Ray Cook - As I See It

Israel, Zionism and the Media

Tag: ken loach

Ken Loach and the politics of spite (2)

26/05/2009 / / 0 Comments

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.

 

 

Ken Loach and the politics of spite

20/05/2009 / / 0 Comments

Ken Loach is at it again.

The Scotsman website reports:

ORGANISERS of the Edinburgh International Film Festival have been forced to return a donation from the Israeli embassy after director Ken Loach waded into the funding row and called for people to boycott the event on political grounds…

A donation – believed to be in the region of £300 – was to have been used to pay travel costs to the capital for Tali Shalom Ezer, a graduate of the film and television department at Tel Aviv University, who directed a short feature film, Surrogate…

The SPSC then enlisted the support of Mr Loach, well known for his support of Palestinian human rights.

Mr Loach released a statement through the SPSC which read: “I’m sure many film-makers will be as horrified as I am to learn the Edinburgh International Film Festival is accepting money from Israel. 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.

The following day the EIFF – which has since been in talks with Mr Loach – did a U-turn. It said: “The EIFF are firm believers in free cultural exchange and do not wish to restrict film-makers’ abilities to communicate artistically with international audiences on the basis that they come from a troubled regime.

Although the festival is considered wholly cultural and apolitical, we consider the opinions of the film industry as a whole and, as such, accept that one film-maker’s recent statement speaks on behalf of the film community, therefore we will be returning the funding issued by the Israeli embassy.

I was so incensed that I wrote the following letter to the EIFF:

Dear EIFF

 I am writing in utter disbelief at your craven surrender to the threats from Ken Loach to organise a boycott of the EIFF as a result of the Israeli embassy funding one of their citizens a mere £300 so they could come to Edinburgh. Loach’s  pusillanimity is only matched by your cowardice in the face of unwarranted intimidation, interference with your own internal affairs and the compromise of your principles.

 In the words of your own Ginnie Atkinson:

 “Choosing not to accept support from one particular country would set a dangerous precedent by politicising what is a wholly cultural and artistic mission. We are firm believers in free cultural exchange, and do not feel that ghettoising filmmakers or restricting their ability to communicate artistically on the basis that they come from a troubled territory is of any benefit. Nor do we see that filmmakers are voices of their government. It is particularly important in situations of strife and conflict that artists be supported in having their voices heard*”

 After receiving a threat this turned to:

“The EIFF are firm believers in free cultural exchange and do not wish to restrict film-makers’ abilities to communicate artistically with international audiences on the basis that they come from a troubled regime.

“Although the festival is considered wholly cultural and apolitical, we consider the opinions of the film industry as a whole and, as such, accept that one film-maker’s recent statement speaks on behalf of the film community, therefore we will be returning the funding issued by the Israeli embassy.”

Since when does Mr Loach speak on behalf of the film industry? And even if he does, so what.

 I understand that you have funded Shalom Ezer from your own funds. This would be laudable were it not an admission that your organisation does not agree with Loach’s position but still decides to give in to threat.  This is mere hypocrisy from the EIFF.

 The lessons of history tell us that if as a society we sacrifice our principles on the altar of bigotry that society is doomed.

*Quoted in Harry’s Place

The pettiness of this affair is indicative. What if it were a Zimbabwean director or an Iranian, Sudanese, Sri Lankan. In the distorting prism of Loach and the outraged righteous of Scotland only Israelis are to be singled out even when the director and the subject-matter are completely apolitical. For a £300 grant. 

Meanwhile, in Israel, I have it on good authority that Loach’s films are still aired without threat of boycott. 

Ken Loach says Israel is responsible for rise in anti-Semitism

19/03/2009 / / 0 Comments

Ken Loach, the British film director, has claimed that it is “‘understandable” that there should be a rise in anti-Semitism since the Gaza conflict, the Jerusalem posts reports.

 If there has been a rise I am not surprised. In fact, it is perfectly understandable because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism.

He goes on:

When history comes to be written, I think this will be seen as one of the great crimes of the past decades because of the cold blooded massacre that we witnessed. Unless we take a stand against it, we are complicit.

And all this at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine – a “a symbolic citizens’ initiative that claims to reaffirm the importance of international law in conflict resolution”.

What Loach and other are “complicit” in is the usual one-sided demonisation and singling out of one state whilst ignoring the crimes of those seeking to annihilate it. By ‘understanding’ that Israel’s perceived crimes are responsible for anti-Semitism he is saying that it is “understandable” that all Jews are responsible for Israel’s actions. He makes no condemnation of this linkage.  By expressing this belief he himself is complicit in the rise of anti-Semitism because he makes no stand against such a belief. Even Muslim leaders in the UK told their co-religionists NOT to blame Jews for the actions of Israel. 

Did Mr Loach “understand” the huge rise in attacks on Muslims as a result of 9/11 or 7/7? No. Because  there were very few attacks on Muslims in the UK whose citizens did not perpetrate a blood-libel against them. But in the wake of Operation Cast Lead anti-Semitic incidents in the UK and Europe went through the roof.  Only Jews are responsible for the actions of other Jews in Mr Loach’s perverted logic.

I would also ask Mr Loach if he has taken a stand against President Bashir of Sudan, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Taleban, the Russians for Chechnya (seeing as he is a supporter of Chechen independence) and South Ossetia.

But most importantly I would ask him if his kangaroo court of concerned citizens (which not only makes the accusation but then becomes judge and jury in a mockery of justice)  is even going to look at Hamas’s actions and condemn them or does he “understand” Hamas’s motives as well.

And I would ask him why the Russell Tribunal does not even follow – vis-a-vis Hamas – some of its own aims as expressed when “trying” the United States for war crimes in Vietnam:

1. Has the United States Government (and the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Korea) committed acts of aggression according to international law?

3. Has there been bombardment of targets of a purely civilian character, for example hospitals, schools, sanatoria, dams, etc., and on what scale has this occurred?

4. Have Vietnamese prisoners been subjected to inhuman treatment forbidden by the laws of war and, in particular, to torture or mutilation? Have there been unjustified reprisals against the civilian population, in particular, execution of hostages?

Replace “United States” with “Hamas”.

On item 1:  Hamas were and still carry out daily rocket attacks aimed specifically at the civilian population of Israel which is an “aggression according to international law”.

On item 3: as per item 1 the targets are “purely civilian (in) character” and are indiscriminate. As for scale: over 6000 such attacks since 2001.

On item 4: Gilad Shalit has been held since 2006 without access to the Red Cross contrary to international law. We do not know if he has been tortured. After Operation Cast Lead Hamas was widely reported as taking reprisals against anyone it deemed as being complicit of collaboration especially its political enemy Fatah. It carried out summary executions and woundings against civilians.

This is not Loach’s first attack on Israel. In 2007 at the San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival he called for “international boycott of Israeli political and cultural institutions”. In 2008 he condemned the celebrating of Israel’s 69th anniversary as “tantamount to dancing on Palestinian graves to the haunting tune of lingering dispossession and multi-faceted injustice”.

I believe even in the world of the self-appointed, self-righteous and self-lefteous Ken Loach and the Russell Tribunal there are clear grounds for an “indictment” and “prosecution” of Hamas. 

I am sure the entire world is watching with baited breath.

© 2024 Ray Cook – As I See It

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑