On Friday March 11th an activist from Palestine Action wrecked a portrait of Arthur Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in protest at Britain’s complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The Balfour picture was targeted because of the Balfour Declaration in which Britain pledged to give Palestine to Zionists in order to create a Jewish state, despite Jewish people only being a small minority population in the region at the time.
I don’t want to get into whether property destruction is an acceptable tactic to highlight political causes, other than to say that the Tory party must surely approve given how senior Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith’s heaped praise on anti-clean air activists who ran a campaign of vandalism against ULEZ signs and cameras, and Rishi Sunak’s decision not to remove the whip for praising and encouraging lawless acts of protest.
Neither do I want to spend much time detailing what a monstrous individual Balfour was. Not only did he never have the right to promise lands that did not belong to him to people who didn’t own them, he was also a racist who repressed Irish independence; obstructed women’s suffrage; repeatedly used the unelected Tory-dominated House of Lords to wreck democratic legislation; and vehemently opposed Britain offering sanctuary to Jewish refugees from persecution in Europe.
What’s much more interesting is the outpourings of fury and condemnation, as if this vanity portrait was some kind of treasured and irreplaceable work of high art, and the disgusting hypocrisy it exposes.
You only have to peruse the comments about the video on Xitter to see the outpourings of rage and condemnation from people who have in the main part had absolutely nothing to say about Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.
It’s difficult to fathom how people could be more upset about vandalism of an unremarkable painting they’d almost certainly never even heard of before, than the mass killing of over 30,000 actual living people, often in the most barbaric circumstances.
The shooting of unarmed civilians; the deliberate targeting of the family homes of prominent Palestinian academics, journalists, and medics; the use of food convoys as bait to massacre starving civilians; the shooting of people holding white flags and pleading for their lives …
Somehow, in some people’s minds, this all pales into insignificance compared to someone vandalising a picture of a dead Tory, in a building they’ll almost certainly never enter in their lives.
But the hypocrisy runs much deeper than this.
Israel’s genocide hasn’t just resulted in 30,000+ deaths, the mass displacement of an estimated 2 million Palestinians; widespread starvation; and the dreadful suffering of people having limbs amputated with no anaesthetic because Israel cut off all the medical supplies … it’s also a campaign of cultural destruction too.
In the first few weeks of Israel’s assault on Gaza they destroyed Rafah Museum and Al Qarara Museum, resulting in the loss of thousands of art pieces and artefacts.
Since then they’ve destroyed the 14th Century Hamam al-Sammara bathhouses; the Rashad Shawa Cultural Center; the Great Mosque of Gaza; the ancient harbour at Anthedon; the 14th Century Barqouq Castle in Khan Younis; Gaza City’s library and public archives; the Great Omari Mosque and its library; and every university in Gaza, including the Al Israa University and its collection of thousands of priceless artefacts.
This systematic Israeli campaign of cultural destruction is clearly in defiance of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, but somehow, to many, it all registers as far less important than the vandalism of a single unimportant painting they’d almost certainly never even heard of before it got slashed!
Of course some would try to argue that the destruction of mosques; Arabic bathhouses; and Palestinian museums, cultural centres, archaeological sites, libraries, cemeteries, and universities is somehow less relevant than the vandalism of a single painting because Britain is a Christian country, but they’d be hard pressed to explain their silence over the multiple Israeli attacks on ancient Christian churches and monasteries.
As part of their campaign of cultural erasure Israeli forces have repeatedly targeted Christian sites which have been damaged or completely destroyed: The 5th Century Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Porphyrius in Gaza (said to be the third oldest Christian church in the world); The Byzantine Church of Jabalia; the Saint Hilarion Monastery in the Tell Umm el-'Amr archaeological site; and the Holy Family Church have all come under Israeli attack, occupation, and/or bombardment.
It’s interesting how these Israeli attacks on Christianity have generated so little attention in comparison to the torrents of outrage over the Balfour painting.
It’s almost as if the Christians and Christian sites under Israeli attack are of little to no importance to the British press and commentariat because they’re simply the wrong colour of Christian.
Then there’s all the looting, vandalism, and destruction of Palestinian civilian homes, which Israelis are so unconcerned about that they’ve uploaded countless celebratory pictures and videos of themselves doing these things.
If people are so upset about the Balfour painting that they’re calling for literally decades in prison for the perpetrator, what do they think about the British pervert Levi Simon who filmed himself looting Palestinian homes in Gaza and rummaging through Palestinian women’s underwear?
Do they think that people coming back from Israel after serving in Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza should be investigated and jailed if they’re found to have participated in genocide; looting; and/or cultural erasure?
Of course they don’t have anything to say about it.
Barely any of Israel’s systematic cultural destruction and looting in Gaza has even been deemed worthy of attention by Britain’s depraved media class and commentariat, let alone provoked similar outpourings of rage and condemnation to the Balfour painting.
Just because the British media class and commentariat can’t be bothered to highlight the way Israel is deliberately destroying and erasing Palestinian, Muslim, and Christian lives, history and heritage in Gaza, let alone condemn it, doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
if you want to know more about Israel’s campaign of cultural destruction, you’d have to turn to sites like Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, and The Institute for Palestine Studies.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
The funny thing is that Stalin's USSR was definitely instrumental, if not vital, in creation of Israel. Forget all the BS about Stalin's anti-semitism, Stalin was all for diversifying the nationalism in the USSR (in opposition to Trotsky), including (if not specially) for the Jews and thus for zionists. Equally so for Ukraine. We can blame it on him hehe. Just by the by, that is one of the reasons that Israel kibbutzim started off as socialist-type of enterprise which eventually got subsumed into the USA project and changed its politics.
It was this that got me triggered:
The Balfour picture was targeted because of the Balfour Declaration in which Britain pledged to give Palestine to Zionists in order to create a Jewish state, despite Jewish people only being a small minority population in the region at the time.
From what I understand the British admin wasn't particularly happy to carry it out (I think in 1945 odd) and especially with Stalin's stamp of approval. References provided on request.
From what I've read, Stalin was OK with encouraging national diversity in the 20s.
But not so in the 30s when Ukrainian nationalism was decried as 'bourgeois nationalism', subverting an over-arching Soviet identity.
Many see the Holodomor famine of the early 30s as a deliberately engineered genocide against the Ukrainian people.
Stalin saw the failure to meet grain quotas as part of a resistance to 'forced collectivisation' by a recalcitrant peasantry. But, it is more likely to be the result of unrealistic demands.
The overriding objective in the 30s was to industrialise as quickly as possible. The suffering of the peasantry was an unfortunate side-effect.
From what I've read, Stalin was OK with encouraging national diversity in the 20s. But not so in the 30s when Ukrainian nationalism was decried as 'bourgeois nationalism', subverting an over-arching Soviet identity.
I thought it was a general trend regarding diversity. Fwiw USSR carried on with this policy until '89. A sensible path considering that utin/RF has continued with this idea for the RF.
You could be right about the change of direction in the 30s. Need to check my source at some point. It obviously went wrong as far as Ukr is concerned considering the massacres in the 40s of Poles and Jews in Western Ukr (which was added by Stalin later on).
Many see the Holodomor famine of the early 30s as a deliberately engineered genocide against the Ukrainian people.
Stalin saw the failure to meet grain quotas as part of a resistance to 'forced collectivisation' by a recalcitrant peasantry. But, it is more likely to be the result of unrealistic demands.
Holodomor, from my readings, is a construct from the Cold War narrative by the west. Fiction.
It could be true that the forced collectivisation was not paced with the push for industrialisation USSR had in mind at the time. Not that collectivisation was a bad idea imo. It worked eventually. Not just in USSR.
The suffering of the peasantry was an unfortunate side-effect.
Agree. It wasn't a pleasant outcome, but then we are looking through so many years that have passed since then and synthetizing our knowledge from reading the books that have been written during and after those years. An interesting task.
You are saying the famine of the early 30s never happened or was grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes by the West? That's a new one to me.
I thought it was generally accepted that there was a famine. The only question was whether it was deliberately engineered or not.
Certainly, to the Ukrainians it was very real. Especially for the nationalists among them, it has a great symbolic significance. It fuels their Russophobia.
No-one denies that there as a famine in the USSR in 1932-1933 or that contiguous territories also had famines. Cold Warriors and Ukronazis claim that it was deliberate for their own reasons. Curiously the Ukronazis etc don't point fingers over the famines of 1922 and 1892....The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
The only difference being that we are still useful ones, generating tax revenues, delivering packages, etc.
But when you see how disconnected we have become from government (the neglect, elimination of social contract, general fakery) - and many people seem to see this now - it could be concluded, by some, that we are all early-stage Palestinians, circa 1946 or thereabouts, that the writing is on the wall.
Also ..
Its also strange how some see this openly genocidal behavior and the connected unearthing of antisem everywhere in the west as a ‘cunning plan’ to filter more diaspora into Israel, while others see the precise opposite: the resulting depopulation of Israel as the ground becomes less safe. I guess I find the latter scenario more convincing - I just don’t see the likes of Maureen Lipman reiterating her desire to leave the UK somehow - in such an explicit manner.
Re: The danger for Israel comes if the majority in the west conclude that we are all Palestinians..