We Are All Tali Shalom Ezer.
Petty and small minded are two words that describe Ken Loach’s attitude towards Israelis. The First post has more:
“Imagine this. You are a young British filmmaker excited that your film about a romance in a sex therapy clinic has been selected for screening at an international film festival.
It would be great if you could attend the screening but funds are short. Luckily for you the British embassy in the film festival’s host country steps in and funds your travel. Bingo – a result.
But then something happens. A campaign group against British military intervention in Iraq is demanding a boycott of any cultural involvement with the British government or British artists. This group is outraged that the festival has accepted the Brits’ filthy lucre to fund your attendance.
If this had happened to a British artist the liberal left literati would be up in arms
It gets worse. One of the biggest filmmakers in the world, a Palme D’Or winner and Goliath to your David, comes out and says he is ‘horrified’ that the festival has accepted this money and urges people to stay away. Under pressure the film festival reluctantly hands the money back to the British embassy.
Unjust? Punitive censure of an artist because of the British government’s actions? Unacceptable political grandstanding in the cultural arena? Unfair condemnation of an artist who refuses to make the right political noises, who just wants to get on with their art?”
I fully expect Loach to say “I am not a racist, some of my best friends are Jew, but…..”
Update:
The Daily Kos has picked up the story:
“Trying to punish someone, as Loach was trying to do, because of their race or ethnicity is clearly bigotry, and bigotry against Jews is antisemitism.”
Update 2:
The film director, herself comments:
“Shalom-Ezer, 31, whose first publicly released film, Surrogate, debuts in Israeli cinemas next week, said: “Generalising all citizens of Israel as warmongers and racists is racism and outrageous, and as members of the peace camp we are personally hurt by it.”
Update 3: Engage has typically intelligent coverage.
Update 4:
Another response from Israel:
“The EIFF reacted to Ken Loach’s polemics with an amazing bit of prose indicative of moral bankruptcy:
“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.”
They accept that one film-maker’s statement speaks on behalf of the film community! What if the film maker is Leni Riefenstahl? What if it is Mel Gibson, cussing out out the Jews when arrested for drunk driving? Why does Ken Loach represent the “film community?”
Hoora!
Alec
23/05/2009 at 09:35
[...] For background see Engage and We Are All Tali Shalom Ezer. [...]
Stick It Where the Sun Don’t Shine « ModernityBlog
30/05/2009 at 20:08
This post is deeply dishonest. It is not anything against Israelis (even if a person was anti-semtic, why would they target all Israelis? Do none-jewish Israelis not count? Isn’t that like the BNP saying non-white British don’t count?), it is against the Israeli government- based on the actions of said government.
It was not an action against the film-maker Tali Shalom-Ezer, Ken Loach had no problem with the festival offering to pay the expenses without the donation from the Israeli government. Which is what the festival did. His problem, like he clearly said, was that the Israeli government, whose actions he disagrees with, would be helping to fund an event. Shouldn’t he be allowed to boycott it? Would you have a problem if he boycotted it over Coca-Cola’s funding because of that company’s actions?
No why do you have to fill your post up with what you would expect Ken Loach to say? Surely if he’s said things that are anti-semitic, you could post them first hand couldn’t you? Why have you relied on quotes from accusers only, why not post Ken Loach’s words that have sparked such accusations? Like I said, deeply dishonest. “There’s no evidence that Loach is anti-semitic, what he said wasn’t anti-semitic- but here’s a load of quotes accusing him of being an anti-semite.” There is no useful information here that would let people decide for themselves either way, this is an awful way to do a post.
Mike
01/06/2009 at 13:56
Well Mike, your reading skills are decidedly faulty I did not say Loach was antisemitic, I doubt that he is.
Rather Loach is a smug, self important and petty individual.
And if you really wanted to discuss these issues in a civil fashion then you might try and address the points raised by:
” A campaign group against British military intervention in Iraq is demanding a boycott of any cultural involvement with the British government or British artists. This group is outraged that the festival has accepted the Brits’ filthy lucre to fund your attendance.
If this had happened to a British artist the liberal left literati would be up in arms
It gets worse. One of the biggest filmmakers in the world, a Palme D’Or winner and Goliath to your David, comes out and says he is ‘horrified’ that the festival has accepted this money and urges people to stay away. Under pressure the film festival reluctantly hands the money back to the British embassy.
Unjust? Punitive censure of an artist because of the British government’s actions? Unacceptable political grandstanding in the cultural arena? Unfair condemnation of an artist who refuses to make the right political noises, who just wants to get on with their art?””
modernityblog
01/06/2009 at 14:49
Oh come on, what was: “I fully expect Loach to say “I am not a racist, some of my best friends are Jew, but…..”” if not a “nudge-nudge, wink-wink, Ken’s a racist” comment?
What did you mean by that if not to insinuate that Ken Loach is antisemitic?
And the points raised? What points? If a person wishes to boycott an event funded by a government because they oppose the actions of that government, why shouldn’t they? Look at the example given in the article you’ve quoted- look at the details that have been changed in the hypothetical. The “or British artists”, which doesn’t appear in the real issue. The lack of an offer to pay the expenses of the artist from more politically-neutral funds.
It would be an outrage if Ken Loach had boycotted the festival because people of certain nationalities were banned, like in that example. But that is a false analogy, because that is not what the issue was.
Your whole schtick here is that the artist was somehow denied the platform because of her nationality. This is plainly not true, as Ken Loach did not oppose the expenses being paid from other sources which is what the festival had agreed to do.
And now the film-maker is boycotting the festival herself rather than being denied access to it, because the funding has come from a place she doesn’t want it to, which she is perfectly free to do.
Mike
01/06/2009 at 15:05
Typo- “weren’t banned” in the “It would be an outrage….” paragraph. If he boycotted it because certain nationalities were banned, that would definately not be an outrage.
Mike
01/06/2009 at 15:07
Mike,
Rather than lecture, do you intend to engage with the points raised?
modernityblog
01/06/2009 at 16:02
Again, what points does it raise exactly? Why take such an analogy seriously? It’s been created only so that the author of that piece of fiction can add or take away details from the real situation to suit their line of attack without being accused of lying about the situation (because it’s just an analogy.)
If the creator of that analogy was doing it to draw parallels with the real situation, why would they have to invent or remove things? Could it be that by making an analogy they’re free to change facts to suit the outcome they want, and that is the reason they’re using an analogy?
Mike
01/06/2009 at 16:11
Well, if you can’t see the points, what are you arguing about?
modernityblog
01/06/2009 at 16:24
What points haven’t I addressed in my previous comments? What points are there that pertain to the Ken Loach situation?
“Unjust?” No.
“Punitive censure of an artist because of the Israeli government’s actions?” No, for reasons stated in my above comments.
“Unacceptable political grandstanding in the cultural arena?” No, funding by a political organisation makes it political. If you disagree with the actions of that political organisation it is not unacceptable to boycott what it funds.
“Unfair condemnation of an artist who refuses to make the right political noises, who just wants to get on with their art?” No, there was no condemnation of the artist (such condemnation was invented within the analogy, it didn’t happen in the real situation.)
And again, why are you insinuating that Ken Loach is antisemitic with the comment I quoted a couple of comments back? Why have you only posted quotes from other people making similar insinuations or saying it outright? Why have you not posted what was apparently said to provoke these comments or any evidence to support them?
This is a slimey way to do things. You’re insinuating things that you aren’t confident enough to say and that you can’t defend.
Mike
01/06/2009 at 16:37
If you wish to engage with any of the points which have been made, please do so.
Should you wish to rant and rave, please carry on, I’m just glad that my blog could serve the purpose of allowing you to vent your spleen.
Possibly you should consider having your own blog? may be called “Friends of Ken” or “Some of my best friends are….”?
Please do forgive me if I ignore your future meaningless contributions, my tolerance for this guff is at an all time low
But please feel free to rant, get it off your chest, you will feel much better in yourself after you’ve done that
And that’s what it’s all about, for you and the likes of Ken Loach, feeling good about yourself, feeling smug, knowing you are politically superior, etc
It is a shame that the rest of us merely ignore you
modernityblog
01/06/2009 at 17:00
Fine, fine. I see that I’m not welcome to make comments here, it is your blog and certainly people who point out fabrications your faction has made to support your snake-like insinuations shouldn’t expect to be welcomed. Maybe I’ll call it a boycott.
Mike
01/06/2009 at 17:08
You are most welcome here, but I wish you were a little less snide, had a sense of humour and could even READ what I have written.
As you can’t manage even one of those, it is really your problem, not mine.
I don’t have much time for humourless, argumentative types, who should know better.
modernityblog
01/06/2009 at 17:14