Last week, the newly inaugurated, multi-million dollar West Bank cultural center in Ariel announced that all Israel’s major drama companies would perform there in its new theater, marking the first time they ever crossed the Green Line for such performances. The news raised a stir since Israel’s theater community is generally known for espousing liberal-left political views. An even deeper irony is that one of the plays to be presented was Bertold Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle.
This news struck like a lightning bolt through Israel’s artistic community and within days over 50 Israeli actors, directors and producers had signed a letter saying they would refuse to perform in Ariel until there was an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The Israeli right protested that its settlements were an integral part of Eretz Yisrael and demanding that the government force the artists to perform or risk losing their government subsidies. The signers have been roundly praised and booed on the Israeli stage.
Jewish Voice for Peace began to organize an American petition to support the Israeli artists. Itamar Eichner wrote a premature and incomplete story in Yediot about this a few days ago. Eichner, who several years ago falsely reported that Combatants for Peace’s then-national tour was being underwritten by Palestinian radicals, dutifully regurgitated the lines he was fed by the Los Angeles Israeli consul general about a bunch of airhead actors meddling in Israel’s internal affairs. This seems to be an attempt to by Israel hasbara apparatus to let the air out of the campaign. But it didn’t work.
Chaim Levinson, who broke the original Ariel theater story in Haaretz, has just published the first official and complete story. Now it can be told.
Jewish Voice for Peace has organized what may be the first statement by Hollywood and Broadeway artists supporting an Israeli cultural boycott. 150 actors, playwrights, directors & producers signed a petition supporting Israel’s theater community, which announced that it would refuse to perform in Ariel.
Among the celebrities are Stephen Sondheim, Mandy Patinkin, Cynthia Nixon (Sex and the City), James Schamus (Ang Lee’s producer), Emily Mann (McCarter Theater), Eve Ensler (Vagina Monologues), Julianne Moore, Lynn Notage (Ruined), Bill Irwin, Kathleen Chalfant, Mira Nair, Oskar Eustis (Public Theater), Hal Prince (Broadway producer), Tony Kushner (Angels in America), Sheldon Harnick (Broadway lyricist), Ed Asner (Up), Theodore Bikel, Wallace Shawn, Miriam Margolyes, Ruth Reichl, and Vanessa Redgrave.
Their statement reads:
On August 27th, dozens of Israeli actors, directors, and playwrights made the brave decision not to perform in Ariel, one of the largest of the West Bank settlements, which by all standards of international law are clearly illegal. As American actors, directors, critics and playwrights, we salute our Israeli counterparts for their courageous decision.
Most of us are involved in daily compromises with wrongful acts. When a group of people suddenly have the clarity of mind to see that the next compromise looming up before them is an unbearable one — and when they somehow find the strength to refuse to cross that line — we can’t help but be overjoyed and inspired and grateful.
It’s thrilling to think that these Israeli theatre artists have refused to allow their work to be used to normalize a cruel occupation which they know to be wrong…and which is impeding the hope for a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. They’ve made a wonderful decision, and they deserve the respect of people everywhere who dream of justice. We stand with them.
Wallace Shawn had a typically incisive comment in an interview for Haaretz:
Wallace Shawn told Haaretz on Sunday that the Israeli artists’ refusal had touched him. They did something that could get them fired, and he found that inspiring, he said. Theater is the art of truth, and the Israeli artists are following their own truth, he said.
I support both the Israeli and American artists who are in solidarity with the peace movement and those opposed to the Occupation. I also have to say this is one of the most legitimate uses of the cultural boycott I’ve yet seen.
I wanted to return to Eichner’s story in Yediot, because it has a typically nasty underbelly worth noting. Since Eichner wrote the smear of Breaking the Silence with the benefit of a source within the same consulate, it seems clear the same thing happened in this case. Either through pro-Israel celebrities who dutifully reported in to the consulate, or through intelligence sources it has in the industry (you bet there are), the former discovered the JVP campaign.
Here are excerpts from the story:
Art in Service [to politics]
Yediot is reporting that leftist American Jewish groups have begun a petition by actors and celebrities in Hollywood and on Broadway in which they express their support for the Israeli actors…Jewish Voice for Peace turned to a group of actors and leaders in the film industry, seeking their support for a statement to be published in Israel and America.
…Several noted Hollywood actors turned to Israel consul general in Los Angeles, Yeki Dayan, seeking his counsel about whether to sign the statement. “Instead of getting involved in such matters it would be more helpful to support Israeli culture which needs such help. They shouldn’t involve themselves in domestic Israeli politics. What’s more, Ariel is within the Israeli consensus.”
In light of the campaign, the consultate turned to key members of the Hollywood entertainment industry asking them to persuade others not to sign.
It’s interesting to know that the consul general breaks out the same tired old finger-wagging cliches in lecturing American artists about what their “proper” role should be in supporting Israel. In other words, do what we tell you to do not what your conscience tells you to do because we know better than your conscience what is best for you and Israel.
The contention that Ariel is “within the Israeli consensus” is also highly debatable. What Dayan means to say is that Ariel is talked about by many, especially on the right, as a community that Israel will retain in any peace agreement. Therefore, he argues that it WILL BE within Israel so it shouldn’t be a controversial issue. But the plain fact is that Ariel is a settlement, one of the largest in the West Bank. It is illegal under international law. Settlements whether in Ariel or elsewhere run contrary to U.S. policy which disdains them. Further, there IS no peace agreement and until there is there is no consensus in Israel or elsewhere that Ariel is as much a part of Israel as Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
Related articles by Zemanta
- 150 American actors, writers, directors and artists support Israeli actors’ settlement boycott (mondoweiss.net)
@ Ido – who claims all settlers are civilians:
Not according to “Yossi” during the Rachel Corrie Trial in Haifa.
——
“During War there are no civilians,” that’s what “Yossi,” an Israeli military (IDF) training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel Corrie trials, held in Haifa’s District Court earlier this week. “When you write a [protocol] manual, that manual is for war,” he added.
link to english.aljazeera.net
For all intents and purposes, there are no “civilian” settlers simply because as a rule, they’re all armed to the teeth and are trained in the use of weapons. They’re also very aggressive – ask anyone who dares to walk down a street in Hebron after dark.
Been there, done that. Scary. Can’t imagine having to be that afraid every time I leave my home.
I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think all settlers in every settlement are “armed to the teeth.” That doesn’t mean that I like or support any settlements. But there are settlers, admittedly a very few, who understand the problems that settlements pose for Israel and who are willing to leave when their government tells them the time has come. Neither you nor I may agree with their decision to remain until then. But that’s a choice some of them have made. These settlers, at least to me, are not the enemy. Nor is Rabbi Menachem Froman, who lives in Tekoah (a settlement), the enemy or armed to the teeth. He wants to remain in Palestine because his commitment is to the ancient Jewish tradition & land & he doesn’t care who governs him as long as he can honor that tradition by living on the land where Amos trode.
Richard, many of them are, and the most thuggish of them live in Hebron. It’s an atmosphere reminiscent of 1860’s Dodge City.
Mary, I don’t know that the Hebron settlers are necessarily more thuggish than those in other illegal settlements. I have been attacked physically by settlers from Itamar settlement near Nablus and Tekoa settlement near Bethlehem.
The difference is that in most settlements the armed thugs have to drive their jeeps into the villages or fields in order to attack Palestinians. In Hebron the settlements are in the middle of the city as well as all around it, so these hoodlums are free to prowl at will, menacing and attacking children walking to school, old women shopping, worshippers walking to their mosque. They also attack Israeli and foreign activists and tourists with impunity in broad daylight, while soldiers stand and watch.
I suppose in Hebron the children of these settlers have a unique opportunity to learn early how to become terrorists by accompanying their mothers and fathers on their daily missions to make life for the indigenous Palestinian population as miserable as possible. I have been part of the morning patrols of CPT accompanying small Palestinian children as they walk to school while being attacked by settler children. These same settler mini-thugs delight in tossing filthy diapers and other garbage over the walls and into the homes of Hebron villagers, many of whom have covered the areas with chicken wire to deflect some of the refuse.
I suppose the advantage the settlers have in Hebron, then, is that they are able to make these attacks on Palestinians a family affair, and perhaps children taught at such an early age to commit evil deeds do become more proficient by the time they are adults.
Everything you say is absolutely correct, Mary. I think the thuggishness of Hebron settlers stems from their close proximity to the Palestinians, and that their entire culture is one of mindless violence. They’re the shame of the Jewish people, in my opinion. They have created a culture of violence and hate within Hebron that is like a cancer. Hebron is symbolic of the occupation itself.
I am very tired of this situation being called a “conflict;” a conflict involves two equal parties in a disagreement. This is not a conflict, it is an illegal occupation. And it needs to end. Now.
The people who originally and very deceptively colonized Hebron post-1967 are viciously racist thugs with exactly zero relationship to any of the Jews who had/have a legitimate claim on property there (some of whom have spoken out against them). They still form the ideological nucleus of the colonists in Hebron, and no doubt at all that the people who are attracted to the idea of colonizing Hebron and environs are of a particular ilk, and no doubt their natural propensities are enhanced by the exceptional opportunities to raise their children to be just like them if not worse. So yes, those colonists are as a group and as individuals exceptionally thuggish and nasty people by virtue of the nature of the original colonizers, the types of people who are interested in joining them, and the way they raise their children right from birth to be nasty little racists.
I certainly agree with you on that.
“there are settlers…who understand the problems that settlements pose for Israel and who are willing to leave when their government tells them the time has come.”
And not a moment before, which makes one wonder how well they really do understand, or care. One would think if they really understood and cared they would be willing to lead the way out of the settlements rather than wait for the extremely unlikely eventuality of their government telling them “the time has come”.
And of course it will not surprise you one bit when I point out that the problems the illegal colonies cause for Israel are less than minuscule compared to the problems they cause to the Palestinians whose lives they intentionally destroy, and that I don’t give a flying rat’s rear end about Israel’s relatively very insignificant problems related to the illegal colonies it willfully builds and populates and maintains. I have no sympathy or concern over such self-inflicted problems.
I can’t imagine anything more unlikely than an Israeli settler merely marking time waiting to be kicked out of the West Bank. If they’re not there to settle permanently, why are they bothering? Or do they get some kind of sick satisfaction out of illegally squatting on Palestinian land?
Shirin is correct; imagine the impact of these settlements on the Palestinian people, who have had their land and water stolen from these squatters. Olive trees destroyed by the thousands, roads re-routed, checkpoints set up to protect these illegal trespassers –
Netanyahu has no intentions of ever giving up one square inch of land Israel has already stolen and built settlements on. The idea that someday half a million Jews will be made by the Israeli government to pack their bags and get the hell out of the West Bank as part of a “peace agreement” is a fantasy. And the idea that any of these Jews would leave voluntarily is laughable.
I recall reading reports of colonists who are stuck in a no-win situation. They have no ideological stake either way, and don’t care one way or another about the rights or wrongs of it. They bought into an illegal colony because they could get an upscale house at a very low government-subsidized price with a very low-rate government-subsidized loan with all kinds of government-subsidized perks. I remember reports of houses in colonies standing empty because their owners felt compelled to get out, but no one was interested in buying their houses, and others who did not have the means to leave the colonies since they could not sell their houses, and so they were compelled to stay. I don’t know what the situation is today, but I recall that being the situation not too many years ago.
As I think I wrote, I don’t agree with these settlers’ calculations. I certainly would never move to or live in a settlement, & if by chance I somehow ended up in one in 1968, I would’ve left long ago. But these aren’t my calculations. They are theirs.
@ Mary Hughes-Thompson,
Thanks for your reply. But it appears we both seem to the situation at cross-purposes. And that’s putting it mildly. It’s probably due to my lack of clarity on the subject. See Shirin for confirmation.
‘Why can’t we all just get along’ ? It’s patently obvious that we all do NOT get along; the most cursory examination regarding the Middle East provides ample proof of this. What is also obvious is the over-arching need for some kind of peace settlement or the nearest equivalent thereof.
Real peace only comes with a confident and positive expectation of what the future holds in store. So, I would agree with you that it really is asking too much of everyone concerned just to batten down the hatches and try to make the best of things.
As for ‘facts on the ground,’ I’m all in favour of them, just so long as each side gets equal opportunity to create their own.
If you chance to look at http://yorketowers.blogspot.com , you’ll observe there a veritable explosion of ‘facts on the ground.’ The thing to watch out for is this; do not view the concept quite as literally as it is presented. The idea is not to actually have any major transfer or reassignment of land at all. To some extent, that would constitute a failure of the policy. It’s just an suggested framework into which both communities might, one day, find themselves confined. Should violence and anything associated with it still continue, then a penalty far exceeding any perceived benefit could conceivably be extracted from whatever territorial ambitions are retained by either side. It’s a bit like nuclear war but only in a virtual sense, no real conflict actually in operation. However, the consequences of future hostilities then become so devastating that they soon equate to that of a virtual, full-scale nuclear exchange.
In the event, all those pursuing their ambitions for the region in a violent manner must rapidly wind down their activities. Or be ‘persuaded’ to do so by their fellows. Very few of us have the guts to face down a nuclear weapon, even if it’s only a virtual one. With violence no longer the inevitable prospect it once was, peace itself then becomes a much better bet for all concerned.
Maybe, in future, virtual weaponry should be standard issue in all further warfare. Not only would it make for a less stressful world, there would also be the added bonus of having the place staying that much tidier.
And no more walls would go up in towns called Al Ram – or anywhere else for that matter.
@ Mary Hughes-Thompson,
Sorry, slight omission from the first line.
Should be:
‘But it appears we both seem to see the situation at cross purposes’
And do we still?
I wasn’t aware that actors were the beacons of morality of our times. Now, if you were to get 150 auto mechanics to boycott Ariel, you would really be on to something!
I like their support, I’m just not sure what it is going to accomplish. When Israeli actors, authors and academics promise to boycott Ariel, that’s one thing (that deserves a separate discussion). An additional American support will do nothing but strengthen the “The World Is Against Us” attitude.
At least they could have voiced support for Israel in general or better yet, get themselves a plane ticket and announce their support for the boycott in Israel itself.
Otherwise, their statement won’t have any effect at all on the main stream in Israel.
I think you have utterly missed the point, Yakov.
Perhaps. Care to enlighten me?
This kind of action is going to remain in memory merely as a manifestation of hate.
But having lists of who is who is a good thing.
Hate??? You’ve got to be kidding. They’re not refusing to perform because they hate anyone. They’re refusing to perform because your settler friends are leading Israel to self-destruction. Boycotting yr precious cultural center is a way of saving Israel from a horrible fate.
Those who support the Israeli actors are heroes & I list their names to give them the credit they deserve.
Eliyahu I agree it’s a manifesto of hate.
You’re both idiots. Don’t toy with me. If you continue such stupidity you won’t comment here much longer.
I honestly think they simply don’t understand. I’d ask you to be more patient, but I don’t think I’d be were I you.
Thanks for yr understanding. I think if you’re a settler then anything that potentially damages you is hateful. But the problem is that they make everything about them when it’s really about the fate of Israel.