tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post3133360763948947284..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: Seven Jewish Children - Royal CourtAndrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-21340097421923540952009-02-20T14:26:00.000+01:002009-02-20T14:26:00.000+01:00from Anon#1http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree...from Anon#1<BR/><BR/>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/20/judaism-theatre?commentpage=1<BR/><BR/>This is fascinating – this commenter (on Jonathan Romain’s CIF article) first defends the play, then reads it (!) and agrees it’s antisemitic, apologising for his/her first comment<BR/><BR/>walterygaud <BR/>20 Feb 09, 11:58am (about 1 hour ago)<BR/><BR/>I agree with nickweb, Churchill's play has nothing to say about Judaism -- nor is it anti-Israel as such. It contains multiple voices with different views on the situation.<BR/><BR/>Does it contain criticism of Israel? Yes it does.<BR/><BR/>Is it opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza? Yes it is, very strongly so. But the very strong condemnation is put in the words of a particular character.<BR/><BR/>Churchill could have collected all of the views in her play from Israelis. As we are often reminded Israel is a democracy and thus is a place where we would expect different and conflicting views to flourish.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the emphasis is ultimately on criticism of Israel's actions.<BR/><BR/>Bezhti was a different situation altogether. I don't mean because it did directly address religion, although that is a difference, but because there was a particular issue at stake -- it wasn't about any criticism of Sikhism contained in the play.<BR/><BR/>And people should be able to stage plays that are critical of anything at all, I'm in agreement with that.<BR/><BR/>walterygaud <BR/>20 Feb 09, 12:44pm (28 minutes ago)<BR/><BR/>I've re-read the play and I've changed my opinion.<BR/><BR/>It obviously couldn't be called 'Seven Israeli Children' because it's about jews rather than Israelis.<BR/><BR/>But looking again I think I was wrong about the multiplicity of views: I read what I expected to read and in my memory it became a much more complex piece than I now think it is.<BR/><BR/>I also agree that it's more anti-semitic than anti-Israeli -- the emphasis is on jews rather than Israelis and it runs the risk of stereotyping jewish attitudes -- there are changes but they are more in the direction of emphasizing a stereotype.<BR/><BR/>I understand why this has caused such anger and I apologise for my earlier defence of the play's content.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-90801445409645939532009-02-20T09:25:00.000+01:002009-02-20T09:25:00.000+01:00NRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinisPlease...NR<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis<BR/><BR/>Please see how many countries have ethnicity as a criterion for citizenship. <BR/><BR/>But of course you ignore all the rest and only pick on Israel...<BR/><BR/>Anon #1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-49553348593381282112009-02-19T23:52:00.000+01:002009-02-19T23:52:00.000+01:00NR Lots of fallacies in your post."It is represent...NR <BR/><BR/>Lots of fallacies in your post.<BR/><BR/>"It is representative of a certain kind of discourse"<BR/><BR/>But that is not what the play says. Churchill does not show the variety of Israelis that exist. She picks on the extreme and generalises from it. <BR/><BR/>"citizenship depends on the absorption and co-option of a very particular exclusive - and exclusionary - narrative."<BR/><BR/>Most countries have nationailty-based restictions on citizenship. Asa Jewish State agreed by a UN vote in 1947, Israel allows Jews to have automatic citizenship. Others can have it but it is not automatic. What on earth is wrong with that bearing mind tht many countries restrict citizenship?<BR/><BR/>"while liberal Israelis wring their hands about the adverse effects of patriotism, the mainstream marches on with its firmly militaristic viewpoint."<BR/><BR/>Complete tosh<BR/><BR/>" ... of people ranging from hardened West Bank settlers to those who anonymously vent their vitriol in the comments sections of online Israeli newspapers."<BR/><BR/>more tosh. The characterisation is not in te least "ranging", it is focussed on one type and draws false generalisations<BR/><BR/><BR/>"this play is no more anti-Semitic than a play about Hutus set in 1994 would be considered anti-Rwandan."<BR/><BR/>Come on! Hutus committed genocide. Israel has defended itself. That's ridiculous. <BR/><BR/>Anon #1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-58947568765231040732009-02-19T06:59:00.000+01:002009-02-19T06:59:00.000+01:00Andrew - Firstly, I'd like to applaud you for your...Andrew - <BR/><BR/>Firstly, I'd like to applaud you for your reaction to the play; your careful, thoughtful unpicking of the text is nuanced and considered, and especially valuable in the maelstrom of vitriol that pervades elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>The issue of Israel is so emotive that it's become impossible to discuss it without the usual mud-slinging accusations being raised on either side - which is why, of course, it needs to be pursued vigorously, and at great length.<BR/><BR/>I have deep sympathy with your suggestion that the main problem of the play qua literature is that it provides too one-sided a view for it to encourage a complex appreciation of a difficult issue (in so far as any ten minute piece could accomplish this). <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I'd like to think you might agree that the play's achievement is in how it sketches out the ways in which narratives sustain our sense of identity - and in particular how these narratives replicate.<BR/><BR/>We are all shaped by the narratives we're given, and at childhood are uniquely susceptible to being moulded to perceive the world in a particular way.<BR/><BR/>The narrative poetically sketched out by Churchill in Seven Jewish Children is profoundly unlikable and unsympathetic, especially to those of us living so far away from Israel, but, like it or not, it is representative of a certain kind of discourse that thrives in a country where citizenship depends on the absorption and co-option of a very particular exclusive - and exclusionary - narrative.<BR/><BR/>This is a notion that is deeply unfamiliar to those of us in Britain. While we worry that our national identity is disappearing, in Israel the opposite is true; one's identity and one's passport are inextricable to such an extent that extreme nationalistic values of patriotism are considered the norm; while liberal Israelis wring their hands about the adverse effects of patriotism, the mainstream marches on with its firmly militaristic viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>As the commenter before me points out, the rhetoric of the play is representative of this pervasive kind of discourse, and uses the language not of smooth-talking politicians, but of people ranging from hardened West Bank settlers to those who anonymously vent their vitriol in the comments sections of online Israeli newspapers.<BR/><BR/>Is the play extreme? Yes - the usage of the "chosen people" rhetoric, coupled with the intense vision of children bathed in blood understandably causes a sensitive viewer/reader to recoil. These are problematic images, which, as your commentators have pointed out, do have echoes of anti-Semitic rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>But here's the thing. However uncomfortable it makes some viewers, this play is no more anti-Semitic than a play about Hutus set in 1994 would be considered anti-Rwandan. If "Seven Hutu Children" premiered at the Royal Court tomorrow, featuring Hutu parents hectoring their children into believing an elaborate, self-perpetuating narrative that sketched the virtues of the Hutu clan, championed the historical superiority of the Hutu people, and demonised all Tutsis, we would appreciate that it was a play exploring the dangers of extremism set in a particular period, and that it explored the very same limitations of extremist thought - the lack of empathic understanding - that you rightly point out makes for disappointing literature. We might or might not consider "Seven Hutu Children" a great play, but it would provoke a debate about the inculcation of ideology, about the ways in which our identity is shaped by this narrative, by how our fear of "the other" continues to define all of us, whoever we are.<BR/><BR/>Would Hutu people get offended? Quite possibly. But without exploring extremist attitudes within the context of a particular group of people set in a particular time period, it would be impossible to explore the issue with any meaningful resonance; besides which, any thinking audience would understand that extremist viewpoints were the target, not Hutus, Rwandans, or even Africans. <BR/><BR/>In the case of Israel, things get more complex. Israel's amalgamation of ethnicity and statehood - the inverse of the American project - leads to the inevitable conclusion that the play's speakers are somehow supposed to be representative of all Jews. This is facilitated by Berkoff's brash assertion that to be Jewish is to be a Zionist - a reductive conflation that's profoundly unhelpful.<BR/><BR/>Let us agree now that what is obvious is also true: Gentile or Jew, people are people. They are individuals, capable of complex ideas, and conflicting narratives that lead to shifting political opinions - this is what makes us interesting, dynamic, human.<BR/><BR/>However, within this sea of multiplicity, individuals are often susceptible to a form of reductive thinking (received wisdom) that replicates, reduces spontaneous thought and encourages prejudice - the Greek chorus of ideology.<BR/><BR/>"Seven Jewish Children" is profoundly anti-ideology, but it is not racist or anti-Semitic. Yes, it depicts extremist Jewish viewpoints, but the reaction of commentators such as Melanie Phillips (who seeks to exculpate the extremism) and Howard Jacobson (who throws his hands up in despair at the ferocity of the attack) do nothing to eradicate the fact that such self-perpetuating extremist viewpoints are prevalent in Israel, and find their ultimate expression in bloodshed.<BR/><BR/>When Melanie Phillips resuscitates the old slogan "a land without a people for a people without a land" slogan - still (still!) quibbling over indefinite articles as though grammar were the issue and not uprooted human beings - her hysteria compounds the problem, adding another squawk to the echo-chamber of idiocy that drowns out thought, debate and progress. <BR/><BR/>It's this unthinking sloganeering and reliance on repetition that takes place in all walks of extremist thought that Churchill targets in the play, and upon which Israel's unthinking supporters - as opposed to those who question and debate the issue - are forced to rely. <BR/><BR/>You argue that the failure of the play is its total focus on extremist viewpoints to the exclusion of any other, but I would suggest that the play's power resides in the fact that it is an extremist play re-enacting an extremist mindset that has no taste empathic leaps of the imagination, for understanding of the other. Does this make it agit-prop? Perhaps - but exploration of this obdurate way of thinking requires no less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-77792183197496797802009-02-19T01:36:00.000+01:002009-02-19T01:36:00.000+01:00One of the utterly depressing aspects of Israel...One of the utterly depressing aspects of Israel's recent attack on Gaza was stumbling over some disgusting anti-Semitism. It's as ugly and deadly and shocking as it ever was. <BR/><BR/>But I wonder, not having read or seen this play, whether Churchill's playlet is an example of it. I don't quite trust the rhetoric here. From the quotes Andrew has posted, Churchill's play says nothing more than things I have read from commentators (both members of the public and columnists) in Israeli newspapers or on television. Ie, comments such as "they did it to themselves. ...they want their children killed to make people sorry for them" &c are statements I have read from Israeli people, they have been said on camera, etc etc, are on the public record... and yes, I've found them as shocking as any other kind of racism. Is it really anti-Semitic to say so? And if so, how and why?Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-44452793469910363332009-02-19T01:22:00.000+01:002009-02-19T01:22:00.000+01:00http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4691028...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4691028/The-laws-duty-is-to-protect-the-innocent-not-to-make-them-prove-their-innocence.html<BR/><BR/>See letter in today's Telegraph: "Anti-Israeli stereotypes"<BR/><BR/>Anon #1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-51491183740552143572009-02-18T17:30:00.000+01:002009-02-18T17:30:00.000+01:00Not disingenuous at all. Fair question. Your que...Not disingenuous at all. Fair question. Your question also punches a neat hole in my rhetorical use of "sure". I guess here I'm using "to be sure" in the sense of "to boldly and hopefully assert or claim". Oops.<BR/><BR/>So, no, I'm not sure. I imagine that Churchill would be appalled to be described so. Would point to her number of Jewish friends and etc. Would point out that she's opposed to all forms of racism, prejudice and etc. cf. her play Cloud Nine. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the debate this week here and elsewhere has made me think that a person could quite easily nurse some conscious or unconscious anti-semitic prejudices and not even recognise them as such. <BR/><BR/>Because this issue often generates such heat I think a lot of basic information gets lost or ignored. <BR/><BR/>I've lost count of how many times this week I've read the old allegation that "accusations of anti-semitism are simply a smokescreen used by "Zionists"".<BR/><BR/>I think that charge is bandied around by some of those who disapprove of Israel's actions so much that they've stopped thinking about what actually constitutes anti-semitism. <BR/><BR/>I would also assert that when making that accusation also becomes a knee-jerk a response to anyone claiming something is anti-semitic then the person with the knee-jerk has become an anti-semite.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-40613079652602031292009-02-18T16:46:00.000+01:002009-02-18T16:46:00.000+01:00AndrewThis is good, thoughtful, thought-provoking ...Andrew<BR/>This is good, thoughtful, thought-provoking stuff.<BR/>May I ask, not I hope disingenuously, why you are so sure Caryl Churchill isn't Anti-Semitic? You say so two or three times. Is there a reason or would you just rather not think so?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-58261426255534441542009-02-18T12:22:00.000+01:002009-02-18T12:22:00.000+01:00Lorenzo"Nothing to do with the play"I think you re...Lorenzo<BR/><BR/>"Nothing to do with the play"<BR/><BR/>I think you read the wrong article. The one I read said this:<BR/><BR/>"Seven Jewish Children isn’t art, it’s straitjacketed political orthodoxy. No surprises, no challenges, no risks. Only the enclosed, fetid, smug, self-congratulating and entirely irrelevant little world of contemporary political theatre. Fresh air is urgently needed. But I’m not holding my breath."<BR/><BR/>- Anonymous #1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-71397744693536209012009-02-18T10:31:00.000+01:002009-02-18T10:31:00.000+01:00I have not seen Seven Jewish Children, so I really...I have not seen Seven Jewish Children, so I really can’t defend the play or deal with its merits or lack of it. What resulted obvious is that the article written by Hart had nothing to do with the play as such and everything to do with his hostility to anything that smells of Palestinians and his probably Pan-European complex that compels him to take a stand for Israel even in the face of it worst atrocities, as it represents the living symbol of Europe’s guilty conscience after centuries of persecution to the Jews in Europe. Therefore I will only deal with Hart's views, not with Churchill's work.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12075lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315227151243269218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-48367643780236932312009-02-18T09:24:00.000+01:002009-02-18T09:24:00.000+01:00http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/...http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-let8217s-see-the-8216criticism8217-of-israel-for-what-it-really-is-1624827.html<BR/><BR/>Howard Jacobson has a terrific piece in today's IndependentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-76938164306690844282009-02-18T06:28:00.000+01:002009-02-18T06:28:00.000+01:00I have read the text of the play and agree that it...I have read the text of the play and agree that it is quite antisemitic. I find it convenient, and, frankly, pathetic that Mrs. Churchill chose an all-Jewish cast, which seems like little more than an effort to mask the antisemitism in the play. The fact that she puts hateful words into the mouths of Jews and displays them in front of audiences is ignorant, and must be considered antisemitic. I am appalled that this can be shown.A. Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05833721897984502495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-13308713494848190302009-02-17T23:58:00.000+01:002009-02-17T23:58:00.000+01:00Thank you (are *you* the same *you* - all this ano...Thank you (are *you* the same *you* - all this anonymousness most confusing), again massively helpful. <BR/><BR/>I'm interested that the piece compares misunderstandings of the "chosen people" trope with Hitler's Germany. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but one of the most chilling conflations of the two ideas comes from George Steiner in the final monologue from Christopher Hampton's stage adaptation of his book "The Portage of A.H. (Adolf Hitler, not Andrew Haydon) to San Christobel", in which Hitler rages against the concept of a "chosen people". Dear God, it is frightening, but, in the hands of Steiner, terrifyingly lucid.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-14821461877347429432009-02-17T23:17:00.000+01:002009-02-17T23:17:00.000+01:00http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Chosen_P...http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Chosen_People.asp<BR/><BR/>Here's a reasonable explanation of 'chosen people'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-49503952940823871972009-02-17T22:20:00.000+01:002009-02-17T22:20:00.000+01:00Christ. That makes for a deeply depressing read.Christ. That makes for a deeply depressing read.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-62526042360786639722009-02-17T21:43:00.000+01:002009-02-17T21:43:00.000+01:00http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_Parli...http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pdf<BR/><BR/>For recent examples of antisemitic discourse Andrew please see thisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-59638067673311457592009-02-17T21:20:00.000+01:002009-02-17T21:20:00.000+01:00"intellectually, you cannot use the chosen people ..."intellectually, you cannot use the chosen people concept... without a deep at least unconscious hatred of Jews."<BR/><BR/>Now this is fascinating to me. Until this discussion I had absolutely no idea about the "chosen people" trope in anti-semitism. That sounds hopelessly naive, don't it? I'm not really sure how it passed me by. After all, I have read round the subject a fair bit in my life and somehow this didn't crop up. <BR/><BR/>What's interesting about it to me is the way that it is taken as evidence of hate. Having read up on it a bit more, I see how it works. <BR/><BR/>Now, please bear with me through this bit, because I want to explain my thinking fully here: To me, unlike the blood libels and the obscene lies told about the Jewish people throughout history the "chosen people" trope seems slightly different. <BR/><BR/>Because, without the negative spin, without the wilful misunderstanding, it *is* actually in, well, in what I was introduced to as the "Old Testament". Fair enough, yes? <BR/><BR/>I suppose this is why it had never struck me that it might be used as an anti-semitic trope before. <BR/><BR/>Because unlike saying "Jews drink the blood of Christian children" or "Jews are responsible for killing the Son of God" etc. it is something about Judaism I happened to know: that God did indeed tell the children of Israel that they were his chosen people. <BR/><BR/>Being raised as a Christian (both my parents were left-wing, liberal, non-conformist, URC, ministers - not evangelical and mercifully not of the happy-clappy variety) this was just something in the Bible which I believed, as one does when one is little. Word of God, innit. Says so right there, so it must be true.<BR/><BR/>Beyond this, from that Christian perspective, once St Paul kicks in after Christ's death the whole bible takes a bit of a silly turn for the "we're all God's chosen people now!" kind of thing. <BR/><BR/>However, thanks to this slightly skewed understanding - either God was still happy with the Jews being the chosen people, but Christians also being included, or not, or something - I never saw it as a problematic term. Either I was one too, or it was God's will and so not really to be trifled with. I realise not all Christians see it this way, but that was pretty much my understanding. <BR/><BR/>As such, I do wonder if Churchill might have unwittingly used it, similarly unaware of the phrase's now terribly loaded effect. <BR/><BR/>No: I'm guessing in the context she is still using that phrase to connote that sort of damningness, whether she knows the history or not. Indeed, perhaps it's even worse if she can unwittingly stumble onto an anti-semitic trope without even knowing it is one. <BR/><BR/>"I want people who want to see this play to understand it for what it is"<BR/><BR/>I think you've actually done a brilliant job of explaining it. It's certainly given me some very useful critical apparatus for understanding where the offence is located. I also admire you for not wanting it banned. <BR/><BR/>Hope all that makes sense and I haven't offended everyone while trying to pick my way through it.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-77668480496457292962009-02-17T09:49:00.000+01:002009-02-17T09:49:00.000+01:00Andrew wrote"All this leaves me with a rather diff...Andrew wrote<BR/><BR/>"All this leaves me with a rather difficult problem – if I accept that some lines in the play are misjudged to the extent that they are effectively anti-Semitic, does that make this “an anti-Semitic play” if the intent is not such?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>In my opinion "intent" is a crude description of underlying emotions. The playwright may claim and even have no intention but the unconscious is a merciless informer.<BR/><BR/>As for the Jewish director and actors; they are entitled to their views and I would not condemn nor prevent their actions.<BR/><BR/>Nor would I prevent this play because I believe in free speech and expression.<BR/><BR/>However, intellectually, you cannot use the chosen people concept or write such a one sided diatribe(the last child)without a deep at least unconscious hatred of Jews.<BR/><BR/>Now, I know that you can't make people like Jews any more than you could make me like pilchards but I want people who want to see this play to understand it for what it is:<BR/><BR/>A one sided mercifully short stilted polemic on a complex human tragedy written by a playwright with, at least unconscious antisemitic ideas.<BR/><BR/>If you like that sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you will like. <BR/><BR/>Please go and see it and enjoy!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-36685324461206964152009-02-16T22:57:00.000+01:002009-02-16T22:57:00.000+01:00I quite agree about Billington. Sometimes he doesn...I quite agree about Billington. Sometimes he doesn't so much review plays as mark them according to his politics. But then I suppose I do the same to a point - it's just my politics are a) different to his, and b) more interested in being made to think than being presented with a *message* (not of course, that that isn't a message in itself). <BR/><BR/>Apologies for the assumption about your assumptions :-) <BR/><BR/>I guess my jumpiness comes from a similar place as yours does, in that one doesn't like being told what one thinks. <BR/><BR/>Another interesting report on the show by <A HREF="http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/?q=node/465" REL="nofollow">Carol Gould</A> makes a really sound case for her opinions and backs up lots of her objections with specific real-life encounters. <BR/><BR/>That said, I disagree with her conclusion that: "What is urgently needed is a play about the Muslim children of the region who are taught to hate Christians and Jews, who are indoctrinated with radical agendas before reaching puberty and whose countries haven’t a fraction of the press freedom or cultural and scientific dynamism that can be found in Israel." - on a purely personal level, I'd rather see fewer plays which are little more than thinly disguised (if disguised at all) propaganda altogether. Ideally none at all. I think theatre is much better when not ramming a message down all our throats. <BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree with all your points about it being one-sided and badly timed. Beyond this, it turns into a far stickier debate. Yes, there is a real problem with anti-Semitism in Britain, now more than ever - certainly in terms of the levels of aggression. I wouldn't like to guess how much that kind of off-hand Virginia Woolf type of anti-Semitism goes on proportionately to the '30s. Nor would I like to suggest that “polite” anti-Semitism is any better. It is disgusting in all forms.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, Churchill's play is pretty much a compilation of negative images of *some* Jewish people, with very little, if any, counterbalance. Quite right too about the Six Day War, as far as my understanding of the facts goes – which I must confess, is relatively limited. <BR/><BR/>I'm uncomfortable with the idea that because idiots will use this play to justify totally unsophisticated, pre-existing, across-the-board hatred of Jews she shouldn't have written it, or the Court shouldn't have staged it. <BR/><BR/>You say that some Jews will not find the play anti-Semitic - an honest admission which I admire you for making. But at that point, if agreement can't be reached, should we wish that the play doesn't exist?<BR/><BR/>My problem here is that what we in Western Democracies pride ourselves on most, when comparing ourselves to repressive regimes like Iran, is our tolerance and our freedom of speech. <BR/><BR/>Yes, Churchill's play is difficult and has obviously caused great offence, but I would argue that banning it or not staging it would play into the hands of Israel's enemies. It would mean that they had successfully created such a climate of fear that a polemic such as this (whether anti-Semitic or not) should be censored or banned because we have become too frightened to have an open debate, no matter how harsh the terms.<BR/><BR/>I see your point of view in arguing that the play is "irresponsible". In other situations my stock response is to question whether art has a duty to be “responsible”. When it’s a situation as inflammatory as this, I hesitate to say it in quite the same way, but I think I ultimately believe exactly the same thing. <BR/><BR/>I can’t tell you how touched and pleased that you find my review thoughtful. <BR/>____<BR/><BR/>Later, and to two presumably different anonymouses (looks wrong, but let’s go with it):<BR/><BR/>“I felt bruised and sick and what is most interesting is that the audience of mostly white middle class non Jewish theatregoers did not applaud with any enthusiasm.” <BR/><BR/>I should probably say, for the record, that I didn’t clap at all. I was far too worried by the piece to feel that even saying “well done” to the actors was possible given the situation.<BR/><BR/>The Tom Gross stuff is very interesting. I find Berkoff’s claim that “England is not a great lover of its Jews. Never has been.” Ironically racist (ok, we’re not a race, we’re a country – so: Xenophobic, but...), but typically inflammatory Berkoff stuff. It also seems curious since “the English” have been lapping up the bloody man’s stuff for forty years (since Metamorphosis, 1969). <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, noting that Britain does seem to have a disproportionate number of critics of Israel and apparently fewer vocal critics of Palestine (Zimbabwe) does, on the face of it, seem fair. <BR/><BR/>The whole “underdog” question does seem to be at the heart of this debate. <BR/><BR/>On one hand, we have <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2009/feb/13/national-theatre-play-racist" REL="nofollow">Muslims protesting</A> at the way they are portrayed in Richard Bean’s <A HREF="http://postcardsgods.blogspot.com/2009/02/england-people-very-nice.html" REL="nofollow">England People Very Nice</A>. At the same time, no Jewish people to my knowledge have complained about the stereotyping that their race receives at the hands of this play. Perhaps it is because the play has a Jewish director: that its intent is trusted to be benign as far as Judaism is concerned. Because Bean isn’t a Muslim, however, his attitude to Islam has been seriously questioned and attacked. <BR/><BR/>Yes, it is deeply worrying that the British press has not reported the deaths of any of the Rachels listed in Mr Gross’s article. By the same token, however, it is perhaps worth noting that neither has the British press made a cult out of a single Palestinian casualty. Yes, iconic – and sometimes faked – photographs crop up; especially in the “left-wing” press, but doesn’t this boil down as much to the fact that Rachel Corrie was an *American*. It is irresistibly reminiscent of the original title of Drop the Dead Donkey: Dead Belgians Don’t Count. I wonder if it has more to do with the general xenophobia of British news values than a specific take on the world. After all, isn’t it the British press that regularly publishes columns by Melanie Phillips? <BR/><BR/>Which brings me to my wider point about “underdogs”. Britons who “support Palestine” – for want of a more nuanced description – see “Palestine” (and see it with varying degrees of nuance – from those who deplore Hamas and its beliefs, to those who foolishly support it as a single entity) as “the underdog”. Those who support Israel see *it* as the underdog – surrounded by countries who would like to see it wiped off the map. The Palestinian lobby argue that Israel is backed by America, thus making it, again, the top-dog, while those against that opinion note that America sees itself as a kind of lone-gunman, wild west figure in the face of Russia and China, as well as South American, Middle Eastern and African rogue states. <BR/><BR/>It is, to put it mildly, bloody difficult. <BR/><BR/>This discussion has gone a long way to convincing me that the play contains at least one line that can legitimately be argued to be anti-Semitic, and is one which deals in things that can clearly be argued as anti-Semitic tropes. At the same time, I still don’t believe Caryl Churchill is an anti-Semite any more than Harold Pinter was. <BR/><BR/>Steven Berkoff’s argument that “Zionism is the very essence of what a Jew is” strikes me as mildly contentious to say the least – at least in the terms I understand it. I’m not sure I have a good working definition of what “Zionism” means, but I would argue it is more than simply believing that the state of Israel has a right to exist. <BR/><BR/>All this leaves me with a rather difficult problem – if I accept that some lines in the play are misjudged to the extent that they are effectively anti-Semitic, does that make this “an anti-Semitic play” if the intent is not such?Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-58813083667803522952009-02-16T11:00:00.000+01:002009-02-16T11:00:00.000+01:00Apols for unwieldy pasting - but see below useful/...Apols for unwieldy pasting - but see below useful/provocative round-up from journalist Tom Gross's global mailing list re Berkoff, Billington etc:<BR/><BR/>"ANTI-SEMITISM IN LONDON'S THEATRELAND"<BR/> <BR/>Commenting on the wave of invective directed against Israel in recent weeks, veteran British Jewish director and actor Steven Berkoff said: "England is not a great lover of its Jews. Never has been."<BR/> <BR/>Berkoff, whose production of "On The Waterfront" opens this month at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, points out that journalists and academics are not the only intellectuals in Britain stirring up anti-Semitism, but some among the theatrical establishment too.<BR/> <BR/>"There is an inbuilt dislike of Jews," he said. "Overt anti-Semitism goes against the British sense of fair play. It has to be covert and civilized. So certain playwrights and actors on the Left wing make themselves out to be stricken with conscience.<BR/> <BR/>"They say: 'We hate Israel, we hate Zionism, we don't hate Jews.' But Zionism is the very essence of what a Jew is. Zionism is the act of seeking sanctuary after years and years of unspeakable outrages against Jews. As soon as Israel does anything over the top it's always the same old faces who come out to demonstrate. I don't see hordes of people marching down the street against Mugabe when tens of thousands are dying every month in Zimbabwe."<BR/> <BR/>***<BR/> <BR/>London's esteemed Royal Court theatre - the same theatre at which the notorious piece of agitprop "My name is Rachel Corrie"* was given its premiere - is again being accused of promoting anti-Semitism with its new 10 minute play about Gaza by Caryl Churchill called "Seven Jewish Children". (* www.tomgrossmedia.com/TheForgottenRachels.html)<BR/> <BR/>The website of The Spectator magazine has already termed it "a ten-minute blood-libel." The play is also said to be replete with historical inaccuracies about Israel and the Palestinians.<BR/> <BR/>The play has even been compared to so-called "mystery plays" of the Middle Ages, which portrayed the Jews as Christ-killers and helped fuel pogroms against European Jews.<BR/> <BR/>John Nathan, the mild-mannered theatre critic of the Jewish Chronicle (a paper which is often quite critical of Israel) writes:<BR/> <BR/>"As if sensing this, Cooke [the director] has recruited Jews for his cast. Not, it appears, to bring Jewish insight to their roles but to provide crude cover against criticism. It won't work. For the first time in my career as a critic, I am moved to say about a work at a major production house that this is an anti-Semitic play."<BR/> <BR/>Another objector, Jonathan Hoffman, said "It draws on several anti-Semitic stereotypes, from the blood libel through to the 'chosen people' trope. It is a grotesque parody of Jewish history."<BR/> <BR/>The Guardian's theatre critic Michael Billington, who has been criticized before in his reviews for presenting Palestinian propaganda as it were fact, wrote: "Caryl Churchill's 10-minute play, Seven Jewish Children, typifies what the stage does best: address the world as it is right now... Churchill also shows us how Jewish children are bred to believe in the 'otherness' of Palestinians and how, for generations to come, they stand to reap the bitter harvest of the military assault on Hamas." (It is in fact the Palestinian education curriculum that is designed to show the otherness of Jews. The Israeli curriculum is more inclusive than almost any other school curriculum in the world. Billington doesn't know what he is talking about.)<BR/> <BR/>Responding to accusations that Churchill's play was anti-Semitic, a spokeswoman for the Royal Court angered critics even more by saying: "The Stone, which is currently running before Seven Jewish Children, asks very difficult questions about the refusal of some modern Germans to accept their ancestors' complicity in Nazi atrocities."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-71925745765049194142009-02-15T20:17:00.000+01:002009-02-15T20:17:00.000+01:00Apologies for not getting back yet on this, but th...Apologies for not getting back yet on this, but the subject is too serious to be lightly skated over, and I don't have enough time to reply properly today.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-91301240899589412132009-02-15T12:30:00.000+01:002009-02-15T12:30:00.000+01:00I saw this last night. I am a secular Jew and I do...I saw this last night. I am a secular Jew and I don't scream antisemitism at every criticism of Jews and Israel. Indeed I am highly critical of the Jewish state.<BR/><BR/>I have to say that in 50 years of UK theatre going I have never seen a more serious abuse of language with what to me appears as a clear intent to incite hatred against a whole people.<BR/><BR/>I felt bruised and sick and what is most interesting is that the audience of mostly white middle class non Jewish theatregoers did not applaud with any enthusiasm. <BR/><BR/>The sense of fairplay and desire to listen to a reasoned argument clearly rendered this play impotent in achieving the author's purpose; whether that purpose was to garner sympathy for the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people or the incite hatred against the Jewish people.<BR/><BR/>The review in the Sunday Times today expressed my own views very clearly.<BR/><BR/>This was a nasty brutish viscious piece of racist polemic.<BR/><BR/>Please go and see it as a warning to anyone who wants to see what can be done for harm in the theatreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-47784529337772204752009-02-14T17:13:00.000+01:002009-02-14T17:13:00.000+01:00By the way Andrew your own Review that introduces ...By the way Andrew your own Review that introduces this thread is by far the most thoughtful review of this play that I have seen (with the exception of the one on Harrys Place but that's by a friend so I declare an interest).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-56899249721003128412009-02-14T16:40:00.000+01:002009-02-14T16:40:00.000+01:00"I'd be interested to hear the opinions of the cas..."I'd be interested to hear the opinions of the cast on the text, and of other Jewish people who don't think the play is anti-semitic."<BR/><BR/>You will find Jews who think it isn't antisemitic, of course you will. I doubt anyone in "Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods" would agree it was antisemitic. <BR/><BR/>I don't think it is in the same class as 'Perdition' for example. <BR/><BR/>But it does have at least one direct antisemitic reference - the 'chosen people one'. And because of what it leaves out and what it distorts, it has a negative impact on the assessment of Jews: It demonises Israelis by reinforcing false stereotypes - it portrays Israeli parents as inhuman triumphalists who care little about anything except their children’s feelings and who teach them that Arabs are subhuman and must be hated. It is historically inaccurate. Specifically, it omits all mention of Jewish history prior to the Holocaust and fails to say that the Six-Day War was a defensive war (against Arab States committed to Israel’s eradication), following which Israel offered to return virtually all the land it had gained, in return for peace. Moreover, it excises from history the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and ignores the sequel of more than 6000 rockets, launched with the sole aim of the indiscriminate killing of Israelis.<BR/><BR/>The number of antisemitic indidents in the UK is a record. <BR/><BR/>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/police-patrols-antisemitism-jewish-community<BR/><BR/>At such a time, to show a play that falsely deminises and stereotypes and factually distorts is the height of irresponsibilty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-89864597315433272482009-02-14T16:21:00.000+01:002009-02-14T16:21:00.000+01:00Andre - How interesting that you mention "England ...Andre - How interesting that you mention "England People Very Nice". Look at the inconsistencies between Michael Billington's reviews:<BR/><BR/>(On “England People Very Nice” at the NT)<BR/><BR/>“Bean's new work ... leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Far from rejoicing in London's ethnic diversity, it manipulates a series of comic stereotypes like a misanthropic 1066 and All That.”<BR/><BR/>(On Seven Jewish Children)<BR/><BR/>“But Churchill also shows us how Jewish children are bred to believe in the “otherness” of Palestinians and how, for generations to come, they stand to reap the bitter harvest of the military assault on Hamas.”<BR/><BR/>"Btw, you do yourself no favours to assume that I'm the stereotypical English leftie"<BR/><BR/>I wasn't aware that I did assume that. If I have given that impression I apologise but I don't see why you think I did. I try very hard not to stereotype - having been on the receiving end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com