Courage and Care

We are UK-based Jewish artists, theatre-makers and art workers who identify in different ways and have different ethnic, cultural, religious backgrounds. We come from a range of positionalities shaped by race, class, gender, age, ability, sexuality etc. Jewish people hold a full spectrum of views and we represent some of these.

1. Workplace discrimination: not hiring or deplatforming Jewish artists/workers due to their Jewishness, unreasonably refusing workers time off on Shabbat, High Holy Days or other Jewish festivals; necessitating Jewish people to take part in Christian rituals. 

2. Physical or other abuse: of Jews as Jews, or the celebration of attacks on and abuse of Jews as Jews.

3. Problematic representation: Jewish people have for years been portrayed through a host of dehumanising and often conflicting characteristics (see below). Some of these stereotypes are seemingly positive, but are nonetheless othering, and often include negative undertones. Some Jewish people, and therefore some Jewish characters, may have some of these traits. However, emphasising them, utilising them exclusively for Jewish characters, and in other ways centring Jewish representation around them, is to be avoided. 

   A non-exclusive list of characteristics includes portraying Jews as: cunning, grotesque, long nosed, beady-eyed, greedy, materialistic, pursuing power and control, good with money, parasitic, duplicitous, disloyal, demonic or paedophilic. 

4. Problematic symbols and tropes: There are a host of symbols, stories, metaphors and tropes that are deeply rooted cultural antisemitic identifiers. These include: the hidden hand, blood libel, puppet masters, rats, pigs, and being part of a secret cabal.

5. Minimisation of persecution and abuse, both in the past and present: minimisation of the Holocaust and other histories of the persecution of Jews are not to be tolerated. Authors or artworks with a problematic past (e.g., Wagner) should be engaged with in a sensitive and intentional way. The default casting of doubt upon claims of antisemitism and/or the assumption that they are politically motivated replicates antisemitic violence. This is not to say that any accusation of antisemitism must be uncritically accepted.

6. Conceptualisation of ‘the Jews’ as a monolith collective: Jewish individuals and Jewish communities are diverse in their background, racial identities, political positions, nationalities, social privileges, religious beliefs, and rituals. Conceptualising ‘the Jews’ as a monolith is a pillar of antisemitism and is often linked to the myth of Jewish power, and Jewish (dis)loyalty. 

7. Litmus testing: Demanding that ‘Jews of all people’ must pass a higher moral bar due to our history of persecution, and/or expecting Jewish people to be more outspoken than others about any political issue. 

8. Transposing conspiratorial understandings of Jewish power onto Israel to portray Zionism/Israel as the root cause of all social ills in contemporary societies worldwide. Whilst critique of Israel is not inherently antisemitic (see below), it can nonetheless be used as a vehicle for antisemitism. This can be the case if Israel’s power is mischaracterised to embody old antisemitic tropes in a new guise.

The question of whether an artwork or action is antisemitic is not reliant on whether it is agreeable, reasonable, or even true. The signatories of this text have a range of opinions on many of the below, but stress that these sorts of expressions are not inherently antisemitic. We are united in believing that art must not be censored under a false guise of protecting against antisemitism.

1. Artworks that level specific critique at the state of Israel or Zionism as a political force, as long as they do not associate Israel with conspiratorial understandings of Jewish power. This includes critique of specific actions and policies, past and present, domestic, or abroad. One can agree or disagree with their justification, but accusations of occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide, are not, in themselves, antisemitic, nor are rejections of Zionism as a form of nationalism.

2. Supporting Palestinian struggles for freedom, equality and self-determination. This may include joining, or calling to join, marches and protests, raising funds for Palestinian groups, boycotting or calling to boycott institutions or organisations that play a significant role in the oppression of Palestinians (rather than individuals who do not hold institutional power). The question of whether specific means are strategic or justified is separate to the question of whether they are antisemitic. Palestinian symbols such as the Palestinian flag, Keffiyeh, a watermelon, and phrases such as ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ are not in themselves antisemitic and should not be censored or banned.  

3. Platforming Palestinian work and perspectives without Jewish or Israeli counterparts. Palestinian art can be presented on its own, or alongside works from people of any identity. 

4. Criticising or satirising the actions of specific Jewish persons, especially public/political figures as long as their Jewishness is not presented as an explanation to their vices.

5. Art that critically engages with antisemitic tropes. For example, a satire with a character that voices neo-Nazi sentiments. As long as this discourse is framed through the artwork in ways where it is reasonable to expect the audience to engage with the tropes critically, engaging with antisemitism within art should be supported. 

In reality, we expect that many instances will fall into grey areas, and it is crucial to acknowledge and approach these places of ambiguity. This section is designed to provide tools and ideas with which to approach them.

Consider the Who, Where, Why and How. 

Who is speaking? Where is their platform? When is this happening and what is at stake in the world? Who is accessing the work? 

WHO: Whilst nobody has the license to be racist, the positionality of the speaker shapes the speech-act. This is true of any form of bigotry, including antisemitism. One might ask how those with lived experience of the subject are involved in the work. The use of anti-Jewish slurs is received differently if written/spoken by Jews or non-Jews. If Palestinian characters in the West Bank say that ‘Jews’ demolished their house, this may not be an antisemitic reference to a global monolith that holds sinister power, but rather a way of speaking about how power is being used in a specific and localised region, through an apparatus that claims to represent Jews.  

WHERE: Casting Fiddler on the Roof in London’s West End is different to casting the same production in Tokyo, Japan in terms of access to Jewish performers; in this case, in order to achieve meaningful representation, other approaches might be considered such as engaging with Jewish creatives/consultants. The National Theatre is not the same as a pub theatre, in terms of their possibilities and impacts. 

WHY: Intention isn’t everything, but it matters. For example, if an institution makes a problematic decision, are they genuinely supporting a bigoted position, or did they make the decision out of ignorance? And whilst we must always challenge problematic actions, the intention should inform the approach.

HOW: Is the work being made with care? Is the material being sensitively and thoughtfully approached, with integrated research? When dealing with historic works, are they being revised critically? Art should be free to delve into difficult areas, and raise uncomfortable feelings, but we should always handle sensitive topics with care, attention, and rigour.