Palestine Think Tank

WRITTEN BY OMAR BARGHOUTI and first published in Institute of Social Studies
Omar Barghouti, an independent Palestinian political and cultural analyst and commentator, is a long-time advocate of a unitary, secular democratic state in historic Palestine. He is a co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), established in 2004, which promotes an international institutional boycott of Israel, inspired by that imposed on apartheid South Africa. Here he argues that, in situations of colonial oppression, in particular, intellectuals cannot be neutral, “apolitical,” or apathetic towards the struggle for freedom, equality and self-determination.

“Your essay is great, but can you make it less ‘intellectual,’ less analytical, and more personal?” This was the reaction I received from an editor in New York after submitting an article on art and oppression she had solicited from me for publication in a collection of similar essays. Remarks like this – this was not the first time! – often betray a deep-seated perceived dichotomy, even among those committed to social justice, between intellectuals in the “global North” and their counterparts in the “global South,” where the former are better equipped to think, analyze, reflect, create and theorize, while the latter are “naturally” – excuse the Aristotelian allusion – more predisposed to merely exist, experiencing corporal aspects of life and reacting to them. The way most Israeli academics and intellectuals, particularly those self-defined as ‘leftists,’ reacted to the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israeli institutions [1] lucidly embodied that dichotomy. Some screamed that they felt ‘betrayed’ by the ‘ungrateful’ Palestinians; others openly lectured us that such a boycott was ‘counterproductive’ for our own interests; yet others resorted to lies, innuendo and all sorts of deception and intellectual dishonesty to refute the strong case for boycott — inspired mainly by the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Many were genuinely shocked that Palestinians would be so impertinent as to dare take the initiative and decide how best we want the world to help us resist Israel’s own apartheid system. Having gotten used to their “self-appointed role as sole licensers of the form the anti-occupation struggle should take,” these Israeli leftists, predominantly soft Zionists who publicly oppose the occupation but otherwise endorse the racist and apartheid reality of Israel and stand firmly against Palestinian refugee rights, have “arrogated to themselves the exclusive right to arbitrate every issue dealing with the Palestinians.” [2] It is as if they’ve created in their minds this unconsciously racist, static image of us, the native intellectuals, as servile followers, or even relative humans, [3] who lack the faculty of reason or, at best, possess it but lack the ability to put it to use for our own good.

Colonial patronization aside, these Israeli thought leaders, intentionally or otherwise, became arguably the most effective instrument used by Israel and its Zionist backers abroad in fighting the spreading boycott, especially in Europe and the United States, through an immoral, protracted campaign of sheer intimidation, defamation, smearing and straight-out bullying.

The claim most parroted by those self-styled progressives in numerous well-publicized columns in the mainstream western media was that academic and cultural boycotts stifle the open exchange of ideas, hamper cultural dialogue, and infringe on academic freedom. Other than the hypocrisy of anyone who supported blanket boycotts against apartheid South Africa in the past and now moralizes about the ‘intrinsic’ danger of boycott against Israel, there is a disturbing bias in this claim, because it only regards Israeli academic freedom as worthy of any consideration or concern. “The fact that Palestinians are denied basic rights as well as academic freedom due to Israel's military occupation is lost” on those posing it. In addition, “its privileging of academic freedom as a super-value above all other freedoms is in principle antithetical to the very foundation of human rights. The right to live, and freedom from subjugation and colonial rule, to name a few, must be of more import than academic freedom. If the latter contributes in any way to suppression of the former, more fundamental rights, it must give way. By the same token, if the struggle to attain the former necessitates a level of restraint on the latter, then so be it. It will be well worth it.” [4]

But, some have questioned, shouldn’t Palestinian Intellectuals just focus on what they can do best, producing unadulterated, apolitical thought and art that can in their own right contribute much more substantially to the Palestinian cause? Isn’t activism best left to activists? Admittedly some of our own workers in the cultural and academic fields uphold similar ideas. One glaring problem in this line of argumentation is that it creates another, no less artificial, dichotomy between thinkers and doers, intellectualism and activism, thereby drawing a static hierarchy that treats intellectuals as the patriarch and activists as the hapless masses who are in desperate need of direction. While each group may have its own domain of action and creation, there are no solid, impermeable boundaries that separate the two. And there is a truly dialectical relationship between the two that ought not be dismissed or ignored.

Another serious flaw in the above argument is that it assumes that intellectuals in the context of colonial oppression can indeed be just intellectuals, in the pure sense, if such a sense ever exists, who can and should distance themselves from the pressing and often depressing reality of oppression to be able to generate creative, quality works that have any potential of countering the oppressor’s occupation of the mind – a far more dangerous and tenacious affliction than occupation of the land – and rekindling hope in the oppressed community, nourishing in the process self-development, particularly in the key cultural field. From my personal experience as an analyst and dance choreographer working in the midst of conflict, I do not think that, in a situation of oppression, intellectuals have a choice of whether or not to reflect the impact of conflict on them and on their society. Oppression, in a way, forces itself upon their work, their creative process. Their basic choice seems to be, then, whether to passively reflect it, or to actively transcend it. Oppression, it seems, has its own way of touching everyone within its reach, irrespective of one’s actual involvement in it or will to get involved in it.

Anti-boycott writers would argue, in this case, why boycott and not engage ‘positively’? There are many more ‘constructive’ ways of engaging in resisting oppression, the most potent of which is winning substantial sectors of the oppressor community to your side, through dialogue and joint projects in every field, the argument goes. With the lucrative funding available from European countries — bent on repenting for their Holocaust by sacrificing Palestinian rights under international law — and the prestige and personal gains that come with it, even some conscientious Palestinian intellectuals may acquiesce to shifting the focus of their work from resisting oppression to communicating with ‘the other’ to bring about change through persuasion, even if their own record shows a dismal failure in this endeavor. A joint Palestinian-Israeli dance work, for example, may be highly sought after as the ultimate model for promoting coexistence and mutual-recognition between the ‘two sides.’ Such an agenda — for these projects more often than not stem from underhanded political agendas — essentially advocates a change in the “consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them,”[5] to borrow Simone de Beauvoir’s perceptive remark. Or worse, it aims at changing the world’s perception of the conflict, by giving the impression of normal, even amiable, relations between artists on either side of the divide. The inescapable implication is that all what is needed is to accumulate enough of such collaborations to eventually overcome the ‘hatred’ imbedded in this ‘conflict.’ With time, however, impression and image replace ending oppression as the ultimate objective sought in this peace business.

Those who think they can wish away a conflict by suggesting only some intellectual channels of rapprochement, détente, or ‘dialogue’ are crucially seeking only an illusion of peace, and one that is devoid of justice, at that. Striving for peace divorced of justice is as good as institutionalizing injustice, or making the oppressed submit to the overwhelming force of the oppressor, accepting inequality as fate. [6]

Boycott, therefore, remains the most morally sound, non-violent form of struggle that can rid the oppressor of his oppression, thereby allowing true coexistence, equality, justice and sustainable peace to prevail. South Africa attests to the potency and potential of this type of civil resistance.

Even if we forget the main political issues involved in the above arguments, is it possible to have equitable, mutually nourishing intellectual communication with the other? Of course, but not under all circumstances. One other crucial problematic of interculturalism in a context of persistent oppression is asymmetry. Beyond all the complexities of cultural differences per se, asymmetry adds a whole new dimension, more vertical than horizontal. And because it has to do with stratification, it can be detrimental to an inter-cultural communication if not addressed properly or sufficiently.

There is also the concern that the ‘weaker’ side in such an asymmetric communication process may be exploited by the ‘stronger’ party as an object, a tool, in an ostensibly progressive, considerate and quite open atmosphere, with great intentions, but a tool nonetheless. This would negate any possibility of having a two-way bridge between the communicating sides; only a ladder can work!

At the core of this concern lies the relative worth attached by the stronger side, or even both, to the perceptions, wishes and needs of the weaker side. If those are relegated to a comparatively lower status, the communication becomes another instrument of oppression, whereby the needs and objectives of the stronger party are the main driving force behind the process. Under these circumstances, dialogue is simply not possible. Any communication at this stage is within the realm of negotiation. Only after both sides have challenged preset attitudes and stereotypes and agreed a priori on the basic principles of justice that ought to govern their communication and common struggle can the relationship become more equitable, more balanced. Any relationship between intellectuals across the oppression divide must then be aimed, one way or another, at ending oppression, not ignoring it or escaping from it. Only then can true dialogue evolve, and thus the possibility for sincere collaboration through dialogue.

In conclusion, in contexts of colonial oppression, intellectuals that advocate and work for justice cannot be just intellectuals, in the abstract sense; they cannot but be immersed in some form or another of activism, to learn from fellow activists through real-life experiences, to widen the horizons of their sources of inspiration, and to organically engage in effective, collective emancipatory processes, without the self-indulgence, complacency, or ivory-towerness that may blur their moral vision. In short, to be just intellectuals.

Omar Barghouti is an independent researcher and cultural analyst, living and working in Palestine. He can be reached at omar.barghouti@gmail.com.

References:
[1] The PACBI call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel can be found here
[2] See: Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki, Academic Boycott and the Israeli Left. Electronic Intifada, April 15, 2005.
[3] See Omar Barghouti, Relative Humanity – the Fundamental Obstacle to the One State Solution. ZNet, December 16, 2003.
[4] The following counter arguments were first published in: Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki, Freedom vs. “Academic” Freedom – The AUT Boycott. CounterPunch, June 1, 2005.
[5] Cited in: Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
[6] See: Omar Barghouti, The Morality of a Cultural Boycott of Israel. Open Democracy, September 20, 2005.