‘Krazy’ Ken Loach has an Israeli problem, and so does the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF).
Israeli funding angers filmmaker
Philippa Hawker
The Age
July 18, 2009ENGLISH filmmaker Ken Loach has withdrawn his film Looking for Eric from the Melbourne International Film Festival because the festival receives funding from the Israeli Government.
Loach told the festival if it did not reconsider the sponsorship, he would not allow the festival to screen his film…
The MIFF has published a statement on its site responding to Krazy Ken here:
Mr Loach’s decision is part of an orchestrated campaign to target events that are in receipt of financial support from the State of Israel. Loach requested that we join the boycott and as an independent arts organisation MIFF has refused. MIFF is extremely disappointed that Mr Loach has taken this stance. MIFF has played every one of his movies at the festival over the years including It’s A Free World (sic) in 2008…
More infos on the cultural boycott of Israel is not available here (a site established by Mooselems in 2002 but seemingly killed off some time in late 2007) but the electronic intifada can haz heaps more infos here.
Another VIP, Krazy (Naomi) Klein, declared that the time for a boycott is now (in January, 2009) — and still:
- Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction, January 8, 2009
On the Question of One-Sided Boycotts, January 21, 2009
Author Naomi Klein calls for boycott of Israel (AFP), June 26, 2009
Naomi Klein: Oppose The State, Not The People (Yotam Feldman, Ha’aretz), July 2, 2009
Klein recently toured Israel/Palestine (June 26 — Jerusalem / June 27 — Ramallah / July 1 — Haifa) promoting the Hebrew translation of her latest book The Shock Doctrine. Naughty Naomi took the opportunity to join troublemakers in the Palestinian village of Bil’in (Nilin) in the Occupied West Bank.
In September 2007, ‘Israel accepts order to change West Bank barrier’ read a report in The Age (Los Angeles Times) — ‘accepts’ in this case being a technical term meaning ‘ignores’. In July 2008, The Age (Joseph Krauss/AFP) reported that various Untermenschen (both local and foreign, including Kiwi anarchists and English, German and Swedish football hooligans who travel the world looking for violence) had the temerity to call for adherence to international and Israeli law (‘Clash marks anniversary of Israel wall ruling’):
The demonstrations marked four years since the International Court of Justice issued a non-binding resolution calling for parts of the barrier inside the occupied West Bank to be torn down and a halt to construction there.
Israel has ignored the ruling, as well as a similar order by its own High Court that nullified three sections of the wall, including one that runs near Bilin, a town near Nilin where the weekly protests have gone on for more than two years.
Twelve months later, the protest and resistance continues, ‘As US talks tough, Jewish settlements keep booming’ (Howard Schneider, The Age (Washington Post), July 4, 2009); a familiar pattern which will continue into the forseeable future. Note that one uppity Palestinian, “A villager, Bassem Abu Rahmeh, died in April when a tear gas canister hit him in the chest”; apparently, he was the eighteenth insect to be crushed over the course of five years of protest.
See also : Anti-Fascism, Anti-German, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism… (June 29, 2009) | Dirka Dirka! Durban! Hate-fest! Racism! (April 24, 2009) | Israeli Anarchists Against the Wall : Monday, April 20 (April 14, 2009) | Socialist Alternative: socialist jihadists of the far Left subsisting on a diet of anti-Semitism, lentils and tofu (March 17, 2009) | Blasphemy! Bolt! Hate-fest! Dirka Dirka! (March 14, 2009) | Overcoming Joel Kovel (February 21, 2009) | “Keep away from Durban” Mr KRudd (February 16, 2009) | Victory for Israeli Right : Bringing the Zionist Dream to Life (February 15, 2009) | “The simple answer is that you the Jews are real motherf—– bastards” (February 1, 2009) | Chomsky on Gaza (January 19, 2009) | Moar later… (January 9, 2009) | Whoops (January 7, 2009) | Lead Casted (January 5, 2009) | Peace process surges further ahead (January 3, 2009) | Kill for peace : “Operation Cast Lead” (December 28, 2008)…
- LOOKING FOR ERIC
UK/ Italy/ France/ Belgium, 2009 (International Panorama)
“Ken Loach in feelgood mode.” – Independent
Former soccer star Eric Cantona stars as himself in this uncharacteristically optimistic film from Ken Loach (It’s a Free World, MIFF 08; The Wind That Shakes the Barley, My Name Is Joe).
Soccer fanatic and depressive postal worker Eric finds his life hitting rock-bottom. In a moment of despair he confides in the life-size poster of Cantona hanging on his wall – and the French soccer star responds with advice. Coached by the imaginary Cantona’s cryptic counsel, Eric begins to change his life for the better.
With just a dash of grim reality thrown in for Loach measure, Looking for Eric is a clever comedy, an (imaginary) buddy movie and an unconventional romance, with plenty of inside jokes for ardent soccer fans.
Oh @ndy you are so full of it. Who the fuck is left to fool?
Certainly not you Jim: you have a monopoly on foolishness.
the left gave the jews their own homeland, now the bastards want to take it back?
Huh?
On Naomi Klein: http://antigerman.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/naomi-klein/
On Ken Loach: http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=409
Anti-German Translation,
The Ken Loach piece is short, and faults him for supporting the French ‘Nouveau parti anticapitaliste’ (NPA), having overly-simplistic politics, and making crap films. I like his films — those I’ve seen — but no, they’re hardly flawless. As for his politics: dunno. As an anarchist, I prefer to concentrate on ‘supporting’ social movements, not political parties. Without looking in closer detail — and I’m not sure I have the inclination — he appears to be some kinda leftist/progressive. As for the NPA: again, dunno.
Your post on Naomi Klein accuses her of being disingenuous and/or hypocritical: Klein supports a boycott, but publishes in Israel. You also raise, in the context of a boycott, the issue of it being problematic to draw a political distinction between the Israeli state and its citizens (people). As for her attendance at and support for the Durban II conference: 1) I’ve blogged about this previously; 2) I will read some of the lengthier writings you link to later; 3) I suppose one thing that should be borne in mind is that there are two issues: one is Klein’s own ideas and actions, the other the more general issues surrounding the notion of a boycott and secondly the status of Durban II.
On Durban II:
For Reasons of (Israeli) State (Policy) (July 25, 2008)
“Keep away from Durban” Mr KRudd (February 16, 2009)
Blasphemy! Bolt! Hate-fest! Dirka Dirka! (March 14, 2009)
Socialist Alternative: socialist jihadists of the far Left subsisting on a diet of anti-Semitism, lentils and tofu (March 17, 2009)
Dirka Dirka! Durban! Hate-fest! Racism! (April 24, 2009)
Moar l8r…
Thanks @ndy. On Loach, the pertinent part of the Principia Dialectica post for me was the series of oppositions at the end: the black and white vision of the world that afflicts leftist “anti-imperialism” today. The kind of […?] And by the way I write as a big fan of Loach’s films.
On Klein, again someone I admire, I want to make it clear that I was not at all in favour of a boycott of Durban II. I never had much hope for it – government’s chatting with each other is not the strategy for anti-racism I’d ever pursue. Letting Ahmadinejad, a vicious dictator and antisemite, give the keynote speech was a completely appalling idea. Some of the Zionist NGOs at Durban II were poorly behaved, but that this should have been more distasteful to Ms Klein than the presence of a dictator is disappointing to me. Or that she should have found these kids’ actions more distasteful than a member of Ahmadinejad’s entourage shouting “Zionazi” at an elderly Holocaust survivor, at the man who coined the term “No one is illegal”. Durban II produced nothing particularly objectionable, but it also achieved nothing particularly useful. Especially considering all the things the vast amounts of public money involved could have been used for, like, say, providing resources to Palestinian villages.
On the more general issue of boycotting Israel. There is clearly a case for boycotting Israel. There is also clearly a case for boycotting many other nation-states, such as Iran, Sri Lanka, Burma and China. Why is it that there is such a powerful movement for an Israel boycott, yet so few voices call for boycotting other equally or more brutal regimes.
It is also important to think how a boycott would be effective. Is the boycott about boosting the moral purity of the boycotters, or about achieving a positive aim. Assuming it is the latter, then we should be talking about arms embargoes, divestment from companies involved in building the separation wall, refusal to buy products made in the settlements. We should NOT be talking about refusing to show independent documentaries because they were made in Israel. We should NOT be talking about punishing Israeli academics and artists. We should NOT be talking about withdrawing films from film festivals because the Israeli government is giving them some money.
Just saw this: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/07/more-pressure-on-the-festival-.html
West Bank tense as evacuation fears prompt settlers to attack olive trees
Jason Koutsoukis, Jerusalem
The Age
July 25, 2009
MONDAY started out with Israel Defence Forces troops demolishing a solitary caravan on a hilltop in the north of the occupied West Bank.
Not officially a settlement, not large enough to be termed an illegal outpost, the site known by settlers as Adei Ad looked like home to a handful of dishevelled campers.
But although their campsite had been established on land owned by Palestinians, and was considered illegal under Israeli law, the demolition had violent consequences.
Settlers from the nearby outpost of Kedumim quickly thronged to the site, throwing stones and injuring one soldier.
News that the IDF had also removed a few shacks from another outpost named Nofei Yarden, and several containers from a third named Mitzpe Danny, only added to the tension. A group of 15 masked settlers appeared on the highway to the Palestinian city of Nablus, hurling rocks at passing traffic.
An army spokesman said later that five suspects had been arrested.
It’s no wonder that news of the IDF’s movements in the West Bank spread quickly. Walk through any Jewish settlement and it’s hard to miss the green posters covering almost every public space.
“Do you know about an upcoming evacuation?” read the signs in Hebrew. “Call the outpost operations centre on 052 630 2222.”
Were the IDF’s actions finally a sign that it was moving to deliver on five years of Israeli promises to the US to evacuate 23 larger West Bank outposts?
Some activists at Kiryat Arba, a Jewish settlement near the ancient city of Hebron, did not wait to find out.
Masked settlers on horseback went on the rampage, setting fire to hundreds of Palestinian olive trees, using machetes to cut down hundreds more. Israeli police counted 10 Palestinian cars that were set on fire and vandalised.
On Tuesday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a front-page story saying that the IDF was ready to evacuate all 23 key outposts in a single day.
After seeing that report, eight settlers from Yitzhar, in the northern West Bank, donned masks and attacked the Palestinian village of Burin. About 30 ancient olive trees were uprooted and hundreds more damaged.
“This is the where the real hatred is,” said one IDF soldier who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We cannot enter the outposts safely to talk to anyone about calming things down, or about not using violence. Things are out of our control.”
A leading settler activist, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who works as assistant to Michael Ben-Ari, an MP for the far-right National Union Party, said that all settlers on the West Bank were on alert and warned that blood would be spilled.
Further:
On Loach, the pertinent part of the Principia Dialectica post for me was the series of oppositions at the end: the black and white vision of the world that afflicts leftist “anti-imperialism” today. The kind of […?] And by the way I write as a big fan of Loach’s films.
K. Well… Without having looked closely at Loach’s political writings or speeches, I think it’s probably an unfair criticism, in which Ken is made of straw, not blood and bone. That is, such a framework is so simplistic it’s difficult to truly believe that a) it’s Ken Loach’s or b) that of many others. Further, it seems to me that his films at least aren’t such straightforward exercises in propaganda (and bad propaganda at that). Finally, if Loach is to be criticised for his decision to withdraw his film, I think his actual reasoning — whether seamless or faulty — should be examined, not his alleged simple-mindedness.
Secondly, I understand that there is a simple-minded form of ‘anti-imperialism’, in which the ‘oppressed nation’ is ‘supported’ (in some fashion) over-and-against the ‘imperialist overlord’/colonial power (and so on), but I don’t know to what extent this is a ‘real’ reflection of contemporary leftist concerns with ‘anti-imperialism’. Further, I’m not sure if such a simplistic, Manichean (cf. Principia Dialectica) worldview is especially ‘new’, or especially unique (George II: ‘You’re either with us or against us’). What such a worldview does bring to mind (among other things) is an essay by Chomsky on ‘The Soviet Union Versus Socialism’, Our Generation, Spring/Summer, 1986:
For what it’s worth, I think this can be understood as a more general political dynamic, employed if and when as necessary, and generally by those whose power derives from one or other camp.
“When faced with two alternatives, always choose the third way”: A saying of Jewish concentration camp inmates according to H. Patrick Glenn, [Legal traditions of the world:] Sustainable Diversity in Law, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 2004), p.112, n.90; citing Jonathan Boyarin, Storm from Paradise: The Politics of Jewish Memory (University of Minnesota Press, 1992), p.xix.
…government’s chatting with each other is not the strategy for anti-racism I’d ever pursue.
Agreed. However, it is worth noting that a variety of NGOs (constituting around 4,000 or so individuals) also participated in Durban II.
Letting Ahmadinejad, a vicious dictator and antisemite, give the keynote speech was a completely appalling idea.
Yes… and no. That is, the UN provides a forum for all sortsa ratbags — it is, after all, a forum of states, and state leaders, not ‘anti-racist activists’. Further, I dunno that it’s accurate to state that the Iranian President was selected to give the keynote speech. Rather, Ahmadinejad gave a statement on the afternoon of April 20; that particular session also heard statements from ‘dignitaries’ from Norway, South Africa, Cameroon, Tanzania, Botswana, Brazil, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Senegal, Tunisia, Morocco, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Mexico.
On Klein’s reaction and reportage, whether or not the $ spent on Durban II might have been better spent elsewhere, the boycott and so on:
Moar l8r…
On the first lot of stuff, maybe I’ve been too harsh on Loach. I still think he is wrong about this boycott issue though, and is acting llike a bully. The film he wanted withdrawn $9.99 (see http://www.9dollars99movie.com/ ) from the MIFF is incidentally very “post-Zionist”, based on work by Etgar Keret (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etgar_Keret ).
On Durban II, yes lots of NGOs participated, but it was still basically dominated by states, not surprisingly given the UN auspices, and still completely irrelevant to anti-racism in the real world.
Ahmadinejad, OK, not a keynote, but while the other countries had “dignitaries” he is a head of state, so he was very much the headliner.
Anti-G,
Briefly, on Uncle Ken: I didn’t know that Loach demanded the withdrawal of $9.99; my understanding was that Loach’s position was that he would not give permission for Eric to screen while the festival received funding from the Israeli government. His letter to MIFF (July 13, 2009) makes no ref to $9.99. (The letter — signed by Loach / director, Paul Laverty / writer and Rebecca O’Brien / producer — is re-published here.)
I’m not sure it’s reasonable to describe this behaviour as ‘bullying’ as such, rather that Loach (and Laverty and O’Brien) are placing conditions on the use of their product, and in response to a wider campaign calling for “a boycott of events supported by Israel” (that is, the Israeli state). Whether or not such a campaign is legitimate or worthy of support is another question…
On Durban II, again, I think that there are at least two, somewhat separate issues.
First, the call to boycott the event was launched well before it actually took place, and based on concerns that its principal function was to allow for the articulation of anti-Semitism. Based on my reading, those governments which supported the boycott — the Israeli, Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, New Zealand, Polish, Swedish and United States governments — did so less from a genuine commitment to combating anti-Semitism but rather as an expression of support for Israeli state policy. As Rupert Colville remarked on December 12, 2008:
I agree that Durban II was dominated by states, as is everything else on our dying planet.
I didn’t attend Durban II, have never attended any such event, and the likelihood of my doing so in the future is approximately zero. However, I think it quite possible that of the thousands of members of hundreds of NGOs what went to it, some at least found the event useful in terms of political and social networking, and to the extent that at least some of these individuals might be reasonably considered to be sincere and dedicated ‘anti-racists’, ‘Durban II’ was of some greater utility. In this context, it’s worth bearing in mind that the focus of the conference was not Israeli state policy, but a ‘Review of progress and assessment of implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action by all stakeholders at the national, regional and international levels, including the assessment of contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance’ [PDF].
Regarding the role of the war hero with the wonky leg: a) his blah blah blah was only to be expected; b) the UN is routinely used by political leaders to grandstand; c) that this is the case does not, necessarily, mean that all the activities which take place under the auspices of the UN are therefore worthless. Further, the man is a clown, a figurehead for a segment of the Iranian ruling class. As subsequent events have demonstrated, this opinion is not only shared by a large number of his fellow Iranians, but his tenure is less secure than might have been previously supposed.
Moar l8r h8r, but in the meantime:
Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction
Naomi Klein
January 8, 2009
Transcript of Naomi Klein’s speech at the BNC-organized event in Ramallah on 27 June 2009. The speech was transcribed and edited by Toufic Haddad for The Faster Times…
Naomi Klein and the Boycott Movement
Jewish Peace News
July 12, 2009
Naomi Klein and the Boycott Movement: Addendum
Jewish Peace News
July 14, 2009
I’m re-publishing Feldman’s article here as it’s not available on Klein’s site or that of Haaretz…
Oh yeah.
Two more things.
I’ve searched but cannot find any of Klein’s reportage on Durban II online (“Last April Klein attended on assignment for a magazine the Durban 2 conference in Geneva”);
David Rovics is touring Australia:
A lot of issues here, so sorry for my slow replies!
On Uncle Ken, it is of course true that he did not say to MIFF “don’t show $9.99“. He said that he wouldn’t let his film be shown unless they declined Israeli sponsorship. Declining Israeli sponsorship would effectively have meant they could not show $9.99 (unless I suppose they raised the equivalent amount of dosh elsewhere sharpish). The Israeli sponsorship (if sponsorship is actually the right word) was one of many, many pots of money the festival put together to enable all the films to be shown. See Richard Moore’s reply to Loach which I don’t think Australians for Palestine make available but which is easily googlable. I found it here [Email exchanges between Ken Loach, Paul Laverty, Rebecca O’Brien and the Melbourne Film Festival organizers, P U L S E, July 20, 2009] (not endorsement of the site in general).
The example shows how a cultural boycott of the Israeli state cannot only be of the state but always also of its citizens – in this case of the Israeli film-makers of $9.99. With a cultural boycott, in fact, the specific citizens likely to be victims are more often than not dissidents in a broad sense. Refusing such funding would have, for example, cut off the global audience of films like Waltz With Bashir or The Lemon Tree.
Klein’s position, calling for a boycott while visiting Israel, further demonstrates this. Which is more practical in changing Israeli policies, her going there and selling her books there etc, or her cutting off ties in some gestural cultural boycott?
Is Ken bullying? I think that he is using his social standing as a major star of the film world to stop the world from seeing the work of young indie film makers without such standing, such as the makers of $9.99 or such as Tali Shalom Ezer. She, by the way, is the woman who made the documentary Surrogate, that Loach stopped the Edinburgh film festival from showing in the previous step of his campaign.
OK, Durban II. I never supported a boycott of Durban II so I won’t respond in relation to that. Durban I was, however, a hideous event, and I don’t think hate-fest was too strong a word for it. There was every reason to expect that the focus would be Israeli state policy, as it was at Durban I, although in the end this did not happen. (And, to be fair, the Israel focus at Durban I did not in the end lead to a document condemning Israel.) There was relatively little hideousness at Durban II, although there was enough for me to be surprised that the thing Klein was most “disturbed” by “was the Jewish students’ lack of respect for the representatives from Africa and Asia who came to speak about issues like compensation for slavery and the rise of racism around the world”. There were examples of this, but from the reportage I’ve seen there was a lot worse from the “anti-imperialist” camp, at least equally disturbing.
I am intrigued by the “[some Jews]” in the Klein interview. I wonder what she actually said to be replaced by the square bracket version. I find the quoted paragraph from her speech appalling. Letting people into a little secret, that there is a debate among Jews? As if this happens behind closed doors, amongst, perhaps, the Elders of Zion. And what does it mean that she got “excommunicated” from “the Jewish community”? There is no such thing as “the” Jewish community – there are, as the joke goes, many more opinions than there are Jews in that “community”, let alone the authority to “ex-communicate” someone. Who does she think she is, Spinoza? A debate over “never again to anyone” or “never again to us”? What nonsense! There may be a tiny number of Jewish fascists who think only of “us”, but there is no real debate – they are utterly marginal, at least in the Jewish diaspora. I know lots of Jews, but not one single one who thinks “never again to us” only. And, finally, the “get one genocide free card”! For a start, […] Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians constitute nothing like a genocide. And even if they did, anyone but a racist should be able to see that these are the crimes of Israel, not of “the Jews”. In short, everything she says plays into an anti-Jewish racist discourse that someone as smart as her should not be purveying.
G’day Anti-German,
A lot of issues here, so sorry for my slow replies!
That’s cool. I appreciate the effort you make in composing them.
On Uncle Ken:
I’m unsure about this. That is, I don’t know — and you may well be correct — that if MIFF had acquiesced to Loach & Co.’s demand/request that the Festival refuse Israeli state sponsorship, this would necessarily mean that $9.99 would not be shown — certainly, the Festival would suffer a reduction in income.
So:
‘The State of Israel’ is described as being a ‘Cultural Partner’ of the Festival. Presumably, this means it provides some funding and/or otherwise facilitates the screening of Israeli (?) films (I can find no other deets). Fwiw, the other ‘Cultural Partners’ are the Danish Film Institute, the Australian Goethe-Institut, the Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office, the Japan Foundation, the Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria, the New Zealand Film Commission, the Tapei Economic & Cultural Office and the (South) Korean Ministry of Culture & Tourism. If the scale of Israeli state sponsorship is equivalent to that of the MLTAV, I imagine it is fairly minimal; on the other hand, it may be quite large. According to one news report (Film festival ‘right to reject Israel boycott’, Nic MacBean, ABC, July 20, 2009): “The Israeli funding he [Loach & Co.] referred to was the Israeli Embassy’s sponsorship of Tatia Rosenthal to visit the festival to answer questions about her animation feature $9.99.” Assuming this to be the case, I can’t imagine that the amount would be more than so many thousands of dollars (the price of an airfare, accommodation, and incidentals). If MIFF was sympathetic, then, it seems to me quite conceivable that a Festival of its size could find the funds necessary to ensure Rosenthal’s appearance.
Of course, I don’t think that this is the main point: the absence of Israeli sponsorship does not threaten the existence of the Festival, and in fact would — on the basis of the above, and in light of the fact that Israeli state sponsorship of the 2009 Edinburgh Film Festival reportedly amounted to £300 (Edinburgh film festival bows to pressure from Ken Loach over Israeli boycott, The Times, May 20, 2009) — have, I believe (and I admit I could be wrong) a very minimal economic impact. Rather, Loach (& Co.) are attempting to make a political point, to support a ‘cultural’ boycott, and to delegitimise the Israeli state’s role in global cultural events.
In summary:
it’s not my understanding that the withdrawal of Israeli state sponsorship would endanger the screening of $9.99 (an Australian/Israeli co-production);
the institution of a boycott would mean that another source of funds would need to be found in order to ensure Tatia Rosenthal’s appearance at the Festival;
I’m unaware of what role, if any, the Israeli state plays in sponsoring the screening of the four films (Ajambi, Amos Oz: The Nature of Dreams, Defamation and Lost Paradise) identified by MIFF as being Israeli in origin;
moar l8r…
Moar and l8r…
Australians For Palestine have published the correspondence here: ‘British film director Ken Loach letter exchange with MIFF Director Richard Moore’, July 28, 2009. They have also published an account of a protest @ MIFF: ‘PROTEST: against MIFF partnership with Israel’, July 27, 2009.
Also:
The example shows how a cultural boycott of the Israeli state cannot only be of the state but always also of its citizens – in this case of the Israeli film-makers of $9.99. With a cultural boycott, in fact, the specific citizens likely to be victims are more often than not dissidents in a broad sense. Refusing such funding would have, for example, cut off the global audience of films like Waltz With Bashir or The Lemon Tree.
I think a distinction can be made between, on the one hand, an action having an effect upon diverse subjects, and, on the other, having its main effect upon one or several. That is, as in the case of a cultural boycott of South Africa, a cultural boycott of Israel can/does/will effect many; as such, I don’t believe that an argument in favour of somesuch boycott depends on it having no effect upon Israeli citizens. A boycott, by its very nature, does not require or demand the consent of the boycotted.
A few months ago in Melbourne, a person from ‘Anarchists Against the Wall’ — someone who I assume could be referred to accurately as some kinda
ratbagdissident — spoke @ my local anarchist infoshop; the kind of boycott Loach is engaged in vis-a-vis the MIFF would not have required a boycott of this form of ‘cultural exchange’. Had Rosenthal’s visit to Melbourne not been sponsored by the Israeli state, the same rule would, presumably, have applied. That is, given that Rosenthal’s visit was not sponsored by the Israeli state, a boycott would have zero effect.Of course, the question of a boycott of the Israeli state naturally demands that the Israeli state be defined: if someone is unable to identify what the Israeli state is, they are hardly in a position to boycott it. The ‘problem’ here is that the Israeli state is not made of bricks, but people: the Israeli state, like all states, describes a social relation. It’s on this level, I think, that — for example — Naomi Klein’s travel itinerary and publication become an issue; Klein obviously believes that such a distinction can be drawn. Further to this, both Cousin Naomi and Uncle Ken assert that the call for a boycott comes from ‘the Palestinians’ themselves — which is also held to be of political significance. Thus:
In their letter to Richard Moore (Director) and the MIFF, Loach, Laverty and O’Brien write: “As you are no doubt aware, many Palestinians, including artists and academics, have called for a boycott of events supported by Israel.”
Klein, in response to Feldman, says: “It certainly would have been a lot easier not to have come to Israel, and I wouldn’t have come had the Palestinian Boycott National Committee asked me not to,” said Klein in an interview before her arrival, at her Toronto home. “But I went to them with a proposal for the way I wanted to visit Israel and they were very open to it. It is important to me not to boycott Israelis but rather to boycott the normalization of Israel and the conflict”.
In this sense, there is an obvious conflict between the forms of engagement and participation with ‘Israel’ being requested; a conflict which also hinges upon some notion of political legitimacy. That is, on the one hand, groups like the ‘Palestinian Boycott National Committee’ request one such form; the Israeli state, on the other hand, and via such agencies as The Israel Ministry of Tourism, another. Klein has chosen to act in accordance (and in negotiation) with the former. That the Committee is presumably composed of (at least some) Israeli citizens does not render this distinction less valid. (Or rather, not that I can determine.)
In summary, the same kinds of considerations which were applied in the case of South Africa may also be applied in the case of Israel.
Inre your statement that “Refusing such funding would have, for example, cut off the global audience of films like Waltz With Bashir or The Lemon Tree“, I’m not sure I understand. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point? Are you suggesting that, absent Israeli state funding, these films would not be screened elsewhere? If so, I’m not sure. That is, I don’t know what role the Israeli state played in ensuring the distribution and screening of these films. I’m not familiar with Lemon, but iirc, Waltz was given a limited release in Australia, and screened not only at festivals, but also toured the ‘art house’ circuit. If correct, I’m not sure your case holds.
More later, but on a point of clarification, you write:
I am intrigued by the “[some Jews]” in the Klein interview. I wonder what she actually said to be replaced by the square bracket version. I find the quoted paragraph from her speech appalling.
The text of Feldman’s article (third paragraph) reads:
The transcript of the interview from which Feldman is quoting (and which I inserted into the article) reads:
In other words, ‘Some Jews’ is Feldman’s condensation of Klein’s statement:
Feldman: “[Some Jews] even think we get one get-away-with-genocide-free card…”
Klein (in a speech transcribed and edited by Toufic Haddad): “In fact we even think we get a kind of get one genocide free card out of this…”
Is Ken bullying? I think that he is using his social standing as a major star of the film world to stop the world from seeing the work of young indie film makers without such standing, such as the makers of $9.99 or such as Tali Shalom Ezer. She, by the way, is the woman who made the documentary Surrogate, that Loach stopped the Edinburgh film festival from showing in the previous step of his campaign.
I agree that Uncle Ken probably holds higher standing than Ezer; I’m not convinced his action has stopped, or was intended to stop, the screening of her work. The same applies in the case of the Edinburgh Festival.
OK, Durban II…
Durban I a hideous event? Maybe: I dunno. The expression of gross anti-Semitism is certainly objectionable, and was expressed at it. The question is, to what extent did such expressions characterise the event as a whole? According to Colville:
According to Klein:
Finally, on Cousin Naomi and Durban II:
To begin with, in questioning aspects of Klein’s response, the main difficulty is that she is absent. That is, it is really for her to explain, elaborate upon, and defend her stated position. I cannot. So:
…there was enough [expressions of anti-Semitism at Durban II] for me to be surprised that the thing Klein was most “disturbed” by “was the Jewish students’ lack of respect for the representatives from Africa and Asia who came to speak about issues like compensation for slavery and the rise of racism around the world”. There were examples of this, but from the reportage I’ve seen there was a lot worse from the “anti-imperialist” camp, at least equally disturbing.
What Klein was disturbed by is what Klein was disturbed by. Should she, in fact, have been more disturbed by something else? Maybe: I dunno. Not having attended the conference, I am reliant upon other accounts: accounts which are, obviously, partial. If I had attended, it’s possible I may have been most appalled by something someone said or did at some workshop or other. As for Ahmadinejad, yeah: dickhead. But I tend to view the ideological pronouncements of all heads of state with a kinda resigned bemusement.
I find the quoted paragraph from her speech appalling. Letting people into a little secret, that there is a debate among Jews? As if this happens behind closed doors, amongst, perhaps, the Elders of Zion. And what does it mean that she got “excommunicated” from “the Jewish community”? There is no such thing as “the” Jewish community – there are, as the joke goes, many more opinions than there are Jews in that “community”, let alone the authority to “ex-communicate” someone. Who does she think she is, Spinoza? A debate over “never again to anyone” or “never again to us”? What nonsense! There may be a tiny number of Jewish fascists who think only of “us”, but there is no real debate – they are utterly marginal, at least in the Jewish diaspora. I know lots of Jews, but not one single one who thinks “never again to us” only. And, finally, the “get one genocide free card”! For a start, […] Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians constitute nothing like a genocide. And even if they did, anyone but a racist should be able to see that these are the crimes of Israel, not of “the Jews”. In short, everything she says plays into an anti-Jewish racist discourse that someone as smart as her should not be purveying.
As previously suggested, it’s obviously not possible for me to speak for Klein. So, exactly what she meant by “the Jewish community”, I dunno. I would suggest, however, that the following observations may be relevant:
1) In general, in situations where a person’s meaning is not clear, or subject to (mis-)interpretation, it is worthwhile seeking clarification. That is, just as it’s possible to note that Klein made reference to “the Jewish community”, it’s also possible to seek clarification: ‘Hey Naomi, you referred to the Jewish community. What exactly were you referring to? Did you mean some notion of a global Jewish community? The Jewish community in which you grew up? The Jewish community of Canada? Or…?’
2) To whom were these remarks addressed? I obviously dunno who attended her talk in Ramallah, but it’s possible that, rather than seek to imply that there was some kinda ‘global Jewish community’ in which debate “happens behind closed doors, amongst, perhaps, the Elders of Zion”, Klein wanted to inform her audience that, contrary to others’ assertions, there was in fact genuine and significant debate among the Jewish diaspora — perhaps especially the Canadian Jewish diaspora — regarding Israeli state policy.
3) Klein’s ref to “excommunication” brings to mind two things. One, the writings of my Kiwi comrade Asher. In particular, ‘Self Hating Jew?’ (anarchia, May 2, 2006, quoted in full):
Secondly, the situation of Sydney writer Antony Loewenstein, and the accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ which have been directed against him — including by fellow Jews such as Michael Danby — on account of their very public anti-Zionism. (See: ‘If You Don’t Agree With Us You’re Antisemitic’, Antony Loewenstein, July 7, 2009: “My latest New Matilda column, co-written with Independent Australian Jewish Voices blogger Michael Brull, responds to predictable charges of political bias by the Zionist lobby…”)
On my reading, to accuse a Jewish person of being a ‘self-hating Jew’ or of ‘anti-Semitism’ — and irrespective of the validity of such accusations — has the effect of what amounts to a form of ‘excommunication’: ‘you, the self-hating, anti-Semitic Jew, are not and do not deserve to be, part of the Jewish community. I do not and will not associate with you, and I think you should either change your views, or go away’.
3) I agree that there is no such thing as “the” Jewish community — there are many Jewish communities. The question of ‘authority’ in this context raises a host of other questions, which are not peculiar to Jewish community, but to any form of communal living. On the subject of Jewish community, it is worth noting that quite recently:
On the notion of ‘never again’, genocide, and more: l8r h8r.
To end on a musical note:
Of related interest…
The Zionist Identity Crisis
Tali Shapiro
ZNet
July 28, 2009
Boycott from Within – Building a Movement
Tali Shapiro
ZNet
July 7, 2009
‘Boycott from Within’:
“Palestinians, Jews, citizens of Israel, join the Palestinian call for a BDS campaign against Israel…”
Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights, July 9, 2005:
I’m afraid this debate has come at a bad time for me, as I have almost no blogging time at the moment, so I can’t respond to even a fraction of your well thought through and well researched points, although I appreciate them.
Instead, I’ll confine myself to a couple of points.
1. Film festival funding for Israeli indie film-makers. In the case of Edinburgh, which I know more about, £300 seems like a small amount, but it isn’t in the case of a pretty low-budget cultural organisation cobbling together funds from several sources, mostly equally tiny grants. When they gave in to Loach, they asked the film-maker to pay herself. She wouldn’t, and they couldn’t find the cash to cover it. Read more here. This may or may not be the case with Melbourne: I don’t know.
Melbourne, and other such festivals, were among the first to screen Waltz With Bashir and The Lemon Tree. For that sort of arthouse, indie film, good reception at those sorts of film festivals is crucial to getting commercial distribution, and decent reviews that lead to audiences. It is pretty much impossible for those sorts of films to be screened at festivals without some kind of sponsorship, often provided by states. If MIFF or EIFF never accept Israeli state money, then those sorts of films never get shown at film festivals, and they are unlikely to be seen on the arthouse circuit. The messages of those films, as with Surrogate and possibly $9.99, are messages that people who want peace and justice would want out there.
This is what Shalom-Ezer wrote to Loach:
“I oppose, with all my heart, the Israeli occupation and settelments; I oppose an automatic resort to military solutions in times of conflict. I appreciate the wish to change the world by shunning what is perceived as an act of injustice, but I feel that what may seem right in theory, may be extremely wrong in practice.
In my opinion, every time a nation is subjected to a cultural boycott – be it a film or a lecture by an Israeli professor abroad – there is a tendency amongst its subjects to draw closer to more nationalistic elements; every time this happens, peace is farther away. Every time this happens, the concept of “A People that Dwells Alone” gathers more believers, and the conviction that the only way to survive is by strengthening the state’s military power, is reinforced. Every time this happens, moderate voices are hushed, art is weakened.
I do not know if you are aware of this fact, but Surrogate was filmed by Radek Ladczuk, a talented Polish cinematographer. For 21 years, Israel and Poland had no diplomatic relations; all I knew about the country came from the media and history lessons about WWII.
I approached Radek from purely artistic considerations. Our work, despite difficulties in verbal communication, has proven to me once more the power of art and the many points of similarity which join people together, everywhere. I have no doubt that collaborations of this kind promote dialogue and lessen prejudice.“
2. More generally, the legalistic sophistry required to think through and meaningfully implement these sorts of cultural boycotts, and the unintended consequences of them, such as hardening nationalism in Israel or denying Australians access to dissident voices, to me completely undermine the cultural boycott position. Klein’s contortions (OK to be published by this publisher but not that one, can buy felafels in a shop but not go to a cocktail party, etc) demonstrate this even more.
3. I personally think that Israel is not an apartheid state, although I have no problems with people arguing for that analogy. I took part in boycotting apartheid South Africa. I don’t know whether the boycott contributed to the fall of apartheid or not. But I do know that if it did it was not buying South African wine and apples that made a difference, rather than not buying records by black South African artists. I think cultural boycott is the last option. Seriously campaigning for divestment and arms trade sanctions is the most important thing, along with concrete solidarity with the oppressed in Palestine. To me, Loach’s strategy is a lazy, empty, gestural one. (It wouldn’t be much less lazy if he refused to have his films distributed in Israel, but the fact he doesn’t do that makes it even more lazy.)
4. Loach the bully. His e-mails, letters and (refusal of) public appearance seem rather bullying to me. There are worse bullies in the Zionist camp, but that doesn’t excuse it.
5. Durban: yes, all our info is partial. I’ve watched YouTubes of very large numbers of people engaging in very offensive racist behaviour against Jews at Durban I (and particularly at the NGO event), more than a few fringe nutters. I haven’t seen the equivalent at Durban II, but I have seen things that disturbed me more than the glibness of a few North American Zionist students, which were what disturbed Naomi.
6. Ex-communication: I know there are people in Jewish communities who are really, really offensive to anti-Zionists, and the allegations of self-hatred etc are obscene. I sympathise with Naomi for being on the receiving end of that shit. But the general reality is that anti-Zionists actually continue to function perfectly well in Jewish communities around the world. Here in London, the case I know the best, we’ve got someone like Rabbi David Goldberg, an anti-Zionist, with a large congregation. We have Jewish Book Week and Limmud and Jewish Quarterly magazine, mainstream communal platforms, where anti-Zionists get lots of air time. So, I think Naomi is over-dramatizing with her Spinoza act. And that over-dramatizing is dangerous, coz it feeds racist “Israel lobby” narratives.
That’s all for me. I’m away from machines for a while, so I may or may not get a chance to come back for another round.
On the war hero with a wonky leg…
Ahmadinejad warned that he could be ousted
Borzou Daragahi, Beirut
The Age [Los Angeles Times]
July 30, 2009
POLITICAL hardliners have warned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he could be deposed, as previous Iranian leaders have been, if he continues defying the country’s Supreme Leader…
Accounts of prison deaths spark fury
Robert Worth, Dubai
The Age [New York Times]
July 30, 2009
SOME prisoners say they watched fellow detainees being beaten to death by guards in overcrowded, stinking holding pens. Others said they had their fingernails ripped off, or were forced to lick filthy toilet bowls…
Anti-German,
K: not so much time.
Anyway…
In response to your points.
1. I understand that £300 is nothing to sneeze at, especially for an indie filmmaker. I’m not sure I’m convinced that the Edinburgh International Film Festival may be described as “a pretty low-budget cultural organisation cobbling together funds from several sources, mostly equally tiny grants”, especially when it was established in 1947, and currently entertains “audiences of over 55,000 over a twelve day” period. In any case:
In other words, it appears that the EIFF did somehow manage to cobble together the necessary funds — £300 — to arrange for Tali Shalom Ezer to appear, and the film was screened — minus the financial contribution of the Israeli state?
More generally, I do understand the importance of a film’s being included in a Festival program as a means to securing distribution: many films, if received positively, do get picked up, distroed, and exposed to a wider audience. However:
a) Given the minimal support of the Israeli state for ‘culture’ as expressed at Film Festivals, the (forced) withdrawal of such funding would not, I think, result in significant damage to the ability of Festivals to screen and promote films, including those made in Israel, or produced by Israeli filmmakers. The boycott is aimed at the Israeli state as a source of funding, not the films themselves.
b) I think that a real issue would emerge — that is, the question of Israeli state funding would be much more consequential — if the boycott were extended to include films that received direct or indirect Israeli state subsidies or other financial assistance during the course of their production. Generally speaking, funding issues arise when a filmmaker is (relatively) unknown, the film’s subject matter is obscure or deemed to be of very limited popular appeal, or it deals with ‘sensitive’ — especially politically-sensitive — material. That said, in this context, I think it reasonable to assume that the Israeli state would, in general, not provide funding to such films in the first place… perhaps there are counter-examples? I dunno.
2. This is an especially important point. That is, might a boycott of this sort be, in fact, counter-productive, and serve only to reinforce the most reactionary, ultra-nationalist elements in the Israeli political establishment? To my mind, this raises questions which go the very heart of a boycott, not only in the case of Israel, but South Africa as well. In this context, one might ask: how effective was the boycott of South Africa? As for those advocating/participating in the boycott (of Israel), the fact that it raises complexities does not, in and of itself, render it illegitimate.
3. Without engaging in a more substantial analysis of apartheid South Africa and contemporary (Israeli) ‘apartheid’, I’m not sure if the analogy holds, but it does appear that there is, at least, systematic discrimination against Palestinians, and a comparison of some sort not entirely misplaced. I’m also unsure of the distinction between ‘cultural’ and ‘economic’ in terms of the circulation of ‘Israeli’ commodities, whether films or otherwise. A film may be regarded as being a ‘cultural’ commodity; pharmaceuticals ‘economic’: but both are commodities, obviously. Insofar as the campaign to boycott Israel does not draw this distinction — or its practical application is hopelessly complicated — then yeah: a ‘boycott’ does raise serious questions regarding ‘cultural exchange’ and communication between parties inside and outside of Israel.
Finally, I dunno if Loach’s approach is simply evidence of ‘laziness’ on his part: an argument could be made that, as a filmmaker, his action has been appropriate insofar as it concerns an industry within which he has some stature — artistic, moral, political. In which case, his action has broader resonance; certainly, given the controversy which has surrounded it, his action has placed the question of a boycott on centre stage within (and it seems well beyond) the film world.
4. I don’t agree. On my reading, his communications on the issue — and it’s worth bearing in mind that the letter to MIFF was authorised by three people, not one — have been polite but firm (even if, arguably, mistaken). With regards his person: dunno… he could be a right prick, or a swell guy. Either way, it’s a secondary issue, I think.
5. Yeah… but in addition to the fact that there was batshit behaviour on the part of some who attended Durban I, it’s also important to consider what response it received. On my reading, it was condemned by UN authorities, and decried by many others in attendance. I suppose what it brings to mind — or to my mind at any rate — is the dangers of engaging in ‘most any form of political activity. One of these is the placement of one’s own efforts within a context of that of many others, with sometimes widely variant goals and methods: opposition to Zionism being, perhaps, a case in point. As I see it, one’s chief responsibility, as a moral agent, is primarily one’s own actions, not that of someone else’s. Of course, this does not mean that there is not also a moral obligation to respond to others’ actions. In this case, to denounce the anti-Semitic behaviour at Durban I, or to interrogate Ahmadinejad’s pontifications at Durban II (“Was attacking Iraq not orchestrated by the Zionists and their allies in the previous ruling government of America which was on the one hand in power and on the other the owner of arms manufacturing companies?”) — and of course Iranian state sponsorship of Holocaust revisionism.
6. “…the general reality is that anti-Zionists actually continue to function perfectly well in Jewish communities around the world” — maybe so, I dunno. There are obviously exceptions. Thus there are several hundred thousand Jews in the UK, but only a few thousand in New Zealand/Aotearoa. Generally speaking, the larger a ‘community’ (or population) is, the more likely someone is to find a place within it.
L8r h8r…
And, speaking of London, couldn’t resist my neurosis:
I was living in a new town
I had problems with my parents
So I moved on up to London town
Where they said that things were happening, going down
Chorus:
Living in a bedsit
Bunking the tube trains
Sleeping all day long
And you know no one, ‘cos you don’t go out
‘cos you’ve got no work
You just watch television
Living with unemployment
I, I ain’t got a job
And, there’s no work in the city
They, they always try to blame it on the blacks
But it’s really those in power that stab you in the back
Chorus
‘Round our way, we ain’t got a lot
And after two years on the dole, I felt I’d been left to rot
But now I’ve joined the Army and, believe it or not
I’m going to Northern Ireland and, I’m going to get shot
Chorus
Living with unemployment, oh you get so lonely
Living with unemployment
It gets so frustrating
Living with unemployment
And the Neurotics wanna tell you, what it’s like to be
Unemployed, out of work, unemployed, out of work (repeat)
“Try to stay, out of trouble dear…”
It’s lonely for you
And it’s lonely for me
It’s lonely for all of us – can’t you see?
Chorus
Living with unemployment
Oh you get so lonely
Living with unemployment
It gets so frustrating
Living with unemployment – living without
When you’re out of work
They treat you like dirt
When you’re out of work
They treat you like dirt
…Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians constitute nothing like a genocide. And even if they did, anyone but a racist should be able to see that these are the crimes of Israel, not of “the Jews”…
Of relevance:
On apartheid:
Why it is Apartheid in Israel Palestine
Eileen Fleming
The Palestine Telegraph
August 23, 2009
US, August 23, 2009 (Pal Telegraph) -“The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state,” Neve Gordon, an American-born Jew who has lived in Israel for nearly 30 years and teaches political science at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba, recently wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.
Gordon also came to the conclusion that boycotting Israel may be the only way to save the country from itself.
As an American-born Christian I am in solidarity with that opinion…
Boycott Israel
Neve Gordon
Los Angeles Times
August 20, 2009
…The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews — whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel — are citizens of the state of Israel.
The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime…