Three days after carrying Stanley Fish's argument against the academic boycott of Israel, the Times may have unwittingly offered the best argument for the cultural boycott. Ethan Bronner's front page article "After Gaza, Israel Grapples With Crisis of Isolation" outlines Israel's efforts to "rebrand" itself after the war in Gaza. Bronner notes that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has been given an emergency $2 million grant to "improve Israel’s image through cultural and information diplomacy". Bronner quotes the ministry's deputy director:
“We will send well-known novelists and writers overseas, theater
companies, exhibits,” said Arye Mekel, the ministry’s deputy director
general for cultural affairs. “This way you show Israel’s prettier
face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war.”
We've looked at Israel's attempt's to put a "pretty face" on the conflict in the past (the operative term was "pubic diplomacy"). Lately there was a campaign to boycott performances by the Batsheva Dance Company. A profile of the dance company in the Independent of London pointed out that "it's funded by Israel's government, its performers include none of Arab
extraction, and it is 'proud to be considered Israel's leading
ambassador.'" Not surprisingly the idea of the cultural boycott makes many people
uncomfortable, because they feel it adds a layer of politics to what is
essentially an apolitical event. Mekel shows that this is not the case. The quote above demonstrates that many events that may seem to be simply cultural events, have a deeper political motive and agenda.
The Bronner article goes on to refer to Israeli officials who say the world only sees conflict when they look at Israel. Bronner quotes Ido
Aharoni, manager of a rebranding team at the Foreign Ministry, "When we show Sderot, others also see Gaza. Everything is twinned when seen through the conflict. The country
needs to position itself as an attractive personality, to make
outsiders see it in all its reality. Instead, we are focusing on crisis
management. And that is never going to get us where we need to go over
the long term.”
Aharoni wants to use culture to erase the conflict from public consciousness. To take the "Gaza" out of "Sderot." The boycott is an attempt to interrupt this process. It's hard to argue with that.
Adam, great analysis of Bronner's article. We need cultural, academic and economic boycotts of Israel following the death and destruction of Operation Kill Kids in Gaza. You can't put a "pretty face" on the annihilation of innocents in Gaza. It's hideous ugliness, and the rest of the world must not be complacent.
Interestingly enough, you and Phil seem to be right. The devastating of Gaza is not fading into memory; it is gradually galvanizing good people to do something meaningful in the wake of IDF's ethnic cleansing.
I confess to being uneasy with cultural boycotts, even though I am strongly critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
The gist of my discomfort lies with the fact that boycotts are unselective weapons that too often target the wrong people.
An academic boycott of Israel violates the idea of academic freedom and the idea that academicians should be judged on the quality of their work as individuals and not on the quality of their government. Such a boycott would punish many in the Israeli academy who oppose the occupation. Why, for example, should Neve Gordon, Ilan Pappe or the late, and wonderful, Baruch Kimmerling be punished for the policies they took great personal risk to oppose?
A similar argument applies to Israeli artists and sports figures.
However, even Baruch Kimmerling, who opposed the academic boycott, acknowledged that there is sometimes a disgraceful partnership between branches of the Israeli government, like the Mossad and ShinBet, and academe.
It seems to me that the best response to Israeli abuses is not unselective boycotts but publicity that exposes and condemns objectionable practices such as the use of cultural events to sanitize the occupation.
This blog contributes greatly to this effort and is the first thing I read whenever I use the internet. Thanks, Phillip,Adam, and others for a great site.
I am uneasy with cultural and academic boycotts, too, Jessica, but the situation has just become to dire not to take some stand (drastic times call for drastic measures, and all that). And I was involved at one time in events featuring wonderful Israeli authors, activists, filmmakers, academics, etc. who would not deserve to be boycotted and were NOT supported by the government. And we desperately need to hear their voices, especially in my city, which is ZOA and Daniel Pipes Central, so maybe a selective boycott is in order. But you are right – the very least that can be done is to expose publicly allegedly neutral cultural events as the propaganda tools they are, especially when they are used to sanitize odious policies and immoral and illegal practices.
Bonner's article reminds me, by the way, very much of our own government's stance that our bad image abroad is merely a problem of us not being effective enough in the PR department, or a problem of "branding", rather than an issue of actual policies (a stance shared by many Democrats, as well). Both Israelis and Americans just don't want to get this, and is maddening, because it is so damn obvious to everyone else.
There are not many Muslim ballet or ballet-style dancers period. It is a frowned-upon choice in most Western countries; it is exceedingly frowned upon in illiberal Muslim communities. Boycotting Batsheva is silly – if you want to be consistent, you will need to boycott the ballet companies of the US and Britain for having killed between 100,000 to 1,000,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is amazing how right-wing racist supporters of Jew-hate will do anything to accomplish their goals of destruction of Israel.
Air America Radio will be sending out 'their' representative — Montel Williams to Israel. I can't wait for that show.
Naomi Klein calls for boycott of, divestment from and sanctions on Israel in this recent speech.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=167479
And a very convincing case she makes too.
You don't NEED to boycott those ballets too. That's just stupid.
Besides a boycott of those would be done at the discretion of the countries that are hosting them. I'm sure some countries have disallowed American cultural events in their countries for those reasons.
But it seems we're talking about Israeli companies coming to N. America so your argument is moot.
It's amazing how right wing supporters of Israel will vomit any old assinine comments that they think will accomplish their goals of destroying Palestine, Lebanon, America, Canada etc….
lol.
There are not many Muslim ballet or ballet-style dancers period.
It's not a especially Jewish tradition either. Here is an Arab ballet-style dancer from Galilee: Ayman Saffah.
I can ask me sister, she's my specialist on ballet, how many world class Arabic dancers exist, if you are honestly interested.
an especially
OK, she was at home. She immediately said: Khalid Benghrib. Here is a NY Times article. He is a dancer and choreographer. He and his dance company are from Morocco:
Dance companies, she told me are usually pretty international, and so far it hadn't been her main concern were the special members come from. But she thinks about it. Admittedly the above isn't classical ballet, but then, the Batsheva Dance Company doesn't look like classical ballet either.
why is a rationale needed to boycott, sanction, eliminate pure evil, pure hate.
victims suffer and die while blubber and gas make noise.
Jessica Ramer: "Why, for example, should Neve Gordon, Ilan Pappe or the late, and wonderful, Baruch Kimmerling be punished for the policies they took great personal risk to oppose?"
That is a fair question, and I recommend you read Ilan Pappe's answer:
http://ilanpappe.com/?p=29
"When we show Sderot, others also see Gaza…."
Aharoni wants to use culture to erase the conflict from public consciousness. To take the "Gaza" out of "Sderot." The boycott is an attempt to interrupt this process. It's hard to argue with that."
While they're at it, why don't the put the Najd back into "Sderot":
"Israeli land thieves built Sderot on the ashes of an ethnically cleansed and defaced Palestinian village called Najd.
Sderot was settled by Jews in 1951. In All That Remains, Walid Khalidi says that Sderot, along with the settlement of Or ha-Ner, founded in 1957, were established on the village lands of Najd, which means "elevated plain" in Arabic.
According to Umkhalil, Najd's Palestinian villagers, approximately 620 in 1945, were expelled on 13 May 1948, before Israel was declared a state and before any Arab armies entered Palestine. UN Resolution 194 and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, Section 2, stipulate that the villagers of Najd have a right to return home to their personal property and to their native village.
Najd is 14 kilometres from Gaza. Palestinian Arabs own 12,669 dunums in Najd, although Israel refuses to honour their rights to their personal property, and refuses them their inalienable right to return home. In 1945 Jews owned 495 dunums of land in Najd and public lands consisted of 412 dunums.
In short, Sderot is an illegally occupied territory stolen from Palestinians."
A town built on the ashes of an ethnically cleansed and defaced Palestinian village
Welcome to Najd
A pretty face is no substitute for real reform.
But, academic boycott hinders any effort for real reconciliation. Truth has to be listened to, AND told.
I can't imagine a Palestinian or Jew (Israeli or not) who lost a love one to an indiscriminate white phosphorous bomb (a chemical weapon) worrying about the indiscriminate nature of an cultural boycott. To worry that a Israeli academician, artist or sports figure might be shunned and/or inconvenienced while others die… Well, sometimes people's sensitivities border on the ludicrous.
Symbolic gestures are important and a boycott is a very strong symbolic gesture. A gesture that needs to be used.
Jessica: In an ideal world that publicity would be possible. But it's not. The only way people can get any publicity about the objection to Israeli abuses is why forming boycotts.
CORRECTION: "can get any publicity about objections to Israeli abuses is by forming boycotts."
The battle for culture (Kulturkampf) has been a major component of Zionism since before 1914.
Not the Enemy Israel's Jews from Arab Lands discusses some of the effect on Jewish Arabs, but the discussion in Zionist Culture and West European Jewry Before the First World War by Michael Berkowitz is much more general and helps explain why the self-perception of liberal enlightenment is so important to Zionists and why they are so sensitive to cultural exclusion.
Also,
In the Pappe statement, the example that he gave of just outcome resulted from European INVOLVEMENT in/with Israeli academia, rather than his thesis that non-involvement (boycott) would effect change in even academic policy.
The Independent.co.uk has a piece on Amoz Oz in London:
Israel's voice of reason: Amos Oz on war, peace and life as an outsider
link to independent.co.uk
Problem is: Oz supported both the Lebanon invasion and the Gaza assault. Later changing his mind.
At least Israel might wake up to encouraging professions outside of hegemonic assault.
Boycott Israeli-funded art or Zionist art? No!
But perhaps it should be presented in "context."
Before and after each performance, there can be panel discussions in which people from the Palestinian community and from the Zionist community compare their artistic visions. There can be dueling op-eds in the community's news media from Arabs and Israelis – one for one.
Sort of like the kind of panels and contextualizing drivel we're forced to have to schedule in order to present works like "My Name is Rachel Corrie."
Whitty, please trying reading Pappe's statement again. Your ambiguous argument against he shows you've failed to comprehend him. I also recommend looking into the boycott movement which lead to the end of apartheid in South Africa.
I read the article Kylebisme.
Perhaps you didn't understand my comment.
His argument supports the idea that international engagement is what changes minds and then policies, that isolation fails to.
For example, it was BETTER that Nadine Gordimer went to an academic event last year, and spoke her mind, rather than boycotted.
His argument supports the boycott. His example supports engagement.
A boycott is engagement because it would not allow anyone Israeli to pretend he/she is not party to a crime. Israel has been displacing Palestinians (ethnic cleansing) since before independence and the crime plays on…
The call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a non violent form of resistance. Too many years have passed , and too much has happened to assume that dialogue will eventually lead to a solution, to rely on panels, and speeches to get messages across. Action is necessary to make a change, and if boycott is about disengagement, it is very loud, and very vocal.
Israeli academics, artists, intellectuals, and other individuals who are supportive of Palestinian rights and oppose their government's position and might be punished by a cultural or academic boycott, should consider this as a price that needs to be paid for their views, positions, and work just as there are other rewards from siding with the underdog and choosing justice.
Writers such as Amos Oz, and many other "enlightened Israelis" in fact play the role of diplomats at a time when Israel's politicians are unable to justify their government's actions. People like him help cast a humane face on death and destruction. Those who read his books are captive, unable to disengage from his personal humanity conveyed in his books, and his political views, conveyed through these political talks.
Funny story.
My girlfriend is an aspiring dancer and she wanted me to go see a dance show with her. Knowing my political views regarding Israel she kindly alerted me to the fact that it would be a performance by the Batshevah Dance company. She told me that the dancers were a diverse group of international dancers and they didn't represent any of Israel's egregious policies. In that case, I told her I would love to go with her. That very same night I attended a lecture regarding the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement during Israeli apartheid week. Incredibly, the Batshevah Dance Company came up during the lecture. I learned that they were essentially ambassadors for Israel and had signed statements promising to represent all Israeli policies.
End of story: I canceled on her and she was really angry.