Anti-Semitism? Indeed

A couple of days ago apeared in the news (“Filmmakers protest uncritical view of Tel Aviv at Toronto film festival”, Haaretz) that some Canadian filmmakers threatened to withdraw their movies from The Toronto International Film Festival to protest the screening of Israeli movies at the festival -a celebration of the centennial of Tel Aviv- that, according to them, “will show Israel in a positive light instead of creating a critical forum in which to discuss the occupation”. One of the protesters, the movie director John Greyson, complained about “the business-as-usual atmosphere advanced by the choice of Tel Aviv as a young, dynamic metropolis, in a celebration free of confrontation with less pleasant parts of Israel”, for example, what he refers to as “the brutal occupation”.

Somewhere else, I have labeled this protest an anti-Semitic one, which prompted, in turn, some complaints by a friend. He defines anti-Semitism as “the un-principled hatred directed towards Israel and Jewish people based on nothing other than bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance”, and doesn´t think “one can accurately claim that any of the protesters cited in this article are endorsing or promoting anti-Semitism.”

I share entirely my friend´s definition of anti-Semitism, but also reach the oposite conclusion in this case. I´d like to add I´m particularly careful when using certain loaded terms, and “anti-Semitism” is one of them. Therefore, I was not careless when I chose to use it. I also share the emphasis my friend places in the distinction between the legitimate criticism of human rights violations by a country and the condemnation of a country or people as a whole. My own position is very critical towards many Israeli policies, the occupation of The West Bank and the meddling of the Israeli army in the daily life of Palestinians in particular, but this is not the point.

I call these Canadian filmmakers anti-Semitic because their protest reveals hostility and prejudice towards Israel per se.

As an example, let´s think of a film festival outside Canada which was to screen movies by Canadian filmmakers celebrating, say, the vibrant dynamism and multiculturalism of the city of Toronto. Then let´s think of several other participants in the festival protesting against those Canadian filmmakers showing a positive image of Canada when what they should be doing, say, is showing in their movies how evil the participation of Canadian troops in the international mission currently being carried out in Afghanistan. Wouldn´t we think this would be a paranoic protest? Wouldn´t we say these two facts -a vibrant Toronto and the Afghan mission- are not related? Wouldn´t we take it as an unespecific critique and a total disregard of the many good things going on in Canada and, therefore, a censure of the whole country? Moreover, what idea these Canadian filmmakers have of an artist´s freedom to create? Should all Israeli artists devote their energy and time to criticize endlessly the occupation of the West Bank, otherwise they will not be accepted as artists? So, portraying daily life in Tel Aviv means approval of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians? What should be the recommendation, in turn, regarding the Palestinian artists? That they are not free to display whatever they want in their artworks, that they must always show how “brutal” the occupation is, otherwise their works will no be taken seriously? This is exactly what the Case of the Toronto Film Festival and Israel is about.

Often, a very ill-conceived position regarding justice consists in (a) defining strong and feeble individuals or groups, according to our particular ideologies; then (b) side in all places and cases with the feeble and against the strong, thus defined. This complacent attitude may show others how religiously we adhere to our ideologies, but is not likely to be  of service to those we claim to help, and certainly is misguided as a principle for justice. Sometimes, it can also even bear extreme prejudice, and the Canadian filmmakers protest is a good example of it. As my friend says, it´s important to distinguish between a legitimate critique and unspecific, generalistic condemnations. Anti-Semitism may easily sprout among this kind of prejudiced protests against what should be mere movies bearing no relation to what is being objected against. However, some people are always ready to see what they want to see, and not what actually is out there.

Photo: Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, 2009 © Loudsoul

Puppet minorities

‘If we collaborate with the army, the terrorists try to kill us. If we collaborate with the terrorists, he will kill us’. Thus speaks to a foreign journalist the inhabitant of a Kurdish village in South-Eastern Turkey.[1] The terrorists are the PKK, the guerrilla of the Turkish kurds, while he is the officer of the Turkish military police who shadows the journalist everywhere he goes in the area.

We tend to think of minorities in certain regions torn by war, poverty and terror as inevitably repressed in every possible realm by the government of the country they are settled in, and perhaps by the majoritarian social group as well. While this is generally the case, especially if the minority belongs to a different ethnic group than the majority, or possesses a distinct culture, language or religion, or supported the wrong side in a recent armed conflict involving the country, we risk overlooking another important fact which also prevents peace and social tolerance from being accomplished. Quite often, minorities are manipulated by the leaders of neighbouring Nation-States in which the ethno-cultural group of the minority in question constitutes the social majority and/or enjoys significant political or military power. In other words, some governments and armed groups tend to manipulate minorities settled in nearby countries when both belong to the same ethno-cultural family, and they do so out of sheer geopolitical interests. Thus, sometimes minorities are not only victims of their oppressors, but also of their unwillingness to integration and adaptation to the new circumstances, a reluctance which reaches tragic proportions when the prospects for democratization are real.

While this phenomenon has been somehow present in many armed conflicts throughout history -let us remember, for instance, Italy´s manipulation of Italian communities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire territories, and the role these Irredenta claims played during World War I-, it is perhaps in the contemporary world where it has shown the real measure of its disruptive capabilities.

In the aforementioned example of the Kurdish communities of Eastern Turkey, both the PKK guerrillas and some Iraqi Kurdish leaders have influenced the Turkish kurds into not making compatible their belonging to the Turkish State with their maintaining their Kurdish cultural ties. In the India-administered part of Kashmir -Jammu and Kashmir-, Pakistan-sponsored groups have been pressuring muslim population not to comply with Indian legislation nor obeying Indian authorities. Obviously, Turkish and local Indian repression -particularly in the former case-, respectively, has not made things easy for those minorities.

Examples abound, but perhaps two of the most salient in global affairs are those of Kosovo´s serbs and Palestinian refugees. The Serb residents of Mitrovica, in northern Kosovo, are just pawns in the regional game the government of Serbia is playing against the international community not to acknowledge the former Serb province´s independence. While they affirm to be defending the interest of that community, it is obvious they detached themselves from it a long time ago.[2] The life of that Kosovan minority would improve substantially if it accepted the new institutions, though the EU and the UN will have to be vigilant and force the Kosovan government to live up to its democratic constitution.

In the same manner, during more than half a century, Palestinian refugees have been equally manipulated by Arab leaders, who, claiming to be backing up their quest for returning to the Palestinian lands they left -forced by the Israeli army or voluntarily-, kept them in refugee camps and prevented them from integrating in their host countries, where many of them -or their descendants-, after 50 or 60 years, still do not have a full citizenship status, and are among the poorest inhabitants in their respective host countries.[3] They have also been pawns in a greater game, the one being played in the Middle Eastern power politics.

As in every conflict, often attributions of pure good and evil are difficult to make. Reality is much more complex than what defenders of different sides want us to believe.

References:

[1] Michael Ignatieff, Blood and belonging. Journeys into the new nationalism, London, Vintage, 1994.

[2] Michael Ignatieff, Empire lite, London, Vintage, 2003.

[3] Joan B. Culla, Israel, el somni I la tragèdia. Del sionisme al conflicte de Palestina, Barcelona, Edicions La campana, 2005.

Photo: Erbil refugee camp, Iraqi Kurdistan, 2007 © Emmanuel Smague

Reciprocal atrocities

On Dec. 31st, the number of casualties reaches 450 on both sides. On March 31st, it reaches 2,000 casualties and 4,000 injured. Both parts anounce ceasefires that are almost inmediately breached. Savage retaliation acts against civilians on both sides follow each other. The UN endorses a two states solution in Palestine as the only quick and effective way of stopping the bloodbath. The divided Arab ruling class has been unable of defending efficiently its people´s interests and couldn´t prepare the Palestines for the armed conflict either. On April 9th, Irgun and Lehi troops kill 100 Palestinian civilians in Deir Yassim, west of Jerusalem. In revenge, the Arabs attack a Hebrew group of trucks travelling with medical equipment; as a result, 77 people die. The number of Palestinian refugees reaches 750,000 by November. They and their descendants will remain in exile in camps in Egipt, Lebanon,west of the Jordan river and Syria, festering their anger and resentment and unable to integrate in the new foster societies, thanks to the official Arab policy towards them. Expelled, robbed of their properties, hundreds of Hebrews suffer retaliation all over the Middle East.*

Is this a description of recent attacks on Israeli population by Palestinian terrorists and on Palestinian population by the Israeli army? No, these events happened in 1947-1948, right after the Israeli declaration of independence, but they could be yesterday´s headlines; they have never ceased to take place, as both peoples wage war on each other since then. Soon it will be the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, 60 years of bloody attacks on soldiers and civilians on both parts, a mutual disregard for the rights of each other, and countless actions and policies aimed at impeding a peaceful and prosperous co-existence of two political communities. All this murderous nonsense is bound to go on until both peoples are weary of fighting each other. Then, they will be ready to elect responsible and corageous leaders who are willing to compromise and let the inhabitants of this war-torn region have a future.

(*) Data from Joan B. Culla, Israel, el somni i la tragèdia. Del sionisme al conflicte de Palestina [Israel, the dream and the tragedy. From Zionism to the Palestinian conflict], Barcelona, Edicions La Campana, 2005.

Photo: Balata Refugee Camp, September 2005 © Shabtai Gold