*What is Arab countries exactly want from the jewish people?

*why Arab counties having desire to remove jewish people from the land of the Israel?

*where the Arab people want to put jewish people rather than their own native land?

*why the hatred always from Arab counties to the toward other people?

Yet, the comments of those opposed to the play suggest that the statements the characters make in the play are outrageous and offensive, as though Israelis occupy some Olympus of moral superiority, and would never put the interests of their children above the needs of their less fortunate neighbors, and to suggest otherwise is the most heinous kind of offense. For example, Zkharya suggests they could “fall into the category of ‘incitement to hatred’.” Mr. Hoffman himself suggests the play “comes dangerously close to the ‘blood libel’”, which he then conflates with “the use of the ‘chosen people’ phrase to imply that Jews believe they are superior to non-Jews.”

This is confusing because of course significant numbers of most groups believe themselves superior to individuals who are not members of that group. This is a problem with human nature, not with Jews or Gentiles. “Blood libel”, by contrast, is a far more serious problem (although perhaps also a problem with human nature), constituting “false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often of … children.” (quoting Wikipedia). The play clearly is not a blood libel, except for those who find any criticism of Israel a blood libel, which unfortunately some do.

By now, Americans are use to encountering works that contain ferocious criticism of Americans, frequently appearing unfair and unreasonable. While some of us react with rage, others try to find in the criticism ideas that help to improve our understanding and make the future better than the past. That seems to me a more productive reaction to critical art.

The whole problem is thinking that “the Jewish community” is a monolithic thing with only one common “perspective.” Christians, Britons, etc can be individuals, but the worst antisemites see The Jew and The Palestinian as masses without individuality. The Jew will always hate The Palestinian, thank God we gentiles aren’t ever defined as such. If you think I’m mad, ask yourself: when did the Guardian ever begin an article with “British Gentile Community Offended by…”?

We shouldn’t have to merely to respond to an aggressive, polemical misrepresentation.

It is not necessary to “dramatize” the views of Israeli Jews, or those genuinely sympathetic them. All that is necessary is to invite them to any genuinely open discussion or debate on the matter and let them represent, not ACT, themselves.

One thing I didn’t see mentioned above is the fact that the rockets the anti-Zionist left loves to make light of (which in itself shows a contempt for Jewish life, indeed deligitimizes the Jewish claim on a normal life in the world) are getting more powerful. As I understand it they’re falling rather close to Tel Aviv at this point. Which highlights the depravity of conflating ability and intent. Hamas *can’t* at the moment kill a lot of Jews. But does anyone really think they’re sitting there hoping the rockets will only kill members of the IDF? Are the rockets actually being “aimed” in any legitimate military fashion, or are they being pointed hopefully at as many Jews as can be hit, w/ no distinction between soldier and civilian? To ask is to know.

http://www.readingpulitzer.com/2009/02/18/the-blood-libel-of-the-21st-century/

No one posting here will be able to sway anyone else, however heroic we all think we are in the blogosphere.

After reading Caryl Churchill’s play, I can say that it’s a piece of art born of outrage and a feeling of impotence. It’s a conversation-starter, intentionally meant to be important and polemical. And a little tedious as a result, however well-structured.

Is it anti-Semitic? Quite possibly. I’m troubled that Churchill is ascribing passionate (inhumane) sentiments to seven characters clearly meant to be allegorical stand-ins for an entire nation or race.

But is she arguing that constant fighting has certain misanthropic effects?

If she were not so clear about her sentiments, I would actually have argued literarily that Churchill could be showing what constant war and paranoia (justified or not) does to people, how it colors their perceptions.

But, again, trying to represent an entire race in seven (barely discernible) characters is problematic no matter what the artistic intent or what comes out of the characters’ mouths.

Churchill sweeps a lot of people into a category that don’t belong there. There are undoubtedly Israeli Jews who’ve said the things Churchill’s characters say. You could also turn the play around and have the same sentiments uttered by Hamas families.

And plenty of Israeli Jews probably agree with Churchill politically.

Whether the play is anti-Semitic is really beside the point. That can be argued for years. What can’t be argued (in my view) is that the play is lazy and somewhat childish.

It almost reads as a piece of juvenilia, if well-crafted juvenilia. I almost don’t care if the play is anti-Semitic. I care that it’s a bit cheap and exists to create a predictable emotional effect.

Art is the casualty in this particular debate.

PS. As someone who has a college degree in Chaucer and Chaucer-era literature, let me caution folks here to be very careful when using the Prioress from “The Canterbury Tales” to back up ANY points. We’ll never know if the tale she tells is meant to be ironic or honest and both sides can be argued ad nauseum Best to move on.