I am reprinting this excellent article by Aisha Maniar from her website One Small Window... LINK
Aisha reflects on the summer controversy over the Tricycle Theatre's rejection of Israeli government funding during the current Gaza conflict and its wider ramifications.
Showing solidarity…
The targeting of Gaza’s infrastructure, including its only power
plant, and UN safe havens where unarmed civilians sought shelter has
inspired some
Latin American
states to recall their ambassadors to Israel, effectively cutting
diplomatic ties in protest. Elsewhere, the international community has
largely maintained a deafening silence on the latest war and destruction
of the Gaza Strip. Some states have signalled their tacit approval of
possible
war crimes.
On the other hand, the solidarity of ordinary people has been well
demonstrated in this conflict as millions of people worldwide have taken
to the streets of their cities in solidarity with the beleaguered
people of Gaza.
In Britain, the response has been varied and has involved solidarity actions as diverse as pop star
Zayn Malik
tweeting “#FreePalestine”, for which he received death threats, to
England cricketer Moeen Ali wearing “Free Palestine” and “Free Gaza”
wristbands, which were later banned by the
International Cricket Council on the basis that they were political and in breach of the rules. With the
England Cricket Board (ECB) and others agreeing that the bands were humanitarian and not political, the action received widespread support.
Many ordinary people have chosen to take peaceful direct action
through boycotts of companies and products that support Israel. As
elsewhere in Europe, the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement has
been
gaining traction. As part of a national day of protest against the supermarket chain
Sainsbury’s on 2 August,
activists in Brixton, south London, closed down two shops. Other similar protests have been held outside
other retailers.
The
UK’s continuing military support and arming
of Israel has been targeted. Protests have been held outside and in
Barclays Bank due to its investment in arms sales to Israel, leading in
some cases to
temporary branch closures. Amnesty International has set up a
petition
calling on the UK government to end all arms sales to Israel: “We must
not facilitate war crimes”. On 5 August, nine activists from the London
Palestine Action group successfully
closed down a drone component
factory owned by Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems in
Staffordshire for two days. The 9 were forcedly removed and charged with
aggravated trespass, and are due to appear in court on 20 August. The
Campaign against The Arms Trade (CAAT) has announced it is
bringing legal action
against the British government “unless it stops sending arms to Israel
and conducts a review of its current arms export licences”.
…at the Tricycle
Against this backdrop, an arts protest might seem almost twee or
hipster. Applying the “think global, act local” philosophy, this month a
small theatre in north London has found itself at the centre of a storm
pitting it against the full force of the powerful pro-Israel lobby and
the duplicity of the mainstream media.
The
Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, north London, has hosted the
UK Jewish Film Festival (UKJFF) for the past 8 years of the festival’s 17-year history. This year, however, in a
statement
dated 5 August, now permanently removed from its website, the theatre
announced, “Given the situation in Israel and Gaza, we do not believe
that the festival should accept funding from any party to the current
conflict… [Thus], we asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to reconsider its
sponsorship by the Israeli Embassy”; “at this moment, the Tricycle
would not accept sponsorship from any government agency involved in the
conflict”. The funding by the embassy is worth around £1400 and the
festival would have involved 26 film showings and 6 gala events at the
venue.
The theatre, which “has always welcomed the Festival and wants it to
go ahead” instead “offered to replace that funding with money from our
own resources”. Ultimately, however, this offer was turned down: “We
regret that, following discussions, the chair of the UKJFF told us that
he wished to withdraw the festival from the Tricycle”. It was perhaps
naïve of the theatre to assume the UKJFF would turn down funding from a
sponsor that has supported it throughout its history.
The crux of the matter is that the Tricycle Theatre refused
sponsorship for an event it was hosting from a state currently accused
of war crimes by the UN. It offered the organisers an alternative which
they rejected. The organisers have since found alternative locations for
this year’s festival. That should have been the end of the matter, with
perhaps the Tricycle and the UKJFF being able to reach an agreement on
next year’s festival. This, however, is no ordinary sponsor. Israel is
not a state that can be defied at any time by anyone. This was not a
rejection of sponsorship; this was a call to arms.
The 5 August statement was put out as the theatre had been “been
contacted by several patrons who have been given misleading information
about the Tricycle and the UK Jewish Film Festival”.
On the same day,
the
UKJFF
issued a press release that stated “The Tricycle Theatre has refused to
host the UK Jewish Film Festival for the first time in eight years, for
so long as it is supported by the cultural department of the Israeli
Embassy in London”. The organisers said they had been told in a letter
by the Tricycle’s chair, Jonathan Levy, “Given the present situation in
Israel/Palestine, and the unforeseen and unhappy escalation that has
occurred over the past three weeks, including a terrible loss of life,
The Tricycle cannot be associated with any activity directly funded or
supported by any party to the conflict…the Tricycle will be pleased to
host the UKJFF provided that it occurs without the support or other
endorsement from the Israeli Government”.
David v Goliath
The mainstream media, which took days to acknowledge the bombardment
and carnage in Gaza, pounced on the story immediately. Not the story
above, but a narrative of its own making. Applying a selective and
restricted reading of the UKJFF press release, the theatre “
has refused to host” the festival, has cancelled “
plans to host UK Jewish Film Festival”,
and elsewhere was reported to have “banned” and “boycotted” the
festival. This was clearly not the case. The Tricycle itself did not
refer to its action – of refusing sponsorship – as a boycott. The media
has little interest in reporting the truth and the news story quickly
degenerated into comment pieces and op-eds on the nature and relevance
of cultural boycotts and the anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish nature of the
Tricycle’s action. Anti-Semitism is a charge sometimes applied
uncritically and broadly to mute any opposition to Israel, conflating
Jewish people and the state of Israel, with the latter using the former
as a shield to hide behind. This line of attack was pursued with full
force.
Many of the articles were also written by commentators who have
clearly never visited the theatre or the area. In spite of the usual
middle-class connotations of the arts and theatre, the Tricycle is truly
a part of the working-class community that surrounds it in Kilburn and
shows a wide range of films and theatre. In recent years, its theatrical
repertoire has included cutting-edge and challenging material on the
2011 riots, the inquiry into the murder of black south London teenager
Stephen Lawrence, the Baha Moussa Inquiry and Afghanistan. The Tricycle
does not only show works of Jewish interest during the UKJFF and has
often hosted works by the talented Muslim-Jewish theatre company
MUJU. Its repertoire fosters social dialogue which until this year, the UKJFF was a part of.
The theatre also does a lot of outreach work with local schools in an
area where children would not otherwise necessarily have such access to
the arts and provides training schemes for black actors; theatre, as an
establishment, is hardly known for its opportunities for ethnic
minorities.
The local area, Kilburn, is highly diverse and no one ethnic or
religious group could claim to dominate, as reflected in the diversity
of the shops and entertainment available. The wider area, Brent, is the
second most diverse part of the UK after Newham in east London, and
enjoys relative harmony in its community affairs. It is also home to the
largest Hindu temple outside of India, the popular Jewish Free School
and has many houses of worship of all faiths and denominations. Recent
visits by racist
right-wing agitators
have failed to divide the local community. This is not to imply that
racism and other forms of discrimination do not exist in Brent.
Charge!
The attack on the Tricycle has not been limited to the newspapers. At
the same time, a more sinister parallel campaign was underway – if the
Tricycle’s actions could be construed as a “boycott”, then the Tricycle
too was a legitimate target to boycott. The arts after all are dependent
on their patrons. If the Tricycle was about to start a trend in the
arts, it would have to be nipped in the bud. If the Tricycle was to
naively set an example by defying Israel, then the Tricycle would have
an example made of it by facing the full force of the pro-Israel lobby.
Calls were made for
Brent council, which provides almost £200,000 of funding each year, to discontinue its support. Conservative councillor,
John Warren,
launched an investigation into the council’s funding of the theatre.
Clearly a populist move, he told the local newspaper “We disagree with
artistic discrimination, and as such disagree with the Tricycle decision
to cancel the Israeli Film Festival”, yet he seems uninformed that the
theatre made no such decision.
On 7 August, the
Jewish Chronicle
printed the names of several patrons of the theatre who refused at the
time to comment on the situation, yet one week later, one of those
people,
Sir Trevor Chinn,
had decided to withdraw his financial support for the theatre. In the
week following the announcement of the news, other donors, who may well
have been pressurised into doing so, also publicly withdrew their
funding. On the same day, a noisy protest was held outside the theatre
by around 100 people. It was organised by a group called the Campaign
Against Antisemitism, formed to deal with this issue.
Placards held up by protesters
read, among others, “Don’t Punish London’s Jews”, “UK Jewish Community
Stands with Israel” and “No! To Jewish Film Festival Ban”. The issue was
further politicised when Culture Secretary,
Conservative MP Sajid Javid, called the Tricycle’s actions “misguided”.
The Tricycle Theatre’s position garnered its own admiration and support. With other local residents,
I signed a letter to the media
in support of the theatre and against the misleading claims made in the
national press. One hundred and six local residents also
signed a letter of support that was published in
three local newspapers in Camden and Brent. In addition, over 500 artists and theatre professionals added their names to a letter of support published in
The Guardian on 15 August. On Saturday 9 August,
one theatregoer reported
two members of the audience stood up at the beginning of the
performance and told everyone else “with the recent actions of the
Tricycle Theatre we are boycotting this performance”, to which the rest
of the audience responded that they could go.
Another protest against the Tricycle was planned for 20 August. It is
unlikely to go ahead as on 15 August, the beleaguered theatre crumbled
under the pressure. In a new joint statement with the UKJFF, the
Tricycle Theatre
stated, “Following lengthy discussions between the Tricycle and UKJFF,
the Tricycle has now withdrawn its objection and invited back the UK
Jewish Film Festival on the same terms as in previous years with no
restrictions on funding from the Embassy of Israel in London”. The final
paragraph, in light of the events of the previous two weeks, is almost
entirely one-sided: “We both profoundly hope that those who take
differing views on the events of the last few weeks will follow our lead
and come together to acknowledge that dialogue, reconciliation and
engagement will resolve points of difference and ensure that cultural
diversity thrives in all communities”. The return of the festival to a
venue it should never have left is welcome, but unless one considers
bullying and intimidation a reasonable course of action, this can hardly
be considered a victory for anyone.
Microcosms and macrocosms of conflict
Wars are not as spontaneous as the media would like us to believe;
weapons arsenals do not grow on trees. Consequently, before the first
shot is even fired, the truth is already a casualty. In many ways, this
episode, no way near as significant or important as the actual war and
destruction in Gaza, is a microcosmic demonstration of what happens on
the larger world stage: here too the narrative of the media, which has
found this story far more engaging and newsworthy than war in Gaza or
elsewhere, differs sharply to the actual facts of the matter.
It is not the only the Israeli state and its agents that face censure
for their actions abroad: last year, Brent was also the location of
protests calling for a potential visit to the UK by the
current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi,
not to go ahead; he had previously been subject to a decade-long ban
due to his implication in war crimes following a 2002 massacre of
Muslims in west India. Other high-ranking Indian state officials have
also had their travels overseas accompanied by protests, particularly by
the Indian Sikh community, which was subject to a massacre in 1984 that
has never been properly investigated by the Indian authorities. US NGO
Sikhs for Justice is currently seeking a ban and will protest if Modi visits the US next month.
Not only do so-called democratic states act as though they are above
the law and beyond prosecution, they use increasingly sophisticated
methods to quell any dissent and questioning of their actions, so much
so that expressions of human solidarity and kindness are more likely to
be penalised than criminal acts. Israel must not be penalised for its
actions in Gaza but the Tricycle must be penalised with the threat of
closure and disrepute. On the macro level, this is demonstrated through
the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning for 35 years for disclosing US war
crimes while the war criminals whose actions were disclosed plot their
latest bloody moves in Iraq. On the micro level, this translates into
the victimisation of victims of violent crimes such as rape and
paedophilia: the aggressor wins every time.
Although the Tricycle’s decision to back down from its commendable
position is regrettable, it did so under immense pressure. In all
possible outcomes, it loses. Supporting the people of Gaza besieged
under war in the world’s largest open prison is not wrong or an immoral
act. Taking peaceful action to oppose the actions of a belligerent state
is not wrong either. It is simply a human expression of support for the
human rights and indeed the very right to life of fellow human beings.
