I In the past few months, the call to the cultural boycott of Israel has developed unprecedented dynamics – and thus notes a new chapter in an ongoing dispute about Israeli politics. The fact that once began as an isolated call became a worldwide movement: thousands of writers, artists and cultural workers refuse to work with Israeli institutes, which, in their opinion, are responsible for military operations in the gas sector.
The boycott affects literature, theater, science, art and affects events and cooperation around the world. Outstanding abolitions and student protests turned cultural spaces into the political fields of the battle – an expression of a more complete attempt to culturally isolate Israel and, thus, increase political pressure.
Amit Varshizov
If a historian, writer and essayist, lives in Berlin. He regularly writes for the Israeli daily newspaper HairstyleField
The movement discovered its preliminary climax in the largest literary boycott in history: more than 7,000 writers, publishers, publishers and artists, including Sally Runi, Arundhatti Roy, Jump Lahiri and Annie Erno, announced that they grab all ties with the cultural institutions of Israel, which consider them partially with the application of the government.
The protest varies from individual initiatives, such as the departure of Karila Churchill from London theatrical production to student campaigns who want to transfer universities to five continents in order to demolish academic cooperation, the Sonar festival in Barcelona will boycott the growing artist.
Cultural boycotts rarely sparkled the authoritarian regime, but prepared them, internal changes in the reason
As if these actions are motivated by the real care of Palestinian life and human rights, they risk reducing complex reality until the slogans are simplified and, thus, undermine their own goals. The cultural boycott strengthens the non -Beliberal, ultra -nationalist forces in Israel and at the same time weakens the liberal voices that advocate the coexistence and termination of the war. Ultimately, the boycott causes damage to the Palestinian reason, which he claims to promote.
The war in the gas sector is a humanitarian catastrophe – expression not only in the moral and strategic failure of the current government of Israel, but also in deep social division. In addition to the military conflict, the internal struggle for the character of the Jewish state manifests itself – a conflict of values that fuel a subconscious, unarmed form of civil war.
At its core, two visions of Israel are opposed: liberal, secular democracy, based on civil rights and ethnic religious identity, supported by messianic nationalism. On the one hand, civil society is horrified by destruction, an immediate ceasefire and the safe return of 55 Israeli hostages. On the other hand, there is a populist government associated with corruption, which ensures its power through fear, resentment and religious fanaticism – also against the will of most of the population.
The Israelites want to end the war
Polls show that almost two -thirds of the Israelis support the end of the war and a comprehensive hostage agreement. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retains the conflict from calculating personal power, so he wants to maintain his government as long as possible and thereby detain criminal laws. He not only undermines the democratic institutions of Israel, but also exacerbates social tension inside.
The political struggle for the end of the war is part of the more complete struggle for the democracy of Israel. Understand this internal struggle – with all its complex and conflicting dynamics – is crucial for Western liberals who want to work at the end of violence and a more fair future of both peoples. Without this understanding, the campaign’s boycottes risk strengthening the forces that stand in the way of the world.
As in many Western democracies, civil society is under pressure in Israel. Instead of promoting global solidarity, the boycott prefers the forces that Israeli Western ties want to reduce – groups that reject universalism and human rights. He plays the hands of Western culture as a decadent demonization and considers Israel’s isolation as a strategic goal.
Therefore, cultural workers should not boycott the few liberal voices in Israel, but actively support them – because the boycott actually threatens them. These are Israeli authors, directors, artists and scientists who are standing for peace, not violence and human rights for decades – often against their own government. Their isolation means the silence of the latest voices of the policy of the world of the country.
Cultural boycotts rarely sparkled the authoritarian regime, but they often isolated those who most likely caused changes inside. Culture is a space in which the difference, criticism and visions survive. Boycott is not resistance – but a departure that jeopardizes the hope of communication. This is not a refusal, but maintaining a dialogue creates a prerequisite for mutual recognition and respect.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is controversial, especially in left -wing circles. There are also fundamentally different positions in TAZ. In this focus you will find all the comments and debate on the subject of the “Middle East”.
➝ Read more about the debate in the Middle East
The fact that the Israelis and Palestinians need today is a differentiated, main and bold Western support. Their struggle is an expression of a global crisis: liberal democracy is under fire around the world. Without real international solidarity for supporters of freedom, she threatens to fail. A new obligation is needed – and beyond the limits of simplification, outside the polarization. If intellectuals cannot bear this responsibility – how should we expect this from politics?
