Falling straight into two camps

It seems to me that when an incident happens that causes outrage, all too often people will fall straight into two opposing camps with absolutely no room for grey areas or nuance. It also seems to me this is how the culture war is stoked and inflamed to keep it constantly raging on the go. When a culture war is raging, any hope of dialogue is crushed as people take sides and refuse to even consider listening to an opposing viewpoint, let alone engaging with it.

Who likes culture wars? Well, one obvious answer is those who presume to rule over us because a divided populace at each others throats is a lot easier to manipulate and control than one that's united in opposition to you. Also, if enough outrage is generated by a particular incident, it can be used as a justification for a further clampdown on any form of dissent. The use of the tactics of divide and rule and the threat to the right of dissent are dealt with in this post: Clamping down on the right to protest 7.3.24.

If you want an example of how a particular action sparks off yet another battle in the culture war, this is pretty much a perfect example that ticks a lot of the boxes: Pro-Palestine activists attack painting of Lord Balfour at University of Cambridge's Trinity College - itvX | 8.3.24. To briefly summarise what happened, a woman claiming to be from Palestine Action destroyed a painting of Lord Arthur James Balfour by Philip Alexius de László which was hanging in Trinity College Library in Cambridge.

Balfour supported Zionist aspirations for the creation of what ultimately became the state of Israel - this is why his portrait was targetted. Unsurprisingly, this destruction of the portrait of Balfour has on the one hand, generated outrage from those appalled at the destruction of a work of art, and on the other hand, numerous attempts to justify the action.

Here are just a couple of the many pieces expressing outrage at the action: The disgusting defacement of Lord Balfour’s painting - Brendan O'Neil | The Spectator | 9.3.23 and: Pro-Palestine Vandal Destroys Painting of Lord Balfour - Mark Vallen | Art for a change | 9.3.24. As an aside, Brendan O'Neil was the former editor of Spiked! which emerged from the ashes of the LM magazine, formerly known as Living Marxism, which was the monthly publication of what was the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). In the mid 1990s, O'Neil was recruited into the RCP through one of their front organisations, the Schools Campaign Against Militarism. Given O'Neil's current output, that's some turnaround in political positions!

At least eight people were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrius Church in Gaza City on 20 October, which was sheltering hundreds of Palestinians. [Getty]

Those expressing outrage at the destruction of the portrait of Balfour might have a bit more credibility if they acknowledged the destruction of Palestinian heritage sites being wrought by Israel in their 'pursuit' of Hamas. A level of destruction which is widely documented in this piece: Widescale destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza - Geraldine Kendall Adams | Museums Association | 30.1.24. The problem is that in a culture war, acknowledging nuances like this does not come easily to the protagonists.

Attacking cultural sites is a tactic of war, one that's used when the attacker wants to fully subjugate, if not completely remove, the population. The way Israel is inflicting mass civilian casualties on the Palestinians as well as destroying their cultural heritage more than suggests that another land grab is underway, under the pretext of ' dealing with' Hamas. Does this justify the destruction of the portrait of Balfour? Debate will continue to rage on this one for some time to come. The point I would make is that destroying the portrait of Balfour is sinking to the level of the Israeli military in their destruction of Gaza - that's not something I'd want to be associated with.

It has to be noted that Balfour held some pretty obnoxious views as documented in part in this piece: It’s time to admit that Arthur Balfour was a white supremacist - and an anti-Semite, too - Yousef Munayyer | Forward | 1.11.17.

Balfour lived in an era of stirring nationalism, highly defined by ethno-religious identity. Because of these sentiments, the early 20th century was a time when ostensibly liberal Western nations struggled with the challenge of incorporating Jewish citizens. What the Zionists provided Balfour with was a solution to the challenges Jewish citizens posed to his ethno-nationalist vision, a solution that didn’t force him to reckon with them. Instead of insisting that societies accept all citizens as equals, regardless of racial or religious background, the Zionist movement offered a different answer: separation.

Should Balfour's openly white supremacist views justify the destruction of his portrait? If the criteria of destroying or removing historical portraits of notable figures because of their obnoxious views was rigorously applied, the National Portrait Gallery among many others would soon become pretty empty spaces! There's a massive difference between completely erasing a dodgy past and then forgetting about it on the one hand, and on the other, preserving the relics of that past while acknowledging the sins that were committed and learning the lessons from that. Preservation of the relics alongside acknowledgement of past sins would appear to be something that's beyond both sides in the culture wars with their blinkered opinions and highly selective use of the facts.

There has been some comment on social media about the woman activist who destroyed the portrait of Balfour having a backpack that was worth £800. The people making those observations must be seriously into their brands! The somewhat privileged background of the activist in question has also been raised. Coming from a class struggle background, I can sympathise with those pointing out the arrogance and privilege of a well heeled middle class activist engaging in an act of so called 'direct action'.

Note the use of the quote marks around 'direct action' because the destruction of a painting does not in my view, constitute real, let alone effective direct action. Effective direct action is lobbing a spanner into the workings of the war machine such as the ongoing action against Elbit, a supplier to the Israeli military: Court victory for Elbit Eight - Andrew George | FRFI | 22.1.24. The destruction of a painting, no matter how obnoxious the subject may be, is merely a performative act that could arguably be likened to a tantrum, rather than anything that will stop the war machine.

The fact that both the actions against Elbit and the destruction of the portrait of Balfour appear to come from the activist group Palestine Action is bizarre to say the least. Anyone with any nous should have realised that attacking and destroying the portrait would play straight into the hands of the culture warriors uncritically championing the Zionist cause. They should also have realised that destroying a work of art would enrage many art lovers in a way that will lose Palestine Action support. In fact, if any nefarious actors wanted to discredit the cause of Palestinian solidarity, destroying the portrait of Balfour would definitely be the way to go. It does make you wonder doesn't it? In an age where it's getting harder to discern truth from propaganda and the psyops that are being inflicted upon us, pretty much anything could be possible...

To conclude, the culture warriors are having a field day in the aftermath of what's either a massive own goal or more sinisterly, an attempt to sabotage the cause of Palestinian solidarity. What is now the subject of a heated row is the sanctity of art rather than what's happening on the ground in Gaza, the West Bank and more broadly, across the Middle East. The focus is not where it should be, it's on a painting instead. People are shouting at each other from entrenched positions but, they're not listening to each other. Divisions are being deepened. At the same time, this action will inevitably be used as a justification for a further clampdown on protest or indeed, any form of dissent. To put it bluntly, the situation is a total clusterf**k:(