Former BBC Actor Quits London Theatre Show Over Jewish Co-Star Maureen Lipman’s Views on Palestine
A London theatre production has become the latest flashpoint in Britain’s increasingly bitter cultural debate over Israel and Palestine after actor Gerard McCarthy announced that he was withdrawing from a performance because of the public views of his new Jewish co-star, Dame Maureen Lipman.
McCarthy, a Northern Irish actor known for his work in television and theatre, had been due to appear in Right Before I Go at Soho Theatre. The production, written by Stan Zimmerman, explores suicide, mental health and the experiences of people affected by suicide.
But the arrival of Lipman, one of Britain’s best-known veteran actresses, dramatically changed the political atmosphere surrounding the production.
McCarthy said he had privately explained that he was uncomfortable personally promoting Lipman’s involvement because of views she had repeatedly expressed about Israel and Palestine. Following a subsequent conversation with the production’s writer, he decided that withdrawing from the performance was the right course of action.
His decision has immediately raised difficult questions about artistic freedom, political disagreement and whether actors should be expected to work alongside colleagues whose views they strongly oppose.
It is also another example of how the conflict in Gaza has increasingly moved beyond politics and into Britain’s cultural institutions.
For McCarthy, the issue appears to have been one of personal conscience.
In announcing his withdrawal, he made clear that he did not want audiences to believe that he was participating in the promotion of Lipman’s involvement when he was uncomfortable with her public political position. He framed the decision as a willingness to walk away from professional work rather than compromise something he considered more important.
That argument will resonate with people who believe artists should have the freedom to refuse professional associations that conflict with their moral beliefs.
But there is another side to the controversy.
Lipman has spent years speaking publicly about Israel, antisemitism and the treatment of Jewish people. She has strongly defended Israel and criticised elements of the pro-Palestinian movement. She has also faced protests and hostility because of her views, including campaigns calling for performances involving her to be cancelled.
The actress has argued that criticism of Israel can sometimes cross the line into antisemitism and has expressed deep concern about what she sees as growing hostility towards Jews in Britain.
Those views have made her a highly controversial figure in sections of the British arts world.
For her supporters, Lipman is being targeted simply because she is a Jewish woman who refuses to remain silent about Israel.
For her critics, her public statements about Palestinians and the Israeli government are deeply objectionable and justify political opposition.
The dispute surrounding Right Before I Go therefore involves two competing principles.
One is the right of an individual artist to decide who they are willing to work with.
The other is the principle that a person’s political views should not automatically make them professionally untouchable.
Neither principle is easy to dismiss.
Actors routinely work alongside people with whom they disagree. Theatre companies bring together performers from different backgrounds, religions and political traditions. If every disagreement became a reason to refuse collaboration, very few productions would survive.
At the same time, actors are not machines.
They are entitled to moral convictions. They may decide that participating in a particular project would make them feel personally compromised. Choosing to leave a production is not necessarily an attempt to silence another person.
McCarthy did not call for Lipman to be banned from acting. He did not demand that the theatre cancel the production. Instead, he chose to remove himself.
That distinction matters.
However, the situation becomes more complicated because McCarthy’s departure can still contribute to a wider atmosphere in which artists are judged by their political positions.
The theatre world has already experienced numerous disputes over Israel and Palestine since the war in Gaza began.
Performers have faced protests, calls for boycotts and accusations of political intolerance. Jewish actors have described feeling increasingly uncomfortable in parts of the arts community, while pro-Palestinian artists have argued that criticism of Israel is too often treated as evidence of antisemitism.
Both concerns can exist simultaneously.
It is possible to condemn antisemitism while supporting Palestinian rights.
It is also possible to criticise the Israeli government without hating Jewish people.
The difficulty arises when political criticism becomes personal hostility, or when Jewish artists are treated as representatives of Israel simply because they are Jewish.
That danger makes the McCarthy-Lipman dispute particularly sensitive.
Lipman is not an Israeli government official. She is an actress.
McCarthy is not responsible for the policies of every Palestinian political organisation simply because he has expressed sympathy with Palestinians.
Artists should not be expected to carry responsibility for the actions of governments or armed groups with which they have no direct connection.
Yet political disagreement can become intensely personal when the subject involves war, identity and historical trauma.
For Jewish people, Israel is often connected to questions of family history, persecution and survival. For Palestinians and their supporters, the conflict is connected to displacement, occupation, civilian suffering and the destruction experienced by communities in Gaza and elsewhere.
The emotional stakes are enormous.
That helps explain why a theatre rehearsal can suddenly become a battleground for a conflict taking place thousands of miles away.
There is also a particularly uncomfortable irony in the production itself.
Right Before I Go is a play about suicide and the experiences of people whose lives have been affected by suicide. Its central purpose is to encourage empathy and understanding around some of the most painful experiences a person can endure.
The controversy surrounding its cast demonstrates how difficult empathy can become when political identities collide.
Theatre is traditionally supposed to provide a space where audiences encounter perspectives they may not share.
A stage can bring together people who disagree profoundly in real life and allow them to inhabit different experiences through performance.
But that ideal is increasingly being tested.
In today’s highly polarised environment, audiences, performers and producers are often expected to take political positions. Social media makes every statement permanent and every disagreement public. A comment made years earlier can suddenly become relevant to a casting decision today.
Lipman’s long career illustrates that problem.
She has built a reputation over decades as an acclaimed actress and comedian, appearing in television, film and theatre. Her public identity, however, now exists alongside her political activism.
That means casting her is never entirely separate from the public debate surrounding her.
The same is increasingly true of actors who oppose her.
McCarthy’s withdrawal demonstrates that artists themselves may regard political associations as professionally significant.
The question is where society should draw the line.
If an actor refuses to work with someone because of their views on a particular government, should that be treated as a legitimate exercise of conscience?
Probably.
But if an entire industry begins excluding performers according to their political beliefs, the consequences become much more troubling.
The danger is that theatre could become less diverse precisely because it is afraid of disagreement.
A healthy artistic environment should be able to accommodate disagreement. It should allow a strongly pro-Israel performer to work alongside a strongly pro-Palestinian performer without either being required to abandon their beliefs.
That does not mean every working relationship will be comfortable.
Nor does it mean that artists must collaborate with everyone.
But there is value in resisting the idea that political disagreement automatically makes professional cooperation impossible.
McCarthy’s decision nevertheless deserves to be understood on its own terms.
He appears to have concluded that continuing with the production would conflict with his conscience. He accepted the professional consequences and walked away.
People may disagree with his decision, but the freedom to make it is important.
The same freedom must apply to Lipman.
She should be able to express strong views about Israel and Palestine without automatically losing her right to work. Her critics have every right to challenge those views, demonstrate against them and argue that she is wrong. But disagreement should not automatically become professional censorship.
The theatre community now faces a difficult balancing act.
It must create space for political debate while protecting artists from harassment and discrimination. It must recognise the legitimate fears of Jewish performers who feel targeted because of their identity while also allowing Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices to speak about the suffering of Palestinians.
That requires a distinction between criticism and hatred.
It requires the ability to say that someone’s political position is wrong without declaring that person unacceptable as a human being.
And it requires an understanding that two artists can hold radically different views about one of the world’s most divisive conflicts without either being required to surrender their principles.
The McCarthy-Lipman dispute may eventually have little impact on the production itself.
But its significance extends far beyond one theatre performance.
It reflects a deeper struggle taking place across Britain about whether cultural spaces should be places of political solidarity, political neutrality or political disagreement.
There is no easy answer.
For McCarthy, refusing to share a platform with Lipman was apparently a matter of conscience.
For Lipman, continuing to speak publicly about Israel is equally connected to conscience and identity.
Both positions demonstrate how profoundly the Gaza conflict has affected people far beyond the Middle East.
The greatest danger is not that actors disagree.
The danger is that disagreement becomes impossible.
Theatre has historically thrived on uncomfortable conversations, competing ideas and conflicting perspectives. It should not become a place where everyone must hold the same political beliefs before they are allowed through the door.
McCarthy was entitled to leave.
Lipman is entitled to stay.
And audiences should be entitled to make up their own minds about both.
In an increasingly polarised Britain, that may be the most important principle of all: disagreement should not require silence, and conscience should not require censorship.
:::{“fallbackMarkdown”:””,”reference”:{“matched_text”:” “,”prefix”:null,”start_idx”:11854,”end_idx”:11854,”safe_urls”:[],”refs”:[],”alt”:””,”prompt_text”:null,”type”:”sources_footnote”,”sources”:[{“title”:”Gerard McCarthy: Former BBC actor quits London theatre show over co-star Maureen Lipman’s views on Palestine”,”url”:”https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/gerard-mccarthy-maureen-lipman-palestine-israel?utm_source=chatgpt.com”,”attribution”:”GB News”}],”has_images”:false},”showLoginRequiredCard”:false}