![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The recent action of Israeli ambassador to Sweden Zvi Mazel in attacking a work of art he felt offensive has received extensive coverage, in Israel, in Sweden, and elsewhere. Jonathan Edelstein provides a good collection of links on the topic; the comments should also be watched.
I was struck, though, by the Jerusalem Post's coverage, particularly the two below passages:
and
I was particularly struck, in this (highly positive) description of Mazel's actions, by the statement that "screaming was the only option Europe now gives Israel." That he also staged the entire incident, not being surprised by the artwork's existence as his account might suggest, but instead knowing that it would be in the National Museum and that it would not be removed, is also an interesting fact.
This made me think back to some of my more spectacular confrontations with my parents, back when I was a teenager and I felt aggrieved at whatever they'd done lately. Sometimes I'd try to pick a time or place, a location that would allow me the advantage of surprise. I'd be angry, of course, and the resulting confrontation, although not public, would be very cathartic for me. Granted, it would do nothing to solve whatever problems existed at the time and strain our relationship. Very few of these confrontations were actually worth the grief caused, particularly once you realized that talking the problem out sensibly--or even simply tolerating the problem without resolving it--would have involved much less effort than a grand confrontation.
It isn't a good sign that Mazel's actions have earned him the support of Israel's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. If 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.
I was struck, though, by the Jerusalem Post's coverage, particularly the two below passages:
"My wife and I stood there and began to tremble," Mazel explained yesterday to the Web site Ynet. "There was the terrorist, wearing perfect makeup and sailing placidly along the rivers of blood of my brothers and the families that were murdered."
In front of the assembled dignitaries, he unplugged the spotlights illuminating the exhibit, and pushed one of them, deliberately or not, into the pool of dyed water.
The Swedes also reacted, not at the exhibit but at Mazel's behavior. Museum director Kristian Berg, at Feiler's request, escorted Mazel out of the exhibit, scolding, "You are a diplomatic person, you should know how to behave," and the ambassador was called in by the Swedish Foreign Ministry to explain his actions.
and
As for "diplomacy," Mazel was communicating his point in the only way possible. A formal protest would merely have been "duly registered," filtered and lost in the back channels of European diplomacy. So he chose to scream. But screaming was the only option Europe now gives Israel.
I was particularly struck, in this (highly positive) description of Mazel's actions, by the statement that "screaming was the only option Europe now gives Israel." That he also staged the entire incident, not being surprised by the artwork's existence as his account might suggest, but instead knowing that it would be in the National Museum and that it would not be removed, is also an interesting fact.
This made me think back to some of my more spectacular confrontations with my parents, back when I was a teenager and I felt aggrieved at whatever they'd done lately. Sometimes I'd try to pick a time or place, a location that would allow me the advantage of surprise. I'd be angry, of course, and the resulting confrontation, although not public, would be very cathartic for me. Granted, it would do nothing to solve whatever problems existed at the time and strain our relationship. Very few of these confrontations were actually worth the grief caused, particularly once you realized that talking the problem out sensibly--or even simply tolerating the problem without resolving it--would have involved much less effort than a grand confrontation.
It isn't a good sign that Mazel's actions have earned him the support of Israel's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. If 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.
