For the first part of this saga see my previous post here.

Having sent off my email to the EIFF (Edinburgh International Film Festival) last week in light of its craven submission to the bullying Ken Loach (who blackmailed the EIFF on behalf of the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Committee to return to the Israeli embassy a miserable £300 which it had given to enable the Israeli film maker Tali Shalom Ezer to make it to Edinburgh where her film is to be shown), I received the following canned (that is automatic and unthinking) email reply:

In the light of recent press reports and in the interests of clarity:

 The Edinburgh International Film Festival is well known for bringing together people from all over the world, regardless of race or religion, to screen and appreciate films for their own sake and we look forward to continuing this important mission. The programmed film screenings of SURROGATE remain as advertised, and the filmmaker will also attend the Festival as planned.

 Statement from Iain Smith, EIFF Chair:

 “On behalf of the Edinburgh International Film Festival, I apologise sincerely for the distress many people have felt at changes in the arrangements for bringing the producer and director of the film ‘Surrogate’ to the Festival. Clearly we didn’t appreciate enough that our Festival cannot keep itself entirely detached from very serious geopolitical issues and I am instituting a review of our procedures to ensure that there can be no repeat incident. Nevertheless, this experience has strengthened our belief in the need for film to bring people together and I hope very much that many will want to attend this year’s Festival where filmmakers from 33 countries and diverse backgrounds and beliefs will be screening their films.”

But this is no defence at all because it states that “our Festival cannot keep itself entirely detached from very serious geopolitical issues”. This is exactly the point. To remain independent this is precisely what it must do. The EIFF cannot give in to pressure from one group with a particular axe to grind. Where would it all end. Does the EIFF’s response to intimidation depend on the  prestige and perceived clout of the person or organisation doing the blackmailing.

Remember what Ken Loach said:

 The massacres and state terrorism in Gaza make this money unacceptable. With regret, I must urge all who might consider visiting the festival to show their support for the Palestinian nation and stay away.

We shall leave aside Loach’s one-sided and ideological reading of the Gaza conflict and its profound mendacity about the actual events and its ignoring of the true crimes committed by Hamas, but let’s consider what the EIFF actually did:

They returned the £300 and instead donated the money to Tali Shalom Ezer themselves. By so doing they committed two errors of judgement: 1) They succumbed to political pressure and compromised their independence and their own principles 2) They singled out Israel which is a political judgement in which they are now complicit.

Either the EIFF is an organisation dedicated to films “for their own sake” as they proclaim or it is not.

What criteria did they use to decide to give in to Loach? Was it his threat? Is it that he represents the Film Industry, which I doubt?  Which other public figures or organisations would they be willing to kow-tow to and for what reasons?

The EIFF has shown itself to be cowardly and unprincipled in giving in to a petty-minded bigot representing a group with a particular political agenda against a particular country. The net result as far as Ezer is concerned is zero. If I were her I’d withdraw my film. The net result as far as publicity and propaganda for the SPSC and Ken Loach’s particular brand of left-wing animus against a democratic state exercising its right of self defence is a resounding victory.

I am quite certain that Loach would not complain about a Palestinian film because Hamas commit war crimes by launching rockets against civilian targets. And I am damn certain no Israeli or Jewish group would be so crass as to try Loach’s particular form of censorship and boycott by threat.