The L.A. Times has a piece on reaction in Israel to their envoy’s art criticism in Stockholm. It includes this view:
“The question isn’t whether such conduct is permitted or not, but whether it’s the best way to deal with it,” said Shlomo Avineri, a professor at Hebrew University who was interviewed on Israel Radio.
There’s more here:
Asked what he would do in the theoretical case of an Israeli artist centerpiecing a portrait of Mijailo Mijailovic, the self-confessed assassin of Swedish foreign minister Anna Lind, he [Swedish Ambassador to Israel Robert Rydberg] said, “I would try to understand the motive of the artist. If it turned out it was an attempt to glorify the murder I would criticize him, but if it was an attempt to draw attention to an unstable person who came out of a psychiatric hospital, to understand why they did what they did, then I would ask if the artist demonstrated bad taste.
And here:
While the relatives… of those killed at the Maxim restaurant complained about the installation in Stockholm, Hanadai Jaradat’s mother, at home in the West Bank, told reporters that the Swedish controversy proved her daughter was no terrorist, and that it was the Israelis who were the terrorists.
And here:
The Swedish government is considering issuing a conciliatory note to bring to an end the crisis in relations between the two countries resulting [from] the controversial art exhibit in Stockholm, according to sources in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem and hints offered by Swedish Ambassador Robert Rydberg.
…..
Jerusalem also wants the episode closed, and will be satisfied with an appropriately conciliatory statement by Sweden, to enable the Israeli delegation to attend the conference as planned.