Disgrace
I almost went to Saturday’s Palestinian literary festival, as I was keen to hear Claire Messud, the author of the excellent The Emperor’s Children. In the end I went walking up north, spending Friday night in Kfar Kana, the village where Jesus reputedly turned water into wine. While I was recovering from my walk, it seems that the Israeli authorities in Jerusalem were busy implementing an absurd policy which only shame those of us who have rightly opposed a cultural boycott of Israel.
According to the Observer, the Palestinian literary festival opening event at the Palestinian National Theatre in East Jerusalem was closed down by the border police. The justification for this stunt was a letter from the Israeli minister of internal security banning the event on the grounds that it was a political gathering connected to the Palestinian Authority.
There is previous for all this. This March, a series of Palestinian cultural events, held to mark the Arab League’s designation of Jerusalem as the capital of Arab culture (Itself obviously a political decision), were also banned. All this was done in order to promote the fiction that Jerusalem is an undivided city under Israeli sovereignty forever and ever amen.
The fiction is clear to those who have eyes to see. Those who speak of an eternally undivided Jerusalem are happy to see the Palestinian sections of the city rot in neglect and ruin. Less and less secular Israelis have any interest in the capital, a reality which is met with bewilderment among those who believe in the absurd and unnecessary myth of the City of Zion, and spend their days fretting that Israeli schoolchildren haven’t been to the Kotel enough.
This absurd denial of reality, which is beginning to manifest itself in the new government’s policy in the Occupied Territories, could yet lead to the unravelling of the state. In the meantime, those in the diaspora who campaign long and hard against a boycott of Israeli culture should be raging with anger at this latest disgrace. Rafiq Husseini, the chief of staff to the Palestinian president, is right when he says, “They [the Israelis] are creating enemies for themselves.”
Sometimes I really wonder if the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Judging by the comments coming out of the mouths of Messrs Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Ya’alon in recent days, the madness is clearly at hand. Is there something in the DNA of the country’s political elites that prevents them from doing something rational? Because it’s now abundantly clear that I can no longer say with any integrity that Israel respects cultural freedom. What, please tell me, is now the difference between us and the boycotters?
23 comments23 Comments so far
Leave a reply
This is what I posted on the Harry’s Place board about this…
This Israeli leadership is infuriating and they seem to want to do everything they can to destroy Israel long-term in order to satisfy the racism of a small minority. The move towards banning Nakba commemorations is another one of these moves. Israel seems to be more and more moving towards an Iranian model state and away from a Western Democratic one and nobody seems to care. I am wiling to defend Israel from a lot, but it keeps pushing things. Taking away freedoms all over the place with pathetic reasons is something I cannot defend. Israel cannot beuild settlements and claim it is seeking peace. It cannot silence democratic rights and pretend its just like any other country. These are things which have nothing to do with security and have no justification.
Banning Nakba…wow, what a novel idea to ban organized treason and sedition.
Alex,
This isn’t about the ‘boycott’ – however, how do you feel about what the Fatah member in Lebanon said about the reason they push so hard for Jerusalem?
“Less and less secular Israelis have any interest in the capital”
Surely you see an issue with this?
“spend their days fretting that Israeli schoolchildren haven’t been to the Kotel enough”
I think it’s important that Israeli kids go at least once during high school … It goes back to a quote I posted by Arik Sharon about how if Israelis push aside their Jewishness, we’ll eventually lose our ties to this land.
Sheesh Gabriel – I’ve just read though 30-40 comments on HP’s and some of these pro-Israel posters disappoint me. I know they mean well, but sometimes it’s more important to say, “Listen, this isn’t a smart move on Israel’s part – we are doing to them what we don’t want done to ourselves” (though I have serious issues with ‘Nakba Day’ always being ‘celerbated’ – it can be done in a differnet manner) …
I read your contribution to Harry’s Place, too, and also one from a person who was actually there.
# 1 shot in foot – The festival was postponed, not cancelled;
# 2 shot in foot – You refused to alter your blog to reflect that fact (you had made up your mind and didn’t want to be confused by facts?) because “it ain’t your thing….”
# 3 shot in foot – apart from quoting “The Observer” (the “I heard from a friend who heard from a friend..” school of Chinese whispers journalism equivalent) you bring your journalistic credentials into disrepute by presenting opinions as facts and publishing without having done sufficient research or, it seems in this case, any research at all, or at least kept up to date with what was going on there.
I should get to the nearest Emergency Room immediately. (I would say “hot-foot it”, but that’d be in even worse taste than your article).
PS: You would make an excellent MP
Mitnaged,
1. It was neither cancelled nor postponed; the border police prevented it from being held in the theatre; as a result it was held in the garden of the French cultural attache.
2. My blog also reflects what I was feeling at the time; I don’t claim to be an unimpeachable source, and would fully expect people coming here to look at other sources as well. I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea of people stumbling upon the occasional incorrect claim that I make.
3. Are you suggesting that I have got any of the basic facts of this case wrong? The first-hand witness you mention certainly doesn’t seem to deny them.
Alex – In the HP’s commentary, one poster alluded to the fact that the Palestinian who died recently from that tear gas cannister was not in fact shot directly – Can you a) confirm this and b) if it’s true, do you feel you need to change your hebrew slogan at the bottom of the original video?
Avram – I’ve already dealt on this thread with the issue of what I feel about changing things I have already written. As for the canister, on HP someone has towards an article on Ynet, seemingly written by an embedded reporter, suggesting that the canister – wait for it – deflected off an electric cable and killed him. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I’m trying to find out.
I have no issues with the ‘origianl’ not changing, but if in fact it is determined that the soldier’s shot was NOT aimed at all at the kid, then I assume you’ll delve into (I mean, it’s not like we all haven’t deal with our Al Duras or Jenins before)
Once something conclusive comes up, I will write about it.
I wish more bloggers/journalists would approach my comment like you … I am hoping there’s a post (just because I’d rather our boy wasn’t firing directly at a protester obviously)
“2. My blog also reflects what I was feeling at the time; I don’t claim to be an unimpeachable source, and would fully expect people coming here to look at other sources as well. I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea of people stumbling upon the occasional incorrect claim that I make. ”
I think that this completely fair. You can only form opinions on what you believe to be true at the time. As long as someone is open to new information, this is the correct attitude. I was watching TV yesterday and the commentators were going on about Obama’s “flip-flop”. (What it was is not important.) This is something I loathe. Being able to change one’s mind when presented with new facts or angles on an issue is an admirable trait. Staying stuck in one mindset regardless of the facts is a terrible trait. However, in politics, the former is seen as “flip-flopping” and the latter “sticking to one’s principles”. It’s infuriating!
“Banning Nakba…wow, what a novel idea to ban organized treason and sedition.”
This is not treason. If you can stand in the middle of London yelling “down with Britain” it should not be a crime. Organizing a march for people who believe that Britain should not be country should not be a crime. Trying to use violence for any reason should. Saying “I don’t believe in Israel as a state for Jews” is something I disagree with but is not a crime. You should not criminilize belief. Israel is becoming more and more like the Post-9/11 U.S. where unless your professed your love of everything American (Bush, invading Iraq, taking away civil liberties, etc…), you were branded a traitor. Security, yes, but not at the sake of rights.
“you were branded a traitor”
Sorry Gabriel, that is not true. I was in the US during and after 9/11 (on university campus) and there were quite a few ‘anti-Afghanistan’ protests and they weren’t called traitors. They were ridiculed but traitors? That’s harsh.
I think there has to be a line drawn with Nakba – surely they can remember an event when deprived them of land. I have no issue with that to be honest, to each his own. But if they use the day as a platform to call for Israel’s destruction, I think that’s a step too far.
“Sorry Gabriel, that is not true. I was in the US during and after 9/11 (on university campus) and there were quite a few ‘anti-Afghanistan’ protests and they weren’t called traitors. They were ridiculed but traitors? That’s harsh.”
There is a very big difference between a university campus and America at large. The reality was that people were largely afraid to speak out. There was a definite sense at large that questioning the government was disloyal. The hypersensitive environment led to Bill Maher’s show not being renewed because he said the 9-11 hijackers were not cowards, to American media who were afraid to ask any tough questions, and to the government who allowed Bush to introduce far-reaching bills that took away civil liberties and invade Iraq on a false premise.
Well, well, well, out of 285 comments on Alex’s guest piece (at HP) about four commenters (Gabriel, David T., Alex and Vildechaye) took honourable and totally defendable positions.
When a committed Zionist like Alex get’s torn into by HP’s hard core Zionist following then perhaps HP should draw some conclusions. HP is hardly an extremist site, yet look at the kind of pro-Israel support it attracts.
To think HP banned a respectful anti-Zionist commenter like Hasbara Buster, yet allows some of the most vile rubbish hurled at one of ‘their own’ speaks volumes about modern Zionism, IMHO…
Oh, and kudos to Alex for holding his own.
I’ve more or less given up trying to do that over there.
“When a committed Zionist like Alex get’s torn into by HP’s hard core Zionist following then perhaps HP should draw some conclusions. HP is hardly an extremist site, yet look at the kind of pro-Israel support it attracts.”
Let’s edit this a little …
“When a committed anti-Zionist like Phil Weiss get’s loved by Mondoweiss’s hard core Anti-Semites, then perhaps Phil should draw some conclusions. Mondoweiss is hardly an extremist site, yet look at the kind of anti-Israel support it attracts”
Goes both ways rather easily eh?
“There is a very big difference between a university campus and America at large. ”
I guess, but I don’t really buy those examples. Maher wasn’t branded a traitor – he’s just let go for a stupid comment.
During times of war, which it was, the media rarely starts asking questions until the war itself comes into question (basically, most of the US felt the Afghanistan war was justified – media included). I don’t think the media feared it would be branded traitors.
And I somehow doubt the votes on Bush’s bills were passed as many people voted ‘yay’ for fear of being branded a traitor if they voted no.
Avram:
There are some 50+ of these hard liners at HP. Real anti-Semites at Mondoweiss remain rather the exception to the rule. There are some, no question about it but relatively few and far between. At HP even mild ‘criticism’ meets with this barrage of denial, distortion, ad hominem, ‘they do it too’, ‘whataboutery’ etc etc.
The only fair comments were made by Gabriel, David T. Vildechaye (that one tried to get me banned at Terry Glavin’s) and Alex.
Oh, and for anybody still doubting the Palfest 2009 really did take place, here are the photos.
Gert –
You’re taking it easy on some really hateful people, but getting angry at over protective Zionists.
I noted earlier my surprise at the sensitiveness of the HP posters (though I understand it tbh) … but I do wonder if you make such a stink about the anti-Semites on Weiss’s site because I honestly don’t remember seeing you get remotely uptight about those lovely individuals …
Avram is right of course. If you even look at the dialogue on Israel blogs on CIF (usually the blogs themselves actually), it’s pretty extremist. That’s just the nature of the intenet. If you read CIF and knew nothing about UK politics, you’d think Respect would be the biggest party in Britain instead of the insignificant one it is. If you read Harry’s Place, you’d think that all Jews believe that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic when really a miniscule percentage do.