 |
| Graffiti Tribute to Ghassan Kanafani |
This past Wednesday night, many members of Washington Hebrew saw a performance of Return to Haifa, based on the novella by Palestinian author/activist Ghassan Kanafani, appearing until January 30 at Theater J at the DCJCC. I will not summarize the play, since many reviewers have done the job already. But as we saw Wednesday night at the panel discussion led by Rabbi Lustig, the play provokes strong reactions, controversy, and even protest.
Many thoughtful commentaries on Return to Haifa have been published online and are worth reading. Leon Hadar writes about the cultural fusion the play represents, the relationship of the source novella to international "resistance literature," and the potential incompatibility of the play's perspective with any two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These two articles discuss an Arabic version of the play that was performed in Beirut last month (courting different controversies). This post on an Arabic literature blog talks about how the endings of both the Arabic and Hebrew versions of the play differ significantly from the ending of the original novella. I also recommend the Theater J Blog, where Artistic Director Ari Roth is chronicling his experiences and many reactions to the play.
One aspect I wanted to address personally is the charge that the play's portrayal of history is "false." In our panel discussion, this was the strongly-voiced objection of both Naomi Rosenblatt and the attaché from the Israeli consulate.
This argument over the historical events of 1948 is hardly surprising. For more than 60 years, Israelis and Palestinians have maintained completely different, largely conflicting accounts. For Israelis, it was "The War of Independence." For Palestinians, it was "al-Nakba" ("The Catastrophe").
The historical narratives particularly conflict on the subject of Palestinian refugees. According to the Zionist narrative (terribly oversimplified), Palestinians in the newly-declared State of Israel left their homes voluntarily. Arab leaders used radio transmissions and public announcements to urge evacuation to Jordan and Lebanon, at least until the war was over and the Jews defeated.
The Palestinian story of these events is quite different. They teach that the Jewish "colonists" used violence and the threat of violence to force Palestinians from their homes.
Return to Haifa, by a Palestinian activist author, is clearly based on this Palestinian understanding of history. This explains the heated reaction of many of those raised in the Israeli/Zionist tradition, who have been taught to view the Palestinian story as a pernicious lie, a tool of propaganda
But which version is the "true" history? What really happened? To the best of my knowledge, many questions remain unanswered. Almost certainly, there are aspects of truth and propaganda in both the Israeli/Zionist and Palestinian versions. The best resource I know on the subject is Benny Morris's book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Morris is the leading figure in a group of Israeli historians (called "New Historians," "post-Zionists," or "revisionists") who are critical of the heroic historical narratives crafted by the Zionist and Israeli establishments.
In the book, Morris finds many examples of Jews using violence and intimidation to force Arabs from their homes. But he also finds examples of voluntary evacuation and of Palestinian refugees being used cynically by their leaders for politically ends. Morris's scholarship has been strongly criticized by the Israeli right for undermining the ethical legitimacy of Israel's early history. Intellectuals on the left criticize Morris for relying too much on Israeli archival documents, instead of Arabic sources. Personally, I find it difficult to evaluate Morris's objectivity, but I consider being criticized by both sides to be a good sign.
It is true that little of this historical complexity is portrayed in Return to Haifa. It chooses different complexities—questions of identity, parental legacy, home, and reconciliation. To let our discomfort at the play's historical and political claims prevent us from appreciating the themes it does treat with nuance and insight would be a terrible missed opportunity.
For Discussion: This is a perfect opportunity for a blog discussion. If you've seen the play or read about it—what was your reaction? Leave a comment!
One aspect I wanted to address personally is the charge that the play's portrayal of history is "false." In our panel discussion, this was the strongly-voiced objection of both Naomi Rosenblatt and the attaché from the Israeli consulate.
This argument over the historical events of 1948 is hardly surprising. For more than 60 years, Israelis and Palestinians have maintained completely different, largely conflicting accounts. For Israelis, it was "The War of Independence." For Palestinians, it was "al-Nakba" ("The Catastrophe").
The historical narratives particularly conflict on the subject of Palestinian refugees. According to the Zionist narrative (terribly oversimplified), Palestinians in the newly-declared State of Israel left their homes voluntarily. Arab leaders used radio transmissions and public announcements to urge evacuation to Jordan and Lebanon, at least until the war was over and the Jews defeated.
The Palestinian story of these events is quite different. They teach that the Jewish "colonists" used violence and the threat of violence to force Palestinians from their homes.
Return to Haifa, by a Palestinian activist author, is clearly based on this Palestinian understanding of history. This explains the heated reaction of many of those raised in the Israeli/Zionist tradition, who have been taught to view the Palestinian story as a pernicious lie, a tool of propaganda
But which version is the "true" history? What really happened? To the best of my knowledge, many questions remain unanswered. Almost certainly, there are aspects of truth and propaganda in both the Israeli/Zionist and Palestinian versions. The best resource I know on the subject is Benny Morris's book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Morris is the leading figure in a group of Israeli historians (called "New Historians," "post-Zionists," or "revisionists") who are critical of the heroic historical narratives crafted by the Zionist and Israeli establishments.
In the book, Morris finds many examples of Jews using violence and intimidation to force Arabs from their homes. But he also finds examples of voluntary evacuation and of Palestinian refugees being used cynically by their leaders for politically ends. Morris's scholarship has been strongly criticized by the Israeli right for undermining the ethical legitimacy of Israel's early history. Intellectuals on the left criticize Morris for relying too much on Israeli archival documents, instead of Arabic sources. Personally, I find it difficult to evaluate Morris's objectivity, but I consider being criticized by both sides to be a good sign.
It is true that little of this historical complexity is portrayed in Return to Haifa. It chooses different complexities—questions of identity, parental legacy, home, and reconciliation. To let our discomfort at the play's historical and political claims prevent us from appreciating the themes it does treat with nuance and insight would be a terrible missed opportunity.
For Discussion: This is a perfect opportunity for a blog discussion. If you've seen the play or read about it—what was your reaction? Leave a comment!
I agree with your assessment…when neither Left or Right likes something, that usually is a good sign. The play presents important themes and issues for open, frank discussion. Too often we are bogged down by a ‘he said/she said’ dynamic – so much so, that the two sides trying to make peace cannot even start talking. The Israeli historian Tom Segev once said “the truth is always somewhere in between.” I thought the most powerful part of the play came at the very end….sorry, Spoiler Alert…when the two fathers stand over their son, telling him ‘its going to be OK, get some rest, we’ll talk about this in the morning’…To me, the playwright was saying – Guess what? It is now morning and both sides have slept through their wake up calls.
ReplyDeleteThank you Rabbi for bringing together these various related (and thought-provoking) readings. I read the play and then saw it in-person with the WHC contingent. Whether it's fully accurate, historically, is almost beside the point, in my view. I found it to be a moving experience, and for me it illuminated overall the common ground shared by these seemingly implacable foes. Here, the characters shared a home and a son; perhaps a metaphor for the common ground shared by Israelis and Palestinians. I was reminded of my visit with Parents Circle representatives on our WHC Leadership trip to Israel several years ago. http://www.theparentscircle.com/ This is a group of Israeli and Palestinian parents who have lost children to that conflict. They have come together to find common ground. Far from being divisive, this play, I believe, should provide a platform for further "common ground recognizing" dialogue.
ReplyDelete