The Sensitive Case of Boycott in Historic Palestine

At what point does Palestinian culture become complicit in whitewashing Israel’s crimes? Palestinian poet Najwan Darwish examines the specificities of cultural production under Israeli occupation among ‘48 Palestinians living in Israel.

Occupied Jerusalem – The cultural boycott of Israel invites contested debate among Palestinians living in Israel. It’s true that the boycott has gained a consensus as of late, but limits of the boycott seem more problematic for Palestinians who remained in historic palestine compared to people living outside Israel. This is because funds enshrining civil rights such as health and education provided by the Israeli state to Arab ‘citizens’ are mixed with state-funded cultural production. This funding accomplishes more than a symbolic act and goes well beyond simple matters of Palestinian rights as citizens of Israel. It establishes a climate of complicity with the state that is hard to disentangle, especially in the context of calls for a cultural boycott.

A seminar took place in Haifa recently, with presentation of papers titled “The Particularities of Cultural Production Among ’48 Palestinians” and “The Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.” Author Hisham Naffa, who headed the conference, proposed three principal issues to those in attendance: He questioned (1) Palestinians’ relationship as a whole and as minorities to government funding; (2) the cultural specificities of the Arab minority in 1948; and (3) the meaning of culture for Palestinians, and whether it is subject to criteria such as geography as relating to the situation of Palestinians today.

Omar Barghouti spoke in the name of the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), hoping to clarify these issues. “Since 2004, we’ve been establishing standards for every piece of land occupied in 1967, for the Arab countries, and for the whole world. Now we’re working on precise criteria for ’48 Palestinians. We can’t carry out the boycott without objective criteria.” According to Barghouti, “1948 Palestinians are being used as a bridge to normalization.”

However, his generally insightful contribution came up short on the issue of cultural funding. Barghouti argued that “Israeli government funds such as those from the municipalities should be treated equally. The funds that do not carry any political conditions such as the cinema fund are not a problem. We only boycott films if they are marketed abroad. We differentiate between production and distribution.” This differentiation ignores the role of cultural production as a symbolic act in and of itself, as symbolic capital belonging to the entire culture in Israel. These funds can’t be treated in the same way as ordinary municipal services.

Perhaps Antoine Shalhat overlooked this distinction, as well. He began his talk saying, “We are deformed. We are incomplete as Arabic, incomplete as Israelis, and incomplete as Palestinians.” The Palestinian critic also posed problematic questions, saying, “There is no doubt that we are Palestinians, but 63 years after the Nakba, it’s time to finally ask whether we’ve accepted a Palestinian identity by choice or have simply been denied an Israeli one.”

Shalhat was notable for his unequivocal skepticism regarding civil rights saying, “There are political forces assuring us that civil rights will provide a safe passage to securing national rights. I don’t believe that. I support civil rights, but they won’t serve as a passage to national rights for Palestinians, because that would require changing the regime and the nature of the state.” However, he later backtracked. “I am living a contradiction in the shadow of these various characterizations, distortions, and complications. I do not object to patronizing Israeli institutions to the extent that they support our cultural activities, so long as they are not thereby subject to the practice of self-censorship. I have no objection to Israeli funding of ’48 Palestinians if it doesn’t defy logic.” Shalhat’s exceedingly rationalist approach does not give enough weight to the symbolic nature of cultural acts when they are tied (despite conditions such as “not defying logic”) to equally symbolic Israeli civil services provided in exchange for taxes collected by the state.

Maybe it was the closing remarks by critic Esmail Nashif that stood out the most. He warned that “the boycott will become nothing more than an inquisition if not implemented within a broader emancipatory framework in order to tear down the illegitimate Israeli regime. If the boycott is not tied to an emancipatory project, it has no value.” Nashif was firm in refusing the exceptionality of ’48 Palestinians on the issue of the cultural boycott saying, “1948 was not an exception. I don’t question my Palestinianness.” The interventions of Nashif and some of the other participants seemed contrary to the general path of the conference and its highly realist nature.

Of course, this outcome should be expected considering the conference’s organizers — Al Midan Theater alongside the website Qadita, supervised by Ala Hlehel. Al Midan, which is an organization funded by the Israeli Ministry of Culture and the Municipality of Haifa, can hardly be an equal partner in discussions surrounding the cultural boycott of Israel. Perhaps this is why the organizers changed venues to Haifa’s Al-Mashghal (The Factory) - The Arab Center for Arts and Culture, just before the conference was to be held. The founding of Al-Mashghal upon the rejection of Israeli funding shows that a cultural boycott is possible. Indeed, it should be a prerequisite of cultural production that it not come into conflict with a Palestinian national identity.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.