Voices

Views from elsewhere

Syndicate contentRSS

Why a cultural boycott of Israel is justified

The Habima boycott call is a response to an appeal for support from a people dispossessed and occupi

New Statesman
Israeli forces fire tear gas towards Palestinian stonethrowers during a demonstration against the expropriation of Palestinian land by Israel. Photograph: Getty Images.

A fortnight ago, dozens of actors, playwrights and directors called on The Globe to cancel a planned performance by Israel’s national theatre company Habima, to avoid complicity with “human rights violations and the illegal colonisation of occupied land”.

Along with Emma Thompson, Mike Leigh and Caryl Churchill, opposition to the invitation includes Mark Rylance, founding artistic director of The Globe. The letter follows on from an earlier call by ‘Boycott From Within’, a group of Israelis who support the Palestinians’ Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

Since then, the letter’s critics have responded in an over the top fashion, successfully missed the point. Howard Jacobson reached for absurd clichés (“Kafkaesque”, “McCarthyism”) while Simon Callow and Louise Mensch signed a letter describing the boycott call an example of “the continued persecution of Jews”.

“Theatre ban ‘like Nazi book burning’ say West End stars” ran a headline in The Jewish Chronicle, whose editor Stephen Pollard compared pro-Palestinian protesters at the Proms to “Nazi party members” in “Weimar Germany” (as did Labour MP Denis MacShane who recently linked the murders in Toulouse to Palestine solidarity motions in UK trade unions).

This shameless blustering ignores the specific reasons for the Habima boycott call, namely that the company performs in illegal West Bank settlements – colonies that form a key part of Israel’s apartheid regime – and indeed promised Israel’s Minister of Culture that it would “deal with any problems hindering such performances”.

The wider context is the decision by Palestinians to call for BDS as part of their efforts to secure basic rights and freedoms. That call, endorsed by trade unions, faith groups, political factions, and civil society organisations, includes cultural boycott. Groups like the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) play a critical role in mobilising support for the Palestinian struggle.

Culture does not operate in some special, apolitical space – just like academic institutions in Israel are also not removed from complicity in systematic human rights abuses. As the Habima general manager put it, the invitation by The Globe is an “honourable accomplishment for the State of Israel in general”.

Furthermore, the Israeli government and advocacy groups are deliberately seeking to use culture as a means of ‘rebranding’ a country increasingly linked in the pubic imagination to its crimes against the Palestinians.

In 2008, Israel’s Foreign Ministry hired a British firm to “craft” a “new image” for the country based on “Israel's scientific and cultural achievements”. After the Gaza massacre in 2009, Israel announced more money for ‘cultural diplomacy’, with an official declaring a plan to “send well-known novelists and writers overseas, theater companies, exhibits” to “show Israel’s prettier face”.

No surprise then that Israeli artists like Idan Raichel admit how: “We certainly see ourselves as ambassadors of Israel in the world, cultural ambassadors, hasbara ambassadors, also in regards to the political conflict”. Or that a touring Israeli chef is open about the government’s intention to use “artists, singers, painters, filmmakers” to improve Israel’s image “through culture”.

Aside from outright denial of Israel’s violations of international law and systematic racial discrimination, a common objection to cultural boycott (or BDS in general) is some version of ‘Why Israel’s musicians and not China’s?’

But this misses the point. Boycott is a strategy, not a principle. And as such, it’s a response to a call from Palestinian civil society, which is seeking to mobilise international civil society as a way of realising their basic rights. It is a familiar tactic, used to resist local and global injustices. Are Palestinians prohibited from resisting colonial occupation – and looking for allies as they do so?

In summary, the Habima boycott call – a microcosm of the BDS campaign – is a case of institutional complicity in clear human rights abuses, and a response to an appeal for support from a people dispossessed and occupied for decades. That’s it. No wonder the simplicity of it has Israel’s apologists reaching for the most well-worn smear of all.

Ben White is an activist and writer. His latest book is Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy.

Comments on this post are now closed.

14 comments

Armin ius's picture

Women attacked by religious fanatics - not Iran but Jerusalem. How can such things happen in a "liberal democracy"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.mid...

Michael Shanahan's picture

Ben White is surely correct when he describes the present situation for the Palestinians and the suffering they are expected to endure. The picture of the Israeli forces firing on the ethnically cleansed really says it all. The soldiers were standing in front of some nice looking houses, with no doubt all facities; to the detriment of the expelled of course.

Donny Bar's picture

Ben White is spot on here. Keep up the call for boycott everyone, it's obviously working, as it did in South Africa.

 Abe Hayeem's picture

Ben White's article is measured and factual and to be applauded - not the
type of hate spewing from some of the posters on this stream, who are
steeped in denial of Israel's crimes. Since the US and UK governments refuse
to act to implement over 65 UN resolutions which Israel has completely
ignored, giving it the feeling of impunity to continue with its blatant
breaches of human rights that has gone on for decades, it is up to civil
society to act, as with apartheid South Africa. To point this out and to
ask for sanctions against Israel is nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it is
part of the struggle for freedom and justice. The Boycott of Habima at the
Globe is not "cultural terrorism" as depicted by the supporters of having
them performing. No-one would wish to ban anyone from performing plays,
unless it comes with an agenda to present a respectable face of an
intransigently brutal regime. Real cultural terrorism is what is practised
by Israel, in erasing Palestinian history and culture, and destroying
Palestinian civil life with its discriminatory laws and its matrix of
control in the occupied (not 'disputed'-as the 2004 International Criminal
Court confirmed in 2004) territories. Witness too the harsh attacks on the
Freedom Theatre in Jenin, the takeover of Palestinian homes for the City of
David in East Jerusalem, and the banning of the Palestine Festival of
Culture in Jerusalem in 2009.

Yael Kahn's picture

Abe Hayeem is an expert who has written a lot on the subject, including the articles listed at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/abehayeem
Also:
http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2011-11-04/abe-hayeem-israels-unesco-f...
and more at:
ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE (APJP)
http://apjp.org/

MikeInBrixton's picture

In yesterday's Guardian Arnold Wesker et al had a letter saying, "Those who wish to hijack the artistic and cultural work of Habima for their own narrow political aims simply remind us of the vital importance of such work." They appear not to have read the same paper on Saturday where the Artistic Director of Habima said, "we are state-financed, and financially supported to perform all over the country. This is the law. We have no choice." By their own admission they are embroiled in the politics and governance of Israel: since they accept the Government's definition of 'all over the country' as including the illegal settlements in the West Bank they have signed up to the politics of occupation, whatever the personal reservations of members of the company.

It is the Israeli Government that has done the hijacking; Mark Rylance and his companions are pointing this out and need our support in the vital importance of their efforts to remind us all of the importance of upholding international law.

Elder of Ziyon's picture

Notice how White starts off saying that the reason for boycotting Habima is because it performs in Ariel, but then says that really all Israeli culture should be boycotted.

Even if Habima had renamed itself "Israel's Anti-Settlement Theater" he and the British artists would support boycotting them.

BTW, did you ever wonder who "Palestinian civil society" is? it is a bunch of tiny trade unions and one-person organizations. Actual, real Palestinian Arabs don't boycott Israel - they buy Israeli products daily, they shop together with Jews at Rami Levy, and tens of thousands of them work in Israel and even in Jewish settlements. The entire BDS movement is not based on helping Palestinian Arabs (who would be very hurt if BDS actually made a dent in Israel's economy, which it doesn't) . It is based on hate for the Jewish state.

Incidentally, ask the boycotters whether they are also against buying goods with the Coral brand name that are grown by Palestinian farmers. They are - because the exporter is Israeli. Which shows again what hypocrites these people are, and that their goal is not to help Palestinians at all.

benabyad's picture

Haha - ah yes, the 'don't boycott, it only hurts the Palestinians'. Doesn't that sound a familiar argument...

http://bit.ly/HutCuY

Yael Kahn's picture

As an Israeli I witnessed the Israeli apartheid and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to join the boycott against these Israeli crimes. Boycotting is the least we can do.
I am therefore grateful to Ben White for this coherent analysis.

Adam Glantz's picture

This argument is disingenuous. The 2005 BDS call does not limit itself to West Bank settlements, but has a central plank for a Palestinian Right of Return to Israel proper (i.e., inside the 1948 borders). Since Palestinian refugee status is heritable, millions of people with no living link to modern Israel would be encouraged to move there. Whatever the abstract justice of this notion, would the resulting de facto binational state be workable, and would it bring peace or more bloodshed than ever before? I think the last century of Israeli-Palestinian violence is instructive in this regard.

Habima's connections to settlements should be criticised. But we should beware of links to a wider BDS campaign that doesn't seek the end of settlements so much as the end of Israel itself.

jmgreen's picture

Everyone and their sister has criticised settlements. Ian McEwan even went to Israel, and criticised settlements (how 'liberal' Israel is - it even allows criticism). Yes, Habima's connections to settlements should be criticised but is it helpful to then carry on with 'business as usual'?

jmgreen's picture

There is a long tradition of condemning settlements and then carrying on with 'business as usual' - this is an opportunity for The Globe management to break with tradition and take a clear stand against settlements.

Shir's picture

Indeed. The international media often forgets who is the occupier and who is the occupied. Boycott is a legitimate tool for liberation from oppression.
As an Israeli myself, I am hopeful that Palestinians will be able to achieve their freedom with political and economic (i.e. boycott) means rather than through a bloody and violent struggle.
And the cultural boycott is not comprehensive - it only targets Israelis who receive government money or represent the government. Habima theater is Israel's national theater and its management has chosen to support Israel's colonization project.

Join the boycott!

Israeli citizen in favour of BDS's picture

Ben White is right. Let this be emphasized: Habima is DIRECTLY involved in Israel's occupation.

Latest tweets