Reprinted from To The Point Analyses
Part I -- Culture for Coexistence
There is a new British organization called Culture for Coexistence the aim of which is to end to the cultural boycott of Israel -- an effort that is relatively effective in raising public awareness of oppressive Zionist policies -- and replace it with "open dialogue" and "cultural engagement." A "galaxy of 150 British artists and authors" signed an open letter published in the Guardian newspaper on 22 October 2015 announcing the group's position:
"Cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory and will not further peace," while "open dialogue and interaction promote greater understanding and mutual acceptance and it is through such understanding and acceptance that movement can be made towards a resolution of the conflict."
While concepts such as open dialogue and cultural interaction are, in principle, hard to disagree with, their efficacy as agents of conflict resolution have to be judged within a historical context. In other words, such approaches are effective when circumstances dictate that all parties seriously dialogue and interact meaningfully -- in a manner that actually promotes "mutual acceptance." Is this the case when it comes to Israel? The burden of proof here is on Culture for Coexistence because they are the ones asking the Palestinians and their supporters to put aside a strategy (boycott) that is actually putting pressure on Israel to negotiate seriously.
The Culture for Coexistence signatories do not address this, the question of efficacy. Instead they make the simple assertion that cultural boycotts are bad and won't help resolve the conflict while cultural interaction is good and will work to that end. How do they know this? Without evidence of its workability, such an assertion is merely an idealization of cultural engagement that ignores that pursuit's historical futility during a nearly century long conflict.
Part II -- Do the Israeli Leaders Want a Just Peace?
Cultural interaction with Israel went on for decades before the boycott effort got going. It had no impact on the issue of conflict resolution. Such cultural activity certainly did not change the fact that Israel's leaders have never shown interest in negotiating a resolution with the Palestinians except solely on Israeli terms. And, that stubbornness is a major part of the reason why peace talks (and also the Oslo agreements) never worked. There is a whole set of histories, written by Israelis and based on archival research that support the claim that Israel has not sought a just resolution to the conflict. Here I would recommend the Culture for Coexistence signatories read the books of the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe.
Given this historical Zionist attitude, what sort of "greater understanding and mutual acceptance" does Culture and Coexistence expect to accomplish by swapping the boycott for "cultural engagement"? It is a question the signatories of the open letter might address to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who just recently, was reported to have proclaimed that Israel will control all Palestinian land indefinitely.
The "galaxy of British artists and authors" aligned with Culture for Coexistence seem oblivious to all these contextual issues. Of course, there is a good chance that some of them are more interested in undermining the boycott of Israel than in the alleged promotion of peace through "cultural engagement." As the Guardian article discussing the group notes, "Some of the network's supporters are closely aligned with Israel," including individuals associated with Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel.
Part III -- Does Cultural Contact Necessarily Lead to Peace?
There is another, more generic misunderstanding exhibited in the group's statement. It is found in the letter's closing assertion that "cultural engagement builds bridges, nurtures freedom and positive movement for change" -- a position reiterated when Loraine da Costa, chairperson of the new organization, told the Guardian that "culture has a unique ability to bring people together and bridge division."
No matter how you want to define culture, high or low, there is no evidence for this position except on the level of individuals or small groups. On the level of larger or whole populations the assertion that "cultural engagement builds bridges" is another naive idealization that is belied by historical practice. Historically, culture has always divided people (both across borders and across classes) and acted as a barrier to understanding. At a popular level, most people are uninterested in, or suspicious of, foreign cultures and are unwilling to try to pursue cultural interaction.
Israel is a very good example of this cultural xenophobia. Historically, the European Jews who established the state despised Arab culture. They tried to eradicate it among the Mizrahi Jews who came to Israel from Arab lands. This intra-Jewish Israeli prejudice is still a problem today. What aspects of Arab culture (mostly having to do with cuisine) Israeli Jews are attracted to they try to repackage as "Israeli."
Part IV -- Conclusion
There are two final considerations here: First is the need to be serious and clear in the use of language. One can, of course, say "culture has a unique ability to bring people together" but is this a statement that has any real meaning or is it just a platitude? And second: If you are going to give advice about a century-old conflict you should know enough about its history to be sensible in your offering. Thus, in this case, if you know that high or low cultural intercourse with Israel (and, as suggested above, there has been plenty of it since the founding of the state in 1948), has actually improved the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace, you should lay out the evidence. However, if one is just offering a banal cliche, well, only the ignorant can take that seriously.
Next Page 1 | 2
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).