|
An
Open Letter to John Berger
I
began reading John Berger while working as a third-shift machinist for
the General Electric Company and attending art school during the
day. His words were compelling
enough to hold my attention at 3am in the morning, sitting next to my
machine in the noisy factory. One
of the worlds’ foremost art critics and writers, Berger’s work has had
enormous influence on generations of cultural workers, artists and
activists, including myself.
So
I was greatly interested, when, on December 15, the Guardian newspaper
carried an appeal from him, calling for a cultural boycott of Israel. The letter was also signed by 93 other
artists, musicians and intellectuals, including Brian Eno, Arundhati Roy
and Eduardo Galeano - some of the leading voices for social justice of
our time. The appeal followed an
August 2006 statement by Palestinian artists, urging their international
colleagues not to visit, exhibit or perform in Israel. Hundreds of
progressive artists from around the world have signed on to the boycott.
In
taking this action, the signatories have cited the July Israeli invasion
of Lebanon that left a million civilians displaced; the horrific targeting
of the infrastructure of that country, which resulted in an enormous
death toll and human suffering; the jailing of thousands of Palestinian
political prisoners; the brutal occupation of Gaza that has left hundreds
dead; and the violations of human rights and war crimes of the Israeli
government.
This
appeal is an act of international solidarity that fearlessly states the
truth about what is unfolding in Gaza and the West Bank. At the same time, the initiative has
raised some troubling questions that demand a critical response from all
those who are part of the solidarity movement. As artists, we have a duty to follow the example of these
individuals
by taking action to halt the Israeli war machine. But we have another responsibility as
well – to critique our own actions and political views – to discuss and
share ideas so we can build an effective and unified struggle.
I
learned much about developing a critical way of seeing and thinking by
reading Berger, so I hope this critique of the boycott call will be accepted
as a compliment and contribution from a comrade.
The Target of Our Demands
Neither
the initial appeal, nor Berger’s letter, clearly explains the goal of the
boycott. The purpose is
ambiguous, with only a vague reference to Israeli violations of international
law and the exclusion of Palestinians from “the right to live as they
wish on land internationally
acknowledged
to be theirs; and now increasingly, with every week that passes, they are
being excluded from their right to any future at all as a nation.”
But
what does that mean? Supporters of Zionism, those who favor a two-state
solution or those of us who support the demand for a democratic, secular
Palestine could interpret this appeal’s loosely defined generalities
about injustice and brutality in any number of conflicting ways.
In
motivating this call, Berger cites the example of the boycott of South
Africa. But the goal of most organizations that engaged in that international
solidarity campaign was clear – the dismantling of apartheid and black
majority rule. The only demand that is actually stated in the current
appeal is directed not towards the ruling class, but at our fellow
artists:
“We
call upon you to take a stand in order to appeal to the Israeli people to
give up their silence, to abandon their apathy, and to face up to their
responsibility in the destruction and killing their elected government is
wreaking. To the Lebanese and Palestinians terrorized by
this
Army's planes, bombs and missiles, this silence, apathy and lack of action
from Israelis, are regarded as complicit in the ongoing war crimes, as
for those Israeli artists, academics and intellectuals who continue to
serve in the Israeli army they are directly implicated in these crimes.”
The
Israeli people are not responsible for apartheid walls, any more than the
British or US people are the cause of the Iraqi war. The Zionist government
and western imperialist powers are the source of the bloodshed,
particularly the US ruling class that plays the central role in propping
up the state of Israel.
Almost
half of the population of Israel is Arabs. They, plus immigrant and Jewish workers, make up the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Workers in Israel, just as anywhere else in the world, are the
victims of, not the source for, racism and xenophobia. Jewish workers have been taught to be
chauvinist and racist. They have been fed a diet of fear that has left
them alienated and confused. To
overcome that backward way of thinking, we need to educate, organize and
build solidarity with our fellow workers – regardless of how difficult
that may be.
The
same holds true for artists.
Inaction is not the same as apathy. Artists are torn between two poles: In order to survive, there is pressure
to conform, adopt ruling class ideology and flatter those in power. On the other hand, there is a powerful
desire to find genuine meaning in their art – something that can only
come from joining with those fighting for social justice.
Demanding
that artists and intellectuals change their consciousness is fruitless -
such transformation can only come through their own experience in
collective action. We can, however, provide a way to create such collaboration
by involving artists in a movement that makes demands directed at the
Israeli and US governments: Immediate and unconditional
withdrawal
of all military forces from the occupied countries. By showing the links between their own
tenuous situations with that of other workers, we can win artists to our
movement. This concept is
embodied in demands like “Money for Art, Not for War.”
South Africa and Palestine
When
Berger refers to the international movement against apartheid, he states:
“The challenge of apartheid was fought better. The non-violent international
response to apartheid was a campaign of boycott, divestment, and, finally
UN imposed sanctions which enabled the regime to change without terrible
bloodshed.”
Leaving
aside the dubious assertion that the revolution was accomplished “without
terrible bloodshed,” UN sanctions are not what brought about the downfall
of the apartheid regime. The
victory came about, in part, because of the international solidarity
movement, including boycotts. Most importantly, however, were the mass actions
and rebellions of South
African
students and workers, sustained over decades, which wrested power from
the racist regime!
Similarly,
it is the ongoing intifada of the Palestinian masses that has placed them
at the center of world politics. Their heroic struggle has galvanized
international solidarity, revealed the ugly truth about Zionism and
inspired revolutionary struggles the world over. It is they
–
and workers throughout the Middle East, including within Israel - that offer the only solution to
ongoing exploitation, impoverishment and violence. No election in the US or Israel, no
liberal politicians, no Arab regimes, no charitable acts can win. Only the workers can do it - just as we did in South Africa.
Boycotts or Direct Action
By
themselves, boycotts do not have the power to create fundamental change. Even if a cultural boycott were to
involve a significant percentage of artists, something that is highly unlikely,
it would have little or no effect on stopping the Zionist death
machine.
More
often than not, boycotts draw working people into activity that takes
them away from where they can be effective. Union bureaucrats in the US understand and use this process
to diffuse rank-and-file militancy.
When workers go on strike, instead of shutting down production, union
members are directed into boycott activity. Eventually the boycott
dissipates,
production continues unabated and the strike is broken. At any time there are numerous
officially sanctioned boycotts of the AFL-CIO - none of which has ever
accomplished anything.
There
have previously been academic boycotts of Israel – including a 2002
appeal signed by over 700 academic figures and a selective 2002 boycott
called by the Association of University Teachers (UK.) The Arab league
and others have initiated numerous political and economic boycotts with
little or no effect.
Ultimately,
the only power that workers have is at the point of production. It was when workers began to consider
direct action, (such as longshoreman in the US symbolically refusing to
ship goods to South Africa,) that the US began to change its approach to
apartheid. They saw the writing
on the wall, and began to rehabilitate Nelson Mandela, until
then
characterized as a terrorist, similar to Bin Laden. The imperialist powers
decided to be flexible and seek an accommodation in South Africa – they
feared that international support, along with the rebellion in the
country itself, would threaten the very existence of capitalism.
In
order to end the occupation and bring down Israeli apartheid we need to
exercise working class power.
Our class is more centralized and has more potential than at any
time in history. Any number of
unions, even very small ones, could bring the Israeli war machine to a
halt. We can also fraternize with, and win over, Israeli soldiers - that
is how we ended the war in Vietnam. Even the threat of such events would
cause a historic setback for imperialism.
A Boycott that Worked
All
that being said, the use of a boycott, as an adjunct to direct action,
can be an effective tactic. An example of this is illustrated by a chapter
from the history of the civil rights movement in the US: the Montgomery
Bus Boycott.
The
boycott occurred while the US was still emerging from the conservative
period of the 1950’s. Taking place in the Jim Crow south, threatened by
lynching and violence, having to face the employers, cops, racist courts,
white citizens councils and the Ku Klux Klan – despite all that, the
Black minority community was able to win an historic victory – in
part
by the successful use of a boycott.
This
important event has been sanitized – rewritten as the story of the courageous
action of a lone woman, Rosa Parks, and the non-violent vision of Martin
Luther King, awakening the conscience of a racist nation to question and
reject segregation. But the reality was very different.
In
1955, E.D. Nixon, an African-American civil rights activist and railroad
union leader, led the organization of the black community into the Montgomery
Improvement Association. After careful planning and lengthy preparation,
the arrest of Rosa Parks, for refusing to give up her seat in a
segregated bus, sparked the campaign that became a pivotal victory for
the civil rights movement.
On
Dec 2, 1955, following the arrest of Parks, the boycott began. The black
community had been prepared so that the boycott was solid. Carpools were organized to transport
people to work. When the city
forced insurance companies cancel the policies of those drivers, the MIA
and the NAACP were prepared to get protection from Lloyds of London. Black cab
drivers
were organized to provide transport at the same cost as the bus. Many
were Korean War veterans who had the confidence to withstand pressure
from the authorities. When protestors
were arrested, there were highly visible defense campaigns. Workers in
other cities provided vehicles and funding.
At
every step of the way, it was the direct action of the black community
that advanced the struggle. When local ministers and Martin Luther King
were reluctant to proceed, the Montgomery Improvement Association organized
a meeting of 4,500 people that compelled them to act. The movement turned the tables on the
segregationists, and was able to divide and conquer the racist
authorities. That was an
effective boycott – not an act of moral witness, but the exercise of
power. If African Americans could win under such difficult circumstances,
it is also possible to win in Palestine – by using working-class methods
of struggle.
Art Is a Weapon
Ancient
rockets and obsolete rifles are no match for the powerful arsenals of the
imperialist powers. No number of suicide bombings or roadside explosive
devices can stop the war machine.
There is no military solution to the problems of the oppression of
working people in the Middle East.
But
the imperialist powers face a quandary: You cannot defeat a people from
the air – you must occupy the country.
The Vietnamese proved the difficulty of that strategy. This is the same problem that Israel faced
in Lebanon and the US confronts in Iraq.
To occupy, you need troops, and that is the Achilles heel of
imperialism. Human beings are unreliable
for the war makers – they become neutralized as fighters, or even begin
to forge bonds of solidarity with the enemy. That potential solidarity is
the only weapon that working people possess, and it can be far more
powerful than guns. We need to build powerful links of solidarity by
organizing, educating and agitating for peace and justice.
Art
can be an important tool to advance that process, and for that we need
the vision of our best artists, writers and critics. Art is not of marginal importance for
working people - it is essential to develop the theoretical tools that
can provide analytical skills and a framework
for
effective organizing. We need to perform and attend conferences to confront
the ideas of Zionism, demoralize their ideologues and inspire the forces
of change. We need to engage, not
abstain from the ideological struggle.
Why should we leave the field of ideas to reactionary forces?
Berger
cites an example of how the boycott might work: He has a request to have
three of his books published by an Israeli publisher, and he will refuse
the offer. That is too bad - Jews and Arabs in Israel need to hear the
voice of John Berger. It may be argued that, due to the stature of some
of these artists, there would be significant press and repercussions.
Possibly - but what about the rest of us? For the thousands of artists who are marginalized, our abstention
would be of little note.
Agitprop Art or Cultural Boycott
Agitprop
(Agitation-Propaganda) artists embrace a strategic approach that is more
effective than a boycott. Here is
one small example:
In
2003, Christine Gauvreau, a former oil refinery worker, organized a project
for the Labor Art & Mural Project (LAMP), a small cultural group with
virtually no funding or resources.
Our goal was to paint a series of murals in Israel and the Occupied
Territories that would help build labor solidarity against the apartheid
walls and opposition to the occupations of Palestine and Iraq. We painted three murals: The first was
in the Beit Jibrin refugee camp in occupied Bethlehem. The second was in an Arab village in
Israel, Kfar Qara, painted in collaboration with Palestinian construction
workers organized by the Worker’s Advice
Center. Finally we painted a mural at the
newly constructed Rachel Corrie Peace Center in Anata.
It
is worth reviewing what this modest initiative accomplished: In preparation
for the trip we held discussions about the situation in the Occupied
Territories with numerous labor officials, community and political
figures. In the Beit Jibrin
refugee camp we met with Palestinian youths and discussed the Vietnam GI
anti-war movement and how they might
consider
that experience in reaching out to Israeli troops. Slideshows were held
with Israeli and Palestinian artists about agitprop art. Artists from the US, Israel and
Palestine worked together on murals and shared their experiences.
Discussions were held and relationships were made with hundreds of
individuals while on the scaffold – about art, revolution, feminism,
socialism and a host of other topics.
There
was important coverage of the projects in the Israeli print and electronic
media, allowing us to denounce the US/Israeli campaigns of terror. There was also press coverage in the
US, including radio call-in reports from the Middle East. Dedication ceremonies involving
hundreds of people were held upon the completion of each mural, where we
were
able
to demand an end to the occupations and express our solidarity. In conjunction
with the project, a labor delegation came from the US and met with
Palestinian trade unionists. They
returned and gave numerous talks about their experiences before church,
community groups and unions.
Sean
Geary, a filmmaker, used the trip to create a video ‘On the Ground,’
exposing the housing demolition policies. Video 48, an Israeli collective, produced ‘Breaking Walls,’
an award-winning documentary about the construction workers relationship
to their mural – the film has been seen by thousands around the world.
The
art of the mural included imagery that facilitates the rediscovery of
workers history. Question: Why are there railroad tracks in the mural? Answer: Because there is a hidden history
of labor solidarity that existed between Arab and Jewish unionists in the
railway unions of Haifa.
This
small project, organized by rank-and-file workers and artists, was able
to reach thousands of people and make an important contribution to building
the organic process that is necessary to create a genuine international
solidarity. How much more could be accomplished if a hundred well-known
artists and performers, with access to far greater
resources,
were to follow this model!
Iraq and Palestine
Steve
Biko once said, “The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor
is the mind of the oppressed.” Whether a Catholic/Protestant divide in Northern Ireland, or
a Sunni/Shia divide in Iraq or a Jewish/Arab divide in the Middle East –
the source of conflict is always the same: employer attempts to divide
working people and get us to fight each
other
instead of uniting against our common enemy. Our art can be an important weapon in helping to overcome
these divisions.
Arab,
Jewish and immigrant workers face increasing impoverishment as global
competition and warfare increases.
In such a situation, we need to let workers know that there are
alternatives to competition, racism and sectarianism. We need to reveal the progressive and
revolutionary traditions of both Jews and Arabs. We need to convince
Jewish workers to support the right of Palestinians to
self-determination.
We
cannot expose the lies of the US and Israeli war makers if we abstain
from public discussion. If we boycott, we leave ourselves open to unfair
charges of anti-Semitism, being undemocratic and lacking confidence in
our ideas – all of which gets in the way of focusing on the central political
questions of the nature of Zionism, the conditions of the occupations and
how working people can strengthen the unity of our class to win power.
The
struggle to end the occupation of Palestine is closely tied to the fight
against the war in Iraq – the central challenge that faces working people
today. By posing as anti-war, the
Democratic Party has raised the expectation of American workers that
there will be peace, and that the vast resources of the war machine may be
redirected to human needs. But it
has all been a lie. As the war
continues or escalates, the profound anti-war sentiment of the American
people, and the people of the entire world, will find expression in the
streets.
Many
of the signers of the boycott appeal have been clear voices for social
justice. The purpose of this letter is not to diminish their accomplishments,
stop the boycott or ask people to un-sign their names. We should support any and all actions
against the occupation, even if we disagree on tactics or strategy.
Artists
and intellectuals have a fundamental responsibility to be with our fellow
workers – and to wield the weapon of our art – not keep it sheathed. We need to take our art to the people,
to use this powerful tool in the arsenal of struggle. For that reason, if asked, my brushes and
I will always be available to paint holes in the apartheid walls – to
paint and speak out in Israel or anywhere else we can find a hearing. I
urge others to do the same.
|
