This is a guest post by Noam YatsivYoav Shamir’s “Defamation” is a well made, occasionally funny documentary. It fails, however, to maturely tackle an important, volatile issue – anti-Semitism, and in particular what makes Israelis deal with it relentlessly, 62 years after establishing their [supposedly] safe haven.
His previous works include two impressive films, which caught much attention both domestically and internationally. 2003’s “Checkpoints” confronted Israelis with a bird’s-eye view of barriers erected in the occupied territories during the 2nd Intifada, and the inevitable human rights abuses they create. 2007’s “Flipped Out” dealt with the phenomena of dismissed soldiers wasting away months (or years) on drugs in India, particularly those who served in the territories during the 2nd Intifada. Both films were honest, compelling works, remarkable for dealing profoundly with succinct themes.
According to Shamir, what triggered him to make “Defamation” was a despicable review of “Checkpoints”, written by an American Jew, accusing Shamir, an ex-IDF soldier, of being an anti-Semite. This incident led his next film to tackle a theme of massive proportions – exploring contemporary anti-Semitism, and why are we (Israelis) so preoccupied by it.
I’ll start with the good. The strongest element in the film is Shamir’s documentation of an Israeli high school class on a Holocaust study trip to Poland. The questions regarding how to deal with our legacy as successors are often discussed in Israel.
I believe it to be possible to teach a humanistic, universal lesson, while concurrently cherishing our unique heritage (and grief), without the latter subtracting from the former.
Unfortunately, the discourse over this topic is often narrowed down to a dichotomy, in which we should “choose” – either the universal lesson, or a chauvinistic, nationalistic, haunted one.
The footage of this school trip is important for every Israeli to see before he forms an opinion on this issue. The siege-mentality indoctrinated into these youths is truly distressing. The “protection” of them from the local population, instead of creating encounters with local youth is profoundly wrong. It is outrageous, destructive fear-mongering. I would like to allow my wishful thinking to believe this doesn’t reflect a typical trip, but I’m afraid it does.
Unfortunately, other elements in the film aren’t as strong. It starts with a comic scene of Shamir’s grandmother explaining, as if it were a fact, a load of anti-Semitic nonsense about diaspora Jews being greedy crooks. My late grandmother also used to say similar things about Polish Jews back in the day. This ironic phenomena of Jewish immigrants adopting a proud Israeli identity and projecting inherently European-anti-Semitic clichés onto diaspora Jews, is fascinating, and yes, also funny. Me and Yoav Shamir can find this amusingly absurd, and go on with our inherently non-anti-Semitic Israeli everyday life. However, the inclusion of this scene will inevitably lead foreign viewers to see “traditional” European anti-Semitism, the kind they might have heard from their own grandparents, as harmless or even comic, as it is apparently even shared by some Jewish granny.
The fact that this rubbish was put into her head, and that she never reflected over it, doesn’t mean it’s not profoundly wrong. After all, it was these kinds of falsifications that led to dehumanisation of Jews in European societies, ultimately leading to their systematic extermination in what were previously democratic states.
A noteworthy, interesting comment in the film is given by an Orthodox Rabbi, who says that dealing with anti-Semitism, is, for secular Jews, an integral ingredient in preserving their identity. This, and the way in which the Anti Defamation League and some Jews politicize anti-Semitism is what this film is essentially about. This is a worthy topic for a film, but it is not an examination of how much anti-Semitism really is out there, as it states, and therefore it is flawed.
There’s a decision not to portray people which hold the following, complex outlook –acknowledging that anti-Semitism is a real issue, and refusing to use it to as defence of every Israeli action. The only exception is a scene in which the British sociologist David Hirsh condemns the occupation in a conference on anti-Semitism in Jerusalem. He is later, naturally, slammed by a few right-wingers. When asked by Shamir what does this say about the conference, Hirsh simply answers – “that there were some hard right wingers there”.
At the end of this scene, Shamir says that talking to Hirsh made him realize that “it is very difficult to represent any other voice in the Jewish world. Those who try to say anything different are silenced.”
Funnily, neither I nor Hirsh heard that in anything he said. Saying that those who are trying to say anything different are silenced also doesn’t quite fit with the nomination of his own “Checkpoints” for Best Documentary in the Israeli Film Awards.
Funnily, neither I nor Hirsh heard that in anything he said. Saying that those who are trying to say anything different are silenced also doesn’t quite fit with the nomination of his own “Checkpoints” for Best Documentary in the Israeli Film Awards.
After the release of “Defamation”, Hirsh wrote a column in The Guardian, titled “I’m No Hero for Defending Palestinians”, in which he explains why this isn’t a true picture. There are numerous intellectuals, who are sharp critics of Israeli policy, and still have the integrity to point out that some criticism of it is inherently anti-Semitic,even when it’s labelled anti-Zionist. Hirsh is only one of them. Unfortunately, Norman Finkelstein, the prominent critic in the film, lacks this integrity, and goes on to say (on film) that comparing Abe Foxman of the ADL to Hitler would be an insult to the latter.
The film highlights the ADL’s attempts at drawing as much attention as possible to the sporadic cases of physical assaults on U.S. Jews. Their search for sensational incidents is indeed quite pathetic and comic, as they aren’t the most eloquent bunch.
It might very well be that some statements and agendas of bodies such as the ADL and AIPAC, which are often viewed as “good” for Israel, are actually counter-productive to it, perhaps even to Jews worldwide. However, it doesn’t require a conspiracist like Finkelstein to make this point. One might think, judging by the film, that he’s a “dissident” Jew for voicing a different opinion. This is far from the being the case – this is an opinion being voiced by many mainstream figures including MKs (even in Kadima), columnists of Haaretz (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), numerous op-eds in Yediot Aharonot (1, 2), practically every writer in Tikkun, and most importantly, J-Street, the 2nd most significant American pro-Israeli lobby.
Shamir begins the film by stating that living in Israel, he had never experienced anti-Semitism, and he wants to understand why we still deal with it relentlessly. I’m glad to hear he never came across it.
I have, however, been told by a young, rather non-political Austrian couple that rich, powerful Jews control America and the UN, and therefore nobody dares “stand up” to Israel. I was told by a Czech guy that Jews planned 9/11. I was told by a Dutch man that he “read somewhere” that non-Jews won’t be treated in Israeli hospitals, and that Arabic is an outlawed language there. I was told by a German that Jews are committing a Nazi genocide on Gaza.
These were only the most outrageous examples I’ve heard. Mind you, these things were all said by rather normative people, certainly not wild-eyed skinheads. Perhaps these aren’t the sensational manifestations of anti-Semitism Shamir is looking for in the film. Those, however, also exist. They sometimes even come from prominent leaders and figures.
The sad truth is that the bulk of ‘sensational’ anti-Semitism nowadays, is found in radical Islamist circles. This is not inherent to Islam, nor is it a bogus “clash of civilizations”, as eras of harmony between Jews and Muslims can prove. It is mostly European anti-Semitism that found its way into hearts and minds across the region, most likely due to frictions in the region since early Zionist presence in Palestine. Some clerics will also interpret religious texts to fit with this essentially European Jew-hatred. I feel ridiculous trying to “prove” this, because it’s so utterly obvious. However, for the sake of possible doubt, here are examples -
The Iranian president organized international Holocaust revisionism conferences, repeatedly questioned it, and hints that Jews stood behind 9/11. Hizb’allah leader Nasrallah states that Israelis are the grandsons of apes and pigs, and that the bright side of it is that if all Jews gather there, it will save the trouble of going after them worldwide. “Mein Kampf” and “The Protocols of The Elders of Zion” are populartitles in many countries, the latter is quoted in the Hamas charter as a historic document. Sadly, this is no fringe phenomena – “The Protocols”, along with other blatantly anti-Semitic publications, is even sold at bookstands at international airports, as I have myself witnessed at Jordan’s Queen Alia Airport. Age-old European blood libels are the inspiration for the Syrian TV series Ash-Shatat, which was aired in several states. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia said the following in his speech at the 2003 OIC summit – “Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others.”
The released videotape of the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 was titled “The Slaughter of the Spy-Journalist, the Jew Daniel Pearl”. He was made to tell the camera “My father’s Jewish. My mother’s Jewish. I’m Jewish” before being beheaded. In Paris in 2006 a working-class man named Ilan Halimi was kidnapped for ransom, sadistically tortured for three weeks, and murdered by a youth gang. Its members confessed they believed Jews to be rich, and therefore targeted him. In Malmo, Sweden, there has been a sharp increase of anti-Semitic incidents in recent years, leading many Jews to leave it. My girlfriend, who grew up in Berlin, says she often heard different variations on the word “Jude” as a slur used by teenagers. She graduated high-school in 2007, not in the 1930’s, in case anybody is wondering.
A list of examples could go on.
A list of examples could go on.
Blatant anti-Semitism in the west, aside from marginal Neo-Nazi activity, is mainly manifested as an apologetic approach to, or even solidarity with such statements, usually in the context of anti-imperialism. Ironically, this inherently European anti-Semitism ends up leaking back into Europe through some misguided, unreflected leftists. It goes without saying that it is also deeply rooted in the far-right, as part of its sympathy for 20th-century European fascism.
Neo-Nazi anti-Semitism is seen as crude, vile, and politically incorrect by practically anybody who isn’t one. Old-school anti-Semitism one might have heard from his grandparents probably also rings the politically-incorrect alarm in most people. Therefore I believe that the aforementioned “opinions” that I’ve personally heard in Europe most likely came from misguided circles in the left.
This is a real phenomena that is hard to completely overlook in any overview of contemporary anti-Semitism, and yet this film manages to do exactly that. And overlooking all of this gives Finkelstein an extra pinch of “credibility” when he asks the camera “do you see a Holocaust coming? It’s crazy. There is so much hunger, so much starvation in the world, so many people are suffering. And you want me to get excited about some idiot painting a swastika somewhere?”. He asserts that everybody who talks of anti-Semitism thinks there’s a Holocaust around the corner, or is doing so in order to diminish other problems. He’s practically dividing the world into two – Netanyahus and Finkelsteins, which funnily enough are in one respect both sides of the same coin. The moment an argument runs weak, they use their “as-a-Jew” Holocaust card. One does it against criticism of Israel, the other as a tool to demonize it.
Before I proceed, I would like to note that there had always been a big problem in Israeli society with dichotomizing the world between “for us” and “against us”. In Israel, support for extreme right-wing leaders overseas often goes beyond the “natural” solidarity between xenophobes, which exists between far-right groups internationally. This often results in non-racist people superficially ignoring racist (often specifically anti-Semitic) politics of extreme right-wingers, and welcoming their “support” for Israel, which is merely fueled by a (currently) stronger hate for Arabs than for Jews.
However, Israelis who don’t dichotomize the world into “for us” and “against us” – in other words, most open-minded people, aren’t very concerned by anti-Semitism within far-right circles, as they have nothing in common with them anyway. They have bigger fish to fry, namely Avigdor Lieberman, running wild in their own home. Many Israeli liberals are more concerned by some left-wingers, their supposed allies, joining anti-Semitic campaigns, which go well beyond the Israel critique they would expect, or even demand from them.
Instead of supporting peace initiatives on both sides, regardless of how small they might be, some liberals march alongside Hamas/Hizb’allah flags (1, 2, 3) – groups with which they share no common value whatsoever, and which critically harm the just Palestinian cause for international support and statehood. Hizb’allah is a party which stands against all liberal values, terrorizes a third of Lebanon – and is yetcondoned by many intellectuals, including Finkelstein. What common value do they share with it, apart for hatred of Israel? What should an Israeli Jew think when he observes that the one point where some liberals will cross their lines, and go against their basic values, is when united by “criticism” of Israel, and only Israel? These are key questions to understanding the perception of anti-Semitism in Israel, which Shamir fails to tackle.
It should also be mentioned that there are also Israelis and Jews who see nothing wrong with solidarity with racist Islamists in their struggle against the occupation. This doesn’t mean they are “self-hating” Jews (a despicable term!). They believe this is advancing positive change. Still, I have a fundamental disagreement with them. I myself have protested with individuals (Israelis and Palestinians alike) who hold other views than mine, for the sake of a joint cause. However, I strongly believe that solidarity with racist and bigoted groups, of any kind, is a line not be crossed. Some argue that Islamist groups are hardly ever anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Zionist. I think this puts their integrity in question.
I see this phenomena similar to Muslims who sympathize with racist politician Geert Wilders, or who support the Jewish-settlement in Hebron, and attend conferences hosted by Kahane fascists. I suppose they do so out of conviction that they’re advancing important critique of extremism in their own societies. I believe these Jews and Muslims are, respectively, neither anti-Semites nor Islamophobes, but I think that unfortunately, both make life much more convenient for racists, and are often used as fig leaves.
The growing popularity of anti-Semitism in the Middle East, along with troubling phenomenas in the western world, are real. Whether they only know of it, or have encountered it, many Jewish-Israelis are concerned by it. This isn’t necessarily a question of their political views. Some of them, like myself, want to end the occupation and land expropriations, and actively boycott settlement produce. Some don’t. Some are even conservative right-wingers. This is irrelevant. The fact that people are concerned by it is one issue, and the widespread exploitation of it for nationalistic political profit is a separate one. “Defamation”, however, links these two issues, as if they were one and the same.
I think I understand what Shamir is getting at, and we share much common ground – anti-Semitism isn’t worse than any other form of bigotry. Instrumentalizing and manipulating it is despicable. However, making a film about anti-Semitism while diminishing or ignoring the actual phenomena just in order to make this point is just dishonest and obnoxious. It undermines the efforts of those who aren’t manipulators and who do believe it’s an issue to be dealt with, globally, like any other form of racism.
What made “Checkpoints” so strong was its simple aim of portraying them, even if it made people feel uncomfortable. It did not pretend to be a film that examines the entire Intifada, but a single aspect of it. A film that would pretend to be an overview of the Intifada and would only show checkpoint abuse, entirely disregarding any terror attacks, would be manipulative. And that’s what “Defamation” is – intelligent, but manipulative. The question in the beginning of the film could have been “how and why do some Jews manipulate anti-Semitism”, or “do many of them let it influence their identities and views too much”. That would have changed everything, and could have made for a bold, brave film.
But this is not the case when the cinema posters and DVD packaging have “Anti-Semitism: The Movie”, written underneath the title.
The opening scene shows different newspaper articles about anti-Semitism from the Israeli media. Shamir says that he finds the fact that it is so central to be disturbing, and that he wants to learn more about the subject. As we all know, frightening news sells. Every society has bigger problems than an occasional horror story happening somewhere in the world, and still, stories like the Fritzl affair make headlines internationally. People want front-page coverage about the extremely rare cases of airplanes crashing. One could ask why do people willingly make themselves frightened by things beyond their control. That really is a good question. But in order to ask this, one doesn’t need to imply that these things aren’t actually real, or that they’re exaggerated. That doesn’t add to one’s argument. It’s just childish.
I felt discomfort and frustration during the scene in which a teenage girl declares before leaving for Poland – “it will strengthen the Israeli in me, the Zionist, the Jew in me. No doubt about it.” Not a single word about strengthening the anti-racist in her, or her commitment to democracy and human rights. As I said earlier, showing how this line of thought is being indoctrinated to youngsters is the film’s strongest, boldest quality.
But since this film is narrated in English and aimed at international audiences, I also feel discomfort and frustration knowing that it will make the many prejudiced people I’ve met feel self-righteous. It could almost provide a “kosher stamp” to the idea that anti-Semitism is simply a neo-con, American hoax.
Ultimately, I found “Defamation” to be an interesting, thought-provoking, yet flawed film. I find Marc Levin’s “The Protocols of Zion” to be a far more profound documentary on anti-Semitism. I do recommend seeing “Defamation”, but anybody who truly wishes to learn about this topic should view it alongside Levin’s brilliant film as a companion piece.
Noam Yatsiv . 03/2011
No comments:
Post a Comment