Reply #53: Response [View All]

[Jack Rabbit]

all art work is somewhat interpretive. Palestinians might see it supporting their view, however.

This is true. The artist's aim would seem to be ambiguity.

The statement leaves no doubt that the artist is depicting the bomber's side of the story. The victims are merely footnotes to her act of destruction.

I disagree. See post number 52, below.

The Ambassador intended to make a statement by disconnecting the lights to the display, after his protest to the management got no results at all. It was in violation to an agreement with the Swedish organizers of the event, according to the articles that I've read on this.

The ambassador is entitled to his interpretation and opinion of the piece. That still does not excuse vandalism. It does not excuse his unprofessional behavior.

Regardless of the merits of the piece or its message, the proper manner to handle this dispute was to lodge a complaint to the conference organizers. As a diplomat, Mr. Mazel of all people should have known this. His behavior was boorish and reprehensible.

I agree with Ms. Crumble. The Swedes would be within their rights to send him packing.