Very incisive, as always. Thank you. Dafna

I thought this Russian had faked his experience in Russia and had held a junior position processing visas for a few weeks there; and that his whole CV was fictitious, but he had ties to Russian money-men.

I can see why he wants the job at the Court of St James, and I can see why Great Britain should refuse to accept him.

If Israel is so short of English-speakers why not appoint Greville Janner and let him do the job ?

This ghettoisation of Israeli diplomacy is stupid and dangerous; London is important and as the main international English-speaking broadcast centre, it is time Israel found the very best communicator to place there, not some placeman who funds politicians ....
...sacrificing a nation's security for the financial gain of a few men is betrayal of the citizens of the Israeli state and I hope the FCO refuses him accreditation

Melanie,

It does not matter what we do or don't do. They will hate us anyway. Israel is their focus but the target is the Jews, all Jews. Nothing has changed over the years. We have been presenting our case and defending ourselves for 1000s of years and where did it get us? We are hated as much as we have always been.

The ambassador is paid with the Israeli tax-payer's money. The Israeli tax-payer has a right to get what he pays for. Thus, either don't send an ambassador at all and spare the money, or send someone worth it. It may well be that they'll hate us anyway, but this is no excuse to do third rate diplomacy. Either don't do it or do it well. Diplomacy has often misfired in Israel's case, but sometimes it did actually work, for instance in 1947. Imagine if in the good old days instead of the Weizmanns and Abba Ebbans all Israel could count on were colourless diplomats unable even to speak English. Whatever one thinks of Netanyahu, his command of the language and the fact that he is really articulate did help a lot in the US. I'm not saying the same could be done in the UK or elsewhere, but it is not a good idea to give up without giving it the best try, is it? By the way, sometimes I've the impression that, as it happens with the State Department in the US, the Israeli diplomatic establishment is working against rather than for its country, probably because many of them are leftists who hate Sharon more than they fear Arafat, the Arabs and anti-Semitism. I hope someone tells me I'm completely wrong about this.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry is little more than an ossified, antiquated, politically nepotistic bureaucracy which rewards longevity, personal, political, and family "connections" with important diplomatic appointments. No matter how unqualified or incompetent, no matter how ill informed or ignorant, no matter how illiterate in languages, if an Israeli Foreign Service officer has the right connections of family, politics, or even friendship, the world is his oyster, and at Israeli taxpayer expense, too!

Zvi Mazel did the right thing. When confronted with an exhibit glorifying terror, he simply pulled the plug. That a light stand also fell into the pool as a consequence is trivial. IMO Mazel made a protest on behalf of Jews world-wide - he said on our behalf "You want the President of Israel to take part in a conference on preventing genocide? You want to parade me past a terror exhibit that glorifies in the genocide of Jews? Then I lodge a protest at your disgusting double standards, in public action that you'll understand."

A quiet diplomatic note after the event, and maybe a withdrawal from participation in the conference would have been lost without a trace in a media, the majority of which are obsessed with the "bash Israel / and by implication Jews" theme. I don't see pulling the plug as an act of violence. I think you got overwhelmed by the Swedes' hyperbole about "vandalism" and "beserk" (from the same continent that brought those words to the world!).

Sure, maybe some people think the exhibit was art. That shouldn't give the Swedish Government licence to fund it and have it as a prominent exhibit for the genocide conference. Nice to see that the Swedes took down posters about the exhibit around Stockholm, as a direct result of Mazel's actions.

The decency-norm is lacking in the Swedish Government, not the Israeli Ambassador. Kol hakavod, Zvi.

As for an English-speaking Ambassador - yes, that would be preferable, particularly when hasbarah is so important to Israel's survival. But let's not get carried away here - plum Ambassadorial posts have always been handed to political friends.

Let's just make the most of the situation - even if it means UK friends of Israel have to work a little harder.

Let me add that I approve of Zvi Mazel's action and that I do think that what he did was clever indeed. People say that he gave undue publicity to a piece of nothing, but he was right to do so: anti-Semites in Europe, particularly in rather quiet places like Scandinavia, count on the Jews and the Israelis themselves to play anti-Semitism down so that it can fester in peace. Whatever brings the spotlight on anti-Semitism is good, and that not because the Europeans are afraid of the Jews or of "world opinion", but because they'd like this nice side of their nice continent to stay out of the US press and media. Whatever helps a fake piece of art in Stockholm, the declarations of a Brit politician, an agression in the Parisian metro and so on to reach the WaPo, the NYT, Fox, CNN etc. is a victory. The French government denied anti-Semitism until the US press began to refer as a matter of fact to France as an anti-Semitic country. Then they had to recognize it publicly and take some symbollic and useless action against it. MEMRI has been doing a notable job simply by translating what the Arabs talk among themselves in Arabic while Merde in France has been doing the same with the French. Mazel's action was surprising and did have positive results. Obviously I'm not suggesting Israeli ambassadors should go around attacking anti-Semitic objects, but all of them could do much more. It's their work to be daily sending op-eds and letters to the Guardian, Independent, Le Monde, Libération and other papers, to put pressure in order to be invited to BBC panels and defend their country there too. At worst, nothing will come of this, but if it means a 1% improvement, that's already much more than Israeli diplomacy has been accomplishing lately.

These comments are apropos of nothing. I merely wish to talk about opinion. This forum and others like it are mediums for the expression of opinions and it has occurred to me to wonder about how individuals form their opinions.

It seems to me that there can be only two ways in which someone forms an opinion: the first is from personal experience, the second from reading or listening to someone else's words. Since most of us live fairly narrow lives it further seems to me that a majority of opinion is formed from what others have to say.

Clearly, what others have to say can be judged as sensationalism or well-informed - or somewhere inbetween. It remains, however, someone else's opinion and, in my view, treated with extreme caution.

Here endeth the lesson!

To conflate the two dissimilar situations seems incommensurate indeed - wholly unfitting, not merely ill-fitting. The ambassador appointed to the Court of St. James appears to be an odd choice, judged by the description herein.

By contrast Zvi Mazel's action in Sweden was the fitting culmination of a series of events and circumstances. There is the broader European context of increased anti-semitism and its various political and ideological motivations. The conference had, via prior formal agreement, indicated the Israeli/Pali issue would not be an aspect of the conference. (Much as it had been rather more oddly agreed, for this conference on genocide, that the Shoah would not be an aspect of this conference. Seemingly, this concession was motivated by ideological, economic and political considerations favoring participants such as Syria.) In a similar vein, pieces of art favoring an Israeli viewpoint were rejected according to several reports read on-line.

Once ambassador Mazel learned this exhibit hi-liting the Palistinian homicide/suicide bomber would be part of the art that would be helping to open the conference - and suggesting the themes of the conference - he attempted a more formal and diplomatic meeting with the organizers - but was rebuffed. Am open to reform if any of this information is incorrect, but my own readings indicate all of the above, which doesn't even broach the Arafat, Al-Aqsa and Hamas tactics used against Israel, or the fact Palis are largely regarded with disdain within the larger Arab world and a host of related issues that inform the larger though still relevant context.

Have often appreciated the commentary herein, immensely so, for its incisive and fitting critique, but this represents an odd conflation and confusion of qualities.

Melanie,
When you deride Ambassador Zvi Mazel's actions try and think of how the decapitated (as a result of Snow White's bomb) Arab families received news of an art exhibit glorifying the killer of their menfolk. Part owners of the restuarant are Arab (Christian), and not just Jews died. Then again Europe does not seem to have high esteem of Christians either, going on what is happening around the globe.
Also as Henry Kaye pointed out that one's reactions are based mainly on opinions.
Mazel did not just suddenly explode as big media wanted us to believe but was provoked by an inconsiderate arrogance nowadays displayed by Europeans in their attitude to Israelis and Jews.

Though I normally agree with just about everything you write Melanie, I think Zvi Mazel's reaction was appropriate. If anyone has seen the tape, they would have witnessed a man calmly unlpugging light fixtures, and shoving an 'un plugged'(important, because the Swedes would later charge that he willfully tried to electrocute every-one present) light fixture into the water, then calmly walking away.. The reaction of the other Euro-tools in the room was not calm.. They surrounded the ambassador and shouted him out of the building, but not before they took to the podium and announced to the entire anti-semitic gathering that "this is an example of democracy in Israel".. Never mind that that exibit was an example of rampant and accepted anti-semitism in Europe..

I doubt anyone would even know of Sweden's problem with anti-semitism had Mazel not reacted the way he did..Now the world is talking about it.. Israel will be vilified regardless of Mazel's actions..
I believe the exhibit was a set-up from start to finish.. They knew he would be passing the "snow white" exhibit, and they wanted to get a 'rise' out of the ol' 'Zionist/hegmon'.. Well a rise is what they got, along with some much needed scrutiny for this exhibit
-and the country which houses and nutures such 'exhibits' ..

A worthy trade-off in my opinion..

The Swedish Museum would not have dared to place a picture of Osama Bin Laden in a pool of red water, as the consequences for Sweden would have been disastrous. However, kicking Israel is another matter. Sweden reminds us of Belgium. They pursued Ariel Sharon until a lawsuit was filed against George Bush, Collin Powell, etc. When Donald Rumsfeld warned Belgium of penalties they promptly changed the law fully acquiescing to all American demands. This time it was Sweden that came across obtuse. What did the Swedish government accomplish by kicking Israel? Nothing. They only hurt themselves. The Swedish political capital, prestige and credibility have been greatly reduced. Many European states still don’t fully appreciate the deep scars left on the American mentality after the 9/11 terrorist attack. They still don’t get it what transpired in the USA on that day and that America identifies with the victims of suicide attacks in Israel more than ever before. The general public has a very short memory but the people in power will remember how poorly the Swedish government handled this incident.

The Israeli Ambassador reacted in an effective and acceptable manner to a deliberate affront to civilised values. To glorify murderers an express sympathy for the killing of innocents shows moral turpitude: phuysically tearing down such icons to indiscriminate murderers reveals Sweden's confused sense of morality.

Unfortunately , to pursue Melanie's line of thought, the Israeli Ambassador in London will be reduced to physical actions to compensate for his inarticulation in the gloal lingua franca; while no doubt Palestinians and Arab states will send the smoothest and most media savvy English-speakers to adorn London's media outlets.

Melanie, I have to say I disagree with your points regarding the behaviour of the Israeli ambassador to Sweden. I know that diplomatic staff are supposed to take things in their stride etc. etc. That said, I do think the level of provocation was such that he would barely have been human not to react as he did. To me it beggars belief that the Swedes displayed such insensitivity. However, I do know, from speaking to Swedish friends, that Sweden is becoming quite the little hotbed of ignorant pro-islamic anti-semitic zombies (due to depressingly high muslim immigration). So maybe I shouldn't be so surprised after all. I for one wrote to the Embassy (UK and Sweden) to show my support.

If you want to congratulate the Israeli ambassador for acting like an adolescent and setting up the whole confrontation in the first place, fine. Please, just don't expect that this will go towards enhancing the credibility of either himself or of his government.

Israel needs, and deserves, better people than Mazel representing it.

Wrong Randy..

""just don't expect that this will go towards enhancing the credibility of either himself or of his government.""

Don't you get it? To most Swedes, Israel has zero credibility to begin with.. France, Germany, and the rest of the Islamo fascist governments in the Middle East have turned the United Nations into a weekly referendum on the transgressions of Israel.. Israel cannot stand up to this daily hammering with more diplomatic 'rhetoric'.. Mazel's action transends rhetoric and brings attention to a most un-fair and one-sided discourse..

You may not like it, but his actions spoke louder than words..

I'm not sure where you are from Randy, but I doubt you turn your tele on every night to the site of bloody pizza restaurants, and overturned chairs, otherwise I'm sure you'd step down from that platitude and view Mazel's actions with a bit more understanding..

Arvin

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Melanie's argument about the anbassador's actions, she is right in one major issue. Israel is losing the propaganda war by inaction and incompetence. She is not the only one to say this. I have read similar arguments in a number of Jewish publications.

By the way, I read these publications not because I am a Jew but because I am NOT a Jew. I am, what Roger seems to think does not exist, a gentile who considers himself to be some kind of Zionist. We do not all hate Israel, but we are hampered by Israel's seeming inability to put its case.

"...adolescent..."

Oh please. To take that line of logic to its extreme, you may as well label those who attempted to assassinate Hitler mere murderers and common criminals. All you're doing there is asserting that you're right and those who disagree with you are wrong. An autocratic pronouncement, not a well argued position.

The overall set of complexes, the broader context within the Arafat, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, also the social, political, economic ties between European and various Arab countries, the complex within Europe that Bat Ye'or labels "Eurabia" and the various ideological motivations behind all these factors, all that and more serves to inform this action and serves to place it within its proper context.

Hence with all that in mind, to resort to a formulaic, reductio ad absurdum dismissiveness is, to put it very mildly indeed, regrettable.

Arvin:

Don't you get it? To most Swedes, Israel has zero credibility to begin with.. France, Germany, and the rest of the Islamo fascist governments in the Middle East

France and Germany are "Islamo fascist governments in the Middle East"?

have turned the United Nations into a weekly referendum on the transgressions of Israel.. Israel cannot stand up to this daily hammering with more diplomatic 'rhetoric'.. Mazel's action transends rhetoric

That's right. It shows that Israel is unwilling to deal with any challenges, even legitimate ones, and that it just prefers to make scenes.

and brings attention to a most un-fair and one-sided discourse..

You may not like it, but his actions spoke louder than words..

Yes; again, that he wants to stage scenes of petty pique to try to get people's attention, rather than that he wants to actually communicate any position not easily reducible to adolescent angst.

I'm not sure where you are from Randy, but I doubt you turn your tele on every night to the site of bloody pizza restaurants, and overturned chairs, otherwise I'm sure you'd step down from that platitude and view Mazel's actions with a bit more understanding..

Actually, I'm Canadian.

A question: Has it occurred to you that your proximity (actual or perceived) to the crisis might actually harm your objectivity?

As I've written elsewhere, "[i]f diplomats don't have enough sense to know that foolishly indulging their destructive whims is a bad thing to do, their superiors certainly should. In the end, no matter how good Mazel and Sharon feel about it, they've only done the cause of the state of Israel terrible harm." Even if they feel good about it.

Michael B:

"Oh please. To take that line of logic to its extreme, you may as well label those who attempted to assassinate Hitler mere murderers and common criminals."

So, Feiler--never mind his art work--is in some respect analogous to a murder and a common criminal? Interesting. Criticizing the apostate?

"All you're doing there is asserting that you're right and those who disagree with you are wrong. An autocratic pronouncement, not a well argued position."

I'm not the one who's saying that it's a good idea for diplomats to adolescently stage scenes whenever they're unhappy with how their country's considered in any area of their host country's life .

"The overall set of complexes, the broader context within the Arafat, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, also the social, political, economic ties between European and various Arab countries, the complex within Europe that Bat Ye'or labels 'Eurabia' and the various ideological motivations behind all these factors, all that and more serves to inform this action and serves to place it within its proper context."

Lord. Not someone else who takes Bat Ye'or seriously. I got into more detail at and , but suffice it to say that her conspiratorial theories about how the evil Arabs are suborning Europe (at the same time that they're outbreeding Europeans, of course) interestingly echo Zionist-conspiracy theories coming from the Arab world. _Comme les extrêmes se touchent ..._

"Hence with all that in mind, to resort to a formulaic, reductio ad absurdum dismissiveness is, to put it very mildly indeed, regrettable."

Again, I'm not the one vandalizing property to make a point. Unless you'd think that, say, me coming to Israel to protest (say) the Mossad's use of Canadian passports in assassination missions outside its frontiers by spraypainting a relevant artwork with the Canadian flag is a good idea.

Ambassador Mazel consciously staged a scene, knowing that the artwork would be there and deciding to stage a highly public confrontation. The evidence suggests that far from convincing Swedes and other Europeans of the rightness of his position, he's just managed to undermine Israeli (and his own) credibility. It's a pity; Israel deserves much better, for itself and from its representatives.

An elaboration of the exact same thing Randy, no substantive deviation in the least, instead of saying 'harumph' once or twice, you've now said it ten or twenty times but have added no substance. Zero plus zero still equals zero, as does ten or twenty times zero.

Additionally you're indulging in a lot of obtuse avoidance:

1) I didn't say it was analogous in the manner you're implying, I said if that line of logic is taken to its extreme then that is what one ends up with. By using the term "extreme" in that context your point is inherently invalidated. All you did was avoid the implications of that. Even to the extent that represents an analogy, analogies are not synonymous with statements of co-equivalence - thus people use the phrase "an analogy only."

2) Your answer to the second referenced quote is even more obtuse. Comprehend what is being said, not merely what you wish to hear.

3) Regarding Bat Ye'or, I did not allude to what degree I accept her thesis (the exact same comprehension problem surfaces yet again), I used a label that she provides, little more than that, though to some degree, I do accept aspects of her thesis.

And your last paragraphs simply reiterate, yet still again, your now deflated umbrage. You have yet to forward anything substantive.

Your point about objectivity, to the other poster, is also rather obtuse as such. His very point was that a properly impassioned subjectivity is fully warranted as one aspect of the overall analysis.

Finally, what Mazel did was an act of beautifully focused social/political art. So you see, I can use labels too, the difference being that I don't simply repeat my label over and over again and again and insist that the repetition per se somehow forms a cogent argument. That is precisely what you've done, and that's all you've done.

So what's next? Yet more obtuse disengagement, or nothing at all?

"1) I didn't say it was analogous in the manner you're implying, I said if that line of logic is taken to its extreme then that is what one ends up with. By using the term "extreme" in that context your point is inherently invalidated. All you did was avoid the implications of that. Even to the extent that represents an analogy, analogies are not synonymous with statements of co-equivalence - thus people use the phrase 'an analogy only.'"

You said that "[t]o take that line of logic to its extreme, you may as well label those who attempted to assassinate Hitler mere murderers and common criminals." This implies firstly that the work of art bears some basic similarities to a war crime, and secondly that Mazel's attempts to destroy said artwork are moral for the same reasons as the actions of the 1944 conspirators. In short, for the analogy to be at all relevant, the work is something which needed to be destroyed for moral grounds, and people destroying the work would be doing a morally good deed.

That the work can, in fact, be identified (as you assume) as something needing to be destroyed on moral grounds is far from clear. That the actions of Mazel were moral is also far from clear; in fact, as the above link makes clear, people hostile to the work can quite legitimately feel that Mazel's actions in staging a confrontation were inappropriate.

"2) Your answer to the second referenced quote is even more obtuse. Comprehend what is being said, not merely what you wish to hear."

Please tell me what I wish to hear, then. From my perspective, you're trying to cleverly use cultural-studies jargon to obscure certain facts about the situation.

"3) Regarding Bat Ye'or, I did not allude to what degree I accept her thesis (the exact same comprehension problem surfaces yet again), I used a label that she provides, little more than that, though to some degree, I do accept aspects of her thesis."

Certainly. The problem is that her thesis, generally speaking, is too badly flawed to be useful. Her concept of Eurabia bears the same relationship to European/Arab relations that Farrakhan's concept of Jew York City bears to America's Jewish minority, that is, none at all resembling reality, and for much the same reasons. See the link I included above.

"Finally, what Mazel did was an act of beautifully focused social/political art. So you see, I can use labels too, the difference being that I don't simply repeat my label over and over again and again and insist that the repetition per se somehow forms a cogent argument. That is precisely what you've done, and that's all you've done."

Your arguments, as I've demonstrated above, are untenable. You are making a priori assumptions about the immorality of the work in question, the appropriateness of Mazel's actions, and the whole nature of the European/Israeli relationship which don't necessarily bear any connection to the facts as they exist. As I've stated above, and in the links I've provided.

The _Jerusalem Post_ wrote that Israel has no choice, faced with European skepticism and/or hostility, but to scream. That assumption, though, assumes that European skepticism and/or hostility isn't justifiable, even in part. The general consensus--at least, among people who aren't blindly devoted to the cause of Israel, who can't take contradiction--is that it can be. A more perfectly stereotypically adolescent impulse than that described by the _Post_ can scarcely be better described.

You have a knack for stating the stunningly obvious. For one, we are both working on the basis of some a priori assumptions, that couldn't be more obvious if it were announced at Super Bowl half time. My final on this at the end of this thread:

http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/020275.html

With respect, it remains to be seen whether this artwork is, in fact, anti-Jewish. You can argue it's anti-Jewish if you equate Judaism with unquestioning support for Israel; but then, requiring anyone who you might ever consider a friend to provide you with unquestioning support is itself an adolescent trait.

In part consequently, in part because of your apparent unwillingness to accept that your portrait of uniform European hostility to Israel as a Jewish state (as opposed to a First World state doing morally questionably things) might be wrong, your "outer margin theoretical case," as you suggest in the thread you cite, isn't particularly relevant to this case.

You may be interested in this exchange of emails with the Museum Curator:(starts with latest)

Mr Hoffman,
you are simply reacting with your reptile brain - not even worth taking notice of. Reconcider! End of discussion.
Kristian Berg

TO KRISTIAN BERG - CURATOR OF HISTORICAL MUSEUM, STOCKHOLM

Dear Mr Berg

A friend sent me your response to his protest about ths disgraceful
piece of non-art.

"Have you seen the installation yourself? I
am willing to discuss and argue with anyone that do have facts, first-hand information and has something interesting to say. Not with
the automatic repeeters of bullshit. End of discussion."

May I respectfully suggest that you take a career break to finish primary
school as your response is pathetic even for a five year old. In the meantime Mr Berg I wouldn't even employ you as curator to my socks
collection.

Since when is it necessary to see something firsthand to pass an opinion on
it? I never saw the corpses that were victims of Saddam Hussein but I believe the incidents happened and that they were vile. I never saw
Anna Lindt's murder but I feel able to condemn it. Don't you - even though
you presumably never witnessed it "first-hand"?

Plus I appreciate that English is not your first language but how dare
you deem the thousands of people who have complained to you (including myself)
"automatic repeeters of bullshit". I have heard far more articulate arguments on the terraces at Millwall (a London football Club). Please
apologise for your comments. The only valid point you make concerns bovine
manure but it it is not coming from your critics.

Sincerely
Jonathan Hoffman

Unfortunately the new Israeli ambassador to London is a friend of Omri Sharon and although his ambassadorial qualifications aren't too good, he's a great friend of the Russian Chelsea football club owner, so will be here purely on business.

It's high time Sharon stopped giving the well paid jobs to his friends and his sons' friends and started recruiting people who have the qualifications and experience to do what's required of them.

Anti-semitism is on the up and Israel's image is way down... but somewhere along the line, I think the present government have their prioties so mixed up, they can't see the wood through the trees and has lost it.

Mr. Hoffman:

Has it occurred to you that the Swedish museum director might, in fact, have a point?

Nannette:

Agreed entirely. For friends of Israel like myself, it's more than a bit aggravating that Israel's diplomatic corps often doesn't seem up to the task of effectively representing Israeli interests.

Ian,

The biggest supporters of Israel are the Christian Zionists. The great theological divide complicates the relationship but the Israeli government appreciates it.

Nannette,

The very existence of the state of Israel provides sufficient security for us in Diaspora. Had Israel existed in the 1930s-1940s there would have a lot more Jews alive today. As for the Israeli image in Europe, please wake up to reality. Have the Jews ever had a good image in Europe? What you are seeing now is a manifestation of the old incurable disease, anti-Semitism. It can be managed but there is no cure to eradicate it. It has survived through the centuries springing up in one ugly form or another. The anti-Semites hate Israel because they know that the existence Israel removes their impunity and precludes them from committing crimes against the Jews. If you feel uneasy in Europe you can settle in Israel. In that regard we are a fortunate generation. Our ancestors were not as lucky as we are

Roger:

"As for the Israeli image in Europe, please wake up to reality. Have the Jews ever had a good image in Europe? What you are seeing now is a manifestation of the old incurable disease, anti-Semitism. It can be managed but there is no cure to eradicate it. It has survived through the centuries springing up in one ugly form or another. The anti-Semites hate Israel because they know that the existence Israel removes their impunity and precludes them from committing crimes against the Jews. If you feel uneasy in Europe you can settle in Israel."

Gosh. So, according to you, it's impossible for anyone in Europe to criticize Israel for any reason without being anti-Semitic, that is, without being innately biased against Jews?

"Everyone hates me so they can all go to hell" is an adolescent attitude if ever there was one.

Randy,

I go by the numbers not emotions. The numbers don't lie. How many Jews were slaughtered in Europe? What percentage of the European Jewry was annihilated? How many European states kicked out the Jews? Can you even count the number of pogroms perpetrated against the European Jews?

What gives the right the European states to cast a moral judgment on the people they abused and exterminated? What gives them the right to tell the Jews how to survive among the 22 tyrannical Arab regimes? If there is one state in Europe that can cast a moral judgment on Jews it is Bulgaria, which protected them. Is not it interesting that Bulgaria has not criticized? When did the European states reach a high level of morality? Did they forget what their values are based on? What is the origin of symbols and people depicted in the statues and portraits within the confines of a church?

Roger:

I'm quite familiar with the proportions of Jews killed in Europe. You might be interested to know that three-quarters of the Jews of France survived the Holocaust--that's the highest rate of Jewish survival in any occupied European country. That 90% of Poland's Jews died, too, had little to do with Polish anti-Semitism and rather more to do with Nazi German anti-Semitism. (And although Bulgaria didn't deport the 60 thousand Jews resident within its frontiers of 1939, it did help the Nazis deport the Jews of occupied Macedonia in 1941-1944.)

Your perspective is somewhat silly. No change is at all possible, not even now that more Jews immigrate to Germany than to Israel and Jews feature prominently in the leadership of British and French political parties? All individuals in all European countries will bear, no matter when they were born or whatever ideology they espouse, ineradicable hereditary guilt? That assumption is, quite frankly, racist.

It reminds me of those Chinese who say that America--not just the American government, but all 290 million individual American citizens--cannot criticize China's colonization of Tibet, given how America colonized its west in the 19th century. It's an intellectually dishonest tactic, but it's useful if you want an excuse to ignore other people's accurate criticisms.

Only an accomplished anti-Semite would claim that the mass murder of Jews in Poland “had little to do with Polish anti-Semitism”. There were 3 Million Jews in Poland and only 3000 – 5000 survived. The anti-Jewish environment in Poland was very intense. No wonder the Nazis turned it into a Jewish crematorium. However, they did not participate in the Jedwabne massacre nor did they force the residents of Kielce, Poland, to commit a pogrom right after the war.

Many “Jewish” emigrants who moved from Russia to Germany are not really considered Jewish. They are economic refugees in search of a better quality of life. There are Jews among them who did not have a Jewish upbringing or exposure to Jewish culture and Judaism. In any case, just because an entity is seducing a group of Jews by a superior economic package it is not excuse for the past crimes. What gives that entity the right to judge the survivors who managed to escape the extermination? As for the Jews in France, according to the recent poll 50% of them want to emigrate. There is something wrong with a place where a Jew is afraid to wear a skullcap. The UK is not free of anti-Semitism either and having some Jews in prominent positions does not mean much. By what right Her Majesty’s subjects can cast a moral judgment on anybody when the world is still reeling from the horrendous crimes carried out by the British Empire from India to Africa?

Mr McDonald
You need to say more before I can respond. What point? That I have a reptile brain? That one has to be a personal witness before having an opinion? That the thousands who are sickened by this revolting apology for art are "automatic repeeters of bullshit"? That to show a woman who abandoned her babies to kill other people by deception is not inappropriate and insulting in a display held in conjunction with a conference that is supposed to discredit discrimination and foster human rights? That those who have lost members of their family to suicide bombers would not be offended and appalled by what is certainly not a condemnation of this murderess? In what way does the Museum Director have a point, Mr McDonald? Please explain yourself.

Roger:

"Only an accomplished anti-Semite would claim that the mass murder of Jews in Poland “had little to do with Polish anti-Semitism”. There were 3 Million Jews in Poland and only 3000 – 5000 survived. The anti-Jewish environment in Poland was very intense. No wonder the Nazis turned it into a Jewish crematorium."

You do know, right, that Nazi Germany conquered Poland, with the intent of reducing its ethnically Polish residents to interchangeable labour units to eventually be deported _en masse_ to Siberia? That Poles had absolutely no say in how their country, under Nazi occupation, was maanged? That no conceivable Polish resistance could have destroyed a ruthless technologically superior military like the German?

Three million Jews died in Poland because three million Jews, in 1939, lived in Poland and couldn't get out in time. That's it.

"Many “Jewish” emigrants who moved from Russia to Germany are not really considered Jewish. They are economic refugees in search of a better quality of life. There are Jews among them who did not have a Jewish upbringing or exposure to Jewish culture and Judaism."

This is a classic tool in nation-building, particularly when you're trying to consolidate a diaspora. If they move to the homeland, they're patriotic members of the community; if they move to someplace else, they don't even deserve to belong. Cf. a common Québécois attitude towards French Canadian minorities in western Canada and Ontario.

Many of the Jews who immigrated to Israel did so for simple economic reasons. All sorts of minority populations with richer western homelands--Germans, Greeks, Poles--saw their populations drop sharply.

"In any case, just because an entity is seducing a group of Jews by a superior economic package it is not excuse for the past crimes."

Who said that it was? I'm using it as evidence of the current situation. If that many Jews want to move to Germany despite that country's reputation, that says something important about how they perceive it.

"As for the Jews in France, according to the recent poll 50% of them want to emigrate. There is something wrong with a place where a Jew is afraid to wear a skullcap."

That's true--the anti-Semitism of second-generation and following Maghrebin immigrants is worrisome, not least because they and Jews are intermixed. This says as little about anti-Semitism in wider French culture, though, as African-American hostility in California to Koreans about anti-Korean sentiment in wider California culture.

"The UK is not free of anti-Semitism either and having some Jews in prominent positions does not mean much."

The UK isn't free of homophobia, either, but having some GLBTQ people in prominent positions _does_ show that their public presence is accepted.

"By what right Her Majesty’s subjects can cast a moral judgment on anybody when the world is still reeling from the horrendous crimes carried out by the British Empire from India to Africa?"

So, even anti-imperialists and post-colonial immigrants who've no personal responsibility for British imperialism are responsible, and will be responsible forever? Charming to see that you agree with the PRC's line on Tibet.

(You do realize, right, that anti-Semites would love your line of reasoning, imported over to Israel and the Palestinian situation? The ironies are nasty.)

Mr. Hoffman:

A friend of mine asked a question, here edited for flow.

"Even without taking into account the text calling her a murderer, how is it flattering to have your picture floating in a pool of blood? Imagine it was a smiling picture of Ariel Sharon instead, would that be glorifying him? [Would you] feel flattered to have [your] picture or the picture of someone they respect in the terrorist's place?"

Think about it.

Poland was virulently anti-Semitic. The fact that Poland had to deal with the Nazi Germany on the Western border and the communist Russia in the East cannot absolve Poland from its profound hatred toward the Jews. They can’t blame the Germans or the Russians for the massacre of Jews in Jedwabne and Kielce. They were not there. Yet, the Jews were slaughtered. It would be interesting to find out if they atoned for their sins praying to a Jew after slaughtering the Jews.

Had the German authorities 65 years ago used the methods to identify the Jews in the manner they determine the eligibility of refugees from Russia claiming to be Jewish there would have been a lot more Jews alive today. How nice that Germany has changed its technique to identify the Jewish origin! How many Jews had to be exterminated for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland to learn its lesson?

The rise of anti-Semitism in Europe proves that the memory of 6 million murdered Jews is no longer inoculation against the anti-Semitic virus. Until Europe finds an antidote for the anti-Jewish venom it does not have a moral ground to judge the Jews/Israel.

Mr McDonald
Surely you don't believe what you write. It's context. I'm not a suicide bomber so a picture of me in a pool of blood would be meaningless. This exhibit is just gross and offensive.

Roger:

"The fact that Poland had to deal with the Nazi Germany on the Western border and the communist Russia in the East cannot absolve Poland from its profound hatred toward the Jews."

Who's saying that it does? What this does mean, though, is that the nation-state of Poland did not trigger the Holocaust; indeed, to begin the Holocaust, the obliteration of Poland was a necessary prerequisite. Absent the Nazis, the worst that would have happened to Polish Jewry would have been continued pressure from the state to emigrate, and continuing anti-Semitic legislation. Genocide was _not_ considered as a policy option in Second Republic Poland.

"Had the German authorities 65 years ago used the methods to identify the Jews in the manner they determine the eligibility of refugees from Russia claiming to be Jewish there would have been a lot more Jews alive today."

Surely you're mistaken--the broad definitions that Germany now applies would, if applied by Nazi Germany 65 years ago, have resulted in _more_ Jews dying and hence a smaller Jewish population.

"How nice that Germany has changed its technique to identify the Jewish origin! How many Jews had to be exterminated for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland to learn its lesson?"

Seven-tenths of Germans were born after the Second World War, and most of the remainder. Between gay marriage, 10% of its population being immigrants, and the general spectacular liberalization of German society on every front, Germany nowadays has very little in common with the Germany of a half-century ago.

This brings us to a critical point: Can you see any situation where a German citizen, who has specifically and unequivocally denounces anti-Semitism, can criticize Israeli policies?

"The rise of anti-Semitism in Europe proves that the memory of 6 million murdered Jews is no longer inoculation against the anti-Semitic virus. Until Europe finds an antidote for the anti-Jewish venom it does not have a moral ground to judge the Jews/Israel."

There's always going to be bigots. (And as it happens, there's about as many in the US as in Europe.) http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001241.html

Calling any and every critic from a particular region or country a bigot is a classic way to delegitimize criticism; cf, again, Chinese attitudes towards American criticisms of Chinese policy in Tibet. It is not, however, a valid critique but rather _ad hominem,_ and a clumsy one at that.

Mr. Hoffman:

"Surely you don't believe what you write. It's context. I'm not a suicide bomber so a picture of me in a pool of blood would be meaningless. This exhibit is just gross and offensive."

So, putting a picture of a suicide bomber adrift in a sea of blood can't possibly be a statement _opposed_ to suicide bombing?

Look. If you think that way, fine. Just don't pretend that people who disagree with you think suicide bombings are good, whether in the general case or against israeli civilians.

Not sure how this one came to disappear but I basically asked why Melanie Phillips whould be surprised at an Israeli ambassador smashing up an art exhibition when his fellow ambassador (Ehud Yatom) proudly boasts to having smashed the skulls of two Palestinians with rocks after they had been "detained for questioning".

To give the complete picture, before he killed them, he invited passersby to join him in torturing the two before he finished them off by smashing their skulls to pieces. Oh, and their hands were handcuffed behind their backs throughout. Such is the bravery of our bold Israeli seekers of justice.

If anyone can explain why my previous post on this matter was removed I'd be most interested. It does not appear to breach site rules in any way, as the above is well documented and factual. Or are we not permitted to state matters however factual if they put Israelis in a poor light? I think we should be told.

Brendan,

Give it a rest. We can only wish the non-Jews have treated the Jews as bad as the Jews have treated the non-Jews. Had it been the case how many Jews would have been alive today? Do you have an idea? It is really comical when one is trying hard to stain the Jews but than goes to Vatican, Notre Dame, the Westminster Abbey or some other church to pray to one. Do you think that if you pray to a Jew you have arrived to a high level of morality that lets you condemn or be critical of the living Jews? What is the basis of your values? Is it Zen, Hare Krishna or Judaism? The traditional Jewish beliefs that the Jews should not come down to a level of violence, cruelty and brutality of their enemies may be very honorable but it has resulted in a slaughter of many Jews. One cannot speak Swahili to somebody who only speaks Urdu. They would not understand each other. There are situations when one needs to speak the language the enemy understands. Obviously, the anti-Semites loved the Jews a lot better when they obediently marched into the gas chambers with no resistance. Now that the Jews are defending themselves the countries that stood idly by while the Jews were slaughtered are in uproar.