RSS Feed MenuThe Toronto International Film Festival will this year feature a film from Malaysia. Nobody will picket or denounce this movie on the grounds that a Malaysian judge last month sentenced a woman to a public caning for drinking beer in a hotel bar. Nor can we expect protests against films from Iran, even though the Iranian regime raped and murdered an arrested Canadian photographer — and continues to use rape to terrorize imprisoned protesters.
There is one country that is always a target of protest, and it is the target at this year’s film festival: the state of Israel. To give the protesters their due, they know what they’re doing. Protests aimed at Malaysian or Iranian films would achieve nothing. These regimes are hardly going to alter their behavior because some Westerners harass their independent filmmakers.
Anti-Israel protests, however, are not aimed at altering Israel’s behavior. Singling out Israel is a goal in itself. Throughout the ages, anti-Jewish persecution has proceeded through familiar stages. The first stage is to denounce and defame Jews as uniquely villainous creatures — as murderers of Christ, as stiff-necked enemies of Muhammad, as bloodsucking money-lenders, as racial enemies.
The second stage is to define Jews as a distinctive category of humanity or subhumanity, demarked from the rest of humanity in some visibly distinctive way.
The third is to banish these Jews from the rest of society, to exclude them from certain pursuits, especially the arts and sciences. In Germany in the 1930s, for example, writers, musicians and, yes, filmmakers lost their livelihoods first; doctors and lawyers only later.
Physical attack comes last, after the mind has been prepared for it by a long process of delegitimation and dehumanization.
Today’s anti-Israel movements follow the ancient scripts precisely. In Britain, academic associations now boycott Israeli universities. In Los Angeles in 2007, protesters sought to silence the Israel Philharmonic. Now in Toronto, the Israeli film industry is targeted.
The organizers of the Toronto protests explain: “We object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of what South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, and UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann have all characterized as an apartheid regime.”
This is an inversion of reality as breathtaking as North Korea’s self-description as a “people’s republic.” The complained-of apartheid is nothing more (and nothing less) than the measures Israel adopts to protect its people from the campaign of random murder that claimed over 1,000 Israeli lives between 2000 and 2006: walls and other devices of physical separation.
But notice something else: Unlike in the hypothetical but non-existent protests against Malaysia and Iran, Israel is denounced not for what it does, but for what it is. The only way for Israel to escape these denunciations is to cease to be.
Israel is not going to oblige anytime soon of course. But those who organize these boycott campaigns hope that the reappearance of the ancient practice of separation and exclusion will so demoralize Israel’s Jews that they will submit to their own dispossession. And indeed, some Jews and some Israelis have submitted. They sign these petitions in hope, perhaps, of finding some personal escape for themselves from the vilification of Jews in general.
This too is an ancient pattern. In 15th century Spain, some of the most bloodthirsty persecutors of the Jewish population were the children and grandchildren of Jewish converts to Christianity. They may have hoped by their zeal against their kin to prove themselves to their menacing neighbours. I think of them when I see the sprinkling of Israeli names among the long roster of signatories to the Toronto declaration against the film festival.
But history does not repeat itself. This time the would-be persecutors are few and marginal, and most North Americans see their animus for what it is. Toronto’s festival will proceed untroubled — and will include a tribute to the dazzling city of Tel Aviv on its 100th anniversary, a city built from sand dunes by the children and grandchildren of survivors of the last attempt to banish Jews from the arts and from life.
Originally published in the National Post.
sinz54 // Sep 13, 2009 at 10:04 am
““We object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of what South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, and UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann have all characterized as an apartheid regime.””
Fox News should ask Jimmy Carter if he’s pleased to see the consequences of that book he wrote.
Now every Israel-hater in the world can quote “former U.S. president Jimmy Carter.”
frankenheimer // Sep 13, 2009 at 10:32 am
I’m surprised to see these protests in Toronto. It’s usually an apolitical and polite city. As for the reason Israel is singled out for protes I think it’s because in Canada, as in most countries in the world, Israel is seen as aligned with the United States, and neo-conservatives in particular. A protest against Israel is in effect a protest against neoconservatism and the foreign policy it has come to symbolize. Israel is a highly sensitive subject that cannot be discussed with many Canadian liberals. I am personally “liberal” myself (espousing most progressive beliefs), but I support Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism. I have lost friends in expressing this view, though I also live in Montreal, where Bush had the lowest favourability rating in the world. The vast majority of people were anti-American. Opposition to Israel is a continuation of these sentiments I believe.
Ploni Almoni // Sep 13, 2009 at 11:15 am
Here’s an alternate hypothesis. Anti-Israel movements are not replaying “ancient scripts” of anti-Semitism. While Israel is indeed hated for what it is and not for what it does, the hatred is not essentially against a Jewish state. Israel is hated so single-mindedly because it’s perceived as a *Western* state oppressing non-white indigenous peoples. That’s why the film boycott is against Israel and not against Malaysia or Iran.
A thought experiment: what if Israel were a state founded not by Jews, but by, say, Dutch settlers (think South Africa) who were “oppressing” the Third World, non-European Palestinians. Do you really think this hypothetical non-Jewish, but European, Israel would *not* be the target of boycotts by the Jane Fondas of the world?
Most leftist hatred of Israel is not anti-Semitism. It’s Western hatred of the West.
snoble // Sep 13, 2009 at 1:59 pm
For those of us not in Toronto has anyone set up a group where we can send money and they will send local Jews to go see TIFF movies. I would love to see this be one of the most successful TIFFs ever.
Stephen B // Sep 13, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Mr. Frum should provide some backgound info, or a pointer to news coverage, so those who haven’t followed the TIFF story will know what he’s talking about.
SFTor1 // Sep 13, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The point about criticism of Israel is this: they are being held to a higher standard than Islamic dictatorships. It is a key ally in the Near East. Israel’s behavior matters in ways that Iran’s and Malaysia’s don’t.
MFarmer // Sep 13, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I’ve just completed reading a history of Russia during the early 20th century, and I’m in the process of reading a history of Germany during the early 20th century — what both countries did to Jews should never be forgotten. One of the most troubling aspects of the progressive movement is it’s attitude toward Israel — whether this is a critical stance toward a nation or anti-semitism remains to be seen.
sinz54 // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:02 am
sftor1: The point about criticism of Israel is this: they are being held to a higher standard than Islamic dictatorships.
That’s a fancy way of saying that you’re prepared to make endless excuses for the behavior of Islamic dictatorships.
Why shouldn’t some standards be universal? What’s the point of the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Man, for example, if we start from the premise that Islamic dictatorships get a free pass on it? Their suffering peoples need improved human rights more than, say, Canadians do, because the Canadian constitution and society already give them those rights.
ericna // Sep 14, 2009 at 11:36 am
I don’t get this. Frum is usually a level headed guy, but here he has some blind spot. It is of course patently silly to boycott a film festival because it has an Israeli film in it, but comparing Israelis who support this boycott, or are otherwise critical of Israeli policies, with collaborators for the inquisition is to go visit Glenn Beck in Crazytown. And there has been a number of demonstrations against the Iranian government. It is true that the position of Israel in World opinion is rapidly deteriorating. I don’t know how this has come about elsewhere, but I know how it happened in my home country Norway. When I grew up in the seventies, the entire political spectrum was staunchly pro-Israel. This even to the point that when Mossad liquidated an innocent man on Norwegian territory, Norwegian officialdom cooperated with Israeli authorities and the killers received extremely light sentences. I believe none of the accomplices served more than 2-3 years. The Norway started sending troops for a UN peace keeping mission in Lebanon. More than 20000 Norwegian soldiers served down there. They all arrived as pro-Israel and almost all left disgusted by Israeli arrogance. This had an impact. Norwegian conservative politicians, such as Kåre Willoch from the Conservative Party, visited Israel has a solid supporter of Israel and came back extremely critical. Recently Morten Hoeglund from the even more conservative, and staunchly Progress Party came back from Gaza stating quite plainly that Israeli policy benefited Hamas more than anyone.
I am sorry, but a large part of why Israel’s place in public opinion has taken a few knocks is that the Israeli military and political establishment have earned it with their actions.
EscapeVelocity // Sep 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Most leftist hatred of Israel is not anti-Semitism. It’s Western hatred of the West. — Ploni Almoni
Bingo!
agentprovocateur // Sep 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm
A thought experiment: what if Israel were a state founded not by Jews, but by, say, Dutch settlers (think South Africa) who were “oppressing” the Third World, non-European Palestinians. Do you really think this hypothetical non-Jewish, but European, Israel would *not* be the target of boycotts by the Jane Fondas of the world?
Most leftist hatred of Israel is not anti-Semitism. It’s Western hatred of the West.
South Africa’s apartheid policy wasn’t wrong and didn’t deserve to be protested? Such protests against that regime were simply “Western hatred” of the West? And any criticisms of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians are either based on anti-Semitism and/or “Western hatred” of the West?
EscapeVelocity // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:27 pm
The outrage level is the key.
South Africa
Israel
vs
Saudi Arabia
Rwanda
Sudan
Because there are light skinned Westerners involved in the 2 situations, that is why they are the focus of inordinent amounts of energy.
For example
Gitmo vs Fidel Castros Cuba
here is another
Hamas war crimes vs Israeli war crimes
Some of this can be ascribed to Double Standards that hold white Western Christians and Jews to higher standards than Darkies and Muslims, which is a form of soft racism. Still more can be ascribed to the Anti Westernism of the Western Left. Some can be attributed to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan formulation, that open free socieities it is easier to dig up the dirt, and those societies that are closed to Western Leftists, the dirt goes undiscovered…but often the Western Left already has a blind spot for it (as with the Socialist Communist regimes of the 20th (and now 21rst) century….but also Dark Folks who are fighting for liberation from the Racist Imperialist Capitalist Oppressors….so their crimes should be downplayed and solidarity shown with them in their righteous fight against them.
Mountainaires // Sep 15, 2009 at 10:42 am
What is truly breathtaking is your characterization of Israel as an innocent victim; Israelis and their deceitful supporters do themselves no favors in this charade. Your “stages” of persecution are the very same policies and objectives being used right now against Palestinians, in this case, the perpetrator is Israel. The lies you tell Mr. Frum may deceive a few for a while; but your stepped up rhetoric just won’t halt the inevitable worldwide condemnation of Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza. Those of us who have studied the history of the region, who read the daily reports from Israel, who study the politics from the outside, can see your demogoguery for what it is: Cheap lies. The same demonization used against Jews by Hitler is being used by Jews against Palestinians; the same “Jews-Only” roads; the same colored license plates; the same theft of property; the same discrimination in the education system for “Arab only” classrooms; the very same state-sponsored violence. I’m offended by your characterization of anyone who questions Israeli policies as anti-semitic; many Jews question Israeli policies, in fact. Stop the hate-speech, Mr. Frum. You tarnish all conservatives with those lies.
mkmcCoffee // Sep 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm
The examples of apartheid in Israel go far beyond merely “walls and other devices of physical separation”. I always find it interesting that some of the most reasoned critiques of Israeli policies (at least since the government there has been dominated by the hard-right wing), have come from Jewish Israelis writing for Israeli newspapers. It is unreasonable to conclude that anyone else’s opposition to those same policies comes only from anti-semitism.
Egypt Steve // Sep 15, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Quote: “The complained-of apartheid is nothing more (and nothing less) than the measures Israel adopts to protect its people from the campaign of random murder that claimed over 1,000 Israeli lives between 2000 and 2006: walls and other devices of physical separation.”
Absolutely. The occupation has only been in force since 2000, after all, and before that, all persons living in historic Palestine had an equal citizenship, and were completely free to move around without restriction, to live and to work anywhere they wished to. And the Israelis, as is well known, are all in favor of this arrangement in the future, if only the Palestinians will lay down their arms and accept their generous offer of a completely free and integrated Israel/Palestine that makes no distinction among its citizens. And in the meantime, Israel is only acting reasonably, and from necessity: few things are more effective in thwarting suicide bombing than confiscating land for new and expanded settlements, or pumping water out of the Jordan River and the meager aquifers of the area to water golf-courses and fill swimming pools, which are vital for Israel’s security. After all, if the Palestinians are allowed to farm too much, they will only eat. Can’t have that.
The Conservative Chessboard « Calvin Freiburger Online // Sep 23, 2009 at 6:55 pm
[...] one can deviate from the norm and still be, on balance, an asset. David Frum, for instance, is a stalwart defender of Israel and a serious observer of foreign policy, but when it comes to domestic policy, he spends [...]