Mahmoud Darwish 1941-2008
(This piece
originally appeared in the 2000 edition of Mitsad Sheni, the Hebrew language
magazine of the Alternative
Information Center.
Translated to English by the AIC).
The decision
of Education Minister Sarid to place two poems of Mahmoud Darwish into the
Israeli education curriculum caused a great uproar. This was the real goal of
the Minister of Education: while it is possible to assume that the Minister
honestly hoped to bring Israeli youth closer to the greatest of Palestinian
poets, in reality it seems his desire to generate more provocation outweighed
his love of Darwish. Like numerous other moves of the politicians from the
“Left”, this step is not intended primarily to create awareness and
understanding between Jews and Palestinians, but to anger the right wing and
Shas.
The maneuver
of Sarid was of course crowned a success, which exposes, yet again, the
fundamental racism of the Right, who mobilized against the attempt to put into
the state curriculum the poems of one defined as “an Israeli hater”.
Representatives of the Likud and Shas, together with Tommy Lapid, again
demonstrated a combination of ignorance, hypocrisy and narrow minded
nationalism. Each one produced personal contentions against this decision of
the Minister of Education, whilst presenting Darwish as an anti-Semitic nationalist
and describing the decision itself as an attempt to destroy the character of
Israeli society. They exposed the weakness of this society: a state with atomic
weapons is terrified of a poet, and particularly a poet who exposes its sins
and crimes while explicitly calling for dialogue and cultural partnership, but
not on the basis of capitulation or denial.
However,
with no regard to these right wing responses, we must disagree with Minister
Sarid. Supposedly, everyone aiming for peace and understanding between Jews and
Arabs must be pleased with the opportunity to bring before Israeli pupils the
poems of the greatest Palestinian poet. There is no reason against including
them in study programmes. We must hope and even assume that no few teachers
will prepare amazing lessons about Darwish. However, this is not the topic
being discussed. The point is the overstated fanfare with which this minor
decision was presented by Sarid and his friends, which provided another
opportunity for them to pat themselves on the back and perpetuate an enlightened
self image.
The
decision is outrageous, particularly for that fact that it comes at a time in
which the Minister and his friends are partners to the measures of oppression against
the Palestinians, measures waged by the government of which they are members. In
this matter their voices are not heard at all. It would be better if Minister
Sarid and his friends would struggle against the ongoing settlement policy, the
demolition of homes, deportations, land confiscation, and against the policy of
closure and restrictions on movement. Even the enemies of Meretz assumed that
in the fundamental areas of civil rights there would be some change for the
better. However, the leadership of Meretz prefers to provoke Shas, while insisting
on pushing it further to the right – and primarily whilst ignoring the covenant
between Barak and the Mafdal and the total capitulation to the settlers, who
didn’t dare hope for such complete fulfillment of their aspirations under a
government of the “Left”. It appears that many of those who identify with
Meretz truly take an interest in the question of human rights in the occupied
territories and even object to the positioning of the fight against Shas as the
central struggle. Some of them even initiated actions against the government. However,
the leadership of Meretz is preoccupied with questions of identity, and in
creating an enlightened self-image.
In a
reality in which people who reside in caves are deported, the fanfare about
putting three poems of Mahmoud Darwish in the education curriculum is
hypocritical and insolent. In the current situation, this decision serves as a
fig leaf to cover the ongoing silence of the Zionist left in matters of
principle. This is an ugly exploitation of Palestinian poetry, which comes at
the expense of opposition to Israeli measures which will very soon even defeat
the poetry. It would have been preferable that instead of publicly desecrating
Arab poetry in general, and that of Mahmoud Darwish in particular, they would
make their voice heard in relation to the real and irreversible steps which are
being taken by Barak, and for which they hold full responsibility. However, in
a place in which people who live in caves are being deported, instruction in
the poetry of the victim is the height of the unbelievable. Minister Sarid and
his friends should make their voices heard on these topics before they discuss
Palestinian poetry.
Moreover,
even in the discussion about the poetry of Darwish, the Minister of Education
and his supporters did not express an opinion essentially different from that
of those on the right. They did not speak out against the description of
Darwish as a nationalist-chauvinistic poet or the unfounded interpretation of
his political poetry as presented by those on the right. On the contrary – they
argued that they wanted to teach Darwish despite his opinions. They separated between
his “nationalist” poetry, which was invalidated, and his “private” poetry,
which they wanted to add to the curriculum. They did not protest the claim by
those on the right that Darwish called in his poetry for the destruction of
Jews. Even a number of Palestinian speakers (the head of which was Member of
Knesset Ahmad Tibi) fell into this trap, arguing that there is no political
dimension in these poems and therefore no reason exists not to teach them.
The
initiative to teach Darwish is based, therefore, on a denial of his national
identity and his comprehensive historical-political position. The very
distinction between “private” and “national” poetry shows that nothing
substantial has changed in the Israeli discourse. The Israeli left is willing to
accept a Palestinian poet, but as a personal poet, i.e. by annulling his
national identity. This distinction is problematic, particularly in relation to
the poetry of Darwish: his political poetry is also personal and lyrical, just
as his “personal” poetry is clearly political. The storm returned again over
the poem Passers between the Passing Words, which was published during
the Intifada. Those on the right, both in Israel and abroad, distorted the
poem and presented it as a call for a throwing of Jews into the sea and their
destruction. However, the poem also caused a storm at the time amongst those on
the Israeli left, who also interpreted the poem as negating the existing of Israel. What
did you do to them, Ya Mahmoud, written by Michael Warshawski in 1987 the Matzpen
magazine, exposed the hypocrisy of the Israeli left in all of its glory. Even
today, this false interpretation of the poem forms the basis of the Israeli
discourse. Today the Israeli Left bases its identity on its support for Mahmoud
Darwish, although the approach itself has not changed.
Darwish
himself raised questions about this poem at several opportunities, arguing it
is too formulistic. I do not agree – in my opinion this is a powerful poem, a
call that indeed touches upon those foundations of the Israeli consciousness
that perpetuate the oppression. “Take
your names,” Darwish calls there, take the “sands of the memory”, just get out
of our lives. In the Israeli-Zionist context, the very demand of Arabs for
their rights must be completely rejected. In relation to the Israeli Left, this
poem is threatening as it exposes the dimension of denial on which the Israeli
discourse is founded.
However,
there is no need to focus specifically on this poem. There is no lack of other
poems penned by Darwish that can certainly fill a determinate role in deep acquaintance
with the Palestinian consciousness in its various aspects. Many of these are
undoubtedly not “political” poems in the narrow sense of the word, and here lies
their power. They could indeed serve as a basis for the internalization of the
Palestinian consciousness, in addition to an exciting experience of poetry at
its best. However, in this Israeli context, not only does the poetry not
contribute to an “understanding of the other”, it actually silences the
Palestinian voice. It is founded on a rejection of the national aspect of
substantial parts of Darwish’s creations, which he transforms into a basis for
an overarching human position. However, the decision which was announced amongst
much fanfare did not, to date, touch upon the important aspect: a reading of
the poetry defined as nationalist i.e. that which flowers from the Palestinian
refugee experience and which also provides it with a wider meaning. So a
teaching of the poetry will not only be a basis for learning about “the other
side” - it will serve the Israelis as a basis for learning about themselves,
through the other. Darwish, as known, is a strong advocate for coexistence
based on equality and justice. However, in the current Israeli argument, it is
this very principled position of Darwish that was rejected, as this aspiration
for partnership is founded on the demand for Israeli acknowledgement of its
responsibility for the ongoing injustice and suffering – these same foundations
that the Israeli left continues to deny.
In the past
several weeks two wonderful translations of poetry by Mahmoud Darwish were made
into Hebrew by Mahmoud Hamze Ainaim. Bed of a Stranger, by Babel
Publishing, and Why Did You Leave the Horse Alone by Andalus, a
publishing house specializing in translations to Hebrew from Arabic. These
books join the ranks of previous translations by Sasson Somech, Anton Shamas
and others. It is better that the policymakers read and discuss these poems
before they toss them, as is their want, to school pupils who find themselves,
and rightfully so, in a situation of confusion. This poetry should be used as a
basis for discussion about Israeli identity.
Mahmoud
Darwish is a great poet, certainly one of the greatest poets of our generation.
One unaware of this not only testifies to his ignorance of Arab culture, but
also his ignorance of universal culture. It appears that only in Israel do they
still treat universal literature as being comprised only of Western literature.
In Europe itself, literature has transcended
boundaries long ago and Darwish is recognized as one of the greatest poets of
our generation. However, in the current context, it is best if Israelis do not
teach Darwish.
Before
throwing Darwish’s poetry into schools, best if the adults read it first.
|
News 
