Filmmaker Pulls Entry from TIFF in Protest Against Festival's Spotlight on Tel Aviv

While they're at it, let's boycott any spotlight on Owen Sound, too.
As the old saying goes, if you can't go to university, go to York.

TIFF is better off without this film, and its filmmaker. TIFF is not the forum for angry political debate, so let's keep it out of our film festivals and off our university campuses.

I totally agree. I had the exact same thoughts when I read about the program and this 'spotlight'. It doesnt make sense, this is propaganda. Its all about money, once again. Thats why human rights issues and common sense was not put into consideration. Im not going to buy any tickets this year. I think the statement Greyson is making is very strong and fair, I back it up. Good on you.

Good riddance! Tel Aviv is a great city, full of history and culture. Most people in the world only think of the Middle East, and especially Israel as a war zone. A spotlight on Tel Aviv might educate the masses who only see Israel in this regard.
If I were to follow Greyson's logic than if the spotlight were on New York he should take the same stand. (I highly doubt it) Did the U.S. not slaughter thousands of civilians in Iraq? What hypocrisy! I could name countless other countries with controversial governments, but for brevity's sake I will just say this. Thank God I no longer attend York:)

Greyson is well informed in that he's watched none of the films at issue?

It's hardly brave or courageous to play into fashionable causes that have no time for nuance or complexity.

TokyoTuds, I am all for student protest and informed public debate but the near violence that happened at York is far from social justice.

Like David said, it seems Israel is continuously singled out while other countries go unscathed. Would you protest a spotlight on Iranian films? Or even Palestinian films for that matter? Clearly there is violence on both sides and commenting on the injustices on only one side will not lead to a productive solution.

My $0.02

He's at York, our very own Terrorist U (along with Concordia). Useless strikes, pogroms against jews, it's all the best parts of the radical Left agenda!

Greyson is one of the examples of how York has deteriorated from a location of progressive discourse to a wasteland of hate, bigotry, and the elimination of informed and reasoned dialogue. (Ab)using the propagandist term "apartheid" shows a marked lack of understanding of the original struggle of South African emancipation. Yes, there have been abuses by the Israeli government. Yes, there have equally been abuses by Palestinian leadership. What is needed is informed and progressive dialogue and understanding, not verbal missiles aimed across cultural borders at what purports to be an institution of higher learning and insightful thinking.

Professor Greyson, you are not helping. Yes, stay home. In fact, why don't you consider resigning your tenure at York, rather than inflaming malleable young minds with your closed mindedness.

It's important to note that Udi Aloni, an Israeli director, is supporting Greyson in his protest:

"Israeli directors don't have to be defensive and ask 'Why are they attacking us?' but say to the Canadian directors: 'We're with you on this. We don't represent [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman; we represent the opposition.' There are only two options. It's no longer possible to shoot and cry."

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1110750.html

Characterizing this protest as a hateful pogrom may be more than a little hysterical.

>I wonder if he knows anything about the original struggle of South African emancipation

yea I'm pretty sure...

On 16 October 1984, Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee cited his "role as a unifying leader figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa."

"Professor" Greyson makes much in his letter of the "Great Israeli Boycott" and its importance in whatever it is he and his friends are trying to accomplish. He talks about an international boycott proclaimed by Palestinian NGOs and subsequently adopted by thousands "inside and outside Israel" -- although how one can join an economic boycott of a country from inside that country defies me.

This rag tag little movement he equates with the official sanctions regime implemented by the UN against South Africa, a subject about which he evidently (I am repeating myself) knows very little. He then goes on to suggest that by ignoring this little boycott, "TIFF has emphatically taken sides." I am not sure this is correct under any logic scheme, but let's give him the point -- yes, TIFF has taken sides on the side of rational thought and action. More disturbing than this is the proclamation by the "Professor" that taking sides is evil only if it is the Israeli side that's taken -- after all, his sycophantic adoration of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" must be even more of an "emphatic" side taking. I would ask, whether by the same logic, his support of Palestine does not "emphatically" imply a support of Palestinian views of Queers, which is somewhat less friendly than that of the Israeli's. So here we have a man who's virulent hatred of Israel is so strong that he would emphatically support a regime that condemns homosexuality. I am beginning to feel sick.

But, on the positive side, his letter to TIFF includes a sufficient amount of ass-kissing to ensure that he is invited back next year -- again, I cannot help but conclude that the strength of convictions is zero and that all this nonsense is entirely self serving. Why are we surprised.

ahhh gotchya! Sorry my sarcasm detectors are not fully tuned today.

OPEN LETTER to John Greyson
<p>
Dear Mr. Greyson,
<p>
Having now watched your film...
<p>
1) Your film is not a coherent piece of storytelling. Presumably it was invited to the festival in the first place due to your relationship with the festival heads.
<p>
2) One aspect of what you attempt to illuminate in your film is important: The violence against that festival in Sarajevo. What I learned from your piece of filmmaking here I could have learned reading one paragraph in 20 seconds. Where is your art here, as a filmmaker? Why are you telling us this story, rather than showing it? (One of the cardinal rules of screenplays and filmmaking is SHOW US, don't tell us.) And what is this voiceover of someone teaching another words in presumably the Bosnian language? To hit us over the head with the written narration you want us to read? Pointless. No connection to the story you're attempting to tell. Just let us read the narration.
<p>
3) What is the point with famous musicians in this story, doing covers of songs? How does this relate or connect in any way with the violence to shut the festival down?
<p>
I do not know you. I've never seen any of your work before. And this is the first time in my life, in my career, that I have ever written non-praiseworthy comments about another filmmaker. If I don't like someone's feature or short, I keep the comments to myself or among conversation with friends.
<p>
Because of the quality of your film (or my perceived lack of), this pulling your film from Toronto strikes me as a publicity stunt. Sure, some can say you don't do this kind of stuff, because you don't care about Hollywood. But you do care about publicity, I'm sure. We both know the power of this, and what it can do for one's career. This appears to be no more than a publicity stunt.
<p>
And this is disconcerting to me. Using the complicated politics of the Middle East to promote yourself is, in my view, dishonest, disingenuous, and opportunistic.
<p>
I am an American Jew. I do not claim to know all the intricacies of all the issues between Israelis and Palestinians. But I have been following the issues since the first Palestinian intifada in 1987.
<p>
While I have never personally approved of the way the Israeli government handled that, or the second intifada, one MUST have perspective on the entirety of the issues in that region, and NOT pull aspects out of the larger issue to look at them individually and out of context. I believe most Jews, as myself, do not want to ever see an Israeli soldier killing anyone. But I also don't want to see terrorists blowing innocent people up in Tel Aviv clubs and hotels, or see Hamas firing rockets into Israel killing children.
<p>
So let's cut to the chase here, because I (or anyone) could write about all the back & forth between the two sides ad nauseam, and who's to blame or who first started "the latest round."
<p>
The Arab world, particularly the Arab nations that attempted to destroy Israel and wipe Israel off the map in 1967 and 1973, hold much responsibility in there being no peace in the Middle East. Anyone who truly understands the issues there -- TRULY UNDERSTANDS -- knows that for a lasting peace to take effect, it will require the real participation and backing of these Arab nations.
<p>
What does this mean? For one, they stop funding the Palestinians' various military wings (and past and current terrorist activities) and they come to the bargaining table in sincerity. What many people not educated on these regional issues don't realize, is that it serves some of these Arab nations' OWN politics to maintain Israel as the pariah. As long as Israel is hated and despised, it focuses attention away from some of these corrupt Arab governments. (The leaders of these governments are not stupid.)
<p>
It is not in their best interests, in their minds, to have a "global" peace with Israel. Egypt became the exception in the late '70s due to the foresight and forward thinking of that nation's leader then, and Jordan in the '90s as well. But this is not the norm. You have textbooks -- TEXTBOOKS -- in some of these Arab nations that schoolchildren read, that teach hatred of the Jews and Israel.
<p>
Propaganda? Damn right it is. The leaders of some of these nations do not want their citizens blaming them for their social ills, or high unemployment, or -- God forbid -- the reason there is no peace in that region. Blame the Jews. It's easy and convenient. And of course, historical.
<p>
I apologize for my bluntness here, but people like you, Mr. Greyson, do not truly understand ALL the issues at play. The regional issues and the geopolitical issues. You glom onto pieces of the debate, and believe you understand everything.
<p>
If there is ever going to be peace in the Middle East, it will NOT take leaders, but statesmen. It will take all the Arab nations, and Israel, and the U.S., to come together to hammer out something everyone can live with. It will take the Arab Nations forcing the Palestinians to accept compromises that the Palestinians don't want to accept, and it will take the U.S. forcing Israel to accept compromises that Israel does not want to accept.
<p>
One thing most people forget, is that Israel is a democracy. The leader that gets elected is either a "conservative" or "liberal," and very contingent upon the mood of that nation at the time of election. (Just like the U.S.) Unfortunately, this affects their policies and engagement of the peace process. When there are terrorist attacks in Israel, the people there want revenge, not peace. (Just like here in the U.S. with 9/11.) Unfortunately, the human element of feeling injustice and wanting revenge cannot be removed from the human psyche. Awareness of this psychology, however, can sometimes help. But I digress.
<p>
You think that Israel engaging in some governmental propaganda, to try to change some of the world's low opinions of it, is wrong. And thus, you pull your film and assert you're making a statement. And yet, by doing so, you are asserting that Israel IS in the wrong here, and that they should be "punished" in some way. Forget about the latest round of Hamas rockets being fired into Israel last year, forget about the Palestinian leaders (Yasser Arafat, for one) in the past refusing to make peace with Israel when Israel had leaders who tried, and forget about discussing the Arab Nations' leaders and their lack of real participation.
<p>
Just blame Israel.
<p>
This is short-sighted of you, and shows you have a real lack of comprehension of the all the issues at hand.
<p>
This is beside the point, but if Israel wants to engage in some propaganda around the world, why shouldn't they? The Palestinians do it. And when looking at the entire history of U.N. resolution votes (and Security Council votes) since the birth of Israel, you have nearly every nation in the world voting AGAINST Israel the majority of the time. Except for the U.S. This speaks volumes about the world's prejudices still existing today. Volumes.
<p>
Pulling your film from TIFF for publicity purposes? That's your choice as a filmmaker and as a person. Pulling it under the guise of bringing light to your judgement that the TIFF is wrong in showcasing Israeli films? Naive, uneducated, and opportunistic.
<p>
Jerome Courshon
Producer/Writer
Los Angeles, CA

Why would you debase your argument by framing it in hysterical rhetoric -- "illegal" light rail -- nothing in the article suggests the transit line was or is illegal. The French court have been asked to void a contract under an entirely different legal principle and, to be fair, they have not ruled yet.

It seems more likely that Veolia are trying to squirm out of a contract now that they have experienced the real difficulty of getting anything done in Israel under the present conditions (given the nature of Israeli government, it may never be easy to get things done!). But this is no different from many, many Canadian consortia weaseling their way out of contracts with various levels of Canadian governments when the going gets tough and the profitability evaporates due to politically driven delays and internal squabbles between various levels of government. Cases in point: the Rochester Ferry, Pearson Airport. I am afraid your point does not in any way support the elevation of the Palestinian Boycott to the level of an international sanctions regime.

As for being gay in Israel -- queers are bashed, and all too often die, for being queer, all over the world. In some countries it is the authorities that do the bashing, in others it's ignorant assholes. In Palestine it's the former, in Israel the latter. The day Palestininian Queers Against Israeli Apartheid can hold a Pride Parade in Gaza, will be the day I reconsider my position. In the meantime I can only conclude that Palestinian Queers are hoping to "tear down the apartheid wall," so they can move to Tel Aviv and live safely under the protection of the Israeli police, rather than being stoned to death by the Palestinian Authorities. And, to tell the truth, I don't blame them a bit.

Touche -- I guess I left myself open for this!

But I would point ou, as long as we are in the world of political and historical fantasy, should Palestinians, straight and gay, be invited into Israel and you seem to want, the Palestinians would be the majority and sooner than you can say "Ayatollah" there will be a Palestinian controlled parliament (if there is one at all -- remember, even the good guys (PLO) only had one party conference in 20 years, so it is not hard to conclude that the silliness of one-man-one vote multi-party democracy would be "adjusted" to fit the Iranian model). And, again, before you can say "stone them in the public square," repressive anti-gay laws will be effected. And, of course, repressive anti-women laws, etc.

So, I rest my case. As long as Israel is Israel gays will be relatively safe, and this will last as long as the State of Israel is the country it is now.

I never said that the "occupation is the anchor of secular freedom and gay rights in the Middle East." There are other countries, such as Egypt, that purport to be champions of secular freedoms, but which don't include gay rights as one of those freedoms. I would hate, for example, to be queer in Cairo.

What I did say was that the legitimate state of Israel (as defined by UN Resolution 181 on November 20, 1947 and subsequently confirmed by the UN with the admission of the State of Israel to the community of nations on May 11, 1949) is (in your words) the only anchor of gay rights in the Middle East.

As for what you refer to as the "occupation," which I assume to be the territories occupied by Israel following the preemptive strike that resulted in the so-called six day war. In all probabilities, these territories will be absorbed into an entirely new entity, one with no historical legacy, which may be called the State of Palestine. More likely, given the backers and financiers of the proponents of this outcome, it will be called The Islamic Republic of Palestine, and will be a puppet state of the Islamic republic of Iran. This potentially fortuitous outcome might serve to restrain Iran from trying to nuke Israel into oblivion as their little puppets would burn in the same "flames of hell." Of course, and this is only an assumption based on the real disdain exhibited by all the Arab countries toward the Palestinians, the Iranian Mullahs are more likely to sacrifice the lives of millions of Palestinians to satiate their anti-Semitic hunger.

But I digress. Whatever the outcome in these lands, it is highly unlikely that secular freedoms, much less gay rights, will be the order of the day.

So, to misquote Andrew Lloyd Weber:

Don't be so Hesitant, become a Palestine resident
And live there
Whip of your hate of our legitimate state
Just not here, dear
Is that clear, dear

PS: Shas and those guys know that Israel is the champion of gay equality in the Middle East, and are not terribly happy about it. But they don't stone queers, or even women, for that matter. And, besides which, they don't run the country (entirely) and two wrongs don't make a right.

I never said that the "occupation is the anchor of secular freedom and gay rights in the Middle East." There are other countries, such as Egypt, that purport to be champions of secular freedoms, but which don't include gay rights as one of those freedoms. I would hate, for example, to be queer in Cairo.

What I did say was that the legitimate state of Israel (as defined by UN Resolution 181 on November 20, 1947 and subsequently confirmed by the UN with the admission of the State of Israel to the community of nations on May 11, 1949) is (in your words) the only anchor of gay rights in the Middle East.

As for what you refer to as the "occupation," which I assume to be the territories occupied by Israel following the preemptive strike that resulted in the so-called six day war. In all probabilities, these territories will be absorbed into an entirely new entity, one with no historical legacy, which may be called the State of Palestine. More likely, given the backers and financiers of the proponents of this outcome, it will be called The Islamic Republic of Palestine, and will be a puppet state of the Islamic republic of Iran. This potentially fortuitous outcome might serve to restrain Iran from trying to nuke Israel into oblivion as their little puppets would burn in the same "flames of hell." Of course, and this is only an assumption based on the real disdain exhibited by all the Arab countries toward the Palestinians, the Iranian Mullahs are more likely to sacrifice the lives of millions of Palestinians to satiate their anti-Semitic hunger.

But I digress. Whatever the outcome in these lands, it is highly unlikely that secular freedoms, much less gay rights, will be the order of the day.

So, to misquote Andrew Lloyd Weber:

Don't be so Hesitant, become a Palestine resident

And live there

Whip of your hate of our legitimate state

Just not here, dear

Is that clear, dear PS:

Shas and those guys know that Israel is the champion of gay equality in the Middle East, and are not terribly happy about it. But they don't stone queers, or even women, for that matter. And, besides which, they don't run the country (entirely) and two wrongs don't make a right.

In this interview with Cecilie Surasky (the deputy director for Jewish Voice for Peace), the author and self-described diaspora Jew Naomi Klein & Israeli publisher Yael Lerer, the value of the BDS "boycott" of Israel is very well explained. They clearly address the questions of why Israel and not other countries, and so on.

http://tinyurl.com/n8u2sx

Those above side-tracking this issue by focussing on gay rights just because Greyson is a gay filmmaker need to come back to the discussion raised by Greyson himself: that of joining the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction strategy (BDS).

This OpEd in the LA Times by Neve Gordon (Ben-Gurion University) is also very relevant reading to this whole topic. It seems to me that we are witnessing the uptake of the BDS action and a year or so from now, we will wonder why we weren't all in earlier (as with the boycott of South Africa in the 1980s).

http://tinyurl.com/kraxo2

Please read these 2 links and let me know what you think.

Peace,
Tuds

I apologize for contributing to that tangent and forcing the original title of this post further up the scroll bar…

I definitely share in the optimism over BDS. And I was happy to learn that John Greyson was just one of many artists to sign the Toronto Declaration, an open letter to TIFF regarding what is effectively their collusion with Brand Israel.

http://torontodeclaration.blogspot.com/

There are signatures from Canadians, Americans, Palestinians, Israelis, French artists, British Artists and more. How’s that for nuance and complexity?

And here’s big news about Norway pulling their money out of a company that’s helping to build the Apartheid/Separation Wall/Fence.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112218.html

Lastly, this links to a site put up by the Coalition of Women for Peace, based in Israel, which lists the companies embroiled in and profiting from the occupation industry.

http://www.whoprofits.org

If the financial supporters and enablers of apartheid turn a deaf ear to the human cost, then hitting them in the wallet might help. And if even PASTA can’t get into Gaza these days, then BDS against Israel is far from a one-sided strategy.

As a person above posted the link to Neve Gordon's Op Ed piece in the LA Times, let's look at one of Gordon's statements. He said:
<p>
"The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new Palestinian state."
<p>
This is EXACTLY what was offered by Israel at the 2000 Camp David meeting between Clinton, Barak and Arafat. Plenty of articles on the net; here's one: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
<p>
Or go read about it at Wikipedia.
<p>
What's amazing, and shocking, is the constant attempts by a number of people to lay the blame for no peace, at Israel's feet. These misguided individuals insist on only blaming Israel, and not lay any responsibility on Hamas, or the loss of power by the PA to speak for all Palestinians, or the Arab countries who to this day refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Or even Yasser Arafat, who never wanted peace, simply because the "struggle" is what kept him a powerful man.
<p>
Is the issue of most Arab nations not recognizing Israel a quaint, insignificant issue? A trite issue that has no bearing on peace in that region today?
<p>
Of course not. When you have the Saudis publicly say, prior to Annapolis in late 2007, that they will NOT shake the hand of the Israelis or speak with them, WTF is this crap? The Saudis? That piece of sh*t country where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from? And that we protected against Saddam Hussein in 1991?
<p>
When there are Arab nations that funded the PLO for decades, then the PA and Hamas, and refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence, this is NOT some minor little issue. You people who call the situation there an apartheid, and call for boycotts of Israel... you are extremely misguided in your approach. And unfortunately, ignorant.
<p>
Who can forget the Palestinians celebrating in their streets when 9/11 happened?? Hooting and hollering over the deaths of 3000 Americans. Your support of boycotts against Israel is a support of the Hamas and PA leadership, which is not interested in peace, but a continuation of the "struggle" that made Arafat a billionaire. (A personal billionaire, who did so very little to help his Palestinian people.) Your support of boycotts against Israel will in fact have the opposite effect that you intend, emboldening the Palestinian leadership to never make peace. Yes, you are misguided.

I plan on boycotting the films from China, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela, because nobody else seems to be.

Um... boycotting movies from Jewish filmmakers would be very difficult because there are just too many of them on the festival.

I dont know why festival decided to spotlight TelAviv when they could have spotlighted hundreds of other cities. Probably has something to do with the fact that Jews are definitely controlling movie business, not only in North America, but all over the world (hey, the only film made in Uruguay with any wide acclaim is by Jewish directors)