I for one believe what the artists intentions were. The fundemental contradiction of womanhood and child vs a female suicide bomber. However I think had the portrait of the madonna included wearing a suicide belt I think the point would be driven home but without one it could be translated as praise and sainthood.

The insult is to Christianity. Jewish artist and Muslim terrorist should use their religious to promote their cause and not offend others.

These paintings are not art. They are graphic design. Art and graphic design use the same tools and methods, but art is an expression of love and beauty from the soul. Graphic design is a pictorial tool used to communicate a message, which these paintings obviously do, as the artist says they are meant to disturb, to make people think. Graphic design is one of the tools used by propagandists, art comes from love. I'm sick of graphic designers and art galleries selling this kind of work as art, it gives artists a bad name, hurts our reputations and makes it harder for us to earn a living.

Art is suposed to provoke and question,so now the estabishment wants it stop becouse they fear it,this shows the narrow mindedness of Israel as a whole

pain to victims and survivors of terrorism than anyone else?

I'm a Christian and it doesn't offend me at all. The exhibition is neither the offence to victims of terrorist attacks nor to Our Lady. I've read somewhere that some called for the removal because the artists' idea was to make saints of these female terrorists. To me, it's all misunderstanding. I think the idea was to show the contrast. Maria is a symbol of mother's love and good in general. These female killers are contradiction to that.

All you, fanatics, seek for is an excuse. Haven't you ever wondered that you are the problem?

As a Christian, I found this mildly offensive. (Note that I do NOT expect Christians to riot over this, nor do I think it should be censored.) I never would have arrived at the interpretation given by the artist.

Leaving aside the question weather these paintings can be morally justified, I do don really get the reaction of the artist. Why does the artist states to be happy that the message is getting across and impacting people while the public sees a different message in the paintings, causing this upheaval?