Protests force World Press Photo shutdown in Beirut

amit-shaal

Amit Sha'al's images on the World Press Photo website.

World Press Photo has been forced to close down its exhibition in Beirut after a winning project by Israeli photographer Amit Sha’al sparked local protests

Author: Olivier Laurent

Facing call to censor parts of this year's World Press Photo exhibition, which opened in Beirut, Lebanon, on 12 May, the Dutch organisation has announced its decision "to dismantle and close the entire exhibition."

The decision comes after "the presence of prizewinning work by an Israeli photojournalist in the exhibition had sparked protests locally," says World Press Photo. "The Beirut exhibition organisers felt they could no longer guarantee the safety of the visitors or the exhibit itself if the pictures remained on display. World Press Photo does not accept that any photographs are removed from the presentation."

At the centre of the controversy are Amit Sha'al's project A Journey Through Time and Place, which is a series of archive photos set against their present-day backdrops in Israel (the images can be seen on the World Press Photo website). The series won 3rd prize in the Arts and Entertainment category.

According to the Associated Press, protesters objected to the presence of images shot by an Israeli photographer. Following the protests, local authorities asked the organisers to remove Sha'al's images arguing that Lebanon and Israel "are at war."

"The integrity of our exhibition was at stake," says World Press Photo managing director Michiel Munneke. "Removing any prizewinning photos would come down to censorship, which for us is not acceptable. In this instance, closing the exhibition was the only way we could remain true to our principle of promoting freedom of information. We regret that we had no other choice and we hope that we will be able to bring our exhibition back to Lebanon soon again."

The World Press Photo exhibition was supposed to remain open until 01 June. Since a first World Press Photo exhibition was opened in Beirut in 1995, the annual edition has regularly been shown there and in other locations in Lebanon, according to World Press Photo.

Speaking to the Association Press, Sha'al says that the images were not political.  "It's an examination of what was once and what is now. The viewer can reach his or her own conclusion. I have no intention of representing Israel or Israeli policies, many of which I oppose personally. There are dark people on both sides of the fence."

Developing...

  • Comment
  • Print
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn

Comments

Cudos to World Press Photo!

Well done for sticking up for the integrity of the work and exhibition. SHAME on those who try to censor the work.

Posted by: Mister Angry! on 22 May 2011 at 16:23

Thank you World Press Photo

I am proud of the organizers of World Press Photo for standing up to censorship based upon hate and bigotry.

Posted by: Yael Swerdlow on 22 May 2011 at 19:44

reciprocity

amazing that it is never mentioned that the Arabs are not allowed to go to Israel, expose in Israel, perform in Israel, display in Israel.
that Arab books, press, journals, photograps, etc are not allowed in Israel.
we only see articles when Arabs reciprocate.

Posted by: rachelle on 23 May 2011 at 15:17

reciprocity?

re rachelle - Please support your statement with examples of equivalent behavior by Israel.

Posted by: kagni on 23 May 2011 at 15:36

Israel Censorship

kagni :
just one example
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/12/world/fg-jenin12

Posted by: Robert on 23 May 2011 at 16:10

Censorship

"Jenin, Jenin " ban was overturned,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenin,_Jenin

Bakri took the ban to court and the Supreme Court of Israel overturned the decision. According to Supreme Court Judge Dalia Dorner: "The fact that the film includes lies is not enough to justify a ban,"; she implied that it is up to viewers to interpret what they see, citing the Maimonides quotation: "And with intellect shall distinguish the man, between the truth and the false." On appeal, the Supreme Court's ruling was stayed, but in August 2004 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the overturning of the ban, stating that the film board does not have "a monopoly over truth". Although the Supreme Court described the film as a "propagandistic lie," the ruling affirmed that choosing not to show 'both sides' of a story is not grounds for censorship.

Posted by: kagni on 23 May 2011 at 16:51

Updating your subscription status Loading