« 15,000 factory workers strike in Egypt | Main | a-Rab the second is here! »
Marcel Khalife and the war for “objective” art
By yaman | September 23, 2007
What would happen if a venue told a group like Rage Against the Machine or Public Enemy that it could not perform unless it allowed the US Military Band to open for it?
I doubt the request would be met with much support, or that any venue would ever impose such restrictions on its performing artists, and yet that is precisely what happened to Lebanese composer and musician, Marcel Khalife, at the Ray and Jon Kroc Corps Community Center in San Diego. Khalife, on a tour in the United States, was informed by the venue that his show was to be canceled because it was “divisive” and “unbalanced,” and that the only remedy would be to have an Israeli perform on the same day.
What “divisive” and “unbalanced” mean in this context is a mystery, but they are definitely no strangers when it comes to art about the Palestinians. Just recently, a similar campaign was conducted against a mural depicting the apartheid wall in San Francisco made by artists in the youth community organization, HOMEY. Before a hearing at the San Francisco Arts Commission, the HOMEY artists were forced, due to a lack of resources, to enter into a “compromise” that the wall would be made to look less realistic, like the ominous symbol (and reality) of separation and disunity that it is, and more like a happy place surrounded by flora and hope. They were also asked to remove the kuffiyeh from one of the characters.
Increasingly, symbols that assert the Palestinians’ right to resist the brutality and violence of Israeli hegemony are being demonized and censored. Artwork and poetry that denounce Israel’s project of separating Arab from Jew in historic Palestine are called “divisive” and “unbalanced,” whereas actual instances of physical, ideological, and institutional separation–look, for example, at the apartheid wall, or at the separate lower schooling systems for Arabs and Jews in Israel, or more generally at the Zionist ideology of the state–are rationalized away, somehow escaping this label of “divisive” when that is exactly what they do, explicitly and unabashedly: divide and separate. Somehow, Israel has managed to twist this separation into a step towards peace, but just as other cases in history have shown, Palestinians and Israelis will never be separate but equal, and as long as they are not equal, there will likely be no lasting or meaningful peace.
The strange logic that supports this system of censoring all who recognize the Palestinians on equal terms goes beyond “divisiveness,” though. It’s directly related the idea of “bias” when it comes to any discussion that has to do with Israel. Even with strong evidence and reasoned analysis, anybody who concludes that Israel’s policies are unjust or discriminatory is treated as a “biased” party, and calls are made for “both sides” to be given a voice. The “other side” is always somebody whose line matches that of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Imagine if a venue hosting an engagement for a speaker against the war on Iraq was criticized for not presenting “both sides,” the other side being the now discredited position of the Bush administration.
That is what we need to accept, as well, when it comes to Israel and Palestine: that not all “sides” (and I speak here of rhetorical sides, more like analyses and opinions, not of any primitive ’sides’ like ‘the Israeli side’ or ‘the Palestinian side’) are equal. These are not sides relating to values that can never be reconciled, like when it comes to non-legalistic debates surrounding things like abortion and gay marriage. They are sides that relate directly to the world around us, and to our political interactions with it. They cannot all be true (though all of them can impart some useful information, usually not about what they intend).
Just like the Bush administration’s side in the Iraq war debate has been discredited, it is time to accept the fact that the Israeli government’s side on the Palestine issue has been equally discredited, and that repeatedly airing that side is not a matter of being “fair to both sides,” but rather, of sheer naivety and idiocy.
Khalife has found himself in the middle of this because he has elegantly and beautifully put earlier poetry of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish to music. But it is especially strange to see him in the middle of this because music, and art more generally, has never been perceived as a field of dispassionate objectivity where one can be accused of being “unbalanced” or “biased.” The arts are traditionally considered a place for hyper-subjectivity, a place of independent and honest expression, a place where the only “side” is one’s own. Is it that those who have shut down his show wish to see the stunning limits of faux objectivity in other fields, extended to the arts? I would hope not. The objectivity of those fields is untrue anyway: we should be seeking the opposite. That is, the authenticity of the arts should subsume the rest of our existence, and we should totally abandon the harmful idea that we can exist in ‘objective’ worlds.
Marcel Khalife is playing in San Francisco on October 10. For more information, check out the tour schedule.
Update: Here is an excerpt to a press release by the concert organizers regarding this incident. They also mention the troubles Khalife has faced in the Middle East, by some who have considered his music ‘blasphemous:’
Just a few weeks ago, a venue in San Diego, CA denied on political grounds the use of their theater to renowned Lebanese musician Marcel Khalife, after local concert organizers had already arranged the event with the Salvation Army, who operates the venue, The Joan B. Kroc Theatre at the Salvation Army Corps Community Center. The possibly discriminatory incident demonstrates the misperceptions and tensions that exist in today’s political climate towards Arabs, even those who advocate for peace. Concert organizers—who had been in touch with the venue for several months and had followed their application process rigorously—were told that a concert by Khalife—an UNESCO Artist for Peace— would be “divisive” and “unbalanced” because it does not present an Israeli artist alongside Khalife.
Update #2: I got in touch with the concert organizers, and they put together the following statement explaining point-by-point their experience. Richard Silverstein had posted something on his blog arguing that it was understandable why the Salvation Army might not want to be associated with al-Awda (see Richard’s comments below!). The Arabist and MuzzleWatch seem to disagree. Here is the explanation by the concert organizers regarding what happened:
We Dr.’s Zahi Damuni and Manal Swairjo, representing Al-Awda, The Palestine Right of Return Coalition-San Diego Chapter, the presenter of the Marcel Khalife concert in San Diego, met with Ms. Cathie Hyatt, stage manager for the Salvation Army Joan B. Kroc Theater on Friday February 16, 2007 and discussed with her our interest in renting their venue for the Khalife concert. We described to her both who the presenting organization is and who Khalife is. She expressed clear excitement to have a famous musician show on their stage and described to us what we need to do to rent the theater and handed us a package of theater specs and instructions to renters. At no time in this meeting or anywhere in the instructions to renters that she gave us was there any mention of an application to be completed or a review process.
After touring the facility, we filled a short form and gave Ms. Hyatt an official organizational check with a deposit of $500.00 she indicated was needed to hold the reservation for the theater. The check had the name and address of the organization, and was signed by its treasurer. She said all we have to do is pay the rest of the rental fee no later than two weeks before the event date and fax her proof of insurance several weeks prior to the concert.
In late July 2007, after securing a contract with the artist’s agent, we had phone and email communications with Ms. Hyatt as well as email exchanges with the Salvation Army Joan B. Kroc Theater technical production manager Mr. Chris Judd. In these communications, we arranged for Ms. Hyatt to receive our proof of insurance for the event by fax from the insurance broker, directed her to our website to see the announcement we put up to advertise the concert, and made an appointment to see her on August 17, 2007. During these communications, Ms. Hyatt, aware of our concert advertising efforts, did not comment that we are not yet granted the venue rental until an application is filled and reviewed, nor did she mention any application. She instead referred us to the theater technical production manager Mr. Chris Judd with whom we discussed theater specs and equipment rental.
On July 31, 2007, Dr. Damuni emailed Ms. Hyatt requesting the theater seating chart, confirming that concert organizing and publicity has started. Ms. Hyatt responded by emailing back the seating chart plus a rental application form requesting that we fill it in order to formalize the rental contract. That was the first time an application was mentioned to us. We filled it out with the help of Mr. Chris Judd, the Salvation Army Joan B. Kroc Theater technical production manager, and faxed it to her on August 1, 2007. On that day, we also confirmed our scheduled meeting with her on August 17th.
On August 13th, Ms. Hyatt sent Dr. Damuni an email declining our application without explanation and referring him to call Salvation Army Captain Mr. John Van Cleef for questions. Dr. Damuni immediately phoned him and asked for an explanation. Van Cleef replied that our event was inconsistent with the Salvation Army mission. When asked to explain, he argued that the event was unbalanced and divisive. He explicitly stated that the event would have been balanced if it included an Israeli performer along with Khalife. He also objected to Al-Awda/PRRC’s advocacy for Palestinian refugee rights specifically to return to their land and homes of origin. He claimed that such advocacy, albeit based on universal values, would upset the Jewish community for example. Dr. Damuni asserted that Al-Awda/PRRC’s advocacy for the natural, inalienable and natural right of Palestinian refuges to return to their land and homes of origin was based on universal values, and pointed out that the right to return to one’s home is indeed enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law and for Palestinian refuges has been affirmed more than 130 times by the United Nations since General Assembly resolution 194 of 1948. Dr. Damuni also emphasized that the cultural event we are hosting by Marcel Khalife, UNESCO Artist for Peace, is consistent with Al-Awda/PRRC’s advocacy. No written explanation addressed to Al-Awda/PRRC San Diego was ever provided.
During the phone conversation with Mr. Van Cleef, we also learned that the decision involved the Salvation Army headquarters in Long Beach. A former Salvation Army board member with whom we communicated later was shocked and dismayed at the decision.
We see this venue denial by the Salvation Army, its late timing in the process, and the manner in which it was conveyed as ill-treatment to both the presenter and the artist. Whether they object to Khalife or to the presenter or both, it is a form of cultural discrimination. That is, they insist on seeing a purely cultural event in political eyes because the presenter is a human rights organization advocating for the rights of Palestinian refugees. Such a view is racist and we do not tolerate it.
Al-Awda/PRRC’s mission is based on Universal values. To call these values sectarian is to say that they should not apply to Palestinians. The Salivation Army’s opposition to the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in reference to the Palestinians is racism.
Zahi Damuni and Manal Swairjo
Al-Awda/PRRC-San Diego
Topics: Comment |
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Excellent post.. I have passed it a long to some friends
This reminds me of how Urban Outfitters was forced to stop selling Kofiya’s (read it about it here http://www.kabobfest.com/2007/01/kaffiya-kraze-squashed.html)
I’m attending Marcel’s concert in Toronto next week, and I can’t wait!
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I’ve noticed a trend in the Iraqi blogosphere with the LGF fanboy commenters that whenever there’s a blogger that’s particularly anti-US or in bed with the left they try to start a rumour that they’re Palestinian, because obviously that’s the worst thing ever.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Did i seriously just use the word blogosphere? What the fuck?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
That wasn’t precise, Yaman. While I understand that the Salvation Army might be sensitive to renting its hall to an anti-Zionist organization, I said that their decision to cancel is not the decision I would’ve made. There were also other aspects of the Army’s decision of which I was critical. For one, they made no attempt to compromise with Al Awda in order to find a way not to cancel the performance there.
And after talking with Manal tonight I plan on updating my coverage with a 4th post on this incident. From Manal’s comments to me I felt that a few of the things the Army representative told me are certainly in question if not discredited entirely.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Sorry, I did not mean to insinuate approval, I will change the word to more accurately reflect this. Thanks for pointing it out! And of course thanks for getting Van Cleef’s statements on the record.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
1. How has the “Israeli side” been discredited? Who has decided and declared that this is the case - is Yaman Salahi the discreditor? If so what scholarship can he refer to that unequivocally shows that.
There are plenty of academics who identify with the Israeli side Do you blame all of them of “naivity” and “idiocy”? First of all this constitutes an ad hominem attack on this very large group of people. Second of all you employed interesting adjectives for this attack - naivity, idiocy.
You blame the other side of always finding a spokesman who is tied to the Israel Foreign Ministry line.
First of all this is not true, often times there are a spectrum opinions. It reeks of irony that such an accusation would be leveled against a side that have 22 countries devoid of any meaningful freedom of speech
Where is there more diversity of opinion in Israel or under the Hamas government?
I also don’t understand this claim of censorship against poetry and art. I have heard of people accusing Israel supporters of censoring academics/activists, but its a first for me to hear that there is a concerted effort to censor Palestinian art. I find that ironic since at the moment Hamas is censoring many artistic/cultural forms under its Islamic jurisdiction than the Jewish state has.
2. It is incoherent based on your post whether Israel is wrong period or just the Israeli government. You wrote the Israeli government, so if when elections come up very soon this could change drastically.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Re 1) No, I am not the discreditor. I just run a silly blog. But there are a number of good books written that have discredited the official Israeli narrative regarding, generally, the history of the conflict, the history of the country, the identity of the country, and the current situation. This is pretty much the case all over the world: virtually every government account is styled not around the truth, but around the preservation of government power. It is meant to promote a government monopoly of the truth. To say that the Israeli government behaves in the same way should not be a particularly contentious claim, especially for people who believe the same things about the American government, and about politicians in general. You don’t need to buy into the government narrative to “identify with the Israeli side.” I don’t think it’s impossible to identify with Israelis (not “the Israeli side,” which doesn’t exist, as we can see by the shocking resemblance of views in Ha`aretz and the Jerusalem Post, and by the equivalence of Avigdor Lieberman and Yitzhak Rabin). You cite diversity of opinion as if it is something to be proud of in and of itself (and as if there is no diversity of opinion in Gaza, and between members of Hamas themselves!), but I am pretty sure you would not be proud of the opinions of B`tselem or Israeli Anarchists Against the Wall, or Gideon Levy, or Amira Hass.
Have you really descended to the level that, if Hamas decides to censor a novel, it is okay for Israel supporters to do the same? For somebody who is so anti-Hamas, I would imagine you might have higher standards, not equivalent ones.
2) What do you mean by this? I specifically said “Israeli government,” and by this I did not mean the various governments that have held power, but the government, the institutions that form it. What do you mean by “right?” Is this a moral thing you are speaking of, or a question of accuracy and truth?