On November 29th 2007, the Israel Democracy Institute hosted a sold-out evening of theatre and political dialogue at Jerusalem’s Khan Theatre. This event, part of IDI’s DemoCulture series tying political dialogue to cultural events, began with a performance of Fighting for Home, a highly acclaimed satire based upon Aristophanes. Recipient of the 2003 Israeli Theatre Award for Comedy of the Year, Fighting for Home takes place in a war torn Jerusalem following many years of fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. In a hilarious sequence of sketches, we find the Israeli army now comprised of recruits from the Far East and Israeli women denying their husbands sex to pressure them into making peace. One Israeli family decides to make a private peace treaty with the enemy, and a local fish salesman replaces the Prime Minister. In contrast to the humor and absurdity, however, emerged deep and difficult questions about politics and peace-making in Israel.
In an attempt to dissect the meaning embedded in the performance, IDI invited a series of panelists for a 45-minute discussion at the play’s conclusion. Oded Shachar, the Chief of the economic desk at Channel 1, served as moderator. He introduced the conversation by wondering if there were potential reasons why this country’s leadership would be intentionally ‘avoiding peace.’ Behira Bardugo, a lobbyist and the former spokesperson for Shimon Peres, provided insight into the importance of keeping our politicians ‘in check’ through fearless criticism and high standards of accountability. Amit Segal, Knesset Reporter for Channel 2, spoke passionately and with visible frustration about the ulterior motives of politicians.
The final panelist, Avinoam Mor-Haim - a Veteran actor from Khan - played the Prime Minister in the preceding performance. In addition to sharing his sense that politicians’ survival strategies were overshadowing immediate national needs, Mor-Haim brought the conversation back into the realm of theater. He questioned whether or not the stage was an appropriate place for politics. Despite the clear political message behind the play, did the audience truly want to confront difficult political questions during a pleasant evening at the theater?
From the capacity attendance that had come that evening to hear him both act and explore political issues, the answer to his question was clear. Entertainment and meaningful cultural dialogue could indeed be merged into one.