On October 19, three days after Israeli forces killed Hamas leader Yahya Shinwar, the Israeli military released a video dated a year ago, just before the attack that started the Gaza war. The footage shows Samar Muhammad Abu Zamel, who the Israeli military claims is Sinwar’s wife, moving into the tunnel carrying a black handbag.
In the blurry video, the wallet has a boxy shape with a top handle and some metal hardware in the top center. Avichai Adlai, an Arabic spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, posted the video and a still image of the handbag next to a similar photo of a Hermès Birkin, with the caption: Did she go into the tunnel with him on October 6th carrying a Birkin bag with an estimated value of about $32,000? I’ll leave the comments up to you. ”
On cue, comments began to pour in. It wasn’t just Adley’s post (though as of Wednesday, it had more than 4,000 comments).
A New York Post headline said, “Wife of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar reportedly found hiding with $32,000 Birkin bag.” Some reports had question marks, others did not. Some commentators disputed the handbag’s identity, saying it was impossible to tell whether it was a Birkin (or even a luxury bag, for that matter). Hermès did not respond to questions Tuesday about whether the bag is definitely its own product.
But in a sense, Birkin or not, what’s important is that Adele is associating a luxury brand with the Hamas leader whose death in combat cemented his heroic status in the eyes of many Palestinians. What did he want to imply? What mattered was the encoded meaning of such expensive items.
“The ongoing theme is exposing hypocrisy,” says Christopher J. Berry, emeritus professor of political theory at the University of Glasgow and author of The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation. .
Luxury goods become “a tool to expose the discrepancies between what someone says publicly and how they act in private,” Berry said. This overturns the widely held belief that leaders should sacrifice themselves for the sake of their country. Rather, it suggests that they are prioritizing themselves over the country. Especially countries that are suffering.
Just a suggestion that Ms. Abu Zamel may have had a Birkin. Birkin is one of the four major luxury brands in the world. A bag that its creator claims is a better investment than gold. The hook was a bag worth more than most people make in a year. That’s why the price of the bag has become so important in case someone misses it. (Hermès Birkin prices start at around $10,000 and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on material, size, and rarity.)
Luxury goods owned by politicians have been perceived and criticized as symbols of corruption and moral decadence, at least since the Stoics began rejecting material wealth. This is especially true when the people being governed are suffering economically.
Tactics appealing to a taste for wealth are often an important element of political propaganda strategies, whether the allegations are true or false, both in wartime and peacetime.
That’s true enough throughout history that it’s not hard to believe. Nero played with his hands while Rome burned, Marie Antoinette played the happy shepherd while France starved, and the Romanovs toyed with Faberge eggs while Russia froze. was all to their detriment. Imelda Marcos will go down in history for amassing a huge shoe collection during the Philippine famine.
In fact, any involvement with the world of high fashion can provoke scathing criticism. Take a look at the controversy caused by the 2022 Vogue magazine cover featuring Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska. Some viewers saw her participation in a wartime fashion magazine as an example of a leader who prioritized his own fame over the realities on the ground. Most recently, Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, was accused of accepting luxury giveaways from party donors, including $3,000 worth of glasses, after he took to the podium to clean up the Conservative party’s filth.
This is increasingly true as luxury itself has become a globally recognized language, spoken around the world through social media channels and celebrities. But the luxury industry has also made its biggest totem, the brand, a global symbol of aspiration, desire, status, class and elitism, making it an easy target.
In fact, Hermès in particular is often referred to almost as an abbreviation in corruption cases. In 2018, when former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife were accused of stealing state funds, authorities raided their property and recovered millions, including Hermès handbags worth an estimated $12 million. I found a luxury item worth a dollar amount. George Santos’ misappropriation of campaign funds to buy Hermès products made headlines even before he was voted into Congress. But Hermès is not alone.
The Trump campaign has featured Vice President Kamala Harris’ frequently worn necklace (a gold Tiffany chain-link style) in its fundraising appeal, along with photos of Harris wearing the accessory (as in Adlai’s post). , along with an image of a similar necklace from Tiffany’s online store and a quote from Sen. J.D. Vance, who said on Twitter that his “blood boiled” when he saw the photo.
The necklace pictured on Tiffany’s platform actually appears to be a larger version of the necklace Ms. Harris is wearing (other sizes are sold for significantly less). But as in the case of Abu Zamel and Barkin, accuracy is less important than any suggestion of profligacy or disconnect between what the candidates say and what they (presumably) buy. Or you could be accused of showing off.
The only exception to anti-luxury regulations appears to be Trump himself. He has made a virtue out of his love of luxury by incorporating it into his campaign promises. Look at the lifestyle Mr. Trump has achieved. Vote for him and he’ll vote for you.
But for others, “material things are at the heart of this issue,” Sean Wilentz, a professor of American history at Princeton University, told The New York Times during the Santos controversy. “They expose what are considered universal character flaws and make them concrete.”
