Breaking the Silence Exhibit: The Combatant’s Story

Thus far, the press coverage and response to the Breaking the Silence exhibit has been largely positive, or at least neutral. Although this is generally a good thing, and we have been happy to post many of those articles, given the nature of the exhibition, it is important that critical voices also be shown here and engaged with, lest we create a different kind of silence (that which comes from only listening to those who agree with you).

So, in that spirit, here is a piece from last week’s Jewish Exponent, the primary Jewish newspaper in Philadelphia (a second, primarily descriptive piece also appeared in last week’s issue; you can read it here). The essay was written by Asaf Romirowsky, manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia; I add some comments and thoughts at the end of the essay.

What ‘Silence’ Are IDF’s Critics Really Breaking?

For the past three weeks, the Rotunda at the University of Pennsylvania has been hosting a 100-photograph exhibit purporting to show “Israeli human-rights abuses in the Occupied Territories.”

The exhibit included a reception, gallery tours and speakers. Organized by an outfit called “Breaking the Silence,” an Israel-based group that collects testimonies from soldiers who shared their “horrific experiences” while serving in the Israel Defense Force during the second intifada, the work fuels the image of Israel as the worst abuser of human rights, and, of course, as an occupying force.

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because this exactly the visual Palestinians sell to the Western media outlets. The difficulty here is that these myths are now being perpetuated by former Israeli soldiers.

The exhibit is completely one-sided and portrays Israel unfairly. The presentation lacks any context or proportionality whatsoever. It does not present — or even attempt to present — the complexity of the political and military situation in the West Bank and Gaza. Rather, the exhibit seeks to present a distorted image of Israel, its people and its defense forces. In short, it is nothing more than anti-Israel propaganda under the guise of art/social criticism.

The fact that “Breaking the Silence” includes Israelis is of no matter; they represent a fringe within Israeli society that have come to the United States with a misguided message in order to gain publicity and funding not available to them in Israel. In reality, they do not care or understand the damage that the exhibition will do to Israel.

Moreover, the exhibit and its people illustrate the very core of the problem between the two major Jewish centers in the world today: America and Israel.

In a nutshell, that problem is the sheer lack of understanding when it comes to the obstacles and challenges that American Jews face when they are looking to make a case for Israel.

When we talk about the environment found at many North American colleges today regarding Israel and the growing pervasiveness of anti-American/Israel sentiment, we refer to the “new anti-Semitism,” where Israel acts as a proxy for the hatred coming from the anti-Israel camps.

It is there — predominately on the college campuses — that Israel’s “mere” existence as a Jewish state is debated.

The demonization of Israel has transformed itself into an integral part of the Palestinian zeitgeist. Holocaust rhetoric is a standard vehicle to describe the Palestinian al naqba (”the catastrophe”); Israelis are accused of doing to Palestinians what was done to them by the Nazis during World War II.

In contrast, Israelis who live and breathe in Israel, even in far left circles, believe that Israel has the right to exist as a state in some capacity, whether it be the 1949 or post-1967 borders. You can understand why Israelis do not fully understand what is happening in the Diaspora with regard to these matters, as they have never faced the challenge of debating Israel’s legitimacy.

In their naiveté, they have no grasp of how they fuel the anti-Israel groups on the college campuses, like Jews for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Studies Association and others who use this message to validate their own agendas. What is even more problematic are those groups within the Jewish community who believe that dialogue via this kind of discussion will further peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Making a case for Israel becomes increasingly more difficult when Israelis and Jews decide to adopt a Palestinian agenda that detracts from the real issue behind the conflict: mutual recognition of one another.

Ultimately, these are the primary critiques of the exhibition: it lacks context and it shows a distorted view of the occupation. And, in some ways, there are no direct responses to these critiques. This exhibit — as does any photo exhibit, movie, article, or book on the subject of this conflict or any difficult issue – does not, and cannot, present the complete “context” for what is being shown.

But I ask — can you understand why the IDF is in Hebron, and why soldiers do what they are shown doing (or anything at all), without understanding 1929? Or 1948? Or Moshe Levinger, who led the first settlers back in to Hebron in 1968? Or Baruch Goldstein? Or the Hebron Agreement of 1997 that separated the city in to H-1 and H-2? Or the “separation principle” that has devastated the city center of Hebron since 2000? Or the killing of Shalhevet Tass? Or the impunity of settler violence in the city? Or, for that matter, the biblical importance of the city, starting with Abraham? Where does context start? Where does it end, if at all?

Perhaps Mr. Romirowsky has specific and manageable ideas for what context could be included with the exhibit. If so, we would be happy to receive and engage with them. But my guess is that, no matter what inclusions might meet his individual terms, it would not be nearly enough for someone else, cover the wrong issues in the eyes of a third person, or all be too much for a fourth person.

In 2008, after so much bloodshed, so many tears, and yet so much hope for the future, there is no single way to cover “context.” And so, as Mr. Romirowsky states, Breaking the Silence does not seek to do it halfway, just as it does not seek to propose “answers” to the difficult questions the exhibition raises. The exhibition is not about solutions, or political exposition; it is about what real Israelis and real Palestinians experience, and the need for anyone with an opinion about “context” to understand “reality.”

Choosing to display the reality of what is happening on the ground is not naiveté; it is the opposite. It is naïve to think that you have to overload difficult images with endless amounts of “context” in order for people to be able to view them and understand them. It is naïve to think that Americans – Jewish, Arab, or otherwise – will only come to one conclusion when they view these images. Finally, it is naïve to think that ignoring or providing “context” for a difficult reality – rather than engaging with it – will do anything other than perpetuate it.

Ultimately, the exhibition is about forcing people to support the “context” you believe in by living with the reality it creates. As Breaking the Silence member and presenter in Philadelphia Arnon Degani said in the Philadelphia Weekly, “It [Israeli control of Palestinian territories] can’t be done differently,” says Degani. “If you side with the occupation and are willing to pay the moral price, I can’t argue with that. But whether you’re for it or against it, this is the price you have to pay.”

So let’s start there. Let’s start by asking that everyone be honest about what the price is. No amount of “context” can ever make that price go away.

(NOTE: The views expressed above are those of BBR, and not necessarily those of Breaking the Silence or any of the sponsoring organizations.)