Art show vilifies Israelis

Editorial

If there were ever a time that the Lower Mainland Jewish community should rally together, it is now, with the focus being on a new show at the grunt gallery in Vancouver.

The gallery is presenting Life in Occupied Palestine, an exhibit of the works of Carel Moiseiwitsch, who travelled to the West Bank and Gaza with the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement. She brought back with her a visual "record" of life in the territories, along with a clear opinion of who the aggressor is and who the victims are in the conflict.

The images in her exhibit portray Israel in a one-sided, repugnant light. In one drawing, for example, Israel Defence Forces soldiers make offensive comments to Palestinians, such as "You are nothing to me, a vile pest to be destroyed." In another, a soldier says, "Get out of here or I'll blow your head off." Moiseiwitsch portrays Israel as a tyrannical, ever-present, monstrous oppressor.

Elsewhere in this issue, we ask the questions, If something is considered art and yet presents hurtful and inciteful images or views, should it be staged, published or displayed publicly? Are people knowledgable enough to appreciate the historical background of a performance, artwork or book?

These questions were raised concerning a performance of Shylock, but they can appropriately be directed at this exhibit, especially considering the gallery is funded by public dollars.

As well, in addition to her artwork, the artist brought in a little chapbook of abhorrent cartoons, which is supposed to be a "travel guide" to occupied Palestine. But the cartoons border on anti-Semitism, depicting Jews in stereotypical ways, with exaggerated features, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

So what should be done?

The role of Israel advocacy is to reach the undecided. To explain to those who might not otherwise know what role the Middle East conflict plays in Israelis' lives.

In this case, an appropriate reaction would be to create and stage another exhibit that shows life in terrorized Israel, if you will. Gallery administrator Hillary Wood has said she would consider holding an exhibit depicting the Israeli side of the conflict.

But there are other ways to express one's outrage that public funding is going to present an entirely skewed view of the Middle East conflict and to disseminate "literature" that borders on hate material.

Public protest right in front of the gallery is one solution. Members of Israel advocacy groups could simply stand in front and hand out information or take the time to explain both sides of the story.

Then there are government bodies to approach.

Burke Taylor, director of Vancouver's cultural affairs department, which funds the grunt gallery, said annual funding is based on an evaluation of a gallery's work. He added that his department depends on the media and members of the public to draw attention to concerns that may arise out of a gallery's decision-making.

The B.C. Arts Council also provides the gallery with funds but distances itself from specific exhibits. Concerns about a particular show can be addressed to adjudicators associated with the arts council. Associate director Jeremy Long said they are interested in the general public's views.

The Canada Council for the Arts is another source of funding for the gallery. It relies on reports from artists who assess the overall entitlement of a gallery to funding.

These are but three organizations that can be used as targets for mailing, e-mail or phone campaigns that will cause some government heads to turn and take notice of an exhibit that would otherwise spew offence with impunity.

Finally, there is the artist herself, who refused an interview with the Bulletin. While it is not incumbent upon her to illustrate what other people think of the Middle East conflict, it is at least her responsibility to discuss her work. To take advantage of a publicly funded space in order to display her work and distribute offensive material, and then to refuse to answer the questions of people who would challenge her on her choices, is both cowardly and contemptuous. Ironically, in an essay that accompanies the exhibit, it states that Moiseiwitsch is willing to "place herself in the line of fire in support for her political beliefs." It seems that a Jewish newspaper is a scarier prospect than Israeli tanks.

The essay also suggests that Moiseiwitsch's drawings pitch the viewer into a dilemma between voyeurism and outrage. There is no dilemma, but there is certainly reason to be outraged. The Jewish community must respond: hold a protest or hand out informational flyers about Israel in front of the gallery; and tell the artist, the gallery manager and all the funding bodies that distributing such vile material in a publicly funded space is unacceptable.

^TOP