More stories from the Toronto International Film Festival are continuing to come out. Al Jazeera English has a very interesting interview with Scandar Copti, director of the film Ajami. Copti is a Palestinian citizen of Israel, and his film just won best picture in the Israeli version of the Oscars. The film, and its success, is being used to attack the protesters in Toronto who opposed the festival's City to City program with Tel Aviv. Here's Bradley Burston writing in Haaretz:
Ajami was among a number of dark and critical Israeli films, among them "Lebanon" and "Jaffa," which were effectively sniffed at and dismissed by the strident, star power-chasing protest at the Toronto International Film Festival, a protest so shallow and so misplayed, that it has had the effect of doing the occupation a distinct favor.
Burston implores the protesters to go see Ajami instead of continuing "to blunder their way into doing the bidding of an eternal occupation." Well, it ends up that Copti was in full support of the Toronto protest. He not only pulled his film from the City to City showcase, but also refused to attend the festival all together. From Al Jazeera English:
Your celebration comes at a time when trilateral peace negotiations are stagnant. Do you feel this is a development for Palestinian cinema, or is Israel using this opportunity to expand its public image with its Brand Israel campaign, which is meant to make Israel more 'attractive'?
The film is based on a story about a revenge murder. I think they chose the film because it is a good film. It is a film that didn't scare them. It's a film that's humanising. It's a very dramatic and powerful film.
People who go to see Ajami will have lots of room to interpret and think about the reality of the situation without feeling the message was forced, or someone saying "this is all your fault".
The film has a lot of self-criticism about the society I live in, but not from a director's perspective or manifesto.
But will Israel exploit it? I'm sure they will. They tried to do so in Toronto, but I pulled my film out of the City to City whose focus this year was Tel Aviv, and had them place it in the world cinema category. I also did not go to Toronto because I was really upset with their decision. They want people to believe Israel is a diverse society that is accepting, which is not true.
In addition, Copti says:
I am happy that I'm being recognised as a filmmaker, and I value my rights just like any other citizen. But as a Palestinian citizen of the Israeli state, I have no equal rights. The idea of the citizen is non-existent for Palestinians living inside the Israeli state.
I am aware that Israel has exploited and tokenised Palestinians for their branding campaign, to show the world that Israel is a multicultural place that gives everyone an equal opportunity, even Arabs. Yet they won't even use the word Palestinian because we're not allowed to be Palestinian. Palestine does not exist for them.
I wonder what Burston would say to that?
Read Burston’s article.
You misrepresented it. How unusual?
It was a criticism of you, not by name.
Physician, heal thyself.
How so, Richard? Repeat after me, Copti: “They want people to believe Israel is a diverse society that is accepting, which is not true.”
Burston is by any defintion, secondary, Copti is primary. As usual, Witty, you turn
reality on its head. I’m surprized Phil allows you to post here. You wouldn’t do the same in his blog shoes.
Adam, I am inclined to agree with you, having read Bradley Burston’s piece but also knowing the power of boycotts in other struggles. With so many avenues for protest and resistance closed or neutralized by lobbing, BDS is one of the few remaining tools for applying external pressure to Israel. It’s really hard NOT to use a hammer like this.
However, when people like Bradley Burston and Uri Avnery talk about how BDS can only strengthen internal paranoia and the resolve of American Zionists, and when American organizations like MeretzUSA or even JStreet won’t even mention the word, there is nonetheless something there. It will be interesting to see if (or how) the issue is raised at the JStreet Conference next month.
Just remember, the progressive American and Israeli Zionist left are still friends. Let’s argue with them, but continue to do so with respect and maybe even a nagging doubt that we understand everything about Israel perfectly here, 7000 miles away.
“Just remember, the progressive American and Israeli Zionist left are still friends.”
But friends with a pretty dismal track record. Just remember these are the same people who for the past fifty years have insisted on running the movement for Palestinian justice. Leaving aside any questions of intent, the results unarguably have been disastrous.
Hope springs eternal, but there comes a time when you have to start questioning the path you’re on. The power of BDS is exactly what frightens off the “progressive Zionists”: it is by definition a broader (read gentile) movement.
“The power of BDS is exactly what frightens off the ‘progressive Zionists’: it is by definition a broader (read gentile) movement.”
I think you nailed it, D. There’s a lot of trepidation associated with having gentiles broadly involved. Loss-of-control angst.
The Israeli Zionist Left? All six of them?
Okay, maybe that’s a little bit unfair but seriously, are people forgetting that it was the Israeli moderates who instigated the Lebanon and Gaza invasions of 2006 and 2008? It seems to me that the left wing of Israeli politics has even less pull than the Green Party here in the US.
Yeah, I’m no expert on the Israeli political scene, to put it mildly, but it presumably depends on what you call “left”. I think of B’Tselem and Gush Shalom as the real left and that will include people like Uri Avnery, who is honest, but doesn’t agree with BDS. I’d listen to his arguments with respect (unlike Richard who argues it against it, who has repeatedly demonstrated his own double standards on human rights).
Then there’s the sort of left who supported the war on Gaza, even if they later decided it went a little too far. (Again, we have a representative of that viewpoint in Richard W.) That left isn’t worth very much–they are theoretically in favor of a fair settlement, but when there are any problems (as there always are), they invariably put the bulk of the blame on the Palestinians.
I think the leaders of MeretzUSA ought to consider adopting another name. It doesn’t look good on this side of the pond, in terms of public diplomacy.
What if American right-wing Zionists got together and named their organization LikudUSA? How would that sound to American ears? (Maybe they’ve already done that and it slipped under my radar – or sonar. Is that what neocons call their organization?)
Reconsidering my thought, I suppose that a left-wing American Jewish peace group calling itself Meretz could be a pretty good idea if it led more American Jews to provide support for peace-oriented political movements in Israel. Names can matter.
OK, let’s keep blaming the 13 year old girl in the Polanski case. Enough said, yes?
The Polanski case is yet another example of modern neo-feudalism. There are no criminals, only “criminal types” or classes. It’s fascinating to see how the “cultural elite” in Europe and the states really believes that Polanski should not have been arrested. The reason is that “people like us” are not criminals and should not be treated as such. Same goes for all forms of power and privelege – industrial, financial, political.
As AmericaFirst posted earlier, Harvey Weinstein (head of Miramax) actually invoked the Holocaust™ defense–
link to independent.co.uk
Weinstein was torn apart by the commenters. Which is perhaps why the comments have now gone missing.