[Ratm]

Originally posted by itai195:
isn't that the point of the artwork and why her photo is labeled "Snow White?" It doesn't

The reason why its titled "Snow White" has little to do with the physical aspects but with the memorable signature traits of Snow White. The extreme contrast of the red blood lipstick against her pale white face and jet black hair.

[Zimphire]

I wouldn't call that artwork.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Developer:
Erz�hl mir doch nichts, mann. Wenn man z. B. eine objektiv hermeneutische Analyse macht ist der Kontext der Entstehung v�llig irrelevant, sondern man erschlie�t sich alle m�glichen Interpretationen. Und dabei kommt man sowohl zu der vmarkschen als auch bei vollst�ndiger Betrachtung zu der des K�nstlers. Das sollte unstrittig sein, und das ist eben der Schwachpunkt der Installation, dass sie beides zul�sst.

Wenn du hier behaupten willst ich w�rde damit Sklaverei rechtfertigen, muss ich sagen du hast sie doch nicht mehr alle.

Deutsch-deutsche Beziehungskrise?

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wouldn't call that artwork.

Thanks to the freedoms of this and other countries you have the option of making that decision for yourself.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ratm:
Thanks to the freedoms of this and other countries you have the option of making that decision for yourself.

It takes no talent to do such things. It's a political statement. Not art.

[Ratm]

Last word.

[swrate]

bizarre-

In the elevator, developer
RAT lol
ART, contemporary art, is often a mixture of mediums and emotions
Beuys , Wharhol explained,
Klee worked on music, Kandinsky too
Picasso and others used to build 3D prototypes, make series of composition, study mixed techniques . Dancers have music and often texts. Paintings have lightings shows films .. .. ..
Mixing mediums is fine with me

light and sound and reflexion

on w.w.w.
You looked at the artwork and thought it indecent
the pic of installation hurt. Some expositions are there to bring meditation
The text
focuses on one personal story, not on the blood wasted?

Yes indecent, Auswich pond, or Hiroshima hole
families suffering because of war
how little value human beings put on life. especially when far/other

�And to depict a terrorist as a sail of a boat of hope and the see of blood can be seen as bad taste if the blood is the blood of your countrymen or friends or relatives even.�

Bad taste, yes, but:
On their lands, terorrists are "fighters", soldiers.
When cousins and brothers start active life in a decent occupation and get shot like rabbits, killed by squadrons of death angels...
Sailing on a sea of blood, friction spots.
Why are Palestinians named terrorists (law graded student, tragic) and Israelis soldiers? Where are the Palestinian soldiers?
My sorry.

That pool is a provocation

When is Palestinia going to be recognized?
Depressed, she broke her life with theirs, so death would be noticed.
End of breakdown and the recurrent unbearable hassle of losing love
To be from and live in those areas - and wanting freedom and dignity for ones nation... HOW? (nightmare inside and impossible to move out easily) banging heads against borders...

Imagine switching for a while,
Then you feel more and more trapped in like a rabbit.
Living in a free fire zone.


you were shook emotionally disturbed, and that was the intention,
the message made you react.


The text brings a personal touch (lost dwarfs?) tragic to think
close ones dying for ever in fairy tales.


the innocent victims
now, then,
genocides, sad episodes

Indecent. All these years and why is it so hard to live together on the same planet?


If only violence could stop some day.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wouldn't call that artwork.

i agree with zimph it sucks as art...i prolly woulda done the same thing so peeps would'nt have to suffer looking at a piece of sh!t.

the content didn't bother me ...it's what people call art that did.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have you seen the 'art' ? It's absolutely glorifying the terrorist- it puts her face there as a memorial, a testament to her.

What's so interesting here is that you all support the right of the artist to speak in this manner, but refuse the right of the Ambassador to speak in opposition. Why aren't both valid?

...

Criticizing by creating something.

Criticism by destroying other's property.

I hope that answered the question of validity here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No.

The truly pitiful aspect is that he did so in the utterly blind, ignorant assumption - seen frequently - that anything that has a Palestinian on it and somehow comments the Israeli/Palestinian situation is automatically and inherently anti-Semitic.

EVEN WHEN THE PIECE ACTUALLY SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

If a Jewish artist making an example of a single suicide bomber and commenting her deeds by placing her asail atop a tub of blood and naming the whole triptychon "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" is "glorification" by erecting her a "memorial", then your view of the outside world is *so* awkwardly warped that I have to wonder what they put in your drinking water.

It is downright *painful* to see such pathos and absurdity.

-s*

That's not the point. It leaves Israel's side of its black-and-white judgement.
Imagine if a non-Jew would have created it. The outcry would be even bigger.

[perryp]

Another video here:
http://svt.se/mediaplayer/mediaplaye...klarar%20sig&b

...which has the ambassador claiming "There is no occupation"

[mfdynusore]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not to get into the philosophical aspect of meaningfulness of art, but a) intention IS relevant to art, and b) claiming that a piece of art "speaks for itself" is somewhat ignorant. Art speaks entirely different things to different people, depending upon mood, general predisposition, cultural, political, and religious background, etc etc.

Why do you think so much art is controversial?

Again, the reaction by the ambassador, and by vmarks, makes it patently obvious just how necessary discussion is, and at the same time, how nearly impossible.

-s*

Your analysis seems right on to me. It would appear that the Ambassador and his apolgists are reacting to only part of the work as well. I suppose he didn't translate the poster. Kind of like blocking the left side of the Mona Lisa with a mirror and interpreting that as Da Vinci's work.

nota bene: the ML was used as a universally recognizable reference only. No value judgement of the relative merits of the two works, artistic or otherwise is intended.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
Wenn du hier behaupten willst ich w�rde damit Sklaverei rechtfertigen, muss ich sagen du hast sie doch nicht mehr alle.

Entschuldige bitte.

Ich wollte dich nicht in deren N�he r�cken, es war nur ein Beispiel f�r Interpretation, die ohne historischen Kontext stattfinden.

Originally posted by Developer:
Erz�hl mir doch nichts, mann. Wenn man z. B. eine objektiv hermeneutische Analyse macht ist der Kontext der Entstehung v�llig irrelevant, sondern man erschlie�t sich alle m�glichen Interpretationen. Und dabei kommt man sowohl zu der vmarkschen als auch bei vollst�ndiger Betrachtung zu der des K�nstlers. Das sollte unstrittig sein, und das ist eben der Schwachpunkt der Installation, dass sie beides zul�sst.

1. ist es nicht zwangsl�ufig ein Merkmal der Kunst, dass sie eindeutig ist. Mehrdeutigkeit ist kein Indiz f�r schlechte Kunst.

2. ist es doch m�glich, dass eine bewusste Zweideutigkeit zugelassen wurde, um zu provozieren und exakt solche Diskussionen anzuregen, wie sie die �berst�rzte und schlicht dumme handlungsweise des Botschafters jetzt ausgel�st hat.

3. ist die Schrifttafel, oben �bersetzt, doch recht eindeutig bez�glich der Botschaft des gesamten Triptychons.

Und die scheint mir in keinster Weise menschenverachtend zu sein - im Gegenteil.

-s*

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Entschuldige bitte.

Ich wollte dich nicht in deren N�he r�cken, es war nur ein Beispiel f�r Interpretation, die ohne historischen Kontext stattfinden.
1. ist es nicht zwangsl�ufig ein Merkmal der Kunst, dass sie eindeutig ist. Mehrdeutigkeit ist kein Indiz f�r schlechte Kunst.

2. ist es doch m�glich, dass eine bewusste Zweideutigkeit zugelassen wurde, um zu provozieren und exakt solche Diskussionen anzuregen, wie sie die �berst�rzte und schlicht dumme handlungsweise des Botschafters jetzt ausgel�st hat.

3. ist die Schrifttafel, oben �bersetzt, doch recht eindeutig bez�glich der Botschaft des gesamten Triptychons.

Und die scheint mir in keinster Weise menschenverachtend zu sein - im Gegenteil.

-s*

Jungs, wenn ihr auf Deutsch diskutieren wollt, macht das doch per pm. Aber wenn ihr wollt, dass andere (ok, ausser mir und ein paar anderen vielleicht) mitreden k�nnen, dann postet doch bitte auf Englisch.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Jungs, wenn ihr auf Deutsch diskutieren wollt, macht das doch per pm. Aber wenn ihr wollt, dass andere (ok, ausser mir und ein paar anderen vielleicht) mitreden k�nnen, dann postet doch bitte auf Englisch.

Well, there's always Babelfish...

Point taken.

-s*

[vmarks]

Not to be obtuse, but I figured if you were saying something the rest of us were meant to comment on, you'd have said it in English.

Just from the number of responses you had going back and forth, it looked like it must have been an interesting discussion, though.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Entschuldige bitte.

Ich wollte dich nicht in deren N�he r�cken, es war nur ein Beispiel f�r Interpretation, die ohne historischen Kontext stattfinden.
1. ist es nicht zwangsl�ufig ein Merkmal der Kunst, dass sie eindeutig ist. Mehrdeutigkeit ist kein Indiz f�r schlechte Kunst.

2. ist es doch m�glich, dass eine bewusste Zweideutigkeit zugelassen wurde, um zu provozieren und exakt solche Diskussionen anzuregen, wie sie die �berst�rzte und schlicht dumme handlungsweise des Botschafters jetzt ausgel�st hat.

3. ist die Schrifttafel, oben �bersetzt, doch recht eindeutig bez�glich der Botschaft des gesamten Triptychons.

Und die scheint mir in keinster Weise menschenverachtend zu sein - im Gegenteil.

-s*

I think this is about the basis of art: to make people think and interpret it. Not everyone has to agree on a meaning, nor does everyone even have to agree that it is art.

IMHO a good pieces of art should be provoking, prompting people to an intellectual response.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Not to be obtuse, but I figured if you were saying something the rest of us were meant to comment on, you'd have said it in English.

Just from the number of responses you had going back and forth, it looked like it must have been an interesting discussion, though.

Well, basically:

Developer felt I was accusing him of justifying slavery, and I apologized for my not clarifying the example as one of usage, not ideology.

He also claimed that

art should speak for itself, and that

interpretation should be possible regardless of historical context of the creation, and that

this piece of art is crap for allowing an interpretation (yours and the ambassador's) that is the exact opposite of what the artist has stated.


I responded by saying that

ambiguity is not a hallmark of bad art, and that

ambiguity may be deliberately left in an artwork to incite thought and discussion, perhaps in exactly the way this ambassador's ignorant and rash actions have kicked them off, and that

the text passage that is *also* part of the artwork (three parts, remember, only one of which is this woman being carried on a pool of blood) is pretty clear on the intended message, and it seems to show everything BUT lack of respect towards the victims ON BOTH SIDES.


The point being that even if you argue that artists' intentions are irrelevant (which I consider bunk), it is fairly obvious that the ambassador didn't bother removing his blinders for long enough to actually look at the whole thing and try to figure out what it actually meant.

He is an embarrassment to the Israeli government.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
IMHO a good pieces of art should be provoking, prompting people to an intellectual response.

Yes. And feeling provoked to throw a lamp at it is IMO a sign of ignorance.

Especially since he completely misinterpreted the whole thing. Though that in itself isn't *so* much the problem. It's the fact that he chose to be so offended that he resorted to violence that proves him unfit for a diplomatic career.

(I keep remembering the huge Mapplethorpe controversy in the US in the 80s.)

-s*

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes. And feeling provoked to throw a lamp at it is IMO a sign of ignorance.

Especially since he completely misinterpreted the whole thing. Though that in itself isn't *so* much the problem. It's the fact that he chose to be so offended that he resorted to violence that proves him unfit for a diplomatic career.

Agreed. I know Sweden is a small country, and perhaps other nations don't sent us the cream of their political crop as ambassadors, but perhaps the Israelis could find someone a bit more - shall we say - diplomatic for the job? Someone with a least a modicum of self-control?

I am almost positive the Israeli government would prefer not to have one of their ambassadors shouting "There is no occupation!" on international television (as he is being thrown out of an art museum by the curator for creating a public disturbance and destroying artwork).

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Agreed. I know Sweden is a small country, and perhaps other nations don't sent us the cream of their political crop as ambassadors, but perhaps the Israelis could find someone a bit more - shall we say - diplomatic for the job? Someone with a least a modicum of self-control?

I am almost positive the Israeli government would prefer not to have one of their ambassadors shouting "There is no occupation!" on international television (as he is being thrown out of an art museum by the curator for creating a public disturbance and destroying artwork).

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong: Sharon praises 'art vandal' envoy

I guess the Israeli government is rotten to the core.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
It did cause damage.

Good.

I may have done something similar. Ever had a close friend murdered in a Palestinian suicide attack? I have.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Good.

I may have done something similar. Ever had a close friend murdered in a Palestinian suicide attack? I have.

Have you read anything in this thread so far?

Have you checked out what the artwork was about, not just the pond?


Again, the pro-Israeli crowd shows that violence is acceptable and that they are completely unable to act civilized.

I think the artist himself put it best, the ambassador is an intellectual dwarf. And IMO the same applies to those of you who defend his actions.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
Have you read anything in this thread so far?

Have you checked out what the artwork was about, not just the pond?


Again, the pro-Israeli crowd shows that violence is acceptable and that they are completely unable to act civilized.

I think the artist himself put it best, the ambassador is an intellectual dwarf. And IMO the same applies to those of you who defend his actions.

Sticks and stones... Logic, you're better than that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sticks and stones... Logic, you're better than that.

So are you.

The artist is not siding with Palestinians, and the additional text put up as part of this three-part artwork has been posted above.

My sympathies about your friend, but the artist has shown nothing but respect for those whose blood has been spilled - his only "mistake" being that he includes BOTH sides (as per the last few lines of the accompanying text).

Any violence directed at the artist or his work is, IMO, misguided and ignorant.

-s*

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It takes no talent to do such things. It's a political statement. Not art.

What is art?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes. And feeling provoked to throw a lamp at it is IMO a sign of ignorance.

Especially since he completely misinterpreted the whole thing. Though that in itself isn't *so* much the problem. It's the fact that he chose to be so offended that he resorted to violence that proves him unfit for a diplomatic career.

(I keep remembering the huge Mapplethorpe controversy in the US in the 80s.)

-s*

I totally agree.
The provocation was rather from the artist's perspective and also just on an intellectual level.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Ratm:


Once upon a time in the middle of winter

For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin

and three drops of blood fell

She was also a woman

as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions

and the red looked beautiful upon the white

The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying

like a weed in her heart until she had no peace day and night

Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer

I will run away into the wild forest, and never come home again

Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces

and she ran over sharp stones and through thorns

She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain

and was about to pierce Snow White's innocent heart

She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings

The wild beasts will soon have devoured you

After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal

�Yes�, said Snow White, "with all my heart�

Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"

Run away, then, you poor child

She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians

as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

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

and the red looked beautiful upon the white

www.makingdifferences.com

Viewing the photos of the piece in question and having read the accompanying documentation, my interpretation is that the artist is trying to say that there are more victims in a Palestinian suicide bombing than Israelis and that perhaps by giving a face and background to this bomber we can attempt to understand what drove her to take the lives of several Israelis and her own.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
we can attempt to understand what drove her to take the lives of several Israelis and her own.

Stupidity, evil, a third-grade education, and a misguided belief that she was doing Allah's work or helping her fellow Palestinian.

Her:
The Art:
The Palestinians and terrorist groups that let her throw away her life and burn in Hell for eternity:

[Ayelbourne]

Okay, for all those still have reading comprehension and retention difficulties (and setting aside the fact that the artist has made explicit statements about his intent with the piece), let's try to make it easier and put it this way: if the picture on the sail of the boat were of President Bush, floating on a "sea of the blood of the innocent", would see you see that as a glorification of Bush and his policies?

Or put it this way: Let's posit that I am an artist (a good one or a bad one, doesn't matter). Posit also that I am given a contract by an American city to design a public work of art that pays tribute to President Bush and his successes and "glorifies" his administration's policies, hopefully inspiring and encouraging others to follow in his footsteps. When I am finished, I invite the city council to attend the unveiling of my masterpiece: a photo of Bush's smiling Texan mug, used as the sail of a boat that floats on a wide pool of simulated blood, along with a written text that labels him a murderer of innocent people.

Do you think I'll get paid for the job or not?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Stupidity, evil, a third-grade education, and a misguided belief that she was doing Allah's work or helping her fellow Palestinian.

Her:
The Art:
The Palestinians and terrorist groups that let her throw away her life and burn in Hell for eternity:

I believe it takes a little more than a third grade education to become a lawyer.

[Ratm]

The Ayatollah:
stupidity, evil, a third-grade education

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Stupidity, evil, a third-grade education, and a misguided belief

The air is thick with irony.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Again, the pro-Israeli crowd shows that violence is acceptable and that they are completely unable to act civilized.

Yes they should learn from the civilized nonviolent Palestinians.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Her:
The Art:
The Palestinians and terrorist groups that let her throw away her life and burn in Hell for eternity:

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes they should learn from the civilized nonviolent Palestinians.

Not at all, but you can't denounce violence and killing civilians if you actively do it yourself.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes they should learn from the civilized nonviolent Palestinians.

Yes they should. Just as the violent and uncivilized palestinian terrorists should learn from the civilized and nonviolent Israelis.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Not at all, but you can't denounce violence and killing civilians if you actively do it yourself.

Depends on the situation.

If someone comes into my house and blows up my family. I could probably easily justify blowing up the people responsible.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Yes they should. Just as the violent and uncivilized palestinian terrorists should learn from the civilized and nonviolent Israelis.

First step, get rid of the violent terrorist palestinians then you will see progress.

So far I don't see "Palestine" making a effort.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
He also claimed that

art should speak for itself, and that

interpretation should be possible regardless of historical context of the creation.

I need to correct this. When I say the artwork speaks for itself I did not say it should be interpreted regardless of historical context, I said it should be interpreted regardless of the artist's intention. In other words: What's important is what the artwork says, not what the artist says what the artwork says.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Depends on the situation.

If someone comes into my house and blows up my family. I could probably easily justify blowing up the people responsible.

But, what if someone comes into your house and blows up your family because someone else came into their house and blew up their family because someone else came into their house and blew up their family because someone else came into their house and blew up their family because someone else came into their house and blew up their family because someone else came into their house and blew up their family because someone else came into their house and blew up their family

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
First step, get rid of the violent terrorist palestinians then you will see progress.

So far I don't see "Palestine" making a effort.

Get rid of the violent Israeli occupation of Palestinians, then you will see progress.

So far, I don't see Israelis making an effort.

This conflict is a two way street with victims and criminals on both sides. This is what I see in the piece of art in question.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
we can attempt to understand what drove her to take the lives of several Israelis and her own.

For one thing, a society which encourages it?

In the past, Hamas leaders avoided taking a clear stand on the use of women in terror strikes. In some cases, Hamas leaders rejected requests of women to take part in such attacks; Hamas referred a few such women to other organizations, particularly Islamic Jihad and Tanzim.

Senior Hamas figures who have consulted about the subject recently are inclined to support only the use of women who have desecrated rules of "family honor."

Hamas' leaders now condone the use of women in terror strikes, particularly in situations where a woman can carry out the assignment more easily (since she is likely to cause less suspicion at crossing points), and when the woman has transgressed moral norms. In such cases, a woman's "sacrifice" atones for the "stain" she has caused to her family for violating moral codes.

Reem Raiyshi, the woman who blew herself up last week at the Erez crossing, was the married mother of two. Yedioth Ahronoth reported yesterday that Raiyshi was compelled to perpetrate the terror strike to atone for having betrayed her husband. Relying on IDF sources, this report claimed that Raiyshi's husband, a Hamas operative, knew about his wife's plan in advance, and even encouraged her to carry it out.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The air is thick with irony.

Yeah, some have trouble breathing already.

[The Ayatollah]

the Palestinians and the Muslim world in general are mired in violence, extremism, and destitute failure because of the own inferiority of their societies and cultures to adapt to a changing, new world. The problems they face are of their own making and of their own continuance.

[BRussell]

Okay, for all those still have reading comprehension and retention difficulties (and setting aside the fact that the artist has made explicit statements about his intent with the piece), let's try to make it easier and put it this way: if the picture on the sail of the boat were of President Bush, floating on a "sea of the blood of the innocent", would see you see that as a glorification of Bush and his policies?

Possibly. This woman is a despicable murderer, and I doubt anyone here denies that. To see her smiling face all prettied up with make-up and called "Snow White," when Snow White is clearly a sympathetic fairy tale figure, yeah, that could be seen as glorifying her to some extent.

The discussion of the meaning of art is interesting to me. It reminds me of some of the debates about rock music, where someone is singing about murdering cops or raping women or killings fags, and then the "artist" claims it was really a song against those things. Well, who knows if that's the truth, but in the end you can't just take the artist's word, or anyone else's word, for what the art is saying. I may intend to write a song denouncing violence but end up, through its effect, promoting it.

To me, this uh, boat art falls into that category. They may claim that really it's against what this person did, but I can certainly see why a reasonable person would think that, at best, it does so in a kind of underhanded fashion.

Oh, I'm not defending this putz of an ambassador. He should have just left and made a statement about why he left.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
For one thing, a society which encourages it?

You're right. Society plays a very strong role in encouraging suicide attacks ... Israeli society as well as Palestinian ...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Get rid of the violent Israeli occupation of Palestinians, then you will see progress.

So far, I don't see Israelis making an effort.

This conflict is a two way street with victims and criminals on both sides. This is what I see in the piece of art in question.

Isreal took occupation of that land BECAUSE of the terrorism.

This conflict is a two way street. And it wont stop till the pig dog terrorist* realize they aren't going to get their way, or someone just wipes them out.



*When I say pig dog terrorists I mean the terrorists themselves. Not the Palestinians for those of your that are PC.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
the Palestinians and the Muslim world in general are mired in violence, extremism, and destitute failure because of the own inferiority of their societies and cultures to adapt to a changing, new world. The problems they face are of their own making and of their own continuance.

Indeed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You're right. Society plays a very strong role in encouraging suicide attacks ... Israeli society as well as Palestinian ...

Er Israeli has suicide bombers?