Understanding Seven Jewish Children’s Complicated Mess

When does artistic expression become racist propaganda? Can something be antisemitic if it is said by a committed Jew? Does the protection of free speech merit the propagation of hate? Is an attack against the Jewish State an attack against the Jewish people as a whole? At the heart of the debate about Caryl Churchill’s play, Seven Jewish Children, is the difficult problem of where to draw the line between antisemitism and legitimate critique of Israel. The time has come to put politics aside and begin to engage with these questions in a rigorous and scholarly way.

Seven Jewish Children elicits a similar debate in each community where it is staged: While critics have denounced the play for what is seen to be blatant antisemitism, others have countered that the production is nothing more than legitimate criticism of Israel. The 10-minute piece is a meditation on how we transmit cultural narratives to our children. Beginning with the Holocaust and tracing a historical line through the creation of the State of Israel to the contemporary Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the piece highlights the ways that adults choose to discuss difficult topics with children.

The play is clearly not intended to be balanced; its subtitle is “A Play for Gaza”, not “A Play for Peace”. The story it tells begins with the horrors of the Holocaust and ends with an inversion of sorts, where the characters seem to be lamenting the tragic yet inevitable process of victims becoming perpetrators. Does this inversion mean that the play is antisemitic? Possibly, but not necessarily. Is it uncomfortable to hear? Certainly. But whether the piece is or is not antisemitic, the fact that so many people regard it as such is significant and prevents us from simply dismissing these accusations out of hand. Seven Jewish Children touches a nerve and raises difficult – even painful – questions about the nature of Jewish identity and the relationship between antisemitism and legitimate critique of Israel.

Yet these are the very questions that have been fueling fears and debates about several current anti-Israel initiatives; the growing momentum of Israeli Apartheid Week (the international movement on university campuses), the legitimacy of Durban II, and the boycott of Israeli academics, just to name a few. In these endless games of Who’s The Victim?, accusations of antisemitism are countered with the anti-racist declarations of the Politically Correct, and Free Speech is being tossed around like a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Clearly what is needed is a better understanding of just exactly what contemporary antisemitism is and how it relates to criticism of Israel.

Former Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky’s 3D test of antisemitism (demonization, delegitimization, and double standards) is often cited as a tool to determine whether or not criticism of Israel crosses the line. However, the nature and experience of antisemitism as it relates to criticism of Israel is a profoundly emotional issue, and far too complex for such a simple litmus test to master.

Unfortunately, much of the current work on contemporary antisemitism is characterized by a kind of passionate and politicized argumentation that lacks the strength of academic scholarship. The small amount of scholarly research that does exist is rarely conducted in a Canadian context. Research institutes in the U.S., Europe, and Israel provide rigorous scholarly material that is used to inform policy around antisemitism and racism in general. Canada has yet to create a similar institute.

Whether or not one believes that anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism, there is no doubt that communities are struggling to make sense of this question, and painful rifts are being created in the process. If we are to unravel the complicated mess that is presented by Seven Jewish Children, if we are going to be able to hear what it has to say and learn from it, we must move beyond politics towards a better understanding of what antisemitism is today.