2024-04-14 23:59:53
In recent days, the position of the “Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel in Lebanon,” with the body of representatives of prisoners and ex-prisoners, and supporters of the boycott of the Israeli entity, was an incentive for a cultural debate that confirms that the opposition to cultural normalization is an integral part of the Lebanese cultural scene, and even at its core, in the face of… The dominant and appeasement cultural current. Our campaign opened this battle by issuing a statement published in Al-Akhbar newspaper, which devoted a file to talk regarding Wajdi Moawad’s play “All Birds.” Our campaign explained in its statement the real reason for the call to boycott the play, and even the call to prevent its showing based on Lebanese law, by submitting notification to the relevant official authorities. The campaign followed this statement with clarifications necessitated by some courageous stances, such as that of the “Al-Sabil” Association, and with publications on its pages dedicated to social media, and its interviews with the Lebanese media. The campaign spared no effort in communicating with the party responsible for organizing the show, which is Le Monot Theater, and the artists participating in the play, by sharing the text of its statement with them. The administrators of the “Le Mono” page blocked the campaign’s account from commenting, and some of the participating artists responded to the campaign sending its statement to their numbers on the “WhatsApp” application with nice compliments, and our concern was to make sure that they took note of our call to boycott this play, and to draw attention to the legal aspect of The issue, in the hope of convincing them to withdraw. Then, on April 10, the organizing body announced the cancellation of the play’s performances, claiming that it, as well as some of the actors and technicians, had been subjected to unacceptable pressure and serious threats. It is important for us to repeat that all communication between our campaign, the organizing body, and some of the representatives was limited to sending them the campaign statement, without threat, insinuation, or accusation. If the organizing party meant our campaign with its words, then let it prove this with evidence, not just words. In any case, we still preserve the conversations that took place between us and the representatives, and we have no objection to showing them to the competent authorities when necessary.
and what? After announcing the cancellation of the play’s performances, the campaign continues its debate on cultural normalization by expanding on some concepts, explaining some of the principles on which it relies in its work, and calling for a boycott and/or legal ban. It goes without saying that the campaign uses only these two means: the power of speech and Lebanese law, not the power of money, or the network of clientelistic relationships with politicians or with the security services as many media outlets do, nor bullying.
Between normalization, employment and boycott
Our campaign adopts the definitions and descriptions stated in Lebanese law, such as communicating with the enemy, trading with it, and everything related to working with it, but it proposes a definition of normalization given the absence of any legal definition of it in Lebanese law, including the law to boycott “Israel.” Our definition of normalization is published in the campaign document/Question No. 15, and it is based on the idea that the Israeli entity is not a legitimate entity, and it cannot be considered “natural,” nor can dealing with it “natural,” nor normalization with it.
Accordingly, it is logically wrong to consider every printer as an agent, even if some parties deliberately confuse employment with normalization in a way that serves their interests in diluting normalization and protecting printers. There is no ease in our literature on the boycott campaign in using the term normalization or normalization, however agreed upon, and rare are the cases in which we find no alternative to using this term, as in the case of director Ziad Doueiri and director Wajdi Moawad.
What is strange is the reaction of the normalizers and their defenders! For example, if an artist finds no embarrassment in holding a concert in the Israeli entity, and this is blatant normalization, but rather defends his action, then why does he find embarrassment in describing his action as normalization? Meaning that someone who does not give weight to the act of normalization, at the same time objects to calling it normalization by using the word normalization?
It may be argued that there is no consensus on the definition of normalization, and our campaign’s definition may differ from other definitions of normalization. This is true, and we understand this difference and know its reasons. Therefore, let us put our campaign’s opinion aside for a moment, and consider that Wagdy Mouawad was never Lebanese, but was born and lived in the West. So how can we call for a boycott?
In 2005, more than 170 bodies, including popular federations, unions, parties, committees, and Palestinian civil society organizations, participated in launching the historic call to boycott “Israel.” This was behind the emergence of the global BDS movement, which calls for the boycott of every artist, regardless of his nationality, who accepts official financial support from the entity. Israeli. That is why the BDS movement called for a boycott of Wajdi Moawad’s play “All Birds” and sent him a clear message explaining the reasons for boycotting the play when it was announced that it would be shown in the Swiss city of Geneva.
The lie of separating art from politics
There are those who believe that art, culture, sports, and academia should remain separate from politics. We are not here to criticize this opinion, which we disagree with, as long as it is issued by ordinary people, who have nothing to do with politics, neither closely nor remotely, and are not in a position of decision or influence in the aforementioned fields. But we will certainly not miss an opportunity to argue that this opinion is an opinion in the eyes of politics, but rather it is political deception, whenever it is issued by political officials, people in a position of decision-making, or influential people in art, culture, sports, and academia. Did not former Israeli President Reuven Rivlin state that “cultural institutions constitute a facade through which Israel presents a democratic, liberal, and critical image of itself”?
The Israeli entity has always used art, culture, and academia to serve its racist Zionist settler project and polish its ugly image: from paid promotional campaigns in which it seduces some international actors, and “charity” concerts for the FIDF Association that collect donations for the Israeli army with the participation of Hollywood stars, and the employment of Israeli “beauties” and artists. Israelis like Gal Gado are in the army’s service. As for academia, Israeli universities, research centers, and technology companies are deeply involved and intertwined with the Israeli war machine.
Is it forgotten by those calling for the separation of art and other things from politics that many countries ban books, theatrical performances and films and prosecute some writers and artists? Here we do not mean exclusively the countries of the so-called Global South, but rather we mean countries whose democracies, freedoms, and institutions our fake elites set an example of, and turn a blind eye to their hypocrisy, double standards, and the primacy of political interests over everything else. At the gates of the Olympic Games that will be held in Paris in a few months, we recall the International Olympic Committee’s decision to boycott Russia. Did the Olympic Committee decide this for sporting or political reasons? Why did the European Football Association not miss an opportunity to raise the Ukrainian flag on occasions that we are supposed to believe are purely sporting? What regarding the rabies that continues following October 7, 2023? From intellectual, media, and police violence, and the stifling of freedoms, to the point of banning the Palestinian flag, the keffiyeh, and demonstrations, and canceling the honor of the Palestinian writer Adeniya Shibli at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and recently preventing the Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abu Sitta, who is the dean of the Scottish University of Glasgow, from attending. Entering Germany, and launching the accusation of anti-Semitism arbitrarily once morest intellectuals and media professionals who tweet outside the flock. Even Wagdy Moawad’s play, which he had previously shown in Tel Aviv, was not spared from being canceled in Germany on charges of anti-Semitic content launched by some Jewish students in Germany.
The bottom line is that every art, culture, sport, and academy necessarily revolves within the political orbit, and is subject to its influence and being influenced by it, if it is not created by it at all.
Ironically, in his interview a few days ago with France Inter radio, Wagdy Moawad began by saying that theater is born from the womb of politics! So let him be responsible for his artistic works in their political dimension, and for his conscious decision to normalize, by dealing with Israeli actors, showing his play in Tel Aviv, and accepting sponsorship and financial support from the Israeli embassy.
It is noteworthy that the performances of this play came within the France/Israel 2018 season, which was officially sponsored by the French and Israeli sides, and more than 80 French playwrights, writers, directors, and artists called for a boycott of it, including Annie Arnault, who in 2022 won the Nobel Prize for Literature. These brave people declared their solidarity with Palestine and their refusal to be used as a cultural façade that benefits the Israeli entity. Dozens of university professors, researchers, intellectuals, and journalists also signed a letter addressed to the President of the French Republic, demanding the cancellation of this season, especially following the Israeli crimes during the March of Return in 2018. All this, and the “brave” Wajdi Al-Mawad, obsessed with difficult questions, insisted on participating.
In rejecting demonization
We say clearly, we reject the demonization of Wagdy Moawad as a prelude to boycotting him and banning his play, and we do not accuse him of collaborating, and we have enough arguments to say that he is normalized, and that he did not care regarding all the voices that objected to his normalization, and that he found it easy to play the role of the victim, and therefore we consider canceling the performance of his new play as a tribute to our efforts and the efforts of Change us, and an opportunity for him to review himself.
Our problem is not necessarily with the materials of the normalizers’ works, and our problem is not with all of Wajdi Moawad’s positions on the Israeli entity, but rather with some of his actions that we mention: accepting official support and sponsorship from “Israel,” and involving Israeli actors in his play, as he thus acts by considering the Israeli entity an entity. Naturally and legitimately, this is normalization. Is he so naive as to not know that these actions contribute to polishing the image of the occupation and breaking its isolation?
We will not expand into the analysis of Wagdy Moawad’s direct political positions and their manifestation in his plays. We are not theater critics, nor are we a censorship body for the materials of artistic works, and we will not do as some German parties did, which succeeded in canceling the performance of a play of his due to allegations regarding its content. But in order not to belittle Wajdi Moawad’s rights, we do not deny that he has positions in condemning the Israeli far-right government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and even the complicity of US President Joe Biden. But we notice, on the other hand, that he does not miss an opportunity to “soften” his words by condemning Putin and the Chinese President, even without context, while he does not say a word regarding the German or French official hypocrisy and the double standards in dealing with the Russian war on Ukraine and the Israeli war. On Gaza, he does not condemn the sending of weapons by many European countries to the Israeli army, during the era of the same extremist Israeli government that he condemns. What audacity is this? What consistency in standards? It was also notable that in an article he wrote in the newspaper “Liberation” following October 7, 2023, he exaggerated his demonization of “Hamas” and considered the Jews a threat, while he knew very well the superiority of the Zionist war machine, its brutality, and the Israeli entity’s monopoly on speaking on behalf of the Jews of the world, despite some of them’ objection to its crimes. And their condemnation of him from Jewish ideological standpoints, or from legal, humanitarian and political standpoints.
Why don’t you be like some of these brave Jews, and write an article to condemn the Israeli crime of genocide?
Here we ask Wajdi Moawad: Why don’t you be like some of these brave Jews, and write an article dedicated to condemning the Israeli crime of genocide? Why not boycott the Israeli entity, as Itai Tiran, one of the most famous Israeli theater actors and directors, did this years ago? And many international intellectuals and artists did this, most notably Peter Brook, who refused to stage his play at the Cameri Theater in Tel Aviv, which is the same theater in which you staged your play, and Thiago Rodriguez, director of the National Theater in Lisbon, who supports pressure on the Israeli entity through boycott. As happened in South Africa. We continue our questions to Wagdi Moawad: Is your problem with the Israeli entity limited to the extremism of its government? And its president? Just as anyone can have a problem with any government that leans towards extremism, in any legitimate country? Are you hostile to this entity, its criminal army, and its institutions that are complicit in the machine of war and extermination?
You are free in your positions, and people have the right to object to them by all peaceful means. You cannot prevent people from questioning you and calling on them to boycott you, nor ignore the law of a country of which you still hold citizenship. You want to perform in Lebanon, part of which is under Israeli bombing, and you do not care regarding the voices of those objecting to presenting your play in Tel Aviv, and to the financing of your play by an official Israeli body… Is this the audacity? We are all birds… Choose your flock well, or truly sing outside the flock!
1713157121
#lost #battle #normalization.. #Misinformation
