts of Israeli state-terrorism?

Why is it impossible in the eyes of Zionism/the right to criticise the illegal actions of the Israeli STATE without being accused of anti-semitism?

I thought the Israelis made a virtue out of having a secular state, therefore if the Israeli state were a person it would be a right-wing libertarian atheist and not Jewish at all.

In fact many Torah Jews find the idea of an Israeli state of any kind unacceptable.

Why is this?

by avi H. Tue Jan 20, 2004 14:22

Mr. Sweeney. Why is it that the left is so arrogant to think that it has a monopoly on principles? The moral sump that is the Palestinian authority incites and organizes in Arabic atrocities that it publically condemns in English, taking in naive, biased twits like the venomous contributers to this site.

As for the actions of the Israeli ambassador in Sweden, he said his feelings got the better of him. I can see why: depicting child murder is extremely distressing to anyone who knows families of the victims, as he does. Those who are quick to condemn this have no feelings of pity or sympathy for murdered Jews, so we can reasonably infer that they are anti-Semites.

by kokomero Tue Jan 20, 2004 16:46

the conversation between Avi and his aliases attempting to drown out rational debate.

By the way exactly how did the piece DEPICT child murder?

Didn't the Nazi's justify themselves in a similar way while they burned books?

Didn't the mullahs in Iran justify themselves in the same way when the issued a fatwa on Rushdies head?

As usual hysterical overreaction is the order of the day.

by kokomero Tue Jan 20, 2004 18:24

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”— Thomas Paine, Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

What Is Intellectual Freedom?

Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.

Why Is Intellectual Freedom Important?

Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system. We expect our people to be self-governors. But to do so responsibly, our citizenry must be well-informed. Libraries provide the ideas and information, in a variety of formats, to allow people to inform themselves.

Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.

What Is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

How Does Censorship Happen?

Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. Individuals and pressure groups identify materials to which they object. Sometimes they succeed in pressuring schools not to use them, libraries not to shelve them, book and video stores not to carry them, publishers not to publish them, or art galleries not to display them. Censorship also occurs when materials are restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics.

by David C. Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:19

Well, Avi, *I* think that my previously posted distinctions between left and right are correct.

If you disagree, please feel free to post your own opinion about the difference. As a member of the 'left' I am willing to change my mind if I hear a good argument. An explaination of how Israel migrated from being 'a darling of the left' to being 'a darling of the right' would be particularily interesting...

by What about No Platform? Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:35

Agree with Kokomero, but a question for them:
Where does the reaction to the BNP Youth wing invite to UCC fit in with your statement above?

by kokomero Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:21

I detest the BNP and other such organisations, their excusers and fellow-travellers, and my gut reaction would be to prevent them from free speech by whatever means necessary.

However, I think it is probably better to take them on in debate and prove them wrong.

Pretty much all of these people are attention-seekers have very little to back up their arguments and run a mile from probing questions.

This is evidenced in this very debate by Avi under his various pseudonyms, so there is very little to fear from these people and they are often their own worst enemies when given the oxygen of publicity as they quickly degenerate into ranting when it is clear they are not going to get their way!

by avi H. Wed Jan 21, 2004 18:46

Kokomero thinks I am the only person in the world who is a Zionist. Without a shred of evidence, he believes that anyone else who contributes to this site with the same views as me must be me hiding under a pseudonym.

What makes you think this, my friend? Where is your proof? Do tell. I am sure the answer will be your usual fascinating logical contortion.

by kokomero Wed Jan 21, 2004 19:39

these guys like William Sweeney/Ryan etc. just happen to pop out of the woodwork when you're in need of moral support Avi, that's all.

Their names mightn't have been the same in the past but the content was essentially the same and the circumstances also.

It's highly coincidental.

Anyway perhaps you'd like to answer some of the questions I put to you earlier seeing as you're more talkative all of a sudden?