My letter to the Observer:

Dear the Observer and David Mitchell,

Just read Mr. Mitchell’s article about the controversy over the Hitler wax-figure in Madame Tussaud museum.

Recently, two Israeli tourists filed a complaint with Madame Tussaud’s after observing youngsters taking pictures with the Hitler figure, “heil-Hitlering and doing moustache with the other hand.”

The picture taken by Israeli Tourists

David Mitchell doubted “just for a moment” the sincerity of the couple’s complaint. Regarding their argument that such an engagement with the wax-figurine is “unequivocal demonstration of antisemitism and bigotry” he “just doesn’t think that’s true.”

Mitchell believes that the “heil-Hitlering and doing moustache” is a joke, and does not deserve a serious response.  “When you ban something like this, you only dignify it with significance,” he writes.

“It’s perfectly possible – and important to our understanding of the human condition – to find that amusing […] while simultaneously holding in our heads the tragic murderous consequences of Nazi power. That’s what makes the joke bite and also what reminds us that the massive disaster was human.”

What really angers me about Mr Mitchell’s article is not that he thinks one should find Hitler amusing, but that in this day and age, of increased multi-culturalism and sensitivity for the feelings of the other, he’s ability to empathise and understand is approaching the zero from below.

How difficult is it to understand the sincerity of horror, outrage and insult experienced by the heirs of Holocaust survivors (the couple’s grandparents) upon seeing  youngsters salute and take “buddy photos” with the figure of Hitler, by whose order six million Jews were burned alive? Mr Mitchell might have a different interpretation, but what gives him the right to invalidate other’s feeling of bigotry and antisemitism in this situation?

First, let me assure Mr Mitchell that Israelis are not the only types of visitors who would find that situation far from amusing. Consider the Russians, whose losses from Hitler’s armies amounted to twenty million people and entire cities erased to the ground. Would they think it was innocent or see the benefit of joking about Hitler? As someone who, by the nature of her job, travels to Russia and meets WWII veterans, I could speculate that the reaction would have been similar.

Following Mr Mitchell’s logic, there should be no limit to the list of bloody dictators or other notorious international criminal in the halls of Madame Tussaud’s or how the visitors interact with their figures. Why there’s no figure of Joseph Stalin, Poll Pott or Slobodan Milosevic? We could all gather round and engage in constructive laughing while remembering the millions they’ve butchered.

How about Osama Bin-Laden? He was surely “daft” enough to make everyone laugh, and a scene with someone taking a “buddy photo” or holding “thumbs up” next to his figure shouldn’t bother anyone at all. My guess is that the absence of Bin Laden can be partially explained by the assumption that this particular scene would bother even the most enlightened American visitor and a great number of the visiting Brits. Would they be wrong to feel offended? I don’t think so. Would their traumatic reaction be justified? I believe it would.

My first quarrel is with Madame Tussaud’s museum. Tourists from Britain and from all over the world are queuing hours and paying their very best money for this rather expensive attraction. Don’t they deserve a pleasant visit? There’s nothing wrong in being considerate of your guests’ feelings. There’s nothing wrong with removing the wax figure of someone as controversial as Hitler, if it can spare many visitors from unpleasant and outright offensive scenes. It might, as Mr Mitchell suggests, dignify the phenomena, but that would be a lesser damage than someone feeling like they just paid 50£ for a spoonful of poo.

One could say that this tantamount to censorship. However, the glaring absence of other historically notorious murderers makes me think that Madame Tussaud’s are rather selective in whom the are and are not willing to offend.

My second quarrel is with Mr Mitchell. Not so much with his opinion; he is perfectly entitled to have one. The surprising and angering part of the article was the dismissive tone in which he wrote about the Israeli couple, their feelings and their complaint. I believe Mr Mitchell has no right to be disrespectful, and no authority to doubt someone’s sincerity or question their experience of antisemitism. His point could have been well made, without the diminishing attitude.

Title: Putin nominated "person of the year" by Time Magazine in 2007 = appreciation of things he've done. Subtitle: the new Russian Tsar = clearly suggests "Russian Special Way".

So basically it boils down to this:

On the one hand we should see Russia as part of larger European and international context; abolish the divisions into first, second and third worlds; and eschew explanations arguing for “Russian exceptionality”.

On the other hand, we are to avoid European/American Centric interpretation and see things as they were perceived in Russia: its notions of ideology, power, diplomacy, security, democracy, etc.

But if we assume that Russian culture has its own particular understanding of, say, ideology, aren’t we in essence arguing that there is a “Russian special way”?

My Perestroika (Hessman, 2010)

This week a British friend and I went to see My Perestroika, a lovely documentary by an American film-maker about how four classmates were affected by the changes in Russia from Brezhnev to Putin.

The film weaves together contemporary interviews, archival footage and one family’s archive of home videos – all these elements come together to tell a gentle and instructive story of how the relationship between personal life and public events. While all the heroes started at the same class, the life has thrown them in different directions. Borya and Luyba are history teachers at Moscow’s most liberal and high profile public school. Andrey became a successful businessman. Ruslan initiated the Soviet heavy metal scene, but grew disenchanted and now leads life on the fringes of the society. Olga fends for herself and her son by working for a gaming-service company. One of the greatest achievements of Robin Hessman, who filmed and directed, is in managing to establish a feeling of intimacy between the protagonists and the viewers. When the lights turn back on you feel that you know them, and like them.

The film was absolutely fascinating, although the story it tells is a slightly one-sided. Despite the different walks of life all the protagonists experienced the Perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union as a positive thing. What the film doesn’t tell is, the story of those, for whom the transformation from “developed socialism” to Perestroika and then to capitalism, resulted in personal tragedy or loss of faith and direction in life.

Equally interesting was the Q&A after the film. Most of the audience seemed your perfect, middle aged and middle class English men and women. And yet, each of the people to ask a question, talked with great passion, as if having a very personal stake in this country so far from their own. An elderly lady got up, saying she volunteered in Russia for several years and accused the director for not exploring what she called the “rising Russian conservatism and the rise in patriotism under Putin”. (As if Russians are not entitled to some patriotism and as if everyone else around is doing such a great job questioning their own disturbing legacies. Are there any monuments for the victims of British colonial empire that I failed to notice ?) A lady with a slight Russian accent asked whether the people of Russia have really changed, or do they simply just happy to have sausage in the stores? In response to that, an angry French woman who said she used to work as an advisor to the Russian government in the 1990s argued “with our [read European advisors] help and council they have changed a great deal and are making a significant progress.” To which another man, born in Riga, replied even angrier that “the Russian people haven’t changed a bit and they are beyond redemption!”

Borya and Nikita Meyerson watch old family footage

Apparently, I thought, these are not your regular posh English people on a “cultured” night out in a “cool” venue. The personal history of each of those, who asked questions, was connected to Russia. One could also see how each speaker’s position was actually firmly rooted in their own “Russian experience”.

As I watched these heated debates I wondered, why are they getting so hyped and angry? Is it just because of that personal connection? Or is it because this is Russia, which defies all rules, an ultimate hybrid of familiar and foreign, East and West? Or are they so agitated about Russia because it’s a foreign place, not their own, and foreigners are always easier to criticize? Would they be so angry watching a film about Thatcher’s England or exploring the hereditary nature of the House of Lords? Or maybe is it because the Soviet Union was such a significant presence in the world during their lifetime, that they cannot help but connect their personal and the sweeping world events, just like the protagonists of the film?

Regardless of which is it, it seemed to me they every speaker felt that watching this film was a bit gratifying: all these crazy things in the film were, and are, happening “there”, to “them” and not “here” to “us”. You can get all passionate during a screening, but at the end of the day you go home congratulating yourself that you never had to participate in organization you didn’t like; that you never woke up one day to discover that everything you were told before was a lie; that tanks never rolled in the streets of your capital; that all your life savings never disappeared; that your Prime Minister is a posh guy from a small town near Oxford and not a former KGB officer.

My friend Mark, who is an artist, was disappointed that the Q&A didn’t address the artistic style of the film and its aesthetics. I was fascinated to see Russia and its history so touching and dividing.

Here is a trailer of the film. A must watch!!

This week a Russian spy ring was exposed by the FBI after many years of investigation. On Monday they were brought before a court in New York, accused of “failure to register as agents of a foreign government” – an offence that could put them in jail for 5 to 9 years. Is the Cold War back?

According to the FBI the purpose of the agents was to “gather information on nuclear weapons, American policy toward Iran, C.I.A. leadership, Congressional politics and many other topics”. They were also supposed to “penetrate” the ruling circles at Washington DC., hang out with nuclear scientists and recruit other agents.

Spy stories are the most fun and the most exciting legacy of the Cold War. Not many people today are willing to contemplate the meanings and the dangers of worldwide doomsday arsenal (if it is held by “responsible Western” countries and not NC or Iran). But who wouldn’t watch James Bond or some other “undercover agent” stuff?

Cold War espionage was indeed wide spread, and lets remember, exercised by BOTH Russia and the US. Post-Cold War memoirs by agents retired and agents deflected only fed more fuel into the already thriving spy folklore. Often left outside of our popular memory is that the spy-searching also ruined people’ lives, cost them their livelihoods, made them outcasts within their own communities – and even cost lives. Quite often it later transpired that these were false accusation. But hey, better safe than sorry, right?

The spy story is on “the most popular” list of most newspapers. No real damage was done, so it seems, so why not enjoy ourselves a bit? But it seems to me that in this excitement rush into the new real-life spy thriller, even the best media, like the Guardian or the NYT, are forgetting to ask some important questions. It will be up to the FBI to prove their case in court. Here, I just want to raise some (hopefully) reasonable doubts.

The FBI describes a long lasting operation. The agents, they say, were sent to the US in the mid-1990s. The FBI is aware of their activities since 2000. However, it looks like in fifteen years of operation (ten of which they were under surveillance) the spies gathered a rather thin crop. The fact that the FBI is not accusing them in conspiracy to commit espionage, suggests that they were not able to catch them gathering and sending any real state secrets. Moreover, all the “spy-wise useful” acquaintances they’ve made boil down to some retired nuclear scientist, and NYC banker. A banker? Come on! If the purpose of the Russians was to infiltrate the financial world of political ties and donations, an oligarch would have done much better than a middle-class couple from Montclair NJ!

“I’ve been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones”

Looking at the quotes from communications between the spies and their operators, one is struck by how stupid they are. “You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, your bank accounts, car, house, etc – all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, ie to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US and send intels (intelligence reports) to C (Centre).”

What is it? Weren’t they told these basic tenets of their mission before their dispatch? Or did they simply need a reminder? This communication don’t even sound like a bad American, but rather a bad Russian spy film!

“Since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics. ”

The spy ring narrative contains familiar Cold War clichés about “Russian character”, like the loyalty to the supervisors and suspension of traditional family values for the sake of the mission: “they can live together and work together in a host country, under the guise of a married couple. Illegals who are placed together and cohabit in the country to which they are assigned will often have children together.” Just like their communist predecessors, these agents would do everything, upon the order of their state.

At the same time, another old Cold War cliché, about “the self evident” superiority of the American way of life raises its head. Apparently the spies were not loyal all the way, and were seduced by the charms of the West, just like a James Bond girl. The seduction is evident by one of the couples’ desire to get themselves a nice suburban house in New Jersey, much to the displeasure of their Russian operators.

“A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.”

Another cliche is of course, that of a spy next door. You couldn’t have imagined, dear citizens, that this nice couple next door was a link in a Russian spy chain! And your kids were playing with their kids, you invited them to a BBQ in your yard, and brought them pie when they moved over! Who could have though! Even all these years after the Cold War, the Russian enemies are surrounding us, dear citizens and we all MUST BE VIGILANT!

The biggest cliché of the whole thing is the spymaster: the cold-eyed Russian prime minister. Putin has made little friends in the “western” democracies, and his former career in the KGB, and the Russian-British conflict over the Litvinenko affair didn’t help his international prestige. But the newspapers’ explanation of the “cell” simply as Putin’s interest in raising the international prestige of the Russian Intelligence back to its Cold War menacing statue is a bit ridiculous.

First, according to FBI’s charges, they were dispatched in the mid 1990s when Putin wasn’t yet in the picture. Second, Putin of all people would know that the activities described in the charges are LAME!!! How do you reconcile “coded messages in pictures posted on the internet” with old-school “bags left and picked in pre-arranged locations”? Is the Russian intelligence really that bad? Don’t you think of better ways to pass info if you are running a spy ring?

“Bad former KGB agent Putin” is one of the most important themes in American discussions of Russia in the past ten years, and one that resulted in many misunderstandings of Putin’s politics. I am not a fan of the prime minister myself, but reducing all his activities to “KGB legacies” or “power-hunger” is stupid and smells strongly of Joe McCarthy and other “Russia experts”.

Maybe I am all wrong. The (allegedly Israeli) fiasco in Dubai this year, proved that even one of the most valued intelligence agencies in the world (Mossad) can screw up big time, so why not the SVR? Maybe

“Sir, you can’t let him in here. He’ll see everything. He’ll see the big board!”

I hate conspiracy theories, but this time, I simply can’t pass on the opportunity. The spy cell story came out just as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev finished what has been termed a “successful” trip around the US. Unlike its predecessor, this administration, in general, seems to invest a lot of effort is resetting American relationship with Russia. Obama showed that his Russian strategy involves less lecturing Russia on how un-democratic it is and instead, more dialogue and attempts to reduce the doomsday machine.

Not everyone was eager about these new Russia policies. Several Republicans and members of establishment accused Obama of being “soft” on the Russians, “naïve” as to their “real intentions” and ignorant of the “stab in the back that is sure to follow all the sweet-talking”. Oh guess what, the spy cell story, proves just that. And brought before court only a few days after the conclusion of a visit that could have been another milestone in improving the relationship between the two nations. See, what hypocrites these Russians are? Told you!

Students of Russian-American relations know that this is not a first occurrence of that type. The Soviet-American détente in the 1970s evoked many similar warnings and accusations. Cold Warriors in political and military establishment did their best to undermine the “resetting” of the relationship, and when the talks and the agreements still progressed, they gathered around Reagan and brought him to power. True, the Russians themselves quite often played to the hands of warmongers, by doing something stupid as invading Afghanistan or Georgia, but in many other instances they were truly seeking an improvement.

“I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids”

Why would someone try to undermine US-Russia relations now, when the US needs Russia’s cooperation in putting international pressure on Iran? Well, maybe because the FBI (being a domestic agency) doesn’t bring into consideration international politics. Maybe, its against somebody’s interest that the Iran conflict will be resolved through diplomatic and commercial channels. Or maybe, the whole security-industrial complex in America works with no internal coordination, we know it wouldn’t be the first time.

Or maybe well-established old enemies and clichés are difficult to let go. The Red Threat was a living and present danger for most of the last century and is therefore difficult to part with. In the twenty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American treatment of Russia has been anything but original. Statements of politicians, and coverage of the press are abundant with Cold War era concepts, assumptions and misunderstanding. The great benefit of an ideology (anti-Russian in this case) is that it allows one to fit all new experiences into a familiar framework. True, there is a new enemy now – worldwide conspiracy of militant Islam, but why can’t we have both? Why should we give up the most precious cliché-legacy of the Cold War – the Spy Who Came from the Cold?

p.s. if you have spare 20 minutes and are bored with the conventional take on espionage, you MUST WATCH this excellent Soviet cartoon called Passions of the Spies. Most of the pictures for this post came from this really brilliant animation. The linked youtube files are with English subtitles. I promise you won’t regret!

A tombstone of the actor Boris Khmelnitsky

There is a peculiar brand of Russian tourism – visiting cemeteries. First, there is the most important grave of the most important Soviet dead – the Lenin mausoleum. Second, right behind him, there is the Necropolis under the Kremlin wall – the entire length of the wall facing the Red Square is the burial site of Russian revolutionaries and Soviet dignitaries such as Dzerzhinsky, Gagarin or Brezhnev. A visit to the mausoleum also includes the tour of the “Necropolis”.

Russia is the only country I know of, that has more than one cemetery designated specifically for cultural and scientific elite and former leaders. Novodevichy, Vagan’kovo, and Kuntsevo are the most famous ones. All constitute important sites of tourism and pilgrimage. Novodevishy, for example, is listed in the top five tourist attractions of Moscow.

This phenomenon strikes me as radically different from say, a visit to the Westminster Abbey, Lincoln Memorial or Mount Herzl. Unlike other places, where people usually visit just one memorial, in Russia one visits the entire cemetery.

One of the major interests in such visit are the tombstones. Every tombstone is different from the other, has a different design (sometimes by a famous sculptor), shape, writings, letters. Some are ostentatious displays of the ways the deceased saw themselves or were viewed by the others. Some are touching micro-museums to the person whose life it commemorates.

The grave of children films director Natalia Ptushko

Boris Yeltsin's Grave

Burial of special people at special cemeteries, usually nearby a monastery or a church, preceded the Russian Revolution. Yet, the Soviet residents of the celebrity cemeteries outnumber the pre-Soviet ones.

One potential explanation is the Russian “leaders cult” – it could be argued that these are Soviet incarnation of special burial places and churches designated to the Russian royal family and nobility.

Yet, the “leaders’ cult” explanation is not enough if we consider that the most popular tombstones are not those of the Soviet heads of state but of the cultural figures: poets, writers, musicians, scientists, journalists, directors, actors, singers, and even… clowns. The importance of these tombstones suggests not a primordial “submission to the leader” but rather the unique, outstanding respect paid in Russia to its cultural elite.

This tombstone (Kuntsevo cemetery) merely says "Clown Karandash". No other explanations were required.

Tomb of the journalist Artem Borovik, who died in a plain crash

Another possible explanation is that like everything else in the Soviet Union, burial sites also adhered to their own system of allocation of privilege. Cultural and political elites enjoyed a variety of special stores, special hospitals, special buildings, and dachas. All those “special places” had also internal rankings and were allocated according to the internal rankings of the elite. For example, all Soviet heads of state are buried at site #1 – the Kremlin wall. The only exception is Nikita Khrushchev – whose falling out of favor is evident in his burial at site # 2 – Novodevichy cemetery. Another example is the bard Vladimir Vysotsky – who enjoyed immense popularity with the Soviet people but was “demoted” to cemetery #3 – Vagan’kovo.

Vysotsky's grave at Vagan'kovo Cemetery is the most visited grave in Russia

Many of the cultural figures buried at the special cemeteries were far from being the regime’s favourites, and obtained their burial sites, not through the allocation of privilege from the party, but through their sheer popularity with the public. If the state leaders could help it, Vysotsky would have been buried in a distant and unknown cemetery, for they feared that his grave would evolve into a site of admiration and protest against the regime. Yet, in a country where cemeteries matter such a great deal, the party did not dare to bury the bard in an utterly unimportant place and had to settle for merely a “demotion” in location.

Unlike the interesting tombstones of the creative intelligentsia, the state and party leaders remained in their death what they have been throughout their lives: heads. Boring and monolith tombs not only resemble the earthly shapes of the people whose graves they guard (rectangular) but adhere to the form of the conventional socialist bust, the likes of which can be seen also at the Kremlin Necropolis.

That the ticket to a “celebrity cemetery” was either one’s position in the state apparatus or his or her appreciation by the public, resulted in some interesting paradoxes. One such paradox is that the Soviet creative elites are buried alongside their oppressors, censors and critics from the party apparatus. Another interesting one, is that the tombstone of Nikita Khrushchev was made by the sculptor Ernst Neizvestnyi, whose work Khrushchev criticized as “degenerate art”.

Neizvetsnyi's sculpture on Khrushchev's grave

Yesterday I visited the grave of Boris Strel’nikov – a renown Pravda correspondent and one of the main protagonists of my dissertation. While searching for his last place of rest at Kuntsevo cemetery, I realized that the special cemeteries and uniquely designed tombstones are also about something else: individuality.

Soviet Union emphasized uniformity. One just has to look at rows on rows of similar looking huge apartment buildings, similarly looking Soviet era cars (two brands, two models and two colours were available to the “regular people”) or Soviet-produced clothes and shoes. People found ways to escape this uniformity – decorated their flats in a unique way or made their own clothes. The special, custom made, elaborate tombstones, telling the story of the people who lay underneath, were another way to stand out in the crowd and to assert the unique personality of the deceased. It is kind of sad to think that one of the instances when the Soviet people asserted their own individuality was their death.

The tomb of comedian, actor, and circus man Yuri Nikulin

]]> http://dinafainberg.com/2010/06/a-lovely-day-for-a-trip-to-the-graveyard/feed/ 6 http://dinafainberg.com/2010/06/how-cultural-boycotts-undermine-the-peace-process/ http://dinafainberg.com/2010/06/how-cultural-boycotts-undermine-the-peace-process/#comments Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:02:51 +0000 dina http://dinafainberg.com/?p=95

In recent years we see the rise of the trend to boycott the Israeli academia and to cancel cultural performances in Israel. According to Wikipedia, such boycotts were inspired by the boycotts against the South Africa, in an attempt to pressure it to end the policies of Apartheid. Following the recent Israeli attack on the international aid to Gaza flotilla, the various calls for boycotts and cancellations have been growing like mushrooms after the rain.

In my opinion, such boycotts constitute poor and miserable solution, and do more service to the self-esteem of the boycotters than to the cause they apparently try to promote.

The only islands of critical thinking

The Israeli academia and artistic milieu are predominantly left wing. They constitute a major stronghold of critical thinking and argumentation against the government. In fact, it were the Israeli scholars in universities and research centres that first began a serious discussion and questioning of the Zionist narrative of Israel’s past and of the state policies toward the Palestinians. They also played a pivotal role in making the peace process into an important national agenda and once the dialogue with the Palestinians opened, were instrumental in the design of peace talks. Today, Israeli academics are a serious source of support for contemporary protest against the government actions, and many of them play an important role in the Israeli movement for peace. Academics provide their authority and support for variety of activities from demonstrations, sit-ins, newspaper editorials, to various initiatives for Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.

Israeli artists, most importantly film-makers have been one of the strongest critical voices against the Israeli military actions, against the way the state conducts itself vis-à-vis it’s Arab neighbours, the Arab minorities in Israel, and the Palestinians. The arts have also been instrumental in exposing and criticizing the very cultural trends that breed hatred and fuel the dangerous right-wing politics: intolerance, bigotry, narrow mindedness and racism. Among the numerous examples for such works of art are Waltz with Bashir, Lebanon, the Syrian Bride, and mane many more. In fact, I am not sure I have seen a film in the past ten years that was not critical of that or another aspect of the Israeli culture, let alone a film that supports right-wing militancy.

Look at all the websites in which right-wing nutters list “traitors” and “self-haters” – 90% of the lists are comprised of artists and academics!

The boycotts are lethal for the arts and the academia

First, instead of granting an international cultural support for democratic and critical initiatives promoted by academia and the arts, the boycott helps to marginalize their critical voice. Instead of contributing their voices and critiques to the dialogue and supplying it with an international perspective and universal importance, the boycotting academics and artists undermine the supply of fresh ideas and additional perspectives to the debate.

The boycotts play into the hands of the nationalist and racist right-wing nutters, led by the current government

Among one of the most wide-spread rationalizations for the right-wing policies goes like this: “The world criticizes us because it hates us, and because the world is anti-Semite. If everyone hates us, no one will come to our aid once the Arabs from within and from without will attack us. Therefore we must be strong, always defend ourselves (incl. pre-emptively) and rule the Palestinians with force. It doesn’t matter how we conduct ourselves because everyone is anti-Semite and everyone hates us anyways.”

The Israeli nationalists view the left-wing academia and the artists as traitors of their own nation and as un-patriotic, because of their critical stance toward to government and its policies. In their twisted mind, international boycott of the left-wing academia and artists proves, the “world hates us no matter what we do” point. “Even those weak, submissive left-wingers”, they argue, “can’t please the rest of the world, because they are all anti-Semites”. So by boycotting, rather than supporting and engaging with, the international cultural community undermines the critical efforts of the remaining sane Israelis and plays to the hands of their enemies. In so doing they provide more ground for the already strong position of intolerance and bigotry.

Dear boycotters who claim that the fate of the Peace Process is important for you:

If you really want to help, stop undermining your only true ally in Israel. I know that organizing boycotts is really easy; it makes you feel good about yourself and doesn’t take much effort or imagination. It also helps you to present yourselves as the only liberal and democratic voice of protest, which is NOT the case.

In fact, you are no better than the Israeli government and its cronies, because the boycott makes you just as intolerant and narrow-minded. Instead, engage in dialogue with the left-wing academia and artists, invite them over, give them grants, trumpet their critiques and lend to their voice as much support and publicity as you can. This is the kind of international pressure that these people need, not the other way round.

Believe me, Bibi or Liberman don’t care if academics and artists loose their international partners and support. On the contrary, they’d be happy to see the left-wing critics more marginalized than they already are. Don’t help them, for the boycott only punishes those who dare to raise the voice against the right-wing sense-less government.

It happens again. I am sitting on a couch and watching the Victory Day parade on the television. May 9th is the day when Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War (or WWII) has been commemorated since 1945. Everything is almost similar to the last I watched it as a Soviet child. Only that this time I watched it in HD, holding a lap top in my hands, while outside is not “developed socialism”, but capitalism in the service of the government, or something. The new leaders of Russia have also changed. They are no longer obscure heavy rectangular shapes.

photo by Reuters

This year Russia celebrated 65th anniversary of its victory over the Nazi occupant. This is a semi-round date and therefore Moscow was decorated more than usual. Every second person on the street was wearing a military styled after the ones worn during the war (can be bought for a 100 rubles on every other corner), strings colored in black and brown – the colors of Georgii Cross – a pre-revolutionary military honor. The streets are adorned with the colors of the Russian flag as well as red and yellow (the Soviet flag is called today the “Victory Flag”). The words “the Great Victory”, “Hooray”, “Veterans” were springing on the people at every street corner.

So what has changed?

photo by AFP

The big deal this year is not just the round date. This is the first time since 1991 that Russia held a full military parade on the Red Square. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the parade consisted mainly of veterans and a bit of infantry. This year, the march included many different units of the Russian military (including the mysterious unit for “Space Warfare) followed by a wide array of military technology from tanks to ten meters long rocket carriers. The parade was concluded by the Russian air force that passed by in the skies above the Red Square.

photo by Reuters

photo by EPA

photo by EPA

A couple of days before the parade I happened to pass Tverskaya street – one of the main streets of Moscow leading to the Red Square. This was the day of the general rehearsal for the parade and the first thing I saw were dozens of tanks, jeeps, and other rocket carriers happily parking on the main street. Upon receiving the order to move on, all these vehicles rushed down the street toward the Kremlin. Soon after, all sorts of airplanes appeared in the sky, flying very low above the street. Maybe the Russian bystanders felt proud and secure at the sight of this military might. But this immense noise and war machines in truly Russian quantities left a depressing a troubling impression on me. A few days later this grand war industry marched on the Red Square projecting its might to the rest of the world.

Once upon a time this display of military might troubled the NATO states and provided an endless source for analysis and speculations for the CIA. Today, one wonders whether this heavy military technology would be of any use at all. In our time, when the military technology becomes increasingly digitalized and modern warfare tools grow smaller and smaller, you ask yourself what would be the use of something like “Tiger – an armored vehicle with an auto-pilot” (a massive cast of metal and iron on wheels).

What else is new?

This is the first year in the history of the parade that units from armies of “anti-Hitler coalition” marched on the Red Square alongside the Russian units. The representatives included England, France, the United States, Poland, and… Afghanistan. One must admit that the Buckingham Palace guards marching by the Kremlin walls is an interesting and slightly strange sight. The presence of units from “anti-Hitler coalition” on the Red Square must be a sign of a new era.

photo by Reuters

US platoon on the Red Square. photo by EPA

But while Josef Stalin and Joseph McCarthy are rolling in their graves at the sight of American soldiers marching at the heart of the former “evil empire” the grand reunion was not devoid of diplomatic incidents. The Guardian reported that Putin had personally vetoed the arrival of Prince Charles and Vice President Joe Biden to the parade. According to the Guardian, Gordon Brown, then the PM was invited to attend, but cancelled because of the elections held in the UK a few days earlier. The Downing Street offered Prince Charles as a replacement but the offer was declined, and so was the offer to send Joe Biden as a replacement for President Obama who couldn’t make it. Putin, like the Parade’s founder – Stalin, has his own way for diplomatic paybacks. The Guardian thinks that Prince Charles was rejected to signify Putin’s displeasure with England for granting an asylum for Boris Berezovsky, an oligarch in exile. Biden was rejected because of his close relationship with Mikhail Saakashvili, the president of Georgia.

Another interesting sign of the new era was the presence of units from independent countries that formerly comprised the republics of the Soviet Union. Soldiers from Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kirgizstan, Armenia and Azerbaijan marched holding the new flags of their countries. Semi-dictators from Central Asia adorned the tribunes near the Kremlin following the parade. Conspicuous in their absence of course, were the units from Georgia and the Baltic states.

Victory Day narratives

Like any interesting part of history, the story of the second World War was written and re-written in Russia multiple times. Victory day parades and celebrations played an important role in the creation of the public narrative of the war. A few months after the war broke, on the anniversary day of the October Revolution, Stalin addressed the nation from the Red Square. In the speech he described the war as a popular struggle of the Russian people and the peoples comprising the Soviet Union.

The first Victory Parade, 1945

Toward the end of the war, the narrative changed. The victory over the Germans was now the story of the Great Russian people, their great military achievements and their great generals. The role of other nationalities was reduced almost to none. Immediately after the war, the story changed again, now attributing the victory solely to Stalin’s genius.

After Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization the public narrative rejected Stalin’s role from the story and emphasized the leadership of the party that led the Soviet citizens toward to victory. For more than twenty years, up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Victory Day parade projected a standard narrative: Soviet nuclear and military might (expressed in doomsday arsenal) and the leadership of the party (expressed in the increasingly aging leaders lining up on the top of Lenin’s mausoleum, itself a symbol of revolutionary heritage).

A new narrative of the war?

Polish troops in the parade. photo by EPA

There is no doubt that the parade this year is an important turning point in shaping the historical memory of WWII in Russia. By including units from the former Allies Russia ritually admits, for the first time in its history, that the Allies played an important role in the war effort. This inclusion also suggests Russia’s readiness to engage in a dialogue with the NATO nations. Units from former Soviet republics symbolize the returned recognition of the role of non-Russian people in the victory as well as recognition of the independent status of these countries. By displaying the variety of its war machinery Russia demonstrates its military might and claims a renewed international recognition. At the same time, it communicates a desire to negotiate and enter a dialogue, not as a minor partner, but as a equal partner of international importance.

Who won the war with Hitler?

The parade’s answer to this question is another innovation in the narrative of the Victory Day. As mentioned above, previously the victory belonged to the party and the people. Today, when the party is insignificant, all the laurels are given to the real heroes of the day – the Veterans who fought on the front and contributed to the war effort behind the front lines.

Victory day posters in a shop window.

When I arrived to Moscow I was surprised at the prominence of the word “Veteran” in Moscow’s public space. Poster saying “Happy Victory Day Dear Veterans” or “Thank you, Dear Veterans” decorated every shop and street and overwhelmed in their numbers the pictures of Marx and Lenin on the Soviet streets. In Medved’ev’s speeches commemorating the Victory Day, the main message was of gratitude to the veterans for the victory.

Another indication that the heroes of the day were the veterans was the parade’s audience on the Red Square tribunes. The Russian leaders didn’t review the parade from the top of the Lenin mausoleum as they have done in the past. Instead, the mausoleum was entirely covered by a sitting tribune in the colors of Russian flag. Next to it, another sitting tribune was built stretching to the end of the square. Except a small group of political personalities that Russia invited to the event (including Angela Merkel and Shimon Peres) all these tribunes were occupied by the veterans and their family members who watched the parade in 27 degrees. Medved’ev and Putin sat in the main tribune, amongst the leaders, almost as ordinary people, further strengthening the impression that the victory belonged to the people who have actually participated in the war.

War veterans watching the parade next to Putin and Medvedev. photo by Reuters

A Russian friend told me a new joke: Medved’ev promised that all the veterans would be provided with housing by 2030. This bit of a black humor indicates the critique of the state’s priorities. Many feel that instead of spending millions on the parade and public celebrations, the state should have spent the money on improving the living conditions of the veterans. Many veterans were given new uniforms for the event, in order to wear it for the parade and the public celebrations that followed. 80 years old people, clad in these brand new uniforms, adorned with war medals and honors were indeed an impressive and dignified sight. But one must wonder whether they would prefer subsidies for housing, meds or food – which might have been more handy in a city like Moscow, the second most expensive in the world.

That way or the other, it was their day. Some looked proud and happy – strolling the park in their new uniforms, medals and honors, singing, dancing to the sounds of old waltz or having lunch with front comrades and family members and happy to receive the thanks and the flowers given to them by the people in the park. (In Gorky Park, the central celebration locale, almost everyone had flowers. People with children approached the veterans, gave them flowers and thanked them. Almost every veteran had a companion who carried the flowers for him or her). Others looked as living expo in an interactive museum showing life in the olden days: a bit lost, embarrassed, wondering at all these people surrounding them and insisting to take a picture.

Children in the park approaching the veterans and giving them flowers – powerful manifestation of how collective memory of the war is passed on to the new generation. And despite all the critique, and although it’s only once a year, maybe all of it was worth it. Because on May 9th, the people who lived, fought, worked, dreamed, laughed and loved during this terrible war, received the honor and the gratitude that they deserve, for they ARE the real heroes of the day.

Went with Zohar to  a screening of The Time that Remains, by Elia Suleiman.

The film narrates a story of one family from the Nakba – the Palestinian name for the establishment of Israel in 1948 – to the present. This is not your typical “Arab-Israeli Conflict” film. It focuses on poetics and aesthetics, the camera movement and narrative are not means to deliver a message but an end of itself. And through this subtle, gentle and poetic narrative, one learns the story of Suleiman’s family within the history of what is called “Arab Israelis” (the Palestinian citizens of Israel) community.

See the Guardian review here.

Are there a-historical works of culture?

In his interviews Elia Suleiman emphasized that he wasn’t trying to make a movie about a conflict. He aimed, he said, for a universal human story, which could be understood by people anywhere in the world. If you want to know about the conflict, he said, go to the library and read some books, the aim of this film is different.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this assertion, especially after seeing the film. It is indeed very different from the standard depictions of this topic. While being overwhelmed by its beauty, humanity, tenderness and intimacy, I was constantly aware how everything this film shows was created, dictated, and influenced by the Israeli conquest. And despite, or maybe because of aesthetic and poetic emphasis of the film, it strongly emphasized the situation of colonial oppression under which Palestinian citizens of Israel live.

I am questioning Suleiman’s assertion that this film is not about the conflict. How could it not be? All personal is political, we learned from post-modern culture critics. And the personal becomes even more political when it is shaped by the troubled history of Arab-Israeli relations. Every cultural product, and film especially, is firmly located in the cultural, historical and political context in which it was created. Culture can be examined from a different perspective, but it cannot simply be a-historical. With all do respect to Suleiman’s intention, you cannot just wish away the historical/political context and reading of your work. Even if, in some distant bright future, the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved, and all oppression will end, this film will still maintain its strong historical roots. Yes, it will remain a gentle film about human dimensions of one family, but it will also be a film about the history of oppression. Like soviet dissident art, or protest culture of the 1960s, the work of art won’t lose its political or historical dimensions, simply because the context that produced it in a first place has changed.

Shame and sorrow

The strongest feelings that accompanied me throughout the film were shame and sorrow.

Shame – because the slightly humorous and ridiculing depictions of the Israeli army and later, the state, were perhaps the strongest indictment of the Israeli conquest I have ever seen on the screen. And their impact was much more powerful than any heart-tearing scene gushing with depictions of violence and human depravation. The power of this film is in its subtlety.

Screen shot of the film. Arab school choir winning the "National Competition of Hebrew Singing"

Sorrow – because the film was the most potent reminder that Israelis and Palestinians are disagreeing on the very heart of the matter: 1948. Even if we hate how the army and the administration conducted themselves in the establishment of the state and even if we wholeheartedly condemn their subsequent policies toward the Arab citizens, for us – the establishment of Israel was a good thing. For them – it was the ultimate tragedy, the break of community, culture, family, expropriation and a loss of everything that was important. Even those who made it, despite the obstacles erected before them by the apartheid, and let alone, see 1948 as an occurrence of irreparable damage, irrevocable tragedy.  And even if, in that distant bright future, there will be peace, two states for two nations, and ultimate cessation of oppression and violence, 1948 will still remain the greatest tragedy. We, the Jews, will remain the thieves who chased the Palestinians out of their safe heavens; the conquerors and the oppressors.

Screen shot of the film. Arab residents of Nazareth awaiting the arrival of the Israeli army

And on that basic point – what happened in 1948? – we will forever disagree. Each side could understand how the other side sees it. Each side could admit that the other’s viewpoint is absolutely valid. Each side can develop a nuanced and sophisticated position. But none will change the essential conception of 1948. Will this essential difference spell doom on the future of these two nations on this tiny bit of land?

The conflict is inside me

After the movie ended we came up to Elia Suleiman to thank him for the film. I was excited and cleansed. Feeling a sort of moral confirmation: “Yes, I am an Israeli, and I especially came to watch that film; and thought it was wonderful and just. I am capable of seeing a critique of my nation and my country, and agreeing with it. I think more films like that should be made. Yes, I am absolutely entitled to my place among left-wing-academic-liberals.” And I address him in Hebrew. And he answers me in English. And it takes me a few more sentences until it dawns on me that it is not that he doesn’t know Hebrew. He doesn’t want to hear it or speak it!

So I was walking out of there absolutely ashamed of my thinking and myself. Why address him in Hebrew? Because in my colonial conqueror’s mindset it had never occurred to me that hearing my language, is unpleasant for him; that my language is the language of the conquest, of his family’s dispossession, of his personal dislocation and trauma. And what business do I have bringing this dreadful language into the wonderful far away setting of London, Thames south bank, Tate Modern, happy and friendly people, away from the army, the police, and the daily oppression, subtle or open, he experiences there?

I am ridden with guilt and shame, for not thinking it through. For assuming he might be pleased that an Israeli showed up at his film, and liked it. For thinking within this old colonial pattern, that he, the conquered, requires some positive affirmation from me, the conqueror upon criticizing me for the atrocities I’ve brought upon him. The very same feelings inform all expressions of patriarchal condescension and “benevolent colonialism”. I should have known better. Was I the only one whose subconscious dictated that kind of approach? Or am I sharing it with other left-wing Israeli critics who praised the film? Do we all derive a secret pleasure and affirmation of our liberalism from embracing the critique launched against us by the people whom we oppressed?