This is a video from the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival a week ago, of Dr. Michael Harris, a Bay Area pediatrician and Israel lobbyist, attacking the film "Rachel," thereby providing necessary "context" to the documentary before it was aired at the festival. The video is remarkable for how much contumely, flak and ridicule Harris catches from the audience for propagandistic statements. And the audience surely included many Jews.
Earlier, we ran Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb’s take on the night. Paul Larudee, formerly of International Solidarity Movement, sent out the following email report on the remarkable event:
The showing of Simone Bitton’s film, Rachel, at the Castro theater in San Francisco on July 25, 2009, as part of the Jewish Film Festival, was a landmark event in changing attitudes toward Israel. Although the film itself is deserving of the attention given to it by both the press and the public, the real story was audience itself.
Around 1000 people attended the showing of the film. The line of theater-goers went around the block. I and my two companions were unable to find three seats together in the 1400-seat theater, and we were by no means the last in line. (The balcony went largely unused for some reason). People were actually standing in the aisles. It was the largest audience I have seen at any film festival. Attendees came from as far away as Sacramento and perhaps farther.
My first thought was that the supporters of Israel had turned out in force. In an unprecedented decision for any film, Michael Harris of San Francisco Voice for Israel had been given five minutes to speak at the beginning, to raise his objections. Perhaps he had turned out a lot of his community to drown out Palestinian rights advocates.
I was wrong. As Michael began to speak of Israel’s right to defend itself, the misguided motives of Rachel, the "other Rachels" and all the other tired arguments against the film, the audience audibly moaned, then began to raise its own objections, punctuating Michael’s every phrase louder and louder. At that point, the festival organizer stepped in to ask the audience to be more tolerant and pointed out that Rachel’s mother, Cindy, who would be speaking at the end of the film, deserved such courtesy, as well.
The audience settled back into subdued groans for a few phrases, but when Michael accused Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee of being backers of terrorism, the audience erupted into applause at the mention of each name. It’s a good thing it wasn’t traditional Yiddish theater, where the audience armed itself with tomatoes. Anyone but Harris would have been humiliated by the experience.
The concern for respectful treatment of Cindy Corrie’s presentation at the end of the film was also unwarranted. The audence was so completely supportive of her, her daughter and Palestinian rights that there was not a hint of the hateful messages with which the organizers had been deluged prior to the showing.
It was astonishing. Although the audience was by no means all Jewish, a large number clearly were, and the sense of many of the attendees was that their relative immunity from the charge of anti-Semitism gave them license to be more vocal.
The significance of the event was unmistakable. We were witnessing a major shift in attitudes toward Israel, even (or especially) within the Jewish community. The rose-colored glasses were coming off, and Israel was clearly no longer immune from standards to which other nations had long been held.
To keep things in perspective, community attitudes are far from being reversed. It’s hard to believe that this audience represents even a majority of the community from which it comes. However, for it to be so dominant and numerous in this setting is something of a milestone, and potentially constitutes something of a sea change in the way Israel is perceived.
Take heed. The "other" view of Israel is now respectable.
What a jerk! Naming other (Jewish) Rachels that have lost their lives but didn’t mention a single Palestinian, as if they still didn’t exist. Had a good laugh at the end though, the audience was great. I hope they bring this movie and speaker to a theater near me.
Oh my God, that was hilarious. The audience was just superb! I love the bit when the Doc’s eyes nearly pop out when the audience cheers Ahmadinejad.
According to the Doc, Israel demolishes Palestinian homes in response to acts of Palestinian terror – it has nothing to do with land grabbing. This blatant liar works with your children people. He works with your children.
ihsan, I can understand a certain level of defiance surrounding the use of Ahmadinejad, but I am also very hesitant about celebrating him. … I had to go back to check this passage. Had I been among the crowd, I probably would have been slightly irritated at these cheers.
What I found most startling, was the statement that she was trying to prevent the destruction of a tunnel, which seems to be a well funded counter tale I wasn’t aware of: the Wiki link.
This sounds reasonable:
It’s interesting that all the sources I checked who distribute this version of Rachel Corrie’s dead never mention name or profession of “the terrorist”, whose house supposedly had a tunnel smuggling weapons, the destruction of which Rachel tried to prevent.
From the audience:
“You’re a doctor?”
“Yeah, Doctor Death.”
How do the rest of us get to see this film?
The man’s anger and frustration is palpable. It’s obvious he is used to preaching to the converted where his propaganda, half truths and lies are not challenged, but taken at face value.
This is why the Zionists are so threatened by Rachel Corrie, because they are trying desperately to pain this otherwise harmless and innocent, young, white blonde American girl as someone sinister.
It is ludicrous and the harder the try, the greater the self inflicted wound on their image.
The entire premise that any event presenting a viewpoint considered critical of Israel by the “gatekeepers of the discourse” must be “balanced” with a pro-Israel view is preposterous to begin with, and I reject it in its entirety. The idea that Walt and Mearsheimer should have to debate Dersh in order for their ideas and argument to be consumed by the general public: ridiculous!!! Until AIPAC conferences in the USA, attended by the groveling “servants” of the American people, your congresswipes, are opened with a speech by Hamas and Hezbollah spokesmen, we should reject completely any call for an “opposing veiw”, read “hasbara blast of propaganda” in anti-Israel oppression activities.
FPM
This is a watershed event. I was ROFL when Doctor Hasbara started in with the intellectually dishonest attack on Rachel and the audience nearly jeered him off the stage. The heckling was hilarious, and as the Doc stood back from the podium, folded his arms in a hissy-fit way, the crowd just decimated him.
The crowd was emboldened — empowered by the truth and awed by Rachel Corrie’s passion for peace. When the Zionists start attacking her this way (Jake in Jerusalem and Eitan, take note), it’s kinda like saying Mother Teresa was a promiscuous crack addict. They insult the audience’s intelligence . . . just as Doctor Hasbara did here.
Whoever had the courage to have this film shown at the SFJFF deserves a Congressional medal of honor. This is a gamechanger.
You’re tight US_Objector, it is a game changer, becasue as icnremental as these changes might appear, they are a sign that the tide is changing and that it is irreversible.
I thought the rantings of the audience was more telling.
They sought to censor the man.
You know what censoring tells me. It tells me that likely, the positions are thin and can not stand the light of day.
Same old trash, in a different package. The means are the ends.
“You know what censoring tells me. It tells me that likely, the positions are thin and can not stand the light of day.” Richard
Well than, this should tell you a lot about the tactics of those who will do anything to shut down Rachel’s story – the examples are legion. Pressuring theaters, threatening to pull monetary support, trying to get people removed from positions of influence and leadership. Try turning the microscope lens in another direction, you might learn something.
Be honest Richard. There was no censoring of the man. He had the microphone and was not prevented from finishing his screed of lies. They might not have been polite, but he wasn’t being censored.
The fact that the Israel lobby had to insist on framing the “context” before the movie was shown, demonstrates that their argument is indefensible. It’s interesting how he knows the names of the few Israelis killed, but wouldn’t be able to name a single victim of the Gaza assault or the decades of murder by the Israelis. Why is it that Israelis should be allowed to live in peace in their own state, but not the Palestinians?
A few years ago, this would never have been possible. A few years ago, this movie would never have been shown. A few years ago, the usual suspects lobbied to have the stage play of Rachel Corrie banned. People are seeing through the lies and propaganda and Israeli propagandists are at a loss as to how to respond.
The left has been entirely censored on this subject for too long, so yes, now that the discussion is taking place, you are going to see impassioned responses.
Again, there was no suppression and the perspective the speaker was giving was riddled with lies and conflation. For too long, we have witnessed the dominance of the corruption and bribery.
There was no question asked about the significance of Rachel Corrie. It was a cynical and false comparison that tried to portray every Israeli citizen as a Rachel Corrie. It was pathetic and grossly insincere.