Writing in The National Post, Charles Lewis pours scorn upon the group of artists and writers who have called on the Toronto Film Festival to cancel the showing of ten films about Tel Aviv, in order to avoid complicity with “the Israeli propaganda machine.”
Those signing the so-called “Toronto Declaration” - puh-leeze! - include a smattering of the usual suspects (Ken Loach, John Pilger, Naomi Klein,) as well as a errrmmm…cutting edge artist whose profile has, I assure you, absolutely nothing to do with her brother. Oh, and lots of people who give their profession as “filmmaker,” which, you have to admit, sounds much better than “underemployed.”
The way in which the signatories to this Declaration obliterate the distinction between the famous and the obscure - “Shai Carmeli Pollak, Filmmaker, Israel,” “Jane Fonda, Actor and Author, USA” - is almost touching. But make no mistake: the politics here are odious, which is why Lewis wants to chuck out his copies of Jane Fonda’s aerobic workouts, bin his David Byrne CDs (the Talking Heads singer is also a signatory) and boycott any film featuring Danny Glover (another signatory.)
I can’t think, offhand, of any movie starring Glover, Mel Gibson’s sidekick, that I would want to see. Hanoi Jane, though, is another matter: politically idiotic as she is, she has always been a marvellous presence on screen, hypnotic in “Klute,” transcendentally gorgeous in “Barbarella.” As for Byrne, well, I still treasure my vinyl copies of “Talking Heads - ‘77″ and “Remain in Light.”
I don’t want to filter these works of art through the dismal lens of the Israel boycott. My response, therefore, is to dismiss the silly assumption of Byrne, Fonda et al. that their status as artists gives them some kind of privileged insight into politics. It is perfectly plausible for me to deem “Don’t Worry About the Government” to be a superb song and not give a hoot about what David Byrne actually thinks about the government.
At the same time, there is a set of wider questions: what if growing numbers of celebrities are co-opted into the movement to recast Israel as today’s version of apartheid South Africa? Should we care? Do people really pay attention to what artists like Roger Waters and Brian Eno - two more aging musos who have thrown in their lot with the Israel-haters - say about Middle Eastern politics? Or is their participation a potent symbol of how the discourse which spotlights Israel as a rogue state has entered mainstream liberal opinion?
For now, at least, I’m just asking.
I don’t know what the ten films are, but the idea that they would either represent one view or in some way act as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government is ridiculous. Regardless of the wider impact of such a boycott, it is bound to hurt these independent filmmakers. It is already difficult to get funding, and with such prominent artists being critical, it will be even more difficult for the Israeli films to get vital distribution deals. Do these “stars” really want to limit the ability of Israeli filmmakers to make films?
The trouble with “stars” speaking for one cause or another, is because many people, a great many people, only pay attention to news about “stars.” See, for example, the popularity of media like People Magazine, and Entertainment Tonight. The concern should be that the vast majority of people, who really don’t care about politcs, but do care about “stars” will place weight on the words of the people they care about.
There’s a Yiddish expression: der oylam is a goylam. The masses are asses.
It is a very well written piece, good joke about Gibson.
Actually, I think they do want to limit the ability of Israeli filmmakers to make films. A boycott of Israeli films won’t hurt rightwingers in the Israeli government, but it will injure Israeli filmmakers.
Some of the so called Jewish filmmakers supporting the boycott are as dumb as post and twice as ignorant.
Take Wallace Shawn for example. Here he is profiled on Tablet where he has this to say about Israel:
“I think that most Israeli leaders have implicitly if not explicitly taken the position that they have the right to act in a way that they themselves might think leaders of other countries might not. They are saying, when challenged, well, you may think what we’re doing is ruthless, but we have the right to do it because this is not just any old country— this is the last refuge of a group of people who have been persecuted for millennia, and we have the right to take these steps. That attitude comes from the history of the Jews. It just does. Do I think it should be attacked and wiped out! No! As I say in the essay, giving the land of Israel to the Jews after World War II was a costless way for Europeans and Americans to atone for what had been allowed to happen to the Jews. It was a gift that was not a great gift.”
Get it? Israel was a “gift” it didn’t come about because of hard work and a desire to live freely in a historic homeland.
Then when it comes to Judaism Wallace gets emotional (in the bad sense of the term):
Q “What does being Jewish mean to you?”
A “I’m an atheist. I don’t even know what people could possibly be talking about when they talk about God. On the other hand, I’ve always been very drawn to religious music, religious art, and, I have to say, religious people. I have been to quite a few bar and bat mitzvahs, including those of my niece and nephew. In each case, I have been sort of repelled when, for instance, the portion of the Torah that was being read offered a justification for what, by today’s standards, would be considered war crimes—or meaningless lists of items to be sacrificed. I’m thinking, why are we sitting here and listening to this? But then, in each case, something has happened that has actually overwhelmed me with emotion. The Jewish belief in the importance of each individual becoming a decent human being is thrilling. It’s incredibly moving, fantastic—the belief in justice and the belief in thinking about things and examining things. These are deeply moving Jewish values that affect and move even me.”
The man is dripping with sentimentality but thinks Jews ought not to be able to defend themselves.
I doubt the other Jewish filmmakers know any more about Israel than this guy does. They become all dewy when it comes to “justice for others,” never for Jews.
The Israeli government partly sponsored “Waltz with Bashir,” a film highly critical of IDF conduct in ‘82. This is a testament to the openness of Israeli society and the nation’s willingness to continually contest and renegotiate its history in honest and critical ways. If this isn’t a resounding counterpoint to the lies offered by those who seek to relentlessly demonize not just the Israeli state but also its people - I don’t what is!
Plus, if these so-called stars were really interested in finding a solution to the I/P problem, they would do everything in their power to engage and support Israel’s vibrant and diverse civil society rather than paint it with a broad brush, alienate it, and ostracize Israel’s artistic voices. But a genuine solution is not what these people are interested in.
Just a thought: Jane Fonda is a friend of Vannessa Redgrave and Danny Glover is a friend of Mel Gibson. Redgrave and Gibson have both added notoriety to their fame by indulging in rants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwH-46ovlo
http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/gibsons-anti-semitic-tirade-alleged-cover-up/
Birds of a feather, and all that.
As he has done in the past, Canadian movie reviewer Bruce Kirkland rightly labelled the boycotters as ignorant, noting that while City-to-City Tel Aviv didn’t include “balance” via Palestinian filmmakers, TIFF 2009 does include entries by Palestinian and Lebanese filmmakers whose films are critical of Israel, and that the City-to-City entries, although all made by Jewish Israelis, included films that were critical of Israel, providing balance.
The boycott call backfired anyway. Tickets to City-to-City TA sold out last week.
“Jane Fonda is a friend of Vannessa Redgrave and Danny Glover is a friend of Mel Gibson.”
It’s not about individuals, or at least not only about individuals, Noga.
We need a good history of anti-Zionism among intellectuals in the US (or even in North America) lacking that we have no way of knowing what’s behind all this Israel hatred.
I do know that such hatred goes far back at least to the 1920’s. Lionel Trilling has written that he and his friends were on the side of the Arabs during the late 20’s Hebron massacre. I doubt many people are aware of that.
It’s also no coincidence that many of these intellectuals were also one time Trotskyites who didn’t see much difference between Stalin and Hitler at the beginning of WW2.
One more thing, Trilling brought Edward said to Colombia. Nuf said. (Pun is intentional.)
I hope some Jewish organization will commission a study of anti Zionism among Jewish intellectuals in the US the way that they commissioned a study of antisemitism in 1945 from the Frankfurt School.
I just came across this little gem about an inveterate Israel hater working at a “human rights organization”
WHY IS HUMAN RIGHT’S OFFICIAL POSTING ON NAZI WEBSITES?
“ORIGINAL: There are two Marc Garlascos on the Internet. One is a top human rights investigator who, having joined Human Rights Watch after several years with the Pentagon, has become known for his shrill attacks on Israel. The other is a Marc Garlasco who’s obsessed with the color and pageantry of Nazism, has published a detailed 430 page book on Nazi war paraphernalia, and participates in forums for Nazi souvenir collectors.”
Read the whole thing, here:
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275875.html
Jacob-Alain:
Years ago Bertrand Russell noted and cautioned against the left-liberal tendancy to confer “superior virtue” on “the righteous oppressed”. This mindset probably explains the phenom of Jewish intellectuals like Trilling taking the likes of Ed Said at face value, rather than subjecting their claims to the same scrutiny they would apply to those who can’t claim to be among “the wretched of the earth”.
The Toronto Star, a newspaper not exactly seen as a supporter of Israel, took the pro-boycotters to task for, among other things, trying to legitimize the boycott proposal by casting Tel Aviv as stolen land.
http://www.thestar.com/article/692083
Lynne T
“Years ago Bertrand Russell noted and cautioned against the left-liberal tendancy to confer “superior virtue” on “the righteous oppressed”. This mindset probably explains the phenom of Jewish intellectuals like Trilling taking the likes of Ed Said at face value, rather than subjecting their claims to the same scrutiny they would apply to those who can’t claim to be among “the wretched of the earth”.”
I agree with Russell’s view, Lynne.
However, Trilling anti-Zionism is more of a piece with his own desire to deny his own status as one of the “wretched of the earth” than by supporting them.
Trilling was himself the subject of antisemitic attacks at Columbia U and it was only because the President of the University intervened that he became the first Jewish professor in that department.
Many Jewish intellectuals believe that by taking the side of the “oppressed” they can escape the fate of other Jews. This is what is behind the anti-Zionism of many Jews. They like to see themselves as citizen of the world (yet they would never deny the citizenship of whatever country in which they reside, be it the US, England, Canada, etc.) They practice “universal values” only in relation to Israel.
Their position is motivated by cowardice and justified by hypocrisy.
One also wonders why the boycotters picked on TIFF to make their point.
Tel Aviv was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site a few years ago. Why not try to boycott the UN as well, then?
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/080421bauhaus.asp