Today you are one of the most renowned Palestinian artists and you're often referred to as the "artist of the intifada". Do you consider yourself a political artist?
Mansour: I think people exaggerate with all these titles. They need heroes. So they picked me. I don't like it. As an artist, you don't want to be put in a box. Even when I do things that don't have anything to do with politics, they say it's political. As a human being it might be good for your ego, but as an artist, it's not so easy.
But you were involved in political movements…
Mansour: I am not involved. I reflect in my art the world in which I live. My misfortune is that I live under occupation. I didn't choose that. It would be surreal to live under occupation and paint exquisite flowers and beautiful women. You can't do that. You have to reflect your life. My work tends to be full of symbolism, which people understand.
During the first Palestinian uprising against Israel, known as the Intifada, you said you would only use material from Palestine. What was that about?
Mansour: That was the philosophy of the Intifada. It was about boycotting Israeli goods and being self-sufficient. Back then, most people were trying to do that, by farming their own piece of land. As an artist I thought, why don't we do the same? Why don't we search for natural materials to use in our work? The mud came from my childhood memories. As a child I used to work with my grandmother when she was building beehives and even ovens out of mud. And I was always around her, trying to help. So when I thought about material that I could use, mud was the first thing that came to mind. After a while, once I started making figures, I realised that the mud also reflects human fate – cracks form, people who collapse in on themselves and finally disappear.
The second Intifada wasn't about boycotting anymore. It was about fighting. Did you take part in that as well?
Mansour: No, I didn't have a role in the second intifada, nor did I like what took place. I felt it was imposed, not real, made up. The violence also played a role. Israel is so strong militarily. So why are we going to fight Israel in an area at which they excel? That was simply stupid.
What could form the starting point for future reconciliation? What are your thoughts about a two-state solution?
Mansour: Not without Jerusalem. In 1994-95 there was a solution on the table that would have been acceptable to people. It said Jerusalem would be one city. West Jerusalem would be run by Israelis – including the Wailing Wall – and the rest of East Jerusalem would be run by Palestinians. But it would be one city. Most people, including me, would accept that.
In this case you would accept the State of Israel alongside a State of Palestine, with special status for Jerusalem?
Mansour: Yes. But I would prefer a one-state solution. Maybe like a confederation or something. Many places have different religions and different languages. They live together and have equal rights. We could even accept the Lebanese model. Even if there were fewer Jews than Palestinians, the prime minister could be one of them. We could reach a conclusion like that. But you have to be willing to try. As long as the other side remains so strong and enjoys so much support, they are unlikely to consider such options.
Interview conducted by Sarah Judith Hofmann
© Deutsche Welle 2018